Facts about the live-streamed shooting of driver reaching for ID

[Good1]

Most of the headlines would have us believe the entire scenario was live streamed, but the live stream did not start till after an officer shot a driver reaching for his ID.

I would like to collect here the facts, as best they can be pieced together, what led an officer to unload FIVE SHOTS at a driver reaching for his ID, after being told to produce his ID, after being pulled over for a tail-light malfunction of sorts.

Turns out the driver had a conceal carry permit, was was carrying.

Many will tell us, in the course of their CC training, that when encountering a police officer, the officer is told of the permit and the carry first off, while everyone's hands can be seen. Then, we are supposed to await instructions from the officer how to proceed.

In this instance, for some reason, it appears the driver forgot to mention it first off, while everyone's hands can be seen. It appears the driver remembered to disclose it after the officer had instructed to produce ID (and registration), and while the driver was reaching for ID.

At this point, the driver does not know what to do, or is not told what to do, or is told but can't hear the instructions.

Apparently, the driver decided to abort reaching for ID, and return his hands to where the officer can see them.

But before the officer can even see the driver's hands, the officer unloads FIVE SHOTS into the driver, killing him within minutes, as the driver bled to death.

While the driver is bleeding to death, the officer continues to point a gun at him, point blank, holding the gun with two hands.

These appear to be the facts so far. Can anybody disagree?

 

[ETcallhome]

Most of the headlines would have us believe the entire scenario was live streamed, but the live stream did not start till after an officer shot a driver reaching for his ID.

I would like to collect here the facts, as best they can be pieced together, what led an officer to unload FIVE SHOTS at a driver reaching for his ID, after being told to produce his ID, after being pulled over for a tail-light malfunction of sorts.

Turns out the driver had a conceal carry permit, was was carrying.

Many will tell us, in the course of their CC training, that when encountering a police officer, the officer is told of the permit and the carry first off, while everyone's hands can be seen. Then, we are supposed to await instructions from the officer how to proceed.

In this instance, for some reason, it appears the driver forgot to mention it first off, while everyone's hands can be seen. It appears the driver remembered to disclose it after the officer had instructed to produce ID (and registration), and while the driver was reaching for ID.

At this point, the driver does not know what to do, or is not told what to do, or is told but can't hear the instructions.

Apparently, the driver decided to abort reaching for ID, and return his hands to where the officer can see them.

But before the officer can even see the driver's hands, the officer unloads FIVE SHOTS into the driver, killing him within minutes, as the driver bled to death.

While the driver is bleeding to death, the officer continues to point a gun at him, point blank, holding the gun with two hands.

These appear to be the facts so far. Can anybody disagree?

they told us that blacks were treated differently but we just thought they were exaggerating or doing something wrong. Then came along an iphone and we see what without the iphone would be just another black threatening an officer with a gun. And how may other instances just got swept under the rug?

 

[Good1]

they told us that blacks were treated differently but we just thought they were exaggerating or doing something wrong. Then came along an iphone and we see what without the iphone would be just another black threatening an officer with a gun. And how may other instances just got swept under the rug?

Good point. Another fact: The police confiscated the phone that did the live stream. They still have it. But then, they also confiscated the groceries the couple had picked up on the way home...and the car they picked up the groceries with. That would be the car pulled over for a broken tail-light that did not have a broken tail-light.

Two more facts: the woman who took the live stream was cuffed, detained, and held overnight until 5 AM. While held alone, she was separated from her 4 year old daughter, and not offered anything to eat or drink.

So if this was not live-streamed, what could we expect regarding evidence of a possible crime on the phone?

 

[gwb-trading]

In this instance, for some reason, it appears the driver forgot to mention it first off, while everyone's hands can be seen. It appears the driver remembered to disclose it after the officer had instructed to produce ID (and registration), and while the driver was reaching for ID.

At this point there is no evidence that the driver forgot to mention if first off. This point as this time is very much in dispute.

 

[Good1]

At this point there is no evidence that the driver forgot to mention if first off. This point as this time is very much in dispute.

A body-cam would answer that question. If the officer was wearing a cam, and we don't ever get to see the film, then that's probably what happened. I doubt that's what happened, even though it would be even worse for the officer if the order of disclosure was that straightforward.

By the time the live stream starts rolling, the officer is acting like the driver has a suicide vest on, and is inches from pressing the button. I think that's fair to call a fact.

 

[gwb-trading]

A body-cam would answer that question. If the officer was wearing a cam, and we don't ever get to see the film, then that's probably what happened. I doubt that's what happened, even though it would be even worse for the officer if the order of disclosure was that straightforward.

By the time the live stream starts rolling, the officer is acting like the driver has a suicide vest on, and is inches from pressing the button. I think that's fair to call a fact.

The point I am making is that the lawyer for the family stated the driver immediately told officers he had a permit and a gun. The family's statements on this are unclear if the driver told the police **immediately**, they make it sound he said something when reaching for his registration. The police have made no official statement on this subject but defenders of the police claim the driver never told the police he had a gun (which is dubious at best).

The officers were not wearing body cams (something I would urge all police forces to have). However they should have video rolling in their police car showing the entire incident. This video should be made public immediately (something the police are not doing).

It is hard to state as this time as a fact if the driver told the police immediately that he had a permit and was armed, if he told the officers later when reaching for his registration, or if he did not mention it at all. I would hope audio recording from the police car would capture this.

 

[Good1]

It is hard to state as this time as a fact if the driver told the police immediately that he had a permit and was armed, if he told the officers later when reaching for his registration, or if he did not mention it at all. I would hope audio recording from the police car would capture this.

Based on statements made by the passenger woman who did the live stream, i get the impression the driver told the officer about the carry while he was reaching for ID. From that same source, the woman interjected (yelled?) that the carry was permitted (has a CC). It's possible the driver did not hear what the next instruction was as the passenger was interjecting about the status of the carry.

 

[CaptainObvious]

What I want to know is how does this woman have the composure to live stream this? Her boyfriend just gets blasted, her baby is in the back seat, a cop has a gun on her...and she starts a video going? She is the coolest cucumber on the planet, or? Or I don't know what. It just seems amazing to me.

 

[Good1]

What I want to know is how does this woman have the composure to live stream this? Her boyfriend just gets blasted, her baby is in the back seat, a cop has a gun on her...and she starts a video going? She is the coolest cucumber on the planet, or? Or I don't know what. It just seems amazing to me.

It could be she is part of the plot. She neglected to live-stream the part where the driver threatened to push a button on the inside of the door that would detonate a 2 kilatron bomb in the trunk that would take out the whole neighborhood. When the live stream starts running, we can hear the officer says "F*#k!", which was a reference to the unbelievably huge bomb the driver had threatened to detonate. The officer kept the gun pointed at him to make sure he could not reach the button on the inside of the door.

 

[ETcallhome]

What I want to know is how does this woman have the composure to live stream this? Her boyfriend just gets blasted, her baby is in the back seat, a cop has a gun on her...and she starts a video going? She is the coolest cucumber on the planet, or? Or I don't know what. It just seems amazing to me.

or she knows by now if there are no pictures nobody is going to believe her