Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer Randall Kerrick (right) has been charged with voluntary manslaughter after he shot and killed an unarmed man who was reportedly looking for help after getting into a car accident. Jonathan Ferrell, 24, was a former Florida A & M football player.
Ferrell apparently was in a car wreck and was seeking help by knocking on the door of a house. The woman inside called 911 out of fear.
The police found Ferrell a short distance away and he ran toward them — presumably thinking he could get help. Instead, the police tasered him and when he continued toward them, Kerrick shot him repeatedly. They later found a wrecked car believed to be Ferrell’s.
45 thoughts on “North Carolina Police Officer Charged With Manslaughter With Shooting Of Unarmed Man”
I doesn’t matter who this person was killing its a was to protect your self their are other forces you can take to kill a persons dosent make u a hero more like a cowerd really life it to short to take it a way my prayer goes out to the family u push this case til it hit rock bottom no one deserve to have to indorse the new of ur child has been shoot in killed by a person who paint the picture to protect by the law a the world is so concern y people act the way the do because u have shitty low down ass people that only cars about get a check in a name as a hero no ur the lows person on the pole
What part of “You do not know what you are talking about” do you not understand?
You claim to know about the mechanical operation of Tasers based solely on the fact that 5 years ago your brother in law got lit up with a Taser by a deputy sheriff and you could smell the gunpowder. Well why don’t you go to Taser international website and look around and see that the device DOES NOT USE GUNPOWDER. You can claim you smell gunpowder until the cows come home and it still won’t change the fact that it doesn’t use gunpowder. What did you do, get a mass spectrometer that you pulled out of your wallet and made a chemaical analysis of the ambient air? Again, Taser Internation does not maunfacture Taser cartridges with gunpowder in it. Your credibility: “My brother in law got lit up by a taser and I smelled gunpowder. My credibility. I am certified in the use of a Taser and have been throught ALL the requisite training. At no point whatever was there any mention of gunpowder being included in the cartridges for a LE issue Taser. I challenge you to look through the entire Taser International Website and find ONE example where a Taser Cartridge in use today uses gun powder. Well I will save you the time. IT DOES NOT.
Then you go through all your 1970’s vintage National Firearms act interpretation by the feds to backpedal your losing position that a Taser is classified as an “Other Weapon”. If you want to interpret a 1970’s Taser (if there was one available and in use today) as a firearm go ahead all you want. But I challenge you to find a 1970’s prototype version Taser in use today by a police officer ANYWHERE in the world. Take a look at a production TAser made in the last 10 years or more and tell me ONE that uses gunpowder as a propellant. Guess what you will not find one because NONE have been issued to law enforcement agencies. And if you looked at a 1970’s version Taser it is about as obsolete as carrying a portable radio made from Vacuum Tumbes, or police forces carrying a black powder pistol like they did in the 1860’s. NOBODY carries a 1970’s vintage Taser. The only Tasers carried presently are the Nitrogen cartridge powered ones, again they are not firearms.
Again, you can go on and on about needing a special procedure for civilian to go through the machine gun process all you want but it is NOT THE CASE. The taser is NOT a Firearm because it does not use gunpowder, so again whatever steps you think you need to go throught to obtain a machine gun would be the same as a Taser is completely and totally a different case.
So go on throwing up chaff quoting 1970’s vintage interpretations all you want. It does not apply to 21st century technology.
Any then you bring up the irrelevant fact that your brother was lit up twice by a deputy sheriff five years ago twice. Well more news for you. Did that deputy sheriff have two Tasers on him? Because 5 years ago that would have been the only way that someone could have been Tased twice by the same officer because the miltiple shot (X3) Tasers had not been issued then. I have never heard of any officer anywhere that carries two Tasers on their duty belt. It is akin to carrying two pistols in their holster. The more likely scenario was your brother in law got the first darts in the first deployment and then he was subjected to another 5 second jolt afterward.
Here is some more education for you. Want to know what the differences is between a civilian Taser and a LE Taser? Distance for the C2 civilian model is a 15 foot range and, depending on the cartridge, it is 25 feet or more (up to 35 feet) depending on the cartridge for the LE ones. Also the LE Tasers jolt for a maximum of 5 seconds per application and the civilian one is 30 seconds. It is not gunpowder verses carbon dioxide as you claim. The 30 second shock is so that the civilian has the option of lighting up their assailant and then running away to safety while the assailant is locked up.
The stats that you proffer as supporting of your position refers to having more than one Taser shot against the same suspect simultaneoously. There is no evidence that you have presented that the ONE deputy sheriff in your brother-in-laws example, or more importantly, this NC officer used two tasers to attempt to incapacitate this victim. Also in more recent years there have been some Tasers that have multiple shots for multiple assailants. But guess what. you cannot shock more than one set of probes at a time with these. So it would be impossible to use a multiple shot Taser with multiple simultaneous shocks to the same person. And there is no evidence that in the NC case more than one officer lit the victim up.
You can claim that you rely on Taser International’s documentation all you want but it is readily apparent you haven’t read that information at all because your assertions are meritless.
As for the PR 24 and nightstick examples. Yes, you did not bring it up but the reason I did was because you asserted that the Taser is a deadly weapon and I stated that your assertion was false . You claimed the Taser might lead to a death and as a result it must be classified as a deadly weapon. I said that the same could be said of the PR24 and the nightstick because it could be used inappropriately and could still kill someone and regardless those to devices are not considered deadly weapons.
Surely because TAser International and current training does not recommend using multiple Taser hits from different officers (which is actually what your quotes are talking about) due to increased possibility of injury. But that is standard procedure. It does not make that a deadly weapon. It is also recommneded that Tasers not be used on persons older than 60 years of age. Well the same is for hitting a 75 year old man with a night stick either. You hit a 20 year old in the upper arm with a nighstick and you are going to hurt him. You hit a 75 year old and you likely will shatter his arm due to his age and bone / muscular density. Again these are training guildlines to give officers information on what is considered reasonable given the circumstances. It does not equate the Taser being a deadly weapon or an unreasonable tool that cannot be used under any cicrumstances other than those required for deadly force.
You’ve been called that there was an attempted home invasion robbery.
You reach the scene to see some man running at you.
He doesn’t stop despite demands to do so
He doesn’t tell you he’s been in a car accident, asking for help.
He continues rushing you even after being tasered.
What YOU do?
Do you think statistically that your life is in immediate danger and open fire to defend yourself, your fellow cops and nearby civilians?
Do you wait, take a bullet, a knife, or other dangerous attack to determine for sure that there is or isn’t a danger and only then take action?
The same as above only the man who refuses to stop and doesn’t let a taser stop him is rushing towards some citizen.
As a cop called out to stop a suspected robber do you shoot to stop what logically looks like a horrible assault that is about to happen or do you let the civilian take a bullet, a knife, or other damage just so you can be sure that there really is a danger
Darren Smith, about 5 years ago I was present in the room when a Deputy Sheriff shot my brother in law twice with his Taser. The room was hazy with “gunpowder” (“smokeless” powder) smoke and had a heavy odor of burned powder. As I have fired firearms several thousand times I think I recognize the odor.
Nitrogen has no odor, being 78% of the air surrounding us.
“In a public release dated March 18, 1976, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) of the Department of the Treasury announced that the device known as Taser is a firearm as defined in Title I and Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968.” — CPSC Memo, March 22, 1976
Title II is the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended.
A gunpowder-propellant Taser is a smoothbore pistol (no rifling in the barrel), classified as “Any Other Weapon.” Large numbers of these weapons are in circulation. Recent models and “civilian” models have different features. You may have been issued a more recent model.
A “FFL” (Federal Firearms License” is a license (special occupational taxpayer) to deal in firearms. A FFL is not required for personal ownership and possession of any firearm, though, with a class 3 tax stamp, it is the only practical way for a non-official agency employee to possess a new machinegun since the cutoff.
I didn’t refer to PR24s or nightsticks.
“However, any use of force, including the use of a CEW, involves risks that a person may get hurt or die due to the effects of the CEW, physical incapacitation, physical exertion, unforeseen circumstances, or individual
susceptibilities. Following the instructions and warnings in this document will reduce the likelihood that CEW use will cause death or serious injury.”
“To reduce the risk from CEW exposure:
“2. Avoid simultaneous CEW exposures. Do not use multiple CEWs or multiple completed circuits at the same time without justification. Multiple CEWs or multiple completed circuits at the same time could have cumulative effects and result in increased risks.”
“When possible, avoid targeting the frontal chest area near the heart to reduce the risk of potential serious injury or death.” — Taser
The Deputy Sheriff violated this warning by shooting my BIL twice – in short succession. My BIL presented no danger or threat to the officer. He was walking from his bedroom to the bathroom when shot in the back, twice, without any warning.
Misinformation to officers that gives them the idea that Tasing a subject is safe and harmless is part of the problem. Officers are surprised and dismayed when a subject is seriously injured or (rarely) killed as a result of Taser use.
The presentation of conclusions on my behalf of which I made not the slightest hint is not reasonable but is an attempt to divert attention.
In encounters with police on several occasions I have been impressed (unfavorably) with the ease with which most have fabricated conclusions with no basis but fanciful speculation.
I will continue to rely upon the word of Taser, Inc. and professional and official sources.
Comments are closed.