Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Defend This
The boys in blue are taking a beating lately, much of it wholly unwarranted. However, on December 30th a New Jersey police officer did his part to lower the public’s trust of law enforcement. I’ll link the story because the language in the video is far outside Ricochet’s code of conduct.
The basic story goes like this: two cops pull over a car for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. During the stop the officer on the passenger side of the car views a gun in the glove compartment of the vehicle. As one might expect things escalated quickly. While the driver of the vehicle complied readily by placing his hands outside the window of the vehicle the passenger did not. (The gun had been removed at this point.)
The officer is heard repeatedly ordering the soon to be deceased passenger not to move and to show his hands. At one point the officer warns “if you reach for something you’re going to be [expletive] dead.” The passenger seems to inform the officer that he is going to exit the vehicle (the audio is weak here) to which the officer says “no you’re not” several times while attempting to both train his weapon on the man and hold the door closed. The man opens the door and exits the vehicle anyway. Even though his hands were held at about shoulder level and he was clearly unarmed the officer fired seven times (by my count, and one after the man has fallen to the ground) and his partner fired once into the man’s back.
One cannot say the man resisted arrest such as in the Eric Garner case. The officers never informed the man he was being arrested. The man was accused of no crime at all. As he was the passenger the rolling stop at the stop sign cannot be charged against him. My understanding is that unless otherwise determined, the weapon was technically in the possession of the driver of the vehicle rather than the passenger. The only thing the man seems to have done wrong is not obey a police officer during an encounter in which the man was not a accused of any crime. For this he was shot repeatedly and killed.
Logic says that when a gun is pointed at you that it is at least nominally in your best interest to obey orders of the one pointing the gun. Liberty, however, says the state does not have the power to point a gun in your face without justification, and the state especially does not have the authority to kill you for standing up rather than sitting in a vehicle.
Published in General
Based on what exactly? My wife watched the video and came back with the same conclusion that the officer felt threatened and that the man wasn’t obeying the officer, but that is the very crux of the problem with this.
We live in a supposedly free society without a police state. As Reagan stated it, we are a people who have a government, not the other way around. How can anyone defend the idea that when an armed lackey of the state shows up we, FREE CITIZENS, should just roll over and do what they say because our liberty may frighten them. We’ve somehow twisted our relationship with government so that the safety of state agents is of a higher, more legitimate concern than individual liberty.
When someone poses an actual threat by action I’m all for the police blowing him away, but a guy who has done nothing wrong (yet, I’m sure this guy would have at some point) should not be shot. The standard for the legitimate use of deadly force has to be higher than emotional reaction. It has to be based on a concrete threat posed by a person’s actions, not his class or his past.
Maybe you’ve got all of the facts right or then again maybe we on the right shouldn’t be throwing more gas on this fire until all (/more of) the facts are out. Speaking of which, any arrests yet in the case of the Mississippi teen who was set on fire? Seems like that murder didn’t get much news coverage. Guess it just doesn’t support the narrative.
You win non sequitur of the year for that one. Are you trying to imply that I care nothing for aprehending and punishing criminals? If so, then you are mistaken. This particular case merely illustrates that we’ve moved entirely too far from the design of the system in which those granted authority to enact violence on our behalf and in our name do so in a way that is morally supportable. If you advocate for the state and its minions to act on the citizenry with lethal force based on what one might do rather than what one is doing or has been proven to have done then do so openly. I’ll listen to the argument, and if it is sound and conforms to the ideals of liberty then I shall be persuaded.
So far the only arguments presented for why the officer acted appropriately when he shot dead a man who had his hands raised in the air are that there was a weapon present during the initial confrontation (the weapon was removed from his reach well before the shooting) and that he refused to obey the orders of the officer. If the mere presence of a weapon within the vicinity of a citizen is justification for lethal force then the second amendment means absolutely nothing in this nation. If that truly is the case then any officer in my home could rightly kill me because of the presence of a weapon there. As to the argument that the man’s disobedience led to his death, no one has even attempted to explain why one must always by default bow a knee to law enforcement and obey them other than they have weapons and are empowered with their use. I argue that their grant is not carte blanche. If we can agree that there must be some threshhold that must be crossed before deadly force is appropriately used, then let us discuss that as it relates to police behavior in general and this instance in particular.
Even in warfare when the grant of violence is at its least restrained there are rules of engagement (many very, very stupid) and limits on the use of deadly force. Those who go beyond their grant of authority have it taken away and are punished. I see no reason that should be different for law enforcement who are acting on the citizenry and not on enemies to our nation.
I don’t know if I am more appalled by the murder or by the defense of it by so many so-called conservatives. Hands up, don’t shoot…and he still gets killed. Abominable.
I won’t use that line because it was developed in leftist fantasy land and is proven crap in the Brown case.
If evidence comes to light demonstrating that the guy was an actual threat to the officer then I will gladly call this a good shoot. Otherwise, based on what is available at the time, I’ll question the use of force here.
Oooh, so called. I’m so called. Oooh. The shame. The shame.
Again, if the report is accurate that Days knew who Reid was, then he knew he was dealing with a violent felon — one who once took a shot at police — and therefore unable to legally possess a handgun. Even if one stipulates that NJ’s gun laws are an insane and immoral abridgment of citizens’ rights (put me down for that) this may just be a weird case.
This conversation is frustrating because the facts are unclear.
Does anyone who has contributed to this thread believe that the officer can shoot even when it’s crystal clear that he is no longer in any danger? Does anyone believe that the officer must wait for the civilian to pull his weapon and point it directly at the officer before the officer can shoot to protect himself?
If, as I suspect, the answer to both questions is “no,” then the real debate is over what actually happened here. Some people are immediately suspicious of shootings of civilians by police. Some are willing to give the officer the benefit of the doubt. But from what little is known about this case I find it a rush to judgment to form an opinion about who was right or wrong here. The facts are simply not yet in.
He did not possess the the handgun. It was in the glove box, he was the passenger. Sure, he may have put it in there as soon as the disco lights came on, but that’s something we cannot know. What we can see, however, is a cop reacting as though this guy posed a very serious threat even though from the vantage point we’re given he does not appear to do so.
I am very nearly there. An actual threat makes the use of force ovious; a perceived threat not so much. To counter I would ask which would be preferred as the default for law enforcement in a situation with a potential threat, self preservation or not killing the citizenry?
If deadly force is called for it should be used decisively, but it absolutely must be called for. Those granted authority for its use in our name better have at least as good a knowledge of its justification as I do over a decade after the last time I stood watch as a nuclear weapons security guard.
Always pay attention to the Man With the Axe. I’m sure any good cop would tell you that.
Yeah, I’m mystified too. It’s usually easier than this to communicate. Some of the comments here seem to mention or at least imply the holding or pointing of a gun, sometimes by Reid in actuality and some in more abstract conjecture. I get cognitive dissonance and stop reading those. Neither Days’ confiscation of the gun nor Reid’s upheld empty hands are opinion or conjecture; those things are evident on the tape.
I get the distinct impression that one key confusion here is people thinking the gun from the car is somehow within Reid’s reach. Hope I’m wrong about that, but could I hear someone (besides myself) make the plain statement that Days confiscated that gun very early in the incident?
In this circumstance, he does in fact have that right. A traffic stop is, for legal and procedural purposes, a detention or an arrest. For as long as the stop’s reasonable duration, the officer has the authority to give orders and expect (certain types of) compliance while conducting the investigation. This type of “investigative detention” is court precedent going back nearly half a century at this point.
Additionally, in cases like Maryland v Wilson, Brendlin v California, and US v Sanders, the courts have extended this authority, to varying degrees, over passengers in the vehicle who are not the driver and not the subject of the initial stop.
Furthermore, with the discovery of the gun, Days had both safety and investigative grounds for giving Reid orders. Safety, because the gun indicates a level of threat that was not previously present, which recommends a greater level of control over the people involved in the stop. Investigative, because the gun was in the glove box, which is actually physically closer to Reid than to the driver. That means there is obvious reasonable suspicion that he may have been in possession of it, in violation of law. At that point, Reid was absolutely subject to detention, he wasn’t free to leave, and there is no set of magic words that an officer is required to say to make that the case.
Here’s some observations about what the officers had:
A) A man with a criminal record and a history of violence, including violence against police with a deadly weapon.
B) A gun in the glove box – I’m no expert on NJ laws, but this appears to be directly illegal. The gun was readily accessible to Reid, who certainly did not volunteer its presence, though he almost certainly knew it was there; if Days could see it, it’s very unlikely that Reid couldn’t.
C) At this point, neither Reid nor the car had been searched. It’s quite reasonable, from the officer’s perspective, to expect the possibility of another weapon in the car or on Reid. Many careless police officers in the past have missed weapons in searches because after finding one illegal thing, they neglected to finish the search after that point. This is hammered in police training as a result. So the fact that one gun was removed from the car does not mean everything is now sunshine and unicorns.
D) Reid seems to be messing with his hands. Days repeatedly orders him to show them to him, and can be heard saying “He’s reaching!”
E) Reid declares his intent to get out of the car, despite Days repeatedly ordering him to stay put. Despite Days clearly and repeatedly stating that he would shoot. At about the 2-minute mark in the video, you see Days physically trying to hold the door shut. Still Reid pushes his way out.
F) Reid has been described as holding his hands in a surrender position, but the actual posture of his hands is more ambiguous than that. They are about at shoulder height and close in front of the body, which could be either a surrender or an attack position.
There’s a lot to criticize from the officers – their positioning is poor, creating a crossfire. Days’ emotional state is highly and visibly amped up, which did not help the situation, where a calm but still firm and serious demeanor might have. This was not a situation that clearly could only have been solved by shooting, and I’m sympathetic to the idea that it shouldn’t have at all. In police training, there is a lot of talk about “officer-created jeopardy”, and there seems to be some of that here.
But none of that changes the fact that Jerame Reid was a damned fool who wrote his own story. He engaged in a series of actions which no sane, reasonable citizen would have. A series of actions that were poorly consistent with an innocent well-meaning citizen, and entirely consistent with someone intent on attacking an officer (which, again, he had done in the past) or at the least trying to flee.
Many of these actions, considered by themselves, would not have led to this result. I’ve seen members of the public do some amazingly stupid things during traffic stops, and none of them ended up shot. But he did the full set. He played a stupid game, and he won a stupid prize.
I too have concerns about police overreaction, however, with incidents like the below attached video police have to assume that every traffic stop is a potential life and death situation. We can come up with a lot of could of’s, should have’s, and many other questions concerning this incident, but we were not the one’s having to make decisions in seconds that determined whether we would go home that night or not. Bottom line follow the instructions of the officer. I learned a long time ago that when pulled over keep your hands where the officer can see them, don’t go rummaging around in your glove box for your registration until he asks for it, then tell him what you are doing, be polite.
http://youtu.be/nEj2otFF4is
Coyote, you’ve given the only reasonable response in defense of Days so far. I can see a very strong argument for the chain of causality in this with each point you mention being another link. I’m surprised no one else brought up the temporary detention created by a traffic stop. Thank you for providing the legal precedence.
Brendlin makes it clear that once a traffic stop occurs the driver and any passengers should “reasonably believe[] [themselves] to be intentionally detained and subject to the authority of the police.” That is the shift of relationship I was looking for that makes Reid’s actions illegitimate. This does not, of course, mean that Days’ policing techniques were perfect. The question still remains, and will hopefully be answered by a full investigation, whether the illegitimate actions of Reid presented enough threat to Days’ safety to warrant six in the chest and one in the back.
And now one can see why I drive the actual speed limit, signal every turn and lane change, and come to full and complete stops at signs and lights. I want to give the police zero reasons to interact with me. Ever.
KP, so every one else who saw this as a potentially preventable but nonetheless justifiable shooting was unreasonable until Wylee showed up and gave a trained cop’s perspective? That seems odd because even though I disagree with many here I considered their opinions and yours quite reasonable.
I was unclear about the extent of the cop’s authority on a passenger during a traffic stop. Once the threshold has been crossed and a citizen comes under the authority of an officer I believe in fully cooperating with and obeying the officer. The law is the law. Period. We are not, however, by default under their authority just because they wear badges and carry weapons. Where the officer lacks authority, I believe we, as free citizens, should tell him to [expletive, expletive, expletive, and expletive] himself.
I still don’t see the shooting as 100% justified. If, and only if, the officer was required to kill the guy in response to a real (rather than merely perceived) threat was it a good shoot. If the emotions of an obviously troubled officer are enough to justify the taking of life then we are all in a lot of trouble. Days obviously feared for his life, but I’m still not convinced that fear was rational.
A “perceived” threat is just as valid as a so-called “real” threat when it comes to the right of self-defense. The legal test, if placed in front of a jury, is that the perception be “reasonable”. Thus the cross-section of Ricochetti accepting both sides of the argument display the reasonableness of the officer’s actions. The reasonable man standard has also been used to explain the self defense of a civilian against a cop – hence the lack of charges in the shooting of a police officer responding to a 911 call.
King Prawn
How can anyone defend the idea that when an armed lackey of the state shows up we, FREE CITIZENS, should just roll over and do what they say because our liberty may frighten them.
Sometimes you’re reasonable, Prawn, and sometimes you say stuff like this. A policeman is an “armed lackey of the state”? In 1970, that would make you the propaganda minister of the Black Panther Party. Is that a vitamin you think is missing from the modern conservative diet? I sure don’t.
“our liberty may frighten them”
Get off it. The “liberty” of some thug isn’t what frightens them, but the fact that so many cops are assaulted or killed each year.
Since it’s been brought up here, how many nuclear weapons guards have been murdered in the course of duty? Care to match those numbers against the police force? There’s no comparison.
I’ll refrain from a specific comment due to the CoC.
I saw this earlier and my first reaction was the cops didn’t seem particularly well trained to handle the situation. Sure I don’t know how I would react in that situation but that’s not my job to know what to do….it should be theirs. There has to be some sort of protocol that doesn’t involve profanity laced and confused shouting. All that does is up the stress level of everyone involved. It’s interesting to know they were aware of the guy’s previous arrest history because that had to play a factor as well. I just think maybe a little less gender sensitivity training and a little more situational stress management training may be in order for our boys in blue. With both this case and the kid with the airsoft gun in Cleveland, the police seem tragically unprepared for high stress encounters.
Might be helpful to agree this can be discussed without questioning the conservatism of whoever disagrees with us……… Yes there is an aspect of this that involves the relationship of the individual and the state. Remember that everyone also brings their personal experiences as or with law enforcement as well.
Pretty sure DocJay and KP are both as conservative as I am….even when they happen to be wrong and disagree with me.
Calling Doug Watt…
In a couple of videos (suggested by youtube after viewing videos in this thread) I’ve seen officers calling in a report of “shots fired” when the only firing was by the officer. In each case, the suspect was down.
What’s up with that? To a layman, it seems calculated so that more officers will come in firing and then have an excuse for shooting someone who is not posing a threat.
Does “shots fired” have a special meaning as: “I fired, but nobody is firing at me”? It seems there should be some way to communicate:“I fired, but nobody is firing at me, so don’t come in shooting at anything that moves.”
I saw a question in the first paragraph. In the following two paragraphs I see that you’re answering your own question, or at least shaping the question in the vein of “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Since it has been resolved that this guy was under the authority of the officer as soon as the traffic stop was initiated and should have obeyed the instructions of the officer I think we’re again to the question of what constitutes a threat to safety of the officer. On that the video is a little less clear. Yes, the officer had already confiscated the errant handgun, but I’m told that where there is one best practice is to assume more until proven otherwise (that is how I was trained anyway.) If there was a threat based on the potential of another hidden weapon and the guy not submitting to authority, was lethal force the appropriate remedy? I’m leaning toward no from what the video shows, but there could have been more unseen than seen. I did not view the guy’s behavior as hostile, but I’m not the one trying to gain control of him. It is possible that given another second he would have got on the ground as he said he was going to do. It’s also just as likely given his history that he was going to lunge at the officer. All we can clearly see is that the officer fired on him before he did either.
I think this sums it up very well. We need more information to resolve the rest of it.
People planning a sneaky action do exactly what the passenger did — they push the limits of the interaction. I’m leaning toward the cop’s position at the time that he fired. But, I will wait for more information.
That’s not the entire purpose of a police force. Even still, it’s not like the officer was wantonly shifting risk to Reid in this case – he was justifiably giving reasonable commands in a volatile situation. In fact, Reid was the one wantonly assuming risk to himself.
Do you honestly think these are comparable? If so, then you and I will be justified when we resist going to the gas chamber. We’ll likely still be dead, but justified.
Otherwise, this case isn’t about the state imposing authority it shouldn’t have. As always, it’s best to wait for the full set of facts before making judgements. However, even with what we know from the video, we know that the officer was justified in issuing commands to all occupants of the vehicle.
Even without knowing the exact points of NJ law, just based on the presence of a gun, a known violent felon, said felon disobeying reasonable commands, and said felon disobeying reasonable commands by maneuvering closer to the officer despite the officer both verbally and physically trying to prevent it, it should be pretty obvious that this isn’t some on-the-edge officer having a bad day and unreasonably escalating the situation on some undeserving citizen just for the thrill of it. It isn’t either some sissy coward shrinking at the sight of an unafraid black man. This set of facts justifies issuing commands and it justifies a heightened risk assessment.
I’ll go further. The procedures themselves act to mitigate risk. When a citizen chooses to ignore the procedure, chooses to ignore the authority vested in the officer, chooses to think that on the street during a stop is the appropriate place place to plead a case instead of court, chooses to think that they aren’t subject to the lawful commands of a duly authorized officer, then that citizen is rejecting the risk mitigation we’ve set up, that citizen is rejecting the system we set up to avoid vigilantism and the violence of street justice.
Thanks for the comments, Ed. Yes, I started off a little high strung on the matter and wrote hyperbolically on some points.
Any thoughts on the very rapid escalation of force? So far as I can see (and undoubtedly there’s much I’m missing in this) the officer used deadly force to prevent something of dubious certainty. Reid acted recklessly, but were his actions enough to warrant the amount of force brought to bear to curtail those actions?
My thought is that I don’t know enough yet – and we may never know enough to arrive at anything close to certainty. However, if I must vote now, then based on the known facts of this particular case I’m comfortable giving the officer the benefit of the doubt.