Little Rock Cop Who Was Cleared in February Fatal Shooting Has Been Fired [VIDEO]

We ran a post earlier showing dashcam video of Little Rock officer opening fire on a driver while laying on the roof of a car. The incident took place in February. Officer Charles Starks had instructed the driver, Bradley Blackshire, to get out of the car he was driving which the officers had determined was stolen. After repeatedly refusing, Blackshire attempted to drive away.

That’s when the shooting occurred. See the video above.

The local prosecutor declined to press charges, saying . . .

“Starks was confronted with the imminent threat of deadly force in two forms: 1) the vehicle that was driving toward him and from which he had no duty to retreat, and 2) his reasonable belief that Mr. Blackshire was going to shoot him,” Jegley wrote in a letter to the city’s police chief. “Starks’ use of force, under Arkansas law and prior decisions by the United States Supreme court, was justified.”

But that determination wasn’t enough to let Starks keep his job. The Little Rock Police Department has now fired Starks.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Police in Little Rock, Arkansas, have fired a white officer who killed a black motorist by shooting at least 15 times through the windshield as the car was moving.

Police spokesman Michael Ford says Officer Charles Starks was terminated Monday. Prosecutors on April 19 declined to file charges in the death of 30-year-old Bradley Blackshire.

Police say Starks was responding to a call after a detective confirmed that the car Blackshire was driving was stolen. Video released of the Feb. 22 shooting showed Starks on the hood of the slowly moving car firing into the windshield.

Ford says Starks has 10 business days to appeal his firing, though he didn’t know if Starks plans to do so.

He says the police chief makes the final decision on any termination.

 

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Here come all the ganbanger apologists and cop haters who think that the officer should have let this lowlife run him over with the car.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Idiots or murders job in front of or behind a vehicle…

      It’s a bad idea to attempt to stop a car with your body and your gun. That is if you are not trying to create a situation where you can “justifiably” kill someone.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Or people who want a clean shot at the driver without a risk of hitting the passenger. Rule 4 kiddo. Rule 4.

        1. avatar User1 says:

          You are moving the goal post.

          You don’t jump in front of a fleeing car thief to shoot them and not hit the passenger because you’re not supposed to shoot them in the first place. It’s not your car. You are a cop not an executioner. Changing your angle to get a clear kill shot on a car thief means you wanted to kill them, which would make it murder (technically unjustified homicide). If you need to kill them it’s because they did something else on their own that then puts you in a position where you do not have a choice. Jumping in front of a car is a choice.

          Now if that was his personal car I wouldn’t have minded. I might not even mind if the man stole a police car that had an accessible gun inside.

        2. avatar User1 says:

          Assuming no one is in the back seat. It’s going to be difficult to see who is in the back when you are in the front and paying attention to the driver.

        3. avatar Purity of Essence says:

          I agree with User1 about the BS of purposefully putting yourself in a dangerous position in order to justify your use of force. However, if they know the car is stolen is there not substantial risk to the public by allowing this guy to drive away from a lawful stop? Then it potentially turns into a high speed chase. It’s not like this guy was pulled over for a broken tail light. He’s in a stolen car, and since he refuses to get out of the car a reasonable person might conclude he is aware that it’s stole. I think maybe justice was done here. Maybe this guy is not a good fit as a cop so now he’s not one. But I’m certainly not going to shed tears for a dead car thief.

        4. avatar Cartman says:

          Forget the car, if I heard that tape correctly, the driver/car thief had a gun. I want that gun out of that criminal’s hands before it’s used for much more serious crimes like robbing and raping your mama. Cop didn’t stand at side and shoot a richochet into a nearby home, he got in front of felon and ended the threat with fire straight through the windshield.

          Driver had choices:
          1) Exit car and submit to arrest
          2) Don’t commit felonies
          3) Shut big mouth and not put car in gear
          We could go on, unlike the weak, fearful felon who decided to flee in the vehicle, and will not be going on.

      2. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        We expect Police to catch lawbreakers. The deceased was driving a stolen car (a crime) refused to obey a lawful order ( a crime) and hit the officer also a crime.
        What do we expect?

        1. avatar User1 says:

          The owner of the car expects to get back their car without a bunch of bullet holes, blood and brain matter.

          How often does a police chase of a stolen car result in the car not being damaged or destroyed?

        2. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          Wow! So police shouldn’t attempt to enforce the law because the car might get damaged? The deceased (criminal) was in the driver’s seat literally and figuratively. He didn’t have to steal the car to begin with. He could have surrendered to the police . Or he could have fled on foot. Instead he knowingly broke the law repeatedly and put an Officer and himself at risk of death. No sympathy to the criminal or his apologists

        3. avatar User1 says:

          So, you do not care about the victim? When I say victim I mean the owner of the property. Do you think they are happy their car is destroyed and their insurance is going to make their life harder?

          The whole point of someone calling the police about their stolen car is to try to get someone to help them find it and return it to them like it was. I don’t think people call the cops so they can find that person, destroy the car, kill the thief, then return the stained car after the investigation.

          Some people don’t even like to call the cops for their stolen car. They inform friends and wait to find it. Sometimes they find it sitting in some neighborhood after the kids finish their joy ride.

          The logic you use is centered around support of a police state and violence at all costs.

        4. avatar Torro Viejo says:

          Sure just a joy rider with a stolen gun and a murderous intent. Your reasoning is twisted the car thief is in the wrong no other way around it.
          Yes one car owner lost what the thief STOLE.
          However he won’t steal another car.

        5. avatar Mad says:

          In case you missed it the guy ignored the command to stop then drove into cop. He actually committed suicide

        6. avatar Conelrad says:

          User1 if the thief escapes he’ll chop the car within hours and you’ll never get the car back period. I’d rather have it back with just needing a new windshield and seat rather then have it chopped and not ever see it again.

        7. avatar Don from CT says:

          This was just another instance of a cop choosing to use deadly physical force rather than back down. This was a property crime until the cop stepped in front of that car.

        8. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          Property crime is an interest way of Grand theft. Idle curiosity why didn’t the suspect simply stop the vehicle. Even if the officer had let him go he is still a felon in possession of a stolen gun in unlawful flight. The car theft could have stopped.

        9. avatar Hans says:

          Not according User-1. His arguments sounds
          like a social justice activist whom has all the answers
          in a life and death situation.

          Too many “folks” whom think they bee above the law.

          Weather you like it or not, when stopped by a LEO, shehe
          is the controlling authority. Time to file a grievance is after
          an event and not during; which clearly shows disrespect [dissing]
          or a lack of cognizant function.

      3. avatar Dude says:

        The attorneys / spokespeople for that kid driving the Jeep are a joke. How do these people sleep at night? “I don’t think he even knew he hit her.”

        But yeah, in a battle between you and the automobile, you will probably lose.

        1. avatar User1 says:

          Yeah, their strategy is dumb. Maybe the smart thing to do is argue manslaughter (or lesser offenses) and plead it out. Trying to get him off with dumb arguments is very unlikely to work. He is going to prison, for how long is the question.

        2. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          User1 note the headline Officer cleared,?

      4. avatar Hannibal says:

        You are correct, it is (usually) a bad idea. However, the question of legality depends on duty. Police do not have a duty to retreat from a criminal threatening force against them.

        Maybe the guy in a stolen car had punked the cops before by just driving at them in his hot ride knowing they’ll scatter and be afraid to shoot. Maybe he thought he could keep doing it. Turns out he can’t.

    2. avatar RMS1911 says:

      Did you watch the video? He put himself in front and on the hood he was beside the drivers side window and cars dont move sideways to run people over when they are beside it.
      That’s a tactic to justify lethal force. And all that for a stolen car?
      All he had to do was take a big step away from the window not to the front of the car.
      That psycho pig should be in jail right now he was never in any danger that he didn’t put himself in to justify shooting that driver.
      But copsuckers gotta make excuses for psycho pigs.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I don’t care if it was a stolen cupcake. The driver could have stopped the car at any time. He made a decision to try and run over a cop. He got exactly what he had coming to him.

        Cop haters like you bitch about cops all the time, but then come screaming for the cops every time the criminals you protect mess up your shit. Do cops legitimately fuck up? Yes. But this is not one of those times. The guy behind the wheel was an armed criminal and made a choice to resist arrest. Sucks to be him.

        1. avatar Connie says:

          Pwrserge is right. Everyone wants their “rights,” but nobody wants the responsibility that comes with them. Police officers are allowed to carry guns for a reason, and shooting someone who tries to run them over falls into the category of “justifiable homicide,” whether you like it or not.

          The problem is that a bunch of you wimps think that the officer should have behaved as you would have, but he has no duty to retreat. He did his job, and whether you agree with his tactics or not, he did not break the law. Was stepping in front of a vehicle good tactics? I wouldn’t say so. However, in a high stress situation, sometimes you end up in a disadvantageous position, and you just have to go with the options you have left. I point you back to the video above.

        2. avatar enuf says:

          False. The car thief did not attempt to run over the cop. Not at anytime does the video show that.

          This was murder under color of authority.

          Now you point me to a story of a cop shooting down a deadly violent fugitive in a life or death confrontation and I’ll praise that cop for it. As I have always done.

          But this case was murder by badge and creating a fake scenario to escape punishment, start to finish.

        3. avatar Don from CT says:

          I’m not a cop hater. I just believe that cops live by the same laws we do. The cop was safely on the side of the car.

          He chose to jump on the hood of a moving car to justify the use of deadly physical force.

          The cop should fry. But instead he just has to go get a new job.

        4. avatar Red says:

          Run over a cop? At that SLOW speed? Are you joking? Look at it again! The cop PUT HIMSELF in front of the car in order to justify murdering the driver. It is very clear. If this were explained to a jury, that cop would be in jail where he belongs. Just remember, it could be you next. They’ll invent a reason why they killed you. You took a pen out of your pocket and they thought it was a gun or some cock and bull story. They’ll plant drugs in your car.

      2. avatar Conelrad says:

        I take it you’ve never had your car stolen. I for one, say fuck the car thieves, and would be happy for the police to fill my truck full of holes to kill the bastard who stole it. What gives a car thief the right to steal my hard earned property which belongs to me? I think some of you have your priorities on backwards because you’ve never had to deal with the kind of scum who steal cars and go on to do far worse things.

        1. avatar Red says:

          Really? Most of your guys on here give gun owners a bad name. You don’t get to kill someone who stole property who is obviously not a threat. Driving away slowly and watching the cop ensure he was “in danger” and then empty his gun at an unarmed car theft is not something that should have been allowed to stand. The cop should have been prosecuted, but they can do well as they please. If they don’t like you, they’ll plant weed in your car while you are out of it and then bring in the drug dogs. To serve and protect only applies to themselves anymore.

      3. avatar AndrewinVA says:

        “That’s a tactic to justify lethal force. And all that for a stolen car?”

        Yep, that’s how it looks. I guess it’s something of a comfort that the thug with a badge took out his insecurities on a criminal. But still, no way car theft should be a capital offense. What’s next? Forget to fill in a bubble on your 1040 and a team of feds gets dispatched to take your criminal ass out?

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          It’s not a capital offense. He could have stopped the car and jumped out and ran. Alternatively he could have surrendered himself to the court system and enjoyed all the rights offered to the defense. Instead he decided to keep driving even with a cop in front of him because he wanted to keep stealing cars.

          Oh well.

        2. avatar Red says:

          Exactly. Notice how slow the car was going. The cop jumped in front of the car in order to justify ensuring killing the criminal. It was car theft, not capital murder. This is why we have courts. Instead, cops are acting like judges.

      4. avatar BruceT says:

        It sounds like you had a lot more than the one or two seconds the officer had to think this through.

      5. avatar Hannibal says:

        “That’s a tactic to justify lethal force.”

        If a bank robber is fleeing the scene of a crime holding a pistol, is it a ‘tactic to justify lethal force’ to step in front of him with your gun drawn? If not, what is the difference? A car is a loaded weapon just as dangerous as any gun.

        If the officer had not tried to impede the suspect’s escape in this case, both would be alive. But the suspect would be free to commit as many crimes as he wants, secure in the knowledge that the cops won’t stop him as long as he puts the car in drive. I’d prefer he be stopped.

    3. avatar enuf says:

      The car thief did not try to run over the cop with a car. That did not happen. The video shows the cop broke policy, violated training and created the circumstances where he was on the hood of the car murdering the driver.

      1. avatar Conelrad says:

        You know what would garuntee that “driver” would be alive today? If the retard decided not to steal a car. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Possibly. Does not excuse the cop breaking every rule and policy and manufacturing a false scenario so he execute a car thief.

        2. avatar Mad says:

          He was killed for trying to run down the cop get it right

        3. avatar Conelrad says:

          That may be but what I’m trying to say here is this is a good ending to a bad movie. The shit bag who was shot can’t go on to make anymore crimes against innocent people, which he had no right to violate their property. Property that people actually worked for. If this cop is as bad as you all say he is then at least he took out a piece of shit in the process.

        4. avatar Red says:

          Serve and Protect. More like kill and maim. Ever notice that crime hasn’t changed but the cops kill a lot more criminals? This guy drove off slow. He did not aim for the officer. The officer made sure he GOT in the way to justify his shooting. The police are not the judge, jury, and prosecutor. This is not the way law enforcement should be done.

    4. avatar Red says:

      Sorry, this wasn’t justified. The guy didn’t zoom away. The cop positioned himself up front. Ever notice that cops didn’t kill nearly so many people years ago? That’s because anything they do now is justified. I think the firing was justified entirely.

  2. avatar D says:

    If the shoot was not valid, he would have been prosecuted. Since that’s not the case, what is the reason for the firing?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The chief is a “Graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School Strategies for Building and Leading Diverse Organizations and the Leadership in Police Organizations Program” aka “Professional Racebaiting Studies 101”.

      1. avatar Conelrad says:

        That’s exactly what it is.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      Lol yep all invalid shoots are prosecuted…

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Bob, you and Eric do bring up valid points especially for the northeast. But blue line aside this does seem like an appropriate resolution. Armed car thief did attempt to flee a felony charge. Cop did a borderline questionable shoot resulting in death of perp. Cop lost job no charges filed. Sucks all around but fewest wasted resources with a potentiality hazardous officer off the beat. This is a much different outcome than I am used to seeing and if he is nota shitbag he can try aagain in another department.

    3. avatar Eric O says:

      Except by prosecutors who are relying on police union support for reelection.

    4. avatar Don from CT says:

      Do you live in fantasyland. Cops are very very rarely prosecuted. And are convicted even less often.

      Its literally like one conviction per year among all the cops in the country.

    5. avatar enuf says:

      The decision to retain or fire him does not have the same standard as getting a criminal conviction. If that were the standard to fire somebody few people could ever be fired from any job.

      Multiple video camera recordings from several angles proved to the investigators and the command staff that the cop violated training, violated policy and voluntarily created circumstances to allow him to shoot the car thief.

    6. avatar Red says:

      Cops are RARELY prosecuted. They REALLY have to screw up and the prosecutor has to dislike them also.

      Not to mention that cops keep a lot of stuff hidden from everyone and never testify against each other. Nice little club. Not.

  3. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Starks is gonna win a wrongful termination settlement…at least we can hope…

    1. avatar Thixotropic says:

      Here, here.

      Good shooting Officer Starks in a very tense life or death situation.

      Thank you for ridding us of that scumbag.

      1. avatar Red says:

        Yes, sure, that vehicle went all of 5/10 mph pulling away. The cop PUT HIMSELF in the way. You don’t walk in front of a car with a bad guy in it. Probably why he was fired. Didn’t follow procedure.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Just because he was cleared in the shooting, does not mean he was worth shit as a cop. I suspect the two events are unrelated, he simply did not measure up.

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    Few know whats in his folder. Maybe he has a lot of bad things that put him out. Don;t assume his firing is necessarily related to what happened with the car thief.

    1. avatar Rheopectic says:

      PURE speculation.

      I’m more happy about what was in his HOLSTER.

    2. avatar B.D. says:

      You do have a point. But seriously doubt it’s a valid one.

    3. avatar Red says:

      You don’t get to kill someone for their record. With that kind of opinion, I hope you aren’t a cop. You don’t get to shoot someone because they have a long, prior record.

  5. avatar James Ivy says:

    Well unless there is recent events that justify his firing other than the justified shooting then this is clearly the department trying to remove this spot on the carpet. So much for brothers in arms these days with pansy Sherri’s that kneel to the whim of society

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Are you an American citizen?

      1. avatar Connie says:

        You mad, bro? Sorry you can’t handle legal police action without getting PDS (Police Derangement Syndrome), but this is what the real world looks like outside of your safe space. Maybe you should seek medical help.

    2. avatar Mike V says:

      Well they do work for us, so yes they should bow, kneel, curtsy to our will.

  6. avatar sound awake says:

    hes a white cop that shot a black person
    justified or not he cant work in little rock anymore
    and no other department will hire him
    they wont want the bad publicity
    unfortunately his career as a law enforcement officer is over
    it sucks but thats the world we live in now
    this dynamic will not make the world a better place
    the last president had a chance to nip this kind of stuff in the bud but he chose not to
    and not unlike herpes it will never go away
    its an std> socially transmitted disease
    thanks obama

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      So massive racism on the part of ganbangers and their apologists is “just the world we live in these days”? Wow… Flip the races of the people involved and tell me that this isn’t wrong.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        Well, look at the comment section of police shootings of black people. You will see many white men cheering the killing regardless if it was a good shoot or a bad shoot. They just love to see black people killed.

        This behavior has yet to go away. It just not as open as it used to be because now non whites have some power in society. It’s true that most conscious racism is gone, however, subconscious racism still exists to an extent, which is what Trump plays off of very well.

        I see a lot of videos of white men purely focusing on non whites to show all the bad things they do and use that to argue why white people need to bring back white “society.” When your videos are solely focusing on the “angry black male,” gangstas, thugs, etc, it’s quite obvious the creator is a supremacist/racist. If they focused on crime in general or bad behavior then it wouldn’t be obviously racism on their part.

        Good values, morals, virtues, principles are not a white invention nor are only white people capable of having them. To think otherwise is simply supremacy and/or racism.

        1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          The law abiding tend to despise criminals with out refused to race. Steal a man’s car and often you take his livelihood thus people hate car thieves.
          I expect Police to arrest criminals the officer attempted to detain the thief and the thief attempted to run over the policeman.
          So I expect the police to kill attempted murderers

      2. avatar sound awake says:

        im not saying i like it
        im not saying i agree with
        im saying get used to it because its here to stay and like most things in america its only likely to get worse

    2. avatar CDC says:

      The chief is a “Graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School Strategies for head up his ass”

  7. avatar User1 says:

    At least that department fired him, but another will happily take him in. Maybe he can move to Texas and get a nice job in HPD.

  8. avatar Bobinmi says:

    Seems to me that grand theft auto is a capital offense in little rock. Get out of the way. He climbed onto the hood of the effing car. He probably doesn’t mind getting fired. He had the opportunity to get his rocks off and pull the trigger.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Trying to run over a police officer when he has a gun drawn and is standing in front of your car… yeah… that’s a well deserved Darwin Award

      1. avatar RMS1911 says:

        You’re lying that pig backed up and jumped on the hood . It’s clear you didn’t watch the video.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I did watch the video. You are the reason that crime is so prevalent in certain communities. The way I see it, the driver got exactly what he had coming to him. Here’s a wacky idea… if you don’t want to get shot by police… DON’T BREAK THE LAW.

        2. avatar enuf says:

          Pwrserge:

          FALSE. Remember the police have more than the one video from other vehicles and security CCTV on surrounding buildings. The evidence is solid the cop violated policy and training to create the scenario where he could murder the car thief.

    2. avatar B.D. says:

      Good thing he did too. Thug stole a car and had a gun. Wanna place a bet it was not a legal carry?

    3. avatar Viejo Torro says:

      So the police should simply let any one go that attempts to kill them or flee?

      1. avatar enuf says:

        The car thief made no attempt to harm the cop.

        Policy is to pursue a fleeing suspect and not to shoot at them. Bullets do not stop cars. Cops are not supposed to manufacture a scenario where they can claim to have been attacked by a driver trying to run them down.

        Which is what the evidence shows the cop did, created a lie so he could empty his gun.

    4. avatar CLarson says:

      Well I appreciate that the police officer stopped the criminal then and there. There was no scenario where the police were going to let this guy drive off scot-free. A high speed police chase would have put the public at risk. The police had him dead to rights and the driver had the option to surrender quietly, he choose poorly.

    5. avatar Conelrad says:

      And it’s a good thing he’s dead. One less worthless car thief that can’t steal or damage anyone else’s hard earned property.

  9. avatar strych9 says:

    Almost certainly a PR move. They probably didn’t want an employee who got them this much media attention so they went digging, found a technicality and fired him.

    When you become the story in any way that doesn’t look spectacularly awesome it’s not likely going to go well for you. If you do look spectacularly awesome now the people above you start to worry that you’re gunning for their job and you still have problems.

  10. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    That Altima didnt deserve to get it like that.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      All Nissans matter.

  11. avatar Truckman says:

    if everything is as the article says and he’s got a clean record he got a good case but it also depends on how long he been employed there

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      It shouldn’t. You could be on your first patrol and get into a fire fight. As long as you are in the right, who cares how long you have been an officer.

      1. avatar Hopeislost says:

        Actually it dose. Many departments have a probation period in which they can pretty much terminate a employee for little cause regardless of the reason.

  12. avatar jwm says:

    ‘ My finger got stuck.’

    1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

      Or I shot the bastard till he stopped trying to kill me

  13. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I never stood in front of any car. All it does is create a bad situation and puts your own life in danger.
    Maybe they fired him because he didn’t use common sense.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      My father-in-law use to call that CS&J (Common Sense and Judgment) and he would tell you that stepping in front of a vehicle that a car thief was trying to get away in is the height of stupid. I am all for cops shooting bad guys who attempt to harm them, but this guy clearly doesn’t have the sense God gave a goose!

  14. avatar Mad says:

    Come on guys black lives matter right? Oh I get it white cop kills black thug and is fired for doing his job political correctness run amuck only in America

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Wrong.

  15. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    This incident captures but a few minutes of Officer Starks’ career. I sincerely hope his union, if he had that avenue open to him, weighed in on the termination.

    Personally, I think he did what he thought was the most prudent at the time…regardless of who the driver was. He didn’t shoot the passenger, that’s a huge plus.

    Monday morning quarterbacking is easy when you’re not in the field. I hope his superiors get the karma they deserve. All of them.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The problem is all the video. Which includes video not released to the public but seen by investigators.

      The cop violated his training and policy. Shooting at moving vehicles is not allowed except under very specific conditions. He created a false scenario and murdered the car thief over that false scenario. He deliberately and voluntarily rushed to get himself in front of a moving vehicle and then lay upon the hood. That is not guessing it is factual evidence and he is being fired for it, as well he should be.

      It is too bad he will not be punished for an unlawful killing under color of authority.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        A big difference between violating Department Policy and murder under color of law. Stepping out in front of a moving vehicle in order to stop a fleeing felon is bad tactics. Shootings a fleeing felon when you are hanging onto a vehicle easily capable of crushing you to death isn’t murder. How you draw a line from this to the murder of civil rights workers is beyond me

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Huh? I made no mention of civil rights workers, see no connection to that either.

          The cop created the scenario where he “had to shoot”, not the car thief. That is what all the videos show, that is why he is being fired.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        Violated department policy…. fair enough.

        One does have to wonder what their manual says in it’s entirety though and if this guy was fucked either way since there was a passenger, one he seems to deal with rather nicely I might add.

        If she’s a hostage or becomes one later and/or, God forbid, is harmed because he didn’t step in front of the car and this thief gets away, does the cop still get fired for violating policy because the policy doesn’t make a provision for allowing someone to take/harm hostages when he has ample chance to stop the BG?

        I don’t pretend to know what the officer was thinking but from where I sit it seems like he kinda has two choices and both suck. On the one hand he does what he does and runs the risk that the thief tries to resist using the car, the cop kills the thief and gets crucified. Or, OTOH, he lets them go and thereby runs the risk that this turns into a hostage standoff or a cold-blooded murder that he could have prevented and the cop gets crucified. Or maybe the whole thing turns into a high speed chase later on, the thief loses control and the woman dies and… the cop gets crucified.

        Again, I don’t know but I don’t think this is something where we can honestly say it’s a clear cut issue unless we have a lot more information than we have from the media.

        What he did may have violated department policy but that doesn’t mean that the department necessarily has a smart policy or one that’s well written.

        Remember the cop who got fired specifically for NOT shooting someone he didn’t need to? That guy got fired specifically for violating department policy that said he SHOULD shoot someone even though he didn’t need to, in that case a black guy who was trying to commit suicide by cop.

        https://reason.com/2018/02/12/west-virginia-cop-fired-for-not-shooting/

  16. avatar Dude says:

    “a white officer who killed a black motorist”
    Are all stories written like this when the cop is black or the perp is white? What does race have to do with this story. Are they pushing the CNN narrative that white cops spend their day trying to murder black people?

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      You’re right, the narrative is set from the beginning. No room for thinking on our own, they fill in all the blanks for you.

      “Motorist”? Suspected car thief, felon would be most accurate. Calling him a Motorist makes him equal to you and me, and I know I’m not driving a stolen car, the cops knew he was.

  17. avatar User1 says:

    Most people here seem to be ignorant to the fact that some departments and offices do not allow you to shoot a fleeing vehicle or allow you to job in the way of a moving vehicle. That way cops can’t create plausible deny ability for murder or mandslaughter.

    Do these people know this? Do these people support a police state? Are these people justifying unnecessary violence because of racism?

    Police in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Monday fired a white officer who killed a black motorist, saying he violated departmental policy when he shot at least 15 times through the moving car’s windshield.

    This is what we call racism or race baiting. Black and white do it for their benefit. Racism still exists it’s just below the surface.

    Can you guys stop being racist or using race?

    1. avatar User1 says:

      In a letter to Officer Charles Starks, Chief Keith Humphrey said that voluntarily moving in front of a vehicle and firing at it instead of avoiding its path was a violation of policy. Starks has 10 business days to appeal his termination, police spokesman Michael Ford said. Starks’ lawyer, Robert Newcomb, called the decision to fire Starks “political” and said the officer has started the appeal process.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh please. The US is one of the least racist countries on the planet. Maybe if people worried more about punishing criminals than race baiting, we wouldn’t have urban centers that resemble failed states?

      1. avatar User1 says:

        Oh, please.

        Maybe if a white officer breaks the department’s policy, so he can shoot dead a black man, he should be charged with at least manslaughter. He willfully put himself in the path of the vehicle knowing it’s dangerous and he willfully violated policy that makes sure he can’t use the artificial circumstances as an excuse for murder. The white officer then gets let off by the white prosecuting attorney without any charges whatsoever. Now white people are mad at the black police chief for enforcing the rules against the white officer. People are trying to get that white man back on the force so he can continue killing “gangsters.”

        I can’t say how racist America still is, but it’s not hard to find. It lurks in the subconscious of many people.

        1. avatar Conelrad says:

          America actually is far less “racist” then most of the world. If you want to see some real serious racism that puts even Jim Crowe to shame, you need to travel to Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Oh, and also Europe even. Hatred of the Jews there is returning to its early 20th century rise.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          The policy is retarded and protects criminals. I don’t care if the thug in question was purple, he needed killing.

      2. avatar User1 says:

        By the way, the mayor is also black. I would bet you are not going to like that. He is the first ever black mayor for that city.

        And the officer has been in trouble many times before, but was never fired, instead his file was redacted so you can’t see what he did wrong. At least it was bad enough to get suspended for a month.

        1. avatar Conelrad says:

          What does the mayor being black have to do with anything? You’re the one making this about race. Think about what that makes you.

    3. avatar enuf says:

      I don’t know if people supporting the cop are driven by racism or just blind support of a cop shooting any thief. I do know what the cop did was murder.

      Bullets do not cause cars to stop. They may break the car and it will eventually stop but mostly they just damage the driver and create an unguided, wandering, thousands of pounds of accident looking for something to smash into randomly.

      The video clearly shows the cop was out of the path of the car but made every effort to place himself into that path. This is the exact opposite of training and policy. Then the cop leaps and lays onto the hood and does so from the side of the car.

      This was murder and the cop will get away with it.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        This cop should get charged too. He ran into the path of two vehicles as a cop tried to ram the fleeing car. He then killed the teen.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          With what? Being a hero and putting down someone so deranged that he’d lead the police on a high speed chase through a busy street to get away from a traffic stop?

  18. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    Racism is alive and well in the U.S…on ALL sides of the equation. I think we’ll need Affirmative Action to represent minorities (as demographics shift) forever.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      +1, it’s always going to be a political problem in a multicultural empire.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        Corrupt and godless people like to use biological weaknesses to conquer. Low IQ societies will fall victim to the manipulation and will destroy themselves.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Nobody is immune to propaganda, low or high IQ doesn’t matter when the Overton window only shows the “correct” viewpoints.

  19. avatar sound awake says:

    im a pretty strong small government pro freedom anti police state guy
    having said that…
    theres a solid argument to made and i think the more level headed of us here can agree that anybody that steals a car and resists the police and then tries to kill the police is already somebody that shouldnt be in society in the first place
    so the social and political reality of this particular situation will basically devolve into a crude form of horse trading unpleasant as that may sound
    human nature dictates the response of in the future whos better who do we want and need more around police that may not always be perfect or criminals that are always bad
    and since im white and therefore im already inherently racist and to the extent i deny it and point to things that make me not racist which only makes me that more racist im going to make the following statement:
    what happened here i consider to be DSAF
    Did
    Society
    A
    Favor
    and no i would have said the same thing if the perp was white and the cop was black
    so stop it

  20. avatar Kyle says:

    This officer will do much better in a more rural environment. The political correct cop only can exist in a metropolitan area. A city can concern itself with the Intersectionality ladder. Out of towns, bad guys need to be stopped.

    Man tries to run me over and I have the shot, I take it. Its not about anything other than survival. He wants to take my life and I’d rather he not.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The car thief did not try to run over the cop. That did not happen and there is video proving it.

      This was murder, plain and simple.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        You can deny it all you want. The scumbag in question saw a cop in front of his car. Still hit the gas.

  21. avatar enuf says:

    The officer was incompetent. Violated training. Violated policy. Created the circumstance to shoot somebody. Deserves to lose his badge. Deserves prison too, sad to hear he will never be punished for that unwarranted killing.

  22. avatar tinhats says:

    No one wants their car destroyed. But that is one reason we get insurance.

  23. avatar Jason says:

    The comments section here about this situation is a perfect example of the fallacy:

    False Dilemma

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

    Is it not possible that the officer was / is a complete douche bag who got what he deserved if perhaps a bit less than he deserved, and likewise, the a-hole thief got what was rightfully due to him as well?

    Car thieves should be shot and dip-shit cops that jump in front of cars should be fired.

    So far as I can tell both got what they deserved.

    1. avatar Warlocc says:

      Agreed. Sounds like he pulled his gun long before the car was a threat, too. Should be in jail.

  24. avatar Steve B says:

    I’m appalled that anyone here thinks that the officer could have/should have done things differently. Easy to armchair quarterback his actions with all the time we have available after watching the video, but he had split seconds in the moment of living the actual situation. Blackshire committed a crime and repeatedly refused to comply with lawful orders. Was he armed as it stated he had a gun in the video? If he was armed, was he illegally armed? I’m sorry, but if you commit a crime with a gun, whether you have intent to use it or not, getting shot is a risk you take. Not to mention the vehicle was being used as a deadly weapon. Why aren’t all of you who are chastising the officer’s actions after the fact, armchair quarterbacking the car thief with the same scrutiny? Perhaps, he could have stopped the car when the officer stepped in front of it or would that have made too much sense? I’m sickened by the fact that there are people on a gun website arguing that LEO should not attempt to catch a criminal out of fear that it may escalate. If the criminal isn’t obeying the LEO orders, THEY ARE THE ONE ESCALATING! So wrong!

  25. avatar Mike. says:

    He may have been fired for not following procedures or for not making statements to his superiors, may have decided he needed to protect any criminal aspect over his job.

  26. avatar jwtaylor says:

    For everyone that thinks the officer was being run over, or was in threat of being run over, watch the video again, and more closely.
    At the 28 second mark, you can clearly see the car moving forward, and the officer standing next to the vehicle, in front of and at an angle to the driver’s door. There was no threat of being run over from this position.
    At the 29 second mark the officer starts shooting, still next to the vehicle, and now leaning over, toward the driver, to shoot directly into the windshield. The car is still moving forward, and the officer is clearly not in front of the hood. Note, again, that the officer had to lean over to clear the post and for his shot into the driver.
    Then the officer then steps not away from the vehicle, but in front of it, shooting wildly, one handed while grabbing his microphone, into the windshield and presumably the driver.
    He was not in danger of being run over until he stepped in front of the vehicle, which was after he started shooting.
    I seriously doubt the officer stepped in front of the vehicle to justify the shooting. No way he was thinking that fast in that situation. In fact, he likely stepped in front of the vehicle because he couldn’t think that fast.
    He was attempting to shoot, move, and communicate all at the same time. Very, very few people, and they tend to be phenomenally well trained, can actually do all three of those things well and at the same time. If he was going to be shooting, the time for talking on the radio was over, at least for a bit. He was splitting his attention too many ways. To be fair, he was probably taught to do that.
    Like all humans naturally do, once he identified the target, he naturally positioned himself in line with the target. The vehicle just happened to be in the way.
    The driver was not attempting to run over the officer, as the driver was already moving forward when the officer was not in front of the vehicle.
    The officer was not intending to stand in front of the vehicle and get run over. He simply responded in a predictable, but uncoordinated manner while under stress.
    On another note, it appears he has his gun drawn, without an imminent threat, but without another officer out of the car and responding, in what is ostensibly a felony stop. Huh? That is not how I was trained and not policy anywhere I have worked with. That, when another officer, and another vehicle that could have blocked the car’s forward progress, seem to be present. Again, on a felony stop.
    There appears to be a chain of training fails in this situation.

  27. avatar Cops are not our friends says:

    If we civilians aren’t supposed to shoot to protect mere property, why are cops? And how was this cop going to be run over when he was on the roof of a car? Cops are not our friends. Another militaristic civilian-hater down, but many more to go before we sleep.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I stand ready to shoot to kill in order to protect my property, on what basis do you claim I am not supposed to?

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