Officer's Body Cam Shows Final Moment Armed Suspect Shoots Him to Death

[Shami-Amourae]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoUUh_N1G1w

[EE_]

Alternate report...
Everything was fine until the officer threatened to put his hands on Robert Smith to search him. It was then Robert Smith realized that officer Tyler Stewert became a threat and Robert was forced to take measures to stop the threat.

[Horn]

Not a very wise protocol to even mention weapons, when you're operating without a partner for backup.

[EE_]

Not a very wise protocol to even mention weapons, when you're operating without a partner for backup.

Yes, officer error.
Robert knew he was fucked when the cop threatened to search him. Once the cop found the weapon he said he didn't have, he knew he was going to be cuffed and stuffed in the back of the patrol car.
I doubt he would have shot the cop if the cop would have just warned him, or issued a citation and left.

[collector]

Alternate report...
Everything was fine until the officer threatened to put his hands on Robert Smith to search him. It was then Robert Smith realized that officer Tyler Stewert became a threat and Robert was forced to take measures to stop the threat.

I was thinking the same thing. Smith realized that he would immediately be put in handcuffs, have all his weapons confiscated and possibly charged since this was a domestic disturbance/violence call

[midnight rambler]

Shooter was on the path to self-destruction.

[EE_]

Shooter was on the path to self-destruction.

He wasn't on that path until the cop showed up. The domestic disturbance did not determine his fate. It was probably his girfriend that called the cops that did.
If an angry girfriend, or wife calls a cop for any reason, even just because she is angry, at that moment it is out of yours and her hands and becomes a police matter.
There's nothing you, or her can do to stop the police actions.

[midnight rambler]

He wasn't on that path until the cop showed up. The domestic disturbance did not determine his fate. It was probably his girfriend that called the cops that did.
If an angry girfriend, or wife calls a cop for any reason, even just because she is angry, at that moment it is out of yours and her hands and becomes a police matter.
There's nothing you, or her can do to stop the police actions.

Come on, get real. Cops exist and one can reasonably know what to expect cops to do. The shooter was being stupid in a no stupid zone, i.e. he exited the home (when he didn't have to) while carrying a concealed weapon (this was Arizona which is an open carry state).


There's nothing you, or her can do to stop the police actions.

And because he was so stupid as to have a wife or gf who would rat him out (again, everyone knows the most likely outcome(s) when a domestic disturbance is reported to 911) now he's dead along with the cop.

Domestic disturbance calls are known to be the most dangerous of all calls for cops. When I did ride-alongs in the '80s and into the early '90s the cops would SWARM on a domestic disturbance call. This cop was also being stupid in a no stupid zone for approaching this guy by his lonesome.

[EE_]

Come on, get real. Cops exist and one can reasonably know what to expect cops to do. The shooter was being stupid in a no stupid zone, i.e. he exited the home (when he didn't have to) while carrying a concealed weapon (this was Arizona which is an open carry state).



And because he was so stupid as to have a wife or gf who would rat him out (again, everyone knows the most likely outcome(s) when a domestic disturbance is reported to 911) now he's dead along with the cop.

Domestic disturbance calls are known to be the most dangerous of all calls for cops. When I did ride-alongs in the '80s and into the early '90s the cops would SWARM on a domestic disturbance call. This cop was also being stupid in a no stupid zone for approaching this guy by his lonesome.

I agree that domestic disturbances can be the most dangerous.
When two stupid people get together, stupid things usually happen.

[Hitch]

Gotta laugh at the double standard, and the justification of murder, in this case.

[Ares]

Gotta laugh at the double standard, and the justification of murder, in this case.

So if a guy stopped his car came over to you and wanted to frisk you, you would just comply?

[SWRichmond]

I for one wish there was a way we could return to a more sane system where not nearly so many people were killed, by the state or otherwise.

In this case, the feminists, prison-industrial complex and lawyers have turned DV into an industry. They kill from the shadows. The regulatory state now provides the impetus for most interactions between police and mundanes. Do away with the regulatory state, and nearly all of this shit just plain stops.

[Hitch]

So if a guy stopped his car came over to you and wanted to frisk you, you would just comply?

Would I comply? No. Would I murder him? No.

You fail to see that this is EXACTLY why we have a fucking Constitution!!!!

All this guy had to say is I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH!!!!!!!!!

[Horn]

There should be no justification for murder, or stupidity.

[Horn]

All this guy had to say is I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH!!!!!!!!!

He did say No, the officer wasn't waiting for a different answer anyway. He was already searching.

[Ares]

Would I comply? No. Would I murder him? No.

You fail to see that this is EXACTLY why we have a fucking Constitution!!!!

All this guy had to say is I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH!!!!!!!!!

Why do we have a Constitution? You or the cop are not a party to it. You didn't sign it did you? "You cannot use the Constitution to defend you as you are not a party to it". - Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520

So do you honestly think telling that cop that he does not consent to a search would of mattered? I don't.

Power only recognizes force. That's what they speak with and that is all they know. I feel sorry for police going to work anymore after decades of being the muscle for political whores. Payback is going to be painful.

[7th trump]

Why do we have a Constitution? You or the cop are not a party to it. You didn't sign it did you? "You cannot use the Constitution to defend you as you are not a party to it". - Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520

So do you honestly think telling that cop that he does not consent to a search would of mattered? I don't.

Power only recognizes force. That's what they speak with and that is all they know. I feel sorry for police going to work anymore after decades of being the muscle for political whores. Payback is going to be painful.

Interesting you bring up the "Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520" case.
You take that completely out of context.
No state constitution has no jurisdiction in another state.
The "constitution" they are talking about is the Georgia state consititution......not the US federal Constitution.
Helps if you take the time and research what you are quoting.
This is how conspiracy theories get started and the insanity of the conspiracy never ends. One fool after another will take that case out of context until it is an out of control avalanche of ignorance.
It only took me 4 minutes to find out what that case was about.

[Hitch]

So do you honestly think telling that cop that he does not consent to a search would of mattered? I don't.

What you mean by I don't, is that you don't know. You can't know, nobody knows what that particular cop would have done. He may have said, OK I respect your constitutional rights, and not searched him. Or, he could be a thug cop and searched him anyway.

He was murdered before he had the chance to do the right thing, or the wrong thing. Are you OK with that death sentence?

Something to think about. Respecting Life keeps getting cheaper and cheaper these days.

[midnight rambler]

How's this: they're both dead because they both made stupid choices.

[Ares]

Interesting you bring up the "Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520" case.
You take that completely out of context.
No state constitution has no jurisdiction in another state.
The "constitution" they are talking about is the Georgia state consititution......not the US federal Constitution.
Helps if you take the time and research what you are quoting.
This is how conspiracy theories get started and the insanity of the conspiracy never ends. One fool after another will take that case out of context until it is an out of control avalanche of ignorance.
It only took me 4 minutes to find out what that case was about.

:rolleyes:

Talk about taking shit out of context. Read it yourself. Page 6 and page 45.

But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court , on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain.If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain. If they do, the right stands waived. Could not the States, in their sovereign capacities, or Congress (if it has the power) as their agent, forgive such a breach of the Constitution, on the part of a State, as that of imposing a tax on imports, or accept reparation for it? In case this were done, what would become of the claims of private persons, for damages for such breach? To let such claims be set up against the forgiven party, would be to do away with the forgiveness. No, if there existed such claimants,they would have to appeal, each to his own sovereign for redress. It was that sovereign's business to get enough from the offending sovereign, to cover all private losses of his owncitizens-and if he did not get enough to do that,those citizens must look to him, alone for indemnity. And this brings to my general conclusion, which is,that the judgment of the Court below, ought to be affirmed.Ga. 1854.Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga.)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14566693/Padelford-Fay-Co-vs-The-Mayor-and-Alderman-of-the-City-of-Savannah

[Hitch]

How's this: they're both dead because they both made stupid choices.

I don't recall ever having tried to search someone who was not in handcuffs. Maybe they were taught differently on that dept. I would have just asked the guy to keep his hands where I could see them.

[Horn]

I don't recall ever having tried to search someone who was not in handcuffs. Maybe they were taught differently on that dept. I would have just asked the guy to keep his hands where I could see them.

I see , this does make proper sense and follows a meandering line of constitutionality. Arrest before body search does appear the proper sequence.

[midnight rambler]

I don't recall ever having tried to search someone who was not in handcuffs. Maybe they were taught differently on that dept. I would have just asked the guy to keep his hands where I could see them.

Cop went casually into a highly charged situation. You're right, very first thing he should have said (with or without backup), "Hands where I can see 'em!" In which case he SHOULD have been able to outdraw his killer at least imo.

[Ares]

I see , this does make proper sense and follows a meandering line, arrest before body search does appear the proper sequence.

In order to do that he would need probable cause and reasonable suspicion that the suspect was the individual who the g/f called the cops on. So he would have to establish identity.

[Horn]

In order to do that he would need probable cause and reasonable suspicion that the suspect was the individual who the g/f called the cops on. So he would have to establish identity.

I was assuming he already did that prior in the mass propagandist video that was posting false statements about an officer asking a suspect to be searched.

When it was clear he searched while asking.

[Hitch]

Cop went casually into a highly charged situation. You're right, very first thing he should have said (with or without backup), "Hands where I can see 'em!" In which case he SHOULD have been able to outdraw his killer at least imo.

Exactly, the thing that tipped me off was when the cop asked the guy on a 1 to 10 scale how he was feeling, and he said 12.

At that point, you don't want to do anything to make the guy worse. On domestic disputes, most of the time nobody has done anything wrong, it's just an argument. The goal is to keep things calm and under control. Make sure everyone knows they are not in trouble.

[Horn]

Make sure everyone knows they are not in trouble.

Lol, Clinton already took care of that,

Someone has to be charged and in trouble if domestic violence is even assumed.

[midnight rambler]

Lol, Clinton already took care of that,

Someone has to be charged and in trouble if domestic violence is even assumed.

The general rule of thumb among cops regarding domestic disturbances is: Someone is going to jail (so we don't have to come back here tonight).

[Hitch]

Lol, Clinton already took care of that,

Someone has to be charged and in trouble if domestic violence is even assumed.

Yes, if there's violence, but most of the time domestic disputes are just arguments. Non-violent. The toughest part of those calls is that once the police have been called out, someone has to leave the house. Either the husband or wife has to leave and go to a friends for the night. We would even offer them a ride if they wanted. We couldn't leave the scene until one of them was gone.

[Horn]

The general rule of thumb among cops regarding domestic disturbances is: Someone is going to jail (so we don't have to come back here tonight).

Exactly, it would be more appropriate for the cop instead to offer assistance with exchanging keys and whatnots to state clearly when the door opens.

"Ok who here wants to get charged or arrested."

[Dogman]

Yes, if there's violence, but most of the time domestic disputes are just arguments. Non-violent. The toughest part of those calls is that once the police have been called out, someone has to leave the house. Either the husband or wife has to leave and go to a friends for the night. We would even offer them a ride if they wanted. We couldn't leave the scene until one of them was gone.

Or both can resent the cops showing up and interfering into what they both consider private!

And consider the cops are butting in.

One reason why domestic calls can turn out bad!

Crap shoot!

[Hitch]

Or both can resent the cops showing up and interfering into what they both consider private!

And consider the cops are butting in.

One reason why domestic calls can turn out bad!

Crap shoot!

Yup, I know man. I personally would have been killed on a domestic dispute call, like the OP, but the guy decided at the last second not to...and it would have been due to a mistake I made. Much like this story.

[old steel]

Killed by a .22 pistol no less. Not even a poodle shooter.

Guess a .22 is all you really need.

[Dogman]

Shot placement and number of them.

.22 is deadly, just not as much shock/tissue damage compared to its bigger brothers.

[midnight rambler]

Killed by a .22 pistol no less. Not even a poodle shooter.

Guess a .22 is all you really need.

Really all it takes is one .22 rimfire round to the melon at point blank range to incapacitate someone, or most animals for that matter.

[7th trump]

:rolleyes:

Talk about taking shit out of context. Read it yourself. Page 6 and page 45.

But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court , on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain.If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain. If they do, the right stands waived. Could not the States, in their sovereign capacities, or Congress (if it has the power) as their agent, forgive such a breach of the Constitution, on the part of a State, as that of imposing a tax on imports, or accept reparation for it? In case this were done, what would become of the claims of private persons, for damages for such breach? To let such claims be set up against the forgiven party, would be to do away with the forgiveness. No, if there existed such claimants,they would have to appeal, each to his own sovereign for redress. It was that sovereign's business to get enough from the offending sovereign, to cover all private losses of his owncitizens-and if he did not get enough to do that,those citizens must look to him, alone for indemnity. And this brings to my general conclusion, which is,that the judgment of the Court below, ought to be affirmed.Ga. 1854.Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga.)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14566693/Padelford-Fay-Co-vs-The-Mayor-and-Alderman-of-the-City-of-Savannah

That case is at a state level...not the federal level.
That state court cite (opinion) doesnt apply to the federal constitution.
State courts deal strictly with state laws.

What your saying is equivalent to an Illinois police officer issueing tickets on Iowa soil for violating Illinois law....it doesnt work that way.
Basically an Illinois cop cannot issue an Illinois speeding ticket to an Iowan for speeding in Iowa......doesnt make sense does it....but thats what you are stating.

The federal Constitution very much is binding in the state of Georgia...but the Georgia constitution has no bearing on the federal level.

[Hitch]

Really all it takes is one .22 rimfire round to the melon at point blank range to incapacitate someone, or most animals for that matter.

I've heard .22 can be very deadly because the bullet can go through the skull, then becomes trapped and bounces around in there. Morbid thought, but can't remember who told me that....perhaps someone on this forum.

[midnight rambler]

I've heard .22 can be very deadly because the bullet can go through the skull, then becomes trapped and bounces around in there. Morbid thought, but can't remember who told me that....perhaps someone on this forum.

I pretty sure that a .22 rimfire does not have enough energy to 'bounce around inside a skull'. Merely penetrating the brain should be sufficient to take someone out of the fight, and a shot to the face that doesn't get hung up in the oral cavity oughta do it.

[horseshoe3]

Cop went casually into a highly charged situation. You're right, very first thing he should have said (with or without backup), "Hands where I can see 'em!" In which case he SHOULD have been able to outdraw his killer at least imo.

Hell, here in KS, the cops apparently have awesome quick draw skills. Just last week, a guy in a neighboring county got the drop on a deputy. The deputy followed him into a dark bedroom, flipped on the light switch and saw a gun pointed at his face. The deputy was able to reach down, draw his weapon, release the safety, present the weapon an fire multiple times before the other guy could move his trigger finger an eighth of an inch. And the public apparently believes the story.

BTW, domestic dispute of course. No violence, just the ex afraid that her baby might be in danger (wanted full custody). I knew the man. He was not a threat to anyone - especially his own child. He had diabetes. After he went to bed at night, his blood sugar went funny made him exhibit some of the same symptoms as alchohol. She knew that and set him up - told the dispatcher she was afraid he had been drinking.

[midnight rambler]

Hell, here in KS, the cops apparently have awesome quick draw skills. Just last week, a guy in a neighboring county got the drop on a deputy. The deputy followed him into a dark bedroom, flipped on the light switch and saw a gun pointed at his face. The deputy was able to reach down, draw his weapon, release the safety, present the weapon an fire multiple times before the other guy could move his trigger finger an eighth of an inch. And the public apparently believes the story.

BTW, domestic dispute of course. No violence, just the ex afraid that her baby might be in danger (wanted full custody). I knew the man. He was not a threat to anyone - especially his own child. He had diabetes. After he went to bed at night, his blood sugar went funny made him exhibit some of the same symptoms as alchohol. She knew that and set him up - told the dispatcher she was afraid he had been drinking.

The way things are now all it takes is for a wife/gf to say, "I'm scared of him because of...." and the target is done.

[Hitch]

The way things are now all it takes is for a wife/gf to say, "I'm scared of him because of...." and the target is done.

Sorry to hear about that, horseshoe. Midnight is right though, as men we take the burden of society and the laws are stacked against us.

Men are assumed guilty.

[singular_me]

a few nights behind bars vs death penalty... wouldnt be surprised if the killer was on meth. Thats extreme paranoia, IMHO

[midnight rambler]

a few nights behind bars vs death penalty... wouldnt be surprised if the killer was on meth. Thats extreme paranoia, IMHO

Good point, could have very well been a tweaker.

[singular_me]

of course, if he had hard drugs in his pockets, then he could have been years behind bars... that could explain better why he flipped out completely

[Hitch]

singular, I don't think that guy was a tweaker.

Gut feeling. Think it was a guy who was over emotional due to a situation with his girlfriend/wife. He was pushed over the edge, and two guys died.

It should have been handled differently, imo.