Phoenix officer who shot, killed Ryan Whitaker reinstated

[kenpoprofessor]

https://www.12news.com/article/news/loc ... 101a852d68


C'mon boys, back the blue, they'll risk "our Lives" every day you know.


Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

[smithers599]

I am as contemptuous of bad cops as anybody, and there are plenty of them, but IMO, that one was a righteous shoot, and the cop should get his job and his life back.

[kenpoprofessor]

I am as contemptuous of bad cops as anybody, and there are plenty of them, but IMO, that one was a righteous shoot, and the cop should get his job and his life back.

I disagree, it was a horrible death of an innocent man caused by a scared cop who shouldn't have guns.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

[Suck My Glock]

Sorry Smithers, you must be blind. The fellow was compliant and disarmed when the officer shot him. I'm no fan of the chief, but she made the right call to fire his azz.

[Rock Hardson]

The guy busted out of his apartment into the breezeway with a handgun behind his back. He got himself killed.

[smithers599]

There has already been a thread on this shooting. When viewed from the first officer's bodycam, it is apparent that the guy is trying to put the gun down. When viewed from the shooter's bodycam, what he sees is the guy come out with a gun concealed behind his back. Then he sees the guy go to kneeling and bring the gun out to his front, where it is then out of the shooter's view. He cannot see where the gun is pointing -- it could be pointing at the first officer, and that would be a very reasonable assumption.

Please watch the video:

If you haven't seen this, you should. What the shooting officer saw is very different from what the first officer saw. Based on what the shooting officer saw, his actions were completely reasonable. If I saw a guy come through the door, facing my wife, with a gun concealed behind his back, and then that gun came around to his front, out of my view, I would shoot.

This reminds me of the prosecutor's argument in the Rittenhouse case -- that between the first shot on Rosenbaum and the second shot, Rittenhouse should have seen that Rosenbaum was grievously wounded and didn't need to be shot again. Rittenhouse's four shots on Rosenbaum happened in 3/4 of asecond, that is, .25 splits. You can't evaluate the effect of your shot in a quarter of a second, just not humanly possible.

Likewise, in the 3/4 of a second the shooting officer had, it was not humanly possible to see that Whitaker had moved his gun to the front to surrender rather than to shoot the partner.

I will post my second observation in a separate post.

[smithers599]

The guy busted out of his apartment into the breezeway with a handgun behind his back. He got himself killed.

Why did Whitaker bust out of his apartment into the breezeway with a handgun behind his back?
Option 1 -- He believed his life was in danger, and there was a deadly threat outside the door against which he might need to defend himself. If that was what he believed, then that was a pretty stupid tactic. If you think there is somebody out there who intends to kill you, don't go out there.

Option 2 -- He did not believe that his life was in danger. He expected to find his unarmed neighbor complaining about the noise, and he intended to threaten and intimidate the neighbor by displaying his gun. That is both illegal and stupid. (Insert "Play stupid games" meme here.) He was shocked to find a cop there, and his last thought before he died was "Oh, s***."

I believe Option 2 is what happened. Neighbor called 911 and reported DV. Don't do that; it is stupid and illegal, and creates a risk of bad stuff happening. Whitaker charged out of his door with a gun, intending to threaten and intimidate. Don't do that; it is stupid and illegal, and creates a risk of bad stuff happening. The officer quite reasonably assumed that the guy was bringing that gun around to the front not to surrender but to shoot his partner, and bad stuff happened as a result of the stupidity of the neighbor and Whitaker.

Keep in mind, that I am very critical of police misconduct, and I am the guy who coined the phrase "They put our lives on the line every day." On this particular one, though, I side with the cop.

[AZ_Five56]

I don't think it was a justified shoot. He's shrinking back and raising his right hand before the officer pulls the trigger. He's withdrawing from his advance and retreating from his first course of action before that office even unholstered his weapon from the looks of it. I sure as hell would have been prosecuted for that shoot, so why the different standards for an officer?

I'm sure some of you guys heard about this, but there was a shooting a few days ago involving an officer that shot a guy reaching for a gun. To give context, there was a car accident, and the guy was grabbing all of his stuff out of a wrecked car, and his stuff happened to include a gun. He was apparently wanted on gun and drug charges, but the officer did not know that at the time, and that didn't affect his decision-making when the officer pulled the trigger.

Is it okay to shoot a person if they have a gun in their hand? Is it justifiable to shoot a person if they are grabbing for a gun? Would it be okay for you to shoot a person under those circumstances? The gun wasn't pointed at anyone. I understand the situation that these officers thought they were walking into, and I agree with Smithers above that it was probably "option 2" stupidity on the part of the victim, but I don't think it was justified. In every officer-involved shooting, just ask yourself what situation you would be in if you pulled the trigger under the same circumstances as an average citizen.

[Flash]

In every officer-involved shooting, just ask yourself what situation you would be in if you pulled the trigger under the same circumstances as an average citizen.

In most of them I've seen, the average citizen would go to jail for a long, long time.

The police should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen, but unfortunately, they're not. They're evidently not even held to the same standard as our military in a combat zone.

[cool arrow]

Is it okay to shoot a person if they have a gun in their hand? I think so. That same gun can be pointed and fired in under a second. Do you want to be on the receiving end of that? I sure AF don't.

Is it justifiable to shoot a person if they are grabbing for a gun? Depends on the circumstances, but to me it falls under about the same conclusion that I made above.

Would it be okay for you to shoot a person under those circumstances? When would you decide it to be ok? Once it is trained on you, or someone around you?

This was a bad situation all the way around, but what the shooter saw from his POV was that his partner was at inherent risk for his life. Sad, but the way it was.

[smithers599]

When I first saw the story, I concluded that the cop shot Whitaker without justification -- especially considering my admitted predisposition to believe the worst about police. However, I changed my mind. (I like to flatter myself by believing I can change my mind if presented with sufficient evidence.)
From the front, it is obvious that Whitaker is putting his gun down and surrendering. That's the source of everybody's outrage. However, from the back, the shooter did not see that, and could not have seen that. What he saw (as evidenced by his body cam) was that Whitaker had his gun behind his back, and then he brought it around to his front. At that point, the gun, and Whitaker's arm, were out of the shooter's view. He had no idea that Whitaker was putting his gun down; he only knew that the gun had been behind Whitaker's back, and then went around to the front where his partner was standing, and the gun and arm were out of his view. A reasonable person would assume that Whitaker intended to shoot the partner.
It's hard to get exact time measurements just going by the video clock, but from the time the gun went from behind the back to Whitaker's front is less than two seconds, I guess around a second and a half.
As noted above, bad situation, all the way around, but the neighbor and Whitaker created the situation, and the shooter got caught up in it, through no fault of his own. If I had been stuck in that situation, I hope my lawyer would have shown the jury the video from the back side. I hope the jury would have realized that I had acted reasonably.

[338lapua]

I am as contemptuous of bad cops as anybody, and there are plenty of them, but IMO, that one was a righteous shoot, and the cop should get his job and his life back.

It was such a great shoot they paid the family 3 million.

[smithers599]

I am as contemptuous of bad cops as anybody, and there are plenty of them, but IMO, that one was a righteous shoot, and the cop should get his job and his life back.

It was such a great shoot they paid the family 3 million.

And the family of Michael Brown ("Hands up. Don't shoot.") got a million and a half. So, civil lawsuit settlement may not be a reliable indicator.

However, if you watched the video and saw what the shooter saw, and you still think the shooting was not justified, I can respect that opinion. If you watched the video.

[Flash]

I am as contemptuous of bad cops as anybody, and there are plenty of them, but IMO, that one was a righteous shoot, and the cop should get his job and his life back.

It was such a great shoot they paid the family 3 million.

And the family of Michael Brown ("Hands up. Don't shoot.") got a million and a half. So, civil lawsuit settlement may not be a reliable indicator.

However, if you watched the video and saw what the shooter saw, and you still think the shooting was not justified, I can respect that opinion. If you watched the video.

I watched it and if the cop is that afraid, he shouldn't be a cop. He should be terminated permanently.

[Rock Hardson]

The level of ignorance of some in this thread is asstounding...

Even with all the video