Those of you who read this blog know that I am not shy about posting and calling out the cops when they screw the pooch. Let’s look at this fatal shooting to see what happened. Youtube won’t let me embed the video, so I will wait here while you take a look.
He passed a cop on the highway at 105 miles per hour. In every state that I am aware of makes it an arrestable offence to exceed the speed limit by more than 30 miles per hour. Not only that, but the tags that were affixed to the Dodge truck were registered to a Subaru Forester. Both of these facts meant that the driver was getting put in handcuffs and probably going to jail.
What the deputy couldn’t have known at the time of the stop was the motorist he had stopped had just been exonerated after serving 16 years for a crime that he didn’t commit. That likely contributed to his actions that day on the side of the road, but again, the cop didn’t know any of this, nor does the exoneration have any bearing whatsoever on the shooting. All the cop knew was that the man was being belligerent, noncompliant, and was physically attacking him.
The family of the deceased man has hired Benjamin Crump (don’t they always?) and are suing the deputy and his department for unlawful and excessive force. This is the dream of black families- you have a family member that runs afoul of the law, fights with an armed person, then sue them to win the ghetto lottery.
As I already pointed out, putting him in handcuffs was lawful in this case, and once he demonstrated his noncompliance, the deputy began using the use of force ladder:
- Presence
- Voice commands (that didn’t work- the reply was “I ain’t doing shit.”)
- Open handed technique- the man grappled with the deputy
- Less lethal- note that this is another case where a TASER didn’t work. He rode out the shock, then swept his arm to rid himself of the wires, then began to physically attack the officer.
- Less Lethal 2- Now the ASP baton was brought into play, and the man became even more aggressive, grabbing the cop by the throat with enough force to bend him backwards while yelling, “Yeah, bitch.”
- Lethal- having exhausted the rest of the force continuum, he shot the man.
Later in the video, you can see that the cop was so exhausted from the fight that he was likely going to be overpowered if it had continued.
“And when they want to use excess force there, you have other parts of the body. You can shoot, you don’t have to always kill somebody,” [the dead man’s mother] said.
This is an example of the “shoot to wound” versus “shoot to kill” myth. That was exhausted earlier in the force continuum when the open hand, TASER, and baton failed to control the attacker.
“I’m not going to jail,” Cure says at one point.
Well, he was right about that. He went to the morgue, instead.
I don’t have a problem with the officer’s actions in this incident.
43 Comments
Stefan v. · August 14, 2024 at 6:47 am
“And when they want to use excess force there, you have other parts of the body. You can shoot, you don’t have to always kill somebody,” [the dead man’s mother] said.”
Ah, the famous Chicago Proportional Use of Ballistic Conflict Resolution method. Or is it Detroit? It differs from the Mogadishu Drill; instead of a doubletap to centre of mass followed by an anchor to the cranium, it is a diverse and equitable sharing of projectiles in an inclusively wide cone directed in the general direction of the conversation partner. Probably sponsored by the ammunition manufacturers in league with the paramedic’s union, and the glaziers’, painters’ and auto body repair guilds. The mining sector is yet to ally with the undertakers’, so get in quick on this neglected investment opportunity in dual-use industry!
TakeAHardLook · August 14, 2024 at 9:10 am
Well, that was a shytshow 16 years in the making.
On Hand #1 we have the cop who just brought a speeder to a halt at roadside; then is confronted with a fairly non-compliant, argumentative, then physically belligerent person–all in the space of less than 60 seconds.
On Hand #2 we have a black guy, very recent ex-con, who’s feeling free at last (tooling along at speed). He does comply (some) by stopping and getting out of the truck. After that it goes quickly downhill.
The cop is doing his job, not knowing just how much of a time bomb his speeder is; the black guy “ain’t going back” to jail, but he guarantees same by his non-compliance.
Once again, we see a black man in confrontation with The Law and the black man does not have the brain wattage to process that his interests will be better served in front of a judge; if he physically escalates the encounter it can only end in one way. But, as is often the case he fights the cop not considering that the cop has lethal stuff, radios, and even more cops ready to beat ass.
A smarter guy would put his hands on the truck and, later–alive and calm–could do some ‘splainin’ while all lawyered up. Who knows, in this f’d up Leftard judicial world, if a sympathetic Leftard judge might show some consideration for the guy’s history and cut him some slack!
Hard to state one’s case when toe-tagged in the morgue. “Live to fight another day” is not encoded in black male DNA.
Score this one for the police; the dash cam is the witness for the entire shytshow.
Reader · August 14, 2024 at 9:20 am
If i was the cop I’d have my lawyer ask “what if the perp shoved the cop into the traffic?”
There was no way that perp was calming down or complying, he was determined to kill the cop.
D · August 14, 2024 at 9:43 am
> He passed a cop on the highway at 105 miles per hour. In every state that I am aware of makes it an arrestable offence to exceed the speed limit by more than 30 miles per hour.
So…he didn’t harm anyone and didn’t damage property?
> Not only that, but the tags that were affixed to the Dodge truck were registered to a Subaru Forester.
So it’s possible he stole plates from someone or maybe he grabbed plates from the junkyard to try to avoid getting in trouble for exercising his right to travel that the government has turned into a license / permitting process.
Cops will kill you over trivial shit.
Divemedic · August 14, 2024 at 4:14 pm
You’re better than that. The cop didn’t kill him because he was speeding.
D · August 14, 2024 at 9:52 pm
The entire chain of events appears to have started with the cop seeing someone speeding and sticking his nose into it.
If you flip off a cop and he chases you to your house, kicks in your door, fights with you, shoots you and then finds weed in your house is that justification for his initial actions?
Divemedic · August 15, 2024 at 7:27 am
So many logical errors in one short comment.
– speeding (especially more than 30 mph over the speed limit while in moderate traffic) is illegal
– Enforcing the law isn’t “sticking his nose in into it,” it’s literally his job.
– Flipping off a cop isn’t illegal
– We aren’t talking about a cop who entered someone’s house on false pretenses. We are talking about a guy who broke the law, got caught, then decided that he wasn’t going to be punished for his legal transgression, then used deadly force in resisting the person who is charged with enforcing that law.
Learn to be objective. Cops aren’t always right, nor are all cops always wrong.
D · August 15, 2024 at 10:19 am
> We are talking about a guy who broke the law, got caught, then decided that he wasn’t going to be punished for his legal transgression
I think that’s where you and I continue to disagree.
If you haven’t harmed anyone, haven’t damaged property, and don’t have a warrant out, the government should have zero business involving itself in your life.
They already use “you were going faster than our arbitrary limit” as an excuse to stop you, run a dog around your car, convince it to alert to make its master happy, seize your belongings under civil asset forfeiture, and destroy your life.
I’m not willing to incrementally give them more and more power based on what shitty unelected bureaucrats decide they should be allowed to get away with.
jimmyPx · August 15, 2024 at 10:09 pm
There is the ideal and then there is reality.
Should the government and the police be involved in 3/4 of the stuff they are ?? Hell No but the problem is the politicians that WE elected have passed laws and it is the cop’s job to enforce those laws.
Reality means that even if you disagree with a law you better obey it or you will pay the price.
This dumbass decided to go 100 miles an hour which is reckless driving and will get you arrested. He then decided to fight the cop and ended up getting killed. That’s on the dumbass. If he had obeyed the law and the speed limit he’d have had no problems.
D · August 16, 2024 at 8:57 am
> There is the ideal and then there is reality.
And the ideal won’t happen as long as people keep making excuses for reality.
> Hell No but the problem is the politicians that WE elected have passed laws and it is the cop’s job to enforce those laws.
Do you seriously think “we” elected those politicians?
And if we did, do you think being elected gives them carte blanche permission to enact whatever laws they want?
Cops and politicians both swore an oath. It’s unsurprising this check and balance has completely failed. Politicians vote to screw over the peasants, cops say “I’m just enforcing the laws, go vote harder next time if you don’t like it”.
> This dumbass decided to go 100 miles an hour which is reckless driving and will get you arrested.
I’ve done well over 100 plenty of times. Zero injuries to anyone. Should cops be allowed to take a shot at destroying my life, forcing me to pay them and the government mandatory insurance companies more money? Should I be locked in a cage like a dog for not harming anyone?
> He then decided to fight the cop and ended up getting killed.
What should people do when faced with unconstitutional laws? Not resist, go through a corrupt system, and willingly load themselves into the train cars out of nobility?
> If he had obeyed the law and the speed limit he’d have had no problems.
“If you just comply…”. Dear God that’s horrific.
Divemedic · August 16, 2024 at 12:03 pm
Your theory of “no one is a victim, so there should be no crime” is nonsense.
That would mean standing in Times Square and firing a gun down the street should only be a crime if you hit someone.
It’s a typically childish Libertarian argument, and one of the main reasons why the entire libertarian platform is a nonstarter.
D · August 16, 2024 at 12:56 pm
> That would mean standing in Times Square and firing a gun down the street should only be a crime if you hit someone.
Reckless endangerment. Your actions are so careless that there is a very high likelihood that someone will be seriously injured or killed.
That should apply to DUI as well. I never understood why DUI gets a special area in the law that makes it a slap on the wrist when someone gets injured.
Divemedic · August 16, 2024 at 1:56 pm
Cool, then doesn’t the same apply to driving 30mph over the speed limit while in traffic?
McChuck · August 16, 2024 at 2:45 am
“So…he didn’t harm anyone and didn’t damage property?”
Yet. But he was bound to do so. That’s why it’s called “reckless endangerment.”
If your neighbor empties a machine gun into your yard, but somehow misses you, your family, your dog, and even your house, were his actions “harmless”? Will you confront him to ensure his actions are not repeated? Or will you calmly wait while he reloads to try again?
D · August 16, 2024 at 1:45 pm
> But he was bound to do so.
Can you provide a clear statement of the difference between doing 70 MPH in a 70 and doing 85 in a 70? I’m having difficulty figuring out why going an arbitrary speed over some other arbitrary speed suddenly makes someone “bound to” do damage. I’ve done triple the speed limit on a road with no traffic in the middle of the desert. There was exactly *no* way anyone could have been harmed other than myself. But I was doing that through a school zone at 3 PM when classes let out and the road had hundreds of cars it would be nearly impossible NOT to kill someone.
> If your neighbor empties a machine gun into your yard but somehow misses you, your family, your dog, and even your house
You did it again there. “Somehow misses”…like…you’re incredulous I survived his reckless actions.
If I’m doing 100 MPH in a 70 on a deserted desert highway would you be just as incredulous that I “somehow survived”?
When NASCAR is on TV are you stunned that somehow one car managed to survive to make it to the finish line?
In my state, reckless endangerment is defined as “A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.”
Is there a risk of killing someone if you’re doing 70 in a 70? Yup. So why don’t you get arrested every time you get in your car? I’d bet it has to do with the definition of “substantial”, because humans engage in a lot of common activities that increase your risk.
Divemedic · August 16, 2024 at 1:59 pm
You twist what happened to make a point. He was going 35 mph over while driving in moderately heavy traffic. It wasn’t an empty highway in the desert.
He rightly deserved to be stopped for that.
D · August 16, 2024 at 11:24 pm
I’m not twisting it.
If someone’s doing 35-under in that same traffic, will the cops be overzealous in arresting them for reckless endangerment too?
If you think 35 over is all it takes to meet the criteria of “reckless endangerment”, maybe you can provide a scale for clarification. Is 1 over reckless? 5? 10? Where’s the cut-off?
I’d argue all day long that doing 35 over in a school zone in the middle of the day with students and cars around is reckless. I used to live a few blocks from a school. Cops would blow through there doing well beyond 35 over.
Divemedic · August 17, 2024 at 6:42 am
What the cops do is a different topic.
We get it, you don’t want to follow any laws.
D · August 17, 2024 at 9:15 am
Fine. You caught me. I don’t want government held to a strict standard of when they can and can’t screw with my fellow countrymen. I guess I want anarchy where whoever has the most guns gets to screw with my fellow countrymen.
Divemedic · August 17, 2024 at 9:40 am
Cool. Feel free to jet down the road at 175 miles per hour with all of your strawman arguments.
D · August 17, 2024 at 11:09 pm
> Cool. Feel free to jet down the road at 175 miles per hour with all of your strawman arguments.
Cool. Feel free to hurdle faster into tyranny.
When did this become about hurdling quips and insults instead of a reasoned discussion?
No one’s answered the basic question. If I’m doing 85 in a 70, can you show me how you’ve been injured? Can you show where I’ve recklessly endangered your life without hand-waving about “faster is moar dangerous” when you’re already hurdling down the road at a very lethal 70 miles per hour?
Or how not allowing the government to screw with people if they haven’t harmed anyone or damaged property is a bad thing?
Divemedic · August 18, 2024 at 9:39 am
Because the risk of you injuring someone is greater than if you were doing the correct speed. Engineers have designed the roads to be safe at a certain speed. Now does that mean that some roads haven’t had their speed limits reduced so cops can write more tickets? Of course not, and we all know that speed traps exist. I’ve blogged about that here. However, there is an upper limit of what is safe and that limit must be enforced. You can argue where the limit should be, but there is no doubt that there is a limit beyond which the risk becomes intolerable. That speed is determined by the number of accidents and their severity that happen under the conditions on that road. That’s why a school zone has a limit of 20 mph, and an open, limited access highway in a rural area (being the conditions that have been shown to be the safest) has a higher speed limit.
Multiple studies have been done on this, and there are many that show a 10 mph increase in highway speed increases the rate of all accidents by 10% and fatal accidents by 40%. This effect has been reproduced in different nations all over the world. Now there are certain technological advancements that have had a safety effect that allows for faster speeds- things like antilock brakes, collision avoidance systems, and the like have made roads safer, but all things being equal, higher speeds mean more accidents and more fatalities. For that reason, there is a balancing that needs to take place between reducing transit times and the risks of accidents, especially those that result in accidents. Waiting to penalize someone for high risk behavior until after someone’s property is destroyed, their health ruined, or their life ended is a rather poor model for setting policy.
All of those are valid reasons for restricting speeds on public roads. Your strawman of saying we should arrest NASCAR drivers for speeding while they are on a private track where everyone agrees to the risk is simply a fallacious argument.
D · August 18, 2024 at 11:17 am
It’s not the issue of speed in most cases. It’s the issue is mismatched speed between vehicles (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140130412331290925).
And of course there’s the issue of morons camping in the left lane doing 2 under the speed limit holding up everyone else’s right to use the road.
> All of those are valid reasons for restricting speeds on public roads. Your strawman of saying we should arrest NASCAR drivers for speeding while they are on a private track where everyone agrees to the risk is simply a fallacious argument.
> but all things being equal, higher speeds mean more accidents and more fatalities.
Ok…again…why isn’t the speed limited *everywhere* to 20 miles per hour. You’d basically eliminate all traffic fatalities over night.
Who gets to decide what the “acceptable risk” is and when government is allowed to violate you?
Maybe we should allow government to limit all weapons to paintball guns and padded training batons. Sure, there’d still be criminals with guns, but when government catches them and jails them when they haven’t harmed anyone, eventually the problem will go away, right? Just keep issuing fines and/or jail time until the problem goes away.
Again, what’s the problem with preventing government from acting against people unless a violation of rights has occurred?
Imagine for a moment the private insurance companies got together and said “You’re insured, but only up to 70 on the freeway. If you exceed that, you’re not insured anymore.” Or “Yeah, we have an insurance package that covers doing up to 120, but it’ll cost you $800/mo”? Imagine people being free to make their own decisions and facing the consequences on the road? Right now speeding, DUI and other things that result in injury or death to another person is “administrative” bullshit.
Imagine if some drunk hit your loved one injuring them and you could actually sue them directly for all the damages, all the medical care, etc…instead of getting whatever their insurance paid out? And if your loved one was killed, the drunk faced the death penalty instead of administratively suspending their license for 6 months and maybe some mandatory rehab that never seems to work?
Sure, you can go after them civilly, but you’ll get a pittance and it’s likely their insurance will take care of a good chunk of it. And if it doesn’t, it’s not like the courts will hand over their car, their house, their property, or their bank accounts and garnish their wages to cover your loss.
Like most things, government exists in these cases to generate revenue off people who speed or drive drunk, and limit what you can do when they injure someone.
Divemedic · August 18, 2024 at 12:44 pm
Again, there is no reasoning with you. I am giving you studies, you are performing reducto ad absurdium. This thread is going nowhere, and replies are now closed.
See rule # 1 at this link.
The law is what it is. If you have a problem with the law, that isn’t the subject of this post. That’s a problem between you and your elected representatives.
The cop is enforcing the law.
Comments to this thread are now closed, mostly because I am not interested in getting in a long debate over unrelated things with someone who replies to a well researched response with a list of unrelated, made up examples.
Tree Mike · August 14, 2024 at 10:03 am
Somethin’, somethin’…attitude, impulse control…somethin’. somethin’…dead.
If only there might have been other options Mr. Cure
IcyReaper · August 14, 2024 at 10:47 am
Yep, another Ghetto Lotto winner for sure, since govt wont fight these cases they just pay out citizens money and then tax us more to make up for it.
You got 6 or so young savages, send them out to go after cops, after they get killed or crippled, you and the rest are rich for life.
Want to thank you for these past couple stories about less lethal being pretty much worthless in the real bad cases. Showed both to my wife, it is changing her thinking about doubting use of lethal force first. If its them or me or my family being killed from their 3rd world bullshit. I choose them every time.
Noway2 · August 14, 2024 at 11:43 am
On another forum venue, I have recently been engaged in a discussion about an incident where a woman fled from a traffic stop, initially eluded, and then was pursued by a second group of cops. The second group had a trainee driving and the other cop instructed him in using the PIT maneuver which sent the woman’s car into the Jersey barrier after which it rolled several times. She was ejected from the car and died on the pavement. Fortunately, no other motorists were involved and there were no passengers or children in the woman’s car. The news reports I have seen did NOT indicate the reason for the initial attempt at a traffic stop, and as far as I know it could have been something as stupid as missing a sticker on the Crown’s highway permit.
The case you present is different in that action was taken in an attempt to stop an active and immediate hazard and the cop utilized the force continuum instead of going directly to lethal, which happens far too often.
While I am not a supporter of police, as in tax funded career enforcers for the State, for several reasons and I think they should be abolished in their current form, I will concede that in this instance, yes, they got it right.
C · August 14, 2024 at 12:21 pm
Not a cop. I think it was a good shoot. The only thing I’d have done differently is request an additional officer at the very beginning of the stop. However I know that isn’t always a luxury they have.
Silverfox · August 14, 2024 at 12:54 pm
Makes me question the exoneration that freed him from prison. Further, the manner in which the perp behaved reveals a wealth of information regarding his psychological make up. I don’t think he was made that way due to 16 years in prison. I don’t believe he was studying to be a Docta when he got out either. No this is more likely a bad guy that was made much worse during the course of his incarceration.
And this event occurs what, a day or two after release? Switched plates? No, exoneration on a technicality. Justice in the end.
Silverfox.
Noway2 · August 15, 2024 at 9:36 am
Indeed. The one thing prison is successful at is making hardened criminals.
Grumpy51 · August 14, 2024 at 3:36 pm
I’ve watched/listened to several times…. never heard a gunshot. That’s a lesson in itself.
wojtek · August 14, 2024 at 3:47 pm
“had just been exonerated”
I don’t think 3 years classifies as “had just”.
But it is an absolutely crazy case: life for armered robbery?
Divemedic · August 14, 2024 at 4:18 pm
Florida has a 10/20/life law. It may have been connected to that. I don’t care enough to check.
wojtek · August 16, 2024 at 12:34 am
I was curious and checked: it can’t be that law. Life actually means 25 to life, and it requires shooting a person. He didn’t. Absolutely crazy.
Divemedic · August 16, 2024 at 7:31 am
Again, I am not interested in spending time finding out his life story. The facts are out there, if you are that interested, you can look it up. I personally don’t give a rats behind as to why someone gets a life sentence for threatening to kill someone in order to steal their property.
wojtek · August 16, 2024 at 12:00 pm
You probably should. Because if threatening to kill and actually killing someone yields the same penalty in your state, then citizens of that state are in a greater danger. There is no incentive for criminals to leave witnesses. Which is exactly what got this guy convicted in the first place – witnesses.
Divemedic · August 16, 2024 at 1:55 pm
We have the death penalty here. Still, threat of punishment doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent, does it?
McChuck · August 16, 2024 at 2:50 am
Armed robbery means he threatened to kill someone if they didn’t give him their valuables, while displaying an obvious means to do so. Do you think this is a minor crime? Is “attempted murder” okay because the assailant ultimately failed to kill, despite their best efforts?
Univ of Saigon 68 · August 14, 2024 at 3:55 pm
You call ’em like you see ’em.
Anonymous · August 14, 2024 at 7:20 pm
Even if this perpetrator didn’t commit the crime that got him locked up, I’m sure he did a progression of lesser crimes to get there. I get the impression that the percentage of fully-adult first-degree criminals who reform and become contributing members of society is tiny. Therefore, as a taxpayer, why should I want to pay for penitentiaries, which appear to function more as a catch-and-release wildlife conservation program for criminals?
> https://www.fws.gov/earthday/programs
>
> The Urban Wildlife Conservation Program prioritizes conservation and recreational access in urban areas where more than 80 percent of Americans live and can more directly benefit. We are addressing equity, the climate crisis and jobs through urban engagement.
Trailer For Sale Or Rent · August 15, 2024 at 9:50 am
I’d say this is a good shoot.
Used to be, a policeman could patrol by himself. These days, it’s madness to do that.
TBL · August 15, 2024 at 4:10 pm
‘had just been exonerated’, but the linked ‘Wikipedia’ article says he was exonerated/released in 2020, so 4 years.
Aesop · August 15, 2024 at 4:21 pm
I fault the cop. He got too sucked into arguing with a doped up A-hole, dicked around too long, should have tased him sooner, and should have shot him the second he began fighting off the taser probes.
But I wasn’t there on the day.
1) It was only 90 seconds after the stop before it went physical. And the cop was losing against prison muscles the entirety of that time afterwards, until he opened fire.
2) The taser was pussy-strength, clearly.
3) Going for the ASP after the taser failed??? WTF? That should have been Glock, not baton.
4) Trying to choke the deputy was deadly force. I count 6-8 shots in reply, which notably ended the fight in about 2 seconds. I’m frankly surprised he didn’t mag-dump Dindu once he had the opportunity.
5) Considering Dindu was still flailing and trying to get up afterwards, a mag-dump would have been entirely justifiable, to include a coup-degrace head shot.
6) I’ll match paychecks Dindu was under-the-influence of something. Most likely methamphetamine. He behaves like someone tweaking hard and high as a kite, not like a sober person.
That county, and the State of GA should send Dindu’s family a FAFO medal with a bronze star for a posthumous award. He earned every bit of it.
This was unquestionably a public service homicide, (Type 4 – “praiseworthy” – on Ambrose Bierce’s list) and the mean IQ of GA was higher after the shooting than it was before it.
And it very nearly became another dashcam video of a deputy getting killed in the Death Zone between cars.
Dindu? ZFG. Good riddance.
Comments are closed.