VIDEO: Little Rock Police Officer Fires at Driver Through Windshield 15 times

By HANNAH GRABENSTEIN, Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — The Little Rock Police Department has released footage from a deadly officer-involved shooting that shows the officer on the hood of a car firing at least 15 times into the windshield.

Mayor Frank Scott said Thursday that the department, along with an outside marketing group, compiled dashcam footage, video from nearby businesses’ security cameras, and radio traffic from the Feb. 22 incident. Scott said the videos weren’t edited, and he urged the public to remain calm and trust in due process.

Scott’s spokeswoman said Friday that Starks is still being paid but is no longer performing any departmental duties during the investigation, and was ordered to surrender his badge and gun.

In the nearly 25 minute-long video, various angles show the confrontation between Officer Charles Starks, who is white, and 30 year-old Bradley Blackshire, who was black. Police said Starks was responding to a call after a detective confirmed the car Blackshire was driving was stolen.

The video shows that almost immediately after Blackshire’s car backs into a space in a parking lot, a police SUV arrives with lights on and stops nearby. Starks then walks to the driver’s side window with his gun drawn and instructs Blackshire to get out of the car multiple times. Blackshire refuses and asks, “What did I do?” and “What are you going to shoot me for?” Blackshire then begins to slowly drive away.

Starks is knocked by the car and fires into the windshield four times. Blackshire momentarily stops, and Starks maneuvers in front of the vehicle, leaning on the hood.

When Blackshire continues to drive, Starks — now on top of the hood — shoots at least 11 more times into the windshield. He stops shooting and gets off the car after a second officer, Michael Simpson, arrives and crashes into Blackshire’s vehicle.

After the car stops, Starks tells a female passenger to get on the ground. He handcuffs her, and she says Blackshire had just picked her up and that he had a gun.

The officers then radio for an ambulance.

In the video, Interim Chief of Police Wayne Bewley, who narrates parts of the footage, says Blackshire died at the scene. Police also said Starks sustained an unspecified injury to his right leg. Neither the passenger nor Simpson was hurt.

Bewley said the initial criminal investigation has been completed and the file has been handed to prosecutors to determine if charges will be filed. The administrative investigation is ongoing to determine if the officer’s actions were in compliance with department policy.

Scott said the FBI contacted Little Rock police to conduct a civil rights review on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Blackshire’s family, through an attorney, said: “The video confirms our assessment that Charles Starks employed an unreasonable and excessive amount of force.” The family noted the slow speed at which the car was moving and the number of times Starks fired.

A spokesman for the Little Rock Police Department could not be reached for comment.

Scott, Little Rock’s first elected black mayor, said he prayed with the Blackshire family after they viewed the video earlier in the day.

comments

  1. avatar William K Gordon says:

    Here we go again!

    1. avatar Ruthless Objectivity says:

      Seems like a good shoot. If you try to run over a cop with a gun pointed at you, you’re probably vying for a Darwin Award.

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    What is it about people who think they can just walk (drive) away from a cop holding a drawn gun? People who think they can just run their mouths, and authorities will just slump their shoulders and say, “Yo, dude. My bad. Sorry to bother you.”? Where did a life style of disrespect and rebellion against anyone in positions of authority come from, and do these people really believe they are so special, their stuff don’t stink?

    So mark me down as blaming the victim. Stupid people, doing stupid things, winning stupid prizes.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Here I thought the whole point of “fighting the man” was to resist authority. If authority doesn’t bother to try to stop you then what are you resisting?

      When did punk rock turn into this hipster peacenik shit?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “When did punk rock turn into this hipster peacenik shit?”

        Right about the time ‘Progressives’ teachers flooded into public school classrooms, with an agenda to teach correct Progressive politics to young ‘Skulls full of mush’…

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          So, about the time John Lennon released Imagine… coincidence?

        2. avatar strych9w says:

          Also, yes, that’s a joke. I’m quite well aware that Lennon released that song in ’71 and that there was a lot of pretty good anti-establishment punk in the ’80’s and well into the ’90’s.

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          pretty early.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZ9R2t5Jd0
          tons of garage before then,

    2. avatar Binder says:

      But also why in the would do these cops get in front of the car. The cop went from the side to the front of the car. Is it self defense if you literally put yourself in harms way?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The cop went from the side to the front of the car. Is it self defense if you literally put yourself in harms way?”

        Police have authority to restrain/detain suspects. Standing in the pathway of a potential criminal is a legitimate means of restraint/detainment. Once a suspect attacks restraints/detainment, police have authority to enforce the restraint/detainment.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Kind of depends what the stop was for….

          Expired tags? Probably little governmental interest in “detaining” the car in any manner.

          Suspect vehicle in a robbery? Getting closer, although the tactics of standing in front of a moving car is another issue…

          Generally, the crime seriousness is probably low enough that no one wants you to get run over/have to shoot the driver for it… and if the seriousness/interest is high enough to justify it…. you probably should be solving the problem a different way.

          Also, while we’re Monday morning this guy to death…. there’s a time to use a gun and a time to get on the radio. Pick one.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        It’s a valid point.

        OTOH, there’s reality. The reality is that cops get to argue “duty” when convenient and argue “no duty to…” when it’s convenient. That kind of double standard is annoying but it’s also necessary in terms of the police. We can’t let every Tom, Dick and Harry sue the police (and therefore the taxpayers) for every crime the cops “fail” to prevent.

        In this particular instance the cop can make a rational argument that since he knows the car is stolen he has no idea what else might be going on, such as if the passenger is a hostage/kidnap victim. Therefore he can’t let the guy leave with his potential hostage/victim, or, turn her into one if this all goes pear shaped.

      3. avatar AzzKikR says:

        I thought we wanted cops to put themselves in harms way? Unlike the coward of broward.

      4. avatar Hannibal says:

        “Is it self defense if you literally put yourself in harms way?”

        Yes, it is. As long as the officer has the lawful authority to detain the suspect, the onus falls on the suspect to not threaten the officer with deadly force like running him over. Since Tennessee v. Garner the courts have ruled that a suspect IS allowed to get away from the police (via fleeing) without being shot but SCOTUS has not (yet) decided that criminals are allowed to run police over to avoid being arrested. I’m sure Good Morning America would disagree.

        This is the key aspect of castle doctrine and SYG laws as well. What if it was not a cop (legally) trying to apprehend a suspect under authority of law? What if someone was stealing your car and you did the same thing, got in front of them and then declared self-defense when they accelerated towards you? In some states, you would have a lot of trouble, because they require that you remove yourself from the dangerous situation if possible before utilizing deadly force.

        1. avatar b72512ga says:

          Generally the Garner decision said you couldn’t shoot suspects or wanted people just because they were fleeing. But as always, there are exceptions in Garner. If a person who is fleeing presents a real threat to the safety of others, or to the pursuing officers trying to make and apprehension, then deadly force can be used. I was a police officer when this decision came down, and in reality it didn’t change things much. In this case, it could be asserted the individual was using the vehicle as a weapon, and would continue to do so if he were to have been able to drive away. A high speed pursuit could evolve, thus putting the public into danger.

      5. avatar Ben says:

        Why would someone think it’s alright to drive off with a cop on your hood? Lol

        Seriously what do you think is gonna happen? They’re gonna shoot your stupid non compliant a$$!

        1. avatar enuf says:

          That is not what happened, that is not what the video shows.

      6. avatar barnbwt says:

        Maybe because he didn’t want to shoot the passenger by accident?

        1. avatar I1uluz says:

          Maybe the officer heard about this case, didn’t feel like being on the hook for $400,000. So he made sure he didn’t hit the passenger.

          The felon was on his way to get paid for killing a drug dealer, had 2 firearms on him. Just will point out how the first link puts blame where it should. The second, well they paint the other person as a victim.
          https://pilotonline.com/news/local/columnist/roger-chesley/article_a9f63895-204b-5028-927f-9cfdaf8bd1fc.html

          https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/virginia-beach/vb-jury-rules-in-favor-of-woman-s-family-in-2015-officer-involved-shooting-lawsuit/1399344809

      7. Exactly…How can you scream self defense,when you put yourself in harms way.

    3. avatar Ragnar says:

      “Where did a life style of disrespect and rebellion against anyone in positions of authority come from,…”

      Have you ever listened to any Hip Hop lyrics?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Or Rock n’ Roll, or Industrial, or Punk, or… well, most music made after like 1940.

        1. avatar JMR says:

          Or studied this history of America and the circumstances which lead to its founding.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Have you ever listened to any Hip Hop lyrics?”

        Once, for about 30sec.

        Actually, the rebellious, selfish and disrespectful attitude comes from four generation of children raising children to remain children regardless of actual age.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Those that think ‘tude’ started with rap or hip hop must not have been around for the 60’s.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Those that think ‘tude’ started with rap or hip hop must not have been around for the 60’s.”

          I still have the T-shirt.

        3. avatar jram01 says:

          SamI I am.

          Very well put.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Very well put.”

          It’s been a pet theory developed through observation over four generations of life.

    4. avatar Torro Viejo says:

      Yes

    5. avatar enuf says:

      I agree it is incredibly stupid to resist the police. Better to be completely compliant and figure things out when everything is calmed down. The driver took a risk and died for it.

      Problem is that officer also mad major mistakes and will either be fired for it, or worse. Local reporting on this has been saying the officer violated training and department policy in several ways, that he has a long disciplinary record and was supposed to b fired in 2016.

      We see this one video but there are others. He’s not on administrative leave, he’s been relieved of duty, of his badge and his gun. Technically still employed and being paid but these are usually the steps preceding either firing, or an arrest or both.

    6. avatar Raven says:

      @Sam I Am: “So mark me down as blaming the victim. Stupid people, doing stupid things, winning stupid prizes.”

      You are calling him a victim but there is no victim here. There is only a perp and a cop. And the perp chose poorly.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You are calling him a victim but there is no victim here.”

        Wanted to get ahead of all the SJWs.

    7. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      How many times has this type of thing happened and these thick headed idiots cannot learn to just follow orders and sort it out later. Keep doing the same stupid thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    8. avatar kevin says:

      Why does anyone think they can walk or drive away from a cop telling them to “stop?”

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Why does anyone think they can walk or drive away from a cop telling them to “stop?””

        Because everyone is a special snowflake, now?

    9. avatar Swarf says:

      You mean like all the open carry dipshits?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You mean like all the open carry dipshits?”

        Really? You see no difference between being stopped under suspicion of criminal activity, and being stopped for legal activity?

        Have not seen all the videos, but the two dozen I reviewed showed open carriers being respectful with cops, but being firm that they (the open carriers) are acting within the law. An open or concealed carrier of a firearm who is violating the law, and acting threatening toward police will have earned whatever result ensues.

        As an analysis of the videos I reviewed, the police either tried to prove a point of power, or were ignorant about the laws regarding open carry of firearms. Just imagine trying to plead ignorance of the law in your defense at trial. Only police get a pass when they do not know the law. Can’t expect police to know all the laws they are to enforce, but citizens are accountable for every comma in “the law”.

      2. avatar Widdler says:

        This could get good, I’m getting popcorn anybody need anything?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This could get good, I’m getting popcorn anybody need anything?”

          Nah; damp squib, unrelated to the original post.

  3. avatar AutoLode says:

    dirty cop dirty shoot

    1. avatar AzzKikR says:

      Well we’re about at the point now where white officers can’t shoot at any non white criminals, even if they’re on a murder spree. Soon after that, whites in general won’t be allowed to defend themselves from any non white actor.

    2. avatar Peter Goznya says:

      You’re a dirty girl

  4. avatar Hannibal says:

    Am I bEiNg dEtaiNeD??

    So, the question is, if you steal a car, do the police have a right to stop you? Because it’s one thing if you just sit in there and refuse to get out. Shooting someone for that is murder. But as soon as you put that mamajama in gear, you are now taking control of a blunt weapon weighing thousands of pounds and capable of absolutely destroying anyone you decide to hit with it. And then you hit a cop with it first. Mmmhmm.

    I guess the police should call the media and the suspect’s family to check and see if they’re allowed to stop him before they try anything.

  5. avatar EWTHeckman says:

    Blackshire’s family, through an attorney, said: “The video confirms our assessment that Charles Starks employed an unreasonable and excessive amount of force.”

    Of course it was unreasonable. After all, everyone knows that it’s perfectly reasonable to refuse to get out of a car you stole when a police officer tells you to, and instead drive that car into the officer standing in front of it! (Especially when the driver of the car is armed.) </sarc>

    This kind of “F- the Police, we can do whatever we want” attitude demonstrated by the family is why this young fool is dead.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      We do not know that the car was stolen, it has not been confirmed.

      The officer was not in front he was to the side. The car creeps forward and the officer shoots from the side, not in any danger. Then the officer lays over the hood to shoot some more.

      Bad shoot. Cop will be fired and possibly charged.

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        Try reading for comprehension next time.

        Police said Starks was responding to a call after a detective confirmed the car Blackshire was driving was stolen.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          No problem with reading comprehension. The detective said the car was stolen just before the incident. Asking now, was the detective correct? Confirmation on that point is just one fact the investigation will document.

          Stolen car or not does not change the fact that officer Starks used deadly force with those first four shots when he was in no danger. Remember, we are seeing only one angle of this. The LRPD has other videos and they have taken his badge, his gone, relieved him of duty. This suggests those other videos show what this one appears to show, Starks was not in the path of the car, he shoots the driver then places himself in the path and lays over the hood to keep shooting.

          Starks vilolated policy and training on shooting at moving cars. He will likely be fired, may be charged.

      2. avatar kevin says:

        Enuf, you have posted 24 times on this one story. 24 times. Seriously.
        God himself (or Hillary, or whoever you worship) could come down and show you that you are wrong, and you would still be so entrenched that you wouldn’t see it.

        Let it go.

  6. avatar sound awake says:

    stolen car
    gun in the car
    plus who knows what else
    initial reaction:
    DSAF
    Did
    Society
    A
    Favor
    i dont understand the mindset of people who insist that law enforcement is out to get them and then they do things like this
    i hate to be so callous to say stupid is as stupid does because somebody died here but it kinda sorta summarizes what happened
    room temperature challenge:
    epic fail
    ultimately if we throw this guy to the wolves over this cops wont want to police more
    theyll want to police less
    is that what we want
    i guess it depends if youre in a red state or blue state

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      The mindset is they are racist criminals, themselves. Probably weed, but possibly other stuff, too. Toss in an open hatred of whitey and you’ve got someone with little sympathy for the police apparatus.

  7. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    What I saw was a clean shoot. Justified use of force. When some is looking at me with a gun in my hand and ignores my instructions, then tries to run me over – I, too, will shoot and I will stop shooting only when the slide locks back. – Then I will put in another mag and if the dude moves, I’ll empty that mag too! And I’m not a peace officer!

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Dirty shoot.

      The driver did not try to run over the cop. The cop fired from the side, not in any danger. Only after shooting the driver did the cop get in front of the car, lay over the hood and shoot some more.

    2. avatar kevin says:

      I saw some superhero John Wick shit: on the hood, in the process of getting run over, firing in self defense, while radioing for help. Damn. Go get a beer on me dude, you earned it.

  8. avatar strych9 says:

    “The family noted the slow speed at which the car was moving…”

    Riiiiiight. Because we all know that a steamroller running you over won’t hurt you cause it does it so slowly. If I stab you, slowly, it doesn’t cause injuries. Cause speed is the only factor in a physics equation.

    I’m generally pretty skeptical of authority but, calling it as I see it, unless there’s something significant here I’m not seeing it seems like the cop did things pretty well. Didn’t even shoot the passenger and treated her pretty darn well considering.

    Seriously, if you drive into a cop on purpose what the fuck do you think is going to happen?

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Isn’t it great when there is a video showing exactly what happened…??? Doesn’t leave a lot of room for question or supposition…

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “Isn’t it great when there is a video showing exactly what happened…???”

        Not if it’s video of you doing something naughty.

        1. avatar WI Patriot says:

          That’s not likely to happen…

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          I wasn’t suggesting that you yourself would do something inappropriate.

          I was merely pointing out that if the video is a good thing or not depends on your point of view. I’m sure this guy’s family wishes such video didn’t exist. Non-existence of this video would greatly enhance their chances of cashing in on this situation.

          If, OTOH, you prefer the truth to win, video is always nice.

        3. avatar WI Patriot says:

          “I wasn’t suggesting that you yourself would do something inappropriate.”

          I get that…

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Not seeing that at all and neither is the Little Rock PD. The officer was in no danger when he fired from the side of a barely moving car. Now the driver is shot, incapacitated to an unknown degree. So the officer steps in front of the moving car and lays on the hood to continue shooting. The car is moving so slowly he is able to walk fro the side to the front, he is under no threat and is then making his second major violation of his training and LRPD policy.

      Police departments have been putting a stop to officers shooting at moving cars for good reasons. Shooting the driver does not stop the car. Only under very specific conditions is an officer allowed to shoot at a moving car.

      This shoot was bad from start to finish.

      1. avatar Jbw says:

        Is the dead thug now going to be another black hero? I don’t understand how criminals and thugs get promoted to hero just because they get caught and killed by a white cop. If he had stopped the car gotten out with his hands up he would be alive. Instead he was taught to mouth off and resist and not do what he was told and now he is dead.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          I see no heroes here. The driver behaved stupidly and died for it. But so too did the police officer behave stupidly, and now he is losing his job and may be charged with a crime.

          All of which get back to the point. The video does not support the officer’s story. The police department has other videos from security cameras and other officer’s cameras that do not support officer Stark’s version of events.

          That is why he has lost his badge, his gun, his job comes next and then we wait to hear what the prosecutor has to say.

          “Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes” works for both sides, when both sides play.

  9. avatar John in Ohio says:

    That’s some multi-tasking.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Shoot, move, communicate…

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yup. He seemed to do it so well. It’s almost palpable that he’s thinking ahead when grabbing hold of his lapel mic.

  10. avatar The Dude Abides says:

    Sucks to suck.

  11. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    I am disappointed at the he is white he was black comments in the article. Stolen car and with a gun. That is all…

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      YEP!
      All that should be EVER printed is …he was a cop and he was a criminal….race should be nothing in a ‘fair…unbiased report”….but nope have to stir the RACE pot.

      1. avatar Widdler says:

        +1!!! Exactly

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      They even mention the first black mayor, as if that has anything to do with anything besides this felon’s defenders being racist shitheads.

  12. avatar Bobski says:

    To me, in an ideal world he wouldn’t have placed himself in front of that vehicle and the SUV would have blocked him in resulting in him surrendering peacefully. But it’s not a perfect world, that cop had no idea his backup was that close, this guy could have doubled down in his response to that and this is an effective way of stopping criminals. So I guess my response is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      How else would he be sure to shoot the driver & not the passenger? The blocking car hit the rear, the officer was blocking the front with his body. Probably would have devolved into a dangerous pursuit if this guy had simply driven off like he intended.

  13. avatar James W Crawford says:

    February 15, 1989, Wilsonville Oregon, my brother was murdered by a robber who was stealing a garbage can.
    Weapon was a Dodge van.
    Accellerated from standing stop a distance of about ten feet. Impact velocity well under 20 mph. Repeatedly accellerated then decellerated until he knocked my brother down then drove over him. A trail of cloth, blood, flesh and bone ground into the asphalt attested that my brother was trapped under the car while he was dragged about 50 feet.
    Cause of death, Flail Chest Injury.
    All his ribs were broken. Paramedics testified that they could actually watch his heart as it stopped beating when their efforts to save him failed.

    I will call the PD to offer my testimony in the officers behalf.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      I’m going to make a wild guess and say that your brother tried to stop the thief by getting in front of the van? Because that is what the cop did.

      1. avatar James W Crawford says:

        Correct.

        My brother presumed that the perp would not kill over a garbage can. He was wrong.

        1. avatar binder says:

          I hate to tell you this, you bother was not killed over the can, he was killed because the other guy felt trapped and did not want to get caught. People will due stupid violent shit to get away.

        2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          a sedan hood is a table.
          a van is a wall.
          horrible.

    2. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      What became of the robber?

      1. avatar James W Crawford says:

        The prosecutor recommended a 12 year sentence, which means probably out in 7 years.

        The defense pleaded for a sentence of 7 yesrs which means probably out in 4 years.

        Judge Charles Samms chose to take judicial notice of my victims impact statement in which I reminded him of the fact that the 28 year old perp had a 16 year old, live in girlfriend who was pregnant. The judge cited this prima facia evidence of stautory rape as justification to classify him as a sex offender for sentencing under Oregon guidelines. Perhaps Judge Samms had remembered my offer during the bail hearing to post bail if it was allowed and take him into my own custody?

        The judge sentenced the perp to 25 years to life.

        The prosecutor was stunned.

        The defense attorney fainted.

        The perp began to sob as he asked if the rumors about what happens to sex offenders in prison were true. I assurred him that the rumors were true.

        For reasons that I will not explain, a convicted serial killer who was on death row offerred to kill my brother’s murderer prop bono. I declined the offer.

        Years later I confirmed my suspicions that it was Judge Samms who had allowed my brother’s killer to be free on his own recognizance when the murder occurred. Judge Samms had been as angry as I was.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Lol.

      Uh… the cop was NOT standing in front of the car when he started shooting into the windshield. The passengers were NOT trying to run over the cop. They were trying to get away. The job, regardless of your completely unrelated incident about your brother, is to apprehend and arrest. Not kill on sight or orchestrate technicalities ahead of time so you can claim self defense.

  14. avatar JMR says:

    So why did the cop approach with his firearm drawn?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      When a crime is in progress it’s sorta what we pay them to do.

      1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        Thank you.

        Pretty damn simple really but it still has to be explained to some people.

        1. avatar JMR says:

          If it’s so simple, answer the question, why did he approach with his gun drawn?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          jmr. You drunk? High? Stupid? A progressive? He had a gun drawn because he was effecting a felony arrest.

        3. avatar JMR says:

          Did they ID him before he stopped? Are all car thief’s approached with a weapon drawn?

          Why do I have to be any of those things? Why are you trying to discredit me instead of answering the questions? Especially given that the article does not mention any of these things.

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          The article doesn’t mention a great many things that are already known to reasonable people. It’s not the article’s fault- or the fault of anyone here- if you do not know some very basic principles of policing and firearm use in the US.

          YES, by the way, car thieves are approached with a gun drawn. It’s called a high-risk stop (used to be called ‘felony stop’) and it’s because the felon behind the wheel has immediate access to a weapon that will kill you very easily- a 3,000lb club. And a gun, in this case (and many others).

        5. avatar OBOB says:

          JMR says:
          March 10, 2019 at 00:26

          Are all car thief’s approached with a weapon drawn?

          FUCKING YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
          they teach that day one cop school…IF its a F-e-l-o-n-y…you have your gun out!!!!!!!!!!!!

          so you tell us??
          on a felony stop would you send flowers or a messenger with invite and chocolates???

          that…why did the cop have his gun out…ranks up there with…should have ‘just’ shot the car out of his hand?

        6. avatar JMR says:

          OBOB, so if you pull a car over for speeding, and notice the car has a eagle feather on it, you pull you’re weapon? And why are other people saying that this is not the case? That you don’t pull you’re firearm right away?

          Are you an officer? Tell me, do civilians know all the SOP of cops? (I doubt it, this would seem to be dangerous) if you’re a officer, and you know civilians don’t know all you’re SOP, why would you freak out when one asks a question about it?

          Are you that much of a snowflake that you can’t handle a simple question, or do you put police officers up on a platform?

        7. avatar JMR says:

          Hannibal, and how would one go about finding out things one does not know? I always thought it was by asking questions, which is why I asked a question, but from the snowflake responses I’ve received I guess that is no longer accepted practice. I guess you know what you know and you never should know anything more.

          But man that must be a pretty dumb society, filled with nothing but yes men, no intellectual thinkers at all, coincidentally that is the type of society that the left likes. It’s a shame so many here do as well.

          I must say, i’ve lost a lot of respect I had for cops because of the responses here, instead of answering (supposedly) simple question apparently everyone is supposed to know, nobody here could answer those questions for a long time, and instead obfuscated for hours.

      2. avatar JMR says:

        Oh? See many cops pull out their firearms on jaywalkers?
        I wonder how many crimes happen without a drawn firearm, most I would guess.

        Do you know why the cop approached with his gun drawn?

        1. avatar AzzKikR says:

          Why didn’t the cop just magically detain him with his TV super hero cop powers where no one ever needs to be shot? Was he sick the day they taught that in the academy?

        2. avatar JMR says:

          Oh look another person who can’t answer the question.

          Why did the officer approach with a drawn firearm?

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Do you know why the cop approached with his gun drawn?”

          The car was reported stolen.

          Is that good enough of a reason for you?

        4. avatar jwm says:

          jmr. You didn’t read the post, did you? After a detective confirmed the car was stolen the uniform officer responded. A. Felony. Arrest.

        5. avatar JMR says:

          Geoff PR, is it SOP to approach thieves with firearms drawn?

          jwm, yes I read the article, which is why I’m Asking questions as the article was lacking the answers. I’ve read it multiple times looking for them, and they’re still not there.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          “… is it SOP to approach thieves with firearms drawn?”

          It’s SOP to approach anyone who obviously has a weapon in their possession, and at the ready, with a firearm drawn.

          The car quite clearly is a weapon and history shows us it’s an effective one if brought to bear. This isn’t much different than if the guy was holding a bat, crowbar, knife etc.

          Would the cop have drawn his gun if the guy was out of the car? Maybe, maybe not. Then maybe we’d have a serious question about the cops tactics on our hands. As it is the guy was quite clearly in possession of a weapon and therefore the officer’s actions were appropriate.

        7. avatar JMR says:

          Yea they didn’t know he had a firearm

          So try again.

          Or do they approach anyone in a car with firearms drawn?

          What if there’s a Bald Eagle feather (felony) on the car? Firearm drawn then?

        8. avatar strych9 says:

          Do they approach anyone who has a car that way?

          No, obviously they do not. But they approach with caution. In this case he already knows there’s a pretty high probability that the person driving the car stole it, knowingly committing a felony, which significantly raises the odds that they’ll get violent in trying to escape.

          That’s not really as much of a worry when you pull over a soccer mom in a minivan.

        9. avatar JMR says:

          Assuming the soccer mom didn’t steal the van?

          If that’s the case why did he not block him in with his car instead of his body? Why did he step in front of the car?

          You’re saying the guy knew he may be predisposed to violence because he stole a car, but he steps in front of the car as well?

          You’re scenario doesn’t make a lot of sense considering what the officer did, so we’re back to why did he approach with his firearm drawn?

        10. avatar strych9 says:

          You understand what probability is, right?

        11. avatar JMR says:

          Enough to know that if you think it’s probable that a suspect will use his car to escape you shouldn’t step in front of it when you have a SUV you could use instead.

          But that once again does not answer the question.

        12. avatar AZgunner says:

          To answer your question: Yes, when a vehicle has been confirmed as reported stolen, the arrest is always conducted as a high risk stop with a drawn weapon. This is due to the frequency with which vehicle theft suspects attempt to use deadly force or flee. High risk vehicle stops are called that for a reason.

        13. avatar Hannibal says:

          Are you- and I’m not trying to be insulting here- literally retarded? Because there’s only two explanations I can think of for your ridiculous posts here, and that’s more charitable one. Otherwise I can only imagine you’re being purposefully dense.

        14. avatar barnbwt says:

          You should really work on being such a racist twit. We all know that’s the real reason you’re being so hostile. You’ll be a lot happier if you let go of that hate

        15. avatar JMR says:

          AZgunner, finally someone answered the question!

          So if I go and look for videos of stolen cars in this state being stopped they will all be stopped with firearms drawn?

          Second question, why did the officer step in front of the car, put himself in a position to be killed?

        16. avatar JMR says:

          Hannibal, are you retarded? That’s the only explanation I can come up with as to why you would think a post asking a question about missing information that is required to make a judgement on what happened it’s ridiculous.

          It’s amazing I ask one question and I got snowflakes combing out of the woodworks left right and center. All who act like it’s a simple answer, all unable to answer it.

        17. avatar JMR says:

          barnbwt, are you talking to me? Why am I racist? I haven’t brought up the race of any person involved yet, you readily jumped to it, now i’m no expert but seems to me like that would make you the racist.

        18. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Why are you guys allowing yourselves to get into an argument with a shit stirrer.

        19. avatar JMR says:

          Huntmaster, ask a question and I am a shit stirrer?

          Good lord, I never thought I’d see so many people willingly seek out less information and more stupidity.

    2. avatar Mark-in-Indy says:

      Is this a real question or am I missing the sarcasm?

      Answer: To effect the arrest of a felon. FELON.

      1. avatar JMR says:

        No it’s a real question, did they know he was a felon, did they ID him before he stopped? Why did he approach with a gun drawn?

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Normal procedure in a felony stop.

          He was wrong to shoot but not to have his gun out.

        2. avatar Mark-in-Indy says:

          I’m not a LEO in Arkansas, so I can’t say for sure why his gun was drawn just from the limited info I have from this article. But, on the fly risk assessment and personal risk mitigation are parts of the job. I(we) can throw all sorts of “what ifs” into the fray, but my take away is this. If I’m apprehending a positively id’ed felon(check definition) in a positively id’ed stolen vehicle and I’m unsure of his intentions, I’m more than likely to be ready to counter any threatening behavior he may exhibit. In this case, ensure I have b/u in place and attempt non-confrontational contact but also be prepared for an escalation in violence. Is there anything that says he HAD to have his firearm drawn? Probably not. There’s only one person who knows precisely why and even then, he may not be able to explicitly be able to convey those thoughts.

        3. avatar JMR says:

          Mark-in-Indy, thank you for the best answer anyone has posted yet, (I don’t know why it took so long) this is understandable, but I don’t think advancing with a weapon drawn will mitigate tension, I don’t believe it’s de-escalation.

          Based on what’s known a lot of mistakes appeared to have been made by the officer, it’s unfortunate it resulted in killing someone.

    3. avatar DJ says:

      Because the car was stolen.

      1. avatar JMR says:

        Is it SOP to approach a person who stole a car with a drawn firearm?

        1. avatar OBOB says:

          I have doubts you are smart enough to understand this

          but a cop when a car is stolen and they know it…and OR they can’t see your hands and the car is still on…ESPECIALLY not seeing BOTH FREAKING HANDS… gun is OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        2. avatar JMR says:

          OBOB, Again, make one question about missing information and all the snowflakes come out.

        3. avatar AZgunner says:

          To clarify even further based on some of your subsequent questions-

          Yes, any videos you find of high risk stops on stolen vehicles should show police with weapons drawn.

          No, it does not help with deescalation. I’m a big fan of deescalation, it has helped me avoid many uses of force. But there is a time and a place. A high risk vehicle stop is treated in the same category of risk as a hostage situation or armed felon. Your gun should be out already because of the likelihood of violence. Already having your gun drawn saves roughly 1-1.5 seconds based on human reaction time and the speed of your draw.

          As to putting yourself in the path of the vehicle- I would never do that. I know a Sergeant who suffered nearly career ending injuries from just this type of incident. At the end of the day, I’m not getting run over to stop a car thief. I’ll do everything in my power to effect the arrest, but I’m of no use to anyone, including the passenger of the vehicle, if I’m crushed to death by several thousand pounds of machine.

        4. avatar JMR says:

          AZgunner, thank you sir for answering my questions, you are a respectable individual, I’m sorry to have wasted your time I simply do not know, but based on what you’ve told me I know enough that I know I can’t make any judgements here.

          Thanks again, and have a great day.

        5. avatar OBOB says:

          sheeesh all that to tell the guy, what, he, or an it? should have know…a gun already is to out to gain that extra second to shoot….why did that have to be actually spelled out….moron

          kinda of like having to tell a person —yes the car should be running when you get to the starting line on a drag strip and you the driver actually IN it, might be a good thing too…you know to win the race?

        6. avatar JMR says:

          OBOB, holy shit, they brought back the edit feature please use it that was unreadable.

          And again, why would I know that SOP is to have a weapon drawn? And if I assumed that was SOP, then logically I would assume standing in front of a car was SOP, which would be idiotic, which again is why I asked the question.

          If the answer was so simple you had plenty of time to answer it, but you didn’t you just wanted to make a fool of yourself.

  15. avatar Michael says:

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. -30-

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Ding, Ding, Ding…

  16. avatar WI Patriot says:

    But, but…Jussie Smollett…;)

  17. avatar HP says:

    A good shoot.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Nope, bad shoot. Now he is relieved of duty, made to surrender gun and badge. Will next be fired, good possibility of a criminal charge being filed.

      You shoot somebody when you are not under threat, then try to make it look like you were, violating training and policy to do so, well it’s not just the stupid non-compliant driver about to win stupid prizes.

  18. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Little Rock Police Officer Fires at Driver Through Windshield 15 times”

    Just goes to show, you just don’t shoot once or twice, you keep shooting until the threat is eliminated…

    Mag change…

  19. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    I hope once the dust settles they dig that Ahole up and shoot him 15 more times.

    1. avatar cat rowan says:

      That is exactly what we said!

  20. avatar Mark N. says:

    As I read the family’s lawyer’s statement, the only reason the force was unreasonable is because the officer fired 14 times. I guess if he’d only fired four or five it would have been ok, right?

  21. avatar Rev. Matt says:

    Police officers are the enemy of a free society. When they come for the guns, police will be the vangard.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      No, socialists are the enemy of a free society. If the police “…come for the guns…” it will be by the order of socialist politicians, judges and bureaucrats.

  22. avatar JRC says:

    Why didn’t the cop simply say why he was being stopped and asked to exit the vehicle? Then it would be clear the suspect knew full well why he was being detained. Driving away would mean he was knowingly resisting, and there would less controversy.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      The car thief had a gun and was willing to hit a cop with his car in order to get away. What, exactly, do you think would have happened if the police officer just sauntered up to him Mayberry Style, told him he’s about to be arrested for a felony that will land him behind bars for years, and asked him to get out?

      What’s in the water where you live? No, it must be the officer’s fault for not being courteous enough to the guy who dindu nothing except steal cars and hit people with vehicles.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        We do not know that the car was stolen. It was said to be suspected, I see no reporting of it being confirmed.

        The officer was not under threat when he began shooting. He was off to the side, fired four times then moved in front of the car and fired another eleven times after laying himself over the hood.

        If you shoot a driver, how does the car stop other than by hitting something?

        If you shoot the driver how does then stepping in front of the car make any damned sense at all? What do you expect to happen when you have shot the driver four times and now the only control of the car is either dead or severely broken?

        Stupid driver (unconfirmed if car thief) tried to creep away from stupid cop and everybody lost.

        The only winner in this thing is the woman who somehow did not die. Waiting to hear her side of it.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          It’s harder to hit the passenger from the front of the car while shooting the driver. A dead driver doesn’t stomp the gas pedal. A rational person won’t try to drive over an officer. Police approach reported stolen vehicles with guns out since the suspect may be violent.

          You should work on your racism, there’s really no argument to attack the officer’s actions here, besides skin color.

        2. avatar Dan in Detroit says:

          You know the article says that a detective confirmed that the car in question WAS stolen, right?
          Didja try reading?

        3. avatar enuf says:

          Yes I read that. The detective claiming it was stolen is not confirmation that he was correct. Which is the next part I am looking for, was this felony stop correctly initiated in the first place? If yes, fine the detective is alright. If not, there is more to be looked into.

          And it is still a bad shoot either way, stolen car or not.

        4. avatar enuf says:

          barnbwt –

          Racism? Now that’s funny. If you could read my posts in many forums you’d know how routinely I defend cops.

          But this was a bad shoot. The video says so. The decisions of the police department investigators looking at more videos from more angles also say so. Officer Stark was in no danger when he fired the first four times. He violated policy even shooting at the moving car. He made it worse by getting in front of the moving car and laying on top of the hood.

          There is no way to know how badly the driver was hurt from those first four illegal shots. If he was well secured by a seat belt, the driver’s weight may not have shifted forward as he slumped. But that would mean his foot is then off the brake, allowing the car to do what it will in the gear it is in. If he is slumping from wounds and not well secured, absolutely weight can push a foot into any pedal.

          Some of this is why it is against training and policy to shoot at moving cars. Doing so does not stop the car and makes it unguided and out of control. There are very limited circumstances where shooting at a moving car is allowed.

          Doing so while you are standing safely to the side as the driver mouths off stupidly and tries to creep off at a snail’s pace is not one of those circumstances.

  23. avatar Jeremy D. says:

    Why is a “marketing group” collecting these videos?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      May have to do with the multiple videos from multiple sources being compiled together to show a consistent timeline. The marketing firm may have lent their editing expertise to make sure it was done correctly.

  24. avatar Don't tread on me says:

    This is on the officer. Protocol. L.E.O.’s vehicle should have been used as a barricade. And flying solo wasn’t smart. When facing a situation as this, backup would have made all the difference in the world. Then he purposefully placed himself infront of the vehicle. Stupid move. Yet again, he did not use the training he had received. And will now pay for it. Not even mentioning those put in danger by the 15 rounds blindly shot into the vehicle. A person died. Because of the incompetence of an officer. Some will say “anothther p.o.s. got what he deserved”. Not I. If car theives get put down, what do murderer’s get? A slap on the wrist.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “And flying solo wasn’t smart.”

      2 police cruisers responded to the incident.

      And while I agree ‘flying solo’ isn’t smart, the stark reality is, municipalities have ever-shrinking budgets for law enforcement services.

      In ‘RealVille’, you make do with the resources you have available, not what you wish were available…

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      “If car theives get put down…”

      I see you’ve bought into the stupid theory every morning talk show and liberal politician buys into. I bet you believe that Michael Brown was ‘put down’ for jaywalking too, huh?

      Hint: it wasn’t stealing the car that got him shot. Stealing the car was getting him arrested. Resisting arrest with a 3,000lb weapon (and a gun) is what got him shot. Don’t do that.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      Firing blindly? He got himself square in front of the guy at close range, the passenger out of harm’s way. He obviously kept shooting until his mag was empty, probably because the vehicle kept idling forward though the shithead had been killed.

      Don’t let racism cloud your judgement.

  25. avatar Nanashi says:

    Car thief tries to run over an officer and gets shot? Only tragedy here is for whoever owned the car. Would insurance cover that? I can see a good policy covering theft and damage done by the thief, but the damage was done by the officer.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The video does not show that. It shows the officer firing from the side of the car, stopping to get in front of the car, laying over the hood and shooting some more.

      That’s why the cop is in so much trouble, he did bad things against his training and against department policy.

  26. avatar Robb says:

    Wildly firing one handed into the cab with passengers in it wasn’t the best decision. Say whatever you want, but we all know he was lurching away and wasn’t an actual threat to the cops life, maybe if he floored it, but not that 2mph crawl.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Perform a study on the lethality of being hit, run over, or dragged by cars at various speeds and please get back to everyone with your results so we can know exactly at what speed a moving vehicle becomes deadly force. Then I hope you can help people out by being at the scene and deciding if and when the car has reached the exact MPH you have determined is a threat of great bodily harm.

      Alternatively, we could just say you’re not allowed to endanger people by attempting to resist arrest via 3,000lbs of steel, but hey….

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Officer Starks violated department policy. He fired into a moving car, which will not stop the car. He placed himself in the path of the car, that is never permitted. He began shooting from the side of the car, there was no threat to him.

        There was only a suspicion of a stolen car, which has not yet been confirmed in any news reports I can find. No other reason or threat has been revealed to the public.

        Keep in mind there are more camera angles we are not seeing which his department has seen. He is not on leave as per the usual, he’s been relieved of duty and had to turn in badge and gun. In other reporting there’s a track record of issues with the guy, he was supposed to be fired in 2016.

        It doesn’t look good for Starks.

      2. avatar Robb says:

        that cop started shooting while he was beside the car, then intentionally jumped on the hood to make it look more “justified”

  27. avatar Mark H says:

    Sure looks to me like the officer fired the first shot -before- he stepped in front of the vehicle. That’s problematic from a reasonable use of force standpoint. Once the officer is in front of the vehicle, and is struck, shooting is of course quite reasonable.

    I’d really like to see additional video from other angles. (which apparently exists)

    1. avatar Dan in Detroit says:

      fleeing felon rule?
      Either way, I’ll just add “steal a car and use it to resist an officer with a gun pointed at me” to the list of “things not to do if i don’t want to get shot today”.
      I’m pretty sure I don’t need it on the list as a reminder to keep it from happening, but I just want to be extra sure.

      1. avatar AZgunner says:

        The fleeing felon rule is still subject to the supreme court’s decision in Graham V Connor. The first criteria is severity of the crime. While a stolen vehicle is a serious felony, it is still a property crime. Without an additional serious violent crime, it’s hard to say from a legal perspective that it’s best for the suspect to be killed.

        Additionally, my department at least prohibits us from firing into moving vehicles. I certainly wouldn’t be firing into a vehicle with a passenger either, not unless the driver is firing at me and I have no choice.

        While I’m not shedding any tears for the suspect, the officer’s decision to put himself in the way of the vehicle and fire into definitely is a poor tactical decision at best and a violation of policy at worst.

        As my Sergeant always says “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

  28. avatar Still Curious says:

    Consider if the driver is able to escape and the girl he picked up is raped or killed, there would be no end to how he didn’t do his job and should have used his weapon as they already knew it was a felony in motion

  29. avatar Minuteman says:

    Some comments on this here show me just how far left we have gone. Why didn’t the guy just get out of the car when told to? Because he is stupid that’s why. I think based on what he said he intended to get shot. As far as the cop shooting haphazardly he was on the hood being pushed by the car. Not the best place to be for sure. Looks like all the shots went through the windshield. The dead guys passenger was surprisingly calm. Maybe the cop had to get in front to get a angle that allowed him to not hurt the passenger if he had to shoot the dummy.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      It is not us moving to the left. It was the officer doing a really lousy job.

      He shoots from the side of a barely moving car. Why? Why is he shooting? He is in no danger at this point.

      The car is moving so slowly the officer is able to step from the side to stand in front of it. The car does not hit him, he lays atop the hood.

      Why? What kind of an idiot do you have to be to think standing in front of a car will stop it?

      Worse, once you shoot the driver, which was before standing in front of the car, what do you think is going to happen next? Driver is not show, no predicting he’ll be able to stop or is even alive at that point. Yet you stand in front of the car of a shot-up driver?

      All this amount to violations of training and department policy. For which officer Starks is being fired, possibly also charged. That’s why he is now without a badge or a gun and is relieved of duty. All the first steps before firing.

  30. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Cops are now required to step aside as POC with stolen guns drive away in stolen cars.

    Meanwhile, some boomer shlub with an NRA sticker gets the full cavity frisk n search along the highway.

    Thank you Obama! Can we have another one?

  31. avatar enuf says:

    There’s said to be a bunch more video from more angles not yet released.

    This one’s different. Normally the officer is put on “Administrative Leave” until the investigation is done. But this one is described differently as he was “relieved of duty” and has “surrendered his badge and gun”. That’s not the usual language.

    The officer violated department policy which prohibits firing into a moving car except under certain circumstances. It prohibits the officer placing himself in the path of a moving car. Then there’s the problem of the car barely moving.

    He fires first while he is at the side of the car, not in front of it. That violated department policy. He moves in front of it and lays over the hood to keep shooting, again violating department policy.

    Seems he also has a discipline problem and a commanding officer recommended he be fired in 2016:
    https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/mar/07/little-rock-police-release-video-police-shooting/

    Notice the comment that in the last ten years five of six officers “relieved of duty” and made to turn in their badge and gun were arrested soon after.

    One point the various reports have not cleared up is the status of the car. “Suspected of being stolen” is not the same thing as confirmed to have been stolen. So was it or wasn’t it?

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      perhaps so, but once the cop is on the hood and the perp keeps driving, at that point shooting is not only appropriate but in fact inevitable.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        The driver had already been shot from the side as many as four times.

        How does the officer think the car is going to stop now that the driver is shot and control of the car is either dead, dying or severely damaged? Is it the driver continuing to drive forward at this point or the inertia and still running engine making the car go?

        It is then that Starks steps in front of the car and lays upon the hood. Massively stupid thing to do.

  32. avatar Aaron says:

    important safety tip: don’t drive off in a stolen car with a cop on the car’s hood.

    i can’t imasgine a scenerio where driving off in a stolen car with a cop on the hood is going to end in any other way.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      That did not happen, that is not what the video shows. Which is why the officer is about to be fired and possibly arrested.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        Yeah, the “first black mayor” they just happened to mention and all the rampant racism among the black community had nothing to do with that, I’m sure.

        Also, what’s this stuff about having to “confirm” the stolen vehicle before shooting? It was reported stolen, which is why the officer was looking for it & pulled it over. Guy starts to drive off & hits the officer so he shoots, then moves to the front to continue shooting since the vehicle was still creeping forward, so as to not hit the passenger.

        The guy’s past could be a factor insofar as this latest drama makes him too much a liability, even if it is fully justified.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          The Little Rock PD has more video from other angles and has reached a different set of conclusions. Bad shoot, cop was in no danger standing at the side when he fires his first four shots. He had to move himself to get in front of the car and lay over the hood to keep shooting.

          All that is a violation of training and of policy.

          Besides, why would anyone expect a car to stop after the driver is shot? Possibly four times? Shoot the driver and stay out of the way until the car hits something sturdy enough to stop it. Stepping in front of a car of which you have just shot the driver full of holes will not change the inertia of the vehicle, the power of the engine or restore the wounded, dying or dead driver’s ability to step on the brakes.

          I know a detective had said it was a stolen car just before the incident. Now I want to hear what the investigation confirms. This to know if it was a mix-up by the detective or not.

  33. avatar Bob says:

    They should issue cops bazookas And paint due process on the sides of them

  34. avatar NM says:

    Funny how a headline and actual video can convey two different narratives…

  35. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    Happened in my area as well, Police officer jumped in front of car. Polarized our county deeply.

    Worth a watch.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      That video was from Russia Today, so I instantly stopped it, if Russia Today told me the sun rises in the east and water is wet, I’d want confirmation.

      So then I searched for more video:

      https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Zachary+Hammond

      Bad shoot. The officer got away with it. The taxpayers ended up footing the bill for his incompetence, $2.15 million worth.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        The RT video had the lawyer speaking in depth which is why I chose it.

        It gave an overall construct of what happened and more objective IMO. Local news was just as polarized as we were/are that live here.

  36. avatar barnbwt says:

    Christ, they say the guy was black before they report his car was stolen. Unbelievable.

  37. Its all fun and games until its an open carry group that gets aggressively “Red Flagged!” You know its coming…The Law Enforcement Community is awash with aggressive- gyrenes/PD commando types…And nobody gives a $!#T about a U.S. Citizens Constitutional rights…..

  38. avatar former water walker says:

    Yeppers quit the video…ho hum.

  39. avatar NATAWS9 says:

    So… pretty much a nothing story here. Watched the video, it’s a clean/justified shooting in self defense. Next.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Try watching it again. The Little Rock PD has watched it and other video angles they have and made a very different call on this one.

      1. First shots fired the officer was in no danger, at the side of the car. Already with these shots, violating training and department policy.

      2. After incapacitating the driver the car is still moving so slowly the officer is able to step in front of it. Again, violating training and department policy.

      3. Now in front of it, the officer lays over the hood to continue shooting. Not as a result of being struck by a car, he placed himself on the hood.

      Now the officer is in the process of being fired. Relived of duty, made to turn in badge and gun. In the last five of six such cases in Little Rock over the last ten years these are the first steps before charges are filed.

      Bad shoot, wasn’t necessary.

      Little Rock PD should have fired Starks in 2016 the last time he got into trouble, and that was off-duty no less. This time it’s much worse.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        On top of that the cop was trying to win a Darwin reward. Why the hell would you get in front of the car AFTER you already shot at the guy. At that point the driver would likely try to kill you first. This is the point I was making in a earlier comment. I have worked roadblocks before, and #1 rule is to NOT but yourself in the path of the vehicle.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      Yeah I don’t think so. He fired shots before getting in front of the car. (So he can’t even claim self defense). The cop’s job is to apprehend and arrest. Not to purposely arrange the outcome in order to kill someone (like getting in front of their car when they don’t have to).

      It was blatant disregard for the value of human life and contradicts our laws and values.

  40. avatar StLPro2A says:

    Po boy. He be jus jivin’ to church….and dis stealed car wrap it bein’ round he angel ass. Mabe he be to change his brand…Ooops, too late. Po boy not be sittin’ in no stealed ride no more. Don’t want to have a LEO’s gun pulled on you? Don’t be in a stolen car!!! Don’t disobey LEO’s instructions to get out of the car…be compliant. I make it a rigid habit not to be in a stolen car…..and I don’t get shot by a LEO. Try being a LEO.. You get paid meagerly for not knowing if you get to go home at the end of your shift…..or if you get to instantaneously make a decision whether you die yourself or make someone else die….and whether your decision will wreck your career and/or your life. Every shift you deal with one good guy for every 50 bad guys. And guess what characteristic 48 of those 50 bad guys has. If 48 of 50 redheads you meet are crazy and try to scratch your eyes out. Next time you encounter a redhead, you are going to protect your eyes. If every blonde you know asks for her pizza to be cut into four pieces, because she can’t eat eight pieces, you are going to roll your eyes when a blonde orders pizza. Don’t like how the world perceives you? Change your brand. Don’t be consistently crazy or stupid. Make your predominant characteristic be known for something positive. In Ferguson, a woman was paid $1,500,000 for raising a DEFECTIVE CITIZEN son who within one hour: performed a strong armed robbery, walked down the middle of a street; blocked LEO from exiting his patrol car; fought with LEO for his handgun….causing a discharge within LEO’s patrol car; ran away from officer; turned and charged officer…..officer defended himself shot the Thug-In-Training and LEO lost his career and home town. Should have invoiced Momma for the Defective Citizen’s actions and the millions in cost and negative publicity preventing the town from being burned down as Defective Citizen’s father called for the locals to do. It is not about a predominant physical characteristic. It is about what is between one’s ears and in their heart. About personal responsibility for one’s actions.

  41. avatar Glorfindel says:

    I see a lot of conclusions being drawn here without a complete picture. The popular consensus at the moment seems to be that the shoot had something to do with the vehicle’s motion. That may well be the case. But we also have testimony that the guy had a gun. The shoot may well have been instigated by a perceived deadly threat from driver and his firearm. Again I say *may have.* We do not know as we don’t have any view of the driver in this video.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      For me the most telling fact of it being a bad shoot is how the department is handling it so far. They have more video, more angles on what happened. He is not on normal desk duty, he has lost his badge and gun, relieved of duty. In five of the last six cases LRPD took such actions they were the first steps before firing and arresting the officer.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        management oftentimes takes umbrage with how the craft produces cased meat.
        a good shoot is when you drop what you intended.
        “respect mah authoritay! i am the man. i got the car and the star. and i told you to get out.”

        excessive use of force? depends on the textbook/ consent decree.

        these days resisting arrest butts heads with excessive force, regularly in hidef 4k. and to me, it’s tiresome on both sides.

  42. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    The deceased was in commission of a felony. Personally, I don’t have much use for the tip-toeing politicians that are apparently selling the cop down the river.

    I hope the scum lawyer soaks the family for everything they have…and loses.

  43. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    This cop fucked up.

  44. avatar TX223 says:

    There was no “need” to shoot, and it looks like he jumped on the hood after he started shooting to make it look justifiable – hoping it had been before he was in the camera frame.
    The police now kill for “contemp of cop”
    The next vehicle could have rammed them like they did to stop them without killing someone.
    Some police have no respect for life, except for their own… and THAT is a problem.

  45. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    The problem is most LE Agencies have written policies forbidding LEO’s from standing in front of a vehicle with a noncompliant or fleeing driver. If a driver is intentionally moving toward an officer who hadn’t planted or positioned himself in the vehicle’s path, then yes deadly force is justified. But standing in front of and then climbing on the hood of a vehicle for no other reason than to make a non compliant driver obey your command is more than likely not a valid reason to use deadly force. Unless there’s more to the story than we know, it’s probably a bad shoot.

  46. avatar n64456 says:

    As someone who follows the Little Rock news Facebook pages; it was hilarious to read all the comments from “dindu’s” friends defending the perp and calling the cop a “murderer”…

    1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      Don’t laugh, even if he manages to survive the ordeal without facing criminal prosecution, the LEO will likely lose his job, and either way, his LE career is over.

  47. avatar idaho hiker says:

    Blackshire would not be dead if he just got out of the car and obeyed the officer’s orders. Instead, he stayed in the car, disobeyed the officer’s orders even longer, and then proceeded to use the car as a weapon. The officer was justified even further because Blackshire turned into the officer.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      I agree with the first sentence but after that you depart from the video. Officer Starks is in the process of being fired and may well be prosecuted because neither the video shared with the public, nor apparently the other videos still held by the police show Blackshire doing the rest of what you describe.

      Sadly there are cases, like this one, where both the dead guy and the cop did stupid things and won stupid prizes. One stupid prize is worse than the other, obviously, but it took both idiots to make this happen as it did.

  48. avatar MLee says:

    Remain calm??? This is NO TIME TO REMAIN CALM!

  49. avatar MLee says:

    I was looking at the video in slow-mo and suddenly stopped and thought, are the last letters in his license plate really WTF?? I had to look again and again, I think it’s WTF!
    I think it’s actually WIF though. Too bad as WTF would have been awesome.

  50. avatar raptor jesus says:

    Reasonable.
    If someone tried to run me over, I’d shoot them too.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Problem is it was not reasonable because that did not happen. No, the driver did not try to run over the cop. The officer has been relieved of duty, made to surrender his badge and gun, is likely to be fired and possibly prosecuted because the multiple videos do not support what he says.

  51. avatar LJPII says:

    Sounds like a good shoot to me. Here’s you badge and gun, “Youre back on the force, Bobrovsky!”

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