Ohio deputy shot a news photographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not at all true. Police academies in the US and around the world teach officers to meet lethal threats with lethal force.
Schools the world over used to teach that the earth was flat; that doesn't mean they were teacheing correctly.

Subject pulling out a gun can absolutely call for lethal force depending on the circumstance.
Holding a fire-arm does not call for a response of deadly force. It calls for the next level which is: Ready your weapon, bring it up on and aim and order the person to stop.

If you wait for them to shoot first, you'll be dead the majority of the time.
See above; regardless, it comes under the heading of, "The risks of the job" and being dead, or even wounded is extremely unlikely. Very few people, including police have sufficient experience that when in a stressful situation they can accurately place two in the '10' ring. If you look at a typical "gun fight" and compare the number of rounds fired to the number of centre-or-mass hits (or even any hits), you're actually pretty safe if you're the one being shot at.

Until you've been on fast changing emergency scenes, you can't truly understand how vulnerable one can feel or how fast things can go downhill.
Been there, done that. Got the t-shirt. If there are no rounds in-coming, it's a good day and you have no complaint.
 
The Daily Mail is a tabloid out of the UK. I think they made up most of what they posted/wrote.

I live in the Cin-Day area. I saw something about it on local news and have been sitting here trying to find anything remotely like what that tabloid said - I can't find it anywhere.

edit - The town where it happened is in between Dayton/Springfield; here's the news report.

http://www.whio.com/news/local/sher...ews-photographer-shot/uOvgIAiAjx9ParhbT7zpGI/
 
Last edited:
The Daily Mail is a tabloid out of the UK. I think they made up most of what they posted/wrote.

I live in the Cin-Day area. I saw something about it on local news and have been sitting here trying to find anything remotely like what that tabloid said - I can't find it anywhere.
What exactly do you think they made up? All of these seem to be in general agreement about what happened...

Officer shoots Ohio newspaper photographer after confusing his tripod and camera for a gun

Ohio deputy who shot news photographer placed on leave

News photographer shot by sheriff's deputy, report says

Ohio news photographer reportedly shot by deputy while setting up to take pictures of traffic stop

Ohio deputy shoots newspaper photographer after mistaking camera equipment for a weapon
 
I ...It does appear that it may have been a very bad call by this cop, but the video doesn't really show what the officer saw either. There are a lot of variables to consider.
It doesn't matter what he thought he saw... if there were no rounds incoming, there's no reason for rounds outgoing.
Self-defense, even for civilians, doesn't work that way.

The sole determinant for self-defense in Michigan and a number of other states, is the danger presented to the individual. The individual does not have to wait for "incoming" before shooting. Waiting for "incoming" may well be fatal to the person whose life is in danger. There are even times when it's permissible to shoot through a closed door. And, in "stand your ground", where permitted by law, there's no obligation to even retreat. There's also the "castle doctrine", which allows the individual protect his/her home without abandonment.

In cases where there are questions, it's for the police, attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and juries to make a determination as to gathering evidence, then determining guilt or responsibility.

All folks are doing now, is speculating. None of us, to my knowledge, is a direct witness, and all we have is some shaky, night-time video, which purports to present some sort of "proof". It's why we have laws and processes in place to determine what actually happened.
 
...
"Without Any Warning"

I've worked with law enforcement and under the conditions described by the video and in the story ... there is absolutely no reason to shoot without a warning. Apparently the cop panicked thinking he was under attack. Deputy Shaw may be a great guy, but possibly a bad cop. One would think that the first action the deputy should take, would be to make himself safe ... hit the deck, get out of the vehicle via the door opposite the danger ... put the engine block between you and the danger ... assess the situation ... call in backup ... verbally confront the danger.
Not always a good idea. Depending on the situation, it may be advisable to issue a verbal warning to a suspect. However, if the situation calls for it, police, even civilians shoot first. As I mentioned in an earlier post, one does not have to wait for "incoming fire" to bring lethal force to bear. And there are never, ever warning shots. And the first shot is aimed at center mass. Shoot to stop the threat, and keep shooting until the threat is over.

A number of years ago, I took a self-defense course. In one of the scenarios, I was placed in a room in which a stranger was some 20 feet away from me. I had a holstered "weapon", and I could not see the stranger full-faced; he was angled slightly away from me.

He charged at me wielding a rubber knife, and I never had time to draw my "weapon". I would have been dead. Anyone who charges you, within 21 feet, is a lethal threat, and you can be seriously wounded, even killed. The point of the exercise was to increase situational awareness.
 
My position in this thread is to be critical of people who expect, nay ... DEMAND .. that the police always give "fair warning" before deploying lethal force.

Try telling that to a police officer who perceives a threat (accuracy be darned in the dark) that in the real world would give him about one-half second in which to 1.) identify the threat with 100% certainty, 2.) give a verbal fair warning, 3.) wait for compliance, and then 4.) decide if the subject will or will not fully comply with a lawful order.

Good luck with that.
 
Maybe the reason I had a hard time finding it is because there were a baker's dozen new crime reports/stories just today on one of the Dayton new websites. This is already 'old' news. Today's Cincinnati news was about a suspicious package at the federal courthouse (which turned out to be nothing). Full moon and nice weather.

You're posting info. from elsewhere Wade; there was stuff in that tabloid that is not mentioned here locally on several news sites I looked at (TV news and newspapers). A lot of local info. doesn't make it to the national reports.

Some of what was in the tabloid was taken directly from the body cam footage; I didn't find anything about what was in his 'file' because that hasn't been released. I'm not going thru the rest of it again; if you want to know what happened look at Dayton or Springfield news reports.
 
If the person had actually been pulling out a shotgun and not a tripod for the express purpose to cause harm, injury, or death to the officer, then this officers life would have been in immediate danger.
Fixed it for you.

So you have the superpower of being able to determine someone's intent? You can read minds?

There are precisely zero reasons for an individual to be across the street from a police officer and pulling out a weapon from their vehicle. Their actual intent is irrelevant. The action of removing a long gun from your vehicle while across from a police officer on a traffic stop automatically causes perceived ill intent. The officer can't read minds and will absolutely assume you intend to cause him harm, and you'll get shot. Every. Single. Time.

It's sad and unfortunate that it wasn't a weapon in this case. But the officer didn't know that when he pulled the trigger.

Maybe he acted prematurely. Maybe he didn't. Again, none of us were there and we don't know exactly what happened.
 
The photographer actually said he didn't 'hear' a warning not that there was no warning; in one report it says the officer flashed his lights, etc. It seems unclear what was accurate; I didn't hear that mentioned on the Dayton news.

Sometimes in early reports of an incident there may be mention of what apparently occurred or what a witness may have thought was heard or seen and it's later clarified. Some of it is unclear or may be inaccurate. In one case it's just one sentence and how it was worded that makes info. relayed elsewhere inaccurate or incomplete.

edit - The CBS report seems consistent with local news here; the LA Times used the AP report which does also. Some of the others aren't so much. I said the tabloid made some of it up because they reported stuff I couldn't find and they didn't give a source so who knows where they found the info. or how much was accurate or how much was embellished, etc.
 
Last edited:
For me, the discussion isn't about the difficulties of being a cop, or the dangers of being a cop. But rather should Deputy Shaw be a cop? To my eye, either Deputy Shaw's training was not sufficient for him to be a cop or Deputy Shaw lacks the proper temperament to be a cop or both.

There is no reason to purposely use deadly force, when your life or another life is not in eminent danger. If you cannot accept those terms, then maybe you shouldn't be in law enforcement.

If the person had actually been pulling out a shotgun and not a tripod, then this officers life would have been in immediate danger.

We now know that it was a tripod, but the officer did not. If he had held his fire and it was a gun, he'd likely be dead now and we'd be mourning the loss of another officer.

The point here is that a police officer has one chance to make these decisions in a split second. But the Facebook/internet warriors get to watch the video multiple times before making the determination of whether it was the right or wrong call.

Humans make errors. Humans under stress make more errors. Humans under stress and in fear for their life make even more errors.

When you're the one making the decision in the dark, under stress, and in real time.. then you can talk crap about the officer. The fact is that police officers are human, and prone to error. They work in extremely difficult conditions and most of them manage to do a hell of a good job with those conditions.

I'm not defending this officer. That being said, we need to stop Monday morning quarterbacking every decision that police officers make. If you weren't there, then you don't know what happened. Period.

You do not use deadly force if you do not know. (period)

In the split second or two or thirty ... the deputy should have been trained and have the temperament to use good judgement. He didn't and luckily the deputy was a bad shot otherwise he'd be facing manslaughter. The deputy made a mistake, it could have been a fatal mistake ... no excuses ... he must own his mistake(s) and if it is the department's fault ... they must own up to it.

Let's just say it was an open carry state and by an odd set of circumstances the reverse happened and a civilian accidentally shot a deputy ... do you think the department and the DA would let it slide with a civilian defense of ...

"I thought it was a weapon ..."
"I have a stressful job ..."
"It was dark ..."
"I'm just human and I made a mistake ..."

I think the department and the DA would be all over the civilian shooter. We all make mistakes. Whether big or small we all have to own those mistakes.

I am not anti-law enforcement, personally, I feel that law enforcement and teachers should be some of the highest paid positions in our society. When I need a cop, or when I walk around with a tripod, I want that PhD cop to think before reacting.
 
...
"Without Any Warning"

I've worked with law enforcement and under the conditions described by the video and in the story ... there is absolutely no reason to shoot without a warning. Apparently the cop panicked thinking he was under attack. Deputy Shaw may be a great guy, but possibly a bad cop. One would think that the first action the deputy should take, would be to make himself safe ... hit the deck, get out of the vehicle via the door opposite the danger ... put the engine block between you and the danger ... assess the situation ... call in backup ... verbally confront the danger.
Not always a good idea. Depending on the situation, it may be advisable to issue a verbal warning to a suspect. However, if the situation calls for it, police, even civilians shoot first. As I mentioned in an earlier post, one does not have to wait for "incoming fire" to bring lethal force to bear. And there are never, ever warning shots. And the first shot is aimed at center mass. Shoot to stop the threat, and keep shooting until the threat is over.

A number of years ago, I took a self-defense course. In one of the scenarios, I was placed in a room in which a stranger was some 20 feet away from me. I had a holstered "weapon", and I could not see the stranger full-faced; he was angled slightly away from me.

He charged at me wielding a rubber knife, and I never had time to draw my "weapon". I would have been dead. Anyone who charges you, within 21 feet, is a lethal threat, and you can be seriously wounded, even killed. The point of the exercise was to increase situational awareness.
The suspect was across the street. The suspect was armed with a tripod. The deputy incorrectly ascertained the situation and the danger. The deputy was wrong. The deputy needs to own up to his mistake.
 
The photographer actually said he didn't 'hear' a warning not that there was no warning; in one report it says the officer flashed his lights, etc. It seems unclear what was accurate; I didn't hear that mentioned on the Dayton news.

Sometimes in early reports of an incident there may be mention of what apparently occurred or what a witness may have thought was heard or seen and it's later clarified. Some of it is unclear or may be inaccurate. In one case it's just one sentence and how it was worded that makes info. relayed elsewhere inaccurate or incomplete.

edit - The CBS report seems consistent with local news here; the LA Times used the AP report which does also. Some of the others aren't so much. I said the tabloid made some of it up because they reported stuff I couldn't find and they didn't give a source so who knows where they found the info. or how much was accurate or how much was embellished, etc.
According to the Daily Mail article it was Grimm, the photographer who flash his lights at the deputy as well as waved. Nowhere in the Daily Mail article did it mention that either the shooter or the person shot issued a verbal warning.

... "Grimm is heard trying to explain that he waved at Shaw and flashed his car lights, but he also takes the blame for what happened and tries to protect Shaw."
 
For me, the discussion isn't about the difficulties of being a cop, or the dangers of being a cop. But rather should Deputy Shaw be a cop? To my eye, either Deputy Shaw's training was not sufficient for him to be a cop or Deputy Shaw lacks the proper temperament to be a cop or both.

There is no reason to purposely use deadly force, when your life or another life is not in eminent danger. If you cannot accept those terms, then maybe you shouldn't be in law enforcement.

If the person had actually been pulling out a shotgun and not a tripod, then this officers life would have been in immediate danger.

We now know that it was a tripod, but the officer did not. If he had held his fire and it was a gun, he'd likely be dead now and we'd be mourning the loss of another officer.

The point here is that a police officer has one chance to make these decisions in a split second. But the Facebook/internet warriors get to watch the video multiple times before making the determination of whether it was the right or wrong call.

Humans make errors. Humans under stress make more errors. Humans under stress and in fear for their life make even more errors.

When you're the one making the decision in the dark, under stress, and in real time.. then you can talk crap about the officer. The fact is that police officers are human, and prone to error. They work in extremely difficult conditions and most of them manage to do a hell of a good job with those conditions.

I'm not defending this officer. That being said, we need to stop Monday morning quarterbacking every decision that police officers make. If you weren't there, then you don't know what happened. Period.

You do not use deadly force if you do not know. (period)

In the split second or two or thirty ... the deputy should have been trained and have the temperament to use good judgement. He didn't and luckily the deputy was a bad shot otherwise he'd be facing manslaughter. The deputy made a mistake, it could have been a fatal mistake ... no excuses ... he must own his mistake(s) and if it is the department's fault ... they must own up to it.

Let's just say it was an open carry state and by an odd set of circumstances the reverse happened and a civilian accidentally shot a deputy ... do you think the department and the DA would let it slide with a civilian defense of ...

"I thought it was a weapon ..."
"I have a stressful job ..."
"It was dark ..."
"I'm just human and I made a mistake ..."

I think the department and the DA would be all over the civilian shooter. We all make mistakes. Whether big or small we all have to own those mistakes.

I am not anti-law enforcement, personally, I feel that law enforcement and teachers should be some of the highest paid positions in our society. When I need a cop, or when I walk around with a tripod, I want that PhD cop to think before reacting.

This is Monday morning, and no one is a position to make a judgement one way or the other.

The problem with your training statement, is that training only goes so far. It is never designed to cover every contingency, every condition.

There's an old adage out there that states: No plan of battle ever survives initial contact... It's also true of training. While the officer is supposed to take training to the field, the training never covers all scenarios, and the officer has to ad lib from the day he/she takes to the field.
 
You do not use deadly force if you do not know.

You know you'd be warmly welcomed if you came for a visit, if I was expecting you or even a surprise visit during reasonable hours . However if you were to break down my door at 3 am and enter my house, I would most definitely use deadly force, without first seeking to determine your intentions. Since that scenario is highly unlikely to happen, I guess we don't have to worry, but the point is not everything is black and white.

The whole police/civilian relationship is more strained then I've seen it in my lifetime. Police are rightly concerned for their safety, the 5 officers killed in Dallas, in 2016, and according to a recent Newsweek article four police officers have already been killed by ambush as of the first of July in 2017. Overall depending on who you quote officer deaths are up in 2017 between 20-30%. Do a search on under staffing, and you'll find countless articles as municipalities and states deal with lack of funding. So sometimes you don't have the best quality candidates willing to work for the money you have to pay.

Then you have the civilian encounters which even when the police are justifiable get blown out of proportion by the media. I did read some interesting data suggesting that the number of police fatal shooting has increased substantially since 2000, but there doesn't seem to be anyone tracking the ones not justified. However, the stories travel like lighting over social media, and now you have a general population that's uneasy about being around the very people sworn to protect them.

It's a vicious spiral that's been in the works for several years now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top