Dashcam video appears to show Fort Worth cop shooting man in the back

I don't know what they think, but I know what you should be thinking.

Stop moving, comply, and put your hands up.

We don't have much to go on here, other than a grainy video shot in the dark.

 

Their duty under color of law doesn't stop because they are moonlighting. That is one reason companies hire police officers a security guards, they retain that authority.

 

The video quality is terrible.

Anyway it looked like someone was just walking along when two people rolled up on him with weapons drawn. The man points forward not toward them a little later before he is shot.

I won't speculate much on this video. The quality is just bad.

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*). If an police officer is moonlight as a rent a cop they are representing the company they are moonlighting for not the government.

Why they hell are they in a police cruiser doing a security gig? Who pays for the gas, the wear and tear? Who's going to pay this man for getting shot by a rent a cop? After all if it's as you say, their duty doesn't stop, that means the city's liability doesn't stop when they shoot someone as a rent a cop.

 

Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Michael Brown, etc., etc. Look at the videos of these incidents. In every one, the guy who got shot refused to obey the order of the cop.
Do what the cop says and live. Smart mouth, run, pull stuff from your pocket and point it at the cop and maybe you die.

 

Yes they are hired because they have the power to arrest and take into custody, color of law. And any officer is duty bound to respond to a criminal act in their presence.

 

Interesting point. But that assumes that police have more authority to shoot someone than the average citizen has. I hope that isn't the case in Texas.

Another point out of this. A police officer is never off duty in the sense that they can disavow their oath of office. In this instance will the officer be judged as a police officer or a security officer? There's one good reason my former department did not allow secondary employment in the field of security - far too many potential conflicts of interest.

 

It was a good and justifiable shoot.

The thug is dead and the country is better off.

 

Then they should not be permitted secondary employment in the security field.

 

Still and all, what is an individual doing wandering dark alleys late at night? There is no reason (of the clean-living kind) to do such a thing.

 

Story time ..... we have an old (black) friend who used to do silly stuff - basically begged for police attention. He didn't do these things intentionally, but he did have a choice, and could easily have done things differently. Granted the police were acting pre-emptively in all these situations - and not in a way which encourages racial harmony, the fact remains, if something brings trouble (whether fair or not), don't go there. My husband is black, and he's never attracted negative attention from any kind of law or security personnel, apart from a single incident in his late teens when he was followed around a 7-11 by a white security guard. Live a good and decent life, and it will be obvious that you're not trouble. Even racist police will recognise it.

 

If that's the case the city should be on the hook for anything the officer does while working for a third party. And from what's on the video this cop, the security firm and the city should be held accountable. It should be illegal for cops to use government property when they work as security guards, including uniforms.

 

Cops are given more benefit of the doubt than the average citizen. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but that's the way it is.

When an officer is under the employment of a private security firm they aren't representing the law they are representing the security firm. The law shouldn't allow them anymore authority than that of a security guard. In this case he should be judged as a security guard since that was the role he was hired to do.

 

I think your laws do give police more protection. That's not a good thing.

It will be interesting to follow this to see what approach is taken with regard to the role of the officer. I suspect it may be the case that there will be an argument that the police officer is always a police officer but that he is temporarily relocated to a specific set of duties which have been approved by the department. There will also be, again I suspect, an argument that the police officer put himself on a specific duty as a police officer when he decided to investigate and act in the ways he did. And that will take him out of the temporary role of security officer and back to his sworn role. If there is legal advantage in making those arguments then they will be made.

 

This is a reason to kill him?

 

You heard what the cops said to the victim? It is clear in the video that nothing was pointed at the police so why bring that up other than to cloud the case?

The victim was clearly not a direct threat. That officer is now back on duty !

 

Of course not. But surely, the sane thing to do is avoid situations where that could happen.

 

In this situation the COP killed him unnecessarily. If the suspect held out his hand with the object in the direction of the police then the police are right, maybe.

 

Cops have a licence to execute when you ignore them while not posing any danger to anybody? Sounds like the freaking Gestapo.

 

Where did you hear/read that? Because that isn't 100% correct. There are a lot of schools of thought on it If not "on duty" as a member of law enforcement, they don't' have to respond to anything. That isn't saying they can or will, just that they don't have to. However, if they do respond and act as law enforcement, then that is a very different can of worms that no one wants to open.

As a paralegal I would really like to know were you heard that from.

 

Sure they should it puts more police out there protecting us from the bad guys why is that a bad thing? You think having part-time minimum wage security guards is better?

 

In most jurisdictions it depends on what they are doing.

It most cases and required in most jurisdictions all that is taken care of because they are hired THROUGH the police department

Here this might help you.

https://www.quora.com/When-local-po...y-police-officers-or-are-they-security-guards

 

From people I know in the police departments. If they witness a crime the intercede and can arrest even if they are off duty. What does being a paralegal have to do with anything?

"Many people are unsure of the status of off-duty law enforcement officers. Do they have the power to perform an arrest? Can they pull you over for DUI? Can they intervene in a robbery or assault? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding ‘yes’.

A licensed law enforcement officer is authorized to perform their duties even when they’re off duty. Essentially an off-duty law enforcement officer is sworn to enforce the law 24/7. The difference is that when they’re not in uniform, they must always identify themselves as a law enforcement officer before intervening in any law enforcement situation."
http://www.lawenforcement.com/article/5735898-Off-duty-law-enforcement-explained/

 

There is only one reason that they think that, and it is because the narrative pushed by the activists and subscribed by the media demands it.

 

so and that percentage of those cops in your mind are