Montana police officer breaks down after fatally shooting unarmed man

[theyarecomingforyou]

I'd respectfully disagree that the cop committed murder.  The druggy made, to what the cop appeared, a threatening move.

The label 'druggy' applies this time but how many times have we seen it replaced with the word 'black'? Applying labels doesn't justify the actions of the police officer. It might only be a 'druggy' or a 'black person' this time but next it will be a conservative with a concealed carry permit refusing to comply with an officer who is abusing his power or another little kid playing with a toy gun. It concerns me that people are willing to dismiss incidents like this simply because of labels like 'druggy' or 'convicted criminal' - even drug users deserve not to be shot dead. Watch the footage - if you still believe the officer was justified then we clearly have a very different concept of 'justice'.

 

Lethal force HAS to be a last resort and in the US that simply isn't the case.

 

PS - Imagine a situation where a police officer is abusing their power and about to use lethal force without justification against a suspect, with the suspect using lethal force to defend themselves. Assuming the suspect was in the right and it was self-defence, there's no way that all the people blindly defending the police here would accept that. He'd be considered a cop killer whose actions were inexcusable, not a victim like he was. The narrative is rigged, as standing up to a police officer is considered to be unacceptable. It's like the case where the police murdered the homeless man - without the camera footage that would have just been written off as self-defence without a second thought.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

The label 'druggy' applies this time but how many times have we seen it replaced with the word 'black'? Applying labels doesn't justify the actions of the police officer. It might only be a 'druggy' or a 'black person' this time but next it will be a conservative with a concealed carry permit refusing to comply with an officer who is abusing his power or another little kid playing with a toy gun. It concerns me that people are willing to dismiss incidents like this simply because of labels like 'druggy' or 'convicted criminal' - even drug users deserve not to be shot dead. Watch the footage - if you still believe the officer was justified then we clearly have a very different concept of 'justice'.

 

Lethal force HAS to be a last resort and in the US that simply isn't the case.

 

PS - Imagine a situation where a police officer is abusing their power and about to use lethal force without justification against a suspect, with the suspect using lethal force to defend themselves. Assuming the suspect was in the right and it was self-defence, there's no way that all the people blindly defending the police here would accept that. He'd be considered a cop killer whose actions were inexcusable, not a victim like he was. The narrative is rigged, as standing up to a police officer is considered to be unacceptable. It's like the case where the police murdered the homeless man - without the camera footage that would have just been written off as self-defence without a second thought.

 

Think you and others are stuck on this whole "label" thing.  Agree that lethal force needs to be a last resort, however, if this gentleman (better label?) went to reach for something under his waistband the cop had a split second decision.  If he made the wrong one he could have died.  The gentleman, doesn't matter if he was on caffeine or meth, he should have complied and not act in a threatening manner.

[DocM]

The label 'druggy' applies this time but how many times have we seen it replaced with the word 'black'?

>

Most druggies are not black since they're only 12.5% of the US population. Reset your premise.

Also, what jjkusaf said.

[Yazoo]

Think you and others are stuck on this whole "label" thing.  Agree that lethal force needs to be a last resort, however, if this gentleman (better label?) went to reach for something under his waistband the cop had a split second decision.  If he made the wrong one he could have died.  The gentleman, doesn't matter if he was on caffeine or meth, he should have complied and not act in a threatening manner.

This is very subjective and hard to prove

[DocM]

This is very subjective and hard to prove

And sometimes it's all you have between you and a coroner's slab.

These kinds of incidents can't be tied up in a pretty package with bows. That's TV and movie thinking.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Think you and others are stuck on this whole "label" thing.  Agree that lethal force needs to be a last resort, however, if this gentleman (better label?) went to reach for something under his waistband the cop had a split second decision.  If he made the wrong one he could have died.  The gentleman, doesn't matter if he was on caffeine or meth, he should have complied and not act in a threatening manner.

The issue is the conduct of the officer. He went in assuming the worst, behaving combatively, swearing and prepared to kill him at the drop of a hat - there was no effort made to properly assess the situation and defuse it. He's a thug with a badge and a gun who literally just got away with murder. Policing in the US is extremely confrontational and only serves to escalate situations, leaving countless dead bodies in its wake.

 

Most druggies are not black since they're only 12.5% of the US population. Reset your premise.

What?! That's patently not what I said.  I was pointing out that we've seen this same situation play out, only with the label 'druggy' replaced with 'black'. We've seen countless unarmed black people shot dead because police assumed the worst and made no attempt to properly assess the situation.

[techbeck]

 

 

What?! That's patently not what I said.  I was pointing out that we've seen this same situation play out, only with the label 'druggy' replaced with 'black'. We've seen countless unarmed black people shot dead because police assumed the worst and made no attempt to properly assess the situation.

 

Not just unarmed black men that get shot/mistreated.  That is what the media tells people.  White officer shoots unarmed black man gets a heck of a lot more attention than white officer shoots unarmed white man.  The problem is with certain cops, not the color of a person's skin.  And when did this turn in to a racial thing?

The issue is the conduct of the officer. He went in assuming the worst, behaving combatively, swearing and prepared to kill him at the drop of a hat - there was no effort made to properly assess the situation and defuse it. He's a thug with a badge and a gun who literally just got away with murder. Policing in the US is extremely confrontational and only serves to escalate situations, leaving countless dead bodies in its wake.

 

I really cannot really comment on what threatening moves the guy was making in the car.  You cannot see that in the video.  Have to go by what you hear and there is no evidence either way and not enough to convict or accuse the officer of murder.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Not just unarmed black men that get shot/mistreated.

Never claimed it was. It just happens that a disproportionate number do.

I really cannot really comment on what threatening moves the guy was making in the car.  You cannot see that in the video.  Have to go by what you hear and there is no evidence either way and not enough to convict or accuse the officer of murder.

Well, he clearly didn't see a gun - we know that much. We also know the officer's behaviour was extremely confrontational and combative. Certainly he's not the sort of person who should be allowed to have a gun.

[techbeck]

Never claimed it was. It just happens that a disproportionate number do.

 

 Lots of people get abused by cops and like I said,  race isnt the problem.  There are bad cops, there are bad people.  You can either believe what the media spoon feeds people and address issues just related to one specific race, or you can look at the big picture and take care of the root of the problem.  Which is certain officers and how they treat people in general.

[techbeck]

Well, he clearly didn't see a gun - we know that much. We also know the officer's behaviour was extremely confrontational and combative. Certainly he's not the sort of person who should be allowed to have a gun.

 

Officer ordered his hands up.  He didnt comply.  Dont have to see a gun to escalate a situation and to feel there is a threat and a lot of times when an officer does see a gun, it is to late.  According to the officer (which isnt shown in the video) he was reaching for something and was not comply.  Again, nothing is shown in the video that would convict the cop of murder or even bring him to trial.  All you hear is talking.  You dont see what the guy is doing with his hands in the back of the car.

[seta-san]

People that have done meth:

 

John F Kennedy

Robert Downey Jr

Andrei Agassi

Eddie Van Halen

Britney Spears

 

But you're right, they're all terrible people who contributed nothing to society and deserve to be shot dead. I mean, how can Robert Downey Jr's parents be proud of him when he once did meth?

that list doesn't inspire much care.  i've never even heard of the 3rd guy and don't give one ###### about the others.

[theyarecomingforyou]

 Lots of people get abused by cops and like I said,  race isnt the problem.  There are bad cops, there are bad people.  You can either believe what the media spoon feeds people and address issues just related to one specific race, or you can look at the big picture and take care of the root of the problem.  Which is certain officers and how they treat people in general.

Race is part of the problem but, as this incident highlights, there are systemic problems relating to police conduct.

 

Officer ordered his hands up.  He didnt comply.  Dont have to see a gun to escalate a situation and to feel there is a threat and a lot of times when an officer does see a gun, it is to late.  According to the officer (which isnt shown in the video) he was reaching for something and was not comply.  Again, nothing is shown in the video that would convict the cop of murder or even bring him to trial.  All you hear is talking.  You dont see what the guy is doing with his hands in the back of the car.

Not complying with a police officer isn't a capital offence. He was under the influence of drugs and unable to respond to commands, yet he didn't have a gun and wasn't a threat to the officer. The officer, though poor training and extremely poor judgement, killed him. The officer should be dismissed and face criminal proceedings.

 

Why are you defending this officer?

[techbeck]

Not complying with a police officer isn't a capital offence. He was under the influence of drugs and unable to respond to commands,

And there for he put himself in that situation. If he wasnt hopped up on meth, maybe things would have been different and he would have been in the right mind to cooperate. Maybe he wouldn't have been waving his hands around. They would have been up and not messing with his waist.

 

yet he didn't have a gun and wasn't a threat to the officer. The officer, though poor training and extremely poor judgement, killed him. The officer should be dismissed and face criminal proceedings.

Cop ordered his hands up and he was moving them around and messing with his waist like he was reaching for something. (again, according to the officer) To many, that is a threatening action. But again, cops word as you dont see what the suspect does.

 

Why are you defending this officer?

Why are you so quick to blame the officer of wrong doing? You dont see much in the video.

[Ralph3100]

In most of the civilized world cops don't simply shoot people who refuse to comply.  There's a huge difference between not listening to the police officer and pulling a gun.  This can be attributed to letting everyone own guns as people will start using them on the police.  

 

In most of the civilized world, when someone gets shifty and reaches for their waistband while obviously high, they will get shot...

[Ralph3100]

There should be rules of engagement for police officers.  Do not shoot unless fired upon.  Enough with the police thinking they have the right to shoot anyone for any reason.  This person was in a vehicle, all the officer had to do was walk away, if they didn't feel safe (and then walk on home and find another job).

 

Your strawman assumption and supposed solution leads to a lot of dead cops and families without children and parents.

[theyarecomingforyou]

In most of the civilized world, when someone gets shifty and reaches for their waistband while obviously high, they will get shot...

That's simply not true.

 

And there for he put himself in that situation. If he wasnt hopped up on meth, maybe things would have been different and he would have been in the right mind to cooperate. Maybe he wouldn't have been waving his hands around. They would have been up and not messing with his waist.

 

Cop ordered his hands up and he was moving them around and messing with his waist like he was reaching for something. (again, according to the officer) To many, that is a threatening action. But again, cops word as you dont see what the suspect does.

Blame the victim. Classic.

 

Why are you so quick to blame the officer of wrong doing? You dont see much in the video.

Because I watched the video and saw an absolutely outrageous use of police force that resulted in the death of an innocent man*. Unfortunately these incidents will continue to happen when so many Americans apparently consider this acceptable behaviour.

 

*Innocent being that he posed no threat to the officer and did nothing to warrant being killed.

[adrynalyne]

This was murder, plain and simple, it always shocks me when cases like this never make as much news as they should. This officer had the option of the taser.

Neowin prosecutor on the case!

 

Note the special skills of these members: they can judge guilt from a video and news media!

 

Guilty until proven innocent.

Why are you so quick to blame the officer of wrong doing? You dont see much in the video.

Because he is a Neowin prosecutor.

 

They can judge guilt from a video.

[techbeck]

Blame the victim. Classic.

Because people high on meth are not dangerous and unpredictable either. And it is the officers fault the victim didnt follow orders.

 

Because I watched the video and saw an absolutely outrageous use of police force that resulted in the death of an innocent man*. Unfortunately these incidents will continue to happen when so many Americans apparently consider this acceptable behaviour.

Yelling commands and swearing at someone is an outrageous use of police force? He didnt touch the guy before he was shot.

 

*Innocent being that he posed no threat to the officer and did nothing to warrant being killed.

And you can tell that from the video? You can see what the suspect was doing in the car and his actions? What his hands were doing?

[theyarecomingforyou]

Because people high on meth are not dangerous and unpredictable either. And it is the officers fault the victim didnt follow orders.

Blaming the victim.

 

Yelling commands and swearing at someone is an outrageous use of police force?

When combined with killing him, absolutely.

 

And you can tell that from the video? You can see what the suspect was doing in the car and his actions? What his hands were doing?

We know he wasn't armed. His hands were all over the place because we was high on drugs.

 

Anyway, I'm done here. I've made my point. I honestly don't see how anyone could defend such outrageous policing but clearly many Americans approve of such behaviour.

[techbeck]

Blaming the victim.

 

 

 

Yup,  because maybe if he wasnt hopped up on drugs, he would have complied and been in a better frame of mind to do so.  His non compliance is what escalated the situation.

[techbeck]

 

We know he wasn't armed. His hands were all over the place because we was high on drugs.

 

 

 

He was reaching for his waistband, according to the cop.  But hey, I guess a gun couldnt be concealed there at all and no way a gun would fit there either.

[Nagisan]

We know he wasn't armed.

Yes we know that now, after it all went down, and this is likely what brought the officer to tears. In the heat of the moment he didn't know, so he reacted using his training and best judgement given the situation.

 

I do not fault the officer, he reacted the best way he knew given the situation, if there is any problem on the laws side to blame it is the lack of training to handle this situation in a less deadly way, but as others said there would have been no problems had the suspect not been on drugs and complied with the officer.

[ctebah]

In most of the civilized world, when someone gets shifty and reaches for their waistband while obviously high, they will get shot...

 

100% wrong, but since you need an excuse, you can have it.

[farmeunit]

Uh, no. He (allegedly) recognized him as somebody involved in another shooting. Where does it say that he actually was the person involved in another shooting? You can recognize anybody as being anybody else. It doesn't mean that you're correct in your recognition.

 

Again, it doesn't take 3 fatal shots to stop somebody from reaching for a weapon. And I'm pretty damn certain the other 3 passengers made some sudden motions after he unloaded three bullets into this guy. Yet, the cop was observant enough and a good enough shot not to hit anybody else.

There are other articles and comments in video about his being suspected.  Here is one: http://abc7.com/news/montana-cop-sobs-after-fatally-shooting-unarmed-suspect/472761/

 

Whether he was is irrelevant.  If you are SUSPECTED in a shooting and reaching for your waistband and not listening to the police, what is the officer supposed to think?  I like to read multiple accounts instead of basing it on one because you get more information.

 

If he's high on meth, it could most definitely take several shots.  They said he had enough in his system to kill some people, so...

 

Also, in the video you can see him kicking after the shots, so he didn't die immediately and who knows what only one shot could have done.  We can sit here all day saying "should haves" and "could haves", but in the end, you weren't there and you didn't have to make that call.  I actually generally dislike cops because in my home town, they all seem to have something to prove, but I don't feel he was necessarily in the wrong. 

[Memphis]

I understand a cop must always be on the lookout, however allot of police murders are so unexpected that the officer would never of been able to react either way. Example below from a recent police body cam.

 

 

 

There is absolutely nothing the officer could have done to react quick enough to survive. Now, since the officer did not feel threatened given that they had been talking for a good bit before this he didn't follow procedure and demand that this man remove his hands from his pockets, also even if he had of done that, it is probably that the same scenario would have played out and the officer would still be dead. Sadly, the broader picture points to the ease of access of firearms as both a culprit in police shootings and shootings of unarmed civilians.