Posted on 09/25/2014 10:42:36 AM PDT by redreno
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — An unarmed man shot by a South Carolina trooper during a traffic stop repeated one question through his anguished cries as he lay wounded, waiting for an ambulance: "Why did you shoot me?"
Levar Jones' painful groans and then-Trooper Sean Groubert's reply — "Well you dove head first back into your car" — were captured by a dashboard camera in the trooper's car.
Groubert had stopped Jones on a seatbelt violation at a Columbia gas station and fired the shots moments after asking Jones for his license
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“I think you are wrong. They apparently do, if a few days worth of reading FR is any indication.”
Are you referring to the number of storied like this that one sees, or the number of FR readers who will defend the cops every time?
I’m not a cop hater, but it’s clear that the people who we pay to catch criminals, and who are given a lot of extra rights that “normal” people don’t have, in order to do the job, need to be kept under tight control. Many police shootings are justified, and not every police shooting involves one or more cops reflexively emptying their guns with little control and no regard for what’s behind their intended target. But where there is wrong-doing, it must be identified and addressed - with firings, suspensions, policy changes, better training, etc, as appropriate.
The time for good judgement was before the first shot.
Didn’t read the story did you?
Any more smart-@ssed questions?
“Were you their? How do you know what is going through the cops mind? Do you have ESP??”
What was going on in the cop’s mind is immaterial. What matters is what a reasonable person would be justified in feeling. The guy did not dive into his car. He was asked for something and he turned and moved his upper body inside the car. He had showed no aggression. He did not come back out with a gun or knife. The guy did not do anything illegal or unusual. There was simply no reason for the cop to feel threatened.
Cops are not supposed to kill people just because. They need a REASON - a discernible threat. This cop had none.
Unlike the Zimmerman case, this cop was not getting beaten up. Unlike the Ferguson case, there is no reason to believe this guy had already attacked him and tried to get his gun. It was unprovoked.
He has my vote. no contest.
Speed at which he complied? Not telling the cop he was turning around? Keeping his hand up and where the cop could see them?
I think the cop jumped the gun, sorry for the bad pun, but something triggered the cop when it shouldn’t. Maybe to another more seasoned cop the drive complied sufficiently.
I’m content for the investigation process to render it’s decision. Then let the pieces fall where they may.
Did you read the article?
Still goes back to the cops state of mind. We have no idea what triggered his reaction.
He made a poor choice indeed.
Yeah, I read your earlier post justifying the shooting of this poor guy and making the blanket statement that a lot of people who are pulled over have criminal backgrounds. Is that, in your opinion, justification for shooting them, too? After all, if the cop can shoot this guy because...well...you never know what he had in the truck then how could the cop trust someone with a criminal background? Bang. Justified. Right?
Are you trying to be funny?
I'll ask the question again.
What directions did Gaubert give Jones with which Jones failed to comply?
I'll give you a hint. Jones complied with every direction he was given.
Not an excuse, but why do some drivers NOT keep their license ON THEIR PERSON? This cop wasn’t expecting that.
*******************************
I drive about 10 hours a day ,,, sitting on a wallet gives me a backache.
Women NEVER have their license “on their person” ,, it’s always in their bag...
Ping
Are you referring to the number of storied like this that one sees, or the number of FR readers who will defend the cops every time?
Both actually.
I’m not a cop hater, but it’s clear that the people who we pay to catch criminals, and who are given a lot of extra rights that “normal” people don’t have, in order to do the job, need to be kept under tight control. Many police shootings are justified, and not every police shooting involves one or more cops reflexively emptying their guns with little control and no regard for what’s behind their intended target. But where there is wrong-doing, it must be identified and addressed - with firings, suspensions, policy changes, better training, etc, as appropriate.
Completely agreed. I think they need jail time and a serious tightening of what is covered by 'qualified immunity'.
Again, you're a moron. The cop should at least see a weapon, not just shoot any random citizen because he knows he can.
Why?
“Still goes back to the cops state of mind.”
No, it does not. The law doesn’t give the cop the right to have unlimited feelings. His state of mind MUST be one a reasonable person would have under those circumstances, and his reactions must be proportionate. He arguably was justified in pulling his gun, although his bad technique had led to the situation. He could have gone for cover. But he didn’t have the right to start shooting.
There was a POTENTIAL for a threat to develop, but it must materialize into a discernible threat before the cop starts shooting. Otherwise, cops could shoot us all with impunity any time they felt like it.
Groubert had stopped Jones on a seatbelt violation at a Columbia gas station
Bogus stop in the first place. Gee, I wonder if his license plate illumination light is in order...
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.