Good shoot. A reasonable officer, given the totality of the circumstances, would conclude he was about to suffer grave bodily harm. Again, good shoot.

So sort of like loose pitbulls. Unintelligent, impulsive, unpredictable, and aggressive. Don’t make eye contact, or do make eye contact. No sudden movements, unless they want you to move suddenly. Keep your hands in plain sight, unless they perceive your hands as a threat. Produce your identification, but be careful because they might think your wallet is a gun, or maybe has some cash in it at which point they get food aggressive. Don’t struggle, but then you might need to if they’re probably just going to kill you anyway because you didn’t crawl correctly with your hands in the air. Definitely wear a belt because pulling your pants up is grounds for a fusillade. Also don’t sit on the couch in your apartment if your apartment is similar to a cop’s apartment and they think they’re protecting their turf.

Did I miss anything?

Yes.  The retarded officer standard is very difficult to overcome.

Comply with an officer’s lawful commands. Don’t hold court on the side of the road. Do not resist, and keep your hands out of your waistband /pockets.

More info.

Less than 1 second after the officer tosses him, the officer is reaching for his gun.  Within 2 seconds of tossing the guy, the officer takes a shot.

Unless there's a whole lot that isn't on video, like the guy he stopped was a suspect in a double homicide and running through a stop sign on his way to kill more people, the officer needs to stand trial for murder.

TYLER, Texas (KLTV) - A day after the release of dashcam video showing a deputy-involved shooting in Turnertown, attorneys are defending the deputy’s actions.

“Our officer did absolutely nothing wrong,” said Robert Davis, an attorney representing the Rusk County Sheriff’s Office.

The shooting occurred on Sept. 14, 2022, shortly after 1 a.m. in the area of Highway 64 and CR 4125. The dashcam video from Deputy Shane Iverson’s vehicle shows him pull over a car driven by Timothy Michael Randall, 29, of Price. Iverson told Randall he had pulled him over because he saw Randall run the stop sign at the four-way stop, which Randall denied.

Attorneys for the sheriff’s office argue dashcam video released on Monday does not tell the whole story.

“You can’t judge these situations with a 20/20 vision of hindsight, because they are rapidly evolving in the time that they’re occurring,” Davis said.

Davis said the video shows Randall appearing to put something into his pants after being asked to get out of the car. While searching Randall’s pants, Iverson said he felt was he believed was a gun.

“Sgt. Iversen stated this object felt to him to be a small North American Arms mini-revolver or similarly sized and styled pistol,” stated Texas Ranger Brian Hemati in a report of investigation.

The item Iverson thought was a gun ended up being a glass pipe, something Davis said could have felt like a small gun.

“It’s about the size of a crack pipe,” Davis said. “It would match the dimensions and descriptions of a crack pipe.”

Going frame-by-frame, Davis said Iverson’s decision to fire his weapon was made when it appeared Randall was coming toward the deputy.

“You can see the suspect’s knee. You can see the foot. And he’s not running away from the officer. He’s not running to the left of the officer. He’s not running to the far right of the officer. This appears as if he’s running straight toward the officer initially,” Davis said while showing printed images of the dashcam video.

Davis said the fact that Iverson fired only one shot and then stopped after Randall ran the other way shows he only fired when he felt threatened. When being interviewed by the Texas Rangers, Iverson said felt “fearful.”

“Sgt. Iversen stated he did not want to be caught on his knees with this actively resisting suspect who Sgt. Iverson believed had a weapon in his,” stated Texas Ranger Brian Hemati.

Davis said a toxicology report revealed Randall had meth in his system and his blood alcohol content level was more than two times the legal limit.

Iverson was later no-billed by a Rusk County grand jury, meaning he was never indicted or charged with a crime. It’s unclear if the grand jury ever watched the dashcam video since their proceedings are secret. Randall’s family has since filed a civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages in federal court.

Summary, "dumb, drunk doper got himself shot"

Bullshit.  If he thought the guy had a fucking gun, he would have fired more than one shot.

1911 - only needed one shot

Once the subject turned to run, he ceased using force.

I'm not going to shed any tears for one less meth head in this world.

He was already running away with his empty hands in the air when he shot him.

I'd like higher physical fitness standards please.

I think we're mostly agreeing.  I don't think you should just do everything automatically, but that guy was wound up.   IMO in that case object to it for the record and try not to get shot.    You can sue the SOB in court later if you're still alive.

Part of the video is off-screen, and the subject is turned toward officer as subject comes up. I give the officer the benefit of the doubt and call it a justified shoot.

And for those that suggest not complying unless the order is”lawful,” you really should make that case in a court of law, not at zero dark thirty on the side of the road. There are steps you can take to avoid getting shot…

I would've complied in this situation and made complaints/brought civil suit later. However, I also wouldn't have had an illegal pipe and I very rarely (like mistakenly once in 25 years) run a stop sign. Still, this is a bad shoot, IMHO.

Bad Shoot

So, you’re on the side the road, by yourself, at zero dark thirty, having just removed from a vehicle a resistive subject whom you just witnessed furtively place an object in his waistband. You proceed to do a lawful Terry pat-down based on RAS, and you feel what you believe to be a concealable handgun (ie, specifically a derringer). You command subject to place his hands behind his back for lawful, investigative detention. The subject resists and you do a take-down. The subject gets up concurrently with you, but you’re only on your knees. The subject turns towards you, with his hands moving close to his waistband. What is the reasonable course of action for a peace officer given the totality of the circumstances?

And if any of those do happen, then reasonable officers feel they would be at risk of great bodily harm?

That’s a bold strategy.  Probably not going to fly

It’s not cut and dry.

It’s based on the totality of the circumstances, and if a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury, generally speaking. State laws vary, and subject’s family might still get paid even if officer avoids crim charges.

I've already been tested many times. I had balls. This officer did not and murdered another. He should be tried for his crime.

Are you a LEO?

The class of 2024 continues to deliver.  

If I even stopped him in the first place, why would I pull him out of the car for a traffic infraction?

Concealed weapons are lawful, and everyone should be armed. I also don't care if you have a pipe. Smoke whatever you want man.

I'm also not a sorry fat piece of shit who can't get off his knees.

And what I wouldn't have done is shoot him when his hands are in the air empty and he's running away.

The collision of two dumb asses!

Pause the video at the shot.   Suspect has both hands in the air clear not moving toward the officer

Officer drew his weapon and intended to use it when the suspect was still on the ground

'' his blood alcohol content level was more than two times the legal limit.''

This is probably why the officer donut asked him to exit the car.  

He probably smelled like a distillery.

Considering they don't mention the pipe as being in a glasses case. The attorney just left that part out.

drunk, high, starts fighting, and the cop thinks he's armed

COLD BLUUDED MURDERER!  

Use of deadly force to arrest someone is unlawful unless they prove to be a threat to you or a third person.
Popow vs City of Margate spells it out pretty clear. Also Tenn. vs Gardner

He was running away with his hands literally up.

Murder.

Let's not get into the alleged stop sign running.  That's totally something to get amped up and escalate for.

Having standards to hold the government to is for losers.

In New Jersey how long do you wait for "proof" if they appear to be armed and without a doubt they are fighting you?

Finger on trigger?

Safety click off?

First muzzle flash?

Bad shoot

I personally don't care if he was drinking. He didn't harm anyone.

What's interesting is the cop gave zero indication he noticed the man was intoxicated. Seems odd he wouldn't make a single comment or ask any related question if he thought it was a DUI situation doesn't it?

You Texans sure do have a peculiar definition of fighting down there. I didn’t realize y'all were so soft.

Here’s another you won’t like. Murder under the color of law should be a capitol offense.

yep

Yet again, TBL comes up with justification and twists the narrative to talk this up as a good shoot.  

Contrast that with the thread about the recent Southwest Airlines flight that appeared to mess up a night time visual approach to Oklahoma City (no crash or injuries, just got very low too far out) and pretty much every aviator on here says barring any major information otherwise, it was most likely crew error.  Nobody blindly taking the sides of the pilots and justifying what happened.

Shocker! A great deal of altercations happen over 'scared' intoxicated people and irrational behavior

Common sense

Do you even dare leave the house?

Your chance of being killed by LE in any given year is about 0.00018%, less if you’re white. And hardly measurable if you’re a reasonable adult not engaged in criminal activity and not under the influence of etoh or drugs.

This is really a non-issue. But those that harbor anti-LE sentiment will go to great lengths to further affirm their confirmation-bias.  

Agreed 100%. Also his response of "dude you okay?" Is everything you need to know.

And what does that have to do with the bad shoot we are talking about? We call good and bad shoots as we see them. You're changing the subject entirely.

I thought it looked like an ND.  I didn't consider Taser confusion.  Either way a high+drunk fighter that concealed what the cop thinks is weapon doesn't move the outrage meter.

An unbiased person will conclude the shoot was justified.

How would you know?

Are you a LEO?

Unbiased person here: That shoot was bad.