Monday, November 21, 2016

Happy Rock Suspect Dead After Gladstone Traffic Stop Shootout Injures Officer

Gunfire aftermath report as increasing local violence also confronts nearby suburbs. Take a look: Suspect who shot Gladstone officer is dead

17 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Range time well spent !

Bob said...

The passenger ran from the vehicle and the police pursued.

The passenger did not commit the traffic law violation. Running from a stopped vehicle is not a crime, that I know of anyway. So why did the police pursue the passenger?

Anonymous said...

Where's the dashcam video or the uniform video footage. This sounds all to similar to the garden variety Cop killing that goes on routinely in this country. Did the cop shoot himself in a cover up? Too many questions, virtually no story. I'll wait for the real story.

Anonymous said...

Innocent people with legal firearms don't run from the police. I would have chased the asshole myself.

Anonymous said...

He was running to the meth house.

Anonymous said...

Educate yourselves......the term is reasonable suspicion. Officer acted within well-established federal case law. Shooting at the officer doesn't suddenly become the fault of the officer.

Anonymous said...

Educate yourself sheepeople!

Reasonable suspicion to pursue and detain based on "unprovoked flight" ... The primary case that is used in answering this question is Illinois v. Wardlow, which was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2000.

Anonymous said...

The Wardlow case specifically addressed individuals who were not legally stopped or detained. It only rules on "unprovoked flight". Courts have held that running from a legal stop, absolutely rises to the level of "reasonable suspicion" and officers have the authority to give chase and apprehend or further detain.

Anonymous said...

Unprovoked flight is an articuable fact that adds to your RS and gives reason to chase the passenger "who was not stopped" for the traffic violation! The issue is, absent articuable facts (I.e. the smell of weed, or something else) can a passenger simply walk away from a traffic violation? I say yes as long as they are wearing a seat belt and not on an interstate (you can not by law walk on a interstate) they can not be detained for a violation of the driver. Stop picking the low hanging fruit...

Anonymous said...

I'd say the case is closed no matter what anyone wishes. My money is on this guy could not legally possess a firearm, had warrants or he had drugs or contraband that a frisk would have revealed. Nevertheless, after pulling the gun,it was a guaranteed fact that he wont be the subject of a debatable stop or anything else in the future.

I agree that there are occassions where officers step in thier dicks when handling citizens. I also agree that if you kill a cop 'cause of a head full of BLM bullshit then you need to be fucking killed twice. No sympathy on this shoot.

Anonymous said...

Who cares. One more less ass wipe.

Anonymous said...

Reasonable Suspicion--thankfully has common sense and wider parameters than "a gunbarrel was viewed, or even, a bullet dinged the hood of the cruiser".

Any and all passengers are subject to being detained at a stop. Public safety personnel have discretion to assess what role and responsibilities persons present have on the incidence(s) that brought about the stop.

Beside the frequent suspicion of driver impairments, invalid tags, seatbelt violations, and any vehicle condition illegalities, there are other reasons for stops. The driver may be committing errors in road rules while a victim of a crime--coerced by threat of immediate or future harm by one or all other passengers. Was one of the passengers a victim of the others?

Is an occupant who flees trying to find cover to fire upon police, dump evidence out of view, looking for a hostage, or breaking away from abusers/captors that had been transporting the victim?

Yep, lotsa very immediate critical thinking and response translates to life and death scenarios.

Anonymous said...

Crackers

Bob said...

"Crackers" Do not use that insulting term. I am a Saltine-American.

Anonymous said...

11:55 The only thing you are proving is that cops often use stops as a subterfuge. I think that is what got ol' Tim boy in Independence a nice room at the Federal school of higher learning.

Anonymous said...

6:11 So, there's no thin veil on your disdain for po'po with that remark, or just a smack at one bad hombre with a badge?

Runnels went rogue, sadly, like a minority of pd have. Most police personnel are fair dealing while in public contact. It's not the intent of the majority of leos to fabricate cause for traffic stops.

PD train leos that every call for service and duty action invites serious liabilities for each responding leo and their agency. I say when most leos see the swerving, speeding, tailgating, extremely slowed, or otherwise errant vehicle, they react in good faith to safeguard the public. They're not thinking: Gee, I hope this driver is not just having a heart attack or a preggo's got a birth underway, 'cuz I've got a can of whoop-ass that's busting through the seams!

Anonymous said...

Fucking idiot. Read a book or something. Police have the right to pursue for any reason and disobeying a lawful order to stop could get you a bullet. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Good riddance.