Police Abuse

Austin Police Officer Shoots First At Unarmed Man in Traffic Stop, Asks Questions Later

|

Policing in modern America, from Austin, Texas today:

An Austin police officer fired at an unarmed man who was walking toward him during a traffic stop in East Austin on Wednesday morning, Chief Art Acevedo said….

Kogelvrij glas / Bulletproof glass
Photo credit: Nationaal Archief / Foter.com

Acevedo said the officer pulled over a pickup that had run a red light. The driver, a white man described to be 54 years old, "jumped out, walking toward the officer," Acevedo said while flanked by Police Monitor Margo Frasier and outgoing police Chief of Staff David Carter. The "officer ordered (the suspect) several times to get in the vehicle," he said.

The officer fired at least once when he said he saw the man make several "furtive" movements, as if reaching for a weapon, Acevedo said.

The man was not struck but returned to his vehicle, suffering what Acevedo believed to be an "anxiety attack." He was taken to University Medical Center Brackenridge and is doing "fine," the chief said. He was not found to be carrying a weapon, Acevedo said.

Acevedo said that there is video and audio recordings of the incident and that he has reviewed the video.

Acevedo said that he saw some movements by the man but that it was difficult to assess those movements because of the nature of the small video screen…..as is customary in such cases, the officer will be placed on administrative leave.

Furtive = death! (Potentially.) Remember kids: if you always obey every order, you (might not) get shot at by your friendly local police.

NEXT: Benghazi Testimony Contradicts Administration Story

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.

  1. The man was not struck…

    Classic.

    1. Bullets escaped from a firearm. The department is investigating this odd occurrence.

      1. See! Guns do kill people!

        1. Hey, the gun union objects most strenuously to this characterization. The proximate cause of death in any shooting is the bullet. Bullets kill. Not guns. And certainly not anyone else who might somehow be near a gun.

          1. We should quit it with this piddly middleman shit and go straight to the source of the problem.

            Ban wounds.

            It’s time this country had someone who was willing to stand up to the for-profit medical industry and the doctor’s lobby and do the right thing.

            1. People don’t actually die of getting shot, you know. They die when their blood stops circulating and the brain is starved of oxygen for a sufficient amount of time.

              1. Fucking brains! They’re what cause people to start shit too. Obviously we need to ban brains.

                1. Well, living brains. Dead brains are okay.

                  1. Dead brains can still transfer diseases if you touch them. Better to ban them all just to be safe.

                  2. With multiple examples of really henious crap our apparently brain-dead politicians try to pull off I would ask for some citations to support this statement.

            2. It’s time this country had someone who was willing to stand up to the for-profit medical industry and the doctor’s lobby and do the right thing.

              You don’t go too far enough. It’s time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I’m against those things that everybody hates.

            3. I actually support this. If the WoD is any example, within five years of banning all healthcare, the most complicated procedures would be widely available at prices even homeless crackheads can afford.

    2. He fucked up and didn’t empty his gun.

      1. And no word on whether any passersby lost a tail light or brain hemisphere due to an unexplained projectile in the area at the time.

        1. Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple people had their cars ventilated by stray bullets.

      2. In law school, my torts professor told a joke about making sure you backed back over someone you ran over with your car, because wrongful death is cheaper than dealing with a living, injured person.

        1. because wrongful death is cheaper than dealing with a living, injured person.

          Harder to wheel a corpse in front of the jury, too. Which is one of the explanations for your point above.

          1. There are also more damages for things like pain and suffering, and other long-term damages.

        2. I was told that it is way easier to convince a jury it was an accident if there’s only one side to the story.

          1. That’s true, too, but his point was the damages. Besides, there are other witnesses (and evidence) besides the victim, you know.

    3. What are you, a highschool English teacher?

  2. Would some one tell me who uploads police-incriminating police-car dashcam videos onto youtube? I don’t know why the police would do it, and I don’t know how anyone else would get access to them.

    1. You can get them from FOIA requests, assuming the files haven’t been “lost” or “damaged.”

      1. It occurs to me that records and other potential evidence should be held by an entity entirely independent of the government.

        1. It’s a nice thought, but funding and daily interactions will create a “professional courtesy” atmosphere pretty damn quick and render that separation all but meaningless.

          1. I’ll fucking donate to the Underhanded Laboratories if it ever comes into being.

        2. It occurs to me that police dash-cam footage shout automatically load to you-tube LIVE.

      2. Okay, but the turnaround seems so quick sometimes. Does FOIA work so speedily?

  3. Furtive movement! Officer safety! Procedures were followed! Totality of circs!
    BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

    It was justified, a good shoot.
    hth

    1. Probable claws! Claws of death!

  4. We should give the police the benefit of the doubt in a grey area like this.

  5. The guy was walking towards the cop, huh? I suppose that explains why cops shoot so many dogs. So, safety tip: don’t walk towards cops.

    1. But don’t walk away from them, either. Or run. Or try to obey conflicting orders by moving too much. All of these things can cause you to be pummeled/Tasered/shot.

      1. Don’t stand still either. That could be seen as defiance.

        1. It’s like Mongkut in “The King and I”. Approaching him standing up implies you consider yourself his equal. Instead, you must always keep your head lower than the cop’s, and approach him bowed in humble supplication.

      2. But don’t walk away from them, either. Or run. Or try to obey conflicting orders by moving too much. All of these things can cause you to be pummeled/Tasered/shot.

        When dealing with cops, anything you do can get you killed; including nothing.

      3. The answer is shoot first to protect your own safety.

      4. Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all tazers and bullets. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

    2. Or, in the case of that whittler in Seattle(?), don’t walk away from cops either.

  6. “. . .difficult to assess those movements because of the nature of the small video screen”

    Tell you what – I’ve got a 42′ video screen you guys can use to watch the video.

    1. Camera was made by the lowest bidder – the image won’t be any better.

  7. Furtive movements? Reminds me of Col. Bat Guano.

    “If you try any preversions in there I’ll blow your head off. “

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.