There is another controversy involving a police shooting. Jermane Reid was shot and killed after the Jaguar in which he was riding was pulled over for running a stop sign by Bridgeton officers Braheme Days and Roger Worley in a Dec. 30 traffic stop. When one officer reported seeing a handgun in the glove compartment, things got tense and ultimately led to the fatal shooting of the unarmed Reid. [Warning: the video and text includes foul language]
Driver, Leroy Tutt, is seen showing his hands throughout the encounter.
The officers are heard screaming over and over “Don’t you fucking move!” and “Show me your hands!” at the driver and passenger. Days repeatedly warns Reid not to move, screaming “I’m going to shoot you . . . You’re going to be … dead. If you reach for something, you’re going to be … dead.” However, Reid is heard saying “I ain’t got no reason to reach for nothing, bro, I ain’t got no reason to reach for nothing.” He then says, “I’m getting out and getting on the ground.” Days tells him not to move, but decides to step out of the Jaguar with his hands raised to shoulder height. He is then shot.
Clearly he should have obeyed the officer but his hands appear to be in clear view and Reid made clear that he was going to get out. Both officers appear to have fired at least six times. It is not clear if it was Reid or Days who opened the door. Under Tennessee v. Garner, there would be no justification for the use of lethal force in such a circumstance.
Reid, 36, had a record, including 13 years in prison for shooting at New Jersey State Police troopers when he was a teenager. He was also arrested last year on charges including drug possession and obstruction. Notably, Days was one of the arresting officers in the later arrests. That record however does not factor into the shooting if his hands were visible and there was no threatening behavior. Disobeying an order to remain in the car is obviously not sufficient cause for the use of lethal force under the controlling standard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
^^ Police do not have the obligational duty to protect citizens as determined by SCOTUS (despite in this case the existence of a HRO and known threats). Their purpose is to enforce laws, and we have far too many on the books for the average citizen to keep track of – hence you’re likely to be found guilty of violating some law if the police are determined enough and selective in enforcing the laws they want to enforce. How many police on off duty have ‘rolled’ through a stop sign? Driven a car with only one headlight? Driven a car with something hanging from the rear view mirror? A tail light out?
JimmyH – when I see the cops breaking traffic laws I can their station and turn them in.
Citizens are increasingly viewed as assumed guilty (of some known or arcane legal statute) and police assumed to be just and in the right. Disproving a negative is difficult – especially when you have the state working against you with virtually unlimited resources and information at their disposal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens, but expedience and benefit of the doubt are for too many police.
Police have a tough job to do in many instances. Less than adequate training, the power of a gun, testosterone / adrenaline fueled errors in approach and judgement don’t help.
“Protect and Serve” is a good marketing catchphrase with no meaning.
It doesn’t appear the right-side officer was opening the door but was actually trying to keep himself pressed against it, ordering the passenger to not move and show his hands. It appears the passenger pushed the door open and got out abruptly while the officer took steps back and shot.
What’s not clear is why the police were following the car. It was interesting the driver of the Jaguar used his turn signal and did a “rolling stop”; something quite common in California (well, not the turn signal). The right-side officer appeared rather calm until he was next to the door and then it seemed to escalate once he discovered a gun in the glove compartment. Did one of the passengers disclose it was in the compartment leading to the escalation of tension in the situation?
As is often the case in this blog, there is just enough information missing from this story to make every opinion valid and worthless at the same time; including mine.
Before I left loss prevention, I worked in most of the most dangerous areas of the SF Bay Area and, at least briefly, alongside almost every law enforcement agency that operates in the area (including most of the big-name Federal agencies). Before I went into the management side of things, and often due to the insane policies of my company, I was involved in more than a huge number of violent incidents. From simple citizen-arrests gone wrong because I wasn’t allowed to carry handcuffs, to being attacked by HIV patients wielding dirty needles, to having knives pulled on me in close quarters, up to the three times I dealt with a subject wielding a gun. I’ve had a massive transvestite smash my head into the wall hard enough to cause my vision to close down to pinpricks. I’ve had gang members follow me home and first try to run me down in their van, and then attack me en-masse when that failed. I could share more for hours.
Before my career in LP I trained Krav Maga, and before that I spent a fair amount of time brawling among the punks and skins of New England. My point is not to relate my frankly embarrassing personal history of violence, but to claim that I do know what adrenaline does to the mind and body – and that I know what it’s like to work among some of the more dangerous people in society. I also spent enough time among law enforcement to see how they operate, listen to their thinking, and form a strong opinion on their use-of-force.
My opinion basically boils down to: You don’t get to choose a dangerous profession within a free society, and then expose yourself to *less* risk than is demanded of the common citizen. Police need to be held to a higher standard with regard to their manner and speed of escalation, as well as their use of non-lethal and lethal force. Faced with weapon carrying criminals, I fought using my hands and environment – and won (well…mostly). Unlike police of course, you can argue that I wasn’t required to make an arrest (except, hey, you don’t arrest 40 a month, you’re on your way to unemployment), but then, are police? If so, by whom? How likely are they be fired for prudence (or even cowardice)? After all, I too know the love of the chase – don’t think for one moment that part of an officer’s motivation is sheer joy.
What I saw is that police operate as a sort of medieval knighthood – with the obnoxious addition of their guild, sorry, unions to protect and elevate them over the common citizens. In a free State, I think it odious to allow this sort of policing – an increasingly militarized group of partially cloistered individuals held to low standards when it comes to the taking of life. I absolutely will NEVER buy into the argument that their first job is to “make it home”. That’s an approach for soldiers in time of war – with a defined enemy. Asking police to wait until a true threat exists is not ridiculous. Too many shootings today are legitimated because the police have found narrative constructs that are considered beyond challenge. “The subject reached for his waistband” (while running away – possibly to hold up his sagging pants?). “The subject refused to comply with orders and moved in an aggressive manner” (while 20 of us screamed conflicting orders at him and he tried to comply with all of them at once, while also filled with adrenaline and confused as hell?)
I don’t hate police, I hate what we’ve done to them (War on Drugs for example), and I hate what we’ve permitted them to become with very little counter action. A lot of the finest men and women I met during my years in LP were law enforcement, and most of them shared my views. They were courageous enough to wait for the gun barrel to start moving toward them; to try and use non-lethal force FIRST when possible. They understood that you cannot shield a free society by holding yourself to a lesser standard – and they remained citizens in their hearts – not samurai, warriors, knights, or occupying soldiers.
If police are so afraid of the mean streets perhaps they are in the wrong line of work. Nor should cops be getting out their aggression on the citizens of the U.S. because they wear a uniform. When we don’t hold those who enforce laws to uphold the law themselves, they have become lawless.
DBQ:
I attempt to stay informed on changes in cultural mores. Pray tell me when did it become merely “politically correct” to avoid gunning down an unarmed suspect?
Watched again a couple more times. The passenger side cop was out of control. Don’t move, opens the door, WTF with the threats and the swearing, the passenger, who was probably loaded, just stood up and bamm.
This is similar to the New York choker, over reacting, not using brains. The overly muscled cop had three other cops with him. There was no need to choke the guy. It was almost as if the cop was looking for a chance to show what he could do.
Here,the cops had the car covered clearly from both sides. The cop on the driver’s side was in a good position to monitor the driver and not be grabbed. The driver didn’t have a chance and knew that. The cop on the passenger side is too close and, if the story is true, went in and grabbed the gun in the glove box. This is not only unnecessary but stupid. If the cop was covering the passenger from a safe distance he could have shot him at any time and continued to monitor either the containment or the exiting of the car of the passenger. The cop set up a dangerous situation and then reacted. Police officers are supposed to be proactive, not reactive. That is the whole point of training and their position.
It seems that cops are reacting, sometimes causing death and getting away with it because it a dangerous world out there.
As well, if the driver and or the passengers were known to the police before the shooting, a sensible police officer would have waited for back up.
This may be, technically, justified, however, the cop that shot the passenger is clearly not trained well enough, composed well enough, or has enough brains to be a cop.
From the language and demeanor of the cop, the adrenaline flow in the situation on both sides was unnecessarily accelerated. If you forget to cross a t or dot an i, or don’t follow instructions fast enough or too fast, it seems that that justifies emptying a gun into someone. Folks, there is something wrong here and it is not only with the cops.
If there is ever an asinine idea, day after day, month after month, year after year, Nick will be on here 24/7 to defend it. Who cares if the guy was a criminal? About as useful and admissible as Mike Brown in a convenience store earlier in the day.
“Mauritanian national Mohamedou Ould Slahi has been held at Guantanamo for 12 years now without trial and despite a dearth of evidence. A diary he kept of his torture is now being published around the world. Sufficient evidence has never turned up, proper charges haven’t been filed and Slahi, now 44, has never been put on trial. He was granted habeas rights in 2010 by U.S. federal court, which said it could find no reason to detain him. But the Obama administration appealed immediately, and he is still locked up.”
It’s all related.
Sure Darren, but then you use less lethal means of force is deadly force is not present – as is clearly the case when you have two empty hands that aren’t reaching anywhere. Quit trying to justify murder, its an ugly color.
The victum may have been a bad guy, but no one has right to be an exicutioner.
And the police are not expected to become target dummies or expose themselves to needless danger by being politically correct either.
Just because a person raises his palms forward does not automatically dismiss any other furtive threats or actions he or she might be prepared to use in attacking others. It is the totality of the circumstances that dictate if any counterforce can be held later to be reasonably applied.
Too many cops shouldn’t be cops. Many are best equiped to store clerks. They like the badge and the uniform and of course the gun.A barrage of bullets really, and the hands up? How many shoots would be necessary if the hands were hidden? The victum may have been a bad guy, b
ut no one has right to be an exicutioner.
You really think a gun in the glove box is a threat?
Sometimes it is.
Did the guy(s) in the car have concealed weapons permits? If not then that is also a crime and makes them threatening. Did they even legally own the weapon? Another crime. Perhaps the police had already done a “wants and warrents” or license plate search and there are other factors in play that we don’t see on the dash cam video.
It seems that, as Darren noted, that the officer(s) knew that the man who was disregarding their orders had previously killed an officer as well as having a history of previous violent crime. This history, plus the blatant disregard of instructions and his forceful exit from the car puts the police in a potentially dangerous position with a KNOWN dangerous man.
If there was one concealed weapon in the car there could be others. Even concealed on the person who was disobeying the order to keep his hand up and STAY PUT.
The distraction by the passenger could also have allowed (if he were armed) the driver to become a danger as well.
The police are in a dangerous situation in many encounters. This one already had danger written all over it.
Should they have gunned down the guy. Maybe not. However, that is a split second decision based on not only many factors that we don’t know anything about, but also on a lifetime of experience dealing with some really really bad people.
Thanks Cliff Claven. err, Paul.
Nick – thanks Coach.
Feyd, A gun in the glove compartment is indeed a threat. Add a known cop shooter, and it is a volatile situation. This did not occur in a vacuum.
Nick, you seem so reasonable most of the time. You really think a gun in the glove box is a threat? Cops better get a better response because the NRA wants a gun in EVERY glove box (and an extra in the trunk) and is getting its way.
The cop haters are waking up. Try Flowers For Socrates, there’s a bunch over there.
I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who will justify virtually any action by cops. The guy could have been handcuffed on the ground, and if a cop shot the guy ALL of those folks would say it was justified and a good shoot. It simply shows such folks to be police state fascists in the worst way.
I really got a laugh out of the idea that the cops knew who the passenger was in the dark and from the rear view. Then we have an idiot who thinks the victim killed a cop. Last time I checked, 13 years in prison is too light for such a crime.
As for calling some folks here cop haters, I guess those who think that will have to include Prof Turley among them, since he clearly has a position that the cops committed a crime. Knowing Prof Turley and what he stands for. it takes a real stretch to call him that. So slander and libel are among the standards that some folks here have. That is why many have left for more rational climes and blogs.
My daughter is a nanny. That doesn’t mean I know squat about being a nanny.