Did NJ’s Anti-Gun Climate Lead to This Roadside Shooting?

Reader Roscoe writes:

I am hardly anti-cop. Having been one, I still carry the experiences and influences that come with the job. But some of the actions I see unfold in certain parts of the country of late are difficult for me to comprehend. In some cases the police citizen interplay appears to be more than simply a reaction to the circumstances of the contact, but an over-reaction based on what has become a highly charged, anti-gun influenced, fear response to what was once everyday contact interactions. The results are over-reactive judgment calls . . .

This story and accompanying video speaks for itself; Jersey coppers essentially execute a passenger in a highly charged, out of control encounter they escalated which was no doubt at least partly fueled by the anti-gun hype so pervasive in much of New Jersey.

This appears to be an instance of deadly poor judgment by at least one, if not both of these officers. The suspects appear to have been trying to comply with the officer’s instructions while commands were being yelled at them from both directions.  Under those circumstances it is hardly uncommon for a person to misinterpret what they are being yelled at to do.

The officer, or officers let this situation deteriorate out of control by their own actions into “shoot first, ask questions later” free for all. I’m certain this was at least in part fueled by the rabid antigun atmosphere that permeates so much of this particular state.

comments

  1. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I’m thinkin somebody’s going to jail.

    1. avatar Morris says:

      I doubt it there is a separate set of rules for cops VS citizens. Cops shoot citizens quite often and hardly ever get indicted much less convicted and sentenced. Its wrong but it is the world we currently live in.

      1. avatar ToddR says:

        After watching this video, I predict that neither cop will be able to use the qualified immunity defense. If a judge takes that off the table, both of these guys will go away and the family of the dead guy (and the not-dead-guy) will get paid (by the cops’ personal liability policy).

        1. avatar Dano says:

          Where do you live that cops carry personal liability insurance? The big unknown in this video is what was going on inside that car, something we can’t see on the video.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          It’s usually not about the judge, but about the jury. They tend to believe the story that officers tell, even when it plainly contradicts facts.

      2. avatar Mark says:

        I agree with you Morris. The police should not have a greater right to self defense than the people. I believe the problem is one of training. The police are told, in the academy, that everyone is trying to kill them and when they have a citizen contact they need to have a plan to kill whoever they are having contact with. Shooting is the default. What many don’t realize is that police work is far from the most dangerous occupation out there but as long as the state indemnifies officers actions, courts blindly support them and prosecutors give them the benefit of the doubt we will have these problems. There are some bright lights, however. The homeowner who shot the police chief last week as that worthy kicked the homeowners door and entered, with a warrant but it was the wrong house, is one example. Ditto the two officers who are being charged with homicide in the shooting of the homeless person in Arizona I believe. It is a start but this needs to happen more often. Ferguson I have no problem with. The evidence supported the officers statement. One wonders, however, if Browns prints found their way to Wilsons Glock after Wilson pulled the gun or did Brown actually try to take it from Wilson. We will never know. The New York death of the cigarette tax evader (terrible reason for the state to execute it’s citizens) is different. There was no resistance and even if there were there was no reason to kill him. Looked like involuntary manslaughter to me.
        We need to remove the 007 license from the police. Using their rationale, we are justified in using deadly force against them at first contact. Their behavior and accountability needs to change.

        1. avatar Robert says:

          It really dose. Very well stated.

    2. avatar Jim Jones says:

      Wait a minute. I have seen this video. At 1:08 the officer clearly states “he’s got a gun in his glove in his glove compartment!” and then reaches in and pulls it out at 1:12. So one could argue that he disarmed him, but you know how it goes with the thin blue line; because the victim was in the vicinity of a handgun, the officer will get the benefit of the doubt from the court. This is not a Martin or Brown case. Am I missing something?

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Known felons and there was a gun, he had know way of knowing if there were more. I see no reason to not treat the situation with an abundance of caution, that said it probably didn’t have to go down like it did.

        1. avatar ChrisB. says:

          Exactly. This story looks like a bad shooting only if you leave out the key details.

          The police officer the right KNOWS the passenger
          a) just had access at least one gun which he can see, and this means another gun may well e in the car; and
          b) KNOWS that the passenger has prior felony COVICTIONS for prior firearms violations, including shooting at police.

          How doe he know? He arrested the same perp the year before, and testified at the trial, where it came up the perp had serve 12 years for shooting at three cops..

          The cop clearly orders the passenger “do not move” and “do not open the door” before the passenger shoves the door open on the cop

        2. avatar Robert says:

          Wow you must be a cop. The past dose not after graving the gun that he could see to open fire. In this case he the cop , judge , jury and executioner. If you think this action is okay your part of the problem NOT THE Solution !!!!

      2. avatar Robert says:

        No Jim your not missing anything . The part where the first cop at the driver side is telling them to exit the car is one part that most are missing but the most inportant part that most are missing is where cop 2 reaches in grabs the gun that may or may not have been owned by the driver as they have asked for the cars reg. where do most people keep the reg. ? The passenger did not obstruct the cop from graving the gun so I think he didn’t know it was there or didn’t want any conflict. The cop on the other hand after grabbing the gun escalated the situation into an execution.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      Why?
      I’m far from pro-cop. I make RF look like a cop lover. But I can’t see anything here that would get a cop convicted. The cop on the passenger side told the passenger to not move. Assuming the cop wasn’t lying as he screamed, “he’s reaching”, the passenger was moving his hands. The passenger also opened the door, stood up and approached the cop. That could be considered an aggressive move on his part.

      It was legal for them to stop the car.
      While investigating the traffic stop, he saw a firearm, which is probably illegal in NJ and legal (if not moral) cause for the cops to escalate.
      Then the guy who had access to weapons ignored the cop’s commands and approached the cop.

      Stupid? Definitely. Morally wrong? Oh, yeah. But illegal? I’d guess not.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        While investigating the traffic stop, he saw a firearm, which is probably illegal in NJ and legal (if not moral) cause for the cops to escalate.

        Cops should never escalate. Cops should be deescalating at all times and when they must – they should meet force with force.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          …so when someone runs from a cop they can run after him but nothing else?

          …so when a guy aims a gun at a cop the cop can aim back but nothing else?

          I suggest you try this ‘non-escalation’ thing.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I agree with JasonM,

        When I first watched the video, I immediately thought, “illegal shoot”. After watching the video a few times, I realized that the passenger was trying to force the passenger door open and the cop on that side was leaning hard to keep the door closed. In fact both of them were applying so much force that you can actually see the entire car rocking. Finally it looks like the cop is no longer able to hold the door closed and the passenger gets out. While the passenger did have his hands partly up in the air, he was advancing on the officer.

        I am as critical as anyone about police using excessive force. At the moment I can definitely see some justification to the officer’s use of force. Was it necessary? I don’t know. I wasn’t there and I cannot read the mind of the dead passenger.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Is that why the car was a’rocking? I was wondering that myself.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Hannibal,

          If you watch the video again, you will see the officer on the passenger side reach in and remove a shiny (either nickel plated or high-gloss stainless) handgun and apparently toss it behind him. Then you will see the officer on the passenger side shouting at the passenger. Finally, you will see the officer on the passenger side leaning really hard into the door to prevent the passenger from opening the door … and apparently the passenger is pushing really hard on the door to get out. That caused the car to start rocking.

          At some point it appears that the officer could not hold the door closed any more … at which point he backed up as the passenger stepped out and began advancing (slowly) toward the officer.

          I think the problem here for everyone is the fact that passenger was advancing slowly — which doesn’t seem like an attack. Nevertheless, the passenger was advancing slowly after the officer had told him verbally many times to NOT move. The officer also told him many times to stay in the car non-verbally — by virtue of the officer trying to keep the door closed. If an unknown person in a charged situation begins to advance on me after I have told them repeatedly to back off, I believe it is reasonable at that point to fear great bodily harm. How fast the unknown person advances is irrelevant after multiple warnings to stop.

        3. avatar Robert says:

          I guess you ignore the part when the cop tell them to get out of the car. Funny how people see and hear what they want to. No cop has the right to fill someone with holes because someone MAY have a firearm legal or not as long as it is not in hand and may be used. I also guess you miss the part where the cop reached in grabs the gun and throws it on the ground . Again his past is NOT A REASON TO MURDER SOMEONE because you have a badge.

      3. avatar iCONOCLAST says:

        So, what I don’t understand is, he said to the deceased twice “if you reach for something I’m going to kill you” then he yells
        “he’s reaching”. Why didn’t he react to that perceived threat? Instead he waits until the guy gets out of the car with his hands up and dumps on him? IMHO I think either wanted to kill the guy, as evidenced by the taunting he was doing “imma kill you”
        Or he was so scared that he just didn’t recognize the fact that the guy was submitting with his hands up and wasted him. Either way, business as usual and the cop walks. Worst case he loses his job.

      4. avatar BlueBronco says:

        What you are saying is NJ cops couldn’t be cops in TN, AL, Ga, KY, FL, TX etc. because they would have to wear Depends on the job.

        1. avatar Robert says:

          That’s correct. They would NOT be able to execute someone after disarming and live to tell about it .

      5. avatar Robert says:

        Has it occurred to you the passenger was trying to comply reaching for lever on the door to exit the vehicle as told by the other cop reaching does not mean you’re going for a weapon what is he reaching for the door? You see the driver then put both hands out the window screaming let me out let me out! He is to afraid to reach for door latch as he now knows this is going bad fast and he is correct. Cop need to learn only one can give orders people can’t be given orders that conflict and then call it a justified shooting. Sorry that just don’t fly. I’ve had this same thing happen where more than one cop is screaming different orders. Who do you listen to? I this case listening to one cop gets you shot by both cops.

    4. avatar J- says:

      I’m thinking somebody with a badge needs to swing by the neck.

      1. avatar Robert says:

        Not in New Jersy. They may jive him raise in rank.

  2. avatar AllAmerican says:

    It sure does. That was sick. That cop was freaking in an absolute panic. Such an extreme anti gun culture lead that dude to have a freakin panic attack anytime he saw a gun. He’s a disgrace to everything America stands for- even if the guy was holding the gun, and shoving it in his face, there is no reason to lose that much composure and outright panic like a 4 year old girl throwing a temper tantrum.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      I’m still trying to wrap my head around the cop on the left taking that crossfire-shot towards his partner!

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        After the last two years’ worth of videos like these, it is no longer difficult to wrap my head around it. I fully expect it.

        Cops have no sense of gun handling. Period. They’re quite happy to spray down people not involved in a scene, use buildings, houses, cars and innocent people as backstops for their spent rounds, and are even more than happy to kill their own in practice and in the field.

        1. avatar The Original Brad says:

          DG, I normally enjoy your posts but saying all cops handle weapons poorly is unfair. When I was a street cop, I served with mostly former military and all were pros when handling weapons. There are exceptions, of course. In the dark, while being attacked, bad things, unpredictable things happen. An academy colleague of mine was killed in a crossfire situation so it’s a problem, but not endemic. When the situation escalates faster than an officer can process it, each officer will react differently. During a super crazy vehicle pursuit, a squad mate of mine called out the location of the chase with about as much excitement as he would calling out a parking violation. At speed of close to 100 mph, he sounded bored. The panic threshold for each officer is different. There is no way to know what you’ll do until it happens to you.

          We always get to see the most vivid examples on YouTube. Not the millions of scenes they play out every day in LE. I do know that training departments and seminars show theses and other videos where the officers acted more level headed. Go to a Street Survival seminar one day. You’ll see a different set of videos than the ones sensationalized by the news.

        2. avatar Robert says:

          Wake up smell the coffee it’s everywhere no longer just a few bad . The new today is most are the bad.

    2. avatar ChrisB. says:

      That cop was freaking in an absolute panic
      The cop had arrested and testified against the perp a year before and recognized him as someone who was a multiple felon with illegal firearms arrests and a FELONY COVICTION for shooting at cops.

      H

      1. avatar Robert says:

        The shooting at a State Trooper was when he was 15 years old not last month. I really don’t get why so many are ready to let cops be the furring squad bypassing the courts. The cop dis armed him then decided to kill him it’s just that simple by doing so got the other cop to also shoot him. That is a firing squad. I’m sure glad these cops were not the ones that pull me over due to an anti gunner calling in a false report saying that I was robbing a bank. Thank god they were not these cops or I would be dead now. Yup lets keep letting cops get away with murder and give them a PAID VACATION for doing so. Here in the Northeast it is a very very anti gun environment so before you get pulled over they are ready to shoot you due to few ever getting convicted or anything else against them. Look out this may be coming your way. Then see if you agree with the actions they take.

      2. avatar iCONOCLAST says:

        Still no reason to shoot an unarmed man with his hands up. IMHO

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    In answer to the question: YES !

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    That switch to “grab your license for me?” to hysterical ranting and screaming psycho at simply seeing a gun or gun-like object is insane.

    And Twitchy McGee on the drivers side is lucky he didnt blast his partner firing towards him like that but I guess when you get a chance to cap a guy with his hands up in the back you just have to take it.

  5. avatar mdc says:

    Off subject some. Recently reported thousands are leaving NJ. Over priced totalitarian state.

  6. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    This is what you get when you set a department policy of hiring from the shallow end of the IQ range, which most departments seem to be doing these days.

    1. avatar surlycmd says:

      Read this little gem: http://lynchburgvirginia.blogspot.com/2006/02/department-of-justice-virginia-beach_11.html

      I remember this story. A local News Station took a copy of the test to an elementary school. Students in a 4th grade class aced it. IIRC VABCH police department dumbed down the test to get the DOJ of it’s back.
      I suspect a majority of entrance exams for police candidates across the country meet a low standard.

      1. avatar RocketScientist says:

        Even worse, many departments have standards that reject applicants who score TOO HIGH on aptitude/intelligence tests. The “logic” is that police work will not stimulate them enough and they will leave the job, with all the costs associated with high turnover (training/equipment/hiring expenses, etc). In one case an applicant rejected for being too smart sued, and the courts upheld the police department’s right to not hire people based on being too intelligent. TL;DR: Police departments literally only want to hire dumb cops.

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

        1. avatar surlycmd says:

          WOW! Just wow.

          Sigh.

        2. avatar Irish1776 says:

          This is absolutely true. I was in a spirited debate on another Gun forum where (with a minimal amount of Google-ing) I was able to produce several news articles where candidates were able to prove in court that they were denied positions because they scored too well on entrance qualification exams.

          The standard excuse was that candidates who are too intelligent tend to get bored with the job, and they have to spend more training replacements. If I recall correctly, this occurred almost exclusively in larger metropolitan departments, some of which had no problem hiring previously convicted felons.

          I think it really comes down to this… Many LEO’s seem to think they are above the law, they want to hire thickheaded goons who will do as they are instructed without asking too many questions. I’d love to be wrong about this, but you can all see the direction in which things have been going.

          This is the reason I am actively involved in the Oath Keepers organization. There is a culture war in this nation which is dividing Law Enforcement agencies as well as communities they serve. We need to encourage young impressionable LEO’s to understand that they took an Oath to uphold the Constitution, not the agency that issues their paycheck. They are there to serve their communities, not activist judges, politicians, or corporations.

  7. avatar chuck (hates nj) says:

    While I agree the anti gun culture here does have an impact on some police interactions, this case is a poor example. The passenger was arrested as a teenager for shooting at police officers and was arrested over the summer for obstruction, resisting arrest, possession of narcotics and failure to appear in court. Days was one of the arresting officers in Reids last arrest and obviously knew him. Knowing his record and that he’s not supposed to have a gun I would expect the officers to be on high alert and not take chances. If he would of just sat in the car doing exactly what the driver did instead of forcing his way out he wouldn’t be dead now.

    1. avatar GreenTriumph says:

      Hard to understand the commands when given in the hyped-up tone of voice. In Ohio you have to notify the police that you have a weapon in the car when stopped. I was nervous and locked the car instead of unlocking. The officer didn’t shoot at me through the window. He calmly told me the door was still locked and waited while I unlocked it.

      1. avatar chuck (hates nj) says:

        Unless he’s been eating paint chips all day “don’t f’ING move” sounded pretty clear and the driver understood exactly what was being said. Not to mention the cop pushing the door shut while you’re trying to push if open is a clear indicator that he doesn’t want you to get out. I would absolutely agree with you if the cop didn’t know the passenger. He has a violent record I understand why the cop got that worked up in this situation.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          The cop knew the passenger’s record?

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        In Ohio you have to notify the police that you have a weapon in the car when stopped.

        Correction: The duty to notify is limited to ONLY when one has a valid CHL and is armed with a loaded handgun. If someone has a firearm or any weapon in the car that is legally being transported in the proper manner, there is no duty to notify. Those who open carry and do not have a CHL transport their unloaded sidearms in the legal manner and have no duty to notify. Likewise, if someone has an illegally transported weapon in the vehicle, they have no duty to notify; see the 5th Amendment.

        To sum up… Only valid CHL holders who are armed with a loaded handgun at the time of officer interaction have a legal duty to notify under Ohio law.

        1. avatar Joseph says:

          Once again, the video doesn’t tell the whole story. Officer Day, the black officer, knew Reid from previous incidents, and new that he had a history (conviction) of shooting at police officers. And, just because you find a gun doesn’t mean the dude doesn’t have another one, speaking from experience. With the history of Reid, and the fact that he did exactly the opposite of what he was told, the shooting was justified. Despite what TTAG self-proclaimed law enforcement experts say.

    2. avatar AllAmerican says:

      I think the issue is really his lever of panic. He was in sheer terror. Officers shoudnt lose that much composure no matter what they’re dealing with.

      1. avatar Slicer87 says:

        He should have stayed frosty.

    3. avatar mike(i hate nj) says:

      cop didnt sound panicked,the felon was busted with a pistol,suicide by cop.?
      cop on left shoud be given a 3 day vacation for popping of that shot that could hv easily killed his partner.no work until dept firearms course on saftey re completed,if they have one.

  8. avatar Anonymous says:

    Well considering that the cop knew the guy served 13 years for shooting 3 troopers and the guy forced his way out of the car as the cop told him not to move and tried to keep the door closed… I say good shoot. But let the cop bashing begin.

    1. avatar Ray Ficara says:

      That last bit is what we were shown YESTERDAY on Fox And Friends. They had cleaned up the audio and you could hear the order to STAY in the car. Once the driver was secured the other was ready to help his partner extract the passenger but ALL that is lost on the “Hands UP!” jack holes.

      Ray

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Anyone who still thinks Wilson didn’t react correctly in Ferguson is blind to reality.

    2. avatar surlycmd says:

      A heightened state of awareness due to knowing the individuals past crimes does not equate to irrational behavior. No actual threat. Not a good shoot. YMMV.

    3. avatar Tom in oregon says:

      Hmmm. things change when you hear some back story.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        No they don’t. There was no threat and the cop murdered this citizen, PERIOD.

      2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Not necessarily, Tom, and you know this. Objective reasonableness means we don’t get to judge based on our 20/20 hindsight.

        What the cop knew or didn’t know about this subject’s past is possibly irrelevant. Deadly force has to be justified based on ability, opportunity and jeopardy at that instant and how a ‘reasonable person’ would have seen that circumstance with the info at hand at the time of the shooting.

        I say possibly irrelevant because that is going to be very case dependent. But, knowing someone did something in the past does not create opportunity and jeopardy in the present.

        1. avatar iCONOCLAST says:

          Couldn’t have said it better myself. You shouldn’t get the death penalty for disobeying and order while unarmed.

        2. avatar Joseph says:

          You probably wouldn’t be thinking so dispassionately about the man’s past if it was your azz on the line facing him.

        3. avatar Robert says:

          You know that right

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “You probably wouldn’t be thinking so dispassionately about the man’s past if it was your azz on the line facing him.”

          I love this particular brand of illogic.

          I HAVE been on felony stops. I’ve also been in court a lot in violent felony cases, and there I’ve seen how things go when people try to use “past” as some justification for “present acts.”

          So, like illogical, emotional horse snot usually is, your statement is wrong.

    4. avatar AllAmerican says:

      Wether it was a good or bad shoot isn’t really the issue. Officers need to be of strong will and not tweak out like a child in high stress situations. If one cannot handle keeping a calm head, even when threatened, then one shouldn’t be a cop.

    5. avatar FoRealz? says:

      Well, that certainly changes things knowing the background.

      I’m not a police, but if I was, and I pulled over a dude that I knew from the job and that I had arrested before, and I knew he had shot at the police before and done time for it, and I see he has a gun, and he is not following instructions and bulls his way out of the car despite being held at gunpoint by myself and another police officer, I would assume he intends to engage in violence.

      I don’t think the law requires you to actually get shot or shot at in order to meet the standard of reasonableness.

      What’s the beef other than people don’t like the tone of voice of the one officer?

      Maybe this would have gone better though if they had done a California style felony stop. You know, cops stay back at the cruiser – bullhorn – “Driver exit the vehicle – walk backwards towards my voice.” “Passenger – exit the vehicle…”

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        The “beef” is that there was no threat other than the assaults committed by the cop with his threats of murder. Once the cop starts spouting off that he will shoot a citizen, the citizen would be fully justified in using self defense.

      2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        As I mentioned above, knowing the past does not create ability, opportunity and jeopardy in the present.

      3. avatar AllAmerican says:

        Tone of the officer? He was practically crying. Cant handle keeping calm in dangerous situations? Don’t be a cop.

        1. avatar Slicer87 says:

          Agreed.

    6. avatar Anonymous says:

      Well considering that the cop knew the guy served 13 years for shooting 3 troopers…

      So that’s why they shot him – got it. Revenge is a dish best served cold right?

  9. avatar Jimbo says:

    You guys know there was a gun on the dash in plain view, and that the deceased did 13 years for shooting it out with police in the past right?

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      If the gun was on the dash, how is that “jeopardy?” Do guns jump up off dash boards and start shooting people?

      1. avatar lionsfan54 says:

        Criminals often own more than one gun…

        1. avatar Tim T. says:

          Cite? not saying not true, but I was under impression most thugs tend to have/carry just one. Not that it affects this case.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Hmmm. Owning a gun is not jeopardy, either.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      I got this part:

      “A gun was recovered from the suspect car.”

      So the guy emerged from the car unarmed – for whatever reason.

  10. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Social-psychology calls what we’re seeing on the video the “definition of the situation”. Basically it means that what people define as real becomes real in their minds and they act toward the situation based on that perception—whether it is “true” or not. Video recordings of events like this are invaluable because they allow us to see things like this as they play out. We’re not left with carefully nuanced after-the-fact accounts written by the officers themselves.

    There’s an obvious disconnect happening in cop culture. Police practices have traditionally depended upon the police to control the description of events in which they are involved. But that comfort zone with its bulit-in ability to obscure or modify salient facts has been taken away by video recordings. What we’re seeing here is learned behavior, accepted social roles that are an integral part of the way this cop does his job. He certainly appears to be having an hysterical fit which causes me to wonder if that wasn’t contributing to the behavior of the guy he shot. Hysteria and panic begets hysteria and panic. Police training often places emphasis on “escalation of force” techniques which require a degree of social interaction skills most people don’t have and which are not acquired with a few hours of “training”. I mention with a shudder that this was obviously not this guys first rodeo.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The video also shows an interesting subtext to the interaction. How did the officer know there was a gun in the glove compartment? Did the passenger reach for the gun with the intent to shot it out with two police officers pointing guns at him? Or had, being a veteran criminal with experience at such traffic stops, had he already opened the glove box to show the weapon before the cop arrived at his window. Either way, the gun’s visibility contributed to his death.

  11. avatar DrVino says:

    Yes. It did. Just like a high threshold to access and virtually no RKBA leads to ignorant gun handling and stupid gun play:

    http://www.dofiga.net/images/news/0029371/386222.jpg

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “403 Forbidden”

  12. avatar Scrubula says:

    Make sure you watch the whole video multiple times to understand what happened. My guess is that there was an uncovered gun in the glove box and when the passenger went to get insurance registration from it, the cop thought he was about to get shot.

    We won’t know until it goes before court and they release the crime scene information, so try to withhold judgement.

  13. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    I am often quite critical of police violence, however it appears here that the shooting officer knew Jerame’s (even though it sounded like he called him Jerome rather than Jerame) his history. It looked like Jerame also did not put his hands where they could be seen and kept moving them. Finally, it looked to me like he directly disobeyed the instructions not to get out of the car being yelled/screamed at him by a cop pointing a gun at him. I posit that the first thing one should do in a situation like Jerame’s is not do anything that would likely encourage the officer to shoot me, and worry about other considerations such as civil rights later. Moving towards someone pointing a gun at you will usually be interpreted as threatening, no?
    I also don’t get why the driver did a rolling stop with a cop behind him. It just gave the cop an excuse to pull him over.
    I do not imagine that I know or will ever know the whole story though.

  14. avatar Dale says:

    Past actions do not necessarily justify actions at a later date. They justify caution, but not execution.

    Once more cops get shot, and the assault victims gets no-billed, it’ll slow their roll. That’s been happening more often. Especially in these no-knock raids. Sad that it’ll take that, but their current training obviously isn’t cutting it.

  15. avatar Puyallup Devil_Doc says:

    What video did some of ya’all watch? History of violence towards police, history of violence in general, drug dealer, in possession of a firearm during a traffic stop. I count 17 commands to “show me your hands”, or “don’t move”, before the idiot lunges out of a car towards a cop with a drawn gun. As to the people saying “he couldn’t understand what was being said”.. Well. The driver understood. From the first or second command, he had both hands out the window.

    1. avatar lionsfan54 says:

      This, x 1000. I’m usually pretty quick to harp on cops, but this looks like a good shoot to me. He didn’t listen to the cops orders over and over again and then, unprompted got out of the car and charged at the cop (maybe that was an attempt to simply flee, but he was running at the cop regardless).

      What should the cop have done? Waited until he actually crashed into him? Wrestle for 30 seconds and see what happened?

      Finally, I don’t think that cop panicked at all. He took a very assertive and direct tone, that was part of the overall escalation and an attempt to use harsh, direct words instead of deadly force. Human nature being what it is, that often works!

  16. avatar DerryM says:

    There’s a lot of factors in judging this incident, and I suspect the PO feared there was a second gun tucked in the waistband of the passenger at the time he chose to shoot (or maybe some other weapon). Not asserting the PO was justified in that fear, just saying it crossed my mind as I was writing my first comment. I realized if the PO had the same thought and the guy was trying to get out of the car despite being told not to, it may have pushed him over the edge to shoot at that moment.

    It’s easier to Monday Morning QB these incidents than to make the right call at the time the incident is unfolding and you are in the middle of it. As it turned-out, apparently this is a Bad Shoot, but at least the Race Discrimination Industry won’t use it to call for Nationwide Riots…er..Protests since the PO was Black.

    There is no rule or answer that covers these situations in advance and always yields the “right call” in the post-incident analysis. Humans make Life or Death decisions based on what they know/believe/fear to be the case at the moment they need to make the decision, and no rule or procedure overrides that primal, instinctual response for the vast majority of us.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “There is no rule or answer that covers these situations in advance and always yields the “right call” in the post-incident analysis. Humans make Life or Death decisions based on what they know/believe/fear to be the case at the moment they need to make the decision,”

      Exactly. This. 1000 times this.

      That’s why “Objective Reasonableness” is the legal standard, not what is found later to be the case in 20/20 hindsight or MMQB-ing.

      The problem that exists, however, is that there seems to be a decline in genuine threat assessment training and a jump to the gun, and excuse-making for when that does happen. (Thinking back to all the justifications for the shooting in NM last year of the homeless guy…such as my favorite…”well, they’d been there 4 hours, it was time to wrap it up”).

      Ability, opportunity and jeopardy are all articulable circumstances, but when these are muddied and ambiguous, I think it is proper to ask serious questions about the decision to use deadly force.

      Having a criminal past does not justify deadly force on its own; even having a gun does not justify deadly force on its own. Disobeying an officer’s “orders” does not justify deadly force on its own. I very specifically remember being taught exactly these points way back in Cop School, along with running through a butt load of Shoot-Don’t Shoot scenarios to TRY to learn to better make this important distinction.

      There are some incidents that will forever be unclear. There are some that are clear. But…the point I am laboring to make is that we have to ask the CORRECT questions, and in the case of deadly force, case law is pretty specific: ability, opportunity and jeopardy at that moment, yes or no, is the only question that matters.

  17. avatar fishydude says:

    Good thing it was the black cop that shot him, and not the white cop. Otherwise Al Notsosharpton, and Holder, would have incited riots in NJ too.
    Something that struck me though, what if the guy had his hands up as a means of trying to delay the officers reaction long enough to take a swing at him. He didn’t freeze when told to. He didn’t stop trying to get out of the car when he was told to. And he was a felon in possession of a gun. If he was on parole for his previous shooting at police, he was going back to jail no matter what.
    A lot could have been done differently, but none of use were there and the video doesn’t show everything.

  18. avatar Justin_GA says:

    This is one more reason to wear concealed bullet proud vests. When I conceal carry I always wear my vest because…one I’m scared some idiot citizen or police officer see’s the handguns and shoots me and two if i’m in a situation that requires my concealed handgun it probably would be nice to have the vest on in that situation.

    1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

      Be aware that having a vest with you (even if not wearing it) can turn into a felony and a “crime of violence” if you commit (by which I mean be convicted for) a misdemeanor or more. The ‘offense’ need not even be remotely violent or in anyway related to your possession of the vest. I learned about this the hard way.
      I am not suggesting that wearing vest is a bad idea but rather to just be aware of the risk and be careful.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Can you fill in the TTAG readers with a bit of background?

        1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

          I am trying to look up the law now but have to take my wife to Dr. appointment first.

        2. avatar actionphysicalman says:

          I apologize, my post was inaccurate and perhaps misleading. It has been over 15 years and I have the memory of a goldfish. The law I am referring to is only a MN one – MN 609.486 and it is only triggered by a gross misdemeanor or attempted gross misdemeanor. My vest was more than 100’+ feet away from me though. I am not sure if that sort of stretch of the word ‘possession’ is normal or if my attorney was deficient somehow.
          I was able to get my firearms rights back. It took me 14 years and probably the luck of drawing a Republican appointed judge who was also a gun owner for my restoration hearing.
          As Forest Gump professed, now so do I, “That’s all I have to say about that.”

  19. avatar Tokamak says:

    I’m always amazed how excited many cops get when the see a gun. They yell GUN and then start acting like idiots. At least that’s what I see on the TV show “Cops” way too often. Are they being taught that? Or is it just the new social behavior resulting from all the anti gun hyperbole?
    Even so, that guy pretty much got what he deserved. Once again, When the Police (or anybody) point a gun at you and say don’t move, show me your hands, you need to do that or you might get shot. You certainly should not advance on them quickly hands up down or sideways.
    I think the guy should get a Darwin award.

  20. avatar BigBoy says:

    My last encounter, speeding ticket, NBD, was terrible. The officer was so scared that it showed in his voice and actions. He wasn’t a newby because he was alone (usual practice in this peaceful town). I’m 70, former holder of high security clearance, and clear NICS in 1 second. He never knew any of that because he stood at the taillight, couldn’t see through the smoked glass and conducted the entire interview (except getting my license so he could produce revenue for the village) from 10 feet away. In fact, I was worried about how I was going to protect myself if he flipped out. When he stood behind me so I could sign the citation, he was shaking,

    The police DELIBERATELY live in a fantasy world. All through the academy and at in-service training and even shift changes, they watch films of uninterrupted bad guys killing cops in traffic stops. They are brainwashed to believe EVERY CIVILIAN is out to get them, If fact the movie is made up of clips from several years and the death to encounter rate for traffic stops is 1 in 6 million. Yes, less likely than a meteor strike. A reason to be cautions (like using a chainsaw) but not to be terrified and mentally cocked and unlocked every time.

    The public, especially the law-abiding middle class, is losing respect for LEOs and it is almost entirely the fault of the LEOs.

    Btw, he never asked if I was carrying. I was but I’m no threat.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “The public, especially the law-abiding middle class, is losing respect for LEOs and it is almost entirely the fault of the LEOs.”

      I think this true as well. It certainly is the fault of the reporting of LEO behavior. Good cops rarely get stories written about them, or at least as much coverage.

      “Btw, he never asked if I was carrying. I was but I’m no threat.”

      NC is a “Duty to Notify” state, and I’ve had two opportunities to notify an on-duty LEO that I was carrying. No big deal each time, except a “thanks for letting me know.”

      Professionalism in LEO’s goes a LONG WAY in doing the job effectively. Treat people like crap and that’s what they remember. Treat people like decent folks and they remember that. True for all of us, LEO’s included.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        MA is not a “must notify” state. The two times I did notify LEOs on my own volition that I was carrying, they looked at me like I had two heads, as if to say “we don’t care,” and neither time did either cop ask to see my license.

        Then again, I don’t live in Boston.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Excellent post.

      In my most recent police encounter, the older cop knew me but his younger buddy did not. I called in a retail alarm drop in the deep hours of the night and was giving dispatch details that she wanted to know about the situation. (I had called dispatch directly as I don’t much care for 911.) While the older one and I were shooting the breeze at my window, the younger one came shrieking around the back of my vehicle, “He’s got a GUN!!!!” The lad had his hand on his sidearm and ready to draw on me while running towards us. The senior officer told him to chill. I had warned the older officer that his buddy seemed on edge and that he ought to let junior know that I’m visibly armed. Sure enough… it was almost a bad night for someone.

      Jumpy people make me nervous regardless of who they happen to be.

  21. avatar JDS says:

    Murder? How? What part of “don’t you f’n move” is hard to understand? Did he order the guy out of the car? I didn’t hear that command. I heard DONT MOVE. The guy forced his way out of the car and ended up dead. Not the cops fault.
    I’m in no way of fan of much of police actions these days. However I understand DONT MOVE means sit your ass down and keep your hands where I can see them.
    The reason for the stop way sketchy. Yeah it was a rolling stop but it was not unsafe. Probably would have resulted in a warning if commands were followed and the driver wasn’t drinking or smoking pot behind the wheel. I’m not in NJ or any other slave state and I have been pulled over with what would be considered an arsenal in states like that a couple times. Multiple “assault weapons” and 1000’s of rounds of various ammo. Instead of the cops freaking out we discussed the various weapons, where I shoot, and a request for a business card and shop location. In another state I would have ended up in prision and been the daily poster boy for Blomberg’s anti-gun rants or just shot dead on the spot.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      The problem with your assessment is “moving against the order of a cop” MAY NOT rise to the standard of jeopardy in the deadly force equation. It may, but it may not.

      And, if a case like that goes before a jury, it will be in the hands of the jury to decide that (as finders of fact). Cop says “show me your hands” and you don’t…that is NOT (by itself, anyway) going to convince a lot of people the cop’s life was in jeopardy.

      There is perhaps a fine line between “Obey My Authority” and “My Life is in Danger, I Must Shoot” in some cases. But, we must be very careful not to confuse the issues…not doing what a cop tells you to do is NOT (again, by itself) jeopardy.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        True but when you add in the fact that the officer knew this guy was a violent felon AND was in possession of a firearm, the equation gets changed a bit.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Fair enough…totality of circumstances and all.

          BUT….

          Was the gun in his hand or on the dashboard/glovebox/whatever?

          I mean, jeopardy requires actual jeopardy, not just potential jeopardy.

          Just trying to say that from a Objective Reasonableness standpoint, actual jeopardy can be a hard sell if the gun was just ‘nearby’ vs in his hand and pointed at someone.

          Is a gun on the dashboard “jeopardy?” I could see a jury going either way with that one.

  22. avatar Robert says:

    You have missed part of this story. The fact is that cop had arrested this guy when he was younger on drug and gun charges also this guy did time for taking shots at state police. So when the cop saw who this guy was it went bad real quick if you listen to the tape you see the driver with his hands out the window yelling let me out of here let me out of here afraid to let his hand go out of site to open the door afraid if he reached for the door latch he would be shot by the trigger happy cops it is very clear that the driver knew when the cop went to the passenger side of the car and the cop knew the passenger that it was going to be ugly and fast. I live in ct. Open carry is permitted I don’t open carry often and this will tell you why. A few weeks ago I was out doing things I needed to do making a deposit at my bank was one of those things and since I drive a DRW 3500 Chevy I can’t fit at drive up window . That day I was carting a Welther PPS9 IWB . Well apparently when I got out of the truck the guy in the car next to me happened to see the but of my gun as I was getting out. I always make sure after I get out that my firearm I’d covered and then go into where ever. While I’m in the bank doing my business that guy calls 911 reports a bank robery in progress gives them description of my truck along with marker plate numbers. I’m in the bank about 15 min due to long line and only 2 tellers on. So now I leave the bank and start going home where I have to pass by our police department. I get about a mile from the bank and see police with lights going so I put turn signal on and pull to right shoulder to let them by. Now hers where it gets crazy mind you I have had this truck a very long time and have worked on road jobs with most of the older cops on the force also live 1 house away from a Capt. So I’m not new to town. Well insted of him and another cop behind him going past me they stop behind me then 2 more then 2 more show up and I’m thinking what the hell is this all about I open the window keep my hands on the top of the steering wheel net thing they start screaming get out with your hands on top of your head now mind you I’ve been out of work for 2.5 years and waiting for back surgery also have torn left shoulder my neck has 3 blown levels with spinal cord compression 1 disc blown in mid back and the 2 that are at the bottom that the surgery is for. I’m now getting different screaming orders from atleast3 cops and all are different so as I’m walking to the back of my truck I yell back many times that I’m armed and have a permit. Well next get down on knees now I tell them I will comply bet need to put hand on bumper that I’m injured and will fall if I can’t use one hand again they are all giving different orders so I slowly put hand on bumper on the way down then they decide this is not good enough now cross your legs again I tell them armed have a permit and I’m injured and will need to use one hand to comply. I do it and one cop I call him GI JOKE AS HE HAS THE HOLE TACTICAL THING going on and this is a small town where the cops are parked sleeping in different places around town every night. So now GI JOKE and another cop come running to me grab my gun and start pulling on my bad arm I scream in pain and tell him easy I’m hurt. The capt. Tells them to back off and help me back to my feet. They do and capt. Asked me what kind of drugs are you on. I respond nothing didn’t you hear me tell you I’m injured more than once and that I’m armed with a permit. He said no. When they call in my lic and permit and comes back legal and NO Priors they start to get nervous saying you know we had to do this and it was necessary I see that they are now concerned about the rough treatment of a hurt leagel citizen 20 min later a cop comes back from the bank and tells them all that I never took my weapon out not did I do anything else wrong as the bank didn’t even know why the cop was there. So they put me with a cop I know to try to convince me this was not a case of Excessive force they put my weapon in my truck and the capt kept asking each cop if they had to file a use of force. I probably should have filed a complaint against GI JOKE as I know he is rough with everyone. He thinks he’s at war. Now mind you many have been fired arrested and the town has paid for cops using excessive force and harassment. Even the Chief resigned because he was being investigated for covering up and encouraging cops to act in this manor. Over an hour spent with guns pointed at someone wit hands in the air didn’t try to run them why all due to an anti gun asswipe calling in a false report and got away with it. The strangest thing is they never sent a cop to the bank to see if anything had happened till after they had my firearm permit DL and clean background now one would think since no alarm or call from the bank that they would have sent a car to the bank to see if anyone was alive. Guess that don’t matter when you can grab that man and the gun. What a joke.

    1. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

      That’s quite a read. Sorry it happened to you. We live in tough times with no easy answers.

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      ” I’m now getting different screaming orders from atleast3 cops and all are different “

      We used to have this thing called “Cover Contact Principle” which was basically a tactic where only one officer “spoke.” Not one at a time, but just one throughout the entire felony stop encounter. He was the “Contact Officer.” The rest were “Cover,” and their job was to be eyes and ears to cover the guy concentrating on what he was saying.

      It would seem from a lot of recent evidence that this particular nuance of LE training and tactical doctrine has gone by the wayside.

      I cannot fathom how anyone would think for a minute that 3 guys screaming disparate orders is less confusion than one person saying the same thing over and over again.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      This is a pretty clear-cut example of being SWATed, exactly the kind of “direct action” Shannon and the Mom’s encourage anti-gunners to do if they see someone carrying. It looks to me like you have two choices. The first is to go ahead and file a formal complaint w/ lawyer support against the cops that hurt you. The behavior of the cops after realizing they’d made a mistake is a pretty good indication that they’re worried about this too. The strategy behind this approach is that by hitting them with a serious legal complaint, maybe the cops that hurt you will 1. get fired, or 2. learn something and correct their behavior, 3. leave you the hell alone. The second choice is to do nothing on the assumption that there will be behind-the-scenes discussions about how you weren’t doing anything. If you’re in a small town, you may then be known to the cops as “the guy who didn’t do anything” and they’ll make a point to leave you the hell alone. Whichever way you go depends a lot on what kind of local cop shop you have and whether nor not there’s any management interest in having a well-run department..

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yep, if nothing is done then the situation rarely improves. I would love it if departments would see the need on their own but I haven’t observed that to be the case in reality.

        1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          That’s just the nature of bureaucracies, unfortunately.

  23. avatar Ralph says:

    The cop and the guy he shot knew each other and there was bad blood between them. It’s likely that both man were on high alert and their mutual fear level contributed to the shooting. Had this been a different cop or a different guy, it might have gone down much differently.

  24. avatar Hannibal says:

    If you’re a felon with an illegally possessed gun in a car and the police tell you not to move… wait for it… don’t move.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      That’s sound advice for anybody, felon or not. But the late Jerane, with his violent history and criminal past, most likely wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. It’s likely that his poor organizational skills and weak impulse control meant that he was likely to do anything but what a screaming cop pointing a gun at him was telling him to do. Contrast the behavior of officer Days’s companion with his. His demeanor was a lot more controlled and, chances are if he’d been in charge, Jerane would still be alive. Days was at the ragged edge of his emotional control. There’s a reason the military tries hard to select out people who’ll tend to have emotional breakdowns in high stress combat situations. Police departments, not so much?

  25. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    How many times did the cop say, “show me your hands,” or “keep your hands right there?” A dozen times? If those commands don’t sink in, or you just don’t want to comply, the odds are good that you are going to get shot….maybe killed. Leaving the car is no bueno, under any conditions, unless you are directed to by John Law. This guy needed to review Chris Rocks “How To Not Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police.” Stay in the car.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “How many times did the cop say, “show me your hands,” or “keep your hands right there?” A dozen times? If those commands don’t sink in, or you just don’t want to comply, the odds are good that you are going to get shot….maybe killed.

      I’m sorry, failure to comply with “Show me your hands” is not justification for deadly force no matter how many times he says it.

      The legal standard for the use of deadly force is “ability, opportunity and jeopardy.” Non-compliance with a verbal order alone does not meet that standard.

      Talk of shooting someone for non-compliance to verbal orders should not even be part of this discussion.

      The only question to ask in regard to deadly force is if the shooter had reasonable belief his (or someone’s) life was in imminent danger.

      1. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

        Except that the officer already observed a gun in the glove box. Then the guy tried to force the door open and leave the vehicle, with who knows what intent, reasonable or otherwise. Not keeping your hands were you were told, after a gun is discovered in the glove box…..yes, that will likely get you shot. Not because it was “justified” because that’s what happens when adrenaline and fear for ones life are part of the equation. Disobeying anyone with a gun, who is ready, willing and able to use it, especially a LEO, is 5 kinds of stupid. So ya, sure you can be right…maybe even dead right. Why take that chance?

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          My point above was to address the original assertion, and the commonly stated point, that because the officer said x a number of times that shooting can be expected.

          Now you are moving the goalpost and saying the officer did not shoot because of non-compliance but because of proximity of a weapon.

          STILL…the question remains…was there jeopardy? A gun on the dashboard and noncompliance may well not rise to that standard.

          If the cop is charged (or sued), he’ll have to take his chance with a jury. It will be a hard sell to convince a lot of people that he was in reasonable fear for his life if the gun was on the dash or in the glove box…unless there is a WHOLE HEAP of other stuff.

          Short version: it would come down to whichever attorney makes the more convincing argument coupled with how libertarian/authoritarian the jury members are.

          Morally, for my part, it is a hard sell to get to jeopardy from gun-on-dash and noncompliance, and I’ve been involved in felony stops (magically, I guess, without shooting someone who was slow to comply).

          Bottom line, this is one of those ones that is far from “clear cut.”

  26. avatar Ted says:

    To answer the question of the headline, no. I actually live in Bridgeton. There is no real CCW here and absolutely no easy access allowed in a vehicle. Must be cased and not reachable, definitely unloaded. Law abiding folks know better here. Bridgeton is extreme South Jersey and not “Joisey”. At college I described it as pick up trucks and tractors. The “what exit?” joke doesn’t even apply here as we are so far from it! If LE encounters a gun in view, tensions rise by default. Suspect did time after firing on Troopers and various other charges so there was already an established lack of trust by LE. Driver complied and was unharmed. All you gotta do is listen. Sue ’em for civil rights violations afterwards. You can do that if you’re not dead for being stupid.

  27. avatar Jay says:

    Obviously, the suspect was flustered by the gratuitous use of the “F” word which was not part of his daily vernacular.

  28. avatar These two THUG cops are a disgrace to America and the Constitution says:

    Gun or no gun. Jersey or AZ.

    How’s it going America?

    How many US citizens have read the constitution over the last 70 years? Less than %1. How many have given the document serious thought, obviously not many because so few have read that document… even with all the talk of the constitution the last 15-20 years. Can you remember reading it?

    What is the problem America? The problem is you and me and every US citizen. One can’t blame welfare folks, druggies, pimps, illegals, blue collar, soldiers, white collar, millionaires, billionaires or foreigners. It is you!

    More required from people who care. Do you “really care”?More is required from individuals than just ‘succeeding’ in their own lives, family inclusive. Grassroots starts with you. Lead by example! Perhaps other will also lead by example by observing you.

    It is not what your country can do for you, it is what you can do for your country “within”!

    Rightful liberty.

    Respectful freewill.

    Logic above reason.

  29. avatar Really? says:

    Once the cop has his weapon in front of him and the felonious cop shooting perp pushed his way out of the car, the cops life was in jeopardy. It matters not that the waste of good air was not currently armed, the cops gun was within his reach. I’m guessing some of you guys have had civilian use of force classes. Cops operate under different rules, especially in “duty to retreat” states, like Jersey. Good shoot, all day, every day.

  30. avatar These two THUG cops are a disgrace to America and the Constitution says:

    Yes, really.

    Americans the last 70 years have not done their part “sustaining” the constitution.

    Many states need trading back to England.

    High taxes, nearly all private property, police states, piss on the constitution, love giving / taking hand outs.

    Too many puppies…

    1. avatar Really? says:

      I can see English is a problem for you, but I am still confused how you somehow thought, I was responding to your original, incoherent diatribe.

  31. avatar texasshipgent says:

    well i have to say either TTAG is either guilty of click bait on this one or framed this up creatively to spark an interesting debate – case study which it has

    i dont however feel based on the circumstantial facts that the headline and context of the post does exactly fits the argument NJ anti gun culture facilitated this

    nor is the issue profiling by race

    am not a cop, but on a tactical level it appears the officer on the right used poor methods, once it went sideways the officer on left was forced to make a split second reaction to what looks like a known armed felon charging his partner

    once shots fired based on the reaction of the other officer, officer on left fired his weapon and think he is clean in doing so

    i doubt officer on left will get in much trouble, but has months of headache coming, officer on right may be tried but not convicted but damn for sure he will never work again

    it is possible based on the past that officer on right had a personal beef against this felon which pushed him to use poor tactics or the least increased his aggression

    to me the facts being, low income high crime area, night time, known drug dealer, felon who has prior violent crimes against police, better caution and tactics should of been used, me personally i would called for back up and ordered the men out of the car under a more controlled setting

    as such i feel that this makes this incident isolated and does fit as an example of larger fundemental debates

    1. avatar big boy says:

      It is amazing how often bad tactics leads to overreaction which results in public disapproval. Often it’ the cops who bring the violence to the scene (all wrong address raids, for example) or who stupidly escalate it (shooting a printed out 12 year-old in the back ) . My favorite is the cacophony of unintelligible conflicting orders shouted at maximum volume. It often appears as if the police set up the disaster so some officer can “make his bones”. Neither incompetence not evil is supposed to be part of professional policing. May I suggest that hiring a few of those rejected for being too intelligent may be a good idea in the long run.

    2. avatar Robert says:

      I’m willing to bet you$100.00 that no trial or any other charges will be filled against either of them. The outcome will be justified action. So are you willing to put up cash?

  32. avatar Jay-El says:

    If the late Jerame spent 13 years in the big house, he knows what a command is. And it’s a sure bet that he also knows how to half-comply in a defiant, ego-saving, f-you-pig manner that’s slightly shy of hollow-point-to-center-mass worthy. Felons enjoy this little power trip.

    My guess is that the departed Jerame knew he was going to be arrested, but he wanted to intimidate the cop first. As anyone who’s worked the streets knows, sometimes a Mr. Macho has to puff out his chest a little bit (on both sides of the badge, come to think of it).

    From what I can make out in the video, the soon-to-meet-his-maker Jerame looked like he was going to step out of the car, look the cop in the eye with a cold stare, then slowly turn around with his hands raised. Then, as he was being cuffed, I would expect him to smirk over his shoulder, “Yeah, I knew was you too much of a f***in’ pussy to shoot me.”

    Come to think of it, another young fellow whose evil deeds are interred with his bones somewhere in Ferguson uttered something similar before playing macho with an LEO at gunpoint.

  33. avatar Aaron says:

    ok, somebody please explain succinctly why this video is causing uproar, because it looked like justifiable use of force to me.

    1. avatar DerryM says:

      Sometimes we “see” what we want to see.

      1. avatar Aaron says:

        uh, ok, a non-answer. unless perhaps you mean that the folks complaining are seeing police misconduct because they want to see it.

        1. avatar DerryM says:

          Not really. If you look again at the gist of the comments in general, you will see a trend, but thanks for illustrating my point so nicely.
          And Yes I am saying the people complaining are seeing what they want to see.

        2. avatar Aaron says:

          ok, DerryM, not sure which point i proved for you, but thanks for clearing up what you meant.

        3. avatar DerryM says:

          The Site intially showed me only part of your comment. I responded inferring you were doing what I was saying in seeing my comment as a “non-answer”. At that point I saw the rest of your comment and all I could do was Edit my response by adding the last sentence.* IMO it was a “Legal Shoot” and therefore justified and debating the morality of it as those who think differently, or Cop bashing, as some have done, is pointless. JR_in_NC responded to my earlier post with a very good explanation of how the Legal System judges these incidents in the aftermath, and really that is what counts for the parties involved. My general point to you being, people are grinding their agenda axes and, therefore, “seeing what they want to see” by conflating morality, Cop bashing, and analysis in hindsight to claim it was a “Bad Shoot” by a “Bad Cop”. The real question is whether it was “Legal” and justified as the Law will analyze it in the aftermath.

          *Once you post a comment it stays floating around to those following the Thread and I will add to comments, but rarely Delete them or alter them. As far as I am concerned that’s the only honest thing to do, even if it turns-out you took a swipe at someone you might wish to withdraw for cause of a misunderstanding.

        4. avatar Aaron says:

          Derry, ok, my bad. i submitted my comment before it was ready and then added the rest.

        5. avatar DerryM says:

          Aaron, my bad, too! Apparently, we both did the same thing…What are the odds of that happening? I respect your opinions and am very glad this turns-out amicably.

    2. avatar Joseph says:

      Yep, officer Day knew Reid’s background (shooting at officers) and Reid did exactly the opposite of what he was told to do. And just because you find a gun in the glove box does not mean he doesn’t have one on his person.

      1. avatar Robert says:

        He’s a passenger in a car and if he wanted to shoot that cop he could have. The gun most likely was the drivers that cop reached in and that kid did nothing to interfere with him taking that gun out of the car. Where do you people get the idea that what those cops was okay? Thank god not all cops are like that one because if there was jails would not be needed nor would the courts forget lethal injection Seth by cop firing squad.

        1. avatar Aaron says:

          for the life of me, it makes no sense that someone is complaining about a known violent thug who get shot when he PURPOSEFULLY disobeys lawful police commands.

          when a cops is clearly feeling threatened and says “don’t move or you will die” over and over, take him at his word.

          on what planet is it acceptable for a felon caught with a gun to force open a car door and exit the car, disobeying commands?

        2. avatar Robert says:

          Think maybe you should be in that seat when 2 cops are giving orders. The butt head that was threatening to kill and does while he had already disarmed and then you have a cop telling them to get out of the car. So now you have a perfect storm of a trigger happy cop trying to justify a killing. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again if that kid wanted to shoot that murder he had time to do it.

        3. avatar Aaron says:

          Since I’m not a known violent felon with a history if violence towards coos, your hypothesis is unlikely.

          Anyway, passenger should have just stuck his hands out of the window and held them there.

        4. avatar DerryM says:

          Robert, you’re just conflating “coulda’, woulda’, shouda’s”. Better than Aaron being the Passenger, maybe you should be the Officer having seized one gun, wondering if the passenger has another, with him trying to force his way out of the car against your instructions, and tell us what would you do? What would YOU DO?

        5. avatar Robert says:

          If you don’t think that cop was totally out of control then you have issues just like him. After that kid did nothing to grab or interfere with him reaching into the car to get the gun you think this is a justified use of lethal force you must be another paranoid cop. If you cannot conduct yourself in a professional manner under pressure then you need to change jobs. Killing someone that has not made a threatening move toward you then you’re just a murderer. You don’t like the heat get out of the oven.

        6. avatar DerryM says:

          You, “Robert”, are grinding an agenda ax, and seeing only what you want to see. Tossing personal insults merely negates any credibility your opinion may have had. Maybe you should devolve further to expletives, frothing at the mouth, or chewing on chair legs.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email