Patterico's Pontifications

6/8/2006

The Video Doesn’t Lie . . . Right??

Filed under: Crime,General — Patterico @ 6:01 am

This is quite amazing.

I have uploaded a video to YouTube for your viewing pleasure. Don’t watch it unless you can handle watching someone get shot. (Don’t worry: it happens at a distance and isn’t gory.)

It is a video of police shooting a suspect they have been chasing. On the video, you see no evidence that the suspect had a firearm. The suspect’s back is clearly turned to the police when they fire multiple shots at him, eventually felling him. It’s stunning to see.

Click on the play button at the bottom left of the video screen below, and watch it now.

Riots have started over less than this.

Sure, the police claim that the suspect was armed. And they claim that he pointed a gun at police, twice.

But you just watched the video clip. It is clearly inconsistent with all of these police claims.

My question is: if the police were put on trial for this shooting, can you imagine any possible defense that could overcome this video?

I trust that your answer is: “Hell, no!”

Simply put, the video doesn’t lie.

. . . or does it? Click on “more” for the rest of the story (or just scroll down).

Here’s the same thing from a different angle (no sound on this clip):

Hmmmm. A little different, huh?

Here you can see that the guy points (what appears to be) a gun in the direction of a police officer who is initially off-camera to the left. It’s amazing that they don’t shoot him then. As he walks away, still holding the (apparent) gun, he turns around and points it at the same police officer (now on-camera), who ducks. Then the police fill the suspect full of holes — and he takes a while to go down, too.

Now, I suppose that people might disagree about whether the shooting is justified, given what is shown on the second video. (I have a pretty firm opinion, myself — but I think I’ll keep it to myself.) But there is no question that it paints quite a different picture from the first.

Here are the two clips together:



You can watch them together and synchronize them by following these instructions. Start the second video and watch the clock at the bottom right corner. The split-second that the second counter hits :43 (at 22:33:43), pause it. Now start the first clip, and get ready to unpause the second clip. The split-second that the first counter hits :33 (at 23:33:33), unpause the second clip. The idea is to get the second counter on each clip running so that the last number is the same on each.

If you do this, you can watch both videos at the same time with sound, and see the full context all at once.

The next time I do a jury trial with a video that doesn’t show the whole story as reported by the police, I’m using this in my final argument.

UDPATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link. Please consider bookmarking the main page and/or blogrolling the site. And keep reading! You can subscribe via Bloglines, by clicking on this button:

Subscribe with Bloglines

UPDATE x2: A commenter claims that he knows the case depicted on the video, and the suspect is actually holding a cell phone. I have added parentheticals to indicate that it is an apparent gun. I agree with the commenter that the police had a very difficult, split-second decision to make.

UPDATE x3: The suspect was indeed wielding a cell phone. The shooting happened in Shreveport, Louisiana, and the NAACP sponsored a march and rally in protest. Here is a story about it.

Now imagine the cops’ chances if all you knew was that they had shot an unarmed black man — and if the only video of the shooting had been the first one, which didn’t even show him doing anything threatening with the cell phone.

70 Comments

  1. Excellent stuff. I wonder if Al Sharpton and his gang are going to raise hell after having only seen video #1….

    In a trial where you propose to use this in closing argument, what argument will you use to counteract the defense counsel’s vehement objection on the grounds that it is ‘prejudicial’, ‘inflammatory’, ‘fill-in-the-blank-with-some-inane-argument-here’?

    Comment by Elliott (f0adef) — 6/8/2006 @ 6:51 am

  2. The best objection would be that I am arguing facts not in evidence, and it might well be sustained. My response would be that it is a demonstrative argument exhibit. It’s like when we explain circumstantial evidence by telling the story of the kid next to the broken cookie jar, with crumbs and a smile on his face, chocolate on his shirt, and a stool next to the counter where the cookie jar was. I don’t have to have introduced evidence that such a thing occurred to tell the story in argument to make a point.

    Comment by Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/8/2006 @ 7:17 am

  3. Pat,

    The second video could be entered into evidence as a rebuttal to the first video. It is my understanding that this type of evidence does not have to be entered as evidence prior to trial.

    Comment by Ray (be81f9) — 6/8/2006 @ 8:15 am

  4. No gun is displyed by the subject on this video. This is from a police shooting in Shereveport Louisiana. The subject Marquise Hudspeth lead police on a high speed chase before pulling into this parking lot. He failed to comply with the officers commands to stop. Instead he walked away from the officers before turning twice and assuming a shooting stance displaying what APPEARED to be a firearm. The officers fearing for their safety responded with deadly force. Hudseth was struck 8 times. It was then that the officers discovered what they reasonable belived to be a gun was in fact a cell phone. The fact that it was a cell phone does not change the correctness of the officers actions, but does show the difficulty in making life and death decisions in a split second.

    Comment by wbb (444e9b) — 6/8/2006 @ 8:15 am

  5. Here’s a news story about it. Apparently there was a lot of indignation about this guy getting shot. Seems to me that if you get chased for five miles, get the cops’ adrenalin up, then act like this when confronted by a bunch of guys with guns, you are rolling the dice with your life.

    Comment by Lexington Green (ae3ebe) — 6/8/2006 @ 8:27 am

  6. [...] Patterico has a fascinating post about police videos. Filed under:Immigration— Conor Friedersdorf @ 7:42 am [...]

    Pingback by A Special Report on Immigration - Beyond Borders Blog » Non-Immigration Related Post of the Day (8a9a2e) — 6/8/2006 @ 8:42 am

  7. Absolutely fantastic post.

    Poster WBB claims that the suspect didn’t have a gun, but a cell phone instead. The video certainly shows him brandishing the cellphone in a gun-like manner. In the past I’ve been very sceptical of the “I thought his phone was a gun” argument, but this video is quite enlightening.

    Comment by Fred K (67564a) — 6/8/2006 @ 8:50 am

  8. So it wasn’t Jimmy Stewart that shot Liberty Valance…

    Comment by craig mclaughlin (446f96) — 6/8/2006 @ 8:57 am

  9. Great post.

    I think this would also be great evidence for defending cops against ‘excessive force’ charges. Too many people expect one-shot stops like in the movies. This individual still would have had time to pull a trigger even though he had a number of .40 holes in the torso.

    Comment by Cris (8257b1) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:18 am

  10. I’d say the shooting was justified, the police shouldn’t have wait to get shot to defend themselves or society or to make arrests.

    We’d run out of police in no time if they had to wait to be fired upon in order to use deadly force.

    Once the police are driven away from pre-emptive law enforcment the citizenry will fill the gap with executions of suspected criminals and unnamed graves-like they do in every other part of the world where there is no law.

    We should promote a culture of compliance with the police when requested to stop & submit to police interviews or arrests, not belligerence & conflict.

    Comment by Smitty (fe1d75) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:38 am

  11. This seems like great video for showing that police need more firearm/marksmanship training. I count at least 3 shots that seem not to hit home from 10 feet away. In addition, behind the target is a convenience store that appears open for business. If the back is turned and you got a moment, how about aiming the weapon.

    Comment by Leland (5ea774) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:44 am

  12. Read the chapter in the book “Blink” about responding to these kinds of situations. After an adrenaline pumping chase, anything in the hand will look like a gun – it could be a wallet, call phone or a zucchini – it will look like a gun.

    Looking at the second video I thought it was a gun and I’m sitting here in my pajamas with no adrenaline rush.

    Comment by coggieguy (8dd621) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:55 am

  13. good post patrick.

    this appears to be a justified but tragic and avoidable shooting. if the perp doesnt make every mistake in the book here, he goes to jail alive that night with just some parking lot rash.

    this incident also shows the value of police sidearms capable of directing both lethal and
    non-lethal fire on a suspect. firearms engineers please take note: why dont we have sidearms in use already that can toggle between stun/shock and bullets?

    as a practical matter, how can a case like this be allowed to move forward on the strength of only one dashcam? surely the first thing the cops did when the shoot was over was watch all the dashcams from all the units involved.

    they’d see the exculpatory footage at the same time they saw the incriminating footage, so that a media/race relations/cop misconduct firestorm would have no oxygen to fuel it in the first place.

    Comment by cali white bear (8b8e8c) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:55 am

  14. Poster WBB claims that the suspect didn’t have a gun, but a cell phone instead

    “claims.” hah.

    Comment by actus (6234ee) — 6/8/2006 @ 11:42 am

  15. I think it is important to note that many people reviewing this video from the comfort of their office or home reasonable believed that it was a gun in Mr. Hudspeth’s hand. Now put yourselves in the officers position that night. Notice that the second time Hudspeth turns the officer instinctively drops down as to avoid being shot. That officer truly believed he was facing a deadly weapon and as a result was justified in his actions. This incident is now being used as training aid and highlights the need to have realist training. Anyone can be taught to hit a static target at 15 or 25 yards. Officers need to be train to hit moving target in low light while they are “adrenaline up”. But more important then shooting skills are the mental toughness and preparedness to pull the trigger.

    Comment by wbb (444e9b) — 6/8/2006 @ 1:01 pm

  16. Yeah, at least 3 shots, mebbe more.
    I’ve got friends who are Wayne County Sheriffs and they carry a 9mm. They insist is is because they can hold more rounds in the clip. But compared to a .45, the knockdown is crap. I’ve explained that a druggy (e.g. PCP) isn’t going to drop from a few 9mm rounds. A .45 may save the cop’s life with it’s knock-down power.

    And fewer shots means less chance of missing and hitting the people in the convenience store behind the perp (or whatever).

    Comment by _Jon (280b91) — 6/8/2006 @ 1:56 pm

  17. Re. cellphone: I have seen a video of a cellphone-gun – actually shoots!

    The whole concept of pointing in a hostile manner something that looks like a gun at a bunch of well-armed men on an adrenaline rush makes me think of Saddam Hussein pointing what looked like WMD at well-armed Uncle Sam still riding a 9-11 & Afghanistan adrenaline rush. Both seem sort of like attempts at ‘suicide by cop.’

    Comment by Glenmore (ddb61c) — 6/8/2006 @ 3:00 pm

  18. You know what? I’m getting sick of goblins running away from the cops, then acting tough and pointing stuff at the cops, and not obeying orders to STOP! (they shout at him for over ten seconds, and he just continues to move away from them).

    There used to be a justifiable cause for a cop shooting: “Shot while trying to escape”.

    We need to reintroduce this, everywhere.

    I have no time for trigger-happy cops, myself — but this jerk had it coming. (Did he die, by the way?)

    Defense lawyers seem to want cops to have been shot first, before shooting back.

    Bullshit.

    Comment by Kim du Toit (b10ae9) — 6/8/2006 @ 3:07 pm

  19. This is good stuff but very old news. See the highly detailed analysis done last year by a forensic shooting reconstruction expert:
    http://www.alexanderjason.com

    Click on the “Shreveport Police Shooting” link halfway down the main page.

    Comment by Rolly (d8da01) — 6/8/2006 @ 4:10 pm

  20. “There used to be a justifiable cause for a cop shooting: “Shot while trying to escape”.”

    It was quite useful in South Africa.

    Comment by actus (6234ee) — 6/8/2006 @ 5:53 pm

  21. Man, that guy was DUMB. When you respond to the police in a threatening manner, the chances are that you will be shot! How are the police able to determine that the item in your hand is not a gun? Are they supposed to wait until you start firing before they respond? Do that and you’ll have a lot of dead cops!

    Take heed people, when you’re being chased by the police, follow these directions: Stop and put your hands in the air! Don’t get shot by mistake.

    Comment by Ray (be81f9) — 6/8/2006 @ 6:47 pm

  22. actus,

    During the Ruby Ridge incident, just being a male with a gun in your hands was enough justification for being shot. You didn’t have to threaten anyone, just have a gun and you were targeted. That was the rules of engagement given to the FBI agents by the Clinton Administration during the standoff. Sounds a lot like South Africa and apartheid, doesn’t it?

    Comment by Ray (be81f9) — 6/8/2006 @ 6:55 pm

  23. [...] Patterico posts today about a video he found that amazed him. It’s the video of a Louisiana cop shooting that occurred some time ago which depicted what at first seemed to be a unjustified shooting: [...]

    Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Tape Doesn’t Lie (ef3aba) — 6/8/2006 @ 8:19 pm

  24. Uh, Ruby Ridge was during the GHWBush Administration!

    Comment by Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/8/2006 @ 8:29 pm

  25. Sounds a lot like South Africa and apartheid, doesn’t it?

    I’m talking about how they used to execute prisoners and use the ‘shot while trying to escape’ excuse.

    Comment by actus (6234ee) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:15 pm

  26. [...] Patterico has something you really should see if you think video can't lie. [...]

    Pingback by Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Eyewitness (a177fd) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:23 pm

  27. If I remember right this is video of Shreveport Police shooting a black suspect who ran from them in a car. When finally stopped he pointed a cell phone at the officers in such a manner that it appeared he was pointing a gun. He was shot 5 times, He died at the scene and there was a major uproar in the black community over it. Further investigation cleared the officers of any wrong doing. If you are dumb enough to point anything at an officer that resembles a gun plan on getting shot.

    Comment by extra300lx (a90377) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:35 pm

  28. Another Drew,

    Your right, my mistake.
    Note to self: check dates before posting in a public blog!

    Comment by Ray (be81f9) — 6/8/2006 @ 10:41 pm

  29. You see what your body tells you to see.

    This guy created the situation he wanted to create, AND, he made the police see what HE wanted them to see, a gun in his hand.

    Get to work on a “phaser” with “stun” mode if this moves you to action. Captain Kirk doesn’t seem to need his anymore… just take his apart and see how it works.

    Comment by trax (c83fb5) — 6/9/2006 @ 4:10 am

  30. Wow…very enlightening. This is one of the reasons I hope I’ll never need to make a life or death decision like this. While I would certainly defend myself, if I was wrong, it would eat me up inside forever.

    This is certainly one of those times, though, that the police officers must be grateful for those cameras in their cruisers.

    Comment by Joe (d553bf) — 6/9/2006 @ 4:17 am

  31. no matter how instructive these videos may be, i foresee difficulty getting them before a jury in an unrelated matter “objection, relevancy!” if you’re allowed to put on unrelated videos to educate the jury, then the defense gets to put on unrelated videos too, then there’s rebuttal videos…the trial judges i’ve appeared before usually like to keep the evidence focused on the specific issues in the case, and are reluctant to open up an entire universe of collateral matters.

    Comment by assistant devil's advocate (7adc55) — 6/9/2006 @ 8:56 am

  32. Yeah, you might be right. I’m not talking about introducing them in evidence, but just using them in argument as a demonstrative exhibit. But it would have to be a pretty close parallel to be allowed. I can see objecting to it myself if the other side tried to use it in a situation where it wasn’t a close parallel.

    Comment by Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/10/2006 @ 3:18 pm

  33. To this day I cannot understand the mentality that allows the average Joe to say, “Why don’t they just shoot the shoot the gun out of his hand or shoot them in the arm or something?”!

    I think this is the perfect video to answer that question and fortunately I’ve learned to ignore the ignorant.

    Comment by Tom Mix (599719) — 6/14/2006 @ 6:11 pm

  34. This video breaks my hearts everytime i see it. I dont see how you ignorant azz fools can justify this. Those cops should be serving a 25 to life sentence right now. Thats whats wrong with society today, whites being conditioned to see blacks as inferior, brainwashed to think blacks are guilty before innocent, obviously see this incident as lightly as a deer being shot down by a hunter. Wake up people, if this was one of your loved ones how the hell would you feel, Im sure not happy at all, youd be crying murder. But lets face it none of your loved ones would ever be in this situation.

    Comment by Just Black (9f37aa) — 6/20/2006 @ 10:01 pm

  35. Hopefully they wouldn’t be that stupid.

    Comment by Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/20/2006 @ 10:13 pm

  36. I am an active policeman and have seen this video many time before. The call is an armed robbery where the suspect flees in the the above vehicle. The suspect clearly doesn’t want to go to jail…mistake #1. As he exits the car, the officer/deputy (on the left) actually fires two rounds at the suspect when he see’s the “gun”, however he doesn’t go down. There are cell phone guns, and you have to think about that. This guy is a fleeing felon and maybe in this state, fleeing felons can be shot.

    Think first, the police do the right thing most of the time, although it doesn’t always look like it.

    Comment by Grant (fd5e15) — 6/27/2006 @ 11:29 am

  37. Thats whats wrong with society today, whites being conditioned to see blacks as inferior, brainwashed to think blacks are guilty before innocent, obviously see this incident as lightly as a deer being shot down by a hunter

    Just Black,

    That is not the case at all. Blacks are the ones commiting most of the repressible crimes: robbery, carjacking, shootings, burglary, auto theft. You don’t get stopped or shot because you are black. You get stopped and shot because you are fucking criminals.

    It pisses me off to hear stuff like this because no one can judge us, we do the lord’s work.

    Comment by Grant (fd5e15) — 6/27/2006 @ 11:38 am

  38. You know what I hate about this whole issue? That everyone is fixated on the issue of RACE!

    Is Shreveport LA. one of the most racist cities in America? Hell yes it is, but it isn’t the kind of racism you might think. Any time a “black” man is shot by police everyone in Shreveport will automatically think it is a “white” cop that did it. That’s right folks, this city hates whitey.

    But that is beside the point in regards to the shooting. The simple truth is that the dumbass who got shot (and whose family is trying to sue for 20 MIL) had every friggin chance in the world to stop, and get on the ground. It’s not like the police shot him while he was in his car!!!

    The dude got out and started waving an object and pointing it at the officers. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you do that to a cop… you are going down!

    Take race out of the picture and there would be nothing to complain about here.

    Oh and to all the tards fixating on the fact that this guy was shot in the back, watch the video and see how the police only fired when they reacted to a show of aggression by the dumbass. Yeah, its apparent that the cops were scared (otherwise they wouldn’t have missed so many times) you can see them hesitate giving the guy enough time to turn his back on the police before getting shot.

    I applaud the cops here in Shreveport, I would not want your job because you will never get the pat on the back you deserve in situations like this. For defending themselves and their fellow officers they are rewarded with distrust and animosity, for that I am ashamed of living in this city.

    I am just glad that there is one less Police resisting thug on the streets of Shreveport. I hope the guys family doesn’t get squat from the lawsuit!

    For an in depth review by a forensics expert check out this link: http://www.alexanderjason.com/shreveport.htm

    Comment by Oxygenthief (10af7e) — 6/27/2006 @ 2:35 pm

  39. I have a proposal for everyone who sits in their comfortable, law-abiding armchair and questions what we do. How about YOU chase a suspect, not knowing what weapons he may be carrying, what his mindset is, if he’s under the influence of drugs, and have him point a cell phone at YOU. I would love to see how YOU would react. Oh I’m sorry, I’m sure that YOU would be able to tell, in about half a second, that it was a cell phone and not a gun. Everyday average citizens aren’t put in life or death situations like we are, with a half a second to make a life-changing decision. “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night because brave men stand willing to do violence on their behalf”. And why does it have to be about race? If a white guy wearing a 3-piece suit pointed an unknown object at ME when I was telling him to stop and turn around, you better believe I’d drop him in a second. Black or white is a bullshit excuse.

    Comment by Andy Wood (8a52c6) — 6/28/2006 @ 7:47 am

  40. the guy deserved to get shot… you wanna play the race card, go ahead, but that just shows where you are coming from…

    Comment by jorge (219349) — 7/9/2006 @ 6:39 pm

  41. After seeing the 4-shot cellphone GUN even pointing a celphone in a threatening manner is justification. It could make the differenbce between a cop going home at night to his kids or going to the morgue.

    The closest thing to a phaser we’ve got is the Taser X26. It’s still limited- 1 shot, 15-25 foot effective range (LE).

    It almost looks to me liek this guy wanted to suicide by cop. Why else would you do that? Think they’ll run if you look like you’re pointing a gun at them?

    Comment by Dave A, (65e102) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:06 pm

  42. When a cop tells you to get on the ground, get on the dam ground. It’s that simple and easy. Even a monkey can understand it. I’m sick of these defiant righteous morons ruining my country.

    Comment by Mdub Crew (86bd22) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:26 pm

  43. Check out this cell phone below before you pass judgment. Police officers nationwide are being warned about these guns. I could care less whether or not it’s a real cell phone. If he points it at me in a threatening manner, especially at the conclusion of a high speed chase, I will do whatever I need to in order to stop his aggressive actions. My most important assignment is to make it home safely at the end of my shift. I get paid to do a job, not to take a bullet.

    Comment by Dan (9763a3) — 7/11/2006 @ 9:21 pm

  44. The link mentioned in entry #43 didn’t go through. I’ll try it again here. You may have to cut and paste into your browser in order to see the video.

    http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/22-caliber-cell-phone-gun

    Comment by Dan (9763a3) — 7/11/2006 @ 9:24 pm

  45. Here are two outstanding articles from the Police Policy Studies Council on this very topic! Please read them.

    Visual Perception in Low-Light Levels

    http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Michel/visual_perception_in_lowlight.htm

    “Is It A Gun? Or Is It A Wallet?”

    Perceptual Factors In Police Shootings of Unarmed Suspects

    http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Green/Perceptual.Factors.In.Police.Shootings.htm

    Comment by Ronin Research & Consulting LLC (442504) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:59 am

  46. [...] HOLY $hit… POLICE BRUTALITY AT ITS FINEST damn…. Patterico’s Pontifications The Video Doesn’t Lie . . . Right?? [...]

    Pingback by HOLY $hit... POLICE BRUTALITY AT ITS FINEST (d8f284) — 7/12/2006 @ 9:05 am

  47. Everyone keeps saying he “pointed” an object at police. He didn’t “point”, he entered a Weaver Stance, a combat stance used to aim and fire a pistol. “Pointing” is when you use a hand or object to indicate some thing or direction. When someone with a dark object in their hands enters a Weaver stance in your direction, you are prepared to have a bullet coming at you in the next second or two. To assume otherwise would be idiotic.

    Comment by Weaver (762432) — 7/12/2006 @ 10:06 am

  48. Dirtbag caused his own death. Why is it when someone can’t obey the law it is called racism. Why a bogus charge of racism prefered over lawlessness? The cause and effect should be easy for even the stupidist of people to understand: threaten a police officer’s and you are going down. It’s no different if you are white, but for some reason that doesn’t make for good internet video. Cops are there to protect us from this kind of lawless dirtbag. Color has nothing to do with dirt. Thanks for saving the taxpayers a costly trial with free public defender followed by a costly prison sentence. Your bonus is the public’s appreciation for law and order.

    Comment by Shuli Schwartz (43687c) — 7/12/2006 @ 10:23 am

  49. OMG! thizz iz hella messed up! ! ! he didnt do any thing

    Comment by Star (51356a) — 7/12/2006 @ 12:41 pm

  50. [...] The Video doesn’t lie from Patterico’s Pontifications [...]

    Pingback by » Blog Archive » Video doesn’t lie (3254dc) — 9/9/2006 @ 9:16 am

  51. Police Shootout Beat…

    Well, punch-up actually. Fact-checkin’ Patterico wins. The LA Times loses. As we’ve seen before, the way you edit a video and the angle you shoot it from can hide as much as it reveals, giving you a Dowdified version of……

    Trackback by JunkYardBlog (621918) — 11/13/2006 @ 12:37 am

  52. Was there an investigation? I´m not sure to see a gun, but if that was the case then no choise.And just for curiosity. Was that stupid gay a latin boy?

    Comment by Hannier (1a8ab2) — 11/21/2006 @ 11:40 am

  53. I would have probaly shot him to if he was aiming anything at me. It comes down Kill or be Killed. If it was just a cell phone, then he’s really is just another idiot that got killed off.

    Comment by Mark (d9c1c2) — 4/13/2007 @ 8:36 am

  54. Oh, i see cops have no problem shooting someone in the back. Its common bacon thinking to think “oh, he brandished a cell phone and it looked like a gun”. That to me did not look like a pistol, even by the way he was holding it. The officers should be killed for what they did. How is shooting an unarmed man in the back protecting and serving the community? Basically what happened here was the cops got all worked up from the chase, then one saw something shiny, asked no questions, didnt ask if he heard and pops or anything other than shininess that indicates a pistol was drawn. This officer then decided that he was going to shoot another man in the back as he walked away. Cowardly, i hope every officer involved and his family get stripped, raped, and strangled.

    Comment by Wayne Woj (6e9742) — 4/18/2007 @ 5:20 am

  55. I’m just sorry the police couldn’t have killed at least 25 more if your police department doesn’t kill at least 20-30 blacks per year they are not doing they’re job. Hey people let’s stop pretending that everyone is equal and be who we really are. We don’t have to hide behind hoods and bagdges anymore. We can kill without any worry. Let’s just pray they can kill some more

    Comment by aaron (7eb003) — 4/24/2007 @ 5:58 am

  56. Mr. Woj is a moron & obviously has never been in a life & death situation. Dont “Monday Morning” Quarterback the people saving your ass every day. Moron.

    Comment by Sam (b8e3e2) — 6/23/2007 @ 8:02 pm

  57. I saw this video last night during a discussion on Fox News Channel of a new pistol mounted camera being made available to police depts. I teach concealed handgun licensing classes in TX and find these things interesting for situational analysis. It struck me from the news edit that the suspect was stumbling away (I quickly assumed he had already been shot)in the video w/ no “apparent” weapon. I did see an offensive move prior to the shots being fired and assumed there must have been a knife involved. Then, immediately following the “shoot” tape, a small portion of the pre-shooting dashcam clip appeared, after the “shoot” tape. In the short clip you could clearly see a silver(stainless or chrome) semi-auto in the suspects hand being pointed offscreen to the left. At first I wasn’t sure that it was even the same incident, but thanks to my DVR I was able to rewind and watch again. Realizing it was the same and bewildered by the mixed sequence of events I came to the internet to find the whole tape and here it is. I must commend Patterico for his presentation of this incident. I will agree with him that my first veiwing of this incident left me with more questions and assumptions than any clear opnion. Though I did assume it was probably a clean shoot. From watching the full tape I feel that were I on a jury, the officer first shown making contact with the suspect was justified in using deadly force to protect the second officer from serious injury or death when the suspect pointed what a reasonable person would assume to be a gun at him, multiple times. Because these incidents happen so quickly and bullets travel great distances in a second, decisions about life and death are made in an instant and this is sometimes the result. I just hope this new pistol cam technology will make these incidents more clearcut than the dashcams alone.

    Comment by Gary (f24557) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:48 pm

  58. The Police Officers responded correctly. The public is not aware of all the “officer safety” bulletins received showing how cell phones have been modified into firearms of all caliber sizes. I salute the officers for their courage and feel very glad that both of them went home to the wives and children that were waiting for them at the end of their tour of duty. The National Memorial in D.C. have many, many, many names on it where those officers did not make it home!

    Comment by Buddy (3f3b5d) — 11/2/2007 @ 9:30 pm

  59. Who ever thinks this kid got what he deserved are idiots, and therefore must be part of the Gay Gestapo. The policeman held a gun to this kids forhead, he knew he wasnt armed. He wanted to get his jollies off. This seems to be a common occurence with the Gay Gestapo, cant control themselves.
    Anyone who justifies this kids death over a traffic ticket, really does not qualify as a human being.
    There are accidents in life and then their is cold blooded murder. This was murder and nothing but, death by the Gay Gestapo, and their 5 dollar tin badge.
    Am I the only one who sees that this video may have had helpful editing to help this kids murder’s escape with zero consequences, and fool everyone that this is their job.
    I personally feel that those two cops should be held accountable for murder and treason.

    Comment by Geoffrey John Wells (abf376) — 11/21/2007 @ 5:34 pm

  60. Geoffrey John Wells, at the risk of provoking Patterico’s ire, you’re a nut.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/21/2007 @ 5:37 pm

  61. So… how is that treason again?

    Comment by chaos (9c54c6) — 11/21/2007 @ 7:34 pm

  62. The question is does the Gay Gestapo consist of gay secret policemen or of secret policemen policing gays?

    Comment by nk (09a321) — 11/21/2007 @ 7:48 pm

  63. No, I think you’re pretty much right on the money Christoph…

    An absolute nutter.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/21/2007 @ 8:01 pm

  64. Every swinning Di,k in the field that hase a little bit of a brain must know ore realize that when its you, “”that”" close to him with your own eyes like that HIGHLY TRAINED police officer who is ONLY inches away you can spot the diference between a cell phone and a gun .apart from that HE NEEDED to be killed. a clear ecsecution!!.

    Comment by David (d79b88) — 12/6/2007 @ 2:04 am

  65. You just can not hide the fact that they shot the man in the back can you. Nope, no video angle can hide that miserable fact. Hmmmm… isn’t there something in the constitution about facing your accuser? Probably doesn’t apply here, nah. Jm

    Comment by Manson48 (f19dd6) — 2/24/2008 @ 8:01 pm

  66. While I did have a different opinion before watching the first video. It does look as if the shooting could be justified, the phone does look like a weapon. However, we can not allow this one incident to make us think that there are no situations in which excessive force was used!

    Comment by fdm (67a30d) — 3/14/2008 @ 10:43 am

  67. Sure, and sometimes supermodels have sex with normal, plain-looking guys.

    Doesn’t mean it’s at all COMMON…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/14/2008 @ 11:15 am

  68. DONT HAVE A GUN??YOU CAN TELL THIS BY WATCHING THE VIDEO??? YOUR A MORON LIBERAL ASSHOLE…THOSE COPS HAD LESS THAN A SECOND TO DECIDE TO LIVE OR NOT. THE SCUMBAG GOT WHAT HE DESERVED..LETS PUT YOUR ASS OUT THERE ON THE STREETS AND SEE HOW WELL YOU DO IDIOT

    Comment by TIM SCHRANG (995527) — 6/16/2008 @ 12:03 am

  69. [Comment deleted at user's request.]

    Comment by suzanne malley (2ad04e) — 6/24/2008 @ 6:06 pm

  70. [...] [...]

    Pingback by The Tale Of Two Tapes «ScrollPost.com (376496) — 5/28/2011 @ 6:24 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2755 secs.