daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 43,214
- Points
- 1,160
High Ranking Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly
- Thread starter Bruce Monkhouse
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,567
- Points
- 1,160
I’m not sure what thread to put this link in…
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,118
- Points
- 1,040
- Reaction score
- 4,567
- Points
- 1,160
Yeah I can’t find it now either. It appears to be phone or body cam footage of the officer involved in shooting the suspect. Didn’t really change much about what we know, afaik.
Edit: try this…
Edit: try this…
Here’s a longer version.
I saw this a little while ago, waiting to see if it’s verified.
ALL SUBJECT TO VIDEO BEING VERIFIED: If and when the video is validated, it doesn’t change my opinion on the wrongness of the shoot, and it reinforces that she was attempting to maneuver around the officers. I do now believe that she knew and believed she was dealing with police.
New tidbits we can see:
The shooter emerged from the driver’s seat of the vehicle that was parked at an angle in front of her. He was filming on his cell phone held at least initially in his right hand as he walked a lap. He walked a full counterclockwise lap of her vehicle starting from about the 2 o’clock, was filming with his phone throughout, and at some point switched his phone to his left hand. He kept his grip on the phone throughout the shoot and was back filming the car as it accelerated away and crashed.
While it’s clear the officers who arrived and ordered her out of the car were trying to detain her, at no point did they tell her she was being detained or under arrest.
We can also see that her wife was filming on her own phone throughout. We don’t have that video yet, and if she’s smart her phone is in the custody of a lawyer and that video will not be released publicly at this point.
If this video is legit - and I lean to yes but am by no means certain - I’ll stand by ‘bad shoot’. This guy crossed the bow of the running car not just once but twice. Super dumb thing to do.
We still don’t know how both vehicles came to be placed like that. From other videos I think the was trying to make a u-turn and was waving traffic by until it was safe to do so. Not sure what led to her wife exiting the car or what that happened. I suspect that when the other officers approached and tried to open her locked door she abandoned the intended u turn, reversed to get clear of the shooter, and was attempting to steer right and drive away. Her driving was careless, but the civil suit will argue that was heavily mitigated by the circumstances of trying to escape what she perceived as an imminent unlawful detention. I cannot personally say if such a detention would have been unlawful. We still lack knowledge on her prior conduct and if the ICE officers had probable cause to detain for any offence within their legal authorities.
But besides all that, it was a bad shoot. The officer was incompetent and displayed bad tactics several times, and put himself in that position, then making an incorrect decision about how to protect himself from a moving vehicle. The contextual details will help determine how bad the shoot was.
- Reaction score
- 11,988
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 4,567
- Points
- 1,160
For this, I could be shot in the face. Everybody knows the uniform adds 10 pounds.
- Reaction score
- 38,083
- Points
- 1,210
Between 2016 and 2024, Bostock supplied drugs to civilians and Winnipeg Police Service co-workers, sometimes while on duty, according to an agreed statement of facts presented in court.
Haggis
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,988
- Points
- 1,140
Booter
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,148
- Points
- 1,010
I expect the people at these types of things to be obnoxious and some outright stupid. I think they’ll behave poorly. These are generally annoying people. They also make bad decisions- so officers have to work in a mitigating or intelligent matter about what COULD happen.
If the goal is we don’t care about the public then this is what it would look like. Serving and protecting the public means all of them. Not just the ones I agree with.
If I’m working with a gator and I know it could grab me- I take steps to not get grabbed. Unless I want an excuse to kill the gator. I can’t be shocked when it does the bad thing.
Give suspects what they are asking for. No more. No less.
Driver is dumb. Could have hurt someone. Committed an offence. I’m glad no one else was hurt. She is probably not a person I have very much in common with. None of that makes shooting them for safety an option.
The car drives 50m and stops. If it ran over a cop or a kid because the driver is dead…who owns that?
If the goal is we don’t care about the public then this is what it would look like. Serving and protecting the public means all of them. Not just the ones I agree with.
If I’m working with a gator and I know it could grab me- I take steps to not get grabbed. Unless I want an excuse to kill the gator. I can’t be shocked when it does the bad thing.
Give suspects what they are asking for. No more. No less.
Driver is dumb. Could have hurt someone. Committed an offence. I’m glad no one else was hurt. She is probably not a person I have very much in common with. None of that makes shooting them for safety an option.
The car drives 50m and stops. If it ran over a cop or a kid because the driver is dead…who owns that?
You know I didn’t really think of that. She died with her foot on the gas and, fortunately I guess, her SUV hit a parked vehicle. Could have hit someone or something else given it crossed the oncoming lane.
- Reaction score
- 11,107
- Points
- 1,040
Surely that's a question that can be framed more than one way. When a driver gooses an accelerator, how can it be established that loss of control wasn't baked in? It obviously happens - a couple of years ago a guy coming out of a parking lot on the road ahead of me decided he had to "pin it" to get into the street ahead of me (by his admission to me and the owner of the vehicle he hit), lost control, and clipped another vehicle.
The shooter was dragged by a car about a year ago? Like most avoidable things, this one has a lot of contributing factors.
Suppose no-one were shot. What do people usually say when a tactically inept officer gets injured because of the direct actions of someone refusing to cooperate? He had it coming? Is there a slider depending on severity of injury?
The driver would be charged with careless driving or dangerous operation, depending on various factors.
The guy who walked in front of the car twice would still be stupid for doing so.
Shooting at the car or driver would still be ineffective and reckless.
He will probably not be criminally convicted. He will probably be able to articulate that he reasonably feared serious injury or death, notwithstanding that his own carelessness contributed significantly to that, and notwithstanding that his chosen intervention was unlikely to be effective. He personally will probably be protected civilly by qualified immunity. Some years from now the federal government will probably settle a civil lawsuit from her estate with a large settlement to avoid this going to trial.
- Reaction score
- 11,437
- Points
- 1,160
I fully expect his defence team to use "he has PTSD from being dragged" as an excuse.
The latest video from his own body camera shows he put himself in a really stupid position. Her mannerisms (and the whole scene) when he walked around the car should have been a big clue she wasn't trying to murder him.
I wonder if the police will go after the surviving wife for some kind of American version of counselling an offence.
The latest video from his own body camera shows he put himself in a really stupid position. Her mannerisms (and the whole scene) when he walked around the car should have been a big clue she wasn't trying to murder him.
I wonder if the police will go after the surviving wife for some kind of American version of counselling an offence.
- Reaction score
- 11,107
- Points
- 1,040
Worse. "Felony murder" has been mentioned (against the wife), supposing there is some nexus with a felony.
As angry as some people are at ICE, other people are just as angry in the other direction.
Someone will probably try to do exactly that on an argument that she counselled 18 U.S.C. 111- obstruct/resist/impede etc.
That would be stupid and inflammatory for DOJ to pursue, which in present times is probably viewed as a feature, not a bug.
Haggis
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,988
- Points
- 1,140
This is considered in the DHS UoF policy (which @brihard posted earlier {https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf}) and articulated therein (VI(7)(B)2a) as a reason to generally NOT fire on a moving vehicle.
- Reaction score
- 4,567
- Points
- 1,160
They don’t have to lay the charge now. I suppose they can always threaten to lay it if a civil suit is filed. It seems clear the notion of “well that won’t look good” is not applicable to an administration that simply doesn’t care about those kinds of optics.
Similar threads
