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.
“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.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ah, yes, the “Land of the Free”. Anyone who imagines he has any real freedom left should be about booking a seat in a pumpkin patch for Halloween night so he can watch for the great Pumpkin to bring him some goodies. I have had occasion recently to ask a number of people how they felt about the EPA planning to lower the permissible discharge of the “pollutant” and “greenhouse gas” CO2 into the atmosphere by another thirty percent. Astoundingly only a tiny percentage question whether carbon dioxide which is a normal component of the atmosphere should be labled a pollutant. I always thought a pollutant was something which is not supposed to be present in ANY amount, not something which if completely eliminated, would mean the end of life on Earth. The population has been dumbed down to an amazing level of non-thinking compliance. Less than a year ago one goofy liberal who thinks he is the smartest guy around actually told me that CO2 levels are approaching the point where people are going to start dying from it!
“The important thing is that the officer made it home safely to his family that night.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oh, yes, of course, the fact that the innocent motorist DID NOT is of no consequence whatever.
closed captioned for the sarcasm impaired
In my mind, this is why these events are so common; a giant loophole. If you use the same standard for everyone, this goes away. Many "civilians" have served in the miitary, and have more range time, defensive training than cops, especially the rural "milita" types. Their training would lead them to the same conclusions, but that defense doesn't hold water for them in court, and since you can't really know this, the reasonable person standard seems more fair. Would a reasonable person believe this guy was going for a gun? If the answer is no, then it is no for everyone. If yes, it is yes for everyone. If a non-police did this it would be a certain conviction.
Well, they id a shi**y job training this guy. 4 shots at close range with only one hit in the groin. My wife, who rarely shoots, would have done a lot better. At 15 yards with my Sig Sauer 40 I can put 6 in the size of a silver dollar. Of course the silver dollar is not shooting back.
Yea It’s sad. In grade school science we were taught CO2 was good and necessary for life. If they are trembling in fear from CO@ levels rising there is a natural solution they can do cheap and help everyone. They The Green Earth Worshiping Zombies who cult leaders are shysters should simply go around planting trees. As an extra added bonus plant fruit trees which would feed people and convert CO2 which trees absorb & create oxygen for us plus food.
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.