FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[flere-imsaho]

I'm with JPhillips & dubb93 - the cops escalated that into a felony and a shooting. Now, if that's what their training tells them to do, then that's on the training (and it would not surprise me).

If you don't believe that cops escalate situations like this all the time and that it's a big problem with American policing, then I don't know what to say.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This is not accurate. Again, per the video at approx 3:30, the woman turned the steering wheel, that's when the officers drew their weapons.

Its not clear to me if the car was running, but in neutral. I did not hear it in the analysis but assume the engine was on.

the analysis says several times the car was running from 1:45 on

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

the analysis says several times the car was running from 1:45 on

Okay, thanks.

If the car was not running, and she was "playing with the wheel" (for whatever reason e.g. nervousness), and the cops drew their weapons, then I'd say that doesn't seem right.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Sweed

We leave it to the officer and his training, then revue the body camera footage and make a decision on how the officer acted. Kind of like what is happening now.

If they had let her drive off in her state of mind (not exactly rational and composed when one is willing to drive a vehicle at another human being whether a cop or not) and she ran over a child in the parking lot? The officer may well have been punished.

That was the reason for my questions. I think we all agree that the use of deadly force is an option. The question is whether with deadly force being the only option as Grantdawg's statement implied and if the officer chose not to use that option, should that officer face any consequences for not using deadly force.

Since we are speculating, let's say the officer had done what dubb had described and gotten her license plate number and picture. Let's say she went home without killing or injuring any adult or child. And let's say that law enforcement picked her afterwards and she faced the legal system and if guilty she faced the punishment for the crime she was convicted of. Should the officer be punished for not using deadly force at the store when she moved the car? If he is trained to respond as he did in that situation, fine. As usual, I just ask that everyone gets shot dead in those cases so I know that other factors did not influence the officer. If he does not, that seems like a clear violation of his training and is worthy of punishment.

I am not questioning whether the officer should have used deadly force or not. I am assuming that is one of the options in his crime fighting toolbox. I am questioning whether the officer should face punishment for using some other tool in that toolbox and why it seems so important that he use that particular tool in this case.

I had not thought about this until the guy talked about not judging things before we have all the facts. Do we know if she actually shoplifted anything? I know she was accused of shoplifting by a Kroger employee but I have not seen any reporting that she actually shoplifted anything. Did she have shoplifted goods in the vehicle? Is there video of her shoplifting something? What was she accused of shoplifting? Why are we so comfortable saying that she shoplifted without any evidence to that being the case? Does any of that matter?

[flere-imsaho]

If they were so concerned about her fleeing, why didn't they park one of their cruisers in her path? Why didn't they lay one of those spike strips in front of her wheels? Hell, they could have shot or manually deflated any of her tires pretty easily.

No, they drew their weapons, acted aggressively, and put themselves in harm's way.

Look, the lady was dumb and made dumb decisions, but a big part of the job description for a cop is to deal with dumb people making dumb decisions.

[CrimsonFox]

I mean obviously he is standing in front of her to prevent her from driving away....and it doesn't work. In the old days this would have resulted in a good ole car chase.

They seriously could have just run to their cars and box her in before she left. At that point she was toast. She was going to head downtown in a squad car.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If they were so concerned about her fleeing, why didn't they park one of their cruisers in her path? Why didn't they lay one of those spike strips in front of her wheels? Hell, they could have shot or manually deflated any of her tires pretty easily.

No, they drew their weapons, acted aggressively, and put themselves in harm's way.

Look, the lady was dumb and made dumb decisions, but a big part of the job description for a cop is to deal with dumb people making dumb decisions.

there was ZERO time to do any of that. THe lady was already leaving. They were trying to stop her from leaving to ask her if she stole which she would have replied no. THey then would have searched her and well....you guys know what would have happened if they found stolen tampons and a michael jackson bargain bin CD?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I had not thought about this until the guy talked about not judging things before we have all the facts. Do we know if she actually shoplifted anything? I know she was accused of shoplifting by a Kroger employee but I have not seen any reporting that she actually shoplifted anything. Did she have shoplifted goods in the vehicle? Is there video of her shoplifting something? What was she accused of shoplifting? Why are we so comfortable saying that she shoplifted without any evidence to that being the case? Does any of that matter?

I don't think any of that matters once she decided to defy multiple police requests and then decided to move the running car with the cop in front of it.

I was also wondering what she shoplifted.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think any of that matters once she decided to defy multiple police requests and then decided to move the running car with the cop in front of it.

I was also wondering what she shoplifted.

tampons and a michael jackson CD, probably BAD
i already said

[CrimsonFox]

seriously like 60% of the time I go to Kroger I hear over the intercom "Security....Code XXX in aisle X"

I always assuming it's shoplifting going on and someone is calling that out from an office somewhere.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I mean obviously he is standing in front of her to prevent her from driving away....and it doesn't work. In the old days this would have resulted in a good ole car chase.

This is part of my point. The video is wrong. He wasn’t standing there for the best view of the scene. He had the hood and dash of the car blocking his view. The best view was from the passenger side like most normal cops do when there are two on the scene of traffic stop.

He was there to stop her and it created a situation with only two possible outcomes. She could either comply with the cop at her window or get shot by the one in front of her. She ultimately choose to get shot, but she didn’t exactly have a lot of options. The fact that it was over shoplifting makes it all the more crazy. To Lathum’s point thousands of people shoplift from Walmart every day without being told to comply or die.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cops shouldn't be trained to put themselves in situations where they can be run over. He's lucky he wasn't seriously hurt or killed. As dubb said, they have her picture and license plate number. Go get her later and add a charge of fleeing the scene.

Cops nearly getting run over and then firing shots in a crowded parking lot over petty theft shouldn't be SOP.

The problem is petty theft has gotten out of control.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The problem is petty theft has gotten out of control.

Police reform that involves the creation of units that specialize in petty crimes and have de-escalation training feels like the obvious answer, but we'll continue to ask the same cops to respond to every crime on the books and with appropriate levels of force.

For the record, I'm not making excuses for the cop. He murdered this lady and should be charged as such. However, we continue to see this problem and as a society seem to think it's just going to resolve itself by pointing out bad cops.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think any of that matters once she decided to defy multiple police requests and then decided to move the running car with the cop in front of it.

I was also wondering what she shoplifted.

The accusation of theft was the catalyst of a series of events that ended in the woman's death. I think it matters if the accusation was warranted or not.

EDIT: Not to mention she has been convicted of shoplifting/petty theft in the court of public opinion based on what exactly?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The accusation of theft was the catalyst of a series of events that ended in the woman's death. I think it matters if the accusation was warranted or not.

EDIT: Not to mention she has been convicted of shoplifting/petty theft in the court of public opinion based on what exactly?

Because she tried to run over a human being with her car.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Because she tried to run over a human being with her car.

And this has what to do with the theft accusation? Or are you saying because she "tried to run over a human being with her car.", she was also guilty of theft?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The accusation of theft was the catalyst of a series of events that ended in the woman's death. I think it matters if the accusation was warranted or not.

EDIT: Not to mention she has been convicted of shoplifting/petty theft in the court of public opinion based on what exactly?

Are you saying it matters if the accusation was warranted or not because why? ... to determine if the cops should be charged with X or acted irresponsibly?

What I'm saying is regardless if she shoplifted or was mistakenly accused of doing so, the later "actions/inactions" she took when dealing with the cops, supersedes the shoplifting event. The cops had every legal right to ask her to get out of the car even if she didn't shoplift. She refused multiple times, she moved the car towards the officer, and she was shot.

If you're saying it matters to better understand the chain of event, and possibly liability on the side of the store, maybe. But as to why this is or not a justifiable shooting, I don't see how that is relevant at this stage.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

And this has what to do with the theft accusation? Or are you saying because she "tried to run over a human being with her car.", she was also guilty of theft?

I don't that is what he is saying. He (and I) are saying "because she tried to run over a cop/human being with her car, her shooting can be considered justifiable".

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The accusation of theft was the catalyst of a series of events that ended in the woman's death. I think it matters if the accusation was warranted or not.

I don't understand why this matters. Accusations will always come in both true and false flavors (and often mixed). It's always going to be the job of law enforcement to investigate in some manner.

I would like to understand the point you are trying to make better than I do. Is it that it's ok to just do whatever if you think you are being wrongfully accused, or ... ?

[cuervo72]

I mean, there are two cars parked there. One in the aisle behind, one on the side towards the front of the store. There is enough time for the cops to get out of their cars and walk over to the woman. There was plenty of time to park the cop cars in front of her BEFORE THEY PARKED. You want to stop someone to talk to them, so they don't get away, seems like the logical thing to me is to...park in front of their car.

As for the deadly weapon thing...no, she shouldn't have tried to move the car. Of course, she was doing it...rather slowly, I'd say? How long does it take you to step to the side of an extremely slow moving vehicle?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

It is actually possible that she didn't steal and the employees just pointed a finger at her.
And thus her ignoring them was more motivated by disliking the racial profiling of them accusing her. I mean the us saying "she should comply and she'll be let go" thing doesn't always apply to black people. And we see over and over again black people trying to run away from cops and then getting shot.

It's too messed up to have a solution

Being innocent does not mean you can ignore police, and it definitely doesn't mean you can run one over with your car. Comply might mean you catch a charge, but not necessarily. Not complying definitely means you are catching a charge, and one much more serious. It may be no win, but there is one of those ways that is way more of a loss.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

That was the reason for my questions. I think we all agree that the use of deadly force is an option. The question is whether with deadly force being the only option as Grantdawg's statement implied and if the officer chose not to use that option, should that officer face any consequences for not using deadly force.

I never said "only option." It was the obvious option once the cop was assaulted with a deadly weapon. I guess he could have let her punch the gas and let her kill or seriously injure him. That was an option, just not a very good one.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

And this has what to do with the theft accusation? Or are you saying because she "tried to run over a human being with her car.", she was also guilty of theft?

Has someone said she was guilty of theft? Her attempting run isn't screaming innocent, but that is not proof of theft. The police at that point had every right to detain her for questioning, but they wouldn't have even had the right to search her on the word of the employee. The store would have need to show them video evidence of the crime before they could go beyond asking questions. She might have gotten away with no charge if there was no further proof, or she would have likely gotten a ticket if they could prove it (depending on justification).

What I can say is she was definitely guilty of several crimes including assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer. That was very clear on the video.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I mean, there are two cars parked there. One in the aisle behind, one on the side towards the front of the store. There is enough time for the cops to get out of their cars and walk over to the woman. There was plenty of time to park the cop cars in front of her BEFORE THEY PARKED. You want to stop someone to talk to them, so they don't get away, seems like the logical thing to me is to...park in front of their car.

As for the deadly weapon thing...no, she shouldn't have tried to move the car. Of course, she was doing it...rather slowly, I'd say? How long does it take you to step to the side of an extremely slow moving vehicle?

In this situation, they had no reason to believe she was going to drive off in the car. judging these things in hindsight is so easy, but when this is going down they are not thinking "I better go get my cruiser because this pregnant women is likel going to try to hit me with her car."

Just think of that second video. Why didn't that police officer immediately secure that woman's hands? Why did not already have his pistol in his hands when he came to her window? Why didn't he wait for back up to approach her? Because officers have to assess the situation before them and make decisions on what they see. That officer never in a million years thought that lady was just going to casually pull a gun out and point it at him. He has seconds to react, and it was likely him or her.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Are you saying it matters if the accusation was warranted or not because why? ... to determine if the cops should be charged with X or acted irresponsibly?

What I'm saying is regardless if she shoplifted or was mistakenly accused of doing so, the later "actions/inactions" she took when dealing with the cops, supersedes the shoplifting event. The cops had every legal right to ask her to get out of the car even if she didn't shoplift. She refused multiple times, she moved the car towards the officer, and she was shot.

If you're saying it matters to better understand the chain of event, and possibly liability on the side of the store, maybe. But as to why this is or not a justifiable shooting, I don't see how that is relevant at this stage.

What I am saying is the accusation supersedes everything else because without the accusation nothing else happens. Right now, the accusation that she was guilty of theft seems to seen as a statement of fact which justifies everything that came after. Remember this was not a case where law enforcement saw her steal anything. Nor was it a case where law enforcement saw her actions suspiciously and approaching her at that point. One employee accused her of theft and set everything in motion. If she stole something, we can then move on to evaluating the other events in the chain. If she did not steal anything, that colors everything else that happened afterwards in a different light IMO.

This is from the article. Let's assume she did not steal anything.

"Out of the car," the officer can be heard saying multiple times.

"For what?" Young asks.

"They said you stole stuff. Do not leave," he responds.

I'll be honest with you. I am not getting out of the safety of my car and moving into that hostile situation especially IF I did not steal anything and have no idea what this officer is talking about. That reads more like a declaration than an investigation. It reads more like I need to prove I did not steal anything. If I am in her position, I have just as much trust that the officers won't do me harm as they do I won't do them harm.

A second officer then stands in front of Young’s car, puts his hand on the hood, and eventually points his gun at her through the front windshield.

"I didn't steal s---," Young says.

"Then get out," the first officer says.

The officer standing in front of Young's car is then seen pointing his gun toward her.

“Get out of the f---ing car,” the second officer says.

"No," Young is heard saying, followed by, "You gonna shoot me?"

Now I am definitely not getting out of the car. Hell, I could reach for the door and get shot. This does not read like a friendly police officer looking to protect and serve me. This does not read like a police officer who has not made a judgement one way or another and just wants to investigate a possible theft. Staying that car seems like the best chance of me going home to my family as pulling the gun seems reasonable for the officers to go home to theirs. In the end she seems to have known what she was talking about.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't understand why this matters. Accusations will always come in both true and false flavors (and often mixed). It's always going to be the job of law enforcement to investigate in some manner.

I would like to understand the point you are trying to make better than I do. Is it that it's ok to just do whatever if you think you are being wrongfully accused, or ... ?

I would like law enforcement to do their job and investigate if she is guilty of what she was accused of no matter what happened afterwards. If it was important to be the spark of the chain of events that happened afterwards, it is important enough to know if it was true or not. If she did not steal anything, I at least would like to have it on the record so that we are all not assuming that she committed theft based on the accusation and not based on an investigation that proved her guilt. I am not saying that that it is ok to do whatever if you think you are being wrongfully accused. I think it is convenient to now decide that whether the accusation was true or not is no longer significant. It mattered enough for the officers to leave what they were doing to investigate/confront her. Why stop now?

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Just think of that second video. Why didn't that police officer immediately secure that woman's hands? Why did not already have his pistol in his hands when he came to her window? Why didn't he wait for back up to approach her? Because officers have to assess the situation before them and make decisions on what they see. That officer never in a million years thought that lady was just going to casually pull a gun out and point it at him. He has seconds to react, and it was likely him or her.

This isn’t the Wild West. He didn’t approach her with his gun out because he would be violating her civil rights. It’s the same reason he didn’t cuff her. At that point she had just committed traffic violations. He even made it clear he didn’t think she was drunk.

The most he could have done there was order her out of the vehicle but he had no grounds to detain her.

My only issue with the 2nd video was him nearly hitting a bystander with a bullet but really there was nothing else he could have done as she herself was a threat to the bystander at that point. That’s just an unfortunate situation that I then was handled as well as could be up until the body cam was shut off.

[JPhillips]

When the SOP puts cops and civilians at risk, it needs to change. This could have easily led to a situation where the cop or another person in the parking lot got injured or killed.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by dubb93

This isn’t the Wild West. He didn’t approach her with his gun out because he would be violating her civil rights. It’s the same reason he didn’t cuff her. At that point she had just committed traffic violations. He even made it clear he didn’t think she was drunk.

The most he could have done there was order her out of the vehicle but he had no grounds to detain her.

My only issue with the 2nd video was him nearly hitting a bystander with a bullet but really there was nothing else he could have done as she herself was a threat to the bystander at that point. That’s just an unfortunate situation that I then was handled as well as could be up until the body cam was shut off.

Of course that is the case, and my point. The cops didn't rush to their cars to block the pregnant from leaving because that was not a situation that called for it. They were expecting something much simpler than it turned out. They have to make decisions like this every day, and 99.99999999% of the time, no one gets hurt.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

When the SOP puts cops and civilians at risk, it needs to change. This could have easily led to a situation where the cop or another person in the parking lot got injured or killed.

The existence of cops puts civilians at risk, but so do the existence of criminals. Are you saying the police should never investigate crime?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I'll be honest with you. I am not getting out of the safety of my car and moving into that hostile situation especially IF I did not steal anything and have no idea what this officer is talking about. That reads more like a declaration than an investigation. It reads more like I need to prove I did not steal anything. If I am in her position, I have just as much trust that the officers won't do me harm as they do I won't do them harm.

We will stop right there because you have already gotten arrested. The police asked her to exit the car as a part of investigation of a crime. That is a lawful order. You have to comply. You don't have to answer questions beyond your identification (and that depends on the state), but you can't refuse to comply. The police have right to investigation, and they can detain someone who suspected of a crime. That does not mean that person will arrested or get charged, but you don't have a right to ignore police when they give a lawful order. You definitely then don't have a right to run them down with your car. She could refuse a search, and she can refuse to answer questions other than her identification. But she could not leave the scene.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Of course that is the case, and my point. The cops didn't rush to their cars to block the pregnant from leaving because that was not a situation that called for it. They were expecting something much simpler than it turned out. They have to make decisions like this every day, and 99.99999999% of the time, no one gets hurt.

Why didn't they block her in to begin with? What did they approach her thinking? They sure as heck weren't there to give her a baby shower gift. They thought they had a shoplifter that they were going to apprehend, or at least search both her and her car. She told them she didn't steal anything, they obviously didn't believe her. So they thought they were dealing with a thief. Are they not trained to expect that some thieves indeed try to escape?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Why didn't they block her in to begin with? What did they approach her thinking? They sure as heck weren't there to give her a baby shower gift. They thought they had a shoplifter that they were going to apprehend, or at least search both her and her car. She told them she didn't steal anything, they obviously didn't believe her. So they thought they were dealing with a thief. Are they not trained to expect that some thieves indeed try to escape?

Again, assess the situation. How likely does it feel that she is going to run? Or especially run the cop over with a car? And do that over a few items at the grocery store? This situation happens a thousand times a day, how often do you think it ends up with shots fired? They were reacting to the situation as it happens. They are not sitting at home with the knowledge of how this turns out.

[GrantDawg]

I also want to point out because the video shared made this look like all this happened over several minutes. From the time the officer contacts her to the time she tries to run over the officer, it was less than a minute. The officer didn't have time to go to the other window, or block her with a cruiser. This was all super fast.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I also want to point out because the video shared made this look like all this happened over several minutes. From the time the officer contacts her to the time she tries to run over the officer, it was less than a minute. The officer didn't have time to go to the other window, or block her with a cruiser. This was all super fast.

He had plenty of time to go to the other window. He was already behind the car. He never should have been in front of it. He just needed to walk up the other side of the car. There are a ton of police videos and even a whole live police show on TV every weekend. Have you ever seen a video where police are trying to detain someone in a car that has the keys and the engine on and they decide to stand in front of it? I can’t recall a single time. They come up the back and either look in from the passenger side window or stand just behind the vehicle but off to the side.

That is my issue with this situation. The officer never should have been where he was.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by dubb93

He had plenty of time to go to the other window. He was already behind the car. He never should have been in front of it. He just needed to walk up the other side of the car. There are a ton of police videos and even a whole live police show on TV every weekend. Have you ever seen a video where police are trying to detain someone in a car that has the keys and the engine on and they decide to stand in front of it? I can’t recall a single time. They come up the back and either look in from the passenger side window or stand just behind the vehicle but off to the side.

That is my issue with this situation. The officer never should have been where he was.

I'm not going to keep arguing this because no one is changing their mind, but it all comes down to who is responsible. Did the police officer commit a crime by being in front of that car? Did the driver commit a crime when she hit him with the car? If she is the only one committing a crime, how is the officer the one you are holding responsible?

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

If she is the only one committing a crime, how is the officer the one you are holding responsible?

I don’t think I’ve said she had a right to hit him, but carrying a badge comes with a massive responsibility. Part of that is to not be a cowboy blocking a car in with your body. I’d really just like to see their SOP’s and where it says the second officer should be positioned on a stop like this. They hadn’t even established that a crime had been committed so I’m not really sure why he’s standing in front of a running car that has someone in it that isn’t being cooperative. To me it almost looks like he was looking for a confrontation because what he did was so abnormal from how I generally see police positioning themselves.

[dubb93]

Two things happened that caused the shooting. She drove away and he was standing there. If either of those things don’t happen there is no shooting. I think they were both wrong honestly, but I don’t think we should be celebrating a police officer that, based on this video, has no business being on duty.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by dubb93

He had plenty of time to go to the other window. He was already behind the car. He never should have been in front of it. He just needed to walk up the other side of the car. There are a ton of police videos and even a whole live police show on TV every weekend. Have you ever seen a video where police are trying to detain someone in a car that has the keys and the engine on and they decide to stand in front of it? I can’t recall a single time. They come up the back and either look in from the passenger side window or stand just behind the vehicle but off to the side.

That is my issue with this situation. The officer never should have been where he was.

Well that's one of my questions, yes. "Well, they couldn't have known that she might do anything than submit." So was the one cop also not aware that a car is considered a deadly weapon? I figure he probably did. Is it considered SOP to intentionally put yourself right in front of a deadly weapon? Did he (and did the driver) realize that once he stepped in front of the car, her options were 1. Keep the car in park or 2. I shoot you?

I mean, if we always say "being a cop is a tough job, you have to deal with split-second decisions", perhaps cops should try their best to avoid situations where they put (a largely untrained, and often not very wise) citizens into positions where they also are forced to make life or death split-second decisions? Maybe these non-professionals might, you know, sometimes make mistakes!

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Two things happened that caused the shooting. She drove away and he was standing there.

That's actually the other question I forgot. Is that cop alive solely because he shot the woman? If the answer is not easily "yes" then why did he shoot the woman?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The existence of cops puts civilians at risk, but so do the existence of criminals. Are you saying the police should never investigate crime?

Come on. I've clearly stated they should have arrested her at her home if not there in the parking lot. I don't think police should choose to escalate. I don't think police should choose to put their lives at risk when not absolutely necessary. I don't think police should fire weapons in areas teeming with civilians unless absolutely necessary.

A cop almost getting run over and a pregnant woman getting shot and killed all over a shoplifting investigation is a failure that should be examined so procedures can change.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm not going to keep arguing this because no one is changing their mind, but it all comes down to who is responsible. Did the police officer commit a crime by being in front of that car? Did the driver commit a crime when she hit him with the car? If she is the only one committing a crime, how is the officer the one you are holding responsible?

I pretty much agree with you but I'm bailing. This is the point where I'd say agree to disagree (until new data comes out). Good for the cop he had his body cam on because otherwise I can only imagine ...

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Come on. I've clearly stated they should have arrested her at her home if not there in the parking lot. I don't think police should choose to escalate. I don't think police should choose to put their lives at risk when not absolutely necessary. I don't think police should fire weapons in areas teeming with civilians unless absolutely necessary.

A cop almost getting run over and a pregnant woman getting shot and killed all over a shoplifting investigation is a failure that should be examined so procedures can change.

Except is that her car? Was it stolen? Or borrowed from someone else? You realize how many major offenders are caught and taken off the streets at a simple stop like this? In this case nor the second video were the police choosing to put their lives at risk any more than every day they have to do their job. Every stop, whether it is for jay-walking or bank robbery is a risk. Police officers would not be able to do their job if the standard is "not putting their lives at risk."
The woman was shot because she committed a violent crime that pout the life of the police officer in imminent danger. It really doesn't matter what the stop was for once she escalated the situation.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Two things happened that caused the shooting. She drove away and he was standing there. If either of those things don’t happen there is no shooting. I think they were both wrong honestly, but I don’t think we should be celebrating a police officer that, based on this video, has no business being on duty.

Who the f- is celebrating? You think this cop is getting a medal? No one is happy this happened unless you're a psychopath. "Justified" and "celebrating" are not even in the same orbit.
If the cop or the person driving the car into him is never born then none of this would happen either. But the main thing is if this woman hadn't attacked an officer with a deadly weapon, then she is alive today. That is really the end of it.

[JPhillips]

You're acting like there are no rules of engagement and police come into every situation with exactly the same level of risk for them and the civilians around them. We know that isn't true. Police train to minimize the risk to them and the civilians around them. In this case, there's a lot to change to make the situation safer for everyone.

Yes, I don't want people shot and killed for shoplifting, but I also don't want cops to get run over or civilians to get shot or run over.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I also want to point out because the video shared made this look like all this happened over several minutes. From the time the officer contacts her to the time she tries to run over the officer, it was less than a minute. The officer didn't have time to go to the other window, or block her with a cruiser. This was all super fast.

No, not once they got out of the car. But I see two rather large police vehicles parked in this photo; is there any strategic benefit to where they are parked?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

No, not once they got out of the car. But I see two rather large police vehicles parked in this photo; is there any strategic benefit to where they are parked?

Did you watch the begining of the video? They weren't there because of this woman, so they park the vehicles to "strategically" help a woman get her car unlocked.

[cuervo72]

Ok, withdrawn.

But I still don't get the decision to stand in front of her car then. It's a bit of "if you don't want your hand smacked, then don't..." In his thinking, he is doing it to stop her from moving her car. But at the same time, he has to know that if she does try to move her car, then he is going to have to kill her. (By his actions second later it seems as though he's already made that calculation.) That doesn't seem like sound policing. He might as well have just stood to the side, drawn his gun, and stated "if you move this car I am going to have to kill you."

(Though even with all that, I still say...just step aside when she starts driving. You were able to shoot and avoid the car, you should be able to not shoot and avoid the car. It's not like he was in a dead-end alley and she was 50 yards away, and the only way to get her off of that accelerator was to put one through her.)

[CrimsonFox]

After reading all this, I think everybody is right.

The cop shouldn't have stood in front of the car like that and stay there (he could have jumped back instead of staying there)

and

she should not have dried to drive over him to get away.

[CrimsonFox]

Jesus there is a ton of gun fatalities in Columbus Ohio this week. And it's a lot of minors shooting minors.

Shit

I now know the term "delinquency murder"

Any lawyers here know much about the various penalties in various states?
Ohio says minors can be charged as adults where murder is concerned

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Has someone said she was guilty of theft?

Just so we are clear on this piece. I did not just make that up.

It was a petty shoplifting issue

I mean it seems very probable that she did shoplift unless she was scared of the cops shooting her

So your stance is we shoot everyone that commits a misdemeanor that doesn’t immediately comply with the cops because at some point in the future they could commit a felony

First I want to state unequivocally she did not deserve to die for shoplifting. However, she would have totally gotten off.

I agree that punishment is too light for many crimes. We shouldn’t have the same people committing the same crimes over and over. It is out of control.

Yes but the point of policing isn’t to kill petty shoplifters.

.. is it normal for a shoplifter, in a car, to try to run over a cop?

She didn't deserve to die for shoplifting but people makes decisions that have consequences.

I can't quote, but the officers did not shoot this person for committing a misdemeanor.

Those were all in posts prior to the one where I asked if we know if she actually stole anything. So yes, someones have said that she is guilty of theft in the same way she been found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon despite not going to a court of law for either. Just like the evidence that we have for the assault with a deadly weapon accusation, I would like to know if the evidence backs up the accusation of shoplifting. As you can see, it definitely played a not so insignificant role in how the situation has been discussed.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

We will stop right there because you have already gotten arrested. The police asked her to exit the car as a part of investigation of a crime. That is a lawful order. You have to comply. You don't have to answer questions beyond your identification (and that depends on the state), but you can't refuse to comply. The police have right to investigation, and they can detain someone who suspected of a crime. That does not mean that person will arrested or get charged, but you don't have a right to ignore police when they give a lawful order. You definitely then don't have a right to run them down with your car. She could refuse a search, and she can refuse to answer questions other than her identification. But she could not leave the scene.

This is a case of two people seeing the same event and perceiving it in completely different ways. However is this case we actually have audio and transcripts of what was said. The underlined part is not what was said. This is what was said.

Out of the car," the officer can be heard saying multiple times.

"For what?" Young asks.

"They said you stole stuff. Do not leave," he responds.

And then this happened

A second officer then stands in front of Young’s car, puts his hand on the hood, and eventually points his gun at her through the front windshield.

"I didn't steal s---," Young says.

"Then get out," the first officer says.

The officer standing in front of Young's car is then seen pointing his gun toward her.

“Get out of the f---ing car,” the second officer says.

"No," Young is heard saying, followed by, "You gonna shoot me?"

I am not saying that the officers have to say what I underlined in your post. They can say exactly what they said. I object to characterizing what they said as asking her to exit the car as part of an investigation of a crime. That is not what was said nor would that have been what was reasonably interpreted in my opinion. That conveyed a pronouncement of guilt. In the same way the officers don't know what her intentions are sitting behind that wheel, I would argue she does not know what the officers' intentions are demanding she get of the car either. I didn't know what their intentions were which is why I asked if she actually stole something. Based on what was said and the actions prior to that wheel turning, that was no longer a question. She was guilty of stealing something.

Based on what was said and the actions prior to that wheel turning I would definitely think I would be getting my ass kicked or be shot if I got out of the car because the officers thought I stole something. None of those words or actions that occurred conveyed that an investigation was taking place or a more friendly we are just going to ask you a few questions to clear up some misunderstanding which it would have to be if I know I have not stolen anything. I would not be surprised if the officers were fearful of what would happen next during the standoff. I would not be surprised if she was fearful of what would happen either. Neither looked they expected this to end without some violence. If both were fearful, her fear is just as valid as theirs. Her feelings of being under threat are just as valid as theirs. I don't understand why people completely understand the officers' fear and not hers. I don't understand why it is so important to grasp onto all the what if extremes when considering her actions but not to do the same when considering the officers' actions. Both parties had control of deadly weapons.

Now then to get to the point that seems to be most important to you. No, she should not have attempted to turn the wheel. No, she should not have moved the car. Yes, she should know that if she turned the wheel or pressed the gas, she would be shot. Based on the words, she said to the officer, she was fully aware of the possibility of being shot and did those things anyway. She fucked around. She found out. Now she's dead. She gets no pass on any of that from me.

This tragedy had three significant acts based on what we know right now. The accusation, the officers confronting her over the accusation, and the car moving/shooting. All three happened. All three are equally important to me. I have zero interests as to whether it was justified or not. it is what it is based on whatever the criteria is. I just refuse to ignore the other parts of the tragedy and reject any attempts to minimize those parts in favor of maximizing the shooting and its justification.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

After reading all this, I think everybody is right.

The cop shouldn't have stood in front of the car like that and stay there (he could have jumped back instead of staying there)

and

she should not have dried to drive over him to get away.

I agree that everyone here is right to a certain extent. I don't think anyone (or at least the vast majority) thinks the woman was free of fault nor thinks the cops, in retrospect, couldn't have handled it better. Like most things, there are 2 "sides" to the story.

The real question IMO is - how much "blame" does each get?

Using the 80-20 rule, I'd say the woman is 80 wrong.

Others here will probably say the converse. We all live in different worlds based on our experiences, perspective in life, and definition of right/wrong. Because I assign 20 wrong to the cops, I do believe there is a fair chance that the family can win a civil (lower bar) payout, and the cop gets to keep his job.