Officer shows 'great restraint' NOT shooting charging homicide suspect

New Posts

M

MsFacetious

What a Kerfuffle...
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
21,624
Reaction score
33,020
If there were a checklist for when it's OK to shoot a suspect, Kidder could have ticked most of the boxes.

Double homicide suspect, check.

Possibly armed, check.

Verbally threatening police, check.

Refusing to remove hands from pockets, check.

Charging at an officer, check.

"Law enforcement officers all across the nation deal with split-second decisions that mean life or death.
I wanted to be absolutely sure before I used deadly force," Kidder told CNN affiliate WLWT.

In the incident, caught on Kidder's body camera, the officer gets out of his car, his gun trained on a suspect who had allegedly killed his fiancee and best friend before leading police on a multicounty chase through Kentucky and Ohio.

The officer's body camera -- which Kidder's family bought for him after the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri -- captured the suspect rushing toward Kidder, unfazed by the officer's handgun.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/19/us/ohio-new-richmond-officer-does-not-shoot-suspect/index.html
 
So now when a police officer doesn't shoot an unarmed suspect, that is considered "great restraint"?:facepalm:
 
This is what scares me. Obviously there was previous concern over whether if he was forced to shoot a suspect, that
it could negatively affect him. So they bought a body camera themselves. Then he is put into a situation
where he probably should of shot the guy. How much did that factor into his hesitation?

I mean I am glad they were able to take the guy into custody safely. But if he had been armed, this could have gone so differently!
 
KaaBoom said:
So now when a police officer doesn't shoot an unarmed suspect, that is considered "great restraint"?:facepalm:
Click to expand...

At what point in the video did you determine he was unarmed? The officer didn't know either.

Try watching the video again, but put the face of one of your loved ones on the officers face. Is that what you would want your loved one to do?
 
KaaBoom said:
So now when a police officer doesn't shoot an unarmed suspect, that is considered "great restraint"?:facepalm:
Click to expand...

If said suspect just killed his girlfriend, and is running at you with his hand in his waistband, then YES, that is great restraint. You do realize that cops do not know if someone is unarmed until they get the chance to frisk him, right?
 
mysteriew said:
At what point in the video did you determine he was unarmed? The officer didn't know either.
Click to expand...

They should never shoot until they see a weapon. That is not great restraint. That should be the bare minimum of restraint.
 
KaaBoom said:
They should never shoot until they see a weapon. That is not great restraint. That should be the bare minimum of restraint.
Click to expand...

NO. If you are pointing your weapon at a fleeing murder suspect, and he is yelling threats at you and running at you with his hand in his waistband, you do not need to see a weapon. He is a danger because he can tackle you and take yours. Notice how the cop stumbled backwards? he could have been assaulted and overpowered right then.

I am sorry, but if a murder suspect takes you on a high speed chase, then stops and gets out and begins running at you, screaming, then he is liable to be shot. It is legally justified at that point, imo.
 
mysteriew said:
This is what scares me. Obviously there was previous concern over whether if he was forced to shoot a suspect, that
it could negatively affect him. So they bought a body camera themselves. Then he is put into a situation
where he probably should of shot the guy. How much did that factor into his hesitation?

I mean I am glad they were able to take the guy into custody safely. But if he had been armed, this could have gone so differently!
Click to expand...


If he had been UNARMED things might have gone so differently. But for the prudent, calm reaction on the part of this officer, this might have been another one of THOSE stories.
 
katydid23 said:
NO. If you are pointing your weapon at a fleeing murder suspect, and he is yelling threats at you and running at you with his hand in his waistband, you do not need to see a weapon. He is a danger because he can tackle you and take yours. Notice how the cop stumbled backwards? he could have been assaulted and overpowered right then.

I am sorry, but if a murder suspect takes you on a high speed chase, then stops and gets out and begins running at you, screaming, then he is liable to be shot. It is legally justified at that point, imo.
Click to expand...

Wait, are we saying this officer did not do the right thing?

Kept a cool head. Assessed situation. Followed protocol. Arrested suspect. Nobody died.

How is that not a perfect example of being a peace officer? I think this officer should be the model for all LEOs.

JMO.
 
EllieBee said:
Wait, are we saying this officer did not do the right thing?

Kept a cool head. Assessed situation. Followed protocol. Arrested suspect. Nobody died.

How is that not a perfect example of being a peace officer? I think this officer should be the model for all LEOs.

JMO.
Click to expand...

It was a judgment call but he was lucky. It could have easily gone sideways on him. He should have never let a fleeing murder suspect run towards him threateningly and get that close, imo.

And no, he did not follow protocol. Protocol called for him to shoot when the suspect was running full speed towards him.

ETA: as for 'nobody died'---actually two people did die at the hands of the fleeing suspect. And he put more in danger when he went on the high speed chase.
 
EllieBee said:
If he had been UNARMED things might have gone so differently. But for the prudent, calm reaction on the part of this officer, this might have been another one of THOSE stories.
Click to expand...

I don't really know that this was that prudent. The cop did not take his own safety fully into account, imo. If the suspect did have a weapon it would have taken a split second to begin firing.

OR he could have jumped on the cop when he stumbled backwards and lost his balance. That could have been a deadly mistake on his part. I don't think the cop was all that prudent. I think he was afraid of being the next Darren Wilson, imo.
 
EllieBee said:
Wait, are we saying this officer did not do the right thing?

Kept a cool head. Assessed situation. Followed protocol. Arrested suspect. Nobody died.

How is that not a perfect example of being a peace officer? I think this officer should be the model for all LEOs.

JMO.
Click to expand...

BBM

I disagree. I do not think it should be the number one priority of an officer that every suspect that confronts him should live to tell about it. The officer's priority should be his own safety and be thinking about his own family.

Look at this case. The suspect allegedly killed two people then went on a high speed chase. All those were very poor choices on his part. Then he jumps out of the car and rushes the cop, threatening to kill him.

At that point, should the life of the charging suspect be the cops number on priority? I don't think so. I think the cop should think of himself anf his family first.

My son has his first child on the way, any day now. I hope he puts that child's life and welfare before the life of any suspect that might charge him and threaten to kill him.
 
KaaBoom said:
They should never shoot until they see a weapon. That is not great restraint. That should be the bare minimum of restraint.
Click to expand...

The Officer was advised by dispatch that the suspect may have a gun under his seat, that he was a suspect in homicides AND that he might try suicide by cop. That's all the information the officer needed but it is also more information than many officers have to make a decision whether to shoot. He chose to call his bluff so that taxpayers can try him, convict him and pay for three hots and a cot for the rest of the 's life. That's a win for the cop because he doesn't have to go through the emotional ordeal that comes with shooting someone. The still goes down and is off the streets for good.

JMO
 
katydid23 said:
BBM

I disagree. I do not think it should be the number one priority of an officer that every suspect that confronts him should live to tell about it. The officer's priority should be his own safety and be thinking about his own family.
Click to expand...

Please respect the Constitution.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What you are advocating is no due process of law, and police officers are sworn to uphold the constitution, not their own safety or their family.
 
KaaBoom said:
They should never shoot until they see a weapon. That is not great restraint. That should be the bare minimum of restraint.
Click to expand...

You can get shot without ever seeing a weapon.
 
KaaBoom said:
Please respect the Constitution.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What you are advocating is no due process of law, and police officers are sworn to uphold the constitution, not their own safety or their family.
Click to expand...

The Constitution also says we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness too. The cop is also afforded that right. But it would be difficult for him to attain if he is shot.
 
EllieBee said:
Wait, are we saying this officer did not do the right thing?

Kept a cool head. Assessed situation. Followed protocol. Arrested suspect. Nobody died.

How is that not a perfect example of being a peace officer? I think this officer should be the model for all LEOs.

JMO.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it. I believe that is how most LEO are trained and I assume that's how most react. I'm just saying, "Good job!"
 
KaaBoom said:
Please respect the Constitution.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What you are advocating is no due process of law, and police officers are sworn to uphold the constitution, not their own safety or their family.
Click to expand...

NO, I am not rejecting the constitution. I am not saying the cops should do anything illegal whatsoever. I am saying they should only do what is legally justified. And the case I was using was this specific one. The cop who 'restrained' himself would have been totally justified if he had fired his weapon. It was not anti-constitutional if he had defended himself.
 
MyBelle said:
The Officer was advised by dispatch that the suspect may have a gun under his seat, that he was a suspect in homicides AND that he might try suicide by cop. That's all the information the officer needed but it is also more information than many officers have to make a decision whether to shoot. He chose to call his bluff so that taxpayers can try him, convict him and pay for three hots and a cot for the rest of the 's life. That's a win for the cop because he doesn't have to go through the emotional ordeal that comes with shooting someone. The still goes down and is off the streets for good.

JMO
Click to expand...

Even if an officer has his gun in his hand and extended toward a civilian, he should still have the drop on a civilian running "with his hand in his waistband".

Are we training LEO or not?
 
Nova said:
Even if an officer has his gun in his hand and extended toward a civilian, he should still have the drop on a civilian running "with his hand in his waistband".

Are we training LEO or not?
Click to expand...

Exactlyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 263 more.
Total: 4,194 (members: 264, guests: 3,930)

Online statistics

Members online
264
Guests online
3,930
Total visitors
4,194
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,554
Messages
17,954,863
Members
228,533
Latest member
suvendudash
Back
Top