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.
I read the probable-cause for the contact was a seat-belt violation... What would be so wrong with a sincere, “Excuse me sir - I noticed you weren’t wearing your seat-belt. I don’t think you want a ticket for something so easy to avoid, and I really dread getting called to an accident where someone wasn’t belted in. So please do yourself a favor and make sure you wear that seat-belt. Ok? Thanks and please drive safely.”
We need fewer of these panicky “Barney Fife’s” and more level-headed “Andy Griffith’s”. I’m going to wear that phrase out.
My late Father retired from the police department in 1985. I grew up around police officers. That personality type is rare anywhere in society today. At my dad’s funeral many retired fellow policemen were there. We discussed this topic.
That was the original intention of the seat belt program. It wasn't revenue driven. Two things happened. One was high dollar Lobbyist for Insurance companies got it made a citation on your record offense so they could do loss prevention/risk management via public records. Most laws exist for that very reason meaning are insurance company demands.
The second thing is due to insane forfeiture laws state governments and local LEA's as well were glad to have yet another cause to initiate a traffic stop and establish cause to search for revenue to confiscate. That made abuses such as taking ones cash if they had a few hundred or a few thousand dollars into custody much easier. The cops are happy the insurers who own the legislators are happy.
I doubt any living person unless they stay home in bed can go through a day without breaking a law now on the books.
In general how they act at home reflects on how they act on patrol. My uncle is a retired cop. I've never heard any bad on him. I knew a police chief who lived in my neighborhood same thing. Nicest guy you'd ever want to meet.
My late FIL was a cop and at one time a penal farm warden as well. He liked to beat. He beat prisoners, he beat his daughter, it didn't matter to him. His actions likely turned a small time petty crime inmate into a multi killer escapee and caused one of the biggest man hunts in state history.
He was a cop from the 1950's - early 1980's. Started out as a trooper, from there to a warden, went to campus police, then retired a deputy. He should have been culled out in trooper academy back in the 1950's. He had no business with a badge nor for that matter even around kids period.
Keep your seatbelt on even when you get out of the car.
Occasionally the little old ladies get shot, too. When the cops train with L.O.L targets, and they do, that happens.
Rite of passage. Right of passage is good English but means something else.
For real.
Well? Did Rush chastise him or agree with him?
Yes,the cop should have given better instructions. But, why did the victim rush back into the truck so quickly? Not excusing the policeman for shooting, but that was bizarre.
Whenever I approach a policeman for any reason, I make sure he can see my hands are empty, and I do not get too close, too fast.
The police are rightly cautious of the public.
Thanks!
Cut him off. The guy was off the topic about the gentle giant, anyway. The discussion was how most people, outside areas like Fergusen, aren’t confrontational with cops during a stop.
There are plenty on this forum that agree with the instructor. And when the cop fills grandma full of holes, the said defenders will vigorously defend him/her.
Why should the police be cautious of the public? Is the public the enemy of the police? Are the public considered to be property of the State and the police there to keep them subdued?
Thanks. I’ve been working for a BIG Seattle area high-tech company this month, and haven’t been able to listen. The people I’m with would pitch a liberal fit. I won’t talk politics with them because while they are technological geniuses, they are political idiots.
My Rush 24 subscription ran out, too.
Because they are in charge of us, and therefore they must be obeyed.
A few years ago I was leaving the shooting range here in north harris county texas. Didn’t see I was in the go straight lane and made an illegal left turn. I was promptly pulled over by a Harris county deputy. As he approached my truck I informed him I was armed with my M1A .308, my 1911 45 auto, the pistol grip 12 gauge mossberg, the dan wesson 357 revolver and the marlin lever action 22 mag rifle all loaded and sitting in my front seat. He looked inside my truck and said “yes you are, please be more observant of the turn lanes and please be more careful, have a good day”. I thought that was nice of him.
Sounds like the police where when I was growing up. Unless you were killing or robbing with them, guns were no big deal. Almost everyone had one in their home.
Back when the Crown ruled supreme, when two or more serfs strove, each were punished equally. Why? Because either the king's property was injured or there was the potential for injuring the property of the king.
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.