Shooting at Del City Walmart 7-5-2020 Off duty officer and deadly force using shoplifter

[SMS]

Once the officer determined, or could articulate, that the suspect had attempted to inflict serious bodily harm (trying to smash him with a car) and was attempting to escape through the use of a deadly weapon (the same car) and demonstrated he was willing to endanger human life in doing so, the officer had every right under Oklahoma law to use deadly force as the suspect was fleeing.

 

[magna19]

Security Guard and Police Officers are different right ?????????? As in crime fighting Right?????

 

[bigred1]

Somehow I've got a feeling there won't be a protest/riot held there.

 

[SMS]

Security Guard and Police Officers are different right ?????????? As in crime fighting Right?????

He was an off duty police officer. IIRC, commission/arrest authority for police officers are typically valid 24/7 in Oklahoma. That's why they are frequently used for security jobs.

 

[tRidiot]

Once the officer determined, or could articulate, that the suspect had attempted to inflict serious bodily harm (trying to smash him with a car) and was attempting to escape through the use of a deadly weapon (the same car) and demonstrated he was willing to endanger human life in doing so, the officer had every right under Oklahoma law to use deadly force as the suspect was fleeing.

I agree, this suspect demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the life and safety of the public, bystanders and law enforcement and could very well be considered to have committed attempted murder - shooting a fleeing suspect in that condition may be legal, IANAL, so I don't really know. Not for me or you, as a member of the general public, but as a LEO.... I dunno, I can definitely see this isn't a case governed by the usual "no imminent threat" principle. I don't think so, anyways.

 

[Snattlerake]

Watching the video, you get a little different view beyond what this frame grab would indicate. He was being pushed backward by the open door, and while trying to avoid falling, he drew and fired. I’m not sure a shoplifter is worth this level of action, but I can’t criticize his shooting style.

Once the car started backing up, the driver escalated the encounter from shoplifter to deadly force. I get so tired of hearing, "She shot him over a hamburger?" No, she shot him when he threw the hamburger at her and pulled a knife.

Once the officer determined, or could articulate, that the suspect had attempted to inflict serious bodily harm (trying to smash him with a car) and was attempting to escape through the use of a deadly weapon (the same car) and demonstrated he was willing to endanger human life in doing so, the officer had every right under Oklahoma law to use deadly force as the suspect was fleeing.

I agree the first shot was justified. I disagree about the subsequent shots. Just my opinion from what I saw on two videos. I cannot find the one the TV station showed.

 

[magna19]

Off Duty Langston Officer Shoots shoplifter he was trying to arrest. The shooting was caught on video showing the officer shot at the driver of the vehicle he was trying to arrest when the driver used his vehicle as a deadly weapon. The driver backed up out of the parking spot with the driver's door wide open forcibly moving the officer backward and would not stop. The officer fired while the car was backing up and continued firing at the car when it was escaping.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1279577588613210117
View attachment 167466

The picture is the first shot. The car is still backing into the officer at this time with the driver's door open.


I only see one problem with this shoot. The officer continued firing when the driver was driving away.

That door was closed and officer was clear from the car when he shot the first round.

 

[SMS]

That door was closed and officer was clear from the car when he shot the first round.

But at that point the suspect had already committed a felony, was attempting to escape, and had demonstrated he was "willing to endanger human life".

Oklahoma law supports the actions of the officer. Whether its right or you or I would've done something different is another discussion.

 

[Snattlerake]

Is there a consensus of opinion how many shots were fired? I initially thought 12 but only counted 11. Shades of The Rifleman.

 

[tRidiot]

Suspect raises a gun, fires a round at officers, then lowers gun to "reposition" or move to another spot or for whatever reason.

If he's fired at officers but ceased firing (reloading, gun jammed, repositioning, whatever reason), is the officer "no longer justified" in using deadly force? There're a lot of semantics in this kind of discussion, and this is EXACTLY the type of scrutiny our officers are going to be facing in the future. Whether the threat was 'imminent' as it pertains to was the gun pointed directly in their direction, was it waving in a different direction at that very nanosecond (regardless of if it had been pointed at them a second or millisecond before, regardless of it rounds had been fired, etc.). I know this sounds a little over the top, a little nitpicky, etc., and to some of us it sounds like hyperbole - but it's really not. Don't think for a second the people who are dying to pin any offense possible on law enforcement won't make these arguments.

I can definitely see the Al Sharptons of the world standing before a podium praising some dirtbag who had fired at police but then got shot when he momentarily lowered his gun while waving it around, etc. "The video shows that his gun was pointed at the ground when he was struck by the officer's shots. It doesn't matter than he had just fired at them a moment ago, the officers had no way of knowing if he had run out of ammunition, if his gun was jammed, or if he was in the process of surrendering, but they executed him anyway, without any regard for this poor misguided and oppressed young man's history or taking into account how afraid he might have been of going back to jail. He was terrified of a life sentence, he can't be held accountable for his actions in trying to avoid going back to jail!"

In fact, I watched a former police chief (from Oakland, CA, maybe?) make the argument with the guy in Atlanta that got shot after firing a Taser at officers that he was just terrified of going back to jail, that the officers couldn't understand how afraid he was, how he had been traumatized by previously being locked up, etc., and this justified him taking any steps to avoid being arrested and sent back. I'm not kidding, I watched this.