TexasCHLforum.com

http://rt.com/usa/190636-trooper-groube ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The trooper was fired & then to top it off, he was arrested on a felony of aggravated assault. They don't list what the charge is for . . . unless it's for the shooting of the driver?

Both parties made mistakes in this instance. The driver shouldn't have reacted the way he did to retrieve a license. The trooper shouldn't have issued a command to make the guy go reach for his license either from his pocket or front seat. Trooper might've been on edge only being 3 weeks passed the Mike Brown incident (Ferguson).

I've said this a couple of times already, it's easy to arm chair quarter back this, but wow.

Yes, there's a lesson for people on both sides of the badge. Apparently, this trooper has been involved in another questionable shooting and that likely played a role in his termination.

Chas.

Boy, he was really quick to fire. I wonder why? Although the guy's movements would arouse suspicion, it seems to me he should have moved to cover and waited to see if something was in the guy's hand before firing.

baldeagle wrote:Although the guy's movements would arouse suspicion, it seems to me he should have moved to cover and waited to see if something was in the guy's hand before firing.

Suspicion, yes, but only to the point of a clear order to step away from the car, and maybe drawing to low ready at most. The victim wasn't acting hostile in the least. Startled, if anything.

Convenient that he was making a seat belt violation in a situation where he knew the guy would be getting out of the car right away. Sounds more like he'd planned a stop-and-harass on a thin pretense.

He had already drawn his pistol by that point. You can see him approach the driver with his pistol pointed at him as the driver turns back into the truck cab.

The driver moved way too fast! First time I watched the video it looked to me like he went for a weapon and came up with one. That should not be enough to get him shot but it was a mistake for him to move so abruptly with the policeman pointing his pistol at him.

It was also a mistake for the policeman to have drawn and moved *toward* the driver instead of back toward cover.

I can't say I could have done any better than either of them, in their position, but I do know that if I'm ever accosted by the police my intention is to move very slowly and deliberately, articulating (saying) my intentions ("officer, I'm going to reach in my [location] pocket for my license and insurance card") - might get me shot for moving too slow, but less likely than moving too fast.

Were those last two shots fired while he had his hands up?

Yikes.

Good on the SC Troopers for taking action. The victim did move fast but last I checked there are no restrictions on how fast one can move when stopped by law enforcement. Bad situation all around.

From what I saw, the system seems to be working correctly post-incident

Wow, that was scary. That could be one of my kids, just about anyone. It seems that if a command to show id is given, an expected response would be a reach into the pocket, purse or car. That reach into the car should be anticipated and expected as normal behavior.

We discuss on here how to respond so as not to alarm but the general public isn't thinking about stuff like this. They hear a command and respond, maybe even scared or in a bit of a shock if they don't know what they did.

BobCat wrote:
The driver moved way too fast! First time I watched the video it looked to me like he went for a weapon and came up with one. That should not be enough to get him shot but it was a mistake for him to move so abruptly with the policeman pointing his pistol at him.

It was also a mistake for the policeman to have drawn and moved *toward* the driver instead of back toward cover.

The driver should have told the officer what intended to do. He should have moved slower.

However, that is proactive self protection. I thought the driver moved at normal speed. It appeared to me that he was doing exactly what he was told, to get his license. I didn't sense he was going for a weapon.

From what I saw, this was not a justified shooting. It appears to me the process is working correctly.

The driver/victim did do what he was told to do. However, what was unexpected was that he had to reach back into the vehicle to do that.

Bobcat said that it looked to him as though he went for a weapon and came up with one, but didn't think that was enough reason to shoot. I think that is enough for me and for the police to shoot. Bobcat, at what point would you wait to shoot? Would wait until fired upon first? What if it was a gun?

Having said all that, I don't understand why the officer had his gun out on someone for a seat belt violation if there even was one. His car was pointed the opposite direction when he suddenly backed up and turned around to confront the man. By the time he comes into view the driver is already out of the vehicle. I wonder if the officer really saw a seat belt violation or if he saw the guy undo his seat belt to get out of the vehicle. Is it a violation to take undo the seat belt as you're coming to a stop? Do you have to be at a full stop or in Park or engine shut off or what for it to not be violation?

I couldn't tell from that video that the officer ever realizes he made a mistake and starts to help the guy.

I am not saying the driver did anything wrong to get himself shot, only that he moved faster than I would have, and turning to reach into his vehicle was not the "expected" move when reaching for ID.

I agree the policeman should not have had his pistol drawn and pointed for what was purported to be a simple traffic infraction. He also closed with the driver before he fired, instead of backing up or taking cover.

In such a tense situation there is no time to make a rational decision to shoot or not. It is up to the parties involved to create time and space. If the policeman was expecting trouble, I can imagine him drawing and aiming - as well as "seeing" the gun he expected to see, when none was present. And firing - because he felt that he was under immediate threat.

I'm not trying to make excuses for the policeman, nor "bash" police, or imply that the shot driver was "at fault" and brought it on himself. Just saying it happened fast, there was something in the situation that caused the policeman enough anxiety that he drew and aimed his pistol long before I perceived any threat to him, and that the driver gave the appearance, to me watching the video, that he had reached for and produced a weapon. But long after the policeman drew.

For me the take away is to stay calm, speak and move slowly, create time and space, and not provoke pr push things along too quickly. Confronted by a strange dog I do the same - turning and running evokes a "prey" response and will get me bitten.

First shot is questionable, the other two were completely unnecessary. It may have been because of the adrenaline, but fortunately for the driver, the officer was not a very good shot.

It appears the guy was on private property when the officer saw him and decided to turn around and contact him. Is it illegal to be in a private parking lot without your seatbelt on? The cop was definitely too quick to go to the gun and start shooting.

I bet the driver will move a little slower in the future if he is contacted by a cop and given commands. Show deliberate movements where the cop can see your hands at all times is advisable.

C-dub wrote:I think that is enough for me and for the police to shoot. Bobcat, at what point would you wait to shoot? Would wait until fired upon first? What if it was a gun?

But it wasn't. And if you had shot in those circumstances you would also be going to trial.

The driver did move too fast for the situation, but not abnormally fast. Watch COPS. Many people do the same. I'll bet the vast majority who move as this man did would also only be getting their license or whatever they were asked to get. You can't shoot someone acting normally because they might have a gun. Should the former officer get the 20 years. Not in my opinion, but it looks like a bad shoot to me.