Body Cam: Roy Police Shooting of armed man

[utbagpiper]

Today, KSL TV carried a story about a recent incident in Roy where city police shot an armed man.

The body cam video without talking heads talking over the top of it can be found at this DesNews article.

Short version, officers called to convenience store over a suspicious individual near the door. Officers tell the man to come away from the door to speak with them and realize he has a gun tucked into his waistband. Officers order man not to reach for gun nor into his pockets. As they move in to make contact he bolts, a struggle ensues, and the man gets shot with his own gun, by one of the officers.

Man turns out to be a convicted felon with an extensive criminal record who recently completed federal probation. Odds seem low the officers would have known this at the time.

Near as I can tell, the officers did not draw their own firearms until after the man bolted. The one officer visible in the other officer's body cam video moves his hand to the ready, but doesn't actually draw.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

First impression, it seems to me that the officers went above and beyond the call of duty to not engage with lethal force. Unfortunate that the criminal continued his criminal ways...poor choices beget poor outcomes. Thank you Charles for bringing this story to us. Unfortunately the anti-2A crowd will focus on the gun and not the criminal. Though, it seems that cooler heads prevail in the restoration of our liberty in UT. Again, thank you.

 

[Va_Nemo]

Bad Shoot.

I have seen the videos from both cops cameras. The cop who did the shooting shot the guy with his own gun. He so states in the videos I have viewed.

At the point where the cop took the gun from the guy, guy became unarmed and cop(s) had no knowledge of any other armaments he may have had. Guy was running away at the time he was shot, having been disarmed by the cop and not pointing anything in their direction.

Bad Shoot. Completely Bad Shoot.

Nemo

note cop stating -- actually I ended up shooting him with his own gun-- at the 6:25 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3UgTUYd0aA#t=14.71602

 

[solus]

"what did i do" seems like a legitimate question for any citzen to ask, felon or not (i am sure determined after the fact to justify the nice LE executing the loitering individual).

"come over here and i will tell you" seems a bit vague for RAS!

i will go on record, the death penalty seems a bit harsh for being a suspicious & loitering gentleman and i am sure the nice LEs could worked a bit harder to de-escalate the situation.

tho kudos on 16 rounds discharged in six seconds...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

Remember, contact on private property

Let the honest and intelligent remember that the initial contact occurred on private property after an agent (or at least employee) of the private property owner summoned police over an individual who caused her alarm. That sets a little different standard for the police than if they happened upon someone minding his own business on public property. Once informed that the police had been called on him, and he is standing on private property, the individual should have had the good sense to comply with officers, to keep his hands out of his pockets, and to avoid exposing anything he didn't want the officers to see.

Now, I don't know whether the actual shoot was clean or not. The incident is under investigation. I've also frequently expressed my view that we ought not release men from prison until they can be trusted with all their rights, and that any man so released from all formal supervision ought to have his rights respected including his RKBA. But that is neither the reality nor the law today. And while the officers could not have known of his felony/prohibited person status at the time of contact, his behavior is not unusual for a felony in illegal possession of a firearm is it?

What is clear is that arguing with, fleeing from, or fighting with a police officer is likely to be a needlessly losing proposition. An armed society is a polite society because intelligent, sensible men don't give armed men a reason to think they pose a threat to their safety.

Charles

 

[The Truth]

and the man gets shot with his own gun, by one of the officers.

Unbelievable given how fast it happened. How bizarre!!!!

tho kudos on 16 rounds discharged in six seconds...

Seriously, that was some ridiculously fast shooting. Guy was probably dead before he hit the ground.

Hard to make an accurate assessment given the bizarre nature of the shooting, but IMO good shoot. Only my opinion based on cops' assumed QI.

 

[Wstar425]

After the running starts pretty hard to see what happens. It does appear that the second officer was shooting into a scrum somewhat. I'm a little surprised he didn't shoot his own partner. It looks like quite a few of the 15 shots came after bad guy is on the ground. It kind of sounded to me like he just emptied his gun on him. At one point you can see first officer exit to right, then 5-7 more shots after that. I'm not certain if main shooter saved his partner's life, or endangered it more? I wasn't there and video unclear, so....

Bad dude did plenty wrong and paid the price.

Why such a big deal about coming over here? Was it that he did not follow an order? It seemed like they were angry and it kind of got the best of them? Is having the guy come over to them better than going to him? Get him away from the entrance? Not a cop, not judging, asking questions.

It would be interesting to know how many of the second officers rounds were hits. Personally, I think he kind of panicked. But, it all happened pretty quickly, and this is kind of the culture we've developed over the last few years. In hindsight knowing the guys history, they probably did the right thing, but the article says it is unclear if they knew the guy's background.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Two very important facts, the deceased was armed, and he reached for his waistband while running. I doubt the shot from his own gun was intentional, probably the officer not familiar with the gun when removing it from the deceased.

I believe there was enough RAS, apparently his behavior set off alarms(rightfully so) for the clerk. Loitering can mean an armed robbery, wise call by the clerk. I would lay odds that was the intention of an armed criminal, to commit a crime.

 

[Citizen]

Illegal Order!!!

"Come over here and talk to me," says the cop.

No tyrant since Oliver Cromwell has had the power to command someone to waive his right to silence and talk to him!

Jeeezuuuus!!!!!

That cop issues the order with the ease of someone who's done it repeatedly. How many people has that cop ordered to waive a right paid for in blood across centuries!?!?

 

[Citizen]

Two very important facts, the deceased was armed, and he reached for his waistband while running. I doubt the shot from his own gun was intentional, probably the officer not familiar with the gun when removing it from the deceased.

I believe there was enough RAS, apparently his behavior set off alarms(rightfully so) for the clerk. Loitering can mean an armed robbery, wise call by the clerk. I would lay odds that was the intention of an armed criminal, to commit a crime.

No, offense, WW. I really like ya. But:

Prolly one of those guns with a second trigger. You know, one of those new-fangled, unfamiliar guns where you can't keep your finger out of the trigger guard because you don't know where that second trigger is.

 

[WalkingWolf]

No, offense, WW. I really like ya. But:

Prolly one of those guns with a second trigger. You know, one of those new-fangled, unfamiliar guns where you can't keep your finger out of the trigger guard because you don't know where that second trigger is.

A lot of possibilities, except for the above. It very well could be the suspect still had his hand on the gun finger in the trigger, whether deceased, or dying. The first thing I would have done is make sure the gun was not pointed at myself, which could result in a ND. I doubt the officer intentionally shot him with the suspects gun. Especially since he clearly seemed upset by it.

Reason I said unfamiliar is it might have been a 1911 type with a thumb safety. In which case probably the first thing would have been to turn the safety to safe. Most officers now carry those models that have no manual safety.

 

[utbagpiper]

No tyrant since Oliver Cromwell has had the power to command someone to waive his right to silence and talk to him!

....

That cop issues the order with the ease of someone who's done it repeatedly. How many people has that cop ordered to waive a right paid for in blood across centuries!?!?

I suppose you'd prefer an officer say, "The clerk is scared of you, summoned us, and we need you to wander just off the property line until we leave when you'll be free to resume whatever you had in mind until the clerk can summon us again and wait for our typical 3 1/2 minute response time...." I guess some folks have never had a loved one work the night shift at a convenience store.

Had the convicted violent felon peacefully asserted and exercised his right to remain silent, kept his hands in plain sight, while not getting physically combative with police, I strongly suspect he'd be alive and well today with nothing worse than perhaps having a taxpayer funded lawyer filing a suppression of evidence motion to try to keep violent felon out of prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun after police did a Terry frisk and found the gun. Played right, the felon might well have walked away from the encounter a free man, his illegally possessed and carried firearm undiscovered by the officers.

Again, with so little of the actual shooting visible in the videos, I'm reserving judgement on whether the actual shoot was justified and necessary. But an officer attempting to peacefully, verbally coax a suspicious man away from the door (where he had an easy, quick, and direct path into the store with any number of innocent persons) is not where sensible folks start their criticism. "Come over here and talk to me," is not a violation of rights, not when the officer makes clear that he has been summoned to private property because of the person to whom he is speaking.

Charles