BREAKING: Dashcam Video Just Released Shows Cop Murder Zachary Hammond

originally posted by: diggindirt

Normal people don't shoot others over a bag of weed. One's brain has to be screwed up terribly to kill someone the way that cop did.
Drug test them. At least make a start on getting rid of these crazed police.

Normal people don't condone shooting someone over a bag of weed either. I don't know how you could warp your own brain to the point where you can't see that this cop's story doesn't match the evidence, legal or not. I'm guessing it would involve smoking a hell of a lot of meth though. Let's drug test these crazies too, revoke their internet membership or something.

a reply to: symphonyofblase

juat because someone got shot its not the death penalty.. that is a long process.. this is someone fleeing a seen in a vehicle with a cop arresting them with a gun... unless there is a more condensed word for that.. this is basically the risk of fleeing from the cops.. how can u not see you have a chance of getting shot? how could he not know that? and i firmly believe some loser inspired him to do that. thats all.. thats my point... why would u flee if your already breaking the law lol

originally posted by: tonycodes
a reply to: symphonyofblase

this is basically the risk of fleeing from the cops.. how can u not see you have a chance of getting shot? how could he not know that? and i firmly believe some loser inspired him to do that. thats all.. thats my point...

In the end it doesn't matter what you believe, because I've seen enough cop-pulls-gun-on-kids videos to understand that this kid ran because he freaked when he saw somebody in plain clothes running at him with a gun. Kids do not make rational decisions in situations like that. If that's the best argument you can come up with, you probably shouldn't ever try to represent yourself in court.

they killed that kid and then high fived the dead hand?! wtf?! WTF!? They deserve the worst dead there is. no damned hope for this country.

There's not any point directly responding to people on this thread anymore, so here's a generalized question for anyone who cares to respond:

Why does everyone keep claiming that Mr. Hammond was shot because of the small amount of marijuana that he had on his person? That's not the reason why the officer used deadly force. Why can't some of you comprehend that reality, instead of using that tired strawman argument?*










* In all honesty, my question is more rhetorical, as I'm probably not going to keep up this discussion. It's my passive-aggressive way of revealing the lack of understanding and logic that many in this thread display.

originally posted by: tonycodes
why would u flee if your already breaking the law lol

Just to play devil's advocate, here--maybe because you don't want to get caught?

Better question...why flee erratically, turning your vehicle in the LEO's direction and essentially making your vehicle a deadly weapon when the officer on scene has a weapon pulled in an attempt to force compliance?

(psst...it's because Mr. Hammond made many piss-poor, split-second decisions, but I think you already know that from your post)

Why do people give the criminal a pass for making stupid, dangerous, law-breaking decisions, but not the officer who felt he was forced to act in self defense, even if he possibly could have handled it differently.

Hypothetical: Would people be so pissed off if the vehicle had knocked over the officer a rolled over him, causing injury or death?

Probably not, and this is why it's hard to take these people and their "outrage" (and lack of understanding of the law) seriously.

a reply to: warlocksunsinger

Where do you see the high-fiving of the dead hand?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: tonycodes
why would u flee if your already breaking the law lol

Just to play devil's advocate, here--maybe because you don't want to get caught?

Better question...why flee erratically, turning your vehicle in the LEO's direction and essentially making your vehicle a deadly weapon when the officer on scene has a weapon pulled in an attempt to force compliance?

(psst...it's because Mr. Hammond made many piss-poor, split-second decisions, but I think you already know that from your post)

Why do people give the criminal a pass for making stupid, dangerous, law-breaking decisions, but not the officer who felt he was forced to act in self defense, even if he possibly could have handled it differently.

Hypothetical: Would people be so pissed off if the vehicle had knocked over the officer a rolled over him, causing injury or death?

Probably not, and this is why it's hard to take these people and their "outrage" (and lack of understanding of the law) seriously.

I can easily give the "criminal" a pass because he was a teenager, not a demographic known for outstanding decision making. The cop, on the other hand, is supposed to be trained to respond appropriately to high stress situations. Obviously his training and logical decision making process wasn't any better than that of the young man.

As for your hypothetical---why would you bring up an impossibility as an hypothetical since there was no physical possibility of the car hitting the cop because he didn't manage to get himself in front of the car. His decision to attempt to stop the car with his body was a good one? Most five year-olds have better sense than that!

If you can't understand people being outraged by a senseless death at the hands of a cop, it is fruitless to continue the discussion. Here's a tip---it is precisely this type of behavior by law enforcement that has earned them the bad rep they enjoy today. Until they begin drug testing these thugs with badges the problems will only continue to escalate.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
There's not any point directly responding to people on this thread anymore, so here's a generalized question for anyone who cares to respond:

Why does everyone keep claiming that Mr. Hammond was shot because of the small amount of marijuana that he had on his person? That's not the reason why the officer used deadly force. Why can't some of you comprehend that reality, instead of using that tired strawman argument?*










* In all honesty, my question is more rhetorical, as I'm probably not going to keep up this discussion. It's my passive-aggressive way of revealing the lack of understanding and logic that many in this thread display.

I think he was shot because the cop is a blood thirsty psycho,

BTW it was the small amount of weed that his girlfriend had, quit changing the facts to make it fit your agenda.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Why does everyone keep claiming that Mr. Hammond was shot because of the small amount of marijuana that he had on his person? That's not the reason why the officer used deadly force. Why can't some of you comprehend that reality, instead of using that tired strawman argument?*

Well you can't deny that the weed is ultimately what led us down that road.

The question that everyone really keeps ignoring, is: why did the officer fly through the parking lot putting people's lives in danger and then run toward the car with his gun drawn in plain clothes over a non violent crime? It's poor form. I'd understand if he pulled behind the guy and then walked up to the car with his badge, but they treated this minor drug infraction as if they killed the mayor's daughter. I personally would not test a guy with a gun pointed at me, but when I was a teenager, who knows. That's the point. He was just a kid. It's easy to look back when you are 30+ years old and have seen the world and how it works, but this kid probably just had no idea that the guy was even a cop. He saw a guy run at his car with a gun drawn and probably feared for his life.

And seriously, saying he tried to run over the cop is complete nonsense. Only a moron could get run over by a car while standing to the side of it going 2 mph. Clearly he was trying not to hurt anybody, or he would have just floored it and sped out of there with no regard for anything. The fact that he drove slowly, avoided hitting the cop car, proved he wasn't trying to harm anybody, he was just scared. Yes, it was a bad decision, but yes the cop over reacted given the circumstances. He put himself in harm's way, and escalated the situation for no reason. They already knew who it was, what's the worst that happens if the kid drives away? He gets caught later and charged. No need to shoot or even have the gun out in that situation.

originally posted by: diggindirt
I can easily give the "criminal" a pass because he was a teenager, not a demographic known for outstanding decision making. The cop, on the other hand, is supposed to be trained to respond appropriately to high stress situations. Obviously his training and logical decision making process wasn't any better than that of the young man.

Well, I don't give the teenager a pass just because of his age--he was 19 at the time, hardly an age where giving passes for bad decision making is appropriate, but definitely an age where one needs to understand the consequences of one's actions.


But understand that my empathy is there for him--there was a time when I was 17 that I tried to run from a cop when I was caught leaving a kegger full of high-school kids. I had three of my friends with me, and we left, then cop followed, so I drove through the neighborhood and parked in a driveway hoping that the cop wouldn't notice (but it's hard to hide a '66 Mustang with racing stripes). Anyhoo, we were already out of my car and walking when the cop stopped us, but since we were all respectful and humble once caught, he allowed us to walk the three blocks to my friend's house where we were supposed to be hanging out all night.

Please note, though--I did not drive my car anywhere towards the vicinity of the officer, we were not threatening in any way, and the officer was pretty cool. Apparently, none of these three things are a reality in this video, which could make all of the difference. Please note that, on more than one occasion in this thread, I have called out the cop for there being other ways he could have handled it, but that doesn't make his apparent fear of bodily harm any less real, meaning his use of deadly force will probably be justified.

As for your hypothetical---why would you bring up an impossibility as an hypothetical since there was no physical possibility of the car hitting the cop because he didn't manage to get himself in front of the car. His decision to attempt to stop the car with his body was a good one? Most five year-olds have better sense than that!

Do you see the cognitive dissonance in my bolded parts of your quotes? First, it's absolutely possible for someone to be hit by a car when they are at the side of the vehicle if the vehicle is turning in their direction. I'm not quite certain why that reality of physics is hard for people to grasp, but if something is turning, and you are on the side of that something that is turning, there is a possibility of getting hit. You only must be in front of something in order to be hit if that something is traveling in a straight line. Makes me wonder how a car can get side-swiped or forced off the road by another car if they're traveling next to the vehicle and there's "no physical possibility of the car hitting" the other vehicle because it wasn't in front of the vehicle.

See your failed logic?

Also, you can't accuse him of trying to use his body to stop the vehicle from leaving if, in your claim, there was no physical way that he could have impeded the travel of the vehicle.

But, you know...details.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
I think he was shot because the cop is a blood thirsty psycho,

BTW it was the small amount of weed that his girlfriend had, quit changing the facts to make it fit your agenda.

Well, first off, I have no agenda, and have had none since this my first comment in this thread, other than to objectively look at the video and compare it to what both parties were legally allowed to do in this scenario.

Second, if you're not ignorant to the law, no matter whose weed it was, if it's in your car, you're legally in possession of it as far as the law is concerned.

But, you know...details.

You can think anything that you want to, but you only exhibit subjective thinking, and it means nothing in regards to the legalities of this case. You can disagree with me all that you want, you can pretend that I have an agenda, and you can employ subjectivity throughout this conversation, but each time that you do the latter, it removes more and more credibility from your opinion.

originally posted by: Barcs
Well you can't deny that the weed is ultimately what led us down that road.

Sure, but that was still against the law, too. But that's not the point I was making, so it's irrelevant--people keep claiming that the LEO shot the guy over the weed, and that's intellectually dishonest and a flat-out lie.

The question that everyone really keeps ignoring, is: why did the officer fly through the parking lot putting people's lives in danger and then run toward the car with his gun drawn in plain clothes over a non violent crime? It's poor form. I'd understand if he pulled behind the guy and then walked up to the car with his badge, but they treated this minor drug infraction as if they killed the mayor's daughter. I personally would not test a guy with a gun pointed at me, but when I was a teenager, who knows. That's the point. He was just a kid. It's easy to look back when you are 30+ years old and have seen the world and how it works, but this kid probably just had no idea that the guy was even a cop. He saw a guy run at his car with a gun drawn and probably feared for his life.

Okay, I agree with your concern about how the officer approached the vehicle. That said, it seems as though his passenger had been in contact with an undercover officer about a drug transaction (presumably the guy in the vehicle next to them when the officer rolled up), and that's how the police were notified--she apparently contacted a state trooper by mistake concerning the drugs, and that trooper contacted the police who then set up the sting.


As for your claim about "plain clothes," there was nothing plain about them, what with the utility belt and the leg holster and the color of the clothing--oh, and the apparent fact that the officer pulled up behind them with lights flashing on his vehicle. That's hardly a scenario where the 19-year-old (legal adult) can claim ignorance. So, he probably feared for his life, but it wasn't because Mr. Hammond had no idea that the guy was an LEO.

And seriously, saying he tried to run over the cop is complete nonsense. Only a moron could get run over by a car while standing to the side of it going 2 mph. Clearly he was trying not to hurt anybody, or he would have just floored it and sped out of there with no regard for anything. The fact that he drove slowly, avoided hitting the cop car, proved he wasn't trying to harm anybody, he was just scared. Yes, it was a bad decision, but yes the cop over reacted given the circumstances. He put himself in harm's way, and escalated the situation for no reason. They already knew who it was, what's the worst that happens if the kid drives away? He gets caught later and charged. No need to shoot or even have the gun out in that situation.

Well, the "kid" (or adult, as the case actually is) was high on coc aine at the time, and if he was so afraid, as you say, and pumped full of adrenaline, that's a bad mix for a driver to be out on public roadways--you can pretend that nothing bad would have happened, but we won't ever know, so it's an inappropriate claim to make.

Also, your assessment of the way Hammond tried to flee the scene is flawed, as you can clearly hear his vehicle peel out as he's trying to leave--just because he was driving a crappy little Honda-looking vehicle with a 4-cylinder engine doesn't mean that he didn't have the pedal floored as he was trying to escape. You ever tried to go from zero to 60 in a 4-cylinder stock passenger car? You're not setting any land-speed record.

Sure, like everyone says, the officer trying to inhibit the fleeing of the vehicle may seem pointless or irresponsible or stupid to some people, but the fact is that this is something many are trained to attempt because most people who have a respect for human life will stop when a person is standing in front of their vehicle. That simple act of continuing to accelerate while the LEO was attempting to get in front of and at the side of your vehicle shows a disregard for human life...but shooting at someone fleeing the scene does also, to a point. They were both in the wrong for their actions (IMO...I'm not speaking about being legally wrong), but it's absolutely not fair to only blame the officer for inappropriate actions, and that's what the vast majority of people commenting in this thread are doing--the high-on-coc aine, cop-fleeing criminal with a weed "dealer" in the car gets a pass, but the officer attempting to stop the criminal and then shooting when he claimed he felt in danger for his personal safety gets lambasted by everyone.

There's a really crappy bias in this forum, and very few who can look at each situation appropriately and objectively. While you appear to have a more subtle bias than most who have commented to me directly, there is still a bias. Yes, the officer took someone's life, but the victim holds most of the responsibility of that outcome on his own shoulders.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
I think he was shot because the cop is a blood thirsty psycho,

BTW it was the small amount of weed that his girlfriend had, quit changing the facts to make it fit your agenda.

Well, first off, I have no agenda, and have had none since this my first comment in this thread, other than to objectively look at the video and compare it to what both parties were legally allowed to do in this scenario.

Second, if you're not ignorant to the law, no matter whose weed it was, if it's in your car, you're legally in possession of it as far as the law is concerned.

But, you know...details.

You can think anything that you want to, but you only exhibit subjective thinking, and it means nothing in regards to the legalities of this case. You can disagree with me all that you want, you can pretend that I have an agenda, and you can employ subjectivity throughout this conversation, but each time that you do the latter, it removes more and more credibility from your opinion.

Your agenda is obvious,, You know 100% for sure that it was the kids girlfriend yet in every other post you say the kid was breaking the law or he had weed or he sold weed.


You are doing it again now, You know he had no weed in his car yet you keep saying he did.
It is obvious trolling. TROLL

a reply to: alienjuggalo

What an asinine assumption.

What I have read is that his girlfriend had weed and was ready to sell it to the wrong person (and undercover cop). If that has changed, please provide a link or two, other than just pretending like I'm a troll when I'm just stating the facts as I know them as of looking up any updates to this story this morning.

So, again, do you have any links to back up your claim, or do you just like shouting down people as "trolls" because you disagree with them?

ETA: You do realizes that shouting out the word "TROLL" at people negates your credibility as well, right?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: alienjuggalo

What an asinine assumption.

What I have read is that his girlfriend had weed and was ready to sell it to the wrong person (and undercover cop). If that has changed, please provide a link or two, other than just pretending like I'm a troll when I'm just stating the facts as I know them as of looking up any updates to this story this morning.

So, again, do you have any links to back up your claim, or do you just like shouting down people as "trolls" because you disagree with them?

ETA: You do realizes that shouting out the word "TROLL" at people negates your credibility as well, right?

Only if the person is not a troll. But you are an obvious troll.. TROLL.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

See if you can answer this.. If the kid was trying to run over the cop why didnt he?

a reply to: alienjuggalo

I never said he was trying to run over the cop.

This is what I mean--you don't pay attention to the facts.

I have said that I can empathize with the officer's assertion that he thought he was trying to run him over, but never did I project my own opinion onto the mindset of Mr. Hammond.

Yet, I'm the troll.



ETA: Many people attempt things in life and don't succeed. I fail to see the "gotcha" attempt in your question to me, nor do I really care to.

ETA2: On second thought, who cares about what you think of me. This thread is on page 20+, and nothing that you or I are saying hasn't already been said. I don't see anything worthwhile discussing your ad hominem attacks against me, because quite honestly, your opinion of me doesn't matter, and your subjectivity in this matter means nothing to me, either.

Best regards. I'm done.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The officer's actions were still excessive. You're seriously going to shoot a kid through the window of a car when he's got a passenger in the car? That's even more reckless. Lethal weapons should be the last resort, not the first. I'm not saying the victim didn't take actions that allowed the office to legally make a judgement call, but to paint the officer as a victim is excessive. The officer did everything he possibly could to escalate the situation.

Well, the "kid" (or adult, as the case actually is) was high on coc aine at the time, and if he was so afraid, as you say, and pumped full of adrenaline, that's a bad mix for a driver to be out on public roadways--you can pretend that nothing bad would have happened, but we won't ever know, so it's an inappropriate claim to make.

And it's just as inappropriate to claim something bad would have happened. Nobody knew that the kid was high on coc aine at the time, you can't just go shooting people in the face over a possibility. That's kind of a red herring in this situation, if you are looking to rectify what happened at the time.

And I saw no part of that video that showed the officer's life was in danger because of the kid. He was the one pursuing the car with deadly force.

That simple act of continuing to accelerate while the LEO was attempting to get in front of and at the side of your vehicle shows a disregard for human life

So the kid put his life in danger, yet you clearly say here that the OFFICER was attempting to get in front of the car. If that's the case, then he put himself in harm's way hoping the kid would stop knowing he could always fall back on just shooting him. So the OFFICER created the whole situation and used it to justify shooting a kid in the face.

I try to look at each situation individually before making any judgements. You can call me biased because I disagree with this, but I have sided with cops in similar situations in the past. There was a situation in Denville, NJ where the cop was trying to arrest somebody and they pulled away with the cop hanging out of the car window, clearly putting him in danger. In this case, the officer was justified. In this case, the situation is almost opposite. Every action the officer took made the situation worse and it could have been easily resolved if he didn't charge the car with a gun out and try to step in front of a moving vehicle.

To me, this sounds similar to insurance scams where people cut you off on the highway and then slam their brakes to collect insurance from you. Yes, technically the driver who hit them in the rear is in the wrong, even though it is not their fault. That's like a cop stepping in front of a moving vehicle and then claiming the vehicle was trying to hit him. To me, it's painfully obvious that they need to do a better job training police officers. Unfortunately, the way the system is set up, the cop was technically in the right. His actions were still excessive, however.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The idiot cop tried to get in front of the vehicle. I saw it with my own eyes in the video---unless you are now claiming that the video has been altered.
As I said, most five year-olds have better sense than that! The fact that the cop didn't have as much common sense as a kindergarten kid says a lot about him.
The cop escalated the situation---he put himself in danger then blamed the kid he'd just freaked out. He's probably a druggie, high on steroids and who knows what sort of legal drugs.
Drug test the cops. We have to weed out the whackos who are are so terrified they shoot anything that moves.