# OKlahoma Police release video of cop fatally shooting armed thug



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Police Body Camera in use. If these thugs keep on doing stupid things...

Oklahoma police release video of cop fatally shooting armed, fleeing man (Graphic video)


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

First the dumb asss runs, second he drops his gun (no holster) gangster style carry, he stops and picks it up while be chased by an armed police officer. If he had a legal right to carry... no need to run. If he had a holster, he would not have droped the gun. That he stoped to pick it up is just plain stupid.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

The radicals want cameras now they can see what their little darlings really look like and how they act.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

So why did the cop approach him in a church parking lot anyway? What gave the cop reasonable suspicion to search him? He wasn't facing the cop when he got shot. The gun MIGHT have momentarily been pointed in the cop's direction, but he wasn't in a firing position. Epic fail for the PD. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks deadly force was warranted there.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Perhaps. If I were a cop and some stoped to pick up a gun when I was chasing them I would have trouble embracing the concept of waiting for them to make more agressive moves towards me or other people around us prior to using deadly force. Its not like its a soda can. Maybe thats why I would not make a very good cop. The man should have left it and kept running or surrendered. He had choices too. No one wants shot or to shoot some one unless your mentally unstable.

We do not know why this young man was approached. No one can really speculate. If the officer violated rules and guidelines of use of his firearm, it will come out in the investigation.


----------



## blackrhino (Nov 7, 2013)

1st. I'm from Oklahoma 

2nd. It was at a wedding, mostly all if not all black church. 

3rd. It was reported that a person at the church called and said the man in question had threaten the life of a woman. That is when the police man showed up to question the man.

4th. Their was a witness, an older black women, she had said if he would of listen to the officer no one would of been hurt.
She also mentioned that their are people trying to make it a black and white issue. She said the cop did everything correct. He should not of ran.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Darwin Award


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Ripon said:


> The radicals want cameras now they can see what their little darlings really look like and how they act.


I want police body cameras on every cop in America running every time they encounter someone. It isn't just radicals who think they are a good idea. The video can settle a lot of disputes about what actually happened.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

blackrhino said:


> 1st. I'm from Oklahoma
> 
> 2nd. It was at a wedding, mostly all if not all black church.
> 
> ...


That takes guts


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

All of my law abiding tax paying friends in Oklahoma are glad the little thug is dead.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Fact is that the guy ran from the police. He also had a gun in his hand. He probably ran because he had warrants out or was a felon in possession of a firearm. Now the dummy is dead. Good thing that cop had a camera on though, this is a good argument for their use imo. 

Only thing that bothers me is why the cop was searching the guy after he refused. I don't know the facts but it could possibly be a 4a issue.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

It could be a 4th amendment issue. Under Terry V Ohio he may have had enough to continue the pat down. That one is up to a court or jury to decide. From an inside perspective I welcome the cameras and look forward to their implementation. I honestly believe they will exonerate rather than implicate the vast majority of Officers. IMO the bad cops will know they are under the microscope and clean up their act, the good cops will have an impartial witness with them at all times. I want the shitty cops out as much as anyone else. I have said it before, the ones you have to watch out for are those Officers that go from Department to Department over a brief period of time and are given the option of resigning in lieu of termination. Police Departments are so afraid of defamation suits, wrongful dismissal suits, unions and appellate reversals they wimp out and just make the bad cops someone else's problem. The cameras have the potential to put a swift end to this. I for one welcome them with open arms. Except when I am talking dirty to my wife in the car.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

csi-tech said:


> It could be a 4th amendment issue. Under Terry V Ohio he may have had enough to continue the pat down. That one is up to a court or jury to decide. From an inside perspective I welcome the cameras and look forward to their implementation. I honestly believe they will exonerate rather than implicate the vast majority of Officers. IMO the bad cops will know they are under the microscope and clean up their act, the good cops will have an impartial witness with them at all times. I want the shitty cops out as much as anyone else. I have said it before, the ones you have to watch out for are those Officers that go from Department to Department over a brief period of time and are given the option of resigning in lieu of termination. Police Departments are so afraid of defamation suits, wrongful dismissal suits, unions and appellate reversals they wimp out and just make the bad cops someone else's problem. The cameras have the potential to put a swift end to this. I for one welcome them with open arms. Except when I am talking dirty to my wife in the car.


Is it Terry v Ohio that allows an officer to do a quick pat down of someone they are contacting on the street? Yeah, I have no problem with that. I think the reason is obvious.

I love the idea of these body cams, but I don't know how well they'll stand up to a beating such as the one Officer Wilson received before he dropped a thug.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Denton said:


> Is it Terry v Ohio that allows an officer to do a quick pat down of someone they are contacting on the street? Yeah, I have no problem with that. I think the reason is obvious.
> 
> I love the idea of these body cams, but I don't know how well they'll stand up to a beating such as the one Officer Wilson received before he dropped a thug.


Under Terry, in short, If I see a bulge on a person I am talking to and that bulge in their clothing is consistent with a weapon I can conduct a frisk of that person. If, during that pat down I feel something that is consistent with narcotics and through my training and experience I can make that determination........Too bad, Terry is only for weapons.

This is why I am so opposed to the Frisk law in New York City. The US Supreme Court determined what we can and can't do in a voluntary contact. NYPD says: "We are safer because of our pat and frisk policy." Big deal! On it's face, that policy is unconstitutional. IMO.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> It could be a 4th amendment issue. Under Terry V Ohio he may have had enough to continue the pat down. That one is up to a court or jury to decide. From an inside perspective I welcome the cameras and look forward to their implementation. I honestly believe they will exonerate rather than implicate the vast majority of Officers. IMO the bad cops will know they are under the microscope and clean up their act, the good cops will have an impartial witness with them at all times. I want the shitty cops out as much as anyone else. I have said it before, the ones you have to watch out for are those Officers that go from Department to Department over a brief period of time and are given the option of resigning in lieu of termination. Police Departments are so afraid of defamation suits, wrongful dismissal suits, unions and appellate reversals they wimp out and just make the bad cops someone else's problem. The cameras have the potential to put a swift end to this. I for one welcome them with open arms. Except when I am talking dirty to my wife in the car.


Is she handcuffed?


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Diver said:


> Is she handcuffed?


Damned straight! :lol:


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Prepadoodle said:


> So why did the cop approach him in a church parking lot anyway? What gave the cop reasonable suspicion to search him? He wasn't facing the cop when he got shot. The gun MIGHT have momentarily been pointed in the cop's direction, but he wasn't in a firing position. Epic fail for the PD. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks deadly force was warranted there.


not only the thug deserved to be shot, the cop was also justified for shooting the bastard. Threatening a woman at a church parking lot really? and you feel sorry for anyone who thinks the shooting was warranted. you are clearly not a street cop and if you have plans of becoming one, you got a lot of learning to do on how things work on the streets.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

several reasons why this incident was justified...

1. the cop was called to the location to investigate

2. the call was for a man threatening a woman

3. the cop conducted a pat down which is legal under terry v ohio. (the reason for the pat down was not from a "hunch" but from an actual call for service regarding possible violence)

now lets examine the actual "use of deadly force" to see if he is justified.

the bad guy took off running... why? simple, he does not want to get arrested. can you blame him for that? of course not, no one wants to go to jail. so there you go, run, its all good, I wont shoot you for that.

now while he was running, he drops the gun. most thugs would have kept running and would not bother stopping because he would not want to risk slowing down and getting caught. after all he ran because he did not want to go to jail. But he stops to pick up his gun? why did he do that? would it be reasonable to say that he picked up the gun because he didn't want to get charged with littering in case he gets caught OR is it reasonable to say that he picked up the gun to use it on the officer when he get's the chance to do so? is it reasonable to believe that this bad guy was trying to gain tactical advantage to win a gun fight with the pursuing officer. the officer had a clear shot when this guy picked up the gun and by him picking up the gun that he dropped led the officer to believe that he intends to fight. 

if the guy kept running and left the gun on the street, the officer would have no reason to shoot. the guy would not have been a threat at that point. so to everyone that thinks you cant shoot people in the back, you are all WRONG. if the guy has his back on you and he is trying to gain tactical advantage you can shoot.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Prepadoodle said:


> So why did the cop approach him in a church parking lot anyway? What gave the cop reasonable suspicion to search him? He wasn't facing the cop when he got shot. The gun MIGHT have momentarily been pointed in the cop's direction, but he wasn't in a firing position. Epic fail for the PD. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks deadly force was warranted there.


A church parking lot is private property, the Officer was responding to a call and therefore had a legal right to be there. The sticky wicket here is whether or not the Officer could justify a pat down or frisk. Under Terry Vs. Ohio if he could provide a reason that caused him to believe this individual was armed he could have conducted a pat down. If that pat down yielded a weapon, the Officer had reasonable suspicion for a detention and could now detain him. If the suspect did not have a CCW permit the Officer now had probable cause for a violation and could arrest. When the suspect fled and pointed a firearm at the Officer, he could use deadly force as he was now in fear of serious bodily injury or death. There is no need for the suspect to assume a particular posture or stance. These are the auspices set forth in Terry and Garner Vs. Memphis Police Department. The latter dictates when an Officer may use deadly force. You may officially feel sorry for me now. This is the law.

Directly from the US Supreme Court decision:

when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> A church parking lot is private property, the Officer was responding to a call and therefore had a legal right to be there. The sticky wicket here is whether or not the Officer could justify a pat down or frisk. Under Terry Vs. Ohio if he could provide a reason that caused him to believe this individual was armed he could have conducted a pat down. If that pat down yielded a weapon, the Officer had reasonable suspicion for a detention and could now detain him. If the suspect did not have a CCW permit the Officer now had probable cause for a violation and could arrest. When the suspect fled and pointed a firearm at the Officer, he could use deadly force as he was now in fear of serious bodily injury or death. There is no need for the suspect to assume a particular posture or stance. These are the auspices set forth in Terry and Garner Vs. Memphis Police Department. The latter dictates when an Officer may use deadly force. You may officially feel sorry for me now. This is the law.
> 
> Directly from the US Supreme Court decision:
> 
> when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.


It is a pleasure to read posts from someone who understands the job, and isn't so full of himself that he thinks cops can decide who "deserves to be shot". Suspects deserve a day in court.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Diver said:


> It is a pleasure to read posts from someone who understands the job, and isn't so full of himself that he thinks cops can decide who "deserves to be shot". Suspects deserve a day in court.


CSI-Tech does understand his job.... but you don't. you have no clue how LE works. I know what you are implying when you talk about how suspect's deserve a day in court. when cops shoot people, they shoot to incapacitate. we don't shoot to kill... so if a suspect get shot, he will have his day in court when he recovers from his wounds. if he dies.... well that's the risk of being a criminal. you sound so much like al sharpton whining on behalf of the criminals. Also, men who abuse women by threatening them bodily harm deserve to get shot.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Denton said:


> I love the idea of these body cams, but I don't know how well they'll stand up to a beating such as the one Officer Wilson received before he dropped a thug.


In my jurisdiction the mayor and city council would not allow the police to use body cameras. they are afraid that a good portion of their voters might go to jail for good with the video evidence from the police cameras.


----------

