Another unarmed man killed by police

[TSwizzle]

Except that it doesn't make sense to get out of the car when the entire reason the officer is yelling at you, and threatening you, is that you have been ordered to remain in the car and not move, and you are doing the exact opposite.

When Reid did exit the car, Reid appeared to be moving toward the cop, closing the gap between himself and the cop despite the cop back peddling. A dangerous thing to do when a gun is pointed at you.

 

[KeepTalking]

Except that it doesn't make sense to get out of the car when the entire reason the officer is yelling at you, and threatening you, is that you have been ordered to remain in the car and not move, and you are doing the exact opposite.

The man had a gun pointed at him and three cops were all yelling different things.

And one of the cops was repeatedly telling him that he was going to kill him.

I suppose this would not have effected your judgement in any way.

I am pretty sure I would have stayed put until it was clear that I was being ordered to take a certain action, but I can't be sure, as I was not in that situation. I do know that when a cop kicked down my front door and pointed a shotgun in my face, I did not move from the couch until it was clear that I was being instructed to do so, despite all the yelling and gun pointing from multiple officers.

 

[ksen]

Except that it doesn't make sense to get out of the car when the entire reason the officer is yelling at you, and threatening you, is that you have been ordered to remain in the car and not move, and you are doing the exact opposite.

When Reid did exit the car, Reid appeared to be moving toward the cop, closing the gap between himself and the cop despite the cop back peddling. A dangerous thing to do when a gun is pointed at you.

Reid was probably preparing to activate his demon powers and bulk up which left the officer no other option but to shoot to kill before Reid became invulnerable to bullets.

 

[untermensche]

You forget one word. The officer must have a REASONABLE suspicion their life is in danger.

A person exiting a vehicle with their hands raised and visible does not represent a reasonable suspicion of imminent danger.

It is reasonable. Where there is one gun there can be more. When you have been forced away from the car by the car door opening, it is reasonable to assume that you will not have the same view of the passengers hands as the camera behind the car. When a felon has been convicted of firing a gun at one officer in the past, it is reasonable to assume he will be willing to fire at an officer again.

It would be reasonable if the person reached into his pants or lunged for the cops gun, but not when their hands are raised and empty and the person just said they are going to get on the ground.

I am not assuming that the officer could clearly see the passengers hands as he exited the vehicle.

Who can ever say what somebody actually saw. All we can say is what a reasonable person should have seen.

And a reasonable person should have seen two hands raised and empty. That is what the camera saw.

 

[KeepTalking]

Okay, the officer was sure that he retrieved one gun from the car. That does not prevent the passenger from having another gun.

It also doesn't prevent the passenger from having a unicorn either.

Thinking there might be another gun is not justification to shoot someone to death.

No, but knowing that there was at least one gun present, and that you are dealing with a felon convicted of shooting at police officers in the past, added to the fact that the person is doing exactly the opposite of everything you have told him to do, makes this justified in my opinion. I am, of course, judging this based solely on one viewing of the video, and reading this thread. My opinion really doesn't mean shit in the long run.

 

[untermensche]

The man had a gun pointed at him and three cops were all yelling different things.

And one of the cops was repeatedly telling him that he was going to kill him.

I suppose this would not have effected your judgement in any way.

I am pretty sure I would have stayed put until it was clear that I was being ordered to take a certain action, but I can't be sure, as I was not in that situation. I do know that when a cop kicked down my front door and pointed a shotgun in my face, I did not move from the couch until it was clear that I was being instructed to do so, despite all the yelling and gun pointing from multiple officers.

So you can't possibly imagine that the victim panicked and did something he thought would calm the officers down, like lay on the ground?

 

[KeepTalking]

It is reasonable. Where there is one gun there can be more. When you have been forced away from the car by the car door opening, it is reasonable to assume that you will not have the same view of the passengers hands as the camera behind the car. When a felon has been convicted of firing a gun at one officer in the past, it is reasonable to assume he will be willing to fire at an officer again.

It would be reasonable if the person reached into his pants or lunged for the cops gun, but not when their hands are raised and empty and the person just said they are going to get on the ground.

I am not assuming that the officer could clearly see the passengers hands as he exited the vehicle.

Who can ever say what somebody actually saw. All we can say is what a reasonable person should have seen.

And a reasonable person should have seen two hands raised and empty. That is what the camera saw.

A reasonable person should also realize that the camera is viewing the situation from an entirely different angle from the police officer. Had the officer been standing toward the back of the car, I would agree that it would be reasonable to assume he could see the same thing as the camera, but that is not the case here.

- - - Updated - - -

I am pretty sure I would have stayed put until it was clear that I was being ordered to take a certain action, but I can't be sure, as I was not in that situation. I do know that when a cop kicked down my front door and pointed a shotgun in my face, I did not move from the couch until it was clear that I was being instructed to do so, despite all the yelling and gun pointing from multiple officers.

So you can't possibly imagine that the victim panicked and did something he thought would calm the officers down, like lay on the ground?

I can certainly imagine that. I can imagine a lot of things. What I can imagine has nothing to do with happened, or whether or not the officer was justified in this case.

 

[dystopian]

There is no reason not to believe it in this case. Several people even say they can see the officer remove the gun from the glove compartment.

Uh, that's not what the actual eye witnesses said. You're not seriously saying there's no reason to not believe it because "several people even say they can see the cop remove the gun" *in the video*, are you? Because the video doesn't show that at all, and the eyewitnesses say that the cops opened fire without provocation.

We can see that from our angle behind the car, with a steady camera, but there is no guarantee that the officer could see that as clearly after having been forced back from the car by the passenger slamming the door into him.

Again, the passenger was obviously NOT slamming the car door into him. If he was, then the door wouldn't have opened in a slow and steady manner the way it did. And yes, we can see that from our angle behind the car... while looking at the guy from the side. This isn't difficult to comprehend; the cop had a far better viewing angle; yet somehow you're expecting us to believe that "maybe" the cop couldn't see that the suspect's hands were empty, even though he was a couple of feet away and was looking at those hands straight on? The fuck?

EVEN if he couldn't see that the raised hands were empty; so what? Is it common practice for armed criminals with the intent to shoot cops to raise their hands first? That strikes me as a particularly absurd thing for someone to do. "Oh shit! He's coming out of the car with his hands in the air! What do I do what do I do? I can't quite make out right away if they're empty or not. Well, better empty my clip into him."

The other cop fired at least one shot, perhaps more.

Great. So they were *both* incompetent fuckwits.

From our vantage point behind the car, we can't see the exact angle from which the officer fired the shots. If he was more to the front of the vehicle, then the angle may have not been an issue for the driver and the other officer.

Bullshit. Anyone properly trained in the use of a firearm knows better than to open fire within such a tight space if there's even a remote chance you could hit someone other than your intended target. You ever hear of recoil? You can't guarantee you can put a single bullet on a trajectory along which you're aiming; much less a dozen fired in rapid succession. There is absolutely no excuse. It doesn't matter if there was just a hair's length distance between the target and bystanders or a full car's length; you don't shoot unless you're absolutely *100%* certain of your shot; which you can only do by calmly ascertaining the situation, steadying your nerves (and muscles), and taking the fucking time to line up your shot. Even then, you don't shoot more than once. You certainly don't shoot eight or nine times.

The officer spoke to him by name without being provided with any ID, and had arrested him in the past. Yes, it is reasonable to believe that the officer recognized him and new of his record.

Even if true; so what? If anything that just risks creating a bias.

You haven't heard this from me before.

Not from you specifically perhaps. But we've certainly heard it from corrupt cops before.

I also have a felony conviction in my past.

And this is relevant how?

The door did not fly open, because the officer was leaning against it when it was forced open.

Watch the video again. The cop backs away and *then* the door opens, he does *not* get slammed by the door. Incidentally, there's also a slight delay after the cop backs away and before the door opens; which is inconsistent with the 'slamming the door into the cop' narrative.

Except that it doesn't make sense to get out of the car when the entire reason the officer is yelling at you, and threatening you, is that you have been ordered to remain in the car and not move, and you are doing the exact opposite.

No it makes perfect sense to someone in that situation even if Hindsight might suggest otherwise.

But if you get pulled over by a cop who appears to you to be:

A) unreasonably agitated,
B) prejudiced against you (whether because you're a convict or a black person or whatever),
C) Pointing a fucking gun at you,
D) Not giving you a chance to calmly explain yourself in between all the angry shouting he's doing,
E) paranoid that you're going to pull a gun at him,
and F) especially paranoid because he believes that the gun you're going to pull is still within easy reach for you,

then it seems eminently reasonable to take away his fears by putting your hands up and getting out of the car and then maybe onto the ground. That way the angry paranoid and possibly psychotic cop can see you're not a threat. This seems even more reasonable when you realize that under those circumstances, the guy in the car probably didn't fully understand the orders the cop was giving. I know that in a situation like that *I* wouldn't be able to make that shit out clearly; for fuck's sake there's a scary dude screaming at me while pointing a gun at me, there's no way I'm going to be able to calmly understand and comply with any of those orders.

 

[dystopian]

When Reid did exit the car, Reid appeared to be moving toward the cop, closing the gap between himself and the cop despite the cop back peddling. A dangerous thing to do when a gun is pointed at you.

What? No, he didn't. There isn't even *half a second* before he gets out and is shot; and in that time he certainly doesn't try to close the cap between the cop and himself. What you perceive as him "appearing to move towards the cop" is him falling down after he's been shot.

 

[Derec]

What was this man with his hands raised and empty going to do in one second?

 

[untermensche]

A reasonable person should also realize that the camera is viewing the situation from an entirely different angle from the police officer. Had the officer been standing toward the back of the car, I would agree that it would be reasonable to assume he could see the same thing as the camera, but that is not the case here.

No you're right. The cop was much closer than the camera, and there was nothing between him and his victim.

I can certainly imagine that. I can imagine a lot of things. What I can imagine has nothing to do with happened, or whether or not the officer was justified in this case.

What happened was an unarmed man got out a car with his hands up and visible and was gunned down immediately.

That is undeniable.

 

[ksen]

So you can't possibly imagine that the victim panicked and did something he thought would calm the officers down, like lay on the ground?

I can certainly imagine that. I can imagine a lot of things. What I can imagine has nothing to do with happened, or whether or not the officer was justified in this case.

Can you imagine the officers gave contradictory commands and then shot Reid as he was obeying one of the sets of commands?

Denzel Mosley told KYW-TV that Reid’s hands were “in plain sight,” and that the officers “were telling him, ‘Get out [of] the car,’” then yelling “‘Stop!’ and they started shooting.”

But maybe yelling multiple and contradictory commands while threatening to kill the person and then actually killing them is part of law enforcement training in that area.

 

[Rhea]

Another reason why it is stupid for cops to go all SHOUT THIS SITUATION INTO SUBMISSION all the time.

The video — obtained by the Press of Atlantic City but not released to the public — confirmed these eye-witness accounts.

“Show me your hands. Show me your f—— hands,” Days said, before quickly adding, “Get him out of the car, Rog[er Worley], we got a gun in his glove compartment.”

After the gun is retrieved, Days continued to yell at Reid. “I tell you, I’m going to shoot you,” he shouted. “You’re gonna be f—— dead. You reach for something, you’re going to be f—— dead.”

Reid then attempted to exit the vehicle with his hands raised, at which point Officer Days yelled, “Don’t you f—— move!” before he and Worley opened fire, discharging their weapons at least six times.

And it's all craycray to have the guy with the gun in his face trying to comply with “Get him out of the car, Rog" and not noticing the next 15 shouted contradictory instructions??



People are really saying he was doing the opposite of what the cop asked and therefore deserves to be dead?


This is so perplexing, disheartening and just plain barbaric.

So the guy's a felon. Arrest him and put him in jail. We don't execute people on the streets!

 

[KeepTalking]

Uh, that's not what the actual eye witnesses said.

I have no idea what the eye witnesses said, and in this case we don't need them, we have the video.

You're not seriously saying there's no reason to not believe it because "several people even say they can see the cop remove the gun" *in the video*, are you? Because the video doesn't show that at all, and the eyewitnesses say that the cops opened fire without provocation.

I am seriously saying there is no reason not to believe it, given the video evidence. But feel free to give me reason to not believe it other than your mistrust of cops. I already have plenty of that.

We can see that from our angle behind the car, with a steady camera, but there is no guarantee that the officer could see that as clearly after having been forced back from the car by the passenger slamming the door into him.

Again, the passenger was obviously NOT slamming the car door into him.

The passenger pushes against the door multiple time as the officer tries to hold it closed. The officer was eventually pushed back, or moved back on his own, it is hard to tell from the video, but both men are obviously struggling against the door, the passenger to open it, and the officer to keep it closed. I doubt there would have been that much of a struggle if the passenger was easing the door open. I think 'slamming' is a good word to describe it.

If he was, then the door wouldn't have opened in a slow and steady manner the way it did.

Given that the officer is trying to hold the door closed, it is entirely possible that it would eventually open more slowly, despite the passenger slamming against it.

And yes, we can see that from our angle behind the car... while looking at the guy from the side. This isn't difficult to comprehend; the cop had a far better viewing angle; yet somehow you're expecting us to believe that "maybe" the cop couldn't see that the suspect's hands were empty, even though he was a couple of feet away and was looking at those hands straight on? The fuck?

The viewing angle from behind the car allows the camera to see behind the door as it is opening, but the officer standing on the other side of the door would not be able to see behind it as it is opening. I don't know how you could think otherwise. The fuck, indeed.

EVEN if he couldn't see that the raised hands were empty; so what? Is it common practice for armed criminals with the intent to shoot cops to raise their hands first?

It may not be as uncommon as you think. I can't find the video right now, but there is a video of a bank robbery suspect being ordered by a police officer to drop his weapon and surrender. The suspect puts his AK-47 down, and begins to raise his hands. In that video another officer shoots the man from behind for seemingly no reason as the first officer begins to relax. The suspect was actually reaching around to his back with one hand to pull a handgun from his waistband as he put the AK-47 down. That shit happens in real life.

From our vantage point behind the car, we can't see the exact angle from which the officer fired the shots. If he was more to the front of the vehicle, then the angle may have not been an issue for the driver and the other officer.

Bullshit. Anyone properly trained in the use of a firearm knows better than to open fire within such a tight space if there's even a remote chance you could hit someone other than your intended target. You ever hear of recoil? You can't guarantee you can put a single bullet on a trajectory along which you're aiming; much less a dozen fired in rapid succession. There is absolutely no excuse. It doesn't matter if there was just a hair's length distance between the target and bystanders or a full car's length; you don't shoot unless you're absolutely *100%* certain of your shot; which you can only do by calmly ascertaining the situation, steadying your nerves (and muscles), and taking the fucking time to line up your shot. Even then, you don't shoot more than once. You certainly don't shoot eight or nine times.

Okay, Officer Dystopian, if you say so. I was trained by the military on how to handle firearms, but I am sure your police training is more applicable than mine.

The officer spoke to him by name without being provided with any ID, and had arrested him in the past. Yes, it is reasonable to believe that the officer recognized him and new of his record.

Even if true; so what? If anything that just risks creating a bias.

This was a direct response to your questioning how the officer knew the man, and knew that he had a felony record. I believe I have answered that question, you're welcome.

You haven't heard this from me before.

Not from you specifically perhaps. But we've certainly heard it from corrupt cops before.

I am not a cop, corrupt or otherwise.

I also have a felony conviction in my past.

And this is relevant how?

It is relevant in that is shows I am not predisposed to be an apologist for police officers, as I am more often to be found on the other side of the law. Given that this seemed to be in question, I thought I would offer it up, and disabuse you of any notion that I reflexively defend cops.

Except that it doesn't make sense to get out of the car when the entire reason the officer is yelling at you, and threatening you, is that you have been ordered to remain in the car and not move, and you are doing the exact opposite.

No it makes perfect sense to someone in that situation even if Hindsight might suggest otherwise.

But if you get pulled over by a cop who appears to you to be:

A) unreasonably agitated,
B) prejudiced against you (whether because you're a convict or a black person or whatever),
C) Pointing a fucking gun at you,
D) Not giving you a chance to calmly explain yourself in between all the angry shouting he's doing,
E) paranoid that you're going to pull a gun at him,
and F) especially paranoid because he believes that the gun you're going to pull is still within easy reach for you,

then it seems eminently reasonable to take away his fears by putting your hands up and getting out of the car and then maybe onto the ground. That way the angry paranoid and possibly psychotic cop can see you're not a threat. This seems even more reasonable when you realize that under those circumstances, the guy in the car probably didn't fully understand the orders the cop was giving. I know that in a situation like that *I* wouldn't be able to make that shit out clearly; for fuck's sake there's a scary dude screaming at me while pointing a gun at me, there's no way I'm going to be able to calmly understand and comply with any of those orders.

Not to me. The thing that makes sense to me is to freeze, and remain as non-threatening as possible when a gun is pointed at you by a police officer.

 

[ksen]

Okay, Officer Dystopian, if you say so. I was trained by the military on how to handle firearms, but I am sure your police training is more applicable than mine.

I, too, was in the military. And military firearms training and police firearms training ought to be two different animals since the military has a different purpose than the police . . . or should anyways.

 

[KeepTalking]

Another reason why it is stupid for cops to go all SHOUT THIS SITUATION INTO SUBMISSION all the time.

The video — obtained by the Press of Atlantic City but not released to the public — confirmed these eye-witness accounts.

“Show me your hands. Show me your f—— hands,” Days said, before quickly adding, “Get him out of the car, Rog[er Worley], we got a gun in his glove compartment.”

After the gun is retrieved, Days continued to yell at Reid. “I tell you, I’m going to shoot you,” he shouted. “You’re gonna be f—— dead. You reach for something, you’re going to be f—— dead.”

Reid then attempted to exit the vehicle with his hands raised, at which point Officer Days yelled, “Don’t you f—— move!” before he and Worley opened fire, discharging their weapons at least six times.

And it's all craycray to have the puy with the gun in his face trying to comply with “Get him out of the car, Rog



People are really saying he was doing the opposite of what the cop asked and therefore deserves to be dead?


This is so perplexing, disheartening and just plain barbaric.

So the guy's a felon. Arrest him and put him in jail. We don't execute people on the streets!

Seems like plain instructions to the other officer to remove the driver from his car.

 

[TSwizzle]

When Reid did exit the car, Reid appeared to be moving toward the cop, closing the gap between himself and the cop despite the cop back peddling. A dangerous thing to do when a gun is pointed at you.

What? No, he didn't. There isn't even *half a second* before he gets out and is shot; and in that time he certainly doesn't try to close the cap between the cop and himself. What you perceive as him "appearing to move towards the cop" is him falling down after he's been shot.

Looks like Reid was a steppin' to me. In order to exit the Jaguar, he would have to me moving toward the officer at the very least.

 

[KeepTalking]

Okay, Officer Dystopian, if you say so. I was trained by the military on how to handle firearms, but I am sure your police training is more applicable than mine.

I, too, was in the military. And military firearms training and police firearms training ought to be two different animals since the military has a different purpose than the police . . . or should anyways.

Yep. But did you notice that Dystopian said "anyone with firearms training"? I could be wrong, but I also do not think that Dystopian is a police officer. I guess I was a bit too subtle there.

 

[dystopian]

I have no idea what the eye witnesses said, and in this case we don't need them, we have the video.

Yes. The video that shows the cop firing wildly at an unarmed man.

I am seriously saying there is no reason not to believe it, given the video evidence. But feel free to give me reason to not believe it other than your mistrust of cops.

Reason: Because the video doesn't fucking show it at all.

The passenger pushes against the door multiple time as the officer tries to hold it closed. The officer was eventually pushed back, or moved back on his own, it is hard to tell from the video,

It's not "hard to tell" at all; he clearly steps away of his own accord and is NOT pushed away because then the door would have immediately swung open afterwards as there's no force holding it back anymore.

but both men are obviously struggling against the door, the passenger to open it, and the officer to keep it closed. I doubt there would have been that much of a struggle if the passenger was easing the door open. I think 'slamming' is a good word to describe it.

Saying that he slammed the door into the cop gives a highly distorted telling of what actually happened. If someone tells me they slammed a door into you; I'm going to ask you if you broke any bones. What we have here is someone stepping back; and then the door just opens, not hitting (ie; slamming into) the cop at all.

Given that the officer is trying to hold the door closed, it is entirely possible that it would eventually open more slowly, despite the passenger slamming against it.

Again, watch the video.... again.

The door only opens AFTER the cop steps away. There is a clear delay between the cop stepping away and the door opening; proving that there was no pressure on the door at the time the cop moved away. It is simply *impossible* for the door to have been opened by slamming into it and pushing the cop out of the way. Physics doesn't work that way.

The viewing angle from behind the car allows the camera to see behind the door as it is opening, but the officer standing on the other side of the door would not be able to see behind it as it is opening. I don't know how you could think otherwise.

Because I'm not blind and incapable of spatial reasoning? You can very *clearly* see that the car door opens all the way, and that the cop's view was in no way obstructed. Even if you're trying to argue that the cop's view was obstructed in the time it took for him to step aside and for the door to open; it's still absurd since that doesn't particularly count as an obstructed view. In fact, the cop's view in that situation is significantly less obstructed than our own. The cop could clearly see the passenger through the window at all times, and had a much better view of the passenger getting out than we because at that point the door was no longer between the passenger and the cop.

And then finally, of course; even if what you were saying is true... that only serves to damn the cop further because he should've fully confirmed the situation before firing. The cop had full advantage in that situation; he could've afforded to wait a few more seconds before firing even had the passenger been armed with the intent to kill.

It may not be as uncommon as you think. I can't find the video right now, but there is a video of a bank robbery suspect being ordered by a police officer to drop his weapon and surrender. The suspect puts his AK-47 down, and begins to raise his hands. In that video another officer shoots the man from behind for seemingly no reason as the first officer begins to relax. The suspect was actually reaching around to his back with one hand to pull a handgun from his waistband as he put the AK-47 down. That shit happens in real life.

No, I'm pretty sure it never fucking happens. The example (which you conveniently can't find a video of) you mentioned doesn't change that because it's a completely different situation, isn't it? In THIS video, the suspect did NOT put down a firearm and THEN raised his hands with a gun sneakily appearing in his hands. He came out with his hands already raised; and they were both empty. For your example to be equivalent; there'd have to be a point where he lowered his hands and somehow try to sneak one behind his back.

In real life, criminals don't come out with their empty hands raised, with cops pointing guns at them, only to go "gotcha! Now that you coppers are in no way lowering your guard at all, I'll just quickly lower my hands and grab that gun from my waist and raise my hands again so I can point the gun at you coppers and shoot you!"; probably because criminals realize they're not superpowered mutants that can do that faster than the cops can shoot them. Even if there might be the rare death by cop suicider who might actually try to pull that off; it still doesn't fucking justify the cops shooting from the get go. Verify the fucking situation first. They clearly didn't do that.

Okay, Officer Dystopian, if you say so. I was trained by the military on how to handle firearms, but I am sure your police training is more applicable than mine.

And in the military, they trained you (among other things relevant to this sort of situation) *not* to put your fucking finger on the trigger unless you were absolutely sure you were going to kill the thing you were pointing at. Or are you saying you forgot basic training or that your superiors just handed you a gun and said "Go on, have fun! Don't worry about annoying little things like checking your targets! Remember! You always go full-auto! Enjoy"?

I am not a cop, corrupt or otherwise.

You do seem quick to leap to their defense.

It is relevant in that is shows I am not predisposed to be an apologist for police officers, as I am more often to be found on the other side of the law. Given that this seemed to be in question, I thought I would offer it up, and disabuse you of any notion that I reflexively defend cops.

No, actually it doesn't show anything of the sort. It's almost like someone saying they're not racist because some of their friends are black yo. Just like the 'some of my best friends are black' phrase, it's a bullshit attempt to convince the other side in an argument that you're unbiased because normally you're 'supposed' to actually disagree with the people you're defending. The fact that you've been convicted of a felony is completely and utterly irrelevant either to the discussion topic itself or to the question of whether you're reflexively defending the cops here.

Oh, and it certainly doesn't show that you're "more often to be found on the other side of the law". It just shows that you've been found 'at least once' on the other side of the law; which means exactly nothing/

Not to me. The thing that makes sense to me is to freeze, and remain as non-threatening as possible when a gun is pointed at you by a police officer.

And that demonstrates a fundamental inability to empathize with other people.

 

[KeepTalking]

I am seriously saying there is no reason not to believe it, given the video evidence. But feel free to give me reason to not believe it other than your mistrust of cops.

Reason: Because the video doesn't fucking show it at all.

The camera obviously cannot see into the glove compartment. The police officer says on the video that he sees the gun, and not in the car disputes this observation, so to me there is no reason to doubt that was the case. Had someone in the car said something like "what gun?" I would agree that there is reason to doubt there was a gun.

The passenger pushes against the door multiple time as the officer tries to hold it closed. The officer was eventually pushed back, or moved back on his own, it is hard to tell from the video,

It's not "hard to tell" at all; he clearly steps away of his own accord and is NOT pushed away because then the door would have immediately swung open afterwards as there's no force holding it back anymore.

but both men are obviously struggling against the door, the passenger to open it, and the officer to keep it closed. I doubt there would have been that much of a struggle if the passenger was easing the door open. I think 'slamming' is a good word to describe it.

Saying that he slammed the door into the cop gives a highly distorted telling of what actually happened. If someone tells me they slammed a door into you; I'm going to ask you if you broke any bones. What we have here is someone stepping back; and then the door just opens, not hitting (ie; slamming into) the cop at all.

I have watched the video again. The officer is using force to push against the door to keep it from opening. The passenger is obviously using force to attempt to open the door. You don't agree that slamming is the proper word, and maybe it isn't, but do you agree that the passenger is attempting to force the door open against the officer who is trying to keep it closed?

Given that the officer is trying to hold the door closed, it is entirely possible that it would eventually open more slowly, despite the passenger slamming against it.

Again, watch the video.... again.

The door only opens AFTER the cop steps away. There is a clear delay between the cop stepping away and the door opening; proving that there was no pressure on the door at the time the cop moved away. It is simply *impossible* for the door to have been opened by slamming into it and pushing the cop out of the way. Physics doesn't work that way.

The door opens as soon as the officer removes his hand from the door. On viewing the video again, I agree that the door did not slam into the officer. Given the way both men are pushing on the door, however, the officer could have been pushed off balance.

The viewing angle from behind the car allows the camera to see behind the door as it is opening, but the officer standing on the other side of the door would not be able to see behind it as it is opening. I don't know how you could think otherwise.

Because I'm not blind and incapable of spatial reasoning? You can very *clearly* see that the car door opens all the way, and that the cop's view was in no way obstructed. Even if you're trying to argue that the cop's view was obstructed in the time it took for him to step aside and for the door to open; it's still absurd since that doesn't particularly count as an obstructed view. In fact, the cop's view in that situation is significantly less obstructed than our own. The cop could clearly see the passenger through the window at all times, and had a much better view of the passenger getting out than we because at that point the door was no longer between the passenger and the cop.

As the door is opening, it is obstructing the view of the passenger by the cop. At that point the cop cannot see the passengers hands, because he is opening the door. He could be opening the door with one hand, and pulling a gun with the other. I think the cop made the decision to fire as soon as he backed away from the door, and he was justified to do so. He then took aim, and at that point he would be concentrating on where he is aiming. He may have never seen the passengers hands as he zeroed in on the target. This happened in seconds, and the passenger was shot before he had the chance to stand up completely.

And then finally, of course; even if what you were saying is true... that only serves to damn the cop further because he should've fully confirmed the situation before firing. The cop had full advantage in that situation; he could've afforded to wait a few more seconds before firing even had the passenger been armed with the intent to kill.

The situation was that a violent felon, who was convicted of shooting at cops before, and had at least one gun in reach, was forcing his way out of the car despite being ordered not to move. If he waited to see the guys hands clearly it may have been too late for him.

It may not be as uncommon as you think. I can't find the video right now, but there is a video of a bank robbery suspect being ordered by a police officer to drop his weapon and surrender. The suspect puts his AK-47 down, and begins to raise his hands. In that video another officer shoots the man from behind for seemingly no reason as the first officer begins to relax. The suspect was actually reaching around to his back with one hand to pull a handgun from his waistband as he put the AK-47 down. That shit happens in real life.

No, I'm pretty sure it never fucking happens.

You would be wrong.

The example (which you conveniently can't find a video of) you mentioned doesn't change that because it's a completely different situation, isn't it? In THIS video, the suspect did NOT put down a firearm and THEN raised his hands with a gun sneakily appearing in his hands. He came out with his hands already raised; and they were both empty. For your example to be equivalent; there'd have to be a point where he lowered his hands and somehow try to sneak one behind his back.

He had to lower his hands to open the door. It is equivalent in that it shows a man pretending to surrender as he is actually pulling a gun. It has been a while since I saw the video, and it didn't come up in a quick search, but when I have time I will try to find it and link to it.

In real life, criminals don't come out with their empty hands raised, with cops pointing guns at them, only to go "gotcha! Now that you coppers are in no way lowering your guard at all, I'll just quickly lower my hands and grab that gun from my waist and raise my hands again so I can point the gun at you coppers and shoot you!"; probably because criminals realize they're not superpowered mutants that can do that faster than the cops can shoot them. Even if there might be the rare death by cop suicider who might actually try to pull that off; it still doesn't fucking justify the cops shooting from the get go. Verify the fucking situation first. They clearly didn't do that.

Criminals can be idiots, and people in general do stupid things. I can't help it if your imagination fails you in this case where you clearly want to believe that criminals never do stupid things.

Okay, Officer Dystopian, if you say so. I was trained by the military on how to handle firearms, but I am sure your police training is more applicable than mine.

And in the military, they trained you (among other things relevant to this sort of situation) *not* to put your fucking finger on the trigger unless you were absolutely sure you were going to kill the thing you were pointing at. Or are you saying you forgot basic training or that your superiors just handed you a gun and said "Go on, have fun! Don't worry about annoying little things like checking your targets! Remember! You always go full-auto! Enjoy"?

Just trying to make the point that not all firearms training is equivalent in the face of a blanket statement regarding "anyone with firearms training".

I am not a cop, corrupt or otherwise.

You do seem quick to leap to their defense.

You clearly know nothing about me, or my posting history. Feeling that this shooting was justified is not the same as being quick to leap to the defense of the police.

It is relevant in that is shows I am not predisposed to be an apologist for police officers, as I am more often to be found on the other side of the law. Given that this seemed to be in question, I thought I would offer it up, and disabuse you of any notion that I reflexively defend cops.

No, actually it doesn't show anything of the sort. It's almost like someone saying they're not racist because some of their friends are black yo. Just like the 'some of my best friends are black' phrase, it's a bullshit attempt to convince the other side in an argument that you're unbiased because normally you're 'supposed' to actually disagree with the people you're defending. The fact that you've been convicted of a felony is completely and utterly irrelevant either to the discussion topic itself or to the question of whether you're reflexively defending the cops here.

No, you don't get to pull that bullshit. It is in no way similar. I am unbiased in this, I could give a shit if you believe me or not. Having a criminal record, and felony conviction is nothing to be proud of, but it is a fact. I think my real name is still on my profile, so you can check my record with the state of Texas, where I lived at the time. I have also talked about it on this forum before, on an unrelated topic, so that history is available.

Oh, and it certainly doesn't show that you're "more often to be found on the other side of the law". It just shows that you've been found 'at least once' on the other side of the law; which means exactly nothing

It wasn't my first arrest, nor my last. And it is all a matter of public record.

Not to me. The thing that makes sense to me is to freeze, and remain as non-threatening as possible when a gun is pointed at you by a police officer.

And that demonstrates a fundamental inability to empathize with other people.

Further proof that you know nothing about me, so please stop going there.