Cop shoots accident victim trying to climb out from overturned vehicle

[sugar land dave]

I have no words. Does the officer have some medical condition which renders him unable to control his trigger finger, but able to search fervently for the spent casing from an "unintentional" firing of the weapon which he forgot to tell the other officers about? There is so much that is wrong with the actions in this video and frankly I find it insulting and upsetting on very many levels. I canot help but think that if any of the members did such a thing here, we would not be having a DA publicly exonerate us.

[VMI77]

Do you really think an LEO would shoot a citizen needing help?

I don't, but I'm convinced you don't have the facts leading up to the shooting, I have faith
in LE, if you don't rethink...

Abraham, I hear what you are saying. Nonetheless, how do you know this is a typical cop? There are comments the guy that was shot was drunk and had a previous record. A typical good cop would not have just shot someone exiting a vehicle that was overturned. He also would have shown more urgency in rendering aid and calling for help.

We can't as far as to blindly accept whatever a cop does is just and ok. We cannot accept streetside justice.

Sometimes, things really are what you see. The cop shot an unarmed guy trying to craw out of an overturned vehicle and a woman laying on the street dead or dying while the cop was looking for something instead of calling and rendering aid.

Even IF the driver was somehow a "bad guy" (and not saying that justified the shooting), was the woman also known to be "bad" or was she just in the truck. That bothers me a lot -- even IF he didn't think that he'd shot the guy, and even if he was not dead, what about checking the woman. Aside from that....we have audio on the tape, and we see what can be presumed to be an unedited dash cam video. And that shows the LEO arriving, then walking to the truck, then shooting the guy, and ONLY THEN does he radio about the guy refusing to get out of the truck. Where/when was that conversation supposed to have taken place? It certainly doesn't appear to me to be on the video.

Let's not forget....the cop shot "someone" climbing out of an overturned vehicle with another person on the ground. He didn't know if the guy was the driver or a passenger. And as you say, after he dropped the guy he reported him as refusing to exit the vehicle.

[VMI77]

This does look pretty bad, and the city will probably have to pay a settlement. Also, the officer shouldn't be on the force. But after reading the report and watching the video again, I can see where an accidental discharge could be possible. I can also see why he may have drawn his weapon. And that's because what we don't see in the video is the victim pulling out of a parking lot at high speed and running a red light, which screams bad guy in the officer's mind. If you notice in his first call to the dispatcher when he arrives on the scene he seems out of breath, like his adrenaline is going.

Maybe the officer is not up to the rigors of policing, and the city will pay for that.

The information I've seen indicates that cop didn't know who was driving the vehicle or how many passengers might be inside, so shooting someone trying to exit the vehicle, unarmed, is unjustified from the "chasing a bad guy" angle. And maybe he was out of breath simply because he's grossly overweight.

The other reason the "threat" scenario doesn't apply is obvious from the video. He very calmly walks toward the vehicle, draws, drops the guy, holsters, and calmly walks right up to it. He doesn't cautiously approach it. He doesn't know if the guy is even shot, or if he is, if he's inside wounded and reaching for a weapon, yet he doesn't show one bit of concern.

And he is calm throughout....you really think he accidentally shot someone and then calmly carried on....he doesn't react normally...he's not agitated or concerned in the least.

[philip964]

What was the reason to unholster the weapon? Were the people in the car wanted fugitives know to be armed? It was a deliberate action. It was not accidental that is clear.

[rotor]

It's tough to get out of your car after your C7-T1 vertebra have been shattered by a bullet. If this cop gets off maybe there is more to movements like Black Lives Matter.

[LSUTiger]

I can't wait to hear how the Cop apologists explain this one.

[mojo84]

On top of letting the officer off, the DA plans to charge the now paralyzed driver for manslaughter. I find this amazing.

[LSUTiger]

On top of letting the officer off, the DA plans to charge the now paralyzed driver for manslaughter. I find this amazing.

Why is it when the government is wrong they continue to make it worse by trying to appear justified in other things?

[Rmartinez37]

Wow..... Just wow......

There's only a couple of reasons that I could bring to justify the shooting


A. The guy had a gun in the car and was involved in a pursuit. First Leo on scene neutralized the suspect out of fear he might have a gun while exiting the vehicle.

B. The guy just commited a terrible crime like murder or rape, and is trying to escape. Then see option A.

C. The Leo thought the person exiting the vehicle was an extra terrestrial being and was ordered by the cia and area 51 to neutralize him to bring him to a research facility.



I don't see any of the above options being the case, so I would love to hear the justification for that act.

[Pawpaw]

This would not be the first time we've heard of a LEO using his weapon mounted light and negligently shooting someone.

If he was truly and completely shaken by what he saw, as the lay report claims, he could have fired when he just meant to light up the guy. Auditory exclusion might mean he wasn't sure he fired.

I'm not saying the officer should get a pass though. Far from it. If any of us had the same thing happen, we would be thrown under the bus and the bus would be buried under the jail.

[baldeagle]

On top of letting the officer off, the DA plans to charge the now paralyzed driver for manslaughter. I find this amazing.

I don't. He killed his wife through his reckless behavior.

[mojo84]

On top of letting the officer off, the DA plans to charge the now paralyzed driver for manslaughter. I find this amazing.

I don't. He killed his wife through his reckless behavior.

You are only picking part of my statement and responding to it. Do you not see the obvious double standard?

[baldeagle]

On top of letting the officer off, the DA plans to charge the now paralyzed driver for manslaughter. I find this amazing.

I don't. He killed his wife through his reckless behavior.

You are only picking part of my statement and responding to it. Do you not see the obvious double standard?

Of course I do, but just because the cop misbehaved doesn't mean the driver shouldn't be charged for the crime he committed. Each individual's actions stand on their own. I believe the cop should be charged, at a minimum, with attempted manslaughter, if not attempted murder. But the man he shot killed his wife because he drove drunk. Just because he was shot and paralyzed doesn't mean he should get a pass for his crime.

[K.Mooneyham]

I read the prosecutor's "lay" report (http://www.actionnewsnow.com/files/lay_report.pdf), and I don't buy it. They claim the guy flinches when the gun goes off, as if he's surprised. It looked to me like he very calmly fired, and when the man disappeared back into the car, he holstered his weapon and walked toward the car. He paralyzed the guy. He shot him deliberately. He should be thrown off the force. I guarantee he will lose a huge civil law suit, as will the city.

I'd be very interested to hear from some of our LEO members. After reading the lay report, do you agree with their conclusions? If so, why?

If that was in California, I'm going to say you are correct. That police officer is going to lose a civil suit. I'm not sure if the person has to sue the officer, the city/county, or both. But yeah, one way or another, I'd say the police officer is going to lose.

[mojo84]

On top of letting the officer off, the DA plans to charge the now paralyzed driver for manslaughter. I find this amazing.

I don't. He killed his wife through his reckless behavior.

You are only picking part of my statement and responding to it. Do you not see the obvious double standard?

Of course I do, but just because the cop misbehaved doesn't mean the driver shouldn't be charged for the crime he committed. Each individual's actions stand on their own. I believe the cop should be charged, at a minimum, with attempted manslaughter, if not attempted murder. But the man he shot killed his wife because he drove drunk. Just because he was shot and paralyzed doesn't mean he should get a pass for his crime.

I guess being paralyzed by the cop in a wrongful shoot isn't enough. I would better understand if both were charged for their crimes.