BREAKING: Dashcam Video Just Released Shows Cop Murder Zachary Hammond

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You explained absolutely nothing. You want to change facts to fit your narrative that this officer was in danger. Video shows him on the side of a moving vehicle, not in danger. You are playing with possibilities rather then facts.

Like I said before, it's painfully obvious that you are ignorant to both law-enforcement training and the realities of situations like these.

Yes, I'm playing with possibilities, and yes, that's what people do every day. The thing about LEOs, though, is that every single time that they attempt a stop of someone in a vehicle, there are a myriad of possibilities that can happen, and they are trained to hope for the best, but expect the worst. Whether or not you think that the LEO's position in relation to the vehicle put him in danger or not is inconsequential--this officer had to make a split-second decision, felt that the driver attempting to flee while steering his vehicle in the officer's direction was a direct threat to his personal safety or the safety of others, so he obviously felt justified in eliminating that threat.

Like I said, your opinion on the matter means nothing--you weren't there, and you aren't the officer who was in that position. You can play the omniscient super-being who knows all if you want to, but people who understand training for situations like this can watch that video and see exactly why an officer would have felt like he was in enough possible danger that he needed to use deadly force.

Best Regards.

I've never seen this kind of violence happening where I live,but I guess knowing that if I had weed with me and some cop stopped me waving with a gun, knowing that they are so trigger happy .

I would never risk driving away if I had a death wish.. at the other hand today it seems not curtain if you get shot when you're surender yourself .

It looks like many cops are like kicking off killing people without any reason , and say they got scared or he wanted to knock me over .. where's pepper spray and stungunns nawadays.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You said the magic word.

Subjectively.

This policy needs to change.

Just because a cop feels threatened should NOT give them Carte Blanche to summarily execute. Unless they want to extend that privilege to us too.

Because....you know......I feel threatened anytime I'm around a cop.

I had a cop almost run me over without even having his lights or siren on. Should I have popped a cap in his shoulder and side too?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: symphonyofblase
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Police officers aren't trained to kill kids over a little bag of non-lethal plant. Or..... maybe they are? Actions speak louder than words, do they not.

Yes, actions do speak louder than words, but your words speak volumes of your inability to understand anything of major relevance in this situation.

The fact of the matter is that once that irresponsible kid behind the wheel decided to take off in his vehicle toward the LEO--regardless if the LEO was directly in front of the vehicle or not--he turned that vehicle into a weapon and the LEO could respond accordingly if he subjectively felt that his life was in danger. And that's exactly what he did. Whether or not you are in agreement with that decision is irrelevant, as is my opinion, really.

But see, where your ability to comprehend the situation fails is that the kid wasn't shot because of a plant--that's what the initial stop was for. He was shot because he decided to turn his vehicle into a weapon and drive it in the direction of the police officer. This is an aggressive act, and an illegal one. If the officer's split-second decision to fire his weapon ends up being decided through investigation to be unnecessary for a reasonable person, then action can be taken.

But let's not pretend like the kid did nothing wrong and the cop was just out for blood that day, because any reasonable person (of which there seems to be very few in this thread) can at least employ empathy and see why the officer might have responded as he did.

Don't be one of these 20/20-hindsight people who pretend to speak with authority, but only make themselves look ignorant. There's enough of them in this thread already.

Actually, I comprehend the situation and relevances quite well.

Fact 1. The kid sold a few grams of weed. Not a few tonnes.
Fact 2. The risk to the officer, compared to the severity of the crime that was just committed, was not worth the officer putting his own safety on the line in order to keep trying to apprehend the suspect.

The smart thing to do in that situation would be to back the f*** off, put your damn gun back in your cowboy holster, and get in your patrol car and give chase.

Remember that tactic? Unless you're 18 or younger, you would remember watching shows like COPS where this was standard procedure.

I never pretended the kid did nothing wrong. Never endorsed his actions. But was the cop out for blood that day? Let's see, he shot a FLEEING suspect in the back, and an eyewitness has allegedly come forward stating that the cop planted different drugs on him and high fived the dead body.

Innocent cops don't need to plant evidence if they are in the right. Remember what just happened to the last cop to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back?

I hope this one also gets put behind bars for a lifetime of lovin' from Big Bubba.

Don't try to talk down to me about hindsight, when I am the one who has watched the video and can clearly see a reckless cop foolishly putting himself in harm's way over a minor crime.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You said the magic word.

Subjectively.

This policy needs to change.

Just because a cop feels threatened should NOT give them Carte Blanche to summarily execute. Unless they want to extend that privilege to us too.

It doesn't give them carte blanche to do anything--they have to have a reason, and sometimes they're judgment is flawed, like all humans'. But for the most part (dramatic majority), LEOs get it right. Like I've said before in this thread, I'm straddling the fence on this particular instance because while I can empathize with the officer's belief of possible bodily injury occurring because of the actions of Mr. Hammond, I also think that here could have been other ways to handle the situation.

But the reality is that there has to be evidence that the individual human being that wears the badge determined in that split second (noting that timeframe is drastically important to Monday-morning quarterbacks), he felt that it was either him (or the general public) or the suspect. LEOs have a right and a duty to protect themselves, and Mr. Hammond had a right and a duty not to try a flee the scene and steer his vehicle toward the cop as he was jumping the curb trying to escape. To my subjective (and semi-trained, but not an expert) ability to assess video evidence, there is supporting evidence to see that he could have reasonably felt threatened enough to fire at Mr. Hammond.

I would hope that I would have reacted differently, but without being in that exact situation, I don't know. This is a very similar case with Sam Dubose here in Cincinnati, except that officer actually was starting to be dragged by the vehicle because his arm was caught inside the vehicle. He's facing charges, and I think rightfully so, but I can empathize with why he felt threatened enough to pull the trigger.

We'll have to see if this case rolls in a similar direction.

Because....you know......I feel threatened anytime I'm around a cop.

That's just based on ideology that ignores statistics or reality. That's not grounds to truly feel threatened enough to feel justified in using deadly force, but I think you know that.

I had a cop almost run me over without even having his lights or siren on. Should I have popped a cap in his shoulder and side too?

Probably not, but you have that right to give that a go and see how it turns out for you.

The difference, though, is that you weren't trying to legally stop and question him, and he didn't attempt to flee, and in doing so, steer his vehicle toward you while trying to leave the scene.

But again, I think you know fully well that your comparisons aren't even remotely equivalent.

Cop murdered, people who had just bought drugs and were running from him!
The moral of the story? Don't buy drugs, don't run from the police...

a reply to: symphonyofblase

Again, though, you're basing your "Fact 2" on the assumption that officers have the free reign to always determine which laws that they will enforce and which ones that they will just ignore.

Do you even understand how dangerous to thousands of people in the general public "giving chase" is? It is absolutely NOT a better option than trying to stop a criminal from fleeing the scene of a stop.

Again, you still don't get it, your "facts" are skewed, and your opinion is not objective.

LEOs "foolishy" (as you describe it) put themselves in harm's way all the time for minor crimes. Every single traffic stop or response to a dispatch call puts themselves in harm's way, but they willingly do the job every day in order to try and enforce the laws that society as a whole seems to be okay with having on the books. Just because you or I might see the crime as minor (I do, too) does not negate the officer's duty to try and inhibit the criminal from continuing to commit said crime, and once you advance in a moving vehicle toward an officer while he is conducting official business, that is a much more serious crime that you are now committing, regardless of the intent at the time.

But again, best regards, and I think we've exhausted our discussion on this, as you can't seem to see this from a purely legal perspective.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: symphonyofblase

Again, though, you're basing your "Fact 2" on the assumption that officers have the free reign to always determine which laws that they will enforce and which ones that they will just ignore.

Umm....they do. Or that is the excuse lately.

Remember the thread about LEOS claiming they can't do their jobs while being recorded? And that is the sole reason for the uptick in violence around the country?

Well, if they can't pick and choose in this instance how in the hell can they claim they are picking and choosing in the other instances?

Cake and eating it too comes to mind.......

The cop shot him whipe skipping along side the car. He was already at the drivers side when he fired the first shot.

Also weed is legal in some states. This is a horrendus joke.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


Again, though, you're basing your "Fact 2" on the assumption that officers have the free reign to always determine which laws that they will enforce and which ones that they will just ignore.

Actually, they do. I see cops over here letting minor offences slide all the time, things like jaywalking, public urination, I've been stopped with bootlegged merchandise and they let me go. I bet you've seen minor offences slide, or been let off with a warning before.

Do officers get ordered to pursue a suspect in a minor crime and apprehend him at all costs, dead or alive? No, they do not. If an officer is involved in a police chase, and the suspect being pursued is putting members of the public at too much risk, the officers giving chase back off, don't they? That is why police helicopters were introduced, so these sorts of perps can still be followed and apprehended safely.

Do you even understand how dangerous to thousands of people in the general public "giving chase" is? It is absolutely NOT a better option than trying to stop a criminal from fleeing the scene of a stop.

Thousands? Rofl, raffle, raffaello.

So, killing said criminal for trying to flee the scene of a minor crime is a better option then? This way of thinking is exactly what is wrong with your police officers.

Again, you still don't get it, your "facts" are skewed, and your opinion is not objective.

Yes I do. No they are not. Yes it is.

LEOs "foolishy" (as you describe it) put themselves in harm's way all the time for minor crimes. Every single traffic stop or response to a dispatch call puts themselves in harm's way, but they willingly do the job every day in order to try and enforce the laws that society as a whole seems to be okay with having on the books. Just because you or I might see the crime as minor (I do, too) does not negate the officer's duty to try and inhibit the criminal from continuing to commit said crime, and once you advance in a moving vehicle toward an officer while he is conducting official business, that is a much more serious crime that you are now committing, regardless of the intent at the time.

Yes, your american police do. I can only assume they are idiots, and almost every day there is a new story posted on ATS that reinforces that opinion.

Anyway, my point is, over here police officers will back off a chase if the suspect is putting members of the public at risk. They call in PolAir, and the helicopter follows the suspect home and the police nab them there. Nobody harmed, everyone goes home or to a cell. Remember the 90's? Your police also used to do this back then. Nowadays, they shoot first before the chase even begins. You can't see what is wrong with this picture because you have your emotional hat on over your eyes.

But again, best regards, and I think we've exhausted our discussion on this, as you can't seem to see this from a purely legal perspective.

Yeah, cool story.

xoxo

originally posted by: robbeh
a reply to: [post=19968611]alienjuggalo[/post

Meh video shows nothin..tried to drive away and got shot I think...tuff sheet I say..

Yeah, as much as I hate seeing cops abuse power and feel it was excessive, the video showed nothing even close to what the OP describes. The cop came to the window and the kid tried to drive away. Now, obviously I can't agree with the officer shooting him over that, it did not look like the officer's life was in danger at all. He pursued the suspect putting himself in harm's way, the driver didn't have a weapon.

Calling it self defense is flat out BS, but technically the video gives him justification for what he did as sad as it is. I don't agree with it at all, but the kid drove away which invited the cop to make a judgement call. It was stupid and unnecessary, but not entirely wrong.

A real police officer could have probably subdued him without shooting. That guy was obviously a coward if he really thought that stopping a drug buyer was so super important that he'd need to shoot him if he couldn't catch him. They need to train officers better in non lethal weapons. Too many shoot first, but the kid in question was an idiot for trying to escape.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank god the police here use the grey stuff to determine public risk, gunning down someone fleeing a dime bag sale would not be justified..they would get him later, they rarely engage in high speed pursuits even due to public risk..in the city anyway.
Cops have a hard job no doubt but this is over a dime bag..time to reaccess the war on dime bags.
Cops claim they are afraid to do there job because of youtube..if one believes that then one could believe that a young man when confronted by a gun though he was dead if he didn't jet..we will never know what he was thinking.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: jhn7537

So failure to comply now justifies a death penalty? I mean why not, it did in East Berlin.

yes, it's been happening for along time.......I don't know why people think the opposite?.....this isn't some cop drama on TV.....comply or you might be killed...it's real simple.....now, if people want to take that chance, don't be surprised when it ends badly

Your right, cops killing people over dime bags has been happening for a long time, and it's sad that it's now considered to be the norm.

Everyone that is so worried about the kid driving like a maniac and speeding away , Wasnt that cop speeding way faster through the same parking lot to get to someone that was just sitting there?

If someone had shot that cop speeding through that parking lot would you be ok with that? Or should people just get out of the way?

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Yeah see you're not allowed to drive your car towards (even side swiping) a police officer. They're allowed to shoot you if you do that, as shown by the official ruling that this was a justified killing. Those ARE the rules and have always BEEN the rules.

This kid actually slowly backed up first and avoided hitting the cruiser behind him. Now A guy that was trying to kill a cop would care less about slamming into his damm cruiser.

Once he backed up the cop made the decision he was going to shoot him if he didnt stop. He did not even attempt to get out of the way, but still did not get hit because the kid was obviously trying to avoid him, and his cruiser.

And to everyone that keep saying he was selling weed, read the damn story..

The cops created this whole stupid ass scenario, and any real police work at all, or vetting, they would have known they were dealing with 2 non violent teenagers with no criminal record.

What is dangerous about a teenage 125 pound girl that sold you a blunt. Why on earth is your gun even drawn? If you were worried at all why not just order them out of the car from your cruiser?

You would rather blame an innocent dead kid over a stupid ass cop who shot him over a blunt..

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You keep saying split-second decision. He had at least 3 to 4 full seconds from the time the car started to move and him shooting the kid.

He was blood thirsty , he even had time to say I am going to shoot you.. So If he had time to say it then do it , it was not a split second decision at all...

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You keep saying split-second decision. He had at least 3 to 4 full seconds from the time the car started to move and him shooting the kid.

He was blood thirsty , he even had time to say I am going to shoot you.. So If he had time to say it then do it , it was not a split second decision at all...

Doesn't that make it a pre-meditated murder?
Pretty sure a jury would see it that way.

The cop should not of shot at Zachary. The cop should of just backed off and called for backup. To pull out a gun and risk killing someone should only be necessary if a cop is confronted with being shot their self. Cops just need to back off and don't promote a situation where gun fire might come into play, it's that simply, back off and everyone stays alive. Zachary is dead over a small amount of weed, very sad. a reply to: alienjuggalo