Moco police release video of office involved shooting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks he was given no other choice. The need to have more non lethal options available for officers, but the cop didn't do anything wrong here.

Of course he had a choice. He could’ve chosen not to shoot that man.

Why did the cop stand his ground? He could’ve backed away, he could’ve put his cruiser in between him and his victim. He could’ve waited for back up. He could’ve done any number of things that didn’t involve shooting that man.

Yeah, says the keyboard warrior from the safety of their own home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue was the man had a knife and was running toward him. However, it sounded like multiple shots and that sounded excessive. He could have shot him in the leg once to stop him.

You are an absolute idiot beyond belief. Shooting someone in the leg isn't like the movies. The may not be incapacitated at all, and you are highly likely to miss. You always aim for the body.

He had a knife, not gun. He needed to stop him from coming at him, not kill him.

[Anonymous]

Looked like he was trying to run past the officer, to try to flee. Which is a very natural reaction when someone is pointing a gun at you and screaming like a crazy person.

Why the the officer kill him for trying to run away?

[Anonymous]

Hopefully the cop gets a fair trial, followed by a lengthy prison sentence. Justice served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who objects to "officer-involved shooting" to mean "a police officer shot someone"?

It's correct and MCPD always uses that terminology at this stage, just like a person arrested is a "suspect".

The reason is that until the investigation is done, it's not clear the officer shot the suspect. There could've been another person who was also shooting. In this case, especially with a bodycam it's quite clear, but they can't say for certain until the investigation is completed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looked like he was trying to run past the officer, to try to flee. Which is a very natural reaction when someone is pointing a gun at you and screaming like a crazy person.

Why the the officer kill him for trying to run away?

The officer does not know the man's intentions. He only knows that someone is running towards him with a deadly weapon. The officer appears to react properly for the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue was the man had a knife and was running toward him. However, it sounded like multiple shots and that sounded excessive. He could have shot him in the leg once to stop him.

You are an absolute idiot beyond belief. Shooting someone in the leg isn't like the movies. The may not be incapacitated at all, and you are highly likely to miss. You always aim for the body.

He had a knife, not gun. He needed to stop him from coming at him, not kill him.

Wrong. A knife is a deadly weapon. Deadly force is met with deadly force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks he was given no other choice. The need to have more non lethal options available for officers, but the cop didn't do anything wrong here.

Of course he had a choice. He could’ve chosen not to shoot that man.

Why did the cop stand his ground? He could’ve backed away, he could’ve put his cruiser in between him and his victim. He could’ve waited for back up. He could’ve done any number of things that didn’t involve shooting that man.

This is what police in European countries do. They are trained correctly. Here it's "shoot before you think of less lethal options".

No they don't. What is your level of experience in firearms and use of force?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully the cop gets a fair trial, followed by a lengthy prison sentence. Justice served.

I would rather he gets a new gun with larger magazine for the next time. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looked like he was trying to run past the officer, to try to flee. Which is a very natural reaction when someone is pointing a gun at you and screaming like a crazy person.

Why the the officer kill him for trying to run away?

No it didn't. You must be high on PCP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who objects to "officer-involved shooting" to mean "a police officer shot someone"?

No, you’re not. The passive voice is intentional here.

[Anonymous]

I think that people are forgetting here that the officer did not just happen to find this guy walking in the street with a deadly weapon. He was called to the scene by somebody who recognized a danger. The policeman here does not look like he escalated anything beyond presenting his weapon which he is required to do in a deadly force situation. All looked good for a little while. The suspect backed away, officer asked him to get on the ground. He would have subsequently asked him to toss the weapon. For a reason that we may never know the suspect went from backing away to charging the officer. At that point do you really want the officer exchanging his pistol for his holstered tazer? It certainly is not the protocol. I am pretty sure MoCo police do not do pistol to taser and back exchange drills. (Maybe they do, I do not work for them)

At the end of the day, the suspect determined the outcome of this case. He had lots of opportunity to kneel down or in some way acknowledge the officer's instructions. The officer has an obligation to not let the situation escalate to putting other civilians in danger.

Look, this was a bad day. Nobody woke up in the morning and over coffee said, 'I'd like to be involved in a shooting today.' Everybody wants to return home with their loved ones at night, even the gentleman shot here. Something awful happened which precipitated this event that nobody asked for. That is sad. Prayers for all because everybody here will be impacted.

[Anonymous]

Screaming at him to get on the ground. Yelling I don’t want to shoot you. Asking him to go inside or do anything to avoid being shot. And the guy runs right at him. Come on folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that people are forgetting here that the officer did not just happen to find this guy walking in the street with a deadly weapon. He was called to the scene by somebody who recognized a danger. The policeman here does not look like he escalated anything beyond presenting his weapon which he is required to do in a deadly force situation. All looked good for a little while. The suspect backed away, officer asked him to get on the ground. He would have subsequently asked him to toss the weapon. For a reason that we may never know the suspect went from backing away to charging the officer. At that point do you really want the officer exchanging his pistol for his holstered tazer? It certainly is not the protocol. I am pretty sure MoCo police do not do pistol to taser and back exchange drills. (Maybe they do, I do not work for them)

At the end of the day, the suspect determined the outcome of this case. He had lots of opportunity to kneel down or in some way acknowledge the officer's instructions. The officer has an obligation to not let the situation escalate to putting other civilians in danger.

Look, this was a bad day. Nobody woke up in the morning and over coffee said, 'I'd like to be involved in a shooting today.' Everybody wants to return home with their loved ones at night, even the gentleman shot here. Something awful happened which precipitated this event that nobody asked for. That is sad. Prayers for all because everybody here will be impacted.

This. I actually think this may have been a ' Suicide by Cop" situation. He told a neighbor to call the Police and walked around with a butcher knife and charged the Officer twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who objects to "officer-involved shooting" to mean "a police officer shot someone"?

It's correct and MCPD always uses that terminology at this stage, just like a person arrested is a "suspect".

The reason is that until the investigation is done, it's not clear the officer shot the suspect. There could've been another person who was also shooting. In this case, especially with a bodycam it's quite clear, but they can't say for certain until the investigation is completed.

They only use "officer-involved shooting" when a police officer has shot someone, though. Not when someone has shot a police officer. Not when a someone has shot someone else in the presence of a police officer. Only when a police officer has shot someone.

If you want to convey pre-investigation uncertainty, "a police officer is suspected to have shot someone" would do it.