Video of cop shooting unarmed man released

[Eddie]

We have an answer:

toledoblade.com -- The Blade ~ Toledo Ohio

 

[CountryBoy19]

Who drives in that manner, especially with a cop in one's rear view mirror? Motorcyles are more likely to not be seen and hit than other motorized vehicle on the road. Who on a bike doesn't pay extra particular attention to his surroundings, so that an automobile doesn't hit him? On a dark night, who can't see a cop's overhead lights that lights up one's surroundings?

Yes, they were stupid for driving in that manner period... but stupid enough to deserve a bullet in the back? I don't think so... Like I said in that post, they were half-way down the block travelling at a high rate of speed before the cop even lit them up. IMHO, they reacted pretty darn quick.

Did you watch the video? When the cop hits the lights give them a second for it to register what is happening, react, and begin to slow down. Oh, what's that? Brake lights? Oh, they did start slowing down as soon as it registered what was happening didn't they?

When pulled over by a cop, who hides their hands? Who makes sudden movements when a firearm is pointed at your body? Who disobeys a cop's order to show his hands?

His left hand was likely still on the clutch. If he let go with that one he certainly wasn't going to be stopped anymore.
If you get pulled over in your car do you stick your hands out the window so the cop can see them? Or do you just keep them where they are?

First of all, his sudden movements weren't really all that "sudden". He turned to look at the cop. If you were stopped by a cop and you didn't look at him or anything would he be suspicious? Would you consider it normal to look at him?
Second of all, he likely did not hear the commands from the officer and was simply turning to look at the officer to try to understand him better.

I wouldn't say it's disobeying a command if he didn't hear it. Like I said, it is very likely that with a siren right on his tail he couldn't hear squat, so he was turning to get a better understanding of what the officer wanted him to do.

 

[JBusch8899]

"A jury found an Ottawa Hills police officer guilty Friday night of felonious assault with a firearms specification for a shooting during a traffic stop last year."

The verdict is in, the cop bashing may now begin......

 

[JBusch8899]

Yes, they were stupid for driving in that manner period... but stupid enough to deserve a bullet in the back? I don't think so... Like I said in that post, they were half-way down the block travelling at a high rate of speed before the cop even lit them up. IMHO, they reacted pretty darn quick.

Did you watch the video? When the cop hits the lights give them a second for it to register what is happening, react, and begin to slow down. Oh, what's that? Brake lights? Oh, they did start slowing down as soon as it registered what was happening didn't they?


His left hand was likely still on the clutch. If he let go with that one he certainly wasn't going to be stopped anymore.
If you get pulled over in your car do you stick your hands out the window so the cop can see them? Or do you just keep them where they are?

First of all, his sudden movements weren't really all that "sudden". He turned to look at the cop. If you were stopped by a cop and you didn't look at him or anything would he be suspicious? Would you consider it normal to look at him?
Second of all, he likely did not hear the commands from the officer and was simply turning to look at the officer to try to understand him better.

I wouldn't say it's disobeying a command if he didn't hear it. Like I said, it is very likely that with a siren right on his tail he couldn't hear squat, so he was turning to get a better understanding of what the officer wanted him to do.

You're missing the point I was attempting to make.

I was being critical of the individuals who were going to great lengths to be overly presumptuous of this one individual cop's guilt. Viewing a a minute of video tape, without applying the context and other facts that none of us had available to us, was certainly unfair at best.

 

[CountryBoy19]

You're missing the point I was attempting to make.

I was being critical of the individuals who were going to great lengths to be overly presumptuous of this one individual cop's guilt. Viewing a a minute of video tape, without applying the context and other facts that none of us had available to us, was certainly unfair at best.

I can see that... I agree, I typically try to refrain from judging things from a short video clip... but I think this clip differs from most by a large degree because it involves lethal force, and from what was present in the clip did not show justification for it (and clearly the jury thought so as well).

 

[buffalo-springfield40]

Actually, outlaws in the old west did it all the time. That is the reason why bars have mirrors behind them. The history channel is a good thing.

Again, we can speculate all we want by looking through the video all the times we want, one has to consider the totality of the circumstances when determining culpability.

As we hadn't sat at the trial to observe the testimony presented, how can any of us, definitively state that he is a bad cop, clean cop, jerk, hero, coward, etc.? Answer: We can't. At least, not until the verdict arrives.

thumbs up on the history channel my man...love that channel....and your right about having the ability to watch the video over and over agian..and i wish somehow..by watching it so many times i can see why this young man who's only mistake seems to be that he..and not his buddy stopped when he seen the lights..had to get shot that night...maybe his buddy had the right idea....at least he's alive..

 

[Tryin']

No cop bashing here, nothing but good experiences. But I am GLAD to see that verdict!
Not that a cops life and career is toast, but that JUSTICE was served without regard to status.

Prayers to the officer, his family, the victim, and his family.

 

[PatriotPride]

Unbelievable.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Ok, I watched the video more closely again...

My response to your above posted points:
1. Rapidly accelerating is a reason to be shot?

He wasn't shot for rapid acceleration, and for your information the rapid acceleration is called an "Unsafe start" because biker #1 actually broke traction. This is the reason for the pursuit.

2. I don't think so. By the time he hit his lights they were a half a block away and traveling pretty quickly. Driver one lost control while attempting to stop and driver 2 did stop. Fleeing? you're stretching it...

He hit his lights before he even entered the intersection at that time it looks as if they are about 50 to 75 feet past the stop sign on the other side of the street. At the point of him turning on his lights if they make no attempt to pull over it is for all practical purposes fleeing because they made no attempt to pull over promptly and looks to have continued running if it was not for the second officer intervening. Driver one lost control from what looks like he was still trying to evade and had to divert left because of the other officer, thus the reason for jumping the curb. Did you notice that after he somewhat regains some control of this bike that he still is moving and moves at least what looks like another 100+ feet.

Anytime you don't pull over within a reasonable amount of time, which they had, so ya I think that defines fleeing, unless you think that they just wanted to show their superior acceleration for 15+ seconds.

3. After very closely analyzing what happens, you can see that the rider put his hand on his hip/thigh area and turned to look over his right shoulder at the officer. After turning to look back forward he doesn't make a single movement until the officer yells to put his hands up. At that point it appears that the only movement he made was to look at the officer as if he did not understand what the officer said and was only turning to look at him.

IMHO, the officer was trigger happy... and it was a bad shoot.

My speculation: with the sirens (have you ever had sirens blaring right behind you? they're loud, very loud) obscured the directions that the officer was giving to the rider and he was simply turning around to better understand what the officer was saying...

I really do think this officer is guilty... I'm sorry to say it, I always advocate a fair trial and rarely pass judgement until all the facts are known, but in this case it's just so clear. If it wasn't clear I think the prosecutor would have erred on the side if giving him the benefit of the doubt and wouldn't have prosecuted him. They're obviously prosecuting for a reason... because he is clearly guilty and a fair trial is just a "formality" to be fair to him. In the end, we'll just have to wait to see what the jury says.

It all falls on both biker's for ultimately doing their unsafe start stunt, they don't pull away from the patrolman like they did after being followed by him for almost 2 minutes and this never happens.

 

[fwacfred]

Play stupid games and win stupid prizes! To me it looks like he was reaching/drawing for something. It's all in the officer's perspective. He was further to the guys left than the video shows. If you just saw your friend take off from the cops the smart thing to do would be to put your hands in sight.

 

[samot]

He wasn't shot for rapid acceleration, and for your information the rapid acceleration is called an "Unsafe start" because biker #1 actually broke traction. This is the reason for the pursuit.



He hit his lights before he even entered the intersection at that time it looks as if they are about 50 to 75 feet past the stop sign on the other side of the street. At the point of him turning on his lights if they make no attempt to pull over it is for all practical purposes fleeing because they made no attempt to pull over promptly and looks to have continued running if it was not for the second officer intervening. Driver one lost control from what looks like he was still trying to evade and had to divert left because of the other officer, thus the reason for jumping the curb. Did you notice that after he somewhat regains some control of this bike that he still is moving and moves at least what looks like another 100+ feet.

Anytime you don't pull over within a reasonable amount of time, which they had, so ya I think that defines fleeing, unless you think that they just wanted to show their superior acceleration for 15+ seconds.



It all falls on both biker's for ultimately doing their unsafe start stunt, they don't pull away from the patrolman like they did after being followed by him for almost 2 minutes and this never happens.

Unsafe starts, jack rabbit starts, they spead away, they were drivin crazy,its the bikers falt,they didnt pull over in a reasonable time.... bla bla bla bla freakin blaa.
THEY SHOT HIM !!!!
I cant believe you blame it on the kid .....
I hope the copper does time in a REAL prision

 

[buffalo-springfield40]

Play stupid games and win stupid prizes! To me it looks like he was reaching/drawing for something. It's all in the officer's perspective. He was further to the guys left than the video shows. If you just saw your friend take off from the cops the smart thing to do would be to put your hands in sight.

sure can tell no one here rides a motorcycle....if the bike is in gear he would have to move to get it in neutral....he did not move....because he didnt want to get shot....thats why he didnt take his hands off the clutch....i guess the part time cop does'nt know how a motorcycle works either...if he would of took his hands off the clutch..the bike would of taken off....guess it does't matter now..still got shot...

 

[CountryBoy19]

He wasn't shot for rapid acceleration, and for your information the rapid acceleration is called an "Unsafe start" because biker #1 actually broke traction. This is the reason for the pursuit.

Yes, I understand the reason for the pursuit, but your earlier post was insinuating that the reason he was treated the way he was and ultimately shot was because of his rapid acceleration. Biker #1 has nothing to do with Biker #2.

He hit his lights before he even entered the intersection at that time it looks as if they are about 50 to 75 feet past the stop sign on the other side of the street. At the point of him turning on his lights if they make no attempt to pull over it is for all practical purposes fleeing because they made no attempt to pull over promptly and looks to have continued running if it was not for the second officer intervening. Driver one lost control from what looks like he was still trying to evade and had to divert left because of the other officer, thus the reason for jumping the curb. Did you notice that after he somewhat regains some control of this bike that he still is moving and moves at least what looks like another 100+ feet.

Anytime you don't pull over within a reasonable amount of time, which they had, so ya I think that defines fleeing, unless you think that they just wanted to show their superior acceleration for 15+ seconds.

Never rode a bike before have you? In a car you have 3 large mirrors that allow you to easily see behind you. Bikes don't allow such easy visibility. A car has parts of the interior that the lights can reflect off of more easily making them more visible, a motorcycle doesn't. I still feel that they were not fleeing and that it just took them a bit to realize they were being stopped. Answer this one question for me if you really think they were fleeing. Why would they come to a complete stop at the stop-sign (prior to rapidly accelerating) if their intent was to flee?

15+ seconds? at 47 seconds they accelerate, 50 seconds the officer's lights come on, 55 seconds the biker on the left hits his brakes. So figure in AT LEAST 2 seconds for them to realize that the lights were on and react it's really not that indicative of "fleeing".

It all falls on both biker's for ultimately doing their unsafe start stunt, they don't pull away from the patrolman like they did after being followed by him for almost 2 minutes and this never happens.

For all you know they never even knew that he was following them. But just to make this clear, you're saying that the cause and reasoning for him getting shot was because of rapid acceleration? I think that is why we're seeing an officer being convicted of a crime... there was no reason for the shooting...

 

[Prometheus]

13 seconds. 13 seconds from the time the lights come on till the biker stops.

For those of you who have never been on a bike, accelerate quickly like they did (which was BEFORE the lights came on) and see how fast you can stop.

I read the 9 pages in this thread before watching the video (at the hospital and can't see video there). I was really expecting to see some sort of actual movement from the guy. No way that guy on the bike stood a chance to follow directions. #1 sirens would have made it virtually impossible to hear the cop. #2 the spectacle unfolding in front of him, he was probably bewildered, lol.

Cops needs to spend a LONG time in prison for this. 11 years is too short for paralyzing a man for what would have been, what? $100 fine? Maybe $125?

 

[PatriotPride]

Unsafe starts, jack rabbit starts, they spead away, they were drivin crazy,its the bikers falt,they didnt pull over in a reasonable time.... bla bla bla bla freakin blaa.
THEY SHOT HIM !!!!
I cant believe you blame it on the kid .....
I hope the copper does time in a REAL prision

Obviously, the kid had NOTHING to do with the pursuit. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. An unsafe start is not reason to be pulled over! He made every effort to comply with the officer's demands! He clearly and verbally advised the officer why he couldn't put his hands up as opposed to putting his right hand on his hip! When I put my hand on my right hip, why should you think I may be drawing a firearm? After all, noone carries a firearm on their right hip.

Do you actually believe any of the stuff you just wrote? You said it yourself: "unsafe start". The kid was an idiot, and worse than that, a DANGEROUS idiot. He chose to act like a fool and is now reaping the consequences of his actions. Irritation. You have induced it.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Obviously, the kid had NOTHING to do with the pursuit. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. An unsafe start is not reason to be pulled over! He made every effort to comply with the officer's demands! He clearly and verbally advised the officer why he couldn't put his hands up as opposed to putting his right hand on his hip! When I put my hand on my right hip, why should you think I may be drawing a firearm? After all, noone carries a firearm on their right hip.

Do you actually believe any of the stuff you just wrote? You said it yourself: "unsafe start". The kid was an idiot, and worse than that, a DANGEROUS idiot. He chose to act like a fool and is now reaping the consequences of his actions. Irritation. You have induced it.

So when people do stupid things we can just go around shooting them right?

I'll keep that in mind...

 

[JBusch8899]

sure can tell no one here rides a motorcycle....

Ahem............20+ years.

Personally, if it were me being stopped, I would have hit my engine kill the very second I stopped......Bike in gear or not.

 

[RA8]

If the guy was on a scooter, then I could see a little more caution. We all know that no upstanding citizen rides a scooter.

I'd say the cop is toast.

WHAT?!?!? This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read! Do you know how many college students ride scooters, and adults with money problems? Not all scooter riders are scum bags, or DUI offenders. wow. Just please tell me you are joking.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I ride a scooter in the summer time. Beats the amount of gas that my F-250 drinks.

 

[jsharmon7]

I hate to second guess here because I don't know what the officer knew, but to me it looked like the kid's hand naturally moved back with his shoulder as he was turning to look at the officer rather than an intentional movement toward his waist. Both actions look similar but I would hope an officer would have a little more restraint than what this one showed. Someone above stated that maybe the officer accidentally squeezed off a round and came up with the "reaching for a gun" story to cover himself; that I would agree with if I were to ass-u-me.