VIDEO: Lawrence, KS Officer-Involved Shooting Leads to Charges Against Cop

lawrence police department shooting traffic stop

Image via YouTube and Lawrence Police Department

A police officer sees a man driving without a seatbelt and makes a traffic stop. Instead of complying with the repeated, polite requests from the officer, the driver decides to body slam the cop into the pavement and then strikes him in the back of the head. Whereupon a rookie female officer shoots the offender in the back with her service pistol rather than using her TASER.

Instead of a $100 seat belt ticket and a minor inconvenience, Akira Lewis, 35, got a trip to the hospital and a fresh gunshot wound in his back. That may have been because he had outstanding warrants for his arrest that would have come to light upon presenting his ID, so he wasn’t going anywhere but jail. And Mr. Lewis knew it.

In the end though, he went to the hospital, lucky to escape with his life. The incident took place last May. Here’s the just-released dashcam video of the shooting (the altercation starts at about the 6:25 mark).

Watching the video, it surely seems as though a strong case for justifiable use of deadly force exists. The larger, non-compliant suspect not only resisted, but did so with great violence. He body-slammed the physically smaller cop into the pavement and then struck the officer in the back of the head.

The assault looked as though it would continue had it not been for the second officer shooting the suspect.  Frankly, absent a second cop, I would have considered shooting the driver as well if I had witnessed that savage attack on a law-enforcement officer on the side of the road.

The Lawrence Journal-World has the background

Lewis begins to protest about being stopped, then proceeds to drive forward about a car length, causing McCann to jump backward away from the SUV. Lewis then stops, McCann walks back to the window and their conversation continues. Lewis refuses to provide his name or driver’s license, curses at McCann and repeatedly demands that McCann summon a supervisor to the scene.

“I need your driver’s license and your insurance card,” McCann says. “If you give me that, I will get you your citation. I will get you on your way. You’ll be out of here in 5 minutes or less.”

McCann explains to Lewis that if he fails to comply, he will be placed under arrest and taken to jail. He tells him he won’t call a supervisor, as the stop is blocking traffic at a busy time of day, and tells him he can file a complaint later.

“Go get your (expletive) supervisor, go get your (expletive) supervisor,” Lewis yells. “…Get the (expletive) out of my face, man, I’m telling you.”

Remarkably, the rookie officer, Brindley Blood, is now facing a charge of aggravated battery. Of course, prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich if they want. It doesn’t mean a court will convict.

In this case it’s another ambitious District Attorney making the charging decisions.

brindley blood police shooting lawrence kansas

Former Officer Brindley Blood courtesy Douglas County Sheriff’s Office

More from the Journal-World . . .

Blood — a rookie officer who’d only been on the streets on her own about two months before the shooting — resigned from the police department in late January. Previously she had been on paid administrative leave.

Lewis is charged with battery against a law enforcement officer, interference with law enforcement and driving without proof of insurance, all misdemeanors, and failure to wear a seat belt, a traffic infraction.

At the time of the traffic stop and shooting, Lewis had outstanding warrants for failures to appear in court in three older traffic cases, one in Douglas County District Court, one in Lawrence Municipal Court and one in Johnson County District Court, according to court records obtained by the Journal-World. The Johnson County Sheriff’s Office investigation into the Lawrence shooting confirmed Lewis’ driver’s license had been suspended since September 2017 with no eligibility date for reinstatement, and that he’d been ticketed six times since 2010 for driving without a valid license.

Time will tell how the case plays out, but Officer Blood’s use of force will certainly remain a matter of debate.  Of course, people’s personal biases will color their interpretation of the events that day. Fortunately, we have it all on video for a (somewhat) more dispassionate evaluation.

From my seat in the stands, it looks like a righteous shoot. Blood’s actions were not perfect, but legal precedent does not demand they be perfect, merely reasonable.

comments

  1. avatar George from Alaska says:

    Where do I sign up to support the officer??

  2. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Maybe she shoulda Tasered him after sh shot him…….just sayin.

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      Cops spend too much time stopping people for these ridiculous traffic infractions, most of which are unconstitutional. The state has NO RIGHT to force an individual to wear a seatbelt, yet, just like with gun laws, they create illegal/unconstitutional laws that the people are unable to afford to fight; and those that can afford to fight don’t want to waste the time or money. People immediately will say that the perp had numerous warrants and previous infractions – BUT THEY WERE ALL FOR MISDEMEANORS, because they are all the same bullshit traffic laws created by government to force their control and provide a revenue stream.

      With that said, the perp was a typical ni99er! He should have just took the ticket and added it to his shoebox full of others. Assaulting the officer was overkill and did nothing to help his argument.

      1. avatar possum says:

        I had a wreck because my turn signals didn’t work. I had a wreck because my brake lights didn’t work. I had a wreck because I failed to stop at a stop sign. I had a wreck because the wheels fell off the car flipped upside down caught on fire and I burnt up because I had my seatbelt on. Seat belts save lives and insurance payouts for head injuries.

      2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        Does the “BS traffic laws” include running red lights? Just asking because I see at least 1 serious T-Bone accident at the same intersection near where I work.

      3. avatar Chris. says:

        Oh good god – he wasn’t shot for the civil traffic infraction; or even the misdemeanor warrants – he was shot to stop the commission of felony aggravated assault. He was shot to stop the crime in progress – not the previous crimes he’d done before – it wasn’t even done as “justice” it was done to stop the assault.

        1. avatar Clark45 says:

          ^ This

  3. avatar David B says:

    That was a good shoot no two ways about it. The level of self-control she possessed as a rookie was amazing. She stopped the threat and didn’t kill the perp. From what I could see, he was going after the other officer’s weapon. If he had succeeded, both could have been shot and killed.

    1. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

      “Level of self control she possessed” Hahaha she possessed almost none, she grabbed her pistol thinking it was her taser. She’s an incompetent rookie female and the guy that got shot is just another shitbird.

      1. avatar John E. says:

        and you know this how, Officer Keyboard?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          She yelled “Taser” before shooting and then “Oh shit!” after she screwed up and shot him. She royally fucked up and she knew it. Her own words and actions on camera, that’s how people watching the video know.

        2. avatar Chris. says:

          It does sound to me that as she’s running up she says “Taser Taser”; BANG – “oh shit, I shot him”.

          So, yeah, that could hinge upon her. Now, I would take issue with the Statement made “incompetent female rookie”.

          Female is irrelevant. and Rookies are by definition “incompetent”. That’s why they’re rookies, and not “experienced Officers”. My layman’s analysis: if she INTENDED to shoot him, good shoot. If she intended to deploy her taser she massively screwed up, and while most definitely not suited to be an officer at that point – should not necessarily be criminally liable here.

          If I were on the Jury I would not convict her based on that video.

        3. avatar California Richard says:

          Good observation… I didn’t hear the “Taser, taser ,taser…. oh shit,” until you pointed it out. Ya she’s screwed. If she didn’t intend to shoot him, then it’s a bad shoot. They (the suspect and cop) are both lucky he didn’t die. Accidental aggravated battery is better than involuntary man slaughter.

        4. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

          You’re an idiot John E. That’s exactly what happened. Do your research on the facts before you call someone out, because you just look stupid when you’re wrong.

          100% confirmed she thought it was a taser.

        5. avatar Ted Unlis says:

          The goofy buckeye rears his head to offer yet another one of his classic cop hating anti LE comments that were once so prevalent back in the day when a cop hating anti LE pro weed Austin radical named Farago tossed red meat frequently to a few cop hating anti LE TTAG regulars. So how long have you been out John? Too funny!

      2. avatar Gadsden says:

        Perhaps if all conceal carriers were required to wear body cameras, we could pick apart everything they do too, after the fact and from the safety of our recliners.

        What she did was just, but the lesson here is cameras. They are everywhere now. We are living in a survellience state. Conduct yourself accordingly. Keep in mind, even as civilian if you’re attacked and while defending yourself you let a racial slur slip out, or a “you motherfucker”, you too will be scrutinized not only in court but in the media. Laugh all you want at this cop, but remember this could easily be you if you’re attacked and it is filmed, and you don’t do everything exactly textbook perfect.

      3. avatar Gary McCormick says:

        If she or the first officer had all of the facts about the driver. They might have waited for SWAT before getting drawn into a physical confrontation. BUT they did not ! In the heat of the moment and a life or death Battle I doubt you would be able to spell your first name. Open your eyes or get you head out of your **** . Even if she would have liked to use a taser, they do not work 100%. She protected the officer on the ground and herself. It is a shame the police will lose an officer that is willing to act judiciously.

        1. avatar Gadsden says:

          Good point. At least this officer wasn’t a coward from broward who was too afraid to confront a hostile threat. I mean do we really want to rely on officer friendly who’s too nice to use force when the school is being shot to hell?

      4. avatar Paul says:

        So sad – shit happens. I can’t see that the officer is liable though. The shoot was justified, whether she intended to tase, or intended to shoot. The first officer is the screw up. He maybe should have called for his supervisor – it would have been a wise move. He certainly should have called for backup. I never heard such a call – the rookie cop seems to have just wandered in on her own. Had she not arrived, he would have been screwed royally. He didn’t see resisting arrest coming? What an idiot.

        All of that, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with seat belt laws and traffic stops for seat belt laws. That particular traffic stop shouldn’t have happened in a “free” society.

        1. avatar Lloyd says:

          Paul, your base observation agrees with mine. The patrol officer is the screwup, he caused a basic text book traffic stop to escalate into a test of wills and eventual physical conflict by NOT calling a supervisor when requested to by the black guy!
          From my point of view, he used very bad judgement in pressing the issue…… call out the whole department if necessary, don’t play tough guy one on one!
          Yeh, the rookie made a dumb rookie mistake correctable by more intense training and wider separation of taser and firearm carry positions!

      5. avatar T.H.E.Bear says:

        Well Buttplug cousin Elbow, I’d be more than happy to take you on a couple of hi risk inner city search warrants or better yet let’s make a few car stops in high crime area. We can bring rolls of paper towels to clean your underwear out.
        Typical keyboard commando.

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Hell yeah, see if the old adrenal glads still work! Sadly though you would tell me to stay in the car and what fun is that? Ride along isn’t bad way to see what cops deal with day to day. Especially if the day happens to be a busy one.

        2. avatar anaxis says:

          Cool story, hoss.

          Did you escape the trailer on it’s way to the glue factory? That’s where they send old nags & broke mules; all with tales of how tough things were, and how boss they are.

          Even if they’re just a fat donkey pinned with a badge.
          Still….
          Better that, than just giving ’em to monkeys.

    2. avatar Robert Jones says:

      That’s what I saw the first time too, but there is no question that she thought she was tazing the guy. Not only does she clearly yell tazer, watch her left hand when she shoots. It scared the crap out of her when it went off.

      That said, I believe that anything that happens accidentally after someone starts a fight with a cop should result in nothing more than increased training for the cop. If you fight a cop and particularly if you start to win, like this guy was, all bets are off.

      She obviously felt embarrassed enough by her error to resign. I think that shows good character. She obviously wasn’t good enough to be out there. Charging her as criminal though? I’m not for it.

  4. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Your link to the video is broken. The thug won the 9mm first place prize, who here is suprised?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      It is a good thing that Officer Twitchy’s duty gun wasn’t chambered in .45 ACP, otherwise she would be facing a murder charge and restitution for the giant crater that would have appeared in the street. /end_sarcasm

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I have numerous, unprintable thoughts here. Not going to engage on this one, so disregard this interruption.

  6. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

    I’m against ALL “nanny state” seat belt, helmet and child safety seat laws. That said, it doesn’t justify the use of force against the officer. I can remember when everyone would have thought putting a “crash helmet” on your toddler when he rode a tricycle meant that you must be crazy. And if you tied your kids up in the back seat whenever you took them out for a drive in your car (that is fastened them in child safety seats) you’d probably be charged with “child abuse”.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Ditto – I posted above, before I scrolled this far down.

  7. avatar PosseMan says:

    *NOW* does he get to see a supervisor?! 😂

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      *NOW* does he get to see a supervisor?! 😂

      Supervisor? He damned near got to see Top Management.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Supervisor? He damned near got to see Top Management.”

        ROTFL! Good one.

    2. avatar victoryman says:

      Yep. A supervisor at the hospital.

  8. avatar OBOB says:

    the case might hing on this

    she say —ohh SHIT I shot him!….right after, that might show her intent was not to shoot him and she goofed or that he was fighting so hard it bumped the gun and he wacked himself in a way??

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      The peep threw the cop to the ground with enough force that he could have been permanently injured or killed. The second officer just didn’t have enough game for the fight.

      This perfectly illustrates what has happened since we loosened up the physical standards required to become a police officer. In order to promote diversity and see more women on the police force we did away with height and weight requirements. Since you can’t have one standard for men and another for women, police in general are now smaller. Because they are smaller they can’t take these guys down by brute force anymore. Since you can’t have one policy for the use of deadly force by the big guys and another for the not so big, they are all going to the gun much faster today. This is a truth the left doesn’t want to talk about.

      I hate seeing all the videos of cops needlessly shooting people but this wasn’t one of them.

  9. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

    That was absolutely not a righteous shoot according to my training. She didn’t even try to assist the other officer in in other manner. She went straight for her service weapon and shot the suspect in the back. Use of force has levels for a reason and she went straight to use of deadly force. Anyone that says otherwise I would like to know their experience and training that would validate their opinion. All the guy had was his person and there was two cops, seriously? No under no circumstances do you shoot an unarmed suspect in the back. If she isn’t convicted of attempted manslaughter at least it will prove my opinion of where our society is heading, straight down the damn shitter or hell in a hand basket. Take your pick. For further clarification having traffic warrants and not wearing a seat belt does not make ok for a bullet in the back, EVER!

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      “””No under no circumstances do you shoot an unarmed suspect in the back.”””

      actually there are dozens….I am SURE you can think up that list yourself….

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Thank you that just proves my point. The next thing that will be socially acceptable is elderly genocide. You can’t chew the fat anymore so you can’t share in the tribes provisions. Just another example of sheeple bowing to the man. Yes sir masta anything you say masta. Yes masta I’ll give you my guns, thank you masta may I have another beating, yes masta you can take my property and life as you please masta. Yep we’re doomed!

        1. avatar OBOB says:

          Okay Ill give ya one…since you can not think for your self

          Bomb-vest wearing terrorist heading towards a group of kids and the only shot you have is at his back….please try to keep up with the world, I know its hard for ya….

        2. avatar Just Sayin says:

          Iraqvet, dude, here, eat this Snickers…

        3. avatar John E> says:

          How about a gang member running away shooting over his shoulder.
          A man about to stab a toddler.

        4. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Shooting running away= armed
          Man with a knife threatening another =armed

          What part of unarmed is not clear? Not having a weapon is unarmed. The suspect being shot in the back was unarmed, he did not have a weapon!

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The suspect being shot in the back was unarmed, he did not have a weapon!”

          He was a weapon. Look at the video again.

          “In the dimness of the shadows
          Where we hairy heathens warred,
          I can taste in thought the lifeblood;
          We used teeth before the sword.”
          – – G.S. Patton, Jr.

        6. avatar Chris. says:

          he did not have a weapon!

          He did have a weapon. “Personal weapon” defined as Hands/Feet. Kills more people every year then the dreaded AR-15.

        7. avatar Gadsden says:

          Blows to the head are deadly force. An adult male of capable shape can kill someone with one solid closed fist blow to the temple.

        8. avatar Mike H in WA says:

          I have to call a giant pile of BS on this. He was not “unarmed”…

          More people are killed with hands and feet than long guns every year. The perp *threw* the officer on the ground and proceed to wail on him on the back of the head. I don’t know know what kind of lousy training you got, but my six years of martial arts training taught me a punch to the back of the head has the potential to be fatal (so avoid it if at all possible). And if not fatal, that close to concrete, one good punch driving his head into the ground could have given him brain damage. At the very least, knocking him unconscious. You willing to bet the lives of all those innocent bystanders that the perp wouldn’t have gone for the officer’s gun once he was knocked out or go after the other officer?

        9. avatar Paul says:

          Fellow veteran here, but I can’t agree with you. I’ve often told people NOT to fear the weapon, but to fear the person holding the weapon. I’ve just as often told them the weapon is merely a tool – I am the weapon. If your intent is to kill someone, you don’t need any particular tool for the job. Many different tools will work, including your booted foot. Cop number one seems pretty damned stupid to me. He thought that he was just going to toss around an argumentative man considerably larger than himself, without a force multiplier of some sort?

          You and I would both have laughed at a fellow soldier/sailor for the same thing, when he had his ass handed to him.

        10. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          My argument has never been that the shitbag got shot. I even said he deserved to get shot. My argument was always about how he got shot. In the back on the ground no less. And again the fact that the officer that shot him thought she was tasing him and then said oh shit I shot him. Knowing she fucked up. I’ve also stated elsewhere here that she was lucky the guy stopped that slug because she could have shot the other cop as well. I have my opinions of the male officer too. He certainly didn’t help the situation because you can tell he wasn’t in it to win and yes got his ass handed to him. Which yes I thought was a little funny. He poked the bull and got the horns because he didn’t take it seriously. If women shouldn’t be cops because of being generally weaker,what does that say about the male officer in this case? In my opinion in this case it is like the blind leading the blind. In some aspects it would seem we agree and others we’ll have to agree to disagree.

        11. avatar PeterZ says:

          Iraq vet, since fists and feet kill more every year than all long guns combined every year I would say he was armed.

        12. avatar Chris. says:

          —My argument has never been that the shitbag got shot. I even said he deserved to get shot. My argument was always about how he got shot. In the back on the ground no less.—

          If lethal force is justified, then it’s justified – period. Doesn’t matter how it’s applied. If she could have “safely” done it, without risk to the other officer she could have driven over the guy with the car. a Sniper could have shot him – She could have stabbed him. Run him through with a sword if that was the equipment she had available. Lethal Force is lethal force, and either justified or not. You agree the shitbag deserved to get shot – that means you agree the Lethal Force deployment would have been justified. Why does it matter the means with which it were deployed? (Though I agree, she should have been more careful with bullet trajectory – know your target and what’s beyond and all that stuff).

          Let me guess – you’re one of those fools that believes the myth “ya can’t use the .50 cal against human targets”.

      2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        I’m not sure what world you live in but but a bomb is a weapon. I have been through two explosion close enough to knocked out momentarily by one. My saving grace was I was in a vehicle. Make no mistake if I can safely take out a suicide bomber, I don’t care if I have to shoot them in the back of the head it’s happening. Try to read this time UNARMED, IT IS NOT OK TO SHOOT AN UNARMED PERSON IN THE BACK! did you get it that time? A bomb is a weapon!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…IT IS NOT OK TO SHOOT AN UNARMED PERSON IN THE BACK! ”

          Blanket statements can be thorny in practice. Consider: if the perp was slamming the first cop’s head repeatedly into the pavement, while trying to unholster the cop’s gun, you would take the time to find a way to acquire an angle on the target that would not result in a bullet aft of the centerline of the side of the perp? (note: “trying to unholster the cop’s gun” is not the same as control and possession of a weapon). You would wait until the perp had the cop’s gun in hand, and pointed at you?

          The point here is that anyone who assaults a cop, puts them at disadvantage that would allow further attack, is has earned a bullet in any spot that ends the altercation. A person who would conduct an unprovoked attack on a LEO is a weapon with an array of methods and equipment for killing, or grievous bodily harm.

          So yes, when you are faced with a cop enforcing the law, you cooperate or accept your fate. Being dead right is rather useless.

        2. avatar Lugnut says:

          Agreed. However, stopping the actions of the criminal to conduct the weapons search in order to confidently determine without a doubt that the alleged perp is unarmed does present some logistical issues.

          It seems no one in the media business, and you, ever pause to consider the complete ludicrous nature of explanation that an assailant was “unarmed” given that this can only be determined after the fact.

          If a guy is beating the hell out of a cop, you have precious few seconds to make the logical assumption. Or, in your world, you could just ask him to pause the beating for a moment, and ask him.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Spot on, Iraqvet2003.

    3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      I concede that you have close to infinitely more experience in such matters than I. I just have trouble imagining not using the fastest most effective weapon I had against someone committing a violent assault with that short of time to consider the matter. I do imagine that someone way better at violent confrontations than me could stop such a thing with less than lethal force. I would never be a police office for this reason among others.

    4. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      This is an example of a righteous shoot. If you want more information research it. The officer took one hell of a beating before shooting the suspect. He thought he was going to die and ended up having reconstructive surgery done on his face.

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kansascity.com/news/local/article340116/Case-file-describes-the-moments-before-police-officer-fatally-shot-newlywed-firefighter-in-downtown-KC.html

    5. avatar Miner49er says:

      The bullet in the back was because of his attack on the police officer, he took the police officer to the ground and could’ve easily gained control of the officers service weapon.

      The subject was a large male and a taser mmay have proved ineffective, the subject was far too close to gaining control of the officers weapon to take the chance with a taser.

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Again levels force, levels of force. Going to the ground doesn’t mean go straight to deadly force. It means you exhaust all other options. I’m glad some of you aren’t cops. That would be scary as hell. Trigger happy is what I call it. Did mommy and daddy not love you enough? Did the dog only play with you because of the steak tied to you? Seriously some seem like they have some deep seeded control issues. How about this if she doesn’t get convicted I’m wrong, she should have shot the guy in the back. If she doesn’t get convicted then I’m right about where our society is going. Fair enough?

        1. avatar Chris. says:

          Yes, but it’s a use of force CONTINUUM; Not a checklist.

          You don’t need to tick every box as you run through your Use of Force.

          The thing you’re overlooking is it’s ok for the situation to have been “Non-ideal”; and not criminal at the same time.

          As far as use of force — Body slamming somebody into the pavement can be defined as Deadly Force. “Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.”

          So yeah, she was totally justified in deploying Deadly Force to stop a deadly force attack on her partner officer. At best, she could be guilty of negligence deploying the firearm when she meant to deploy the taser.

          and Her best defense would be if she could honestly say “I was thinking of deploying the taser in the initial attack; however, when I saw my fellow officer get body slammed, my thinking changed, and I was afraid the attacker was going to kill my partner – so I shot him. Yes, I said Oh shit – I have only been on the job for 2 months, and shooting somebody in this manner was never what I wanted to do.”

          More to the point – Somebody assaulted a police officer and was shot. Why do you love criminals?

        2. avatar daveinwyo says:

          Don,t know who or what you are/were and mostly don’t care. Opinions a like butts and yours stinks. Never heard of Karve Maga? A human is a deadly weapon. The rookie cop may, may have used excessive force but like noted above ROOKIE cop. Tell us true, did you have perfect muscle/brain memory at that stage, or were you born like some cops I’ve met that are just perfect? When you first put on your sam brown did you know where every thing was? Did you stand in front of the mirror and practice fife quick draw or better were you an MP?

        3. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          Zimmerman’s use of deadly force against an unarmed man who had him on the ground was ruled justified. How is this different? Because the cop wasn’t alone?

          IMHO, women shouldn’t be police officers. Her ability to dive in and provide physical assistance was far less than a qualified male officer’s would have been.

        4. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I’m not going to get into what male or female should or shouldn’t do professionally. Too many people here have and I haven’t got involved there either. Everything now days is political even if you don’t want it to be. What we say and do is going to be scrutinized by other people. In a situation like this it’s not just the situation in question but past history too. We must always be on guard of what we say and how it can look in other situations in the future. Me saying I’m not giving up my guns to the liberal democrats will have no bearing on how I interact with a police officer should I get pulled over for a traffic stop. The last I was pulled over I was speeding quite a bit over the speed limit and pulled over as soon as I saw the cop. I knew because I wasn’t paying attention I was wrong. By the end of the traffic stop let me go with a warning and shook my hand and thanked me for my service, I told him the same and we both went on our way. Now given that I already said this shitbag deserved to get shot because of his actions. How he was shot is what I have taken issue with from the beginning. Plus the fact that she really screwed the pooch yelling taser, taser, taser, and then oh shit I shot him. The way it went down she is lucky she didn’t shoot the other cop in process. Fortunately for the other cop the shitbag in question stopped the slug before hitting him. She yelled taser to let the other officer know what she was doing to assist as she was trained I’m betting. Imagine the other cops surprise hearing taser and then the unmistakable sound of a gun going off.

    6. avatar YTFU says:

      You’re full of crap, bro. It’s a totally justified shoot. The perp was bigger, stronger, and dominant over the cop on the ground, he would have crushed the female. For what it’s worth, he wasn’t shot because of outstanding tickets or whatever, he was shot because he body slammed a cop, kicked him in the head, and may have been going for his gun. Get your sovereign citizen trash out of here.

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        You need to go back and watch the video again. He didn’t kick he hit the cop in the back of the head with his forearm. The only one that brought up the sovereign citizen crap was you. Maybe I look at it differently because I’m not itching to shoot someone. I’ve ran into a number of people in my travels professionally that had the itch and couldn’t wait to scratch it. The interesting thing about most of them that got the chance are fucked up because of it now. The ones that aren’t I want as far away from me as possible. If you say you have shot and or killed someone and it doesn’t bother you you are either one lying or you need to be kept under lock and key. That’s called being a sociopath.

        1. avatar Gadsden says:

          Not necessarily. Having a complete mental breakdown over having to kill someone isn’t a requirement. I’m not going to go into my personal experience, but I will share that I did know many WW2 veterans who killed a ton of people and were just fine with it. Now, It was a different time and a different war, where everyone was in it together, but even colonel tibbets, who dropped the A bomb and obliterated a city knew what had to be done. He went on to live until relatively recently with no regrets.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Yeah not my experience at all. I’m good with the people I’ve killed, and so are some of my friends. Because it kept good people alive. People we love alive. And become some of the folks we killed were horrible fucking people.

        3. avatar Jon says:

          I know a few of both. Generally speaking, those who are not ok with the killing they performed and are messed up over it, were kinda messed up before they did their duty. Many of them were a little over zealous or killed the wrong folks or both. The killing just magnified their real personality.

          Again, generally speaking, those that I know who are ok with the killing they performed, have a solid understanding of the the basic value of life and when it is justifiable (not legal – thats different) to kill.

        4. avatar Roman of Texas says:

          Clearly you’ve never deployed then. Because we fought and killed some really friggin shitty people. I don’t feel bad about it, and no one who i served with does. Then again, I raised my hand and signed up for the infantry.

        5. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          11 years military police medically retired
          Camp Bondsteel Kosovo under 10th Mountain 01-02
          South Central Baghdad Iraq under 82nd and 18th MP Brigade 03-04.
          Those terrorists that died over there absolutely deserved what they got with no regrets. It’s not even a comparison. You’re dilutional if you think there is.

        6. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I glad I’m not quick to end a life unless it is absolutely the last resort. That’s even with my past experiences. It’s a shame so many others are willing to be so quick to. I support our military (because I’m biased), law enforcement, and emergency services, but not blindly. Being in either doesn’t and shouldn’t give a free pass. Putting myself in the same situation I would expect to have charges brought against me. Then again I wouldn’t have shot the guy in the back without trying to help subdue him in another manner. Pepper spray, taser that she meant to use, ASP/PR24, then deadly force. I bet I could have hit that fucker in the back hard enough with an ASP to knock the air out of his lungs. Fights over dirtbag you lose thanks for playing.

        7. avatar Jon says:

          @VET
          Congratulations! You have appropriately identified the difference between MP’s and 11B’s. Two very different sets of training for two very different jobs. You have also demonstrated why cops clearly cannot be expected to operate like infantry. Maybe you can judge this situation in Kansas because of your law enforcement experience. I just hope that you reserve the judgement for combat to the combatants and those of us who were daily shot at and blown up.

          @ Roman
          Were you 1-18 by chance?

        8. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Like I said the two have no comparison. What we did in war is not the same as policing in an otherwise (dare I say) civil society. The guy in this situation is a shitbag to be sure. I even said he deserved to be shot but a lot of people deserved to slapped on a daily basis too. Doesn’t mean it’s ok. That’s the key here was it justified. In my opinion, experience, and training no it wasn’t.

        9. avatar daveinwyo says:

          Yep 2003. Lets go the PTSD route why don’t we. Some of the “new” vets want to carry a gun and join the PD, and I laud them for it. Some should not. Some of us survived with minimal “mental issues” some of us did not. My point is, Who died and made you perfect? MP for sure. Sorry you had to fight in a BS war with crappy ROEs. But get a wife, I mean life.

        10. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I have both a life and a family. Any other words of encouragement I should take note of? I’m not looking for apologies. I signed up of my own free will and would do it again in a heart beat. I have no regrets. No I’m not perfect and no one else is either. I’m not being brought up on charges though either. My current situation is what is. Life isn’t fair no one ever said it was without lying. For me personally there is still right and wrong. People deal with things differently. Some people lie to themselves others hide, and others get tired and look for another way. For some that means ending everything because they just can’t cope anymore. I’ll never bash any one of them regardless of how they get by and I’ll always hope something is done before anymore take their own lives.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sorry you had to fight in a BS war with crappy ROEs. But get a wife,…”

          Crappy ROEs, either way.

          (Oh, s*t, don’t let my commandant see this)

        12. avatar YTFU says:

          Hahaha!! You’re the POG b!tch who’s too scared to use appropriate force when necessary, and you’re saying I have some kind of mental issue? That I need to be locked up? No wonder real combat arms never respect MPs.

        13. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          You don’t have respect for MP’s because some of them in your past either wrote you a ticket that you thought was bullshit or you spent the night in the D-cell for doing something you shouldn’t have been doing. I have no pity for you. What I find particularly funny is how many I have run into in my time in the military that was combat arms and reclassed to be an MP. I don’t care if you respect me or not that has no bearing on why I or how I live my life. Respect is a two way street and it’s earned not given. If you’re happy being the big bad killer go with your bad self. Don’t expect any respect from me for it because I don’t have any for you. I had nothing bad to say about the service or any MOS. Who stooped to that childish level? I’ve ran into your kind as well. I was never impressed especially when their 1st Sgt showed up to pick them up after spending the night in the cell at the station. They always sang a different tune from the night before knowing their shit was in the wind and Top was going to get in that ass with both feet.

        14. avatar Erotic Vulture says:

          @JWT – Weren’t you a medic? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you took out some of the bad guys, I just thought medics were unarmed so as not to be targets.

        15. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          In my experience because we generally had a medic roll with us when we went out for the days mission, medics are non combatants but are armed to protect the wounded they are giving aid to. Generally speaking otherwise they are not suppose to engage the enemy. Now before someone else takes what I say in general terms personally, that’s not something I totally agree with. During my time in the service I was always told and heard you are always a soldier first and whatever your specialty is second. A soldier is trained to fight and have his or hers team mate’s back. If a medic got in the fight before taking a single casualty I’m not going to fault them for it. In my opinion they should get a medal for it.

        16. avatar PeterZ says:

          I V, bullshit. My uncle fought across Europe and earned three Purple Hearts and three bronze stars and never regretted it. My dad, his big brother, helped build the bomb that killed 100,000 at Nagasaki and he didn’t regret it either.

        17. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Did I specifically say anyone in your family or anyone else’s for that matter? No, I made a general statement about people I have encountered over the years. Instead of taking it as that some want to take it personally. It’s not personal and quite frankly I’m not dealing with other people’s personal problems today and tomorrow isn’t looking good either. The officer in question fucked up and even she knew she fucked up. That’s been my stance all along and still is. Everything else has been in response to me saying she fucked up. Like I said I haven’t changed my mind, she fucked up. Quite frankly she needs to be thankful the shitbag didn’t die, she could be looking at a manslaughter charge or worse. With any luck hopefully for her sake her resigning might also be her saving grace criminally. I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes civilly way more than I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes criminally. She will be lucky to have a car in her name for a very long time if the shitbag decides to bring a civil suit against her for excessive force.

        18. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Erotic Vulture,
          No, you are mistaken. Medics are armed just the same as everyone else and we have a duty to protect ourselves our patients, non-combatants, and our team. There are no spectators on the battlefield.

        19. avatar Miner49er says:

          The female officers nonlethal force options were limited by the situation. It’s not a good idea to tase a subject when they are in direct physical contact with another officer. Attempting to spray the perp with pepper spray would’ve hosed the other officer as well taking him out of the fight and making him unable to resist or assist the female officer when the perpetrator turned his attention to her. Again, the problem is the subjects violent assault of the police officer.

          Hey, I’m one of those flaming liberals who are sick of unarmed black man being killed in corrupt police stops. But this situation is different, clearly the driver was the aggressor, and he had a reason to avoid giving his ID because he did have previous misdemeanors against him. He made a foolish decision to violently attack a police officer and he took around in the back for it.

    7. avatar jwtaylor says:

      I agree that it appears Officer Blood panicked and used her pistol thinking it was her Taser.
      That said, if Blood reasonably assumed McCann was in immediate danger of being killed, then she absolutely was justified in using lethal force. That is in line with my training. I know of no department that teaches otherwise, or that would teach otherwise.
      The question is if, in this case, Officer Blood should have reasonably assumed McCann’s life was in immediate danger.
      Until 6:29 in the video, I would have said no. But at that point, Lewis briefly pauses from striking McCann, looks in the direction of McCann’s weapon, and reaches back in that direction.
      It would not be reasonable, under those circumstances, to require Officer Blood to wait until Lewis had McCann’s weapon in-hand, or to use anything other than deadly force at that point.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        She shouted taser while drawing her weapon and “Oh shit!” after she shot. It appears as though she thought she was deploying a taser, probably per procedure. She screwed up.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Yeah that was my first sentence. But even if she did screw up, pulling her firearm instead of her taser does not in and of itself mean the use of deadly force was unjustified.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          (Yeah, I was saying something similar; in fewer words. I didn’t dispute what you were had written previously.)

          Since the present reality is that officers routinely get a pass when they follow procedure, they shouldn’t get a pass if they don’t. She should face charges in light of how criminal officer conduct is handled these days.

        3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

          With a guy that big, would the taser have had an effect?

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “With a guy that big, would the taser have had an effect?”

          Who are you asking?

      2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        I’ve never seen a taser deployed on two people grappling, but I know how electric current grounds. What are the odds that if she had used a taser, she also would have at least partially incapacitated her fellow officer? I’ve given and received secondary shock from livestock fences.

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          This is how taser training is usually conducted. You will notice the two individuals holding on to the trainee getting tased are not also being tased. The other officer wouldn’t have felt it unless she fucked that up too and tased the other officer instead.

          https://youtu.be/5Ymq0pa63Qs

    8. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      Yelling taser, taser, taser and then oh shit I shot him. Noooo, she didn’t fuck up, that was absolutely a good shoot. Deserving to be shot, because yes the asshole did deserve to be shot, doesn’t make it ok. She should rightfully be charged.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Her words only help her defense, not her prosecution. I imagine her defense will argue that this young officer was “acting in accordance to her training to the best of her ability.”

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Her words indicate that SHE perceived the level of force necessary was less than lethal. Department procedure probably supports the perception.

          If we screw up, we don’t have procedure to hide behind. If we fire a warning shot, we can be smoked in court. Deadly force might have been justified but her utterances on camera should hurt her more than help her in this case. If she hadn’t stated what she did, I would agree that under current trends, she was legally justified. As the facts stand, she was not.

        2. avatar YuGo Hugo says:

          “acting in accordance to her training to the best of her ability.” That and the fact that she is a rookie when considered with the fact that no person knows, even a police officer, how they will respond in such a situation until they are in one should be a part of her defense. I do wish her good luck.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          John in Ohio, no, her words do not indicate that she saw the threat as less than lethal, only that she was taught to pull her taser first. And that she was taught to verbalize that. It also highlights that, under real stress, under real time, she was either not able to actually perform to that standard, or that she was not able to verbalize it.
          It appears that her training was confusing, in that particular situation, and that it might have done more harm than good.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          We don’t get a pass on mistakes while they get a pass on procedure. It works both ways. She was rightfully charged and her words certainly will hurt her in court.

        5. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          While we seem to agree I think I’m done here. This has taken a serious turn to the surreal. I have seen some serious shit in my time but a lot of what I’m reading boggles the mind. I guess I’m just not stone cold enough and can’t get to where a lot of others are on this. Personally I’m good with that though. It means I haven’t completely lost my civility, good will towards my fellow man, and most importantly my self control.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Don’t sweat it, Iraqvet2003. You aren’t alone. Empathy is nothing to be ashamed of nor is it to be ridiculed.

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I just realized that I left out some detail from my replies. It was in my mind but I didn’t express it. So, to clarify…

          Her utterances might have helped if she was being charged with something like attempted murder but not, IMHO, for something like aggravated battery.

        8. avatar jwtaylor says:

          John in Ohio, I considered the charge as well, and I went ahead and looked it up. Aggravated battery still requires intent. That’s why I think her words will help her. It’s clear that that is not what she intended.

        9. avatar John in Ohio says:

          She intended to commit battery. She did not believe that the situation rose to the level of lethal force. Using the taser would’ve been justified under procedure AND based upon her utterance. (Make no mistake, I would’ve shot the asshole straight off — so I’m not faulting her for shooting based upon threat.) Instead, she used a firearm (aggravated) and shot him (battery). Had there been evidence that she intended to shoot him, or no evidence that she didn’t intend to shoot him, she would’ve been fine.

          If an attorney was going to defend her by saying that she meant to commit legal battery by using a taser but accidentally used the firearm (making it potentially illegal because of department procedure) instead, it would be torn apart by a good prosecutor. If I intend on pushing someone away but they seriously hit their head, I could still get criminally charged even though I did not intend for them to hit their head. If I intended to push someone away but accidentally shot them with the pistol in my hand, that does not mean I did not intend on pushing them (potential battery). It’s a similar situation here. Her words mean that she intended on not using a firearm (she did not see a lethal threat) but did so by mistake. However, the intent element is in regards to the battery, which she clearly intended to commit. Again, if they follow procedure, they usually get a pass. If it can be proven, as it likely can in this case, that she did not follow procedure, she might not, and should, not get a pass.

          As it stands, she had intent to commit battery. She used a firearm by mistake. Since she made those statements, procedure won’t cover her. Hence, I believe there is a strong case for the charges and I do believe that her words will pose a key problem for the defense.

          Of course, we disagree and that’s okay. It’s cool.

    9. avatar Gadsden says:

      Actually police CAN shoot unarmed people in the back, this has been ruled in SCOTUS. The fleeing felon rule is one example. A convict escaping police/corrections custody is another example. Also if one is using deadly force then all bets are off. Deadly force does not require a weapon present. A clenched first and swinging at someone’s head is deadly force wether it’s making contact or not. Being body slammed into the ground could be considered deadly force too. Just because they are turned around and unarmed doesn’t mean anything.

    10. avatar Mike V says:

      He wasn’t unarmed, flying fists of fury were about to smash the guy into hamburger. It might only take getting hit in the head once to suffer a lifelong debilitating brain injury.
      I do think a taser would have been a more appropriate choice.

    11. avatar johnQ says:

      Dude strangling his domestic partner, cranked up on meth.
      Unarmed and still shoot-able.
      Go back to class boss, seriously.

    12. avatar 848484 says:

      BULL CRAP. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE HER DO? BOTH WEREN’T A MATCH FOR THAT GUY.

  10. avatar JohnnyL says:

    When act like your Samuel L. Jackson to the Police i guarantee it will not go well.

  11. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    It looks to me like the driver was too foolish to stay alive. Why would you drive without a seatbelt if you already had a warrant out for your arrest. Taking a bus would have been a lot smarter. I see only his crime and fvk ups in this video.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      I am not saying his mistakes before the shoot were the issue. I just find them incomprehensible. It is the violent physical assault that looked effective and like it was going to lead to serious injury if not death were he not stopped quickly. After watching it a second time I do realize she acted as if she used the handgun by accident.

  12. avatar Middle Age Tactical Mall Ninja says:

    Is it just me or is she shouting TASER as she shoots the perp? Did she pull the wrong weapon?

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      I agree—then I heard the WHOOPS I shot him? like she knew she goofed up…..

      that might make the case for him…but I’d still jail him for a decade…so he has to WAIT for that cash….

  13. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Looks like he’ll get jail time, hospital bill and that ticket after all. Instead of just the ticket and jail time. This whole incident is his fault. His life choices took him to where he got.

  14. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    I wish the ENTIRE Lawrence PD would resign and find a better, supportive department to work for.

  15. avatar John in Ohio says:

    She fucked up and should face a charge of aggravated battery. You can hear her saying “Taser” and “Oh shit!”

    When agents of government follow procedure, they get away with murder. Since that is the present reality, they ought to get charged when they don’t follow procedure.

    1. avatar ai338 says:

      Easy to do under stress.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yes, it is; very much so. But, the status quo is that when they follow procedure then they get a pass in most circumstances. It’s only right that the opposite is true; don’t follow procedure, you don’t get a full pass.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “You can hear her saying “Taser” and “Oh shit!” ”

      Requiring police to be armed with both a pistol and a taser is asking for disaster. Hesitation kills; taking time to figure out which firearm to use delays the OODA loop. There is a vast difference between a firearm and a baton. Not so much between a pistol and a taser. The idea that police should use non-lethal weapons when being attacked is just stupid. This day and age, everyone believes they have the universal right to physically attack police in order to avoid being charged with an offense.

      Had the cops physically attacked the driver in this instance, without cause or provocation, we could have a different conversation. The rookie cop may have violated procedure, but she did stop the threat.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I was never in favor of tasers for law enforcement. Many of us knew it would become a compliance device/punishment as well as complicating the job on the street. I am all for ditching the tasers.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          A bullet fired from a gun is a compliance device as well.

          Just sayin’…

          “Stop attacking me. Comply.”

          A less lethal compliance device would probably be a more accurate description of the ‘Taser’…

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I have no problem with an officer using his firearm in a legitimate and proper use of force situation. Tasers are a whole mess of worms. It complicates the decision tree far too much and it opens the door to abuse by some officers. I’d like to see them off of officers’ belts and out of the departments.

  16. avatar Michael says:

    Lawrence KS, if you haven’t been there is a nice place, with the attendant bad places. Good guys and bad guys are mobile. Anybody wants to mix it up with uniformed police in the middle of the street is the two legged version of a rabid dog. Putting him down is the epitome of “Protect and Serve”. Could, woulda, shoulda,…unless you’ve been there you have no foxtrot idea how foxtrot fast these things spin out of control. There is no way you can know unless you’ve been there. If you’ve been there, you know there are no time outs, no do overs, shot people stay shot, the loop plays in your head. Monday morning quarter backs…-30-

    1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      Six officer at the main gate it took to subdue an intoxicated Sargeant for a DWI, that’s right 6. Including the use of pepper spray. Later we found out the guy had been an Iowa state wrestling champion. He ended up getting shot but by himself. We responded to his post housing for attempted suicide call later the next day. Where inevitably he sent a shotgun slug through the top of his head. Now tell me about Monday morning quarterbacking.

      1. avatar Gadsden says:

        Was there 6 officers in that video? Have you ever thought what would’ve happened if it was just you vs that sergeant all by yourself?

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Yeah most likely I would have been a lot worse for wear. Meaning I would have probably got my ass kicked. Given the example of just me, I would have tried pepper spray if possible (even though in the actual arrest it didn’t phase him) and then yes if I felt my life was in danger I probably would have shot him. That’s the example of just me though. Given another officer being evolved that changes things. If I’m the one on the ground the other officer has to make the right decision on how to assist. Empty hand restraint with verbal commands, pepper spray with verbal commands, ASP/PR24 with commands, my personal favorite is a working dog; still use verbal commands but the dog usually is persuasive enough, presentation of deadly force with commands, or use of deadly force. If I’m the assisting officer I’m probably going to start with empty hand restraint and escalate from there. The officer in question could have started with pepper spray, taser, or ASP/PR24 and possibly would have been ok on her judgement but she didn’t.

  17. avatar jwtaylor says:

    It sure does look like Officer Blood thought she was using her Taser. Take a hard look at 6:30. Officer Blood places the muzzle against Lewis, and seems to be surprised when the gun went off.

    Even so, the shooting appears to be justified, especially since it does appear as if Blood was reaching down for Officer McCann’s weapon.

    I’m sure red lights were going off in McCann’s head when Blood repeatedly refused to hand over identification. I’m a little surprised McCann felt the need to go hands on to get Blood out of the vehicle, and why Blood wasn’t tased either in the vehicle or on the way out of it. Then again, we can’t see inside Blood’s vehicle.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      Agree. She could have used the taser but even with a pistol, it’s a justified shoot. He was beating on a cop, deadly force was adequte

  18. avatar Duhhhhh says:

    I don’t support any woman po-lice.

    Stupid idea to begin with.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Agree; she wasn’t gonna wrestle & subdue this dude herself, so her only options are a gun & the Taser (since batons are too cruel); so the chance of confusing the two in any given hostile action is already higher than for a male cop that isn’t a fatass. Making the Taser pistol-gripped like the gun & putting it on tge opposite side of the body just increases the odds of confusing the two.

      She is a poster child for that retarded red clown-nose product from a while back that makes the first shot (only) of a pistol less than lethal, lol

  19. avatar Swarf says:

    Ok. That was not a justified shoot AND that mouthy piece of shit deserved to be shot. Two separate issues.

    She fucked up and thought she was grabbing her Taser. That’s a failure of training, and dangerous because, I mean yeah, she shot a guy instead of Tasing him, but the round could have gone through “motherfuckinseatbelt” guy and in to her partner. So yes, she messed up, or rather, her training was inadequate for the situation.

    Annnd… I didn’t mind when that dude got shot. At all. Which is why it’s good that I’m not a cop.

  20. avatar barnbwt says:

    If it’s justified to shoot with a gun (and it was), how is it then unlawful to fire a gun thinking it’s a Taser?

    Should she be removed from service for confusing the two? Yes, she screwed up and doing that in a different scenario where a gun was not justified could have been tragic.

    Should she be charged criminally for mistakenly thinking lethal force was *not* appropriate here, and then mistakenly trying to subdue the guy with the lethal weapon she should hae used in the first place? Hell no. She was fully justified to use a gun in the real, corporeal world the event was happening. Trying to prosecute her for using a gun when –in her head– she thought it was not justified is a pursuit of thoughtcrime.

    Side note; Brindley Blood is an awesome name (especially for a cop, though)

  21. avatar Texican says:

    Where to begin? Good shoot once they got to that point. She should be given a medal instead of being prosecuted. Three of the 5 officers in the video were women. Are there really not enough men to fill these positions? Male officer needs work on his empty hand skills. And do we really need to enforce seat belt laws? And once we do aren’t there ways to detain someone in a vehicle who is uncooperative instead of trying to drag them out of a vehicle? Maybe spike strips? Tase them while they’re in the car? I think if I was doing this job I’d have something in my hands to use as a less lethal option. Maglite, kubotan, self-defense pen, etc.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Seat belts aside, this guy needed jailing (possibly a bit more than that). Outstanding warrants, then attacking an officer in a routine stop?

  22. avatar Greg says:

    So, now that you have witnessed a clear case, which a cop was doing all she could to protect the public, then got charged with crime; “How many of those 8,000-10,000 gun homicides per year are actually justifiable, but charged as murder?”

    Prison is a heck of a price to pay for a God given, Constitutionally Reinforced right to self defense.

  23. avatar Flash says:

    Comming to a red flag state near you.

  24. avatar bk says:

    If I’m the officer on the ground, I supposed I’m thrilled my attacker has been stopped, but holy crap that was awfully close to cop-accidentally-shoots-cop.

  25. avatar David Johnson says:

    Officer Blood would not be convicted if I were on the jury!

    1. avatar Hugh Glass says:

      Ditto. And the city for putting her incompetent ass on the street.

  26. avatar Kendahl says:

    Definitely a good shoot. By the time Blood fired, McCann, having completely lost control of Lewis, was helpless and under attack. I am disappointed that she confused her Taser with her handgun. That shows how lack of experience can lead to poor decisions under stress. Actually, in that situation, a Taser would have been a poor choice. It’s not very reliable and, if it failed and Lewis turned on her, she would not have had time to draw and fire her handgun before being overwhelmed. (I remember a female Chicago police officer who suffered a head injury because, fearing public backlash, she failed to use adequate force against a drug crazed suspect.) Lewis’s size and strength made him more than a match for both officers together. Such a disparity in favor of the assailant turns a less-than-deadly attack into a deadly one.

    I do find fault with McCann for not waiting a few more seconds, until backup arrived, before pulling Lewis from his vehicle. Six officers, instead of two, might have persuaded Lewis that resistance was sure to fail. At least, it would have made a Taser a viable option since, if it failed, there would be officers with guns.

    Lewis’s behavior was yet another example of “I’ll do whatever I want and, if anybody objects, I’ll give them a beating or worse to teach them not to.” I don’t know whether this is a new phenomenon or if it’s always been this way and I failed to notice. The message for the rest of us, whether police or private citizen, is that you need to be prepared to fight for you life if you intend to call out someone for his bad behavior.

    For readers not familiar with Kansas, Lawrence is the location of the University of Kansas. Population of the county is 120,000 with nearly 30,000 students and 3,000 faculty at the university. That may explain the district attorney’s decision to prosecute Blood for what was, at worst, a rookie mistake in a situation that demanded action to support her partner.

  27. avatar james says:

    While unfortunate he took a round to the back, she did place it to not kill him.
    Officer lucky to be alive, idiot could have taken his service weapon.

    The man should not have been on the road.

  28. avatar james says:

    Too bad Officer did not run the plates to see if the guy was suspended, sure no guarantee the driver of the truck is the RO.

  29. avatar Anonymous says:

    How much force do you use to subdue someone? The minimum force necessary. Each person has a spark of divinity, and each person is a human life, so you use the minimum force necessary – Jordan Peterson

    1. avatar Gadsden says:

      Ideally yes, but ideals typically don’t work out so well in real time. We could sit here and quote scripture and wonder what Jesus would’ve done too.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        She also could have subdued him with a taser.

        Or she, (a woman) could have stayed out of the police work the perp subduing business altogether, and had she been a large man instead of a small petite woman lacking testosterone, then the large man wouldn’t have been afraid to kick the perp with in the face and sleeper hold him, instead of killing him on the spot. And that would have been more dignifying all around.

        1. avatar Chris. says:

          You know nobody died here right?

        2. avatar Gadsden says:

          I don’t dissagree. There’s a ton of women, and men for that matter who shouldn’t go into policing based on body stature alone. But again, it’s not an ideal world and many people who would make great cops physically, don’t become cops, and instead choose to become athletes and make way more money, so we’re stuck with people who aren’t perfect for the job.

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      *eyeroll* Thus speaks noted police and hand-to-hand combat expert, St. Jordan Peterson *eyeroll*

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        *eyeroll* Thus speaks noted police and hand-to-hand combat expert, St. Jordan Peterson *eyeroll*

        So that wasn’t really an argument. So you believe they should use more than necessary force??

  30. avatar Paul Hurst says:

    Police work is clearly not for her. She is so fat and so slow she could not arrest a 5 year old without shooting him. I would not convict her, but as a probationary officer, that was her last day on the job.

    1. avatar Paul Hurst says:

      OK so it appears she resigned shortly after the incident.

  31. avatar Ark says:

    Rookie officer, screamed “oh shit, I shot him”, and then admitted to screwing up and using a gun instead of a taser. There may have been a possibility of arguing for a justifiable use of force, but she torpedoed that by admitting outright that it was unintentional. Charges are appropriate and she should certainly be dismissed from the force.

  32. avatar David says:

    Blood should counter sue Lewis. Seems she might have suffered mentally form the shooting that she was forced to perform in order to Save her Partners Life. Lewis was punching him in the BACK of the HEAD. Very easy to cause Sever Damage or Death.
    Blood might have actually saved her partners life. Just doing his job.

    Justified. Sad, but Justified. Mental Hug to Blood.

  33. avatar strych9 says:

    Four things:

    1) This belongs on “When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong”.

    2) What the camera sees is not what she sees.

    3) She was issued this gear, yes? So, if she shot him accidentally when she wanted the tazer, which has happened before, perhaps it’s time to look at the setup that is issuing and start requiring that either the pistol or the taser be in a cross draw or other configuration that minimizes the chances of such a mistake.

    4) I fail to see how this is a body size/recruitment issue. Homeslice was a better grappler than the cop. As long as you know what you’re doing takedowns on bigger people are not difficult once you have ahold of them. Some cops train in martial arts because they want to be able to win in hand to hand situations. Others truly believe their training at the academy will suffice. I’ve seen a 17 year old girl who was 120lbs soaking wet maul a 200lb cop because she knew what she was doing and he didn’t.

    1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      Agreed!

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      I’ve seen a 17 year old girl who was 120lbs soaking wet maul a 200lb cop because she knew what she was doing and he didn’t.

      I don’t believe whatever you’re describing happened in a real, no rules, no-holds-barred fight.

      The super-girl ninja waif is a myth.

      An 80-pound weight differential is a deal-killer unless the man’s heart just isn’t in it.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        No, because it wouldn’t be safe to engage in a real street fight in practice. The point of training is to learn, not end up with life-changing injuries.

        This was 200lb guy with basic grappling skills, taught by the police academy in Colorado, against a Blue Belt in a BJJ school in a full sparring situation. 100% full speed starting from the feet, like in a street competition. He was told “Do what you need to do” and he immediately tried to apply what he knew. He was on his back almost immediately when his trip was countered, mauled and tapping to something that would have taken him out of the fight and off duty for six months, or permanently crippled him, in 40 seconds. Maybe he made it 42 seconds, but I know he didn’t make it to 45 seconds because “45” was the nickname he got out of that encounter, for not making to 45 seconds after talking himself up.

        My opinion is immaterial. What is material is what his opinion was. His opinion was, and this is pretty close to a verbatim quote: “Holy fuck! If I ran into that on the street a tiny girl could KILL ME because I had no idea what sort of threat she posed until it was too late. Against a guy… damn I’m totally fucked. The first month here is free right? How many classes does that cover!?”

        He became one of the best students in that school specifically because he knew if he ran up against that shit in the street he, again his opinion rather than mine, he wasn’t going to get a taser, pepper spray or any other tool out before he was eating pavement with shit broken. At that point if backup didn’t arrive right then he was completely at the mercy of the other person. He brought in a bunch of his friends from local LEAs too. They all had the same attitude “I don’t need this” until that same girl kicked their ass around the block. The longest any of them lasted was a minute and a half before they were either tapping or, in his case, unconscious because he refused to tap to a strangle that his uniform, his fucking duty uniform, makes easy.

        This whole “women can’t fight” thing is fucking horseshit. Give them a skill base that negates the power differential of a man and the guy is, at best, on even footing. Don’t believe me? Fight Ronda Rousey or any other woman in the UFC. The only thing the rules are going to do is save your ass from getting literally killed because any one of those woman will fuck your shit up so fast it will make your head spin. Just ask the male MMA sports writer who shit-talked Rousey about how he as a Blue Belt would wipe the floor with her. Two seconds, one throw and he has broken ribs and that’s on a mat. Or ask the dude who tried to rob Polyana Viana. He had a fucking gun and ended up looking like he tried to make out with a paint shaker.

        If 80lbs is such a differential that it cannot be overcome how am I whipping the living shit out of people 80 pounds bigger than me every week?

        Skill beats power. Your strength/weight difference only matters if you can use it effectively and against a trained opponent, you usually can’t.

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          I’m sorry but the way you describe men getting their asses kicked by women had me laughing. I was also laughing because you’re right. I personally don’t think I would have much to say about someone that fights for a living. There comes a time when intelligence is the better part of Valor. Knowing myself and my own skill level I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t want to fight Rhonda Rousey and I’m 6′ 2″ and 230 lbs and generally speaking I can hold my own. I’m sure some will come back with some bullshit bravado but being smart has got me this far in life. Skill as you said is everything.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Really, all you need to know is this:

          This dude (see below) had a gun and from three shots, two punches and a kick ended up looking like some biker beat him with a hammer. The chick is standing behind him in the second picture and she’s not exactly “built”. If a regular joe picks a fight with a chick like this, well hopefully she’s in a good mood or she’s literally going to beat you to death, possibly with part of your own body. Viana beat this dude’s ass so badly that he didn’t even try to get away but just sat and waited to get arrested because she told him to. He’s breathing for one and only one reason: She allowed him to live.

          https://twitter.com/danawhite/status/1082110419785969666/photo/1

          But hey, ninjas gonna ninja and tell you how this can never happen because women can’t fight… right up until they get raped by a chick and start crying about how the fight wasn’t “fair”. I’ve seen that happen more times than I have fingers and toes (and I’m not missing any).

        3. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Like I said sometimes intelligence is the better part of Valor. The way the guy looks after getting the beating, he wasn’t very smart. First for being a criminal and second for trying to rob someone that shouldn’t be fucked with lightly in general. Judging someone’s skill level on how the appear physically is really a bad idea. It could go badly as this guy is a testament to.

        4. avatar Greg says:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoU4aMwmfCE

          Bears protect their young, but if you want to see some real violence, get between a Momma human and her cubs. That’s why there won’t be a Revolution/Civil War until the Mamma Humans say so.

  34. avatar RidgeRunner says:

    IMO, legal defense-wise, she is better off if she really thought she WAS going to taser him and then mistakenly shot him. She went to lethal force way too quickly, again in my opinion as a civilian and a “witness.” It’s like “OK, he’s resisting, kill him.” Surprised she didn’t mag dump him. And she did say “oh shit, I shot him,” like it was a complete surprise to her. I don’t think they’re trained to put a gun right on somebody and shoot, but what the hell do I know. Bottom line, she had NO business being a cop on that day, she’s gonna get somebody killed. Not everybody’s cut out for it, male or female, including myself. I’m a civilian, I’m at the mercy of a cop potentially going lethally stupid, so my take matters in that regard.

    1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      Agreed! This is called knowing yourself and admirable.

  35. avatar victoryman says:

    She should get a medal. Probably saved the second officer’s life. Where is the Chie of Police backing up his officer? Missing in action?

    1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      Apparently not backing this now ex cop because she was on paid administrative leave and then resigned. I personally think that’s seeing the writing on the wall. Meaning oh shit I fucked up and this probably isn’t going to go well for me. Resigning could possibly help her showing so much remorse for her actions she could no longer do the job.

  36. avatar Douglas Helvie says:

    To bad she just did not shoot him in the head and save tax payer dollars on his imminent incarceration. I think the rookie should be given a medal not a criminal charge.

  37. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    this is a clean shoot ,charge the D.A.

  38. avatar Jon in CO says:

    If I’m a juror, I’m not convicting for aggravated battery. However, I’m not sure she is the one who should absolutely be held accountable if there is an actual crime here. Seems to me that poor training by the dept and bad setup of her duty rig ultimately led to the gun being drawn vs the taser.

    What should happen to her? At the minimum, she needs many more hours of training, and probably a psych evaluation for shooting someone. Maximum, she should probably be let go.

  39. avatar Life long Lawrence resident says:

    I’m not seeing the Taser on her left hip; seems problematic having both lethal and non-lethal solutions next to each other. Background: it was Seatbelt Enforcement Week in Lawrence and this guy is well known to LE as being non compliant and not having a DL. Despite it’s size, Lawrence is really a small town and the cops know who the rule breakers are. Given the guys history, it very well could have been a targeted traffic stop. As far as charges, BLM and the School of Social Welfare at KU punch way over their weight and this is an attempt to get ahead of the inevitable racist cop accusations. Having said that, the good citizens of Lawrence will acquit her.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      Don’t be so sure that the good citizens will acquit her. They are in a university town, after all.

    2. avatar tmm says:

      Is failure to wear a seatbelt an offense which can warrant a traffic stop, by itself? This is in no way nullifying the driver’s subsequent actions.

  40. avatar Tamerlane says:

    I can’t believe she is being charged. Yes she screwed up by grabbing pistol her instead of her taser and royally screwed herself by yelling “taser! taser!” as she fired, but that doesn’t make what she did a crime. She stopped a felonious assault, that’s good. She didn’t freeze up, she took action. I tell you these BS prosecutions give us potential good Samaritans pause.

    Her taser should have been in her hand before the perp attacked, that way she wouldn’t have made her draw under pressure and made that mistake. Also, her partner got waaaaay too close, from what I can tell he was practically inside the SUV with the perp at the start of the attack.

  41. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Glock is out there saving lives, everyday.

  42. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “taser, taser, taser…oh shit, I shot him…”

    And that says it all right there…

  43. avatar Indy Jones says:

    you know what the worst part of this was? it wasn’t the shooting, which was justified even though it was a mistake. did anyone else notice she climbed entirely inside the vehicle when she arrived? there’s no way that’s proper procedure and was incredibly dangerous

  44. avatar former water walker says:

    Well the video ain’t playing for me…I am completely against chics on patrol. Or little guy’s. IF she thought she grabbed a taser(!) she is unfit for duty. A gun would seem to weigh a bit more! I have no problem with him getting shot. Oh well…

  45. avatar Hannibal says:

    If you reasonably believe that the suspect presents an imminent threat, your shooting is justified, even if it turns out he did not (think: replica pistol)

    But, it’s a double-edged legal theory: If you do NOT reasonably believe that the suspect presents an imminent threat, your shooting is not justified, even if it turns out that he did (think: shooting some jaywalker who turns out to be a wanted serial killer, but you didn’t know it at the time). Her yelling taser and obviously screwing up by shooting him with a pistol pretty much screw a deadly force reasonable fear shooting justification.

  46. avatar 24and7 says:

    That female officer had a RIGHT to shoot that punk.. that was a deadly force assault on the officer..the offender was hitting the neck and head of the officer..the officer appeared to be incapacitated or dazed..she had a right to use deadly force.. Furthermore, even a physical assault on an officer means an officer can go one step above him in the force continuum (or the plus one theory).. that scumbag had the officers back he could have took his weapon easily .. she didn’t have to wait for him to do such ..or at least that is Alabama use of force policy..Damn liberals are ruining this country!

    1. avatar Bcb says:

      Even if it was accidental and intended use of the taser it looked like a good shoot to me. He was beating on a dude hard after threatening harm.

      The thing that got me has how polite and calm the officer that got thrown down was to the perp after the shoot. The perp literally tries to beat the shit out of him and he was politely trying to calm him down after the fact and acted genuinely concerned for him. That folks is very very commendable.

  47. avatar Steve K. says:

    She’s being prosecuted for shooting him after yelling “Taser, Taser, Taser” and “Oh shit I shot him. Reckless endangerment or something equivalent in KS. Had she not thought she was Tasing him she’d probably be okay. I think she was justified in shooting him but had she not made it obvious she was only trying to tase, she’d probably be fine. I could care less if this POS got shot. He started it and got called on his punk behavior. Too bad she is in trouble. The camera can be good and in this case for the rookie Officer, bad.

  48. avatar Doug says:

    As a former Taser instructor theTaser is never a substitute for a deadly force situation. I could go on and on about what you officers already know. She thought she was going to die after the amount of force he used against her. I don’t know who would want to be a officer with the kind of support they get in this day and age.

  49. avatar Ralph says:

    Lesson learned. She should have Tasered the lowlife first, and then shot him. In the head.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I think that if she shot him, said nothing except that the situation called for it, she would not have been charged.

      Taser him and then shoot him after taser not stopping him – she would be okay.
      Shoot him and say nothing other than officer safety – she would be okay.
      Shoot him after saying taser and then exclaiming about her mistake – she’s screwed.

  50. avatar Warlocc says:

    Flashbang in a baby’s crib- no charges filed.

    Save an officer’s life- charges filed.

    What the hell?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Procedure followed vs procedure not followed. If she hadn’t uttered the words that she did, she probably wouldn’t have been charged. Procedure probably called for taser and she gave witness against herself that she thought the situation called for taser. She yelled taser, drew her sidearm, shot him, and then exclaimed that she made a mistake.

      It sucks but it is what it is.

  51. avatar Anonymous says:

    *eyeroll* Thus speaks noted police and hand-to-hand combat expert, St. Jordan Peterson *eyeroll*

    So that wasn’t really an argument. So you believe they should use more than necessary force??

  52. avatar Gregolas says:

    Good shoot.
    Hang the prosecutor.
    Next case.

  53. avatar User1 says:

    Not a justified or good shoot considering the circumstances. If the lady cop was there alone and was getting savaged without signs of backup, then it would have been fine.

  54. avatar sound awake says:

    if the perp would have assumed room temperature it would have been a dsaf
    DSAF:
    Did
    Society
    A
    Favor
    this guy was a wanna be cop killer in training
    thats what cop killers do
    they attack them
    it was a good shoot
    but because the politicians are afraid of the crazies they created in society there has to be a trial
    if we dont back the police most of the time they will fail to police most of the time
    is that what we want
    i dont think so

  55. avatar Hans says:

    If I were enpaneled I would not convict.
    Another user of the LVV Syndrome. [loud, vulgar, violent]
    BTW, too many female LEOs in Lawrence.

  56. avatar Old boy says:

    I back the blue! If you love freedom you will too. The guy should’ve been wearing a seat, and he should’ve complied. Just like all of us cop loving, liberty minded patriots will when they come door to door for our guns. Just remember do what the officer says and you won’t get shot.

  57. avatar Sprocket says:

    It’s hard to tell from the crappy video, but I have to wonder what side the officer’s taser was holstered on. A number of years ago a BART cop unintentionally ventilated a savage due to crappy taser policy and training (right hand holster). That said, it’s unfortunate she didn’t mag dump into the dirtbag.

  58. avatar enuf says:

    I do not mind her shooting the idiot. That said it is easy to see why she is in so much trouble. She clearly announced “Taser Taser Taser”, shot him once and then said “Oh shit I shot him”. It’s a screw up, she announced on camera, admitted it on camera. Those two phrases show she did not feel she needed to use deadly force.

    Honestly hate to see it go down this way as the driver was being a massive asshole. He was the only one responsible for escalating the traffic stop to a big deal fight in the street. The two officers displayed professional behavior before and after the single shot fired. That split second “oh shit …” moment is the only problem, and the video is clear.

    I hope it can be shown that her training was inadequate, that she was not properly prepared by those who’s responsibility it was to prepare her for high stress encounters with idiots. Role-play with cap guns, over and over and different scenarios.

    Bad situation, I feel for her, hope she gets off entirely and gets her job back. Afterall, this was good training to learn from!

  59. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    How about “Armed thug stops citizen traveling on the public roads and attempts to extort money from him. When citizen attempts to defend self thug’s accomplice shoots citizen in back like the coward most thugs are. ”

    There should not have been a traffic stop. The government thug should have never opened the citizen’s vehicle door or laid hands upon the citizen.

    A shame so many sheep on this site support the thugs.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That’s a different issue but I don’t disagree with you.

  60. avatar Mo Better says:

    Play abadabba games, win abadabba prizes…

  61. avatar 33AD says:

    Fine, I’ll say it.

    A unicorn shirt? Surely she couldn’t have expected to be booked that day…

  62. avatar Randy Cullinan says:

    Should have put a K9 on his ass using the passenger door. And then step back. No more problem.

  63. avatar fteter says:

    Cop shoots perp and we blame the cop. Perp shoots victim and we blame the gun. It’s all crap. This guy body slammed a police officer and kept the attack going. And we’re blaming the partner who shot the perp to stop the attack? Good grief, we should be giving her a medal!

  64. avatar Sian says:

    A good shoot if not for her ‘Taser Taser Taser’ declaration, indicating a clear error on her part.

  65. avatar raptor jesus says:

    Mess with the bull, get the horns.

  66. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Huh… I GUESS TTAG STARTED CENSORING. One of my posts seems to have been pulled after posting. Imagine that.

  67. avatar Life long Lawrence resident says:

    UPDATE: Case dismissed by judge who ruled that she made a mistake and may have been negligent, but the evidence presented does not support the charges of reckless aggravated battery. The city attorney says he was just doing his job when he filed the charge against her…..whatever dude…

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