HD Audio-Video and VERY Detailed Script of Kajieme Powell Shooting in St. Louis

Both the video and the audio are clear, steady, and in HD format. There's no mistaking this one, folks. Total kudos to the videographer. Even though he's using a cell phone, he does a fantastic job of keeping the video extremely stead for a cell phone.

I spent more than 90 minutes pulling every detail possible from 104 seconds of recording, using my talents as an audio/video enthusiast to slow things WAY down. I threw the video in HD on a large (24") high-res (1920x1200) monitor with a 5.1 sound system several times, taking copious notes. My narrative is given below, in stage/movie script format, with video times on the left.

There's a LOT going on, here, with at least 25 distinct comments made in the last 20 seconds alone, and with significant overlap in the last ten seconds. Try playing the video while reading along with the script, and you'll see what I mean!

Note: I've taken significant care to transform cursing into the same masked version as does OCDO's settings in vBulletin.

Before you tackle the video and script, what lessons can we, as people who open carry firearms, learn from this event?

[video=youtube_share;j-P54MZVxMU]http://youtu.be/j-P54MZVxMU[/video]

Script:

NV: Narrator/Videographer

00:00 - (Video begins. NV speaking, walking slowly along the sidewalk towards the store and Kajieme Powell): So like, my homeboy just came and got me, and he said, "dude has just totally sold out the store." (NV laughs). And he like, "F*** this." He like "dude sellin..." Damn, this s***'s craaaazy.

00:23 - (NV steps off sidewalk into a parking lot next to the store in question). This s***'s cra... he f*****... what's up? He's cra... he just stole two sodas, like "f*** them I'm going to drink 'em."

00:31 - (NV steps from the adjacent parking lot to the store's parking lot). Hell, nah.

00:37 - (NV begins stepping to the edge of the store's parking lot). He says straight, "put 'em on the ground, bro," like daring sombody would touch 'em. Hell this s*** crazy.

00:44 - (unknown speaker, possibly the driver of the white pickup truck). All right man, head on down,

00:46 - (different unknown speaker, possibly Powell). All right, get out the f*** (unintelligible). Get the f*** way, f*** away from me. ****, I'm going to list the ground... I'm on facebook, you know who I am... I'm tired of this s***.

00:54 - (NV chuckles nervously). You tired, heh-heh... This the store, when the store do...

00:58 - (bearded man in red ball cap, horizontally red and and white striped shirt with red collar, black and silver watch, jeans, and red Nike shoes). Whas up, Mike?

00:59 - (NV). This craaazy.

01:02 - (NV). Whas up? Whas up?

01:10 - (Man in faded purple Route 66 T-shirt with off-white pants, black ball cap with purple Nike emblem, brown shoes with black laces and soles, something crumpled in his right hand). Brother, this not how you do it, bro. Know what I'm sayin'?

01:13 - (large man in brown collared shirt with orange R logo, bald, small beard element, black pants). Ain't that (unintelligible, but sounds like, "Dunham") boy, though.

01:15 - (NV). No doubt. The police gonna pull up. You see... Ya'll call the police?

01:20 - (bearded man in red ball cap). Ya, I doin, yeah.

01:21 - (man in faded purple shirt). We called 'em, yeah. We didn't want (unintelligible).

01:24 - (NV). You banging (could be ganging) up?

01:24 - (red ap or purple shirt, simultaneously with NV's 01:24 statement). Come on, bro...

01:25 - (Driving officer). Take your hand out of your pocket, man.

01:26 - (Riding officer). Get your hand out of your pocket!

01:27 - (NV). Has he got his gun out?

01:28 - (Powell). Shoot me!

01:28 - (Driving officer). Take your hand out...

01:28 - (Powell). Shoot me!

01:28 - (Riding officer). Drop it.

01:29 - (Riding officer). Drop it.

01:29 - (NV). Oh, s***...

01:29 - (Powell). Shoot me! Shoot me!

01:31 - (NV). Oh, s***...

01:32 - (Powell). Shoot me!

01:33 - (Powell). Shoot me now, motherf*****!

01:34 - (Driving officer). Drop the knife.

01:35 - (NV). Oh, s***...

01:36 - (Riding officer). Drop the knife.

01:37 - (NV). Oh, s***...

01:38 - (either red ball cap or purple shirt). Come on, bro! Drop it, bro!

01:40 - (first of seven gun shots fired from gun A)

01:41 - (last of seven gun shots fired from gun A)

01:42 - (first of two more gun shots fired, sounds different than gun A)

01:42 - (last of two more gun shots fired)

01:43 - (lady in the background). Oh, s***!

01:44 - (unknown). Damn!

Observations:

1. Any deciphering the details in the script, particularly "So like, my homeboy just came and got me, and he said, "dude has just totally sold out the store" (could be "stole out of the store") and Powell's later comment, "I'm on facebook, you know who I am... I'm tired of this s***," it appears the NV knew Powell. He certainly knew the man in the red ball cap, who addressed him as "Mike."

2. According to The Guardian, "St Louis metropolitan police undertook to release the recordings of the Powell case quickly, hoping to make the circumstances clear and minimise its potential as a further catalyst for rioting and confrontation between crowds and police."

Good for them!

3. Newsweek states, "Fewer than 20 seconds elapsed from the time police arrived on the scene to the time they shot Powell. The two officers fired 12 shots at Powell, according to police chief Sam Dotson." I counted just nine shots fired, even when I slowed down the audio and analyzed it graphically. Gunshots appear as very sharp, high, and short spikes. I hope to put up the graphical gunshot analysis soon. Working with a new program...

As for Newsweek's claim of 20 seconds, here's my record:

01:25 - (Driving officer). Take your hand out of your pocket, man.

01:40 - (first of seven gun shots fired from gun A)

That's fifteen seconds between the initial communication/contact with the suspect and the first shot fired. When you count from when the police cruiser turned the corner at 1:14, that comes to 21 seconds.

Is this the shooting that was supposed to be 3ft away with the knife held up in a stabbing motion?

twoskinsonemanns said:

Is this the shooting that was supposed to be 3ft away with the knife held up in a stabbing motion?

Click to expand...

Didn't read that, at least not that exactly. Here's what I read:

"St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said Tuesday that both of the officers opened fire on Powell when he came within a three or four feet of them holding a knife "in an overhand grip."" - Source

since9 said:

a large (24") high-res (1920x1200) monitor with a 5.1 sound system several times

Click to expand...

Does the source contain 5.1 channels of surround sound audio information?

I can't say I'm thrilled to see the last two shots, after the man was already down for the count.

The cops cuffed a dead man, just in case.

marshaul said:

Does the source contain 5.1 channels of surround sound audio information?

Click to expand...

No, just stereo. Further discussion on this issue, here.

Who is "g21sfpistol" and why are none of his posts appearing in this thread? If they're contrary to the intent, by all means delete them, but please include a "deleted by x on account of y."

That approach helps maintain forum stability.

Thanks.

marshaul said:

I can't say I'm thrilled to see the last two shots, after the man was already down for the count.

Click to expand...

Let's reexamine the sequence of events from the video timeline:

01:40 - (first of seven gun shots fired from gun A)

01:41 - (last of seven gun shots fired from gun A)

01:42 - (first of two more gun shots fired, sounds different than gun A)

01:42 - (last of two more gun shots fired)

Nine audible shots fired in just two seconds. The official police statement said twelve shots were fired. My military training was always "two to the heart, one to the head, repeat as necessary," but it's abundantly clear from the video that the guy was, please understand the military/nautical term, dead in the water within the first second, before the seventh shot was fired.

We law abiding citizens are taught by our government, but more importantly ourselves, that our duty is to stop the threat. As a military officer, there are two aspects to a threat. The first is neutralizing (stopping) a threat on a battlefield. Depending on the ROE (Rules of Engagement), we're authorized to use a variety of proportional response actions to achieve that objective. The second deals with HHQ-directed strikes, which have nothing to do with this situation.

Back to stopping the threat...

On very close video examination, the guy did pull a knife.

He did wield it in the "overhand grip," which simply means the blade pointed in the opposite direction as his thumb, such that if he were to strike from an overhead position, the blade would impact the intended target.

As observed by the video evidence, the perp clearly:

- established a criminal trap by which to lure responding officers into a violent response, which he could by means of the NV at a later date, put out there on Youtube.

- ignored comments by the NV indicating that this course of action was "crazy."

- ignored comments on the part of two other (red-hat, purple-shirt, and possibly heavy-set brown shirt) non-law-enforcement others on the scene that this was not the right approach.

- ignored the initial directives of the responding officers

- ignored the subsequent directives of the responding officers, exacerbating the issue by advancing on the officers with a brandished knife, as easily recognized by both the responding officers standing some ten to fifteen feet distant, as well as by the camera footage, more than thirty feet distant.

With this post in mind, let's get back to what the responding law-enforcement officers might have done better, if anything.

Are there any procedures in place with respect to recognizing and appropriately dealing with a suspected trap?

If so, what are they? Did these officers follow them?

Given an hostile suspect with a knife and a two-officer responding team, is it standard procedure for both officers to pull deadly weapons, or might it be more prudent for one officer of a two-officer response cruiser to wield a non-lethal response while the officer in charge holds the final cards?

Well,,,

since9 said:

Who is "g21sfpistol" and why are none of his posts appearing in this thread? If they're contrary to the intent, by all means delete them, but please include a "deleted by x on account of y."

That approach helps maintain forum stability.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by g21sfpistol
ill draw just as fast or faster than someone with a OC holster.

That is just Marshauls sig line...

1245A Defender said:

That is just Marshauls sig line...[/I][/COLOR]

Click to expand...

Wow. Weak.

As for the topic at hand...

What say you, Defender?

My .02 and nothing more. I'm military, but not in a combat role, and I'm not LEO. My observation is coming from limited experience and should be taken with a grain of salt.

We have the evidence of the shooting. Both audio and video. We can clearly see the sequence of events. Powell obviously wanted a confrontation and it seems the bystanders knew that. He disregarded any and all warnings from the LEO's and subsequently died because of his actions. But I have to say that the LEO's should have had non-lethal force available to them and agree that one has NL and one has lethal. But then again, they also didn't have much space between them and Powell and may have thought that NL wouldn't have been effective enough with the assailant having a deadly weapon in hand. I personally would have given myself more standoff space, but I wasn't there and it looks in the video that they parked where they could without obstructing traffic.

Now, what we don't see in the video is the mental state of Powell. While we can observe that he wanted a confrontation and most likely with LEO's, we don't know why. It appears he wanted to be a martyr but for what cause? How did the others know he was doing this? Did he announce to a group what his intentions were and that's why they called him crazy? Were they in on it (I mean they did have film rolling before LEO's showed up)? Was it a ploy to expand/increase the riots from the Brown shooting? Or was Powell simply trying to rid himself of a mental disease the best way he knew how: suicide by cop.

Do I think the LEO's were justified in the shooting? Yes. Was there another option? Perhaps, but hindsight is always 20/20. I can think of a million things I could have done better/different but at the time, I didnt have time (or knowledge) to make a different choice. People will armchair quarterback the situation and say the cops were trigger happy or whatever, but in this case we can see that the actions of Powell were the cause of his death.

since9 said:

With this post in mind, let's get back to what the responding law-enforcement officers might have done better, if anything.

Are there any procedures in place with respect to recognizing and appropriately dealing with a suspected trap?

If so, what are they? Did these officers follow them?

Given an hostile suspect with a knife and a two-officer responding team, is it standard procedure for both officers to pull deadly weapons, or might it be more prudent for one officer of a two-officer response cruiser to wield a non-lethal response while the officer in charge holds the final cards?

Click to expand...

Police are trained professionals, paid in accordance with the danger their job represents. Joe Blow citizen can shoot the knife-wielder (although if it was a "trap" he probably wouldn't have to), but police should be trained to use a firearm as a last resort.

One cop with a gun, one cop with a taser seems quite adequate for this particular threat.

This video has now been posted 4 times on this forum that I know of. This thread provides the best responses though. Good shoot but a tad excessive, could possibly have saved the man's life, but hindsight's 20/20. I'm in agreement with everyone in one form or another.

The excessive nature of the shooting is the only thing that makes me cringe a bit, but the heat of the moment is quite different than my armchair QB-ing as I am aware, and it's pretty clear the guy wanted to die. Very unfortunate. I actually feel bad for the officers.

The Truth said:

Good shoot but a tad excessive, could possibly have saved the man's life, but hindsight's 20/20. I'm in agreement with everyone in one form or another.

Click to expand...

You're right that we do enjoy Monday morning armchair quarterbacking, don't we? Make that Tuesday, since the advent of Monday Night Football.

The excessive nature of the shooting is the only thing that makes me cringe a bit, but the heat of the moment is quite different than my armchair QB-ing as I am aware, and it's pretty clear the guy wanted to die. Very unfortunate. I actually feel bad for the officers.

Click to expand...

I concur. When I heard about the shooting, I thought, "Oh, no, here we go again..." and assumed this would be a slam-dunk case of police brutality, excessive force, or bad training. Even the first time I saw the video I thought the same thing. When I turned up the volume and ran through it a few times, however, I realized what the police were seeing and hearing were significantly different than what a casual observer might see in the video. That's when I decided to put forth the effort to come up with a complete script, one that was as accurate as humanly possible.

Through that process, I saw and heard what the officers were seeing and hearing. They were responding to a 911 call of shoplifting. Arriving at the scene, everyone was behaving normally except for one visibly agitated individual with at least one hand in his pockets. They ordered him to remove his hand from his pocket and he comes up with a tightly-held knife, is taunting the cops to go ahead and shoot him. He backs off then comes back at them.

Knives can be deadly. Even with immediate and top-notch medical attention, there are knife wounds from which you simply cannot recover. "Assault" is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. It's carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. Thus, approaching another in a threatening manner while brandishing a weapon is assault with a deadly weapon. Thus, the officers were fully justified in their use of deadly force to protect life and limb while facing imminent and reasonably credible threat.

Now, let's address all the second-guessing about why they didn't use tasers.

First, they're not as reliable as firearms. Loose clothing can easily block a taser dart from reaching the skin, particularly if the loose clothing is heavy. The suspect's hoodie was partially zipped, leaving a small V of viable area between belly and neck in which to obtain a clear shot.

Second, if I were facing an assault with a deadly weapon and had the option of reaching for a taser vs reaching for a firearm, I'd opt for the firearm. If the taser failed, I'd be seriously injured, if not dead. The firearm is far less likely to fail.

Thus, even if they were carrying tasers, I think the officers made the right choice to use firearms in that particular situation.

Getting back to their use of multiple rounds, my military combat training is different than their law enforcement training. In a combat situation, you might be facing a much larger number of attackers than most law enforcement officers face while performing their duties. The conservation of ammunition is a very real concern. Thus, in combat, if a target is somewhat distant, you shoot from cover, and use only one round. Hit your target and repeat as necessary to neutralize the threat. If an attacker is coming at you, we were taught, "two to the heart, one to the head, repeat as necessary until they're dead." Even so, that's just three rounds and reassess. I hear some some police are taught to keep firing until they're no longer moving, while others are taught to empty their magazines. I cannot attest as to the truthfulness of either, but the video showed at least nine distinct shots fired, and the police chief said it was twelve.

Regardless, the suspect started falling after the third round, hit the ground with the fourth round fired, and three more were fired as he rolled towards the officer. After a brief, half-second pause, two more rounds were fired. In all, at least nine shots were fired in two seconds. That's nowhere near enough time for an accurate assessment on the part of the officers. The suspect caused these events to unfold when he assaulted them with a deadly weapon, and it really doesn't matter whether they fired three times or twelve. He forfeited all right to life when he initiated the assault.

"Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg?" That's just absurd. First, the area below the waist is more than 50% open space, so even attempting to do so creates a serious possibility of a ricochet that would either injure or kill a bystander. Second, even if the shot found it's mark, shots in people's limbs rarely stop an immediate attack. It's highly likely that even with two rounds in each upper thigh, the suspect would have continued to press his attack, injuring or killing at least one of the officers. Thus, the leg shot is dangerous for the officers, dangerous for bystanders, and stupid all around.

No matter how many times I run through the video, I can't spot anything which suggests it was anything other than an appropriate response and a good shoot. Textbook.

For some reason I feel like you've been somewhat disingenuous with this post. For instance:

Getting back to their use of multiple rounds, my military combat training is different than their law enforcement training. In a combat situation, you might be facing a much larger number of attackers than most law enforcement officers face while performing their duties. The conservation of ammunition is a very real concern. Thus, in combat, if a target is somewhat distant, you shoot from cover, and use only one round. Hit your target and repeat as necessary to neutralize the threat. If an attacker is coming at you, we were taught, "two to the heart, one to the head, repeat as necessary until they're dead." Even so, that's just three rounds and reassess. I hear some some police are taught to keep firing until they're no longer moving, while others are taught to empty their magazines. I cannot attest as to the truthfulness of either, but the video showed at least nine distinct shots fired, and the police chief said it was twelve.

Click to expand...

I, personally, didn't object to the quantity of rounds fired. I did express concern over the final two shots, fired after a brief pause (assessment? or time to assess, at least?) and after the man was clearly incapacitated on the ground.

I'm not saying it rises to the level of criminality, but it might argue for a slight modification of the training which results in such "by the book" behavior.

The fact that you hand-waved that all away with "no need to conserve ammo" seems... lazy.

since9 said:

Now, let's address all the second-guessing about why they didn't use tasers.

First, they're not as reliable as firearms. Loose clothing can easily block a taser dart from reaching the skin, particularly if the loose clothing is heavy. The suspect's hoodie was partially zipped, leaving a small V of viable area between belly and neck in which to obtain a clear shot.

Second, if I were facing an assault with a deadly weapon and had the option of reaching for a taser vs reaching for a firearm, I'd opt for the firearm. If the taser failed, I'd be seriously injured, if not dead. The firearm is far less likely to fail.

Click to expand...

So would I.

Although, as a non-cop, and given that tasers might well be considered potentially-lethal force (merely "less" so), I wonder exactly when I might even have use for such a device at all.

But cops are another story entirely. While you successfully regurgitated the standard armed self-defense rationale we all use, you again you just sort of hand-waved away the fact that there are two officers in this incident. It seems to me that it would be every bit as safe to have one officer go to the gun, and another go to the taser. Why do they both need to shoot him?

I'm not saying I'm definitively right. I am saying that your ignoring that is lazy; your reasoning too pat.

marshaul said:

--snipped--
It seems to me that it would be every bit as safe to have one officer go to the gun, and another go to the taser. Why do they both need to shoot him?

Click to expand...

Unlike the old paper-rock-scissor game, there is no time for a "do over" if they both do the same thing - which would seem to be the case here. Guess they both chose to go with the most effective tool w/o consulting the other.

Any reason why a cop could not disarm the perp?

davidmcbeth said:

Any reason why a cop could not disarm the perp?

Click to expand...

He did.

OTOH disarming someone with a live blade w/o a use-of-force tool falls under the heading of "You are going to bleed."