Cruiser video shows Cop shooting

[DixieFlatline]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286667,00.html

Hate to see this. Looks like the police officer got a little complacent after pepper spraying the suspect. Sounds like a passerby took care of the guy that shot the officer. How much you want to bet, he gets sued by someone? There is a video showing the shooting, but, luckily, you can't see the officer.

[IONTOP]

That is sick... I hope those criminals are caught in a "firey shootout" and both killed (several times)....


It's also sick that the news released the footage (Unless they haven't found the suspects yet, but I still don't see why they had to show the shooting)

[MSJHWT]

Damn, that horrible, I'm glad that guy got what was coming to him from the Ex-Marine, but feel so bad for the officer and his family =(
I hope the scum who was riding with him gets thrown in the slammer, too.

[Painkiller]

When new officers are trained, it's these type of videos that are used to show them about what can happen when they let their guard down. The officer unfortunately made a bad mistake, and it cost him his life. Never turn your back on a suspect. From looking at the video though, I'm not sure he'd have been able to survive that even if he was facing the guy. He just drew and fired. In this situation, the officer would have been hit no matter what he did.

Another name for the wall this year.

[speardog1]

It looks like the officer and the kid who shot him had a past. The officer may have used excessive force. Read this:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...S0201/70626018

I'm not defending the kid who shot the officer at all, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility that the officer may have used excessive force himself. No one deserves to get shot, but it does seem as if the cop had something personal against this kid. If there's one thing I can't stand is a person of authority abusing their power. I'm not going draw any conclusions, but I am a little skeptical about why this really happened.

[Chump Bailey]

It looks like the officer and the kid who shot him had a past. The officer may have used excessive force. Read this:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...S0201/70626018

I'm not defending the kid who shot the officer at all, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility that the officer may have used excessive force himself. No one deserves to get shot, but it does seem as if the cop had something personal against this kid. If there's one thing I can't stand is a person of authority abusing their power. I'm not going draw any conclusions, but I am a little skeptical about why this really happened.

But you clearly have drawn a conclusion - you think the cop was in the wrong. The kid should have stayed put during the initial stop - he didn't and attempted to flee which is why the officer employed the actions he did at the second stop.

What did you read that makes you skeptical?

[speardog1]

I'm not defending the kid who shot the officer at all.... No one deserves to get shot...

What's not clear about that? No one deserves to get shot and killed. My point is that I'm not going to draw a conclusion.

[Popeman38]

What's not clear about that? No one deserves to get shot and killed. My point is that I'm not going to draw a conclusion.

Because your original post says:

It looks like the officer and the kid who shot him had a past. The officer may have used excessive force. Read this:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...S0201/70626018
I'm not defending the kid who shot the officer at all, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility that the officer may have used excessive force himself. No one deserves to get shot, but it does seem as if the cop had something personal against this kid. If there's one thing I can't stand is a person of authority abusing their power. I'm not going draw any conclusions, but I am a little skeptical about why this really happened.

You are basically saying that the cop used excessive force. Everything I have bolded in your original post points to you defending Kenney and placing the blame on the shoulders of the cop. The guy fled the first stop. He was convicted of assaulting this same officer. Now he has killed the officer. Who has the vendetta against again?

[speardog1]

Because your original post says:You are basically saying that the cop used excessive force. Everything I have bolded in your original post points to you defending Kenney and placing the blame on the shoulders of the cop. The guy fled the first stop. He was convicted of assaulting this same officer. Now he has killed the officer. Who has the vendetta against again?

NO. I said it's a possibility. The kid fled, he has a gun, I agree he's a thug. But at what point do you see the kid deserving of that amount of pepper spray? Why not pull out your gun and tell him to get out of the car, hands on the hood of the car or on the ground etc? I'm guessing (NOTE GUESSING) because these two had a past, this cop let his own anger get in the way of good judgement. It seems possible the cop's anger fueled the kid to shoot him. Oh, but you know, it doesn't matter because the cop gets shot so he's a hero, end of story. I'm just trying to point out that there are two sides to every story.

[IONTOP]

Oh, but you know, it doesn't matter because the cop gets shot so he's a hero, end of story.

I'd rather live and not be a hero, than die and be a hero... That's just my take on it...

I felt the pepper spray was justified, because the cop didn't want the suspect to flee again... Which from the video, was a good possiblility...

[rictus58]

I'm just trying to point out that there are two sides to every story.

And both sides of the story end with a cop being shot without justification and the person who shot him twice driving over his body.

[chomerics]

Well, I look at it this way. . .both ended up dead and both had a tumultuous past. The cop knew who the kid was, and knew the kid had already requested to have another officer deal with him because of the history. The cop, using his position of authority, most likely went over the line in the past (judging by statements in the article), and should have had hit guard up when pulling the kid over.

I mean if the cop knew the kid had it out for him, why turn your back? Why not call for backup? When even approach the kid alone?

I agree there are two sides to every story, the kid is dead, and he deserved to be shot. The cop, may or may not have done things in the past which caused the kid to act in this manner, but he should have been aware knowing the history with him. . .

[Popeman38]

NO. I said it's a possibility. The kid fled, he has a gun, I agree he's a thug. But at what point do you see the kid deserving of that amount of pepper spray? Why not pull out your gun and tell him to get out of the car, hands on the hood of the car or on the ground etc? I'm guessing (NOTE GUESSING) because these two had a past, this cop let his own anger get in the way of good judgement. It seems possible the cop's anger fueled the kid to shoot him. Oh, but you know, it doesn't matter because the cop gets shot so he's a hero, end of story. I'm just trying to point out that there are two sides to every story.

First, this guy was convicted of assaulting the very same officer.
Second, he had already fled once.
Third, pepper spray is a non violent way to deal with a violent person (see the assault conviction).
Fourth, doesn't matter what the cop did or did not do to anger the suspect. The shooting was in no way justified or provoked.
Fifth, if you think the cop let his anger get in the way of good judgement, what did the suspect do? He KILLED the cop. The cop sprayed him with pepper spray Which one is lethal again?
Sixth, after shooting the cop several times the suspect proceeded to run him over with the car not once, but twice.

You are correct, there are two sides to every story. One side is the boo-hoo story of a violent convict who was "intimidated" by a cop so he shot him and ran him over twice in "self defense".
The other side is a cop who is doing his job trying to apprehend a suspect who has already assaulted him and fled a traffic stop and losing his life.

Hmmmm, which side would I fall on? The side of the cop. Call me biased all you want.

[speardog1]

Well, I look at it this way. . .both ended up dead and both had a tumultuous past. The cop knew who the kid was, and knew the kid had already requested to have another officer deal with him because of the history. The cop, using his position of authority, most likely went over the line in the past (judging by statements in the article), and should have had hit guard up when pulling the kid over.

I mean if the cop knew the kid had it out for him, why turn your back? Why not call for backup? When even approach the kid alone?

I agree there are two sides to every story, the kid is dead, and he deserved to be shot. The cop, may or may not have done things in the past which caused the kid to act in this manner, but he should have been aware knowing the history with him. . .

Exactly, I agree with every word.

[Chump Bailey]

In a summary report, prosecutors said McKay, 48, was justified in using non-deadly force on Kenney, 24, partly because of a violent confrontation between the two men four years earlier

The attorney general also said Floyd was justified in shooting Kenney as he tried to protect McKay.

"All of the actions by Corporal McKay constituted a reasonable use of nondeadly physical force by a law enforcement officer," the report said.

Also, "Liko Kenney's use of deadly physical force against Corporal McKay was not justified," the report said.

Macaulay said Kenney was upset and asked to deal with another officer instead of McKay. Kenney's relatives said he had that agreement with police; Attorney General Kelly Ayotte said that wasn't practical or reasonable.

Kenney and McKay had met four years earlier, in a confrontation that ended with Kenney being taken down by McKay and two other officers. Kenney eventually pleaded guilty to assaulting McKay and resisting arrest, though relatives insisted Kenney was beaten by McKay. The bad blood had continued ever since.

As recently as April, McKay urged fellow officers to beware of Kenney, in a memo describing him as armed and having "potential for volatility."

The family and friends of the kid felt he was being bullied (shocker) although no disciplinary action was ever taken against the officer to validate such claims which likely would have been included in the article if such action was ever taken.

You either believe what IMO is a born loser degenerate or the police officer - I'll go with the officer on this one.