Is fleeing in a vehicle with no threat of harm to the officer justification for firing a weapon?

 

 

A lot of assumption here on your part. How do you know there was no threat to the officer? Where did you draw that conclusion? And at what part of the video did you draw that conclusion?

 

Please understand I'm not trying to belittle your opinion. It is just that the only conclusions I can draw from the short video is this:

 

1. There were flashing lights and headlamps from the cruiser. Perhaps this blinded the young lady from seeing the officer's request to stop. Furthermore, she was young and most likely in an area she was not familiar. Add drinking to the equation and one could understand that she may have been concentrating on pulling out, not hitting the cruiser, and scared. Add the fact that a passenger within her car may have been directing her to cautiously pull out and not hit cruiser, and/or, do anything that might draw attention to them.

 

2. The officer clearly was advising the vehicle to stop.

 

Nothing else, in my opinion, can be drawn from the video.

 

There are so many factors that go into incidents like this. Until further "factual evidence" is released, and I do not mean media "driven" evidence, we all are speculating at best.

 

Lastly, I pray for all involved. I am confident that when both started out their morning that day, that neither could ever imagine how the evening would end.

 

Michael

 

A lot of assumption here on your part. How do you know there was no threat to the officer? Where did you draw that conclusion? And at what part of the video did you draw that conclusion?

 

Please understand I'm not trying to belittle your opinion. It is just that the only conclusions I can draw from the short video is this:

 

1. There were flashing lights and headlamps from the cruiser. Perhaps this blinded the young lady from seeing the officer's request to stop. Furthermore, she was young and most likely in an area she was not familiar. Add drinking to the equation and one could understand that she may have been concentrating on pulling out, not hitting the cruiser, and scared. Add the fact that a passenger within her car may have been directing her to cautiously pull out and not hit cruiser, and/or, do anything that might draw attention to them.

 

2. The officer clearly was advising the vehicle to stop.

 

Nothing else, in my opinion, can be drawn from the video.

 

There are so many factors that go into incidents like this. Until further "factual evidence" is released, and I do not mean media "driven" evidence, we all are speculating at best.

 

Lastly, I pray for all involved. I am confident that when both started out their morning that day, that neither could ever imagine how the evening would end.

 

Michael

 

Excellent post!

A good lawyer will have a field day with this case. The officer didn't attempt to stop her till she was already entering the roadway, it would be reasonable to claim that she was just attempting to get in a safer spot before stopping. Also the officer had no reason to place himself in harms way, no one appeared to be danger and no known crime had been committed. Quite simply the cop should have stepped back took the plate number and called it in... All people live, and and the teens learn a valuable lesson.

 

This

Too many unknowns but it is clear the officer was on the side of the vehicle and he made the decision that he was going to have a power struggle with the teenager as she disobeyed his orders. The question will be if someone is in a vehicle and refuses to stop do you place yourself in front of the vehicle or get in a tussle in that situation. Or do you step back and go radio for a road block down the road. I'm sure other officers were in the vecinity. If this procedure would have been followed then the girl lives and Tyler doesn't have to live with the fact he shot and Killed a 19 yr old teen leaving a field party.

The video released doesn't look good for the officer. Yes, the girl was trying to evade but sure doesn't look like her intention was to run over the officer. No chance there should've been shots fired imo. This wasn't a bank robbery for heaven's sake.

The video released doesn't look good for the officer. Yes' date=' the girl was trying to evade but sure doesn't look like her intention was to run over the officer. No chance there should've been shots fired imo. This wasn't a bank robbery for heaven's sake.[/quote']

 

No way you can draw those conclusions from the full length video.

A lot of assumption here on your part. How do you know there was no threat to the officer? Where did you draw that conclusion? And at what part of the video did you draw that conclusion?

 

Please understand I'm not trying to belittle your opinion. It is just that the only conclusions I can draw from the short video is this:

 

1. There were flashing lights and headlamps from the cruiser. Perhaps this blinded the young lady from seeing the officer's request to stop. Furthermore, she was young and most likely in an area she was not familiar. Add drinking to the equation and one could understand that she may have been concentrating on pulling out, not hitting the cruiser, and scared. Add the fact that a passenger within her car may have been directing her to cautiously pull out and not hit cruiser, and/or, do anything that might draw attention to them.

 

2. The officer clearly was advising the vehicle to stop.

 

Nothing else, in my opinion, can be drawn from the video.

 

There are so many factors that go into incidents like this. Until further "factual evidence" is released, and I do not mean media "driven" evidence, we all are speculating at best.

 

Lastly, I pray for all involved. I am confident that when both started out their morning that day, that neither could ever imagine how the evening would end.

 

Michael

 

I am asking the question in general with no relation to facts of this case - is fleeing in a vehicle justification for firing a weapon?

It's not just if she was DUI, or if she was fleeing, or if she accidentally ran him over, or if she ignored his commands to stop, or if the incident occurred over 20+ seconds off screen before the shots were fired, or if she accelerated once he was on the hood. It's the totality of the circumstances. Anyone can sit there on their home computer watch the video several times and dissect his very step, the angle of the steering, etc and say he made a mistake. Cops are human, and he had split seconds to make a decision.

 

It's always entertaining that cops are called incompetent, stupid, lazy, etc. when they give you a ticket, but when something like this happens, then society assumes that all cops are these highly trained, sharp shooting, perfect decision making individuals.

At the 2:13:35 mark of the unedited video, headlights reflect on the drivers side of that black car. Possibly that's what caused him to go on the hood?

The video released doesn't look good for the officer. Yes, the girl was trying to evade but sure doesn't look like her intention was to run over the officer. No chance there should've been shots fired imo. This wasn't a bank robbery for heaven's sake.

 

You must have a video showing what happened off screen during the 40 seconds not shown in the video linked here. No chance you could logically come to those conclusions based on the video we all saw. Or perhaps you fell for the "news" stations trick and didn't realize they cut out over 40 seconds.

I haven't read throught he 9 pages but I just watched the video and feel for all parties involved. "Legally" the officer may be justified in what he did. It's a scenario that happened fast. There is no way she didn't know that an officer was shining a light in her face and she kept going. Now, imo, the officer "could" have let her just speed away. But, what happens if she drives down the road, most likely intoxicated as she was leaving a party and why else would she not stop, and then she crosses the line and runs into another car and kills an innocent person? Now you would have people saying the cop should have stopped her there at all cost.

 

I have spoken to a couple of officers I know well and they both speak highly of Brockman as an officer and a person. Now, he has to live the rest of his life knowing that he killed a teenager, whether he was in the right or not. The family has to live with the fact they lost a teenage daughter for what they will feel is not justified. It's just horrible all the way around.

 

We will never know what the girl was thinking but if I would to guess it would be she had a DUI already from last year and she was probably under the influence of something here and just panicked. The toxicology results will be interesting to see if this is true or not. Hopefully this will keep other kids safe by learning from an unfortunate incident.

Has there been any indication that the girl had been drinking? I've seen a lot of people mention her being impaired, but haven't seen anything that states it as being factual yet. Shouldn't we give her the same benefit of doubt we're giving the officer?

Just watched the "longer" video. Not a whole lot one can gather except for this...she saw the officer, stopped for a couple of seconds and seemed to accelerate or try to accelerate away as they proceeded off camera. How or why he ended up on the hood is a guess, and why she accelerated is a guess as well. Two things I am sure of though. The young lady did not want to get shot and die that night, and the officer did not want to shoot and kill anyone that night.

Here is what I found on Wikipedia. I have not read every post on this thread, sorry if someone already put this up.

Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causing—or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing—death, serious bodily harm or injury. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.[1][2]

 

Firearms, bladed weapons, explosives, and vehicles are among those weapons the use of which is considered deadly force. The use of non-weapons in an aggressive manner, such as a baseball bat or tire iron, may also be considered deadly force.[2]

 

 

 

 

 

Deputy Sheriff with submachine gun

"Use of deadly force" is often granted to police officers when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man flaunting a firearm in a shopping mall without regard to the safety of those around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to protect others. The use of deadly force is also authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death. In the United States, this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." This case abolished the Fleeing felon rule where a fleeing felon who posed no immediate threat to society (e.g., a burglar) could be shot if they refused to halt.[2]

 

However, in Graham v. Conner (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) the court expanded its definition to include "objective reasonableness" standard--not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been--and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene--and its calculus must embody the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.[2]

 

Most police agencies establish a use of force continuum and list deadly force as a force of last resort. With this model, agencies try to control excessive use of force. Nonetheless in the United States there are a high number of killings by law enforcement officers.

 

In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels that their own life, the lives of their family, or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger.[2]

 

In all advanced countries the law requires an investigation whenever a civilian or law enforcement officer uses deadly physical force that causes someone's death. This may include determining whether the officer's use of deadly physical force was appropriate under the relevant standards established. For example, in the United States an investigation is usually performed by a larger police agency and/or a civilian agency, such as a county prosecutor or State Attorney General.[2] A report of the findings of such an investigation may be submitted for prosecution and made public.[3]

Has there been any indication that the girl had been drinking? I've seen a lot of people mention her being impaired, but haven't seen anything that states it as being factual yet. Shouldn't we give her the same benefit of doubt we're giving the officer?

 

Outside of circumstantial evidence, i.e. being at a field party at 2 in the morning, no. If I were a gambling man, I would assume that she had had a couple or was high. I have been to enough field parties to know that you can count non-drinkers on one hand. However, that is just presumption and assumption on my part. The toxicology report could help the officer.