Alternet reports
More than 50 cameras caught Christopher Magee, a police officer in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, brutally shooting a black man named Carlos Harris to death in the parking lot of a night club three years ago. Now, Harris's family is suing the police for negligence and wrongful death, which could cost Baton Rouge taxpayers up to 2 million dollars, according to reports.
The shooting occurred after Magee reportedly responded to a call regarding reckless driving in the parking lot of Club Insomnia. Magee arrested the responsible driver-- Harris' friend Ryan Dominique-- when he arrived on the scene. Then, Magee told Harris to move Dominique's car. According to a witness who spoke with the local news station WBRZ News 2, Harris told the officer he was drunk and would rather not move the vehicle, but the officer forced him to go through with it.
Video footage shows Harris bumping several other vehicles, including police vehicles, in the parking lot in his attempt to move the car. As Harris drives the car forward away from Magee, the officer opens fire from behind, killing him. Harris was unarmed and other officers on the scene can be heard warning Magee not to shoot.
"Don't draw... too many people," one officer can be heard shouting.Magee was not charged or in any way penalized for shooting Harris. According to WBRZ he was cleared of all wrongdoing, did not have to attend any additional training and is still with the Baton Rouge Police Department. The BRPD police chief would not comment on the story to WBRZ because the case was pending litigation. [ video ]
Is he not aware that it's the 21st Century and EVERYBODY carries a video camera? Furthermore, it's not the best example of justice that they are showing the world.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Lagg on Monday July 28 2014, @05:09PM
I really try my best not to nitpick things like topic lines but I have nothing to say otherwise since this happened three years ago. I already had my share of rage at the time it happened. That's something you want to put in the topic so as to not cause confusion. Really that's not even the news, the news is that the asshat responsible is finally getting a lawsuit opened against him. What's wrong with something like "Cop sued for shooting unarmed man" or something along those lines? I was really enjoying the refreshing non-bait titles for a while and thought it'd stay that way since really there is no ads to require clicks or anything like that. What's the point? I know the article had a similar line but that isn't really an excuse, they're shameless morons. This website and the people on it including the editors aren't.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday July 28 2014, @05:55PM
Noted - it does say it in TFA but I will try harder in future! Sorry. :)
(Score: 4, Informative) by Gaaark on Monday July 28 2014, @07:27PM
Cop Shoots Drunk Man Dead After Forcing Him to Drive a Car
I think it tells the whole story in a very concise way, so good job!
It doesn't really matter if it happened three years ago.
Now, "White cop tells black man to drive drunk, then pulls rage face before shooting him dead for drunk driving.", would be an inappropriate title.
Just sayin'.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by forkazoo on Tuesday July 29 2014, @05:35AM
Except that isn't the news, and this shouldn't be a crappy tabloid. The only news here is that the cop is being sued. I'm not at all sure that this is a good example of a story for Soylent, but if it is going to be posted, it shouldn't just be shit stirring. At very least post it as "A look back on..." or something to make it clear that the shooting isn't news. It's shitty, but it isn't news. And it certainly isn't any sort of technology/science/world events...
(Score: 2, Informative) by LowID on Tuesday July 29 2014, @05:57AM
Title length in the submission form is severely limited, unfortunately there's no room for detailed context. Adding "A look back on..." would simply not fit.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29 2014, @09:01AM
I think the main news here is that the damned (literally) cop was officially cleared of all wrong doing
this despite:
- 50 different cameras (!) catching the action
- those camera accounts showing his fellow cops going "“Don’t draw… too many people"
the arrogance of the powers that be on display here is definitely news, and should be major news
they don't look at us as people anymore, let along as people to protect and serve
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @08:49PM
Lagg is whining - "trying his best not to nitpick" but then goes ahead and does just that. The summary was more than adequate it did not mislead or otherwise misrepresent the facts in any meaningful way. Too many people want this site to conform to their own arbitrary set of standards. You will never please all of them. There are a lot better uses for your time than worrying about something so trivial.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Monday July 28 2014, @09:23PM
Good thing I wasn't talking about the summary. I'm also pretty sure that basic descriptive subject lines are not arbitrary standards unless you missed a few english classes. Given your apparent reading comprehension I don't think that's too farfetched. Also I do try my best not to nitpick and do a pretty good job of it too. Having only done so 2 or 3 times since the site launched and only in cases where it's really bad like this one. I was also right to given that not only are a few comments assuming that this happened recently but one comment actually thought the driver was still alive.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29 2014, @12:19AM
Lol. It's funny that you resort to passive-aggressive and reductionist prose because you feel insulted. It doesn't prove you are smart or even correct. Just thin-skinned. Nit-picking that "subject line" is not part of the summary just adds fuel to my claim of nit-pickery. It's like you are begging to be trolled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29 2014, @11:47AM
"resort to passive-aggressive and reductionist prose", eh.
Hey, AC-to-AC: Shut the fuck up.
(Score: 3) by buswolley on Monday July 28 2014, @07:26PM
Chill.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday July 29 2014, @05:57AM
Because sadly "Cop sued for shooting innocent man" would just be lost in the background noise of identical stories. This one stands out because he shot the guy for doing exactly what he was told to do.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Monday July 28 2014, @05:13PM
Assuming there is no corruption involved. Yeah...., I know a bit of a stretch. Something smells fishy about this story. Either we're not hearing the whole story or People are Stupid. I'm thinking it just might be the latter. The story sounds more like a Shakespearean comedy of errors.
Scene #1
Drunk guy and buddy are spinning tires, doing circles, I.E. being dumb in a (probably) crowded parking lot.
Scene #2 part 1
Buddy is arrested by the police for being stupid.
Scene #2 part 2
Police tell the Drunk guy to (Ok, they were probably both hammered.) move his buddies car.
Scene #2 part 3
Drunk guy proceeds to hit just about every car and probably narrowly misses hitting people too.
Final Scene
Drunk guy gets shot in the back 'cause he is a danger to those around him. (Which could have been avoided by the police Not allowing him to drive the vehicle. Instead of ordering a Drunk guy to Move the car.)
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by cout on Monday July 28 2014, @06:31PM
> To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer. - Bill Vaughan
Obviously not.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday July 28 2014, @07:22PM
Throw in a bystander also being shot and the other officer telling him not to draw, the victim telling the cop he was unfit to drive and then being ORDERED to move the car, and then they found he had done nothing wrong?!? (Not just that it wasn't criminal, but everything he did was supposedly A-OK!)
(Score: 2) by Oligonicella on Monday July 28 2014, @07:32PM
Hush. He wants to retain his fabricated narrative.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday July 28 2014, @07:57PM
.089% BAC. Just over the legal limit. Hardly hammered [brad21.org]. Lots of people don't even feel impaired at .08% and are surprised when arrested for DWI after two beers.
Yet you can tell from the full throttle acceleration that he either didn't know how to drive (this car at least) OR (far more likely) he was trying his best to smash up as many police cars as he could.
I doubt he was totally innocent here, but I'm not saying the police acted in good faith either.
Any time you ram a police car they call it use of deadly force. And that is viewed as an excuse to shoot. And if you have an excuse to shoot the training is to shoot to kill (not because that is necessary, just because there are no pesky law suits to worry about).
In a pretty eye opening show this weekend FoxNews covered Policing America [foxnewsinsider.com] and the use of SWAT on totally innocent people. (Yeah, I know, Foxnews, get over it!).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @09:00PM
> OR (far more likely) he was trying his best to smash up as many police cars as he could.
Assholes are always the first to assume that other people are assholes.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Tuesday July 29 2014, @01:34PM
FTFY. Kill is a subset of stop and often a consequence, but they are not the same.
(Score: 1) by arslan on Monday July 28 2014, @10:21PM
Actually it could be simpler than that. Cop abuses power, the PD protects their own. No need for fancy fables. Its not far fetched at all, tribal behavior and all that.
(Score: 4, Informative) by kaszz on Monday July 28 2014, @05:17PM
Aha, Baton Rouge police = trigger happy murders. Always good to know what places to avoid. I sure hope the residents there are happy being guarded by nutty wolf packs..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29 2014, @12:27AM
I think you'd be better off looking for signs that telling when the local cops aren't trigger happy. Over-reaction seems to be a required course at the police academy nowadays.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday July 29 2014, @02:04AM
Guess that means mapping the statistics on per capita related death-by-cop. One has also keep an eye on death by crime per capita too of course.
(Score: 0, Troll) by wantkitteh on Monday July 28 2014, @05:23PM
I don't expect the pro- and anti-gun lobbyists to be anything but all over this as proof that everyone/no-one should carry guns. I don't think that's the issue. After all, it's not like you hear about this particular kind of bloodthirsty murder coming out of Canada on a weekly basis, and the Canucks lurve their guns just as much as the Yanks.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Monday July 28 2014, @05:54PM
Sorry, what are you on about? I'm a Canadian, we most certainly don't love guns here. We have very sane gun control that includes background checks, training and enforcement. We do have the occasional shooting, but nothing like the US. I'm not in disagreement with you that both the pro- and anti-gun lobbyist would jump all over this sort of thing, but comparing gun culture in Canada to the US is like comparing a mosquito to a giant swarm of African killer bees.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2, Informative) by Skwearl on Monday July 28 2014, @07:23PM
I'm going to disagree with you. We have a vibrant and strong gun culture. Our is based off responsibility and need, as a LARGE percentage of us live near dangerous wild animals/ and or hunt.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday July 28 2014, @08:17PM
We also make tend to only have shotguns and rifles. Pistols are generally kept at a shooting club. We still the the idiot gangsta shootings with illegals guns, but far fewer crimes of passion where a pistol was convenient. It's probably a good thing too ... there'd be no end to the apologizing if you shot someone.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday July 28 2014, @09:15PM
Again, sorry, but unless you have access to some actual unbiased data to back that up, it's absolutely untrue. Maybe that's what the NFA (Canada's NRA equivalent) members here say to make it seem like it's socially acceptable, but it's not the case. I know very few people, only one in fact, that have any guns at all. I don't know anyone with more than one rifle. The gun culture here is not vibrant or strong, it's practical and modest at best. It would be completely unacceptable to see someone walking around with a hand gun strapped to their belt in most provinces, where that seems to be pretty acceptable for quite a few states. I've lived in towns and cities in NC, SC, FL and ME where I've seen it first hand as opposed to ON, NB, NF and NS in Canada where if you see someone openly carrying you call the cops ASAP.
All the data I've read, for legal gun licenses, states the opposite of your claim unless you're considering 5% to 15% of the population to be vibrant and strong culture, I'd call it cult status at best.
According to the RCMP site (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm) there are only just under two million license as of March 2014 (PAL, POL, and Minor combine) issued in all of Canada out of a population of over 33 million (as of 2011, probably closer to 35 million in 2014) meaning just about 6% of the population has licenses to carry. That's how many people can own guns, which isn't the same as how many guns there are. According to wikipedia Canada has just 30 guns per 100 people, compared to the US 97 per 100.
So again to say our gun culture is "vibrant and strong" is misleading at best and propaganda at worst. By all accounts a subset of the 6% of people in Canada that are gun owners (that's 6 out of every 100 people) are "nuts" that would have to own up to 6 - 7 guns each to make up for the 94% that don't own guns at all, or at least don't have licenses to own them.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by NickM on Monday July 28 2014, @11:35PM
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 1) by wantkitteh on Tuesday July 29 2014, @07:02AM
While I appreciate your own personal point of view, I would argue that it is exactly those background checks, training and enforcement that maintain your gun culture - it's a very sane appreciation of guns as hunting tools, rather than the gung-ho from-my-cold-dead-hands crap that American's have. People are just as passionate about their weapons in Canada as America but not as required personal defense tools that need to be paraded around and toted in public.
(OT: I can't believe some knee-jerk retard modded me troll for coming up with a rational comparison that shows that gun ownership may not be the root issue)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Wootery on Monday July 28 2014, @06:17PM
Hmm. I'm not sure that either side is really jumping on this. (If they are, I missed it, but I'm not paying that much attention.) The anti-gun crowd aren't suggesting disarming the police, and fighting (literally) police corruption isn't high on the list of pro-gun arguments.
(Well, keeping an oppressive government at bay might be, but I can't picture any conservative pundit wanting to look to enthusiastic about the idea of shooting police officers.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Monday July 28 2014, @05:24PM
"Is he not aware that it's the 21st Century and EVERYBODY carries a video camera?"
The fact that one might get caught should not be the sole reason for a police officer not to behave like a criminal.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday July 29 2014, @01:29AM
But that's what it takes to curb wrongdoing. Not everyone lives up to this moral ideal. Rather than complain that people in positions of authority will engage in immoral and illegal behavior when not watched, let's just watch them and nip this in the bud.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @05:24PM
The guy should have refused to move the car. Cops can't take you to jail for refusing to drive drunk.
That said, the guy was belligerent and apparently driving aggressively. .089 is technically drunk, but not so incapacitating as make you ram cars like on the video...unless you are a pretty serious lightweight.[like sorority girl lightweight]
The cop was clearly wrong, if he did order the guy to get behind the wheel. Putting an angry, intoxicated[even if only mildy] man in control of 2 tons of rolling metal around a crowd is just stupid. Drawing your weapon and firing in a crowd, dumber still.
Jail the driver for at least reckless operation, maybe even attempted vehicular manslaughter. And fire that cop, NOW.
(Score: 4, Funny) by unitron on Monday July 28 2014, @05:42PM
"Jail the driver for at least reckless operation, maybe even attempted vehicular manslaughter."
We're not going to dig him up just for that.
something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday July 28 2014, @06:17PM
You can't escape american justice. Even the dead has to serve time.. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @06:20PM
Maybe they were talking about the dead guy's friend? The one who really precipitated this mess by doing donuts in the parking lot of a crowded club.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @05:47PM
FTFY
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday July 28 2014, @05:51PM
The biggest way that alcohol affects driving isn't with coordination; it's with judgment -- as in, people not being able to figure out what is and isn't a good idea. If you're legally drunk, by definition you're not capable of exercising sufficient judgment to refuse a police order, especially if you've already told the officer that you're drunk.
An officer orders somebody to get behind the wheel after that somebody has already told him he's drunk? That goes way beyond firing offenses and into criminal territory. The shooting that followed was cold-blooded murder, no more and no less.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Tuesday July 29 2014, @04:37PM
In most places and circumstances, the cop doesn't order ANYONE to move it. They tell the owner/operator (presumably the original driver here) that either he can get someone else to move the car, or it will be towed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gman003 on Monday July 28 2014, @06:11PM
Why is it that you think driving a car while intoxicated under duress deserves a jail sentence, yet homicide deserves only to lose your position of authority? I would consider murder to be a much worse, jail-worthy crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @06:18PM
Under duress? Is it ok to mow down people and property because a cop told you to MOVE A CAR? Are you an idiot?
The cop's bad decisions may have put him behind the wheel, but they weren't controlling the gas and wheel. And once he went apeshit, you have to shut him down before he kills some one.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday July 28 2014, @06:48PM
Better Question: How stupid are you? Are you so morally bankrupt that you can sit there a justify cold blooded murder because a drunk man should have known better? Your idiocy is mind boggling.
The cop's bad decisions may have put him behind the wheel, but they weren't controlling the gas and wheel.
Yup because putting someone who is intoxicated into a car sounds like a good plan. That dumb drunk should have known better than to lose control of a vehicle. He deserved to die since he was unable to properly drive drunk (end sarcasm).
The fault rests solely on the dumb-as-bricks bullies ... er I mean cops who knowingly forced a drunk man in a car. How hard is that for you to understand? I can MAYBE see their point for having to stop the man before he injured someone else. But for the love of all things good, how could they have been so stupid? They set him up to be killed. And if you want to argue the fact that he was forced, just don't. Don't waste your time shoving your foot further into your mouth. The man told the stupid cops he was drunk and they still ordered him into the vehicle. Back man vs. cops barking orders at him: who do you think is going to win? Poor guy was probably frightened and figured he better do what he was told lest he take a beating and/or getting arrested for disobeying an officer.
And once he went apeshit, you have to shut him down before he kills some one.
"shut him down". Nice term you used there. Sorta dehumanizes him doesn't it? As if he was a rogue machine that needed its off button pressed. Please, do us a favor and remove your testicles/ovaries so the gene pool isn't polluted by your filth. Thanks and have a nice day.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday July 28 2014, @07:42PM
His judgement was impaired. He had just enough to know he should tell the cop he was unfit to drive. He had enough respect for authority to obey the cop's order to move the car anyway. Once he ran into trouble, he went well into the weeds (the very reason we don't want drunk people driving). There is no evidence he was trying to injure anyone.
Negligent homicide is when your action or inaction causes a death that you should have been able to anticipate. For example, by using your civil authority to order someone to drive drunk.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Monday July 28 2014, @08:07PM
How about another analogy...they grab a random drunk guy off a street, haul him into the police station, and put him in an interrogation room with 4 armed officers, sit him at the table, put a loaded gun in front of him, and tell him that they're going to shoot him in the face in 2 minutes.
What would your reaction be when he takes the gun and tries to make a stand?
(I'll admit that's a bit extreme but this whole article sounds extreme anyway)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by gman003 on Monday July 28 2014, @06:26PM
I did some more thinking and some research about this. A crime (excepting a civil infraction of strict liability) requires mens rea and an actus reus - a guilty mind and a guilty act. The guilty act cannot be argued - but the mind can.
Duress is a recognized legal defense (in the US, other jurisdictions may vary) for any crime. While it normally might not have applied in this case (the threat of arrest is not one of "bodily harm"), considering the cop's response was to kill the driver, you could easily argue that this met the full legal definition of duress because of the imminent, inescapable threat of being shot. Failing that, one could argue that unjust imprisonment, at least in an American jail, qualifies as "severe bodily harm".
Really, I can't find any sound legal logic to give the driver so much as a warning. I can, however, find cause to have the cop imprisoned. That was at minimum second degree murder, plus being an accessory to the acti rei of the driver (and he doesn't get the exculpation of duress for his part in it), plus either reckless discharge of a firearm, or criminal negligence for firing in the direction of a crowd.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday July 28 2014, @06:51PM
Another recognized legal defense is entrapment, which clearly applies in this case. To claim entrapment, the defense must prove that it was the actions of a law enforcement officer that caused the defendant to commit the crime. To wit:
1. Mr Harris tried to refuse to drive on the grounds that he was drunk, demonstrated that he would not have committed the act but for the intervention of Officer McGee.
2. Officer McGee ordered Mr Harris to move the vehicle, which establishes that law enforcement indeed induced Mr Harris to commit the crime.
Also, I find it highly unlikely that Mr Harris's race was coincidental, which would mean that we also have at least a serious question of whether this was a hate crime. If the US Civil Rights Division isn't paying attention to this case, they should be, because it strongly suggests that the BRPD has a problem. "Don't shoot - There are too many people" means that if there were fewer witnesses the action would have been considered appropriate. That's an institutional problem.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29 2014, @08:24AM
Or it could simply have been said because of the number of bystanders who could have been hit by a stray bullet.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday July 29 2014, @11:31AM
So then how is 'involuntary manslaughter' a crime when, by definition, it is without intent? It would seem it's a bit more complicated than that...
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Tuesday July 29 2014, @12:37PM
The volition referred to in voluntary/involuntary manslaughter refers to the intention to kill. Voluntary manslaughter is essentially just a reduced form of murder (usually reduced by provocation) - you killed someone directly and with the intent to harm.
Involuntary manslaughter does not involve a decision to kill, but does involve a decision. Common forms of involuntary manslaughter are negligence or recklessness - the mind is guilty of a decision to not take proper precautions, but there was no intent to kill. There is also "constructive manslaughter", an accidental killing during the course of another crime. The guilty intent transfers from the intended crime to the killing. For example, let's say I burn my house down to collect the insurance money. That's arson. Let's say that fire spread to the next house and killed someone inside. That would be constructive (involuntary) manslaughter. However, if my own house burning down was not arson but an accident, there would be no involuntary manslaughter.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday July 28 2014, @07:30PM
Following the orders of a cop should not subject a person to a criminal charge even if the order shouldn't have been given. Especially since his judgement was impaired at the time and he DID balk initially.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Monday July 28 2014, @06:01PM
Yes, and the other officers were more worried about there being witnesses than murdering a man.
All of those dirty cops should be spending the rest of their lives in jail.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @06:17PM
Or perhaps the other cops were worried about discharging weapons in a crowded area?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Kilo110 on Monday July 28 2014, @06:30PM
So it would've been ok if the parking lot was empty?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Zinho on Monday July 28 2014, @06:49PM
An empty parking lot gives a much lower chance of hitting someone other than your intended target.
Many shooters adhere to Cooper's rules [wikipedia.org]:
1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
If you know the parking lot is empty then you know what is behind your target. It sounded (to me) like the other officers were warning Magee that he was about to violate rule 4.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 4, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Monday July 28 2014, @07:13PM
You are missing the point entirely. Probably intentionally.
The other officers should have stopped him from murdering an unarmed man by shooting him in the back, not suggesting he do it in a safer location.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @08:39PM
You are assuming there was no reason to pull the gun. Was there no reason? I don't know. Are you familiar with the situation to make that assumption so emphatically? Apparently he was striking other vehicles. Perhaps he was heading in the direction of other people or cops. Perhaps there were potential lives in jeopardy. Where were the other officers located? Could they have done anything other than yell to him? It seems one of the three shots he fired struck a bystander [wbrz.com], so it would seem the warning from the other officers was justified. One news report [wafb.com] says the driver was driving towards the cop, so the cop shot him in the chest. Another [wbrz.com] says he was shot from behind as he was driving away. How do you shoot a guy in the chest when he's driving away from you? The victim's friend said "He was trying to leave out the parking lot. He wasn't trying to hit them at all." That doesn't sound like just moving the car. In fact, there apparently seems to be disagreement on whether the victim was "ordered" to do anything with the car.
On the other hand, it does help stoke our self-satisfied feelings of moral superiority, because, come on, we know all cops are lying, cheating, murderers, right? Ah, feel the hate and vitriol build as we get to pass moral judgement on another given scant or contradictory evidence, we can just pick and choose the "right" facts we want because it makes for a clear and obvious account in our minds, and in this case picking the right facts from the wrong ones is easy because, come on, we all know how it went down. Check out Gaaark's comment [soylentnews.org] above. I haven't felt this good a rush since I was down at the family clinic screaming at the dirty whores who were trying to walk in. You know they're dirty whores, because they wouldn't have to go down there if they weren't. Moral indignation is a wonderful aphrodisiac. Just think of the thousands of people who work at or for the NSA. All worthless, soul-less pieces of shit. I don't care what they do, they are obviously dog shit to be scraped off of the boots of good, decent folk like us, right?
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday July 28 2014, @08:51PM
Perhaps, then, I misunderstood yours. You originally wrote:
I was offering an alternate, and equally supported by the available facts, interpretation of the situation. Accusing the shooter of murder is one thing; wanting to jail his friends who were trying to stop him is going to far.
This situation is a bit tricky in terms of justified use of force. First of all, it shouldn't have happened at all; the cop should have waited for someone sober to move the car. Given the circumstance, however, that a drunk was causing multiple collisions in a crowded parking lot the officer could have argued that he was acting to prevent lethal injury to bystanders. Apparently officer Magee only got this far in the threat assessment.
If the parking lot were empty then there wouldn't be other human lives at stake and lethal force would not be justified. If the car were headed toward pedestrians then shooting through its back window is irresponsible, as the shots would be poorly controlled after hitting the glass and would present a hazard to the innocent. In fact, according to one of the linked articles, "one of the three shots Magee fired also hit a woman nearby in the wrist." Furthermore, killing the driver doesn't stop the car from moving, and therefore wouldn't have improved the safety of the pedestrians. Officer Magee's actions were poorly thought out.
It's easy for me to interpret the other cops' response as "dude, this isn't a job for your pistol, leave it in the holster." Put yourself in their position: your friend has already decided that use of lethal force is justified and has committed to that action. How are you going to talk him out of it? Hurry, you've only got a few seconds before he pulls the trigger. You called me out for saying that firing into an empty parking lot is safer than firing into a crowded one, and I'll stand by that. Appealing to Officer Magee's firearm safety training and reminding him not to unnecessarily risk the lives of bystanders should have been effective if he were a safe shooter. Obviously he was not, so the effort was ineffective.
Your accusation that they were only trying to preserve the social media standing of the BRPD is unfounded; or, if you'd rather, there is insufficient evidence to convict them of conspiracy to commit murder. The quotes we have to work from include "Don't draw. . . too many people" and "Don't draw Magee! No!" I find it very difficult to get from there to "if there weren't any witnesses we'd be RIGHT THERE WITH YOU!"
Where we agree is that Magee was wrong, and shouldn't be carrying anything more deadly than a stick of gum. In addition to the wrongful death lawsuit he should be sued for the injury to the bystander as well. He shouldn't have been firing into a crowd. He shouldn't have been using lethal force in this case at all. Parking lot full or empty using his sidearm to stop the situation was the wrong decision.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Thursday July 31 2014, @01:55PM
And this is why every single interaction with a cop should be recorded. Yeah, yeah, "what about the rights of the poor oppressed police force?" When you are authorized by the government to kill civilians without any chance of retribution, (and lets be honest, how many cops are actually prosecuted for wrongdoings?), this is the only way to ensure the rights of both citizens and officers are protected.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday July 31 2014, @02:25PM
Amen.
I'd take it a step further, and make a rule that if the recording is "unavailable" for any reason that the case be thrown out. Unreliable hardware? It's cheap, buy two. Any officer unwilling to have their actions scrutinized is unfit to serve.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Monday July 28 2014, @10:51PM
Stop him how? By shooting him? They already warned him off. Attempting to tackle him or whatever while holding a gun ready to fire sounds even more irresponsible.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29 2014, @09:27AM
how about:
1) knock the arm holding the gun up so the line of fire is above the crowd (the cop was probably using a weaver stance, so that's easy for someone standing next to him)
2) grab either the drum (on a revolver) or the slide (on a pistol) to keep it from firing more then once
yeah, both are dangerous, but this is melee-distance anti-gun tactics 101
and police officers are supposedly trained professionals
(Score: 1) by Gavster on Monday July 28 2014, @09:04PM
Your deduction stems from the plan being "Shoot this man to death". At what point did "Move a vehicle whose operator has been placed under arrest" move into the need for an extrajudicial killing?
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday July 28 2014, @09:28PM
See previous [soylentnews.org] responses [soylentnews.org].
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @09:12PM
> So it would've been ok if the parking lot was empty?
More than one thing can be true simultaneously.
Furthermore what do you expect? For them to do through a point-by-point argument of why the cop shouldn't fire when he's already drawn his weapon and put his finger on the trigger? No, you shout out whatever you can as fast as you can to try and change the course of events as soon as possible because you only have seconds.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @07:08PM
The point still stands: they're more worried about that than the cold-blooded murder they're about to witness, and do nothing to prevent?
(Score: 2) by quadrox on Tuesday July 29 2014, @07:53AM
How can there be over 50 video recordings of the event, yet the video from TFS is so unclear you have no idea what is going on? What use is that video?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday July 29 2014, @09:39AM
[quote]Furthermore, it's not the best example of justice that they are showing the world.[/quote]
Submitter claims Nobel Prize for Understatement.