Cop shoots elderly man?

[JSThane]

Officers are supposed to be trained to assess risk, and it may very well be the training vids that JTS was referring too are part of the problem

Sort of. I know that one I mentioned has been played over and over for me in annual "refresher training." I wish they'd also play more often the one of the gang member patiently and politely waiting in his car for the officer to walk up, then blasting at the officer's head, preferably immediately before or after the other vid, followed by a reminder that "you never know -what- the person is going to do, so always be on your toes." Getting a preconceived notion in our heads that -this- is how a violent person will act, and -that- is how a non-violent person acts is probably one of the biggest things that gets cops killed, aside from no-seatbelt traffic accidents.

Head on a swivel, actually -look- inside the car, use the driver's mirrors to see what he's doing, stand behind the door pillar if he's in the car, and make sure you have a handle on what's going on if he's out of his car. As for drivers, some cops still like you to get out of the vehicle (I see it all the time here), while some prefer you to wait there for them. Roll the window down, put the car in park, turn the dome light on (if it's nighttime), and wait to hear what he wants you to do. If he's cool with standing around outside, no problem. If he's jumpy or wants you to stay in the car, just keep your hands visible and let him know when/where you're going to be reaching (for license, insurance, etc., assuming you didn't already have them out before he walks up or calls you over.

I do have to wonder why the officer was so quick to exit his own vehicle.

I would put this down to either complacency, or excitement. A rule that should be pounded into cops' heads (by other cops) is that there isn't a rush; you can take 30 seconds to look the car over, call your dispatch, do a registration check, watch the driver for a little, and then when you have an idea what the driver's doing, you can get out to go talk to him or her. When the cop pulls you over, and you're waiting for a minute with that bright light in your mirror? That's what the cop's doing. Watching to see if you're going to do something. Neither cop nor driver should be in a rush.

Simple situational awareness can prevent or forestall a lot of shootings, from both sides. Unfortunately, not everyone has this, even law enforcement. I'm sure the other LEOs on this forum, current and prior, can tell stories on THAT. I'll keep mine to myself for a while, or at least until the guilty parties retire.

[mojo84]

Maybe they'll use this video for training as well.

[LabRat]

After watching the video the chief believes the officer "did the right thing"?
So if I get out of my car with my cane the officer would be doing the right thing if he shot me? I am too angry for words right now. I will comment later.

Justifying Injustice.

Some LEO's develop the mentality that all Citizens are bad until proven good. Some Citizens develop the mentality that the State is out of control and that all LEO's are bad. This creates a "red herring" for a Society that used to be extremely free to go about its business without any worries about being shot by the State. How can the State "legalize" the "illegal" action of shooting innocent Americans, that is by nature going to happen, when one is trained that all Citizens should be viewed as threats?

The second officer on the scene has the State's answer. "You did what you had to do bro, don't worry about it". The State justifying the illegal action of violently attacking an American Citizen for something that really wasn't there and didn't really happen. The shooting LEO involved here may never forget this one and the second LEO on the scene may never care. This one thinks he's "justified" and it's no big deal... I bet the Chief wouldn't agree if he was the Citizen getting attacked.

Having actually been a shooter in a OIS; worked many others and responded to many more as a peer counselor for leos I have a little bit of experience in this area. I wouldn't take what he said to mean anything more then he said. It is hard to talk to somebody that has just had to use deadly force and even harder knowing no weapon was involved. There are rules about what you can and cannot say and it's awkward. The LEO isn't going to say dude you just screwed up. They will do the normal lengthy investigation and you really don't want to send the shooter into a heart attack since you really do want to interview him and find out his state of mind. We talk about that in all the shootings on here both leo and chl. State of mind is a big thing.

In watching the video you can see why he thought he was in fear for his life, but w/o being in HIS shoes, having HIS training and experience, in that moment one cannot say what they would or would not do. One may think they can but I disagree. I too have seen those videos and I have had people do some really stupid stuff during traffic stops to include pulling guns, bats, knives ect on me so one never knows what will happen during a simple stop. Older people also pull weapons on cops just like the younger ones so age cannot be ruled in or out. Unfortunately this person failed to comply, kept getting out of his car and then reached for the long object that turned out to be a cane. in hind site, he probably couldn't hear the officer, but the officer didn't know what he was doing and when he saw the long object pointed the officer thought it was a shot gun. In a police article the leo was already past his car door and had no cover when this occurred. He was moving and shooting which probably and thankfully resulted in missing the target.

I'm going to disagree with you on this one and offer reasons why the 2nd officer said what he did and why.

The 2nd officer had just arrived, per the video, and had not seen what had transpired. He automatically assumed the 1st officer was involved in a "good shoot"; no evidence was examined and no other assessment was made other than "you did what you had to do."

This is the beginning step in the "blue wall" that closes around officers involved in incidents. Even if an officer did something entirely illegal, fellow officers close around him/her in a protective effort. They know if they don't, the wall won't close around them if the situation were reversed. (Example: Daniel Harless of Ohio - officers donated sick and vacation time to him to keep him paid even when the video showed him to be out of control and in a rage.)

The Police Chief says the officer appears to have done the right thing. Another protection move? And the Chief only saw the video; yet he was comfortable making that assessment?

Last point; and you see and hear it often, even on cheesy shows like COPS. At the end of many segments or episodes you'll hear - "hey, it was good tonight; we're going home safe." That's really the bottom line.
If an officer makes it home safe, he's beaten over half the odds that anything bad will further happen to him. Yeah, there are cops that get charged and convicted. But the rate is far less than the average citizen.

If he EVER gets charged, the charge is far less than what the average citizen would get and he's more likely to not even be charged at all. To be convicted - far less of that chance. So if the cop is alive, regardless of the circumstances, he's unlikely to face any further threats to his freedom. And be more than likely is to stay on the job.

Officers who do their job well are special kinds of people. Cops are trained and expected to make split second decisions correctly - that's part of the job. If the decision is wrong, they should be punished just like an average citizen for a mistake.
Having a proper skill set if essential for any job - from police officer to short order cook at Waffle House.
If one is not comfortable with that pressure or lacks the proper skill set, maybe they should be doing something else?

Police Departments need full transparency of actions and accountability for actions to be effective partners with the public.
If not, then it dissolves into an Us-versus-them mentality; and we are already headed down that path.

[VoiceofReason]

This is the beginning step in the "blue wall" that closes around officers involved in incidents. Even if an officer did something entirely illegal, fellow officers close around him/her in a protective effort. They know if they don't, the wall won't close around them if the situation were reversed. (Example: Daniel Harless of Ohio - officers donated sick and vacation time to him to keep him paid even when the video showed him to be out of control and in a rage.)

The problem lies in the other officers protecting an incompetent or bad officer too much. Harless made the entire Canton PD and the Chief look bad. It’s at the point where an officer has to kill an innocent person before he/she is removed from the job.

If it were up to me, the chief would have been packing his stuff along with Harless.

[CowboyEngineer]

[/quote]
The problem lies in the other officers protecting an incompetent or bad officer too much. Harless made the entire Canton PD and the Chief look bad. It’s at the point where an officer has to kill an innocent person before he/she is removed from the job.

If it were up to me, the chief would have been packing his stuff along with Harless.[/quote]

Couldn't agree more. The LEO shot an innocent, unarmed, old man. He should be held accountable. Being scared wouldn't be an acceptable defense for a chl holder. It shouldn't be an acceptable excuse for a trained professional. The chief's comments show him to be more interested in keeping his a covered than in providing justice to the victim.

[NavyVet1959]

I watch the video and it looks like a gun being pointed. Just for a second the end went by and you could just see a circle that looks like a muzzle. It's a shame and I wouldn't be surprised if the officer has more issues log term than the victim but I'm not sure it's anything but life. I mean it makes sense the cop thought it was a gun and being pointed at him. He was in fear of his life and reasonable so. By that basis it's a reasonable shooting. If there was a procedural complaint or mistake in the officers actions I haven't heard much about it.

One thing that we have to consider though is that the video quality is not as good as a person would have seen with just his eyes.

Maybe because I need a cane sometimes and knew many farmers and ranchers that had canes in either the back of their trucks or behind the seat of their trucks, I recognized it as a cane. Maybe they need to give the officers a refresher course on what a cane looks like vs what a shotgun looks like. If this had happened to me, I would demand as part of the settlement that every police car in that department be permanent equipped with a placard showing a list of shotguns and canes from now on. Basically rub their noses in it.

[gringo pistolero]

If this had happened to me, I would demand as part of the settlement that every police car in that department be permanent equipped with a placard showing a list of shotguns and canes from now on. Basically rub their noses in it.

What settlement?

[rotor]

The only level of competency that one can show with this officer was that he was incompetent with a firearm. Had he been competent the old Viet Nam vet would be dead. As an honest law abiding citizen I don't expect to get shot for an expired tag. I also did not know until I got my CHL that the proper response to a stop would be to have hands on the wheel and the overhead light on. My last stop was 55 years ago. I probably am the same age as the "old man" in the video. This cop is going to have a hard time ever returning to work. He may never be able to use his firearm if he ever needs to really use it.

[NavyVet1959]

What settlement?

You don't think that something like this isn't going to draw lawyers to the old guy like flies? The department is going to want this to go away as soon as possible and I suspect that they would be smart to be generous now before it goes to a jury. The only reason that the old guy is still alive is that the cop was such a bad shot. I counted at least 5 shots fired. I think he was only hit once though.

[VMI77]

After watching the video the chief believes the officer "did the right thing"?
So if I get out of my car with my cane the officer would be doing the right thing if he shot me? I am too angry for words right now. I will comment later.

Justifying Injustice.

Some LEO's develop the mentality that all Citizens are bad until proven good. Some Citizens develop the mentality that the State is out of control and that all LEO's are bad. This creates a "red herring" for a Society that used to be extremely free to go about its business without any worries about being shot by the State. How can the State "legalize" the "illegal" action of shooting innocent Americans, that is by nature going to happen, when one is trained that all Citizens should be viewed as threats?

The second officer on the scene has the State's answer. "You did what you had to do bro, don't worry about it". The State justifying the illegal action of violently attacking an American Citizen for something that really wasn't there and didn't really happen. The shooting LEO involved here may never forget this one and the second LEO on the scene may never care. This one thinks he's "justified" and it's no big deal... I bet the Chief wouldn't agree if he was the Citizen getting attacked.

Having actually been a shooter in a OIS; worked many others and responded to many more as a peer counselor for leos I have a little bit of experience in this area. I wouldn't take what he said to mean anything more then he said. It is hard to talk to somebody that has just had to use deadly force and even harder knowing no weapon was involved. There are rules about what you can and cannot say and it's awkward. The LEO isn't going to say dude you just screwed up. They will do the normal lengthy investigation and you really don't want to send the shooter into a heart attack since you really do want to interview him and find out his state of mind. We talk about that in all the shootings on here both leo and chl. State of mind is a big thing.

In watching the video you can see why he thought he was in fear for his life, but w/o being in HIS shoes, having HIS training and experience, in that moment one cannot say what they would or would not do. One may think they can but I disagree. I too have seen those videos and I have had people do some really stupid stuff during traffic stops to include pulling guns, bats, knives ect on me so one never knows what will happen during a simple stop. Older people also pull weapons on cops just like the younger ones so age cannot be ruled in or out. Unfortunately this person failed to comply, kept getting out of his car and then reached for the long object that turned out to be a cane. in hind site, he probably couldn't hear the officer, but the officer didn't know what he was doing and when he saw the long object pointed the officer thought it was a shot gun. In a police article the leo was already past his car door and had no cover when this occurred. He was moving and shooting which probably and thankfully resulted in missing the target.

Obvious? He thought it was a shotgun? Come on, how many people can pull a shotgun out so easily, aim it, and shoot it with one hand? ...much less a frail old man. Even a pistol grip shotgun would be hard to extract and point like that. The ease with which the old man retrieves and maneuvers the cane belies the possibility that it is heavy like a shotgun would be. This smacks of poor training and fear....which I suppose are pretty much one and the same.

[EEllis]

I watch the video and it looks like a gun being pointed. Just for a second the end went by and you could just see a circle that looks like a muzzle. It's a shame and I wouldn't be surprised if the officer has more issues log term than the victim but I'm not sure it's anything but life. I mean it makes sense the cop thought it was a gun and being pointed at him. He was in fear of his life and reasonable so. By that basis it's a reasonable shooting. If there was a procedural complaint or mistake in the officers actions I haven't heard much about it.

One thing that we have to consider though is that the video quality is not as good as a person would have seen with just his eyes.

Maybe because I need a cane sometimes and knew many farmers and ranchers that had canes in either the back of their trucks or behind the seat of their trucks, I recognized it as a cane. Maybe they need to give the officers a refresher course on what a cane looks like vs what a shotgun looks like. If this had happened to me, I would demand as part of the settlement that every police car in that department be permanent equipped with a placard showing a list of shotguns and canes from now on. Basically rub their noses in it.

While I don't disagree what we do have is the video so it's a bit much to ignore what we see for what we think maybe the officer might of been able to see if we are right. I think the cop made several missteps before the shooting, placing himself in that position and not taking a more controlling verbal stance before the event, I still watched the video and had a split second awareness of a muzzle sweep. Now that was wrong but I don't think , considering the officers position which wasn't good tactically, that the officer acted unreasonable. If the officer had made different decisions before the event I think things may have worked out differently and certainly from a training viewpoint there are hopefully things that can be done to minimize future incidents like this.

[LabRat]

The only level of competency that one can show with this officer was that he was incompetent with a firearm. Had he been competent the old Viet Nam vet would be dead. As an honest law abiding citizen I don't expect to get shot for an expired tag. I also did not know until I got my CHL that the proper response to a stop would be to have hands on the wheel and the overhead light on. My last stop was 55 years ago. I probably am the same age as the "old man" in the video. This cop is going to have a hard time ever returning to work. He may never be able to use his firearm if he ever needs to really use it.

I’m going to disagree with you on this matter; there are several areas where the officer showed his lack of skill or training and the subsequent inability to perform various functions. To be competent means to have the ability or skills : able to do something well or well enough to meet a standard.

• If reports of the officer’s position at the time of the shooting are correct, then he demonstrated the inability to properly position himself during the initial phase of the encounter. A police vehicle can be the only cover (other than the driver’s vehicle) when stopped on a roadway.

• The officer demonstrated the lack of ability to articulate an actionable command to the motorist. A command that would have brought the driver into compliance with the officer’s wishes – you can’t just yell “Sir!, Sir!”. There’s nothing to “do” when you hear it, other than to turn towards the origin of the sound.

• The officer failed to quickly and accurately identify the cane when it was picked up by the old man. Police vehicles have take-down lights and movable lights on the doors that can be aimed by the officer prior to exiting the safety of his vehicle. So, lack of illumination or poor vision does not appear to be a credible defense.

• The officer also failed to properly assess the driver as an old, slow moving, male with limited mobility. Had he seen that, coupled with the advantage of being near the cover of his vehicle, he might not have pulled the trigger on his service weapon so quickly.

• The officer is a poor marksman – on this we agree. He seems to spray bullets everywhere, except into his intended target. I think we can agree that he intended to shoot the victim at least once, but he kept missing, so he kept shooting.

• He failed to take command and control of the situation once he stopped pulling the trigger. He melted into a sobbing bowl of Jello on the side of the roadway; possibly as he calculated his errors and the impact. The old man has more wits about him at that point and he is the victim. This says a lot about the constitution of the old man and about the lack of same in the officer.

• The initial condition that precipitated the stop has already been brought out. Why would an officer be interested in an out of date expiration sticker on a car from out of state? Not really his issue to enforce. It appears (to me) to be a case of “anything I can use to see what’s in the vehicle” type of stop – i.e., a contrived or questionable condition used to detain the driver/vehicle and gain access to both. An unnecessarily aggressive decision, in hindsight.

This officer may have made an error early on during the stop that put him out of position, away from the safety of his patrol vehicle. Once that happened, he may have panicked as events unfolded that he had not anticipated and his poor judgment was born out by his following actions.

There appear to be plenty of areas this officer needs training to establish competency. Re-training by definition is not an option as the initial training was apparently not sufficient for him to retain the necessary information. Repeating the same training would seem to be a waste of time. Yes, there’s a lot to remember to be an effective, yet lawful police officer, but that’s the job. And you need to be exceptionally competent to perform such a job or people die (or are severely injured) needlessly.

[mojo84]

I think this situation is the result of an officer "expecting" something bad to happen rather than being aware and prepared in case something bad happened.

[rotor]

The only level of competency that one can show with this officer was that he was incompetent with a firearm. Had he been competent the old Viet Nam vet would be dead. As an honest law abiding citizen I don't expect to get shot for an expired tag. I also did not know until I got my CHL that the proper response to a stop would be to have hands on the wheel and the overhead light on. My last stop was 55 years ago. I probably am the same age as the "old man" in the video. This cop is going to have a hard time ever returning to work. He may never be able to use his firearm if he ever needs to really use it.

I’m going to disagree with you on this matter; there are several areas where the officer showed his lack of skill or training and the subsequent inability to perform various functions. To be competent means to have the ability or skills : able to do something well or well enough to meet a standard.

• If reports of the officer’s position at the time of the shooting are correct, then he demonstrated the inability to properly position himself during the initial phase of the encounter. A police vehicle can be the only cover (other than the driver’s vehicle) when stopped on a roadway.

• The officer demonstrated the lack of ability to articulate an actionable command to the motorist. A command that would have brought the driver into compliance with the officer’s wishes – you can’t just yell “Sir!, Sir!”. There’s nothing to “do” when you hear it, other than to turn towards the origin of the sound.

• The officer failed to quickly and accurately identify the cane when it was picked up by the old man. Police vehicles have take-down lights and movable lights on the doors that can be aimed by the officer prior to exiting the safety of his vehicle. So, lack of illumination or poor vision does not appear to be a credible defense.

• The officer also failed to properly assess the driver as an old, slow moving, male with limited mobility. Had he seen that, coupled with the advantage of being near the cover of his vehicle, he might not have pulled the trigger on his service weapon so quickly.

• The officer is a poor marksman – on this we agree. He seems to spray bullets everywhere, except into his intended target. I think we can agree that he intended to shoot the victim at least once, but he kept missing, so he kept shooting.

• He failed to take command and control of the situation once he stopped pulling the trigger. He melted into a sobbing bowl of Jello on the side of the roadway; possibly as he calculated his errors and the impact. The old man has more wits about him at that point and he is the victim. This says a lot about the constitution of the old man and about the lack of same in the officer.

• The initial condition that precipitated the stop has already been brought out. Why would an officer be interested in an out of date expiration sticker on a car from out of state? Not really his issue to enforce. It appears (to me) to be a case of “anything I can use to see what’s in the vehicle” type of stop – i.e., a contrived or questionable condition used to detain the driver/vehicle and gain access to both. An unnecessarily aggressive decision, in hindsight.

This officer may have made an error early on during the stop that put him out of position, away from the safety of his patrol vehicle. Once that happened, he may have panicked as events unfolded that he had not anticipated and his poor judgment was born out by his following actions.

There appear to be plenty of areas this officer needs training to establish competency. Re-training by definition is not an option as the initial training was apparently not sufficient for him to retain the necessary information. Repeating the same training would seem to be a waste of time. Yes, there’s a lot to remember to be an effective, yet lawful police officer, but that’s the job. And you need to be exceptionally competent to perform such a job or people die (or are severely injured) needlessly.

I believe you interpreted my post wrong or I used incorrect language in posting this. My entire meaning was that the officer was incompetent. If I lead you to think otherwise I apologize. Had he been competent with a firearm the "old man" would be dead.

[LabRat]

The only level of competency that one can show with this officer was that he was incompetent with a firearm. Had he been competent the old Viet Nam vet would be dead. As an honest law abiding citizen I don't expect to get shot for an expired tag. I also did not know until I got my CHL that the proper response to a stop would be to have hands on the wheel and the overhead light on. My last stop was 55 years ago. I probably am the same age as the "old man" in the video. This cop is going to have a hard time ever returning to work. He may never be able to use his firearm if he ever needs to really use it.

I believe you interpreted my post wrong or I used incorrect language in posting this. My entire meaning was that the officer was incompetent. If I lead you to think otherwise I apologize. Had he been competent with a firearm the "old man" would be dead.

English is such a frustrating language. It snares the worst and best communicators with ease. With so many meanings, depending on where the emphasis is intended, implied or infered, it's a wonder we even get the simplest messages across.

I took your statement to mean that the officer was ONLY incompetent with respect to his abilities and skills with a firearm. I disagreed with the idea that the officer was ONLY incompetent in 1 area. I just expanded the areas where I believe he needs additional work.

I see now what you intended me to see.
We're good. We both recognized areas of concern with his abilities.

Regards,
LabRat