Some Initial Thoughts on the SC Highway Patrolman Shooting in Columbia, SC

If you hadn't already seen this, on September 4, a South Carolina Highway Patrol officer shot a motorist during a traffic stop. They just released the dashboard cam video yesterday. Here's the video.

I've watched the video a few times, and it's clear that this was not a good traffic stop. Also, I'm going to say this up front: This shooting should not have happened. Nothing I am about to say should be construed to justify this shooting. OK? So save all the hate mail.

My initial impression is that things start to go a little sideways when the driver gets out of the car. Normally, you stay in your car at a traffic stop. Pretty much everyone knows that. I think law enforcement officers kind of get their "antenna up" when a driver immediately gets out of the car at a traffic stop.

Having said that, this officer certainly did not handle the situation appropriately. He did not control the environment well, and he did not interact with the driver appropriately. So, even though the driver did not do a good thing by getting out of the car, it's the officer's job to handle that situation.

It appears to me that the officer assumed that the driver was reaching into his car for a weapon. This was a bad assumption. Police officers should not shoot people based on assumptions.

Here are the factors that jump out at me that make this incident really bad;

Obviously, it's a white officer shooting a black driver. So of course, there's the element of race. Would this officer have reacted the same way if the driver had been an elderly white woman? I don't know. But this is the first factor that everyone sees. And it's important to recognize this factor.

The traffic stop seems to have occurred during the day. To me, this factor cuts against the officer. We're not talking about a 2:00AM traffic stop, here. For all the officer knows, this guy is on his way to work or something. The scene is well-lit, and there aren't any obstructions.

According to the WIS piece I linked above, the traffic stop was for a seat-belt violation. Now, it's fair game to stop someone for not wearing a seat-belt, but we're not talking about a felony here. Common sense tells you that stopping someone for a seat-belt violation is different than stopping someone for a serious charge. Again, this factor cuts against the officer. Not wearing your seat belt is a relatively minor violation.

Also, when did the officer draw his weapon? It's not clear from the video, but the first time you see the officer come into view, he already has his weapon drawn, extended, and pointed at the driver. To me, this indicates he already had it drawn. Again, that doesn't seem right.

Those are all bad things. Now for a couple of positives:

The driver is alive. That's the best news. No one is dead. Thank goodness.

Unlike Ferguson, there is a dashboard camera video, so we can all see what happened. We're not relying on eyewitness accounts from people inside the gas station. Remember how all the eyewitness accounts in Ferguson were dramatically different? At least with a video, there is a record of what happened.

The police officer was fired, and charged with a crime. This is probably the most important thing, so I probably should have mentioned it earlier. Law enforcement has to operate under the same laws as you and I do. Therefore, if you or I had shot this man in this situation, it's clear that we would have been arrested. Accordingly, I applaud the authorities for not trying to put the officer on "administrative leave" or some nonsense. You apply the same process to police officers as you do to citizens. This officer is now facing up to 20 years in prison for this incident. That's not inconsequential.

The video was released. This point dovetails into the lat one, but it's commendable that the video was released so we could all see for ourselves what actually occurred. There doesn't appear to be any attempt to sweep this under the rug. And that's very good.

Hopefully, the authorities will continue act in a responsible manner and other law enforcement officers will take this as a moment to really think about how they conduct traffic stops. They have a tough job, but they also have the responsibility to do it correctly. In this incident, the job was not handled correctly.

Anyone else have any other thoughts? There's lots to unpack here.

Should Cops Chase Criminals?

Apparently, Warren Bolton over at The State is against police officers chasing bad guys who flee - because it's just too gosh darn dangerous. His column is based on the story of a driver who fled from the Cayce police department back in December.

The basic facts are that a Cayce police officer attempted to make a nighttime traffic stop on a vehicle driving without headlights. The driver decided to flee, and a high-speed pursuit began. The pursuit ended when the suspect's vehicle crashed into an innocent person's vehicle. Unfortunately, the innocent third-party driver died as a result of the collision.

From these facts, Mr. Bolton draws the conclusion that Cayce police officers should adopt a policy of not pursuing people for "routine traffic violations".

Not all chases are wise chases; most aren’t. Frankly, there rarely is a justifiable reason for officers to engage in a high-speed chase. It’s the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with innocent bystanders’ lives.
The only time a chase is absolutely warranted is when it involves a violent suspect — a murderer on the run or someone firing shots from a car — who is clearly endangering the public.

This is a pretty restrictive rule. If this is your rule for chasing, that means a drunk guy weaving all over the road shouldn't be pursued by the police when he decides not to stop. This means that anyone with expired tags shouldn't be pursued if they decide not to stop. Speeding? Heck, they shouldn't be chasing you for that anymore, either. If you're already driving fast, just drive a little faster if you see the blue lights. As long as you're not a "violent suspect" I guess you're fine. Rob a bank? Hey, as long as you didn't shoot anyone, just keep on driving. The police won't chase you.

Now obviously, high-speed chases are dangerous. But if the suspect is already fleeing at a high rate of speed, they're already causing a dangerous situation. I'm not really concerned about the police following them because my assumption is that the police are pretty safe drivers, comparatively. They've trained for this. My guess is that if you look at the statistics about high-speed chases, it's the people fleeing who cause the problems, not the police. Yes, accidents will happen. But there's a cost-benefit analysis here. As cold as it sounds, I'm fine with the risk associated with most high-speed chases because criminals know that they can't run. Also, in this day and age, police have lots of resources at their disposal. They can call ahead to other units, use GPS, and in larger jurisdictions there are helicopters available.

Running from the cops should be like kidnapping. You just really can't get away with it anymore.

Mr. Bolton believes that not only is statewide standard is needed, but that officers now need to get permission to chase someone. That's silly.

Let’s not only establish a statewide minimum standard for police chases, but let’s require that officers be well-versed and well-trained on the policy and that they get authorization from a superior before initiating a chase.

[SCENE]

Police Officer Do-Right is driving down the street on a nice sunny Spring day. All of a sudden, a car runs a red light right in front of him going 80 miles an hour. Officer Do-Right turns on his lights/siren and turns to follow. He quickly realizes that he'll need to go faster to keep up.

Officer Do-Right: Dispatch, this is Officer Do-Right, I'm in pursuit of a black ford on Knox Abbot. Is it ok if I chase him?

Dispatch: What did the suspect do?

Officer Do-Right: He drove through a red light at 80 miles an hour right in front of me, and now he's going even faster to get away. Can I follow him? He's getting away!

Dispatch: Let me see if I can find a supervisor. Please wait.

[30 seconds go by]

Lieutenant Big-Time: Hey officer Do-Right, this is Lieutenant Big-Time, what's happening?

Officer Do-Right: I'm requesting permission to chase a guy who blew through a red light at 80 miles an hour right in front of me.

Lieutenant Big-Time: Did he have a gun? Was he a murderer?

Officer Do-Right: I don't know, he was going really fast and ran a red light, that's all I know!

Lieutenant Big-Time: Well how do we know that he's really dangerous? Did he shoot at you?

Officer Do-Right: No! He's way ahead of me now.

Lieutenant Big-Time:  Hmmmm....seems speculative.

Officer Do-Right: Oh nevermind, he's already gotten away. I don't know where he is anymore.

Lieutenant Big-Time: Ok, well...good job officer. I'm glad you called to get permission before you did something reckless like chase someone. I'm glad you called to check before you used your initiative. We can't have officers using their initiative; that wouldjust bee too dangerous. Carry on patrolling.

[SCENE]

That sounds like a great policy to me. Amirite?

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/03/13/2672643/bolton-warning-3000-pound-missile.html#storylink=cpy

As you can see from the first scene in my upcoming movie Stop....or I'll Say Stop Again, the police can't have the policy of "We won't chase you unless you're a murderer or shooting at us". That's just an invitation to disregard the police.

I would actually go the other way. If you flee from the cops, they're going to chase you down, catch you, and then you're going to be prosecuted for it. And make that sentence a tough one. We live is a society that has laws. We're either going to follow the law, or we're going to be lawless. Fleeing from the police is a crime in and of itself. I guess Mr. Bolton doesn't really care about enforcing that law, though.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/03/13/2672643/bolton-warning-3000-pound-missile.html#storylink=cpy