SC Trooper Shoots man for alleged seatbelt violation

[Disposable Heart]

What's kinda revving up about this video is that the officer LEAVES potential cover of his car to get a better angle on the "aggressor", almost like Officer Sprayemdown (it's a family name...) was aping to get his first CONUS kill and be the "hero"...

 

[jedi]

If you guys call that diving into a car, I'm at a loss.

Of the 1 jury I sat on, the officer's testimony was a clear embellishment of what the video shows. I'm of the mind that if I'm every on a jury again and there's no video evidence to back up the officer's testimony, I will automatically dismiss it.

Even Destro of all people couldn't justify this shoot.

I am not defending/justifying the LEO. Heck I'm one of the few who will post that "All JBTs are LEOs and the marjority of LEOs are JBTs" group.
However the driver knowing he is black should know that you do NOT make any sudden movements when the LEO is on you.
You want to survive unharmed. You let the JBT do whatever to your "rights" at the time and pray/hope that the system can halp you later (it won't the majority of the time and thus why my AVOID the police at all cost [not just in law/ordiance violation (ie. do not speed, wear your seat belt ) but in general (ie. the police is not your friend period, do not help them))

In this case that sudden movement back into the car and out again almost cost this driver his life. He did the right thing by rasing his arms.
I don't agree that you should have to "freeze like that" when the police are near you. But I have learned you avoid all movement/words so as to not give them any excuse to harm you.

 

[T.Lex]

However the driver knowing he is black should know that you do NOT make any sudden movements when the LEO is on you.

I'm sorry, I missed that part of the driving manual.

I only read the part about doing what officer tell me to do.

Dude tells me to get my license and registration, either or both of them are in the car, then I'm turning around and getting them out of the car.

Oh, but I'm not black. Mostly.

 

[jedi]

I'm sorry, I missed that part of the driving manual.

I only read the part about doing what officer tell me to do.

Dude tells me to get my license and registration, either or both of them are in the car, then I'm turning around and getting them out of the car.

Oh, but I'm not black. Mostly.

Look I'm not here to start debate the black/brown vs leo interaction aspect of this (ie. the white elephant in the room and one that boards on us getting time outs by INGO).
I have expereineced it, I have seen it growning up and even here on INGO we read about it.
Right or wrong it does not matter to me. You want to SURVIVE you follow the "rules of the street" not whatever some book/manual/law says otherwise you end up hurt and/or dead. That is life in America sad to say.

At least in this case it's one less JBT in the street (hopefully).

 

[KittySlayer]

I DO know that when dealing with any LEO the last thing I would do is unbidden start running around and or diving into a vehicle. When he was asked for his license he should have said, "officer, my license is in the vehicle" and waited for instructions to get it.

Sorry, that one is on the officer too. "Where is your license?" would be the proper question. Pocket, console of car, wherever else, the young man is going to follow the officers order to get his license is going make this nervous Barney Fife fear for his life. The guy did not appear to me to dive into the car, the fast motion I saw was when the officer ordered him to get out of the car and he was complying as fast as he could.

Though if he's going in for a pack of smokes why isn't his license in his wallet on his person?

Sounding a bit too much like blame the victim. My cash is in a money clip, where is yours? Some people don't keep their wallet in their pocket when driving because it's too fat. Maybe he just had his license out to vote and had not put it away yet. Doesn't really matter, it was not the kids fault.

 

[Thor]

Dude tells me to get my license and registration, either or both of them are in the car, then I'm turning around and getting them out of the car.

I'd still tell him where it was and why I was going there. Got stopped once and my license was in my suit coat pocket. I told the officer it was in my coat pocket and that is why I was reaching inside my jacket...and I did it slow; no sense dealing with other folks decisions cycles like that. Doesn't matter what color you are.

A lot of my LEO interaction has been with MPs because of work locations...those guys are pretty much on the shoot first checklist, best to be sure you don't give them a reason to go there. Just easier to keep breathing that way.

Not arguing at all about the 'rightness' or 'fairness' of it, just the getting to the end of the day without getting shot part.

 

[Sgt.Striker]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I understand why the LEO shot. I don't agree with it, but I don't think he should be punished for following SOP. And it IS SOP to consider every movement and quick action by those who are stopped as threatening. We see it time and again in our discussions here. How unarmed people are gunned down because of a perceived "threatening movement." The boy with the toy AK. The guy on his front porch with a hose sprayer. The homeless man in Seattle with a knife. The dude in Arizona (I think) state lands "trespassing." As long as LE is consistently given that freedom to excuse most shootings as "self defense" and as long as they are not trained to engage their brains a little more, this is exactly what we can expect. This is exactly the LE response we have justified.

I agree with this idea, I think as a society we have allowed our law enforcement too many ways to justify illegal use of force/authority and get away with it, although cameras are a good way to curb this behavior(and even with video most of the time abuse of force/power will still be justified"
a few examples: A-police officer wants to search your car but doesn't have pc so he states "I smell marijuana" then tosses car and finds nothing, officer never has to prove he smelled anything, all he has to do is say he did. Easy way for LEO to violate your rights
B-police officer is arresting someone and maybe gets upset when the perp uses some colorful language or insults the officer, all he has to do is scream out "Stop Resisting!" and he and his buddies can easily beat on the person as long as they like and just keep shouting out for the guy in handcuffs on the ground to stop resisting and this will be justified every time. police don't have to prove he was resisting, all he has to do is say he was. (im sure we've all seen those episodes of cops where 8 burly officers all jump on a guy and keep screaming" Stop Resisting!" even though the guy is handcuffed and on the ground and clearly couldn't resist anything)
C- nervous/trigger happy/poorly trained officer pulls some one over and shoots them when they twitch/make a movement/sneeze at the wrong time, all he has to do is say subject made aggressive movements and posed a threat. all is forgiven and officer is put on paid vacation until the local/national media stops covering the case. officer doesn't have to prove there was an actual threat, all he has to do is say there was.(but cameras are making this harder to do)

Until we find a way to put some real accountability on these actions these instances will continue to occur. I really would like to think of LEOs as my
friends, and I do know some really great ones and am even related to one. but the officers who take the easy way out and play the system to justify their illegal actions will continue to make the news and ruin the reputation of the majority who really do try to maintain integrity and professionalism. Im not saying I have the answers, but I do think some changes to SOP are needed

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And now members of the INGO jury we hear the Defense Opening Statement: A (sort of) defense of South Carolina state trooper Sean Groubert - The Washington Post

 

[SteveM4A1]

And now members of the INGO jury we hear the Defense Opening Statement: A (sort of) defense of South Carolina state trooper Sean Groubert - The Washington Post

Rather good article. I am surprised.

 

[Expatriated]

I took away a couple of things from the video:

1.) I know of at least one department where cops are trained for the first thing out of their mouths to NOT be "Lemme see your license". For this exact reason. A guy reaching for a license and a guy reaching for a gun look pretty darn identical. You don't want to put yourself and the driver in that spot. I'm sure the trooper is going to argue that he thought the guy was reaching for a weapon but at no time did the trooper explain what he wanted the driver to do or not do. You can't articulate that you thought he was getting a gun when you just asked him to get you something. He appears to be complying is what the defense is going to argue. And what the jurors are undoubtedly going to believe as well.

When you stop a car and you ask the driver where his license is, does he have any guns in the car, etc. And then the driver goes for some place other than where he said he has his license, and you've got a bit more cause for concern. Add to that demeanor, attitude, etc. And maybe you can articulate that you were in fear for your life. But, asking a guy to get you something and then shooting him when he looks like he's getting you something won't fly. And it's why they fired him and are prosecuting him.

If the officer said, "Do you have any weapons?" And the driver took the stance of "I don't have to tell you s$&%" and went back into the car, the officer would be in a much better spot, legally speaking. He'll argue the guy was hostile, uncooperative, etc. He doesn't have that standing right now.


You also have the issue of the officer identifying/not-identifying what was in his hands, etc. But that's less of an issue initially since anyone here can pull a gun out and shoot before anyone else here can recognize what's in the hand.

On the flip side, part of survival is knowing what the best response is in any situation. The driver would have NOT gotten shot if he had said, "Officer, my license is in my car. Do you want me to get it?" Understand I'm not in any way saying that it was his fault, I'm saying that, although it was the officer's bad in this situation, the driver still could have came out unscathed if he knew how to act around a hyped-up cop. It wasn't the driver's responsibility to know how to calm a cop down but it certainly would've come in handy in that situation.

I was involved in a felony stop one time by IMPD. The first officer was hyped up. I mean really hyped up. Excessively so, even given the nature of the circumstances. When he had his weapon drawn on me, I realized that my number one goal in life right then was to calm him down. Whatever that took. In my situation, it was complete compliance with slow movements, etc. It was not the time to express my rights, argue the 2nd ammendment, rant about jack booted thugs, my attorney, etc, etc, etc. Even though I was 100% in the right.

So, we can learn from this driver's reaction and don't do the same thing.

2.) Just because you shot someone doesn't mean the fight's over. This dude didn't even KNOW he was shot. Even when asked initially. If you have to defend yourself in a deadly situation (obviously not this cop--i'm talking you guys), make sure you shoot enough and make SURE YOU'RE GETTING TO SOME COVER. If this was a legit shootout, that cop did everything wrong and would have been lucky if he survived.

 

[Fargo]

Look I'm not here to start debate the black/brown vs leo interaction aspect of this (ie. the white elephant in the room and one that boards on us getting time outs by INGO).
I have expereineced it, I have seen it growning up and even here on INGO we read about it.
Right or wrong it does not matter to me. You want to SURVIVE you follow the "rules of the street" not whatever some book/manual/law says otherwise you end up hurt and/or dead. That is life in America sad to say.

At least in this case it's one less JBT in the street (hopefully).

This right here is why the DOJ is going to be up a lot of local LEO's butts if this crap continues. Hell, they are probably on there way already.

 

[jedi]

This right here is why the DOJ is going to be up a lot of local LEO's butts if this crap continues. Hell, they are probably on there way already.

Meh... Have less faith in the .fed on this.

 

[forgop]

This right here is why the DOJ is going to be up a lot of local LEO's butts if this crap continues. Hell, they are probably on there way already.

The federal government is going to do nothing.but give them a pat on the back for growing the police state. There is a goal in sight of all of this.

 

[EOD Guy]

Wow...that was bad. I understand its a dangerous job but if a LEO shoots someone BEFORE they see a confirmed threat, they shouldn't be a LEO. If they shoot just because someone "moves fast" then maybe they're to paranoid or chicken to do the job.

 

[jedi]

Wow...that was bad. I understand its a dangerous job but if a LEO shoots someone BEFORE they see a confirmed threat, they shouldn't be a LEO. If they shoot just because someone "moves fast" then maybe they're to paranoid or chicken to do the job.

Or add the article states their training and pep talks have conditioned them to act this way.
After all this is not a one time event to just this person.
Multiple people in multiple states have acted like this or other "jumpy trigger happy" ways

 

[Draco]

You know, I remember Driver’s Ed, it was one of those Defensive Driving ones; my teacher was an ex-cop. I remember doing drills on how to handle a pull over and, by chance, I got to be the first example.

The cop said stand up, so I stood up. Now, for whatever reason, I decided to put my hands in my pocket. Not quick, not sudden, but I felt a bit odd standing there and I figured putting my hands in my pockets might be a move in the right direction.

Teacher/Cop says, “Bang! Okay, I just shot you. You’re dead. Sit down. Never put your hands in your pockets or reach for anything.”

And we all got a bit of a laugh out of it because, you know, it seemed to us to be a dry joke. I mean, who gets shot for putting their hands in their pockets? It seemed just a step removed from getting dead because you put the salad fork to the wrong side of the dinner fork in Home Ed; it was absurd.

Funny how you perceive things in youth, you know?

As for the cop, I see why he shot; I’m not surprised at anything, but a slight bit to the public reaction.

Society says they want more police, so we get more police. We get them and we train them to perceive threats. See a shadow? That’s a threat. See that shifty looking guy? He’s going to kill you! Don’t see anything wrong? That’s how you know you’re really in trouble!

Not ever tingle in the gut warrants a draw of the weapon. If your training is all about perceiving threats, all you’re going to see are threats; potential or realized, imaginary or real, everything becomes a risk to your very life. This fosters an “Us against Them” mentality where “Them” is society in general and some minorities in particular.

Oh, we can justify things after the fact. The person moved too fast; the guy wasn’t instantly compliant with a command; they did not put their hands up correctly or swiftly enough, they did not put their hands behind their back in a satisfactory fashion, or they reacted to getting thrown on the ground, hit with a stick, or a gun pointed at them. Anything the civilian does is a threat and everything the cop does is justified.

So we can either train police properly – and admit to all that there is a risk in that profession, that initially deferring escalation may cause an officer to get shot, it may even cost the officer his life; or, we can train society to be cowering, compliant people who move at exactly the right speed so as to not get shot. Of course, we can continue to do what we do now: tell all officers they are instantly heroes, that their word and life is of greater value that average, and that all they do in order to survive is A-Ok all while continuing to have a society that isn’t quite sure what precisely is necessary to not get dead when dealing with police.

I bet you every dollar I have that officer had a real fear for his life in that moment; but that is exactly the problem: when perception is reason enough to end someone’s life, we should spend a great deal of time and effort in learning how to perceive reality accurately rather than to instantly expect every movement to be the opening of a threat or attack. Expectations have a profound effect on perception.

If you suspect a person is going for a weapon, you should not simply open fire without hesitation.

Here’s the thing, though: police fatalities are rather uncommon. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund there was a total of 76 police fatalities in the line of duty in 2013. Of that 76, only 23 were firearm related; in fact, police were 40% more likely to die in traffic-related incident than from getting shot. Now, consider for a moment that this is a nation of about 315 Million that carries out about 45,000 SWAT raids per year (ACLU, 2014). It is also believed there are over a million traffic stops throughout the United States each year, though I cannot find a conclusive number at this time. Even if all firearm-related police fatalities resulted from traffic stops that would mean there is a 0.000023% chance of being killed each year during a traffic stop by a firearm. Even though I cannot find statistics for this, I’m betting that the average convenience store clerk working third shift has a higher likelihood of being shot and killed while on his or her shift than a police officer; and yet I do not believe we would be keen on allowing the Village Pantry folk to go opening fire preemptively on any customer who walks in the door that looks twitchy, moves too swiftly, or that otherwise looks shady or suspicious.

Maybe we need to have a more honest and accurate conversation on risk and proper procedure; and maybe we would do well to return to a police force that is more focused on being useful to society rather than devoting a great sum of man-hours and funding going after victimless crimes and behavior that poses little to no risk to society such as seat belt violations; recreational or medicinal marijuana usage; and things of that like.


(Side note: Honestly, I’m pretty firmly in the Liberal/Progressive camp, but I have never understood this seat belt issue. I reserve my right to die, and if I should exercise that in a haphazard way by not buckling my seat belt, well, what is the harm to society? I suppose I could become a lethal projectile, a most curious cannonball of sorts that could strike some passerby and cause harm or death. I feel as though the odds are rather remote; nevertheless, I promise that in such an event, I shall endeavor with all my will and might to direct my flight away from my fellow folk. As for the cost, well, I pay my taxes and registration fees; and even if the state must deal with a bit of my splattered self on the road that they’d come out ahead in the long run; but I digress.)

 

[forgop]

Seat belt law was pushed through on behalf of insurers and hospitals due to possibility of increased costs due to worsened injuries in an MVA. Has nothing to do with your best interest. As always, follow the money and Congress will be sure to act.

 

[jedi]

Well said draco. Well said.

 

[Bluejeeper]

Well said draco. Well said.

 

[Steeler]

+2!!