The Police Say David Lee Turner's Shooting Was Justified, but Their Account Suggests Otherwise

Former NFL player David Lee Turner, whose funeral was on Saturday, appears to have been acting in self-defense when he was shot and killed by a Kern County, California, sheriff's deputy outside a Bakersfield convenience store on July 10. As Mike Riggs noted last week, a Kern County Sheriff's Department review board concluded that the shooting was justified. But even the official police account, as described by The Bakersfield Californian, indicates that Turner was not the aggressor during the fatal encounter:

Turner, 56, was shot early July 10 at the Fastrip on Niles Street and Mount Vernon Avenue. Deputies had responded to the Fastrip for reports of juveniles asking adults to buy alcohol for them, the sheriff's department has reported.

[Sheriff Donny] Youngblood said Monday that deputies had detained Turner at the scene and searched him. Turner at first complied, but became increasingly agitated.

Turner stopped complying and walked away from the deputies, Youngblood said. A deputy, trying to stop Turner, struck him in the leg with a baton.

Turner then raised a bag he was carrying that contained two 24-ounce cans of beer and swung it "tomahawk-style" down on Deputy Aaron Nadal's head, Youngblood said. Nadal went into a defensive position and Turner again began raising the bag—which weighed more than three pounds—to strike Nadal.

Kraft pulled his gun and fired twice, hitting Turner. Turner was taken to Kern Medical Center and died about two hours later.

In other words, Turner was walking away when "a deputy" (perhaps Nadal) assaulted him. If he was "detained" and therefore not free to go, what were the grounds for stopping him? Was he suspected of a crime or under arrest? Apparently not, because surely the police would have mentioned that by now. It does not help their credibility that what happened after the deputy attacked Turner is missing from the convenience store's security camera footage:

A surveillance video released by the Sheriff's Department shows Turner walking through the parking lot of the convenience store with two other individuals, stopping as deputies drove up and walking over to them to be searched.

After the search Turner picks up the bags he set down and turns to walk away. One deputy follows him and can be seen striking Turner while the other deputy moves to keep the other individuals—who included Turner's 19-year-old son, according to reports—back from the confrontation.

But the video cuts out just before the fatal shooting, omitting a crucial six-second segment.

Youngblood said the video was on a motion sensor and the camera shut off for a brief time until additional motion triggered it to start recording again.

Turner's family is planning to file a wrongful death suit.

Addendum: Gray Ghost points us to the surveillance video:

 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Youngblood said the video was on a motion sensor and the camera shut off for a brief time until additional motion triggered it to start recording again.

    There's some lying going on somewhere. The following can't all be true:

    (1) There wasn't motion to keep the camera going.

    (2) Turner was hitting a cop and waving a bag of beer over his head.

  • Joe M||

    Ya, but, he was black, so maybe his motion didn't register with the sensor on the dark background.

    I probably shouldn't give them any ideas.

  • ||

    MOTION SENSORS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

    And now Linda with an adorable story about puppies.

  • ||

    Maybe he had covered himself in mud.

  • ||

    That still only protected Ahnold when he WASNT MOVING.

  • ||

    One Mythbusters episode indicate that holding a bed sheet up in front of your body can render you invisible to IR detectors even when moving (slowly).

  • ||

    wanna find the ep, i'll see if it's on netflix.

  • ||

    They also tried the Predator trick but found that it didn't work because the mud heated up enough within a few seconds to be detectable against the background. Also, of course, it's not instantaneous to apply the mud, so by the time you've completely covered yourself the first area you covered has now heated almost up to your regular skin temperature.

  • Jim||

    See, I have to wonder about that, for two reasons.

    First, Arnold didn't have to apply it; he was covered in it by crawling through the mud getting out of the water. So the application was done pretty much at the same time over the whole body.

    Second, if you're in the rainforest, I would have to imagine that even a couple of degrees worth of insulation would render one invisible, since the ambient temp. in the rainforest would be close to that of the human body already.

    I haven't seen the episode, but did they control for those variables?

  • ||

    They were doing it at room temperature (it was an episode about defeating security systems, so everything took place indoors). I believe that was the same episode where they defeated a fingerprint-recognizing lock by sticking a photocopy of an authorized person's fingerprint into it.

  • Jim||

    Ah; I'd be interested in doing the experiment in a rainforest environment. I have to imagine that the air temp and humidity would impact the outcome in some way.

  • Ted S.||

    And as we all learned from the movie Sneakers, the trick is to raise the temperature of the room to body temperature.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So you're saying the officers who shot Turner were wearing bed sheets?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I c wut u did there

  • mr simple||

    I just watched the clip on YouTube. It was a sonic motion detector not IR. The sheet absorbed the sound waves.

  • ||

    Yeah, here's the clip. I was probably doing something else while that episode was on so I missed the bit about it being sonic rather than IR.

    It's kind of strange that it didn't pick up Kari's shouting "NO WAY!" while she was walking through the hallway.

  • ||

    IIRC, those kids of detectors work like sonar not just microphones -- they have to detect sound returning in a given frequency to trigger.

  • ||

    There is, however, a Mythbusters episode where they tested IR motion detectors. They were able to defeat those with an ordinary pane of window glass.

  • ||

    I saw that on Burn Notice, too.

  • tarran||

    I've seen the video.

    The action took place on the upper left corner of the video.

    The video has frequent 1 - 4 second cutouts. I suspect it's because the motion detector is being trigered by activity immediately in front of the store. The shooting took place on the other side of the parking lot from the store.

    So it's quite possible the video was not edited, that the gap is just coincidence.

    With that having been said, the police escalated this. They decided that a guy who may or may not have been buying alcohol for minors walking a way from them warranted a baton to the back of the legs which can be deadly (my grandma died in a fall where she went over backwards and the floor caved in the back of her skull).

    Having escalated the altercation into a physical one, they shot the guy.

    They could have chosen to let it go. Having seen his ID they could have gone to his residence to question him further.
    They could have sumonsed him for obstruction.

    Unfortunately for Turner, he was little people, and you ... don't ... walk ... away ... from a master when he is talking to you. That's a capital offense.

  • ||

    Yes, perhaps the officers could have handled the situation less violently, but this does not mean they were at fault for what happened.

  • ||

    Generally speaking, assuming he was "fleeing" (walking away from a terry type stop) from a non-violent crime (furnishing), a baton strike to the legs would not be justified.

    it would also needlessly escalate the encounter

  • robc||

    a baton strike to the legs would not be justified.

    So we are in agreement. Good.

    And like I said in the thread the other day about this, where this is exactly what I predicted as what happened, then it is murder by the other cop, as the self defense by Turner IS justified.

    I assume you are in agreement with a murder charge for other cop, right?

  • ||

    i have no idea as i haven't read the cali penal code for murder or relevant cali case law

    i am simply making a statement based on used of force doctrine

    assuming arguendo, he made no violent acts, and he was walking away from a terry for a nonviolent crime and ESPECIALLY if no verbal challenge was given, a baton strike for what he did was not justified.

  • ||

    I think your Shift key is malfunctioning.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Does a citizen, in your view, have any right to self-defense against an unjustified assault by the crown a cop?

  • ||

    a "citizen"?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    a "citizen"?

    Fine, insert "person who isn't a cop" if the word "citizen" is too ambiguous for you.

  • ||

    Dunphy, it's cute that you take offense to using the word "citizen". Go to any coptalk board and you'll find LEOs using that word all of the time.

    I know you might agree with the use of the word among your brethren - go yell at them.

  • ||

    I thought the word for non-cops was "civilian", which always rubbed me the wrong way since cops are not soldiers.

  • Chupacabra||

    "since cops are not soldiers."

    Someone should tell them that.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Whatever, just don't fire him. Execution would be kinder.

  • ||

    How do we even know this was a Terry stop? That requires reasonable, articulable suspicion someone is committing a crime. Sounds like they were just detaining him on a hunch or a profile. Thats not enough for a Terry stop.

  • ||

    Exactly, Pablo.

  • ||

    it was more than enough for a terry.

  • Matrix||

    They unjustifyingly assaulted a man who was not under arrest and simply walking away. They used a weapon in the assault. Turner was justified in returning like force against the police officer, so they escalated with deadly force.

    Kraft should be charged with murder.

  • ||

    again, if he was being DETAINED (which requires RS not probable cause since i am not sure what you mean by "arrest"), then the police can use "reasonable force" to prevent his leaving.

    however...

    a terry for a non-violent misdemeanor, considering he was walking away (not even running) almost certainly does not justify a baton strike to the legs

  • robc||

    almost certainly does not justify a baton strike to the legs

    which means murder charge for Kraft.

    Follow your logic to its conclusion.

    You are right...now continue on. Dont wuss out now.

  • ||

    You don't have the right to use deadly force in response to being tripped.

  • robc||

    Hit was a beer can is a reasonable level of response to being hit with a baton. No escalation.

  • ||

    not in the head, it definitely isn't.

  • ||

    A baton is considered a deadly weapon.

  • ||

    a baton strike to the leg is NOT deadly force.

    that's inarguable.

    and well established.

    a baton can be a deadly weapon "as used".

    if a suspect threatens me with one, i am not going to wait to see if he is aiming for my head or not.

    however, under use of force continuum, a baton strike to the leg is not deadly force.

    i had a guy kick me in the face and i baton struck him in the leg. not deadly force

    i had a guy choke my partner (but she had air exchange) and my strikes to his torso were also not deadly force.

    i really don't want to devolve into well established minutaie (sp?)

  • ||

    robc, unlike you, i don't argue from positions of ignorance.

    i know nothing about cali penal codes in re murder or case law there, etc.

    so, i can't comment on that without knowledge of those things

    i CAN comment on relevant use of force doctrine, since that is established under federal and 9th circuit (i am in the 9th circuit as is Cali) case law, which i am VERY familiar with

    you can't use impact strikes to prevent escape from a non-violent misdemeanor (generally speaking) and especially where no verbal challenge is given, etc

  • CaptainSmartass||

    you can't use impact strikes to prevent escape from a non-violent misdemeanor

    Which means the officer acted illegally. So, what is the proper course of action for someone who is illegally assaulted by police, then?

  • Paul||

    Which means the officer acted illegally. So, what is the proper course of action for someone who is illegally assaulted by police, then?

    Undoubtedly, the argument will be that once you are in 'detainment mode' from the officer, misdemeanor, jaywalking, felony-- no matter what, if you walk away you are 'resisting' and therefore can be killed if you strike back when the officer attempts to maintain your detainment.

  • ||

    it's not deadly force iow stoving the cop in the melon

    just like a cop is not justified in using deadly force if a guy shoves him

  • In touch with utopia||

    again, if he was being DETAINED (which requires RS not probable cause since i am not sure what you mean by "arrest")

    Arrest is a French word for STOP. On the aircraft carrier they don't have a detaing cable or a Terry cable, it is called an arresting cable because it stops the plane.

    So if you stop someone, you have arrested that person.

    Sort of goes with that notion that an object at "rest" is not moving.

  • ||

    which is why i was defining terms. a terry is technically an arrest in that respect, because it is a limitation of freedom of movement.

    ALL detentions are

  • In touch with utopia||

    i am not sure what you mean by "arrest"

    which is why i was defining terms. a terry is technically an arrest

    So your "DETAINED" means he was technically arrested?

    By what authority does the officer execute some poor crippled nigger after arresting him?

    Seems to me that your Terry/Detention/Fleeing leads us to the fact that officer friendly(s) had no authority to murder or even "stop" him.

    I call bullshit.

  • In touch with utopia||

    i am not sure what you mean by "arrest"

    which is why i was defining terms. a terry is technically an arrest

    So your "DETAINED" means he was technically arrested?

    By what authority does the officer execute some poor crippled nigger after arresting him?

    Seems to me that your Terry/Detention/Fleeing leads us to the fact that officer friendly(s) had no authority to murder or even "stop" him.

    I call bullshit.

  • In touch with utopia||

    i am not sure what you mean by "arrest"

    which is why i was defining terms. a terry is technically an arrest

    So your "DETAINED" means he was technically arrested?

    By what authority does the officer execute some poor crippled nigger after arresting him?

    Seems to me that your Terry/Detention/Fleeing leads us to the fact that officer friendly(s) had no authority to murder or even "stop" him.

    I call bullshit.

  • Mike E||

    My impression is that detaining someone is asking them to stay and arrest is forcing them to stay. In security, if you force someone to stay, it is considered a citizen's arrest.

  • Paul||

    Yes, perhaps the officers could have handled the situation less violently, but this does not mean they were at fault for what happened.

    If we hold the police to lower standards, then I agree with everything you say.

  • Mainer||

    And it seems that police are held to a lower standard, in fact.

  • Joe M||

    Flames, from the sides of my face.

  • Ska||

    I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

  • ||

    Shaka. When the walls fell.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Joe M. The fire from his ears.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Oh NO YOU DIDNT?!?!

  • Evan from Evansville||

    + Mr. Green in the Hall with the Revolver.

  • ||

    Un-fucking-believable. And Nothing Else Happened?

    He should have been carrying. He should have gotten up somehow and emptied his fucking magazine into the sons of bitches, since he was going to die anyway.

    Now that I would have cheered at. Fucking thugs. I hope they eat shit die in a fire.

  • Nobody||

    Nobody takes your tough-guy act seriously. Go away.

  • Nobody||

    Nobody takes your pathetic trolling seriously. Go away, anonopussy.

    And nothing else happened.

  • ||

    Tough guy? Did I say "I would have done it if I were there", or anything? No.

    Get this through your thick fucking skull -- such people are murderers, and the fact that they wear uniforms does not rescind their guilt.

    So I'll repeat what I said earlier -- I hope the guy eats shit and dies in a fire.

  • tarran||

    Are you kidding?

    Black man shoots heroic cops in front of liquor store?

    Talk about handing the state a propaganda coup:

    Grabbing a rifle and shooting at those who oppress us as Carl Drega purported to do, no matter how tempting, is ultimately futile and counterproductive. Not only does it not attract people to one’s cause, but it provides the government with a opportunity to send out very persuasive propaganda to the effect that those who oppose the government are a menace to their neighbors and that the draconian measures that government officials take are needed to protect the citizenry from these dangerous non-conformists.
  • ||

    Not if enough people start doing it and it boils over into armed. And that's not happening, most likely. Point taken.

  • ||

    *Armed insurrection

  • ||

    I thought he was killed by a witch?

  • ||

    he couldn't have LEGALLY carried based on his prior (and unsurprising) record

  • FlyoverCountry||

    (unsurprising)? Because he's black, he has a record?

    RAAAAAAAACIST!

  • WTF||

    Now we know why being black is RS for a terry stop.

  • ||

    no, because people who feloniously assault cops almost always have extensive prior violent crime records, and usually are convicted felons
    thus, i was entirely unsurprised to find that turner did.

    there are of course exceptions e.g. monford

    but they are rare

  • ||

    probably against other cops detaining them unwarrantedly. Its a self-pertpetuating assumption. Grumpy big guy not afraid of police, reacts badly when police start playing the "Authoritah" card.

  • ||

    no, because people who feloniously assault cops almost always have extensive prior violent crime records, and usually are convicted felons
    thus, i was entirely unsurprised to find that turner did.

    there are of course exceptions e.g. monford

    but they are rare

  • Brett L||

    So, the BEST case scenario is that two trained cops, at least one of whom had a night-stick drawn, initiated the conflict but couldn't subdue a man armed with a bag of tallboys who was no threat to anyone but them, and were unable to retreat from the situation until more officers arrived. Hmm.

  • ||

    and were unable to retreat from the situation until more officers arrived

    But then that ni....I mean, suspect woulda gotten away!

  • ||

    um, under case law, etc. there is no "duty to retreat" until more officers arrive

    that said, a baton strike for a man walking away from a terry stop is NOT generally justified, especially if the terry was for a non-violent crime e.g. furnishing

  • Bed sheet||

    NOT generally justified

    That sets up a nice, convenient, exception.

  • ||

    no, it doesn't. it means force analysis is based on totality of the circumstances analysis. i am saying that ASSUMING ARGUENDO the fact pattern as presented here is correct, and no other facts are presented that i am not aware of, the baton strike, in my analysis, was not justified.

    that's not a hedge.

    it's based on limited information

  • CaptainSmartass||

    the baton strike, in my analysis, was not justified.

    What about the shooting?

  • Brett L||

    You're telling me that de-escalation by taking a couple steps back isn't taught at the Academy? Because I'm seeing a business opportunity here in police consultancy.

  • ||

    i expect childish race card games at daily kos usually, people here are above that

  • Coeus||

    Gotta side with dunphy on this one. That shit is only ever meant to shut down a conversation. It serves no other purpose.

  • Swamp Think||

    Dunphy: I was a bit surprised when I read your "racist“ comment. Not something I would expect from you. Although you clarified your meaning, you must admit that the original comment was open to interpretation.

  • ||

    Cue Tulpa to tell us how improper deference to the Praetorian Guards justifies death.

  • R||

    Holy shit you're good.

  • ||

    The missing video stinks to high heaven and leads me to believe the account of the police is probably false in some way.

    But it's clear they were detaining him under suspicion of buying alcohol for minors. The detention was probably legal, so the officer's first strike after he attempted to flee was not assault.

    Again, that doesn't mean the shooting was justified. If the police story is true it probably is justified, but as I said there's reason to doubt their story.

  • ||

    so the officer's first strike after he attempted to flee was not assault

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but ignoring a lawful order from the police is grounds for arrest.

    I missed the part where they put him under arrest for ignoring their lawful order. Or does knocking someone's legs out from under them translate as "you're under arrest for disobeying a lawful order from a police officer" in copfellationese?

  • ||

    You have to stop someone before you can arrest them.

  • ||

    tulpa, assuming there was terry level of justification (RS) and he fled (walked away), since the terry was for a nonviolent crime (furnishing), a baton strike to prevent his escape would GENERALLY not be justified.

    that level of force for a nonviolent misdmeanor and especially where he had (apparently) not been aggressive or violent towards them would not be justified

  • T||

    You know, Tulpa, when even dunphy says the cops weren't justified you might wanna rethink your position.

  • ||

    OK, I'll yield to your expertise. Though the ACLU video that was posted on here a few years ago had a vignette in which an art student was the target of a Terry stop for suspicion of vandalism, and in one "scenario" he decided to run away and the cops shot him.

  • ||

    that would not even be a close case and tennesse v. garner established that decades ago

    fwiw, under a recent 9th circuit case, you cannot even tase a suspect for fleeing from a nonviolent crime (generally speaking).

    tasers are a lower level of force than baton strikes to the leg

  • Beezard||

    Except that whole tasers can KILL you thing.

  • Matrix||

    Oh, might as well just bash everyone's head in before we arrest them. Gotta stop 'em before we arrest 'em, huh?

  • ||

    I imagine you're supposed to try to use minimal force.

  • IO||

    Anything less than death is minimal force.

  • ||

    You have to stop someone before you can arrest them.

    And don't you have to inform them that they're being arrested before/as you stop-then-arrest them?

  • ||

    I agree. Also, as a general rule, if the police hit you with a baton while you try to walk away, don't try to hit back. Duh. Swinging a bag of beers at an armed cop is really stupid. Whatever the full story turns out to be, we have a Darwin Award winner.

  • Sinic||

    Let's beat you with a baton and see how long you can keep your arms peacefully at your side. Sometimes hitting back is reaction, not decision.

  • ||

    It says that he was "struck" with baton. I take that to mean hit once, not beaten.

  • ||

    Let me hit you once with a baton and see if you can keep your hands peacefully at your side.

  • ||

    It has to be from behind and when Papaya isn't expecting it.

  • ||

    My reaction when hit from behind by a cop I'd been talking to would not be to hit back.

  • ||

    congrats, you're like 70% of the docile world. doesn't mean everyone has to be like you and sometimes we should be glad for those that stand up for themselves.

  • Coeus||

    THIS^^^^

    We wouldn't even have this country if everyone was like that, though I suspect that the docile # is closer to 80% or 90%.

  • ||

    "Stand up for myself" so I can get shot dead by a cop for no good reason? I'm all for heroics when called for, but you've got to pick your battles.

  • robc||

    His son was with him. Genes already passed on.

    Moran.

  • ||

    They let the son get away? He was the object of the illegal booze furnishing. They should have at least clubbed him a few times.

  • robc||

    I think the son was of legal age too. But not 100% sure.

  • ||

    iirc, he had a 15 or 16 yr old son with him. might have been two sons, don't recall, but i do recall one was DEFINITELY well under 21.

    of course for terry purposes, the question would be what age did the kid APPEAR to be, not what age was he. until the facts were established from the officer's base of knowledge

  • WTF||

    So if I pop into a lquor store and buy a six-pack and I have my teenage son with me, the cops can detain me, search me, and assault me on the way out? Good to know.

  • ||

    again, not responsive to the facts in the case

    the cops were responding to a report of a crime occurring at that location.

    the man exiting the store , based on the report, could be reasonably suspected of being involved, especially because he was in possession of alcohol and in the company of a minor child

    first: get your facts right. totality of the circumstances

  • WTF||

    According to the sheriff's department, the report was of kids asking people to buy booze for them, not a report of anyone actually buying booze for minors. So where is the RS that this guy had committed a crime? Maybe you should get your facts staight.

  • ||

    WTF, i've already explained why it's RS. if you disagree, fine. but it's not even a remotely arguable question

    based on the report and him exiting the store with liquor in the company of a minor child, a terry was justified

  • robc||

    Thanks, that was the son I was referring to, I thought he was 21 or 22 though.

    While it doesnt apply in this case, in WI it is perfectly legal for the father to provide his 15-16 year old with booze (or 8 year old for that matter, although child services might have a problem with that). Restaurant, parking lot, beer festival, home, wherever.

  • ||

    again, that's great, but if the cops are responding to report of people buying liquor for minors and they see a guy exiting the liquor store accompanied by a minor and in possession of alcohol that is CLEARLY reasonable suspicion.

    the entire point of a terry is to find out IF in fact he is engaged in criminal activity or NOT

    a LOT of terries I (and any officer does) are entirely legal behavior and a simple terry establishes that, often after a minute or two

    regardless, RS is not vitiated because the behavior in question might not be illegal

    the entire point of the terry is to see if that question can be answered

    iow, to INVESTIGATE

  • Pip||

    Next time, use brackets instead of caps, asspig.

  • WTF||

    dunphy|7.27.11 @ 12:34PMagain, that's great, but if the cops are responding to report of people buying liquor for minors and they see a guy exiting the liquor store accompanied by a minor and in possession of alcohol that is CLEARLY reasonable suspicion.

    Maybe you should read the article, according to the sheriff's department, that was NOT what was reported:

    Deputies had responded to the Fastrip for reports of juveniles asking adults to buy alcohol for them, the sheriff's department has reported.

  • ||

    which again would establish RS

  • WTF||

    So a report of kids in front of a liquor store making a pain of themselves asking people to buy booze for them, establishes for you a right to stop and search any adult coming out of the store with booze? And you think this is fine? Wipe you ass with the Constitution much?

  • ||

    again, not responsive to the facts.

    what fact did you leave out?

    oh yea, he came out of the liquor store WITH a minor kid and with booze

    based on the report given, that's RS

  • WTF||

    based on the report given, that's RS

    Since the report said nothing about anyone actually buying booze for minors, that's total bullshit.

  • ||

    no, it's not.

    RS does not require an established fact that a crime has occurred

  • Brett L||

    Son is 24.

  • Brett L||

    Whoops. Son 19, daughter 24.

  • ||

    Both are now officially criminal gang members in the eyes of the police too. Because they yelled profanities at the people who killed their father. No, really. They've been charged with a couple of counts each. That's what ya call class right there...

  • ||

    you mean the disturbance reported by the hospital where they requested police assistance

  • ||

    Yes. Apparently the kids were pretty upset and yelling and causing a ruckus after their father died. Instead of taking a rational course and attempting to diffuse the situation, the officers/prosecutors decided to bring as many criminal charges as they could imagine - including being a criminal street gang because there were two of them yelling profanities at the deputy in question.

    At some point you gotta pull your head out of your ass and realize that yelling and creating a disturbance is a perfectly normal and acceptable reaction to watching your father murdered in front of you by the very people who are trying to tell you to be quiet. At some point much earlier in the process the prosecutor should have been the adult in the room and declined to file charges.

    Let's be direct: If you shoot and kill someone over a situation this petty, their next of kin get a pass if they are pissed off and call people bad names. It doesn't make them right, it just means they deserve a free pass on this one. Anyone who disagrees with this notion is by definition a grade-A dick.

  • ||

    In the Terry case (Ohio), from which the stupid jargon "terry stop" comes, a copper stopped and "detained" baddies because he watched them at length casing a joint.

    It is only because the copper had significant years policing that he could believe with good likelihood that they were casing a joint.

    So said copper walked up to the baddies, detained them by ordering them to face a wall, frisked them and found guns on a couple of them. Because the baddies had guns concealed, they were breaking the law.

    The whole case hinged on whether the copper was right to stop and frisk them, in short, could the discovery of concealed guns be upheld in prosecution against the baddies because from years of experience the copper could tell that the baddies were in the throes of plotting and executing a crime to be, which was to rob a store, presumably.

    Merely watching a random person walk out of liquor store does not rise to justify the dumb jargon said "terry stop."

    No copper, even one of years of experience from past observation could ever know from merely watching someone walk forth from a liquor store that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.

    Coppers can't stop anyone, anywhere, anytime, in spite of what some would have you believe. For detention to be a terry stop, a copper would need significant experience from which to deem suspicious activity is ongoing and the copper would need to watch the activity for a suitable amount of time. The activity would need to be ongoing long enough for a copper to put forth enough associated thought from years of experience to believe it as suspicious.

    Again, merely watching someone enter or exit a store one time or merely watching someone walk one way down a street, does not justify a "terry stop" (jargon gets spewed by morons who lack expression skills).

    Merely watching a guy exit a liquor store with young ones by his side could not lead a copper with years of experience to perform a "terry stop" (jargon, it's what morons love) even if someone has made a report that someone is buying alcohol for minors.

    A copper would need to observe someone who appears to be an adult handing a package to another who appears to be a minor and that package must look like it could contain alcohol and the hand off must look to an experienced person to be done so in a suspicious manner.

  • ||

    terry v ohio was the case establishing the terry stop standard. it is not the only case on point.

    fwiw, i've done hundreds of terries.

    i've been to scores of 3.5 and 3.6 hearings. the case law is significantly more than JUST the original case

    like it or not, it is NOT a high standard

  • ||

    Yet, there is a standard and a good defense lawyer can beat the piss out of any dipshit cop on the stand nearly every time on a Terry stop.

    Merely not liking a way a guy appears is insufficient for a Terry stop and its effects to hold in any prosecution.

    Coppers need to have sufficient paid policing experience from which to deem behavior suspicious enough to justify detainment and those same coppers must observe at length the behavior before moving to act.

    No properly sitting judge will uphold any subsequent discovery from a claimed Terry stop if a cop merely looks at someone for two seconds and claims that he didn't like how the person looked.

    Significant to any Terry stop is the cop's experience (years of observation) and at length observation in the instance in question.

    Again, coppers can't stop anyone, anywhere, anytime, merely because they have a badge and a gun, in spite of what many wrongly believe.

  • WTF||

    Really? They had reasonable suspicion that he was buying alcohol for minors? Based on what, exactly? I know you tend to be knee-jerk devil's advocate for the shits and giggles, but I'm curious as to how you can justifiy detaining a man under such circumstances, searching him, attacking him, then killing him? This should be good.

  • ||

    Assuming the cops' story is true, the killing was justified in self-defense regardless of what happened before.

    Reasonable suspicion is a seriously low standard by the way. If you match the description of someone reported to have committed a crime nearby, that's reasonable suspicion.

  • ||

    IF the terry was for a non-violent misdemeanor and they struck him in the legs with a baton for merely walking away, that is usually going to be an unjustified level of force.

    again, that's making assumptions about case facts, but thus far it's consistent with what i've read

  • WTF||

    Assuming the cops' story is true

    Pretty big assumption based on what we know so far.

    From the article "reports of juveniles asking adults to buy alcohol for them, the sheriff's department has reported." - Note, not anyone actually buying it for them, just a complaint about kids asking. So in the absence of any report, how could he match the description of a suspect, if there was no suspect reported to be buying alcohol? So, the detention was improper. Next, after they improperly deatin and seach him, he understandably becomes irritated and attempts to leave, not being under arrest, and the cops assault him with a weapon. When he reacts to the assault, they kill him.
    And you attempt to excuse this, even though dunphy, a cop, agrees they improperly escalated the situation.

    Wow.

  • robc||

    Didnt the cops lie about the baton strike? IIRC, they didnt mention that in initial report but the son did.

  • Coeus||

    Yep. Which in my book automatically makes the kid more credible than the cops. It just sucks that the only people that they let on juries seem to believe in infailability of police.

  • ||

    WTF, don't confuse two issues

    imo, based on the facts as presented, they CLEARLY had RS to stop the guy

    that's not even remotely in question

    the issue of whether they had sufficient cause to baton strike to the legs once he walked away is another question ENTIRELY

  • WTF||

    How did they have RS? There was report, according to the sheriff's department, of kids asking people to buy them booze, not about someone meeting his description, or anyone for that matter, actually buying it for them. So how do they get RS to stop and search any adult coming out of a liquor store with booze?

  • Pip||

    ^^THIS^^

  • ||

    How did they have RS?

    Fuck you, that's why.

  • WTF||

    Sadly, SF is spot-on.

  • ||

    which STILL establishes RS.

    try reading some case law

    the guy was exiting the store possessing liquor and with a minor child, at a location where kids were reported to be asking adults to buy for them

    that's RS. it's not even arguable

  • WTF||

    So a report of kids hanging out in front of the liquor store making a pain in the ass of themselves, establishes RS that an adult coming out of the store has committed a crime? Nice moving of the goal posts. And the fact that you think this is not even arguable is insane.

  • ||

    nice way to ignore the facts

    what fact did you leave out that is germane to RS?

    the fact that he walked out of the store WITH a minor kid and in possession of alcohol

  • WTF||

    the fact that he walked out of the store WITH a minor kid and in possession of alcohol

    1. There was no report of anyone actually buying booze for minors.
    2. The minor in his company was not in possession of alcohol.

    So based on the facts, there is no RS that this man committed any crime.

  • jasno||

    Jesus Dunphy I think I'm starting to see why people give you shit.

    You really think that a report of some minors asking people to buy them liquor(is that even a crime, for them to solicit as such?) gives you RS to stop *anyone* exiting the premises with a bag of merchandise while accompanied by a minor, even though that minor isn't holding the bag? At that point, assuming the bag contains liquor, no crime has even been committed, since the minor hasn't been furnished with liquor at that point. The most I would think you could do would be to surveil the pair and act only if the minor takes possession of the liquor.

  • ||

    yes, there is RS

    if you believe either 1 or 2 is required for RS in this case, you don
    t understand RS

  • WTF ||

    See: Fire Tiger|7.27.11 @ 6:57PM|#
    for a good explanation as to why there was no RS. Apparently you don't understand that RS does not equal 'because the cop felt like it".

  • tarran||

    From the video, it appeared to me that as the police car rolled into the parking lot, the kids scattered, walking rapidly (but not running) across the parking lot.

    Turner and his kids had just walked out of the store and happened to be going in the same direction as the scattering kids albeit more walking more slowly.

    The cops jumped out and detained the man who was in the middle of the group of kids fleeing them. From their perspective, I think they thought he had been with the group of kids and was joining their flight.

    Chalk another victim of the enforcement of laws against victimless acts.

  • ||

    Partial credit goes to Terry, which gives cover to police who escalate encounters to the point a "suspect" can then be arrested.

  • ||

    rubbish. it recognizes police authority to investigate given a reasonable suspicion but absent PC.

    and it recognizes the duty of a subject of a terry stop to comply.

  • ||

    I owe you no duty.

  • ||

    tell it to the judge. if i have RS and you refuse to comply, you will be arrested.

    i should note that in 20 yrs of law enforcement, i have had to make less than 1/2 dozen arrests for refusing to comply with terry.

    that's out of several hundred terry stops

    because internet wanking aside, most people do comply

  • ||

    It's the power to harass and make illegal searches and nothing more. Giving police the power to stop someone in order to find evidence for probable cause is an end-run around probable cause.

    Be reasonable and inspire cooperation or arrest and explain why you did.

  • ||

    just like rights are RECOGNIZED not given, terry RECOGNIZED the authority to make stops based on RS

    you can wank about it all you want

  • ||

    Yes, complaining about my rights being trampled is "wanking."

    Your true colors always will out.

  • ||

    your rights are not trampled by terry

  • robc||

    Yes they are. Want to "investigate"? Get a subpoena.

    No PC, no stop. Terry stops are a violation of rights.

  • ||

    no, they aren't.

    the reason terry is reasonable is that it is impractical/impossible to get a subpoena while you are investigating inchoate activities without first stopping the person. among other things, you need a NAME for a subpoena

    also, under tery you are not required to answer questions (see the 5th) apart from identifying yourself

  • shorter dunphy||

    fuck the 4th amendment, that's why

  • ||

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    -
    I know you and your enablers have made a hash of this Amendment, but "unreasonable" searches are ones for which a Warrant has not been obtained. Every time you stop and frisk, you are wiping your ass with the 4th. And seem quite proud about the fact as well.

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.-


    What is the due process being performed to authorize detaining someone in order to perform a Warrentless search? Or would you like to argue that one violation provides cover for the other?

    What is a moral right and what you are allowed to get away with have no relationship to each other.

  • ||

    false. on so many levels.

  • ||

    Stunning retort.

  • WTF||

    Cogent argument - well thought out.

  • robc||

    SF - according to dunphy, cops following the constitution isnt reasonable. They need policy!

  • ||

    the constitution isn't policy.

    case law establishes what is and isn't consistent with the constitution

    policy can be more, but not less restrictive than case law

    for example, case law establishes when deadly force is reasonable

    many agencies in WA state have more restrictive deadly force policy than required under the law

  • Jim||

    Sorry Dunphy, but even for you, that's ludicrous. If you're talking about rights being recognized but not given, then you're talking about first principals, natural rights, etc.

    As far as I know, I have never, in any book on natural rights, ever, read of a natural right for police to stop people without PC. The right to stop and harrass people isn't a natural right, which is what it would have to be for it to be "recognized" the way you're talking about. Natural rights (those recognized, but not given) are things like the right to life and to be secure in property. Not the right to comply with fishing expeditions.

  • ||

    police don't have a right to stop you. they have authority

    you can't even get your basic analysis language correct

    regardless, for those wishing to turn this into some meta-wank about the alleged unconstitutionality of terry, you are wrong, but that's a meta wank i'm not going to bother with. the instant case, otoh is interesting

  • ||

    Once again, you dismiss the discussion of fundamental rights as "wanking." Freud would have a field-day with you. Assuming you didn't tase the cranky old Jew for back-talk.

  • ||

    i dismiss at as a meta tangent to the facts of the instant case.

    we could spend hours arguing about whether the 21 yr old age to purchase liquor is good policy, ALSO

    personally, i think it's not

    but it's meta wanking

  • Jim||

    you can't even get your basic analysis language correct

    You're so full of shit today. And normally you're quite reasonable. YOU ARE THE ONE who said that terry is "recognized" just like "just like rights are RECOGNIZED not given". So YOU MADE THE FUCKING ANALOGY, and now you're backing away from it.

    For something to be "recognized not given", that means it must already exist, as we assume rights to. So you're assuming that this authority already exists due to some natural principal.

    If you want to retract your original statement, that will also be acceptable.

  • ||

    i am saying that it is RECOGNIZED because case law doesn'tGRANT authority, just like it doesn't "grant rights"

    if you want to wank about natural law, knock yourself out

  • WTF||

    and it recognizes the duty of a subject of a terry stopunconstitutional detain and search to complybend over and take it.

  • Abdul||

    Many of you are arguing about how you wish the Constitution was interpreted. That's cute, but until you get appointed to the Supreme Court, you have to live in a world where someone else has already interpreted it.

  • ||

    exactly. people can make normative arguments all they want.

    i prefer to analyze this case from the constitution we have ... as interpreted by scotus etc. not the one we WISHED we had

    i WISH we had a right to privacy. the federal const. doesn't.

    my state const. does

  • Beezard||

    But in the meantime, you'll personally engage in anything that makes your job easier.

    You have the lawyers prattle on your side, but morally your the wank.

  • Butts Wagner||

    Chalk another victim of the enforcement of laws against victimless acts.

    This is what's important.

  • Gray Ghost||

    The video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sL0y6yqOKo

    So, if the initial baton strike was unwarranted, the striking officer should've been charged with assault right? (And getting hit with a baton in the legs /= "tripping" someone. Those damn things are hard.)

    Why is everyone laughing?

  • Pip||

    The issue that is overlooked is that there would be no reason to interview him about furnishing if we had the same laws as some European countries do, which is no age requirement to buy alcohol.

  • mr simple||

    Of course it was justified. Cops are the law. They get to make it up and execute it in anyway they see fit. Who's going to stop them?

  • ||

    considering that cops are routinely disciplined and/or charged for violating law/policy, your argument is silly

  • WTF||

    Yeah, they're always held accountable:

    As Mike Riggs noted last week, a Kern County Sheriff's Department review board concluded that the shooting was justified

  • ||

    i didn't say "always"

    furthermore, lots of non-cops also get away with shit

    welcome to the "justice system". see e.g. OJ

  • robc||

    At least OJ was indicted and put on trial.

    I would have no trouble with a general rule that all fatal shootings (cop or non-cop) must be presented to the grand jury. Its silly in clearly justified shootings (either cop or non-cop) but wouldnt be bad rule.

    Prevents a lot of abuse. Im sure most grand juries would laugh off a lot of the cases. But they might find some reasons to indict to.

  • ||

    yawn....

  • ||

    Yes, accountability is probably very boring.

  • ||

    accountability is very important. i'm for it. how about you?

  • Translucent Chum||

    "Officer Eugene Brown, during his career, shot nine people, three of whom died. By early 2004, the city had spent almost $8 million in lawsuits stemming from his actions.

    Brown was cleared in each case of wrongdoing in internal police investigations.

    Only taxpayers are accountable. Where is Brown being incarcerated? Oh, right...

  • ||

    incarcerated for what? did you present evidence he committed a crime?

    nope

  • Translucent Chum||

    You're right. Nothing to see. Move along. Shoot nine people, meh. Take home a little extra overtime pay - You're outa here!

    http://www.mlive.com/news/detr....._seek.html

  • ||

    yawn...

    Oh, I'm sorry is that not actually an argument when I do it?

  • Coeus||

    Oh, I'm sorry is that not actually an argument when I do it?

    Of course not. We hold you to a higher standard. You're not a cop.

  • robc||

    Seriously, why is taking all fatal shooting to the grand jury a yawner?

  • ||

    we don't do it with non-citizens, why should we do it for cops?

    i can tell you based on facts that i know of three recent self defense homicides by non-cops. none were arrested, indicted or "taken to grand jury"

    fwiw, in WA where i live ALL police fatal shootings do get an inquest

    non-cop shootings don't get one automatically

    higher scrutiny for police shootings

  • robc||

    we don't do it with non-citizens, why should we do it for cops?

    Can you not fucking read?

    I will quote myself:

    I would have no trouble with a general rule that all fatal shootings (cop or non-cop) must be presented to the grand jury.

    I bolded the key bit. Im suggesting changing the rules for everyone.

    non-citizens

    ???

  • ||

    i meant non-cops. and again, i'm not making a normative argument

    i can tell yuo that as a matter of practice, in my state, TONS of non-cop shooting result in no arrest, no grand jury (my state very rarely uses grand juries btw... not normal procedure), no inquest, etc.

    only police shootings get inquests as a matter of policy btw here

    noncop shootings usually dont

  • robc||

    we don't do it with non-citizens, why should we do it for cops?

    higher scrutiny for police shootings

    And while I suggested if for everyone. You answered your own question -- higher scrutiny. Inquest is to internal and I think civilian oversight panels are stupid, I want grand jury involvement.

  • Jim||

    Tell you what; next time a cop thinks I committed a crime, I'll have my parents fly down and conduct an internal investigation. When they declare that I followed proper procedure, you immediately dismiss your case.

    See how that may not work out if the same rules applied to us peasants?

  • WTF||

    Except the non-cops "getting away with shit" don't get to investigate themselves and determine they did nothing wrong.

  • Embezzling Banker||

    I looked at our books very carefully and everything is in order and in compliance with GAAP.

  • mr simple||

    Yes, routinely. I guess since you said that it must be true. Your words make all the bad things go away. Cops don't ever give unlawful orders, arrest or shoot people when the don't obey and not get in trouble. And politicians don't back up this behavior and judges don't excuse it. I understand your desire to turn a blind eye as you don't want to be part of something that does bad things. But good cops and good encounters with cops don't make the problem non-existent. Silly, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

  • Professional Critic||

    Jesus, that's pathetic goal moving. Dunphy said "routinely", you acknowledge it, then get snarky with "Cops don't EVER give unlawful orders." He already nailed you on your strawman argument once, now I have to do it because you can't fucking read.

  • mr simple||

    WTF are you talking about? You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I accepted nothing about anyone being routinely punished. It was clearly sarcasm to anyone with half a brain. Context, how does it work? Also, I suggest you read a book on logical arguments. All of my arguments were existential, not universal. So not only does he not back up the "routinely" with any data, which is what most of my response addressed, but it wouldn't disprove my argument. Strawman, that word does not mean what you think it means. When did this board get overpopulated with such idiotic trolls?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    you should refence the discussion on Monday...I offered to apply to be a quality troll for Warty but was quickly outgunned in the stupid department.

  • ||

    yawn. i turn a blind eye to nothing. and my record of calling for cops' indictment when i believe they committed crimes (e.g. schene) establishes otherwise

  • Pip||

    "my record of calling for cops' indictment when i believe they committed crimes (e.g. schene) establishes otherwise"

    Funny talk from Harassment Pig.

    Pip|1.5.11 @ 4:04PM|#
    Are you that useless goat fucking pig who refuses to answer the question: Have you ever seen a fellow officer break the law and if you have, did you arrest them?

    reply to this

    crickets|1.5.11 @ 4:14PM|#
    *chirp churp cherp*

    reply to this

    dunphy|1.5.11 @ 4:22PM|#
    ah yes. my favorite ad hom troll

    the answer is no.

    hth

    reply to this

    Coeus|1.5.11 @ 6:01PM|#
    the answer is no.

    Then you're not really in law enforcement, are you? Not a LEO. What are you called when you only ticket and arrest the little people and let fellow gang members off? Harassment Officer? Yes, that sounds right. HO. Nice ring to it.

    (And if you're tempted to come back and say that you've never seen another officer break the law, don't even try. I've seen two coddled cops who should've gotten PIs in the last 3 weeks, and I almost never see one of you fuckers obeying traffic laws.)

    reply to this
  • ||

    pip

    1) traffic infractions are not arrestable in WA, thus if i witness a cop breaking a non-criminal traffic law, i cannot arrest him... or a non-cop

  • WTF||

    You can cite him - do you do that?

  • ||

    omg!@ dunphy needs to go out and cite cops for doing 5 over the speed limit or he is a disgrace to liberty!!!

    derp derp derp

  • Coeus||

    omg!@ dunphy needs to go out and cite cops for doing 5 over the speed limit or he is a disgrace to liberty!!!

    derp derp derp

    Fuck off HO. Learn the law.

    The answer is that any speed beyond Washington's maximum speed limits could serve as prima facie evidence of reckless driving, which in Washington is a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. The prosecuting authority would, however, have to prove the charge of reckless driving (which unlike a speeding infraction includes wanton and willful disregard of persons or property)

    No one said 5 miles. I've never seen a cop go only 5 miles over the speed limit. They go weaving in and out of traffic like Mario-fucking-Andretti (unless they're going 10 under in the left lane and daring anyone to pass them, which is also reckless driving).

  • Gray Ghost||

    They go weaving in and out of traffic like Mario-fucking-Andretti (unless they're going 10 under in the left lane and daring anyone to pass them, which is also reckless driving).

    I've seen Coeus's cited reckless behavior much more often with tow truck drivers, than with cops. Although tow truck drivers won't pop their emergency lights to go through a red light, the way many cops will.

    The '5 under the limit trick' in the left lane, OTOH, is a popular one with the police in my area. And then you see the traffic congestion start building in your rear view mirror...

    Sigh, what can you do? They're incentivized to find crimes that put money in the city's coffers. Why should we be surprised when that's what happens?

  • Coeus||

    he is a disgrace to liberty!!!

    No, just a HO. Unless you claim to be a LEO, in which case you're also a hypocrite.

  • Pip||

    And you expect us to believe you have [never] seen a cop break the law? (I made no mention of traffic laws, BTW, that was Coeus) What a lying sack of shit.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Why do you even waste time responding to the man? He claims to be a cop, therefore he's a liar.

  • ||

    Routinely? Perhaps but the percentage of violations that go unpunished is much too high.

  • Coeus||

    Routinely? Perhaps but the percentage of violations that go unpunished is much too high.

    I know. He keeps saying that like they can't both be true. Logic fail.

  • ||

    Citation requested

  • robc||

    In other words, its exactly what I said happened in the original thread.

    Self defense makes it murder. And if the first cop is charged with felony assault, he gets felony murder added on.

  • ||

    Self defense makes it murder.

    Explain?

  • robc||

    I did the other night.

    Cop #1 commits unjustifiable (according to Dunphy) act.
    Turner, thus, is responding with legitimate self defense.
    Cop #2 shoots Turner. Since Turner was engaging in a legal act and cop #2 was witness to it all and thus knew it was legitimate self defense, his shooting of Turner is not justifiable, and is, hence, murder.

  • robc||

    If Cop #2 had shot Cop #1 to prevent him from continuing to assualt Turner, that would have been justifiable.

  • ||

    It's not justifiable to poke someone in the back while they're walking in front of you, but that doesn't mean the person you poke has the right to pull a gun out and blow your head off in response.

  • robc||

    That is not analogous. Striking with beer cans in a bag is not escalating from a baton strike.

  • robc||

    Not sure on CA law, but in KY, a baton is specifically on the list of deadly weapons, while beer cans are not.

    They would fall under "dangerous instruments" instead. Which legally, is no different.

    And you seem to be assuming that Turner bludgeoned the cop with the cans, he may have flailed wildly and weakly (as weakly as an ex-NFL player could) with them. We dont know for sure, do to lack of footage.

  • ||

    actually, it is. a baton strike to the leg is NOT deadly force.

    a strike to the head IS

    as i have explained before

  • tarran||

    If I were to kick someone in the back of the knees and they fractured the back of their skull on the pavement and died, would you be arguing that I didn't engage in deadly force?

  • ||

    You don't have to engage in deadly force to kill someone. Deadly force is force that is likely to cause death directly.

    Patting someone on the back is not deadly force, but it can still lead to death if the patee is walking a tightrope.

  • tarran||

    Tulpa, a blow to the back of the knee with a baton is designed to knock someone to the ground on their back.

    On concrete, it's like clubbing someone on the head with a slab of concrete, since that's what the back of their head is going to slam into, especially if they don't know how to break-fall and their hands are encumbered with a bag of liquor.

    For the cops to claim that they were not using deadly force and that they only killed Mr Turner in self-defense is disingenous. That strike was designed to cause Mr Turner to smack his head on the pavement. I expect that the reason they didn't hit him on the head was so that they could say "in the struggle he banged his head on the concrete".

    It does not surprise me that Mr Turner reacted with an attempt to seriously injure him with violence.

    So, having committed aggravated battery on the sly, the police use Mr Turner's attempt to defend himself with proportionate force as an excuse to gun him down.

    Now, Mr Turner was dumb; when dealing with armed men with a propensity for violence, unless you have superior fire-power or good cover, fighting back will get you killed. But just as we don't blame the store owner who refuses to pay protection money to the mob for his store being burnt down, or the rape victim for walking into a deserted corridor and getting jumped, I don't blame Mr Turner for his death.

    Mr Turner was the victim of homicide, and the men who did it will probably never be called to account for their crime. Like Casey Anthony, their cover up was successful enough to create reasonable doubt. But we know who they are, and there's no reason why we need have any dealings with them. A good Amish style shunning, while better than they deserve, would by wholly appropriate.

  • ||

    Turner, thus, is responding with legitimate self defense.

    According to the article, "Nadal went into a defensive position and Turner again began raising the bag—which weighed more than three pounds—to strike Nadal." I think that when you start whaling on a person who is no longer hitting you, and who in fact is now in a defensive position, you are no longer engaged in self-defense.

  • ||

    True, though it's quite possible that this is the part of the story that the video would contradict.

  • robc||

    And they lied about the baton to begin with, so no reason to trust them now.

  • robc||

    Also, assuming that was even true, the "proper" response is to run across the parking lot and tackle Turner.

    Of course, the proper response was not to use the deadly weapon (baton) in an assault to begin with.

    Cops escalate to firearms WAY too quickly.

  • ||

    some cops do. some do it way too slowly. some end up dead because of it.

    regardless, IF they escalated too quickly they deserve punishment

    i have not seen that established here

  • SIV||

    If the baton strike is AWD then the killing is felony murder.

  • SIV||

    "ADW"

  • robc||

    In Ky it is. A baton is on the list, it would be either Assault 2 or Assault 3 (3 in this case, as no serious injury was done with the deadly weapon). And thus a felony, and thus felony murder.

  • ||

    So you don't have a right to self-defense against escalated force?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So you don't have a right to self-defense against escalated force?

    The argument is that you don't if you initiated the unlawful assault. And attacking someone defending from your assault with a deadly weapon isn't really self-defense.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I believe what they're citing, an example would be if you and your friend engage in a felony assault on someone, and that someone kills your friend defending himself, you are on the hook for felony murder, even though you didn't murder your friend. But your felonious actions resulted in a death.

  • Tolly||

    Kern County PD - awesome Protectin' & Servin'!

    It never fails to amaze how the cops are the ones who escalate things into violence and death. This guy understandably got angry after being hassled and searched for no reason. If the POs on scene had bothered to act like cops and less like the goon squad, they could've just verified that he was out with his kids and apologized for troubling him.
    Instead, he gets upset at being treated like a crook and chooses to leave. Which is also 100% legal - with no arrest in effect. Then the billyclubs and the guns and just another dead (minority) citizen. It's only getting more attention because he was semi-famous.

    I only hope the cops in Kern County are busy negotiating for contracts/pensions so they can trot out the 'selfless public defenders' nonsense in the face of what the real priorities of the PD are. Unfortunately, the townspeople are just gonna get screwed over for both the lawsuit and the pensions...

  • ||

    Second degree murder sounds appropriate for that Kraft cocksucker. Frankly, these are the sort of people lynch mobs should have been used for in times past.

  • WTF||

    These are the sort of people lynch mobs would have been used for in times past.

  • SIV||

    ^THIS^

  • ||

    I promise to shit vibranium bricks if that cop ever gets put on trial for murder. Because it'll never happen.

    I'm honestly thinking the modern police department is a harmful institution that, in plebeian terms, NEEDS TO GO. It's just unbelievable.

  • ||

    waaaaaaah! police suck!

  • ||

    I'm not sure where the "waaaah" came from, or the aggregate mockery of my comment. I was theorizing, but perhaps that isn't permissible anymore; perhaps you'll instruct me on the proper way to talk about police by beating the living fuck out of me with your baton, or executing me, like that cop, for what is essentially disrespect.

    Everything I read, everything I watch, everything I experience and see and hear myself, everything, has clearly led me to the conclusion that police do, in fact, suck. And it isn't something to laugh about.

    As far as I know, you're free to find another line of work if the complaints are so unbearable. If they aren't, man the fuck up and deal with the fact that fear of your ilk is entirely justified.

  • shorter dunphy||

    respect mah authoritah!

  • ||

    respect rule of law;

  • ||

    You aren't the law, you are the rule of men in its sickest expression.

  • Absurdist||

    *UNLESS* you're a law enforcement officer.

    Then you get away with ignoring the law for multiple, MULTIPLE offenses, costing taxpayers millions, and still get a nice pension for all your illegal troubles.

    Then you can yawn and chuckle at the little people and their quaint Constitutionality.

  • ||

    not true, but nice rhetoric

  • Pip||

    "police suck!"

    You got that right, shit breath.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'm honestly thinking the modern police department is a harmful institution that, in plebeian terms, NEEDS TO GO. It's just unbelievable.

    I won't go that far. Police do a lot of good. What I will get behind is removing the officer's qualified immunity from suit, as well as any sovereign immunity his/her department has. Make LEOs get malpractice insurance like every other professional. A department may not give a shit if the guy has 9 shootings on his record, like that Detroit officer cited in the Morning comments, but his malpractice carrier damn sure will.

    The whole point of this exercise is to instill caution and prudence in LEOs who, judging by the video, often lack it.

  • ||

    I should have phrased it better: I was theorizing. But I'm not sure there will ever be the sort of necessary changes you're proposing, which is why I fear, and always will fear, the police.

  • ||

    you have a right to your irrational fear

  • ||

    Thanks for the permission, sir -- would you like to illegally confiscate all the property I own while you're busy giving me permission?

  • ||

    not particularly.

  • ghost of David Lee Turner||

    Yeah, it's a completely irrational fear.

  • Gray Ghost||

    If he's a poor black male, like Mr. Turner, I don't think his fear is irrational, dunphy. This guy got stopped because he had the misfortune to be the closest guy to them with bags as they pulled up. He then got pissed at being treated like a criminal---that frisk was a whole lot different than how I'd expect to be treated by the cops when I voluntarily answer their questions---and tried to walk off. He got a baton strike to the bag of his legs for doing so, and was dead 15 seconds later.

    As for me, a non-poor, non black, male, I already am told to treat LEOs in a manner oddly similar to dealing with a loose, vicious dog, or an easily upset, giant mental patient: don't make any sudden movements, don't run, don't agitate them, avoid if at all possible.

    And why not? The best I can do when meeting you guys is to come out of the situation as well as I was when I entered it. If I break even, I'm overjoyed. Judging by my experience trying to summon Houston P.D. for various issues (I worked nights and I've lived in a shitty neighborhood), it's not like you guys actually come out when you're needed.

    No, I'd say his fear is entirely rational. It sucks. And it didn't use to be this way.

  • T||

    Judging by my experience trying to summon Houston P.D.

    Ahh, yes, the PD that won't even fill out or file paperwork because it's inconvenient. Good luck with traffic accidents in Houston. They're all effectively no fault, because HPD won't do the paperwork.

  • ||

    his fear would be irrational. and fwiw, this convicted violent criminal had "survived" numerous arrests without anybody killing him.

    cops kill people in (as i cited before) 1 out of 40,000 arrests.

    and of course in the vast majority , they were justified by some sort of assault on them

    but given that, in TOTAL, only 1/40,000 arrests result in suspect death

  • ||

    I already am told to treat LEOs in a manner oddly similar to dealing with a loose, vicious dog, or an easily upset, giant mental patient: don't make any sudden movements, don't run, don't agitate them, avoid if at all possible.

    Slightly hyperbolic, but otherwise it sounds like common sense to me. They have guns and deal with crazy and violent people all the time.

  • Coeus||

    As for me, a non-poor, non black, male, I already am told to treat LEOs in a manner oddly similar to dealing with a loose, vicious dog, or an easily upset, giant mental patient: don't make any sudden movements, don't run, don't agitate them, avoid if at all possible.

    You forgot "don't make eye contact". I've seen people detained and questioned just for that. (I'm currently in a poor Houston neighborhood working nights)

  • ||

  • Byron||

    Awesome outcome! Did the perp die?

  • GILMORE||

    Blah blah, 'baton strike is or is not deadly force'....

    the short of it is, the story given by the kid (as reported by his sister) was more accurate and backed up by the camera than was the initial story by the cops, who still have no evidence to prove he ever "tomahawked" shit with his bag o' beer.

    The alleged details have all come out against the initial report by the cops, which never admitted striking first until the video was released. Find niggling details all you want = it was unjustified homicide.

    Dunphy? I recall asking if the details were that the cop initiated force, whether you would change your de-facto presumption of justification by the po-po... So what's your assumption now? Simply a more 'nuanced' apologia?

  • Gray Ghost||

    Admittedly, one officer did go to the E.R. with a scalp injury, and was treated/released. It would be helpful to get some of the other videos that I believe were shot by other witnesses to the scene. At least interview them and get their account of the situation.

  • Brett L||

    Admittedly? I don't see that anywhere.

  • Gray Ghost||

    http://www.bakersfield.com/new.....s-officers (Article in Bakersfield Californian, the morning after the shooting)

    "...During the scuffle Deputy Aaron Nadal, who has worked for the Sheriff’s Department for three years, was reportedly hit in the back of the head with a bag containing two 24-ounce cans of beer....

    ...Nadal was taken to Memorial Hospital where he was treated for his injuries and released."
  • MiNGe||

    "Find niggling"

    Who can know why the Right doesn't attract more support from the African-American community with gems like this?

  • MiNGe||

    You goddam hillbillies should stick to your traktor pullz and stop with all teh racisim.

  • ruf||

    wait. niggling is a racist term? I Never actually thought about it that way before.

  • ||

    I can't tell the ages of the three people stopped by the police, but upthread someone said "one is obviously over 21" and "one looks about 15 or 16".

    So... 2 adults (3 people total) and 2 beers in a bag. Anyone not in law enforcement would have immediately determined that this particular man was obviously NOT the person buying alcohol for minors, and let him go immediately.

    Walking while black. Disrespecting authority.

    Fucking murderers both.

    CB

  • ||

    lol. love it!

  • Pip||

    "lol. love it!" said the shitstain as he fondled his tiny cock.

  • ||

    smooches pip!

  • Pudgeboy||

    smug douche bag... easy for a pussy when he's got a gun and a badge...

  • Eric Cartman||

    Executed for the crime of turning your back to Authoritah.

  • ||

    "poor people tend to live in clusters and smell of spoilt milk"

  • ||

    I honestly don't understand what you're trying to do. Are you honestly going to contend the fact that members of your profession steal, assault, and murder on a regular basis? Are you honestly going to contend the fact that fundamental reforms to your profession are absolutely necessary if its existence can be made justifiable at all in a modern republican society?

    My best friend is a lawyer. Take everybody who you disagree with on Reason, multiply them by a million, multiply the intensity of their disdain and hatred and criticism of cops and their actions by a million, and you've got a pretty good image of how people treat the guy. I don't hear him bitching and whining about it -- he admits it can be extremely dirty business. Justify the state's faith in you and the state-issued gun your hip, Dunphy, and man the fuck up.

  • ||

    my claim is simple. most cops do their job pretty well, and police misconduct is a rare occurrence.

    a small %age of cops are bad as fuck.

    even amongst good cops, sometimes they screw up.

    as a general rule, police are very restrained in use of force, and deadly force.

    the stats back that up.

    cops kill 1/40,000 people they arrest.

    considering how many violent fucksticks we deal with, that's impressively restrained

  • tarran||

    Wow, they only kill 1 in 40,000?

    That's an interesting statistic! Because most instances of brutality don't end in death. Most instances involve a guy with bruises, the odd broken bone, some missing teeth, maybe a few burns.

    And it's always somehow justifiable: he made a furtive movement; he resisted; he lunged; he attempted to flee and injured himself when the officer tackled himself.

    And, oddly enough, in all the times when a video comes up showing brutality for which an officer is punished, one thing is noticeable in its absence; the guy committing the brutality is never, ever, restrained or stopped by his comrades.

    Instead, his comrades either join in, or stand around letting the brutalizer play "Giuliani time" on his victim unmolested.

    But hey, you're not like that, huh? Being man with the courage to 'friend' LEAP on facebook you would intervene if ever you saw something like that. The fact you haven't surely has more to do with the fact that there are so few bad apples you've never run into one!

  • Gray Ghost||

    FWIW, and I'd really like an actuary to come in and verify this, 1/40,000 is considered by risk management professionals to be a very high risk when the result is death. Anyone have experience trying to certify a process with OSHA with a 1/40K death rate? How did the meeting go?

    Compare that risk to the risk from "hazardous" activities such as, e.g., the fatality risk of motorcycle riding (39/100M vehicle miles, per this chart from NHTSA) or the fatality risk from skydiving (1 per 100K jumps, per this article citing Swedish research). Both of those activities, FWIW, are voluntary assumed by the recipient, unlike your typical arrest.

    Doubt that's the effect you were going for, dunphy.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Piling on, is the 1/40K rate for arrests as a whole? How about broken out by race/gender/age of the arrested? Going a bit out on a limb here, but I'm guessing it's higher for black men.

    Especially considering these mortality from homicide statistics, which are broken out by race/age/gender of the victim. For those not wanting to scan a 100 page .pdf for the good parts, it's on page 68-69. Highlights:

    White Male, 20-24, 6.3/100,000. Black Male, 20-24, 109.4/100,000. The black male homicide rate for over 70 year olds (10.0/100k) is still higher than the white male rate I listed, which was practically the highest rate for white men. Black men are victims of homicide at rates grossly exceeding those of any other ethnic group. It is not unreasonable to infer their rates of dying from arrest by LE is also grossly in excess of the death rate from arrest for the entire population. Which is already awfully high.

  • Randy||

    Posted this a couple of days ago, with some changes here:

    Given the circumstances, it would appear that Turner’s alleged acts of violence were done in reaction to the baton attack from the police officer. If so, why aren’t his alleged violent acts considered self-defense? I know, it's a silly question as all LEO actions are lawful until deemed otherwise after the fact.

    If one begins his examination of this shooting at the point where one officer shoots Turner before he can allegedly strike the other officer a second time, the shooting might be justified.

    Conversely, if one begins looking at this shooting from the point where the police question and then attack Turner as he is walking away (thereby causing Turner to react the way he is alleged to have done), the two officers’ actions as a whole seem unjustified.

    It seems quite obvious that the Kern County officials opted to judge the situation after the officer’s baton attack and not before.

    For the most part, the police in this country operate in a “heads, I win, tails, you lose” world. How nice for them. Not so nice for Mr. Turner and the rest of us.

  • NL_||

    I'm just glad we have police killing people in order to protect us from the threat of 19-year-olds consuming alcohol.

    If it weren't for the legal remnants of Prohibition, Turner would be alive and the cops wouldn't have been startled by a bag swinging through the air.

  • ||

    D-

  • Vichy||

    Given that cops are nothing but worthless subhuman thugs I presume most of the time they get shot they had it coming. Even REAL CRIMINALS have NO obligation to cooperate with the police, because the police ARE NOT representatives of their victims.

  • ||

    Let's take another variation on this.

    A non-LEO with a CCW is in the parking lot of a liquor store. He sees two citizens having a dispute. One hits the other over the head with a bag, and is winding up to hit him again.

    Is the non-LEO justified in pulling out his pistol and killing the one with the bag of beer?

    I don't think so. I just don't think that situation rises to the level needed to justify lethal self-defense.

    Ergo, the cop wasn't justified, either. Even if you take everything the cops say at face value.

  • robc||

    It depends in KY.

    I could as long as I am legitimately defending someone else, but I have to be right. If it turns out they were just kidding around and the one was just pretending to use deadly force then I get a murder charge.

  • ||

    you think wrong.

  • Pudgeboy||

    I say again: why do you engage at all with dunphy? He passed an eighth grade equivalency test, ran an obstacle course, and has a small penis. His opinions are worthless; he's a liar. Ignore him, and hopefully he'll just go away.

  • ||

    ah, the penis canard. usually only seen when liberals argue pro gun control.

    but very effective either way

    also... physician heal thyself

  • Pudgeboy||

    I didn't give you a tiny penis, your folks did, take it up with them.

  • ||

    Typically, the standard for lethal self-defense of yourself or others is whether the shooter has a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

    At best, this would be a borderline case. Realistically, though, do you have any doubt that there would an arrest and a trial? And do you think the shooter would have much chance of getting off scott-free, without even a conviction on some kind of lesser charge?

    I don't. And that's why I think there should be an arrest and a trial here. And, if the cop were treated without the benefit of any double standards, most likely a conviction.

  • ||

    i most definitely have a doubt. if an average joe shot somebody after that guy stoved his buddy/family member/etc. over the head with a bag containing a hard object. he saw his friend go down bleeding or whatnot and he shot the guy, he would not be prosecuted. that's been my experience in noncop self defense type cases.

  • ||

    This case likely would have a very hard time making it to "self defense" in anyone's lexicon if the shield wasn't involved.

    Minus the shield the narrative looks more like this:

    Two 30 something year old individuals approached an older man and his children outside a convenience store. After a brief verbal encounter the older man gathered his things and attempted to walk away. At this point one of the younger men approached the older man from behind and one of them hit him in the back of the leg with a heavy wooden club. The younger men claim the older man then attempted to hit young man 1 with a plastic shopping bag containing to 32 oz beverage cans. At this point young man 2 pulled out a gun and shot the older man twice, resulting in the death of the older man.

    Video survielence evidence confirms the verbal altercation and the older man attempting to leave. It also confirms the younger man hitting him from behind with the club as he was walking away. The video stops briefly and does not confirm the account of the older man swinging the shopping bag as a weapon, nor does it record the actual shooting. Witnesses with family ties to the older man dispute the account of the shopping bag being wielded as a weapon.

    Now, let's be honest. Absent any further twists, nobody is seriously going to consider self-defense in this case. Two guys approach an older guy in a parking lot late at night, pursue him after he tries to leave and hit him from behind with a club... and shoot him dead seconds later... Think about that scenario for a second. Who's going to even listen to the "but he swung a bag with beer cans in it at us and was about to do it again" part of their story?

    The only way a prosecutor even remotely considers lending an ear to the self-defense theory is if we're talking about a couple of rich, white guys who have connections to the town's power structure and a poor black man who has been in trouble with the law. And then only if he doesn't have to worry about a powerful black constituency taking exception to the shooting as some sort of hate crime.

  • MrDamage||

    And the occcasions average joes friend initiated the violent encounter by assaulting the victim with a baton? Seems to me the appropriate assessment of the situation begins with the first act of violence, not the second.

  • ||

    There have been several discussions in the last few days about whether or not the Norway shooter was crazy and what would drive a person to such an extreme action. I have to suggest this. He was feeling reage and helplessness about the labout party in much the same way that commentors here are feeling rage and helplessness about this and all those other "isolated incidents" that happen at the hands of cops. People sometimes feel that violence is the only action left that suits a particular problem.

  • ||

    wow. and I proofread that. I guess I better take those english as a second language classes soon.

  • ||

    To sum up: cops are always thugs, perps are always innocent victims.

  • Pudgeboy||

    To sum up: cops aren't that bright. They like to go on sites and act like they are constitutional scholars; and sadly, some people actually believe cops know what they're talking about.

  • ||

    Dunphy does know what he's talking about. The problem with these arguments is that Dunphy's analysis revolves around the rules of police conduct and the case history that supports their authority.

    Other people are arguing about "right and wrong" or "just and injust". His analysis is not about whether it is right for someone to get gunned down while leaving a convenience store and not bothering anyone. It is solely centered on whether the officers had the authority to take the actions they took at each step of the encounter.

    From what I understand, his analysis is that they had full authority to stop and question Mr. Turner. They had full authority to arrest him for leaving their interview against their orders. They did not have authority to escalate to the level of violence of hitting him with a baton at the moment they did so. They did have the authority to use a firearm to defend themselves from attempts to bludgeon them with a bag containing two full tallboy beer cans.

    Others are arguing that the entire situation is bullshit and it is entirely the responsibility of the people with guns and badges to ensure that the people they are sworn to "protect and serve" don't get killed during this sort of encounter. They are arguing that authority or not, Turner shouldn't have been put in the situation he was put in, and he should not have been shot. Whether the officers in question had the authority to stop and question him is only tangentially relevant to their analysis.

    Apples and oranges. Both can be true. The sum total of these officers actions is that they murdered somebody who was minding his own business for no good reason. At each individual step of the way, they may have been fully authorized by the state to act as they did. They may even feel justified in every action they took. But that doesn't make it right.

  • Pudgeboy||

    I understand all of that, and don't disagree with you. It's been a long time, and I'm just finally fed up with him and his condescending, smug attitude. It might occur to him that other people who come to this site might also have years of real-world experience dealing with law enforcement and their ilk, and that we all aren't ignorant folk who just don't understand the complexity of being a cop. Let's not pretend that a cop is some sort of student of the law, making complicated legal and constitutional decisions all the time. If need be, others work that out and retroactively apply it to the narrative they've decided upon (until video surfaces or something). I don't respect them, because I know them; and yes, I believe they have tiny penises.

    If the shoe fits...

  • Rock Action||

    I wrote nearly the exact same thing you just did a few months back in a dunphy thread, only it was longer.

    He knows. He's possibly just being disingenuous. It's also weird how he believes this case law is so "settled" when it's been only 40 years in the making, and it's a policy-based (read: a results and goal-oriented) doctrine that takes into account the "totality of the circumstances" to articulate what a "reasonable" suspicion is. I mean, if garbage like this keeps happening, policy will shift, and we'll see how the foundation upon which the legitimacy of these stops depends just crumbles under political or social weight.

    Not to mention the differences between state and federal constitutional standards, which he himself has pointed out and is well aware of, which makes his certitude in the legitimacy and propriety of this stop even more confusing.

    I like dunphy, but arguing with him in these threads is like arguing with a brick wall.

  • Coeus||

    I like dunphy, but arguing with him in these threads is like arguing with a brick wall.

    Arguing with him on any thread is like arguing with a brick wall. You can show him wrong with cite after cite and he'll either purposely miss the point or start putting words in your mouth.

  • ||

    Like him or not, dunphy is good for the reason.com comments section.

    And your summation about him and others rings true.

    As to the facts though, it's unlikely the cops had enough observable behavior of David Lee Turner to justify his detainment. Cops can't merely stop anyone, anytime, anywhere. They must observe suspicious behavior at length and they must have demonstrable experience that what they observed through time could be construed as suspicious.

    Thus, the death causality arises from the effects of the first cause, an unjustifiable stop and detainment. That is going to be the whole crux of the wrongful death suit.

  • ||

    It reminds me how Tony argues that the government taking your property isn't stealing because stealing is illegal and what the government is doing isn't illegal.

    I guess you could say that Turner wasn't murdered because his killing is deemed legal. I would argue that you're using semantics to justify an amoral stance.

  • ||

    Dunphy: I wanted to thank you for taking the time to post here. It's valuable to have the perspective of someone who has some sort of informed basis for their comments. I think that's what Reason Magazine is all about. It's amazing how many people spout off without using you as a resource for answering questions.

    I'm curious what you think of video/audio recording of police. Would you support the right of citizens to surreptitiously record on-duty cops?

    I agree with you that the # of bad apples is probably small, if you define bad apples as cops looking to do evil. BUT: How common do you think it is for cops to do things in their pursuit of justice that violate rules standards, perhaps because of some belief that the rule/standard is getting in the way of justice?

    Finally, a friend of mine told me that her husband is one of those "good cops" who is in law enforcement entirely and wholly for the reason that he likes to help people, help victims, and that he does do everything by the book in that pursuit. But, she said, even he has a "drop gun." Do you have any idea how common it is for a cop to have a drop gun in case something accidentally goes wrong?

  • Pudgeboy||

    Sure, ask nicely and you'll get an honest answer.

  • Fire Tiger||

    Actually it is arguable.

    1) We don't know who made the complaint about the minors. If it was anonymous then per 529 U.S. 266 anonymous tips lack sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. The officers stopped him without doing any investigation as to if minors were really stopping people, i.e. talk to the store clerk, let alone that a subsequent unreported crime had occured.

    2) Walking in a parking lot with bags in your hands can not be considered suspicion of a crime. In 40 NY2d 210, the court rejects the notion that behavior which is susceptible of innocent as well as culpable interpretation, will constitute probable cause and that it is equally true that innocuous behavior alone will not generate a founded or reasonable suspicion that a crime is at hand.

    On a side note you keep mentioning he was seen walking out of the store, however the video shows the officers arriving after he had left the store and was walking through the parking lot.

  • ||

    This guy's estate shall win the wrongful death suit with ease. Too bad, that the end result isn't voodoo to bring him back to life.

    Of course the police department is going to lie and claim their boy acted properly. That's all part post-incident theater in which all policing agencies engage in hopes of dissuading victims and their relatives from civil action.

    There was exactly zero basis for the detainment and zero basis for the subsequent clubbing, which provoked the victim to counterattack.

    Too bad that Kern County's insurer will be on the hook probably for less than $1 million.

  • ||

    Too bad, that the end result isn't voodoo to bring him back to life.

    Hey, still plenty of opportunity for voodoo on the cops.

  • Todd||

    You can't trust cops when you're black. This is so unjust it makes my blood boil!!! Killing the dad unjustly infront of his own son and friend. That's going to leave a deep mark!!! The cop needs to be prosecuted and the department needs to be retrained. David Lee Turner is murdered!!!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement