South Carolina Man Shot By Officer After Reaching For Cane . . . Department Calls Shooting “Appropriate”

article-2568848-1BE2880300000578-331_306x423There is a controversial shooting in South Carolina this week after York County deputy, Terrence Knox, shot Bobby Canipe, 70, during a routine traffic stop when Canipe reached for his cane. Knox said that he thought it was a rifle and his department is calling him justified in the shooting. Canipe (left) is a disabled Vietnam veteran.

The stop was for an expired license tag near the small town of Clover, South Carolina. After pulling over, Canipe got out and reached into this truck bed for his cane. Knox proceeded to fire multiple rounds and hit Canipe once.

York County sheriff’s spokesman Trent Faris has called the shooting “very unfortunate” but added that “[i]t does appear, at this time, that Deputy Knox’s actions were an appropriate response to what he reasonably believed to be an imminent threat to his life.”

Well, at this time, I would have to disagree. It would appear that an officer fired without a clear view of the alleged weapon or time for the suspect to drop the weapon. Moreover, I assume that, when reaching for a cane, you do show with one hand — an awkward position to use a long-barreled rifle. However, I would like to read the officer’s account and see the results of the investigation.

The matter will be investigated and I would have preferred that the department not issue such a statement before the full facts are determined.

Such shootings raise comparisons with other countries where police use potentially lethal force at a much lower rate.

Source: Washington Post

92 thoughts on “South Carolina Man Shot By Officer After Reaching For Cane . . . Department Calls Shooting “Appropriate””

  1. You prior comment cited “insurance companies” expecting an increase in shootings along w/ cops and ER’s. So, there’s that. You are taking the word of cops and insurance companies because it fits your desire to curtail 2nd Amendment rights. Short term memory problems? You made that comment this morning.

  2. “The insurance industry is a blight on society, I agree….”

    What part of that indicates affection for the insurance industry? Forget the polygraph, I don’t think you’d pass the reading test.

  3. Now you’re on the side of cops. Insurance companies and cops are your new friends. I’ll remember this is future discussions. I was smart enough to know better than to become a cop. The smart ones get out of law enforcement quickly. Plus, I would never had passed the polygraph!

  4. Ah, you gotta love winter. Nick, I owe you an apology. I was trying to have an intelligent conversation, this time with RocketScientist, and therefore I had no business responding to your comments. I perceived them as churlish and utterly missing the point i am trying to make, which is that as time goes on and more people obtain conceal-carry permits, every encounter a law enforcement officer has with a member of the public will become increasingly stressful situations. If you had ever been an actual member of law enforcement, you might have a greater appreciation of that.

    The insurance industry is a blight on society, I agree, but it can be a personal savior in time of loss. The study was conducted by a university professor and peer reviewed. Perhaps you might want to check it out before you go dismissing it.

  5. RTC, Critical thinking?? We both know the insurance industry are soulless b@stards. How many times have BOTH of us scoffed @ insurance industry “studies” which are solely based on maximizing profit by limiting liability. The insurance industry would be more than happy to revoke the entire bill of rights to make more profits. Your relying on this “study” shows either lack of critical thinking, a lack of intellectual honesty, or a combination of both. Shovel slowly and take breaks, your heart will thank you. That’s based on solid studies.

  6. Nick: Why would you assume that I was calling you stupid? The first section of my post was addressed to you specifically and then I was merely anticipating that there’d be someone who reacted in a…. Oh. Right.

    Well, I assure you that I did not intend to include you in that. I do not think you are stupid; you just lack the ability to think critically at times.

    Americans have been fed a bill of goods since the advent of Reagan, and you seemed to have dined heartily. The irony is that Reagan, himself, would not approve of many of the measures that have been put in place over the years.

    incidentally, I use my initials because it’s faster and easier to post than my full name or some clever moniker. I rtc like 123. In fact, I might just do that from now on – 123. Hold on; rt are right next to each. I could just go bink, bink and be done. Maybe next time I clear out my cookies and need to reenter my info, that’s what I’ll do. If you see rt, or 123, you’ll know it’s me.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got about 4″ of snow to shovel.

  7. The days of calling people “stupid, ignorant,” etc. left w/ the people who threw epithets around like baseballs. You are one of the few holdouts. I am not stupid, nor are you. The civility here has improved dramatically as has the variety of ideas. There are echo chambers aplenty. I have been told there’s a new one there. Don’t be a general fighting the old war, alphabet person. You’re smarter than that.

  8. Nick: I don’t know if you read my post entirely, but the report I allude to, done, I believe, at the behest of insurance companies, found an increase in gun related deaths and injuries in states following the enactment of conceal-carry laws.

    Let me sum that up for the hard-of-understanding: More people got shot at higher rates after conceal-carry laws were enacted.

    More shootings occurred in situations where they would not have previously occurred. That kid down in Florida would not have been shot by that “law-abiding” businessman if the laws hadn’t allowed him to be carrying a weapon and encouraged him to stand-n-shoot.

    But lemme sum it up for the stupid person who lacks the ability to think critically and reacts in a predetermined knee-jerk fashion, if one should happen to be reading this: More guns=more shooting deaths and injuries.

    That’s not what I would call an advancement in society.

    1. RTC wrote: “NPR did a report almost a year ago about a study that found gun-related deaths and injuries had risen exponentially in states with conceal-carry laws.”

      NPR is a very biased news source. Those types of studies usually attempt to compare cities or states with and without such laws rather than follow the same state through time. This is faulty because it does not control for other variables that affect such statistics. Plenty of studies indicate the exact opposite of these conclusions.

      For example, in Florida, Texas, and Michigan, murder rates went down after concealed weapon permit laws were passed.

  9. By definition, if Illinois is last in enacting Second Amendment gun laws[kicking and screaming] then we know it’s the right thing to do. Law abiding south and west side folk now have a fighting chance.

  10. MRS: I’d agree two cases do not comprise compelling data, if they were only two cases. Regrettably, they are not isolated incidents, merely two widely publicized cases.

    NPR did a report almost a year ago about a study that found gun-related deaths and injuries had risen exponentially in states with conceal-carry laws, so I don’t believe your claim about my odds of being shot by an officer over a permit holder.

    Moreover, since the state I live in, Illinois, recently began issuing conceal-carry permits, I’m predicting that my odds are going to rise. Guess who else is projecting a rise in gun-related injuries in the wake of this plague of new gun laws. Hospitals and emergency-room care providers; insurance companies; and law enforcement agencies. You’re arguing from past statistics.

    The viral gun laws in this country appear to me to be a component of the American delusional mindset, which causes the public to doubledown on bad bets. When deregulation of the financial industry led to the various banking crises throughout the eighties and nineties, the reaction was further deregulation, no different than the NRA prescription for gun violence is more guns in among the public.

    Markets aren’t free enough and there aren’t enough guns in society. You’ll have to excuse my skepticism.

    That study that I referred to, which I had saved on a computer which has since crashed, found that gun violence had increased due to several factors: Altercations occurred in situations where people would have previously been inclined to ignore perceived offensive behavior; people began to take offense more quickly and become confrontational about it. And confrontations that would have amounted to fistfights in the past now involve firearms with increasing frequency. Seems once someone straps on a gun, they feel like they’re Rayland Givens.

    The problem isn’t just conceal-carry laws. It’s the growing body of laws which encourage the use of firearms, often as a matter of first resort, just as surely as tax breaks encourage companies to ship jobs overseas. There’s stand-yer-gound, which might as well be stand-n-fight, and the castle laws, which allow anyone to be shot for being in a curtilage, and in some states, even a neighbor’s curtilage.

    So your argument isn’t going to cut any ice with me. Even with the many abuses of power committed by police that we see, I still trust them more than the all the conceal-carry permit holders.

  11. MRS: I don’t need to give it another day. After two infamous stand-yer-ground murders in Florida, one for loud music, one for walking around, I’m convinced this situation is only going to get worse.

    And worse for police. As a result, they’re going to become more “jittery”, as someone described it upstream, and there’s going to be more fatal encounters with the public; some justified, as in this case, and some unwarranted. All unfortunate.

    Let me anticipate the outcry over the brutal, oppressive police state by saying that the abuse of police authority is unlawful. Unlawful behavior is wrong no matter who commits it, and I’m not defending unlawful behavior.

    But the fact is, for every example of an officer abusing his authority, there are thousands who do not, and perform an extremely important, difficult and dangerous job well, protecting society against crime.

    And many times (unfortunately, not all the time) when an officer breaks the law, there’s a few willing to lock him up.

    BTW: How many atomic and/or nuclear bombs have been used in time of war compared to conventional bombs? Very few. But insignificant?

    1. RTC

      Two outlier cases is not compelling data.

      As it stands, you have a much better chance of being shot by a police officer than you do by a permit holder you meet on the street. And police are almost never shot or even threatened by permit holders. When that changes, then I think you might have a chance at making a case that the presence of gun owners with carry permits is making police jittery.

      And in the few cases where police have over-reacted to the presence of peaceful permit holders, the subsequent lawsuits usually do a good job altering department policies.

  12. “madrocketscientist’

    We wouldn’t need to foster civil unrest, if the rest of U.S. wouldn’t juxtapose due diligence upon our government with laxity about manifest injustice against our neighbor.

  13. RTC

    Carry laws have been expanding for years now. How much more time do you need for people who seek carry permits to begin behaving badly in large numbers?

  14. Darren:

    And how many of those shot by the police were committing aggravated assaults or murder attempts against the police or others?

    Almost all of them, of course, otherwise the police would not have shot them. Nearly every internal police investigation finds those shootings justified.


    Perhaps some data wherein a large number of people with carry permits where pulling their guns for a shootout with the police would support your position. Too bad there is no such data, because it happens so rarely as to be statistically insignificant.

  15. Legal 101 – should be a requisite in High School.

    We are ALL attorneys at law;
    just many less educated than others.

    Elitists desire a “less than knowledgeable” general public.

  16. Dr. Harris: Do you think shame societies are effective at ensuring lawfully compliant behavior?

  17. Yo D: Maybe cops are jittery because people are shooting at them more and more often.

    The consequences of the NRA/2d Am insanity: increase the number of weapons available to a stressed out population, ensure they are “at hand”, and tempers will become “hair-trigger”, literally. And that’s the reality every officer must take into account if he wants to go home to his family at the end of a shift.

    Jittery? More like shoot first, live to answer questions later.

  18. Yesterday, I wrote a comment that seems to have been stopped in its tracks, perhaps by the Askimet filtering process. I have no intent to ever violate the Turley Blog civility rule; however, I have livelong observations that sometimes intensely contravene some social norms, perhaps to such extent that I may be deemed intolerably anomic by people resolutely entrained in social norms.

    One of the more recent books to raise issues regarding anomie that I have in my library is The Future of Anomie Theory, edited by Nikos Passos & Robert Agnew, Northeastern University Press, 1997.

    What I observe to be an apparently-increasing core aspect of many Turley Blog threads is people, law enforcement folks included, having ever greater incapacity to actually be law-abiding.

    In my view, this is not a property of personal disposition; vastly too many people are acting in ways that violate the supposed civil and legal rights of others for the difficulty to be one of a small portion of humanity being individually :”defective.”

    Based on the pervasive nature of law abidance failures, I am without scientifically pragmatic recourse to modeling the enigma of law abidance failure as an aspect of some deeply and pervasively embedded profoundly tragic error in the structure of human society.

    It consistently appears to me that said seeming error is somehow the essence of what have been called psychological defenses if psychological defenses are correctly deemed to be mental mechanisms which distort tangibly objective reality in such ways as serve to generate, maintain, and sustain what, in Freudian terms, is typically called the ego.

    In that sense of ego, as an aggregation of reality-distorting mental mechanisms, I cannot elude the notion that the distortions of tangibly objective reality which make up “the Freudian ego” have become so complicated that no person or collection of persons, is actually capable of understanding “the law” accurately enough to truly live an authentically law-abiding life.

    I am having immense difficulty escaping from the peculiar notion that the incapacity of humanity as a whole, and especially individual human persons, to accurately understand “the law,” prior to violating it, to avoid violations of “the law,” has driven society back from a guilt society functionality into the social development predecessor of guilt societies; the human species is as though intent on re-capturing the social form and function of shame societies.

    Ostensibly, in a guilt society, a person who engages in an infraction and is “found out” and is “convicted” is assigned a forfeit, which, when satisfied (paying one’s debt to society?), allows a person to return to society.

    Ostensibly, in a shame society, it is of no importance whether or not people engage in infractions, the only concern is of being “found out.” When a person in a shame society is “found out” for some infraction, the person is isolated from society without recourse.

    I understand that Imperial Japan, during World War II, functioned largely as a shame society, and that allowed hari kiri and such. In the United States of America, shame society structures are, perhaps, most profoundly in evidence when death-penalty infractions happen.

Comments are closed.