South Carolina PingSend FReepmail to join or leave this list.
Keep up with what our Congresscritters (House and Senate) are doing. Sign up for the free MegaVote email service here.
Posted on 09/25/2014 4:34:01 PM PDT by servo1969
A South Carolina prosecutor’s office has released dash-camera video of the September 4 shooting by Police Officer Sean Groubert of Levar Edward in a gas station parking lot. It appears that Edward was in good faith simply complying with Groubert’s demands for identification, but in a manner that led Groubert to believe that Edward was lunging for a weapon.
The good news: the shooting victim, Edward, was not killed. The bad news: just about everything else.
Here’s the dash-camera footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTGTntifabI
Here’s a brief textual description of events as I saw them, for those who may not be in a position to watch the video at the moment:
Officer Groubert had confronted Edward over a seat belt violation, engaging with Edward just as he steps from his white SUV. Groubert asks to see Edward’s driver’s license; Edward hesitates a moment, then turns with some speed and leans back into the passenger compartment of the SUV.
My guess is that Groubert had this “dives back into the vehicle” movement mentally pre-programmed as an imminent deadly force threat. If this is the case, only he would be able to explain why; perhaps it was the result of his training or on-the-job experiences, or knowledge of other officers encountering a similar action and suddenly finding themselves facing an armed and dangerous suspect.
In any case, at about 0:44 Groubert immediately presents the gun and begins aggressively ordering Edward to “get out of the car!” Edward turns back to Groubert to comply–and that’s exactly the movement Groubert must have imagined Edward would make if he was turning to engage the officer with a weapon.
Groubet fires two rapid shots, even as he moves laterally relative to Edward, while Edward is standing in the door of the SUV. Edward grabs his groin, likely indicating a low hit. (Low hits are very common when shooting under stress, as the shooter tends to overpower the trigger and drive down the muzzle of the gun.) In this case it likely saved Edward’s life and Groubert from a murder charge.
Edward stumbles away from the SUV, turning to face Groubert, his hands still at his groin. Groubert fires a third shot and Edward’s arms fly straight up into a surrender position, even as a fourth shot breaks. At this point Edward appears to fall down in a sitting position, and Groubert moves in and begins typical “secure the suspect” actions (“hands behind your back,” etc.)
Edward is alert and cogent, and immediately starts asking why Groubert shot him, saying that he was only trying to comply with Groubert’s orders. Within seconds Groubert’s tone becomes conciliatory in tone (too late, of course), and he tells Edward he’s called for medical care.
As an aside, at the distance separating these two men all four of Groubert’s shots fired should have–or, at least, could have–formed a group no large than a palm centered over Leval’s chest, in which case the wounds would almost certainly have been fatal. Remember, Trayvon Martin was killed by a single 9mm round to the center-chest. Instead, we can only be certain that one of those four shots actually struck Edward, and not with the placement necessary to have a debilitating effect.
Groubert was arrested and charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, which carries a potential 20 year sentence. He has been fired, and is currently free on $75,000 bail.
Barney Giese, the officer’s defense attorney, will of course argue that in the totality of the circumstances Groubert reasonably perceived an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, thus justifying the shooting.
It’s important to remember that reasonable errors are allowed under the law of self-defense. The question is whether Groubert’s conduct was that of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances, possessing the same or similar capabilities, training, and knowledge.
(For example, the situation would be an entirely different one if Groubert had pulled Edward over on a felony warrant stating Edward was armed and dangerous. That is not, of course, the case here, as Edward was pulled over for a seatbelt violation.)
On the other hand, if Groubert’s training or experience reinforced in his mind that motions of the type and speed made by Edward are to be interpreted as a suspect reaching for a weapon, that would obviously contribute the the reasonableness of Groubert’s conduct.
An important factor that may help defense counsel Giese spin a favorable narrative for the jury is the swiftness with which Edward turned back into his vehicle–some might say lunged back into the vehicle. Doing so is not, of course, a crime, especially when it appears it was in direct response to Groubert’s demand for identification. Nevertheless, it seems very much identical to the motion a dangerous suspect would make if reaching for a weapon.
Also favorable to Groubert, I think, is his demeanor immediately before and after the shooting, in which he demonstrated no unusually aggressive conduct or apparent malice. It was, to all appearances, a routine traffic stop until Groubert perceived—reasonably or not, the jury will decide—Edward lunging back into his vehicle for a weapon.
As an aside, when I’m personally pulled over by the police—which pretty much only happens when I’m on the motorcycle, not sure why—I don’t make any movement until instructed to do so; then, I verbally state the movement I plan to make and obtain consent for that movement, and execute that movement with deliberation.
Officer: “License and registration.”
Me: “Sir, my wallet is in this tank bag. Is it OK if I retrieve it?”
Officer: “Do what you need to do.”
Me: [SLOWLY unzips tankbag, lifts flap ALL the way up so contents are fully exposed to the officer's view, retrieves necessary documents from waterproof bag, hands to officer.]
It’s just the prudent thing to do, I think.
In any case, it will be under such circumstances that Groubert’s defense counsel will seek to build and sustain a reasonable doubt that Groubert was acting in self-defense. If the prosecution cannot meet its burden of persuasion to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury will be instructed to acquit.
This case is likely to be perceived by the jury as amenable to a “compromise verdict.” In such cases a jury may not be able to reach unanimous agreement to convict on the aggravated assault charge, but instead come to an agreement on some lesser included charge. There’s no way to predict how amenable they might be to such an outcome, of course, without having heard the actual narratives as they’ll be made in court.
Its a little sickening that everyones first worry upon getting pulled over is how NOT to get shot.
Imagine if the guy had had a dog in his SUV...
South Carolina PingKeep up with what our Congresscritters (House and Senate) are doing. Sign up for the free MegaVote email service here.
I am astonished that the police department didn’t erase/lose/corrupt/oops-not-working the video of this event.
That cop was insane.
Now days not wearing a seat belt is as serious in a cops eyes as a felony or serious Moving Violation? It seems so. Seat belt Law should not be a stoppable offense period nor one that goes on a persons driving record as such. Meaning simply no license should be suspended or revokes and no fines for not wearing seat belts.
My state Tennessee has gone way overboard on the Seat Belt Law harassment as well. Taxpayers paid likely hundreds of millions of dollars for an Interstate Marque Early Warning Traffic Alert System to give traffic information. 95% of the time the only information you see on them is Barney Fife type warnings about seat belt laws or similar reminders. The state even purchases prime Billboard space to remind everyone they are the Law.
Seat Belts are a good idea but not all persons can wear them especially with the incorporated shoulder harness that climbs up a persons neck and continues to tighten itself while driving. I can't stand the top two buttons of my shirt to be buttoned nor a collar touch my neck or throat how can I be expected to wear a seat belt with a shoulder harness? It is a ridiculous as the mandatory child seating laws forcing parents to place kids where they can not be seen meaning in the back they go. That Nanny State idiotic idea has likely caused more accidents and injuries by distracted parents trying to look back at the kid than the seating placement itself.
Goobermunt, making criminals out of citizens with each new legislative session. If a local or state money needs revenue there are better ways to get it than simply making more things either licensed or fine imposing offenses.
the violation?...no seatbelt....the punishment....getting shot ....
there must be a better code of conduct then to shot everybody....
I hope the guy sues....
besides, it this idiot cop thought there could be trouble he opens his door, crouches down and tells the guy to put his hands up....
You have a point, so much so, when I read it, it was like I picked up a cactus needle with bare fingers.
I watched the video, and heard the audio.
The cop was fired, and will stand trial for his actions.
Absent additional facts, not in evidence, that the victim was known by the cop to be a habitual violent criminal offender, I'm good with the ex-cop doing some serious jail time for attempted murder, under color of law.
We citizens also deserve to go about our daily lives,and to go home, unmolested and not assaulted by police, at the end of our work shifts too!
We don't expect to be assaulted by armed revenuers dressed up as LEOs.
sorry....we citizens shouldn’t have to put on such an act....we are innocent....we shouldn’t have to have a charade of doing e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g..i.n...s.l.o.m.o.t.i.o.n so the cop doesn’t kill us...the onus is on the cop to behave professionally...
The other day a LEO trainer called into Rush and said he teaches that action always beats reaction, ie, shoot first and ask questions later.
I guess they save the tasers for little old ladies and protesters;
As far as I can see from the video, the first thing that the officer should have told the suspect was to step away from his vehicle instead of asking suspect for license.
What am I overlooking?
Agree. Having the ability to see what happened via video, thecan be no other explanation. By “idiot” I mean “wrong guy in the wrong job” and too dumb to know it.
I am far more wary of idiot cops than I am thugs and terrorists. It’s an odds thing. With thugs I can do what is necessary, shoot, run, stab.... With cops all I can hope for is that they are smart enough, and sensible enough not to start shooting. It seems a lot of them would rather shoot people than dogs. It’s like a right of passage from dumb arse to seasoned killer.
I don’t think its wrong guy in wrong job. I think its training. They are so hyped up that everyone is the enemy and out to kill them they react accordingly.
I’ve been told by ex cops that many of the younger generation are looking for a reason to shoot someone.
I see it a bit different. Personality cannot be overcome with training. The least capable personality types are attracted to today's realities in law enforcement. Those with the needed personality would not take the job today.
Many employers have this issue. Those of us hiring a congresscritter this fall understand this.
You do have a point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.