Police

Arkansas Deputy Kills Teen 'Armed' With Antifreeze Trying To Fix a Truck

Family and friends protest and look for answers.

|

Add "bottle of antifreeze" to the list of common objects law enforcement officers have mistaken for deadly weapons and then used to justify shooting—and, in this case, killing—an unarmed citizen.

Family and friends of 17-year-old Hunter Brittain are speaking out after he was shot and killed by a Lonoke County, Arkansas, sheriff's deputy in an early morning encounter near Cabot, a suburb of Little Rock, last week.

According to an account by 16-year-old Jordan King, who was with Brittain at the time, the two of them were working on repairs to a truck's transmission and were pulled over by Sgt. Michael Davis after driving the truck away from a body shop at about 3 a.m on June 23.

King told local ABC affiliate KATV news that the truck wouldn't properly shift into park, so Brittain went to the back of the truck with a jug of antifreeze to prop behind a truck's tire so that it wouldn't roll backward and strike Davis' vehicle. That's when Davis fired at Brittain, and according to King, Davis didn't tell him to stop or get on the ground. He just shot him.

Brittain was killed. Family and friends are demanding answers and have been protesting outside the Lonoke County Sheriff's Office to draw attention to Brittain's death. A Vice reporter picked up the story Monday and gave it some national attention.

The press release from the Arkansas Department of Public Safety is par for the course with its vague use of passive voice when describing what happened: "Hunter Brittain, 17, of McRae, the driver of a truck stopped by the deputy, sustained a gunshot wound and was transported to a North Little Rock hospital where he later died." Later on in the statement, it does acknowledge that Davis fired his gun at Brittain.

State police are investigating the shooting. There is body camera footage. Lonoke County Sheriff John Staley put out a statement Thursday saying that he supports letting the body camera footage, which he has handed over to the state police for the investigation, be publicly released.

According to Vice reporter Emma Ockerman, state police will not be commenting further until they've investigated and a prosecutor determined whether "the use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer was or was not consistent with Arkansas laws."

The state's laws allow for the use of deadly force as self-defense in situations where a person "reasonably believes" the other person is about to commit a violent felony or use unlawful deadly force. There is a duty to retreat in the law, but law enforcement officers are specifically exempt.

The inclusion of the "reasonably believes" standard is relevant because one of the ways that law enforcement officers are able to excuse killing an unarmed person is by arguing that they feared they were in danger, even when the facts don't support it, and that this fear was nevertheless reasonable given the circumstances. Militarized "warrior cop" training even encourages law enforcement officers to see the people they interact with as potential threats, regardless of the circumstances, and then these experts are put on the stand whenever an officer faces trial for a shooting to attempt to convince a jury that this constant fear is justified.

Absent changing this deadly force threshold, which some states have done, this is one of the reasons why the release of body camera footage is so important. It can help show whether it was actually "reasonable" for a law enforcement officer to believe he was in danger or whether he fired recklessly or irresponsibly.

NEXT: California, New York Have the Most To Gain From Ending Bonus Unemployment Benefits. They Probably Won't.

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. You guys must not have gotten the memo but this is part of the new BLM approved community policing standards.

    #equity

    1. USA Making money online more than 15000$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Let’s head off the excuses about how dangerous it is to be an cop or make a traffic stop as one from the start, here:

      “The 10 most dangerous jobs in America”
      https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-according-to-bls-data.html

      Cops didn’t even make the list. Policing is, largely, a relatively safe, well paid, and highly privileged big government workfare program. That the pols and other bureaucrats support because police protect them and aid them in collecting fees and taxes, both directly and via general fear and oppression, from us to support the parasitic Government Class.

      1. According to the FBI data there were 46 leos feloniously killed on duty and 47 killed in accidents (negligents?), mostly vehicle related, for a total of 93. Given there are over a million people employed by police agencies that makes it less than half as dangerous as the least dangerous job on that list.

        1. Oh, that’s 2020 data.

      2. I mean, I’d probably see everyone else as a danger if I was constantly a threatening asshole towards them too. Like going out to find badgers to poke with sticks.

      3. I am creating an honest wage from home 1900 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year gone i used to be unemployed during an atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis. I used to be endowed withfdfdfdfd these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody,

        Here is where I started……….Visit Here

    3. I am creating an hosdsdsdnest wage from home 1900 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, bd econosdsdmysdsds. I convey God on a daily basis. I used to be endowed with these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody,

      Here is where I started……….Visit Here

  2. Nothing to see here. Cops are always in the right. Move along.

    1. The cops are slowly figuring out that when they absolutely, positively have to kill somebody, pick a white guy.

    2. Where is the outrage and paid political fanatics? For that matter where is the media coverage. Same place they were when a black neighbor executed a white 8 year old for stepping on his lawn 6 months ago.
      White lives matter don’t they? Maybe not in Little Rock, Baltimore, Chicago……………..

      1. The hypocrisy is rather glaring isn’t it. Our news is carefully groomed to present exaggerate any incident that can be used to propagandize for “systemic racism” against blacks, and ignore and/or gloss over incidents that show criminal behavior by non-whites. Is that also “systemic racism”? Consider the sound of crickets in the MSM when police are murdered by non-whites – FAR more often than incidents of police abusing non-whites!

      2. Media coverage is largely location based. A story that happens in a big city with big news stations and newspapers is far more likely to be covered than something that happens in Lenoke County, Arkansas. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

        1. Kenosha Wisconsin and Sanford FL being Top 10 Media markets….

          1. Kenosha gets covered by Milwaukee media, and the kid who was at the center of the controversy [Rittenhouse] came up from Antioch, Illinois, so Chicago stations got involved. Some folks in Racine & Kenosha commute to Chitown. METRA will take you to Union Station. Mixed marriages between Packer and Bears fans can be a source of conflict.

    3. See, this is the problem I have with BOTH sides of the issue of cops and violence. BLM and its enablers has a habit of picking cases where the cops are largely justified. A nasty, suspicious mind might suggest that anti-cop rallies are tolerated because they distract the urban poor blacks from real issues, and they are aimed at cops who acted legitimately because that will bund the cops more tightly to their Unions (which the political class control).

      OTOH, there are far too many people who ARE ready to excuse police misbehavior, and who use the obvious idiocy of BLM to excuse THEIR obvious idiocy.

      1. Yes, both sides have bad actors, and merely pointing out that the other side has bad actors isn’t an argument for anything. But somehow most people think this is sufficient. We need police and criminal justice reform for many, many reasons, but then some people just start going on about how bad BLM is as if that were relevant.

    4. Before you get so caviler about the risk to the police officer you should know that Anti-freeze has been used as a murder weapon before this had he probably had ample reason to be on guard.

      Anti-freeze is poisonous and very hard to detect in a sweet desert wine, it’s not hard to envision the teen slipping on a sexy neglige, Adding the anti-freeze to a goblet of 2015 Chateau D’Yquem Sauternes (379.95, Bevmo), and offering it tot he Deputy. The taste would be undetectable, and of course at 3am the telltale green of the antifreeze wouldn’t be detected either, nor would the sexy neglige be out of place even in a pickup roadside in a suburban part of the county (to be fair overalls (with no undergarments), a cotton shift or complete nudity might be more common in more rural areas.)*

      That’s not my definitive theory of the case, but as a former Arkansas resident I can say that is plausibly what the Deputy was thinking.

      * I realize that Hunter ( not joes son) was a heterosexual male, but he would know that some subterfuge is required to lure an Arkansas deputy sheriff to his death at 3am.

      P.s. Anyway obviously the verdict is qualified immunity, with of course a tiresome solo dissent.

      PPS:. Please fix your tiresome new ads system.

      PPPs none of this is intended to cause any grief to the family, but meant to lampoon the Arkansas public safety officials that are going to try to justify this.

  3. That’s what he gets for trespassing on public property.

  4. Well, I expect a lot of action after this story goes global.

    1. Yeah, riots and arson all over Detroit, MI and Gary, IN. Lots of footage of mostly peaceful black protestors while, on the fringes, snapshots of mostly white hooligans walking out of smashed open Starbucks and Gap stores with drink carriers full of lattes and armloads of polo shirts… for social justice.

      1. White hooligans stick to sports riots where they burn, loot and kill because their sports team won. Or lost.

        1. This reminds me of the way a child will refer to a single incident where they saw their parents do a thing, which somehow justifies their doing that thing, only worse and repeatedly.

          “Oh, Mom and Dad only leave the front door open when x”, says petulant child sarcastically after leaving it open 10 times a day for years.

  5. Shackford only approves of federal police executions, which is why he’s willing to spend years regurgitating their propaganda in an effort to justify totalitarian persecution of the left’s political opponents.

    1. lol.

      1. Hey, asshole! Still waiting for that ONE example of Ken lying!
        Or, as a lying piece of shit, are you now willing to admit you are full of it?
        Just, checking back, asshole! You made the claim and I guess we can treat all of your posts as lies, right, asshole?

        1. Note to foreign readers. Reason has added a Mute user icon you can use to pull the plug on loudmouthed retarded people cursing from behind the qualified immunity of sockpuppet avatars.

          1. Also, dear foreign readers, see Hank Phillips for an example of something mutable despite not being anonymous.

            1. Hank sometimes rambles but he’s never offensive. I’d never mute him.

              1. I wouldn’t mute someone because I am an offended wussy. I would mute someone who is frequently too dumb to even read. Which would save time.

              2. If by ‘rambles’ you mean ‘desperately aspires to playing the role of old-man-of-the-libertarian-mountain through a bad imitation of Hunter S. Thompson diction’ then you are correct.

    2. What the hell are you talking about????

      1. Shackford’s main job to push Russia hoaxes and excuse corruption

  6. “and then these experts are put on the stand whenever an officer faces trial for a shooting to attempt to convince a jury that this constant fear is justified.”

    The author is clearly out of touch with law enforcement realities. Having hundreds of potentially deadly or at the very least violent interactions every year puts you on edge. You aren’t going to be the one who is not coming home to their family tonight. Not you.

    It’s still a shit story. But by continuing to dissolve the reputation of LEOs, you will just make the job even less attractive than it is. And it will turn into a magnet for the worst kinds of individuals.

    1. And it will turn into a magnet for the super worst kinds of individuals.

      It is already a neodymium magnet for awful human beings. It may be in the future law enforcement attracts a new type of the worst kinds of individuals but I don’t see it as anything but a distinction without a difference.

      1. Robocop.

      2. Oooo, neodymium. But no, not as much as it could be. Jobs where you work with kids naturally have an aspect of attracting pedos. Jobs where you have some sort of power over somebody occasionally, like LEO, certain office clerks or politicians (hugely) have naturally attract power freaks and the like.

        That’s not what I am talking about. It can get much worse. Which happens when the job is universally shunned. Which it currently isn’t. Many still believe we need law enforcement. Check out some carboarded windows on main street where you live for reasons why. People like de espresso loser would probably love to see the remaining support dissolve though.

        1. America got along for centuries with no police (standing army) at all. That was when the Second Amendment still meant something, of course. And it was way more peaceful than our cop-rich blue cities.

          1. Oh man, people taking responsibility for their personal sphere of being is kind of a concept. But agree. As my name probably signals.

      3. The new federal forces who’ll be replacing local cops will be drawn from the blmantifa zombies.

    2. LEO’s and their unions are dissolving their own reputations. Reporting on the news is journalists’ jobs. not killing innocent civilians is cops’ jobs.

      1. Reporting is their job, agreed. But before they can “report” they should actually know what they are talking about. Unless you think their job really is “spreading politically approved drivel”, no?

        Not shooting innocent civilians is part of cops jobs. Agreed. All I am saying is that I am not as confident about how to solve the problem. I’m sure you have the answers though and are very confident about them being the only right way to do it without any questions allowed to be asked, de oppresso loser. I think it’s important to shit on law enforcement whenever we can. Sounds like a well-reflected, constructive remedy.

        1. Am I supposed to defend the position you made up for me now? Just want to make sure we’re playing the same game.

          1. Well, if we played your preferred game, it would probably be about us defending the positions you make up for everyone else. 😀

          2. Hey, asshole! Still waiting for that ONE example of Ken lying!
            Or, as a lying piece of shit, are you now willing to admit you are full of it?
            Just, checking back, asshole! You made the claim and I guess we can treat all of your posts as lies, right, asshole?

        2. Cops are civilians. Guilty civilians, but still civilians.

          Your average pig is basically the sovereign citizen he claims to hate. The law doesn’t apply to him, for reasons.

          1. Civilians? Technically. They are organized in a manner reminiscent of military units, hence the term paramilitary. Special internal units such as SWAT might as well be in the military.

    3. It’s their job to take on dangerous situations so that other people don’t have to. If that makes them so on edge, then they are temperamentally not suited to the job and need to seek other employment. Police need to be willing to take a bullet if that’s what it takes to be sure someone is a threat before using force. They are supposedly trained. Normal people are not trained in how to behave to avoid being shot by a twitchy cop.

      1. From what I’ve seen, cops are considered justified in opening fire if they see a gun. How many videos have you seen where a cop shouts “GUN! GUN! GUN!” and then someone dies. Doesn’t have to be pointed at them. Just has to be present.

        Didn’t a cop get fired for not shooting a guy who had a pistol but wasn’t waving it around? Cop was a Marine (no such thing as an ex-Marine, only retired Marines) and he could tell the guy was not a threat. Backup showed up and immediately shot the guy, and Mister Restraint was fired and blackballed.

        1. For the record, I am not making excuses for what happened in the story above. It’s a nightmarish shit show. But when you read bs like “They need to be willing to take a bullet if that’s what it takes to be sure someone is a threat”, I mean, can you see how out of touch some people are? Ironically often those that demand “reform”? All I am saying is, a possible solution will not come from them.

          1. Zeb is wiser than you give him credit for. Don’t judge someone on one statement.

            1. Possible. If so, I apologize.

              1. You seem new here. People sometimes phrase things in extreme ways to emphasize a point. My point is that police should be expected to accept more danger to their persons than non-police civilians typically do. That’s a big part of their job. I’m not saying wait to be shot before taking down someone brandishing a gun in a threatening way, for example. But if you aren’t sure whether someone has a weapon or a bottle of antifreeze, then you don’t start shooting.
                People volunteer for the military for longer hours, more danger and worse pay. Shouldn’t be impossible to hire cops.

                1. Yea, he totally shot prematurely and acted like a full on retarded goon. Not denying that for a second.

                  I am not new, but too casual to know everyone here and on average I am low activity. I will go back to low activity now.

      2. I love how all the triggered lefty shits are swarming around me today. Did I forget to take a shower this morning or what? 😀

        Anyways, you are without a point. I mean garbage like this:
        “Police need to be willing to take a bullet if that’s what it takes to be sure someone is a threat before using force”

        AWESOME LMFAO. I suggest you put that on a job ad and see if you manage to recruit more than five officers in your entire state. Moron lol

        1. Zeb is a leftist? Ha! That’s news.

          1. Maybe not. But with drivel like “job requirement should be to be willing to take a bullet before acting” he becomes temporarily indistinguishable from one.

            1. I’d say that statement is a bit too much. Personally I’d say “job requirement should be telling the difference between a person who is a threat, and a person with a weapon.”

              1. “As much as humanly possible”. What divides us over this is probably really partly a problem of physics.

                1. Please clarify. I have no idea of what that comment means.

                  1. In some cases physics don’t even allow us to tell the difference between armed and unarmed, let alone armed and a threat vs. just armed. And I will not claim to know how to solve the problem, but shitting on the police to dissolve their reputation, make the job even less attractive and get ever lower quality individuals to work there is probably not it. I am a little emotional today and have a twitchy index finger. Maybe I should stay away from that submit button for a little while.

                    1. I’m lost. Unless you’re using physics as a metaphor I have no idea of what you’re talking about. To me physics is measurements and math. Lots and lots of math.

                    2. Interesting. Well, for example, darkness is an aspect of physics. Optics and visibility is how physics turn into a factor that impacts our interactions. Then, if you can’t be sure that what you are seeing is a weapon, your survival instinct will fill in the gaps for you, sometimes with dire consequences. Again, making no excuses for the disaster of an officer that must be the guy in the article.

                      I’m saying that requiring a cop to be borderline suicidal is not the answer, because that instinct will come out and most if not all recruits will not fit the job profile for very long. Take into account that shit changes you. You can be a good officer for 5 years and then would have to be fired already. And here reality (also founded in physics) limits the availability of personnel further. This shit’s complicated. Shitting on law enforcement is easy. And probably not a good idea, generally speaking.

                      Does that make sense?

                    3. “Does that make sense?”

                      Nope. None. Let’s just let this conversation die.

                    4. So I was basically saying that you requiring a cop to always safely make such distinctions is something that neither a human nor a machine can do. And that blowouts will happen. And sometimes you won’t find somebody to blame, because there isn’t always someone. No matter how idealistic your approach is or how large your punishment boner. And that shitting on the police publicly will just tank their quality further.

                      Also, physics is not math at all. You use calculus and on higher levels some advanced notation to describe what’s basically already out of our 4 dimensions, 5 senses reach. But math is just a crutch.

                    5. Cops are people. Yeah. I get it. And if my experience showed them to be good people who deserve the benefit of the doubt I’d agree with you. But every cop I’ve ever met, on or off duty, had a mean heart.

                      As far as your definition of Physics goes, good luck with that in college.

                    6. Thank you for admitting you use your personal, filtered, biased experience with small samples as a measure of reality. Next the smart boy wants to tell me what physics is. 😀

                      I have a masters degree in a STEM subject. 4.0. Doesn’t mean I believe in the bullshit they are selling. I think you believe a bit too much in what school and the system tells you, smarty. Fair enough, I only had to take calculus based physics 1 and 2. But again, the A’s were, as I was told, an indication of mastery. US education is laughable, anybody ever tell you this? Therefore, having some luck in college isn’t even an indication of anything worthwhile.

                      If you don’t understand why math is just a crutch, I might have overestimated you. I do that rather frequently.

                    7. Fuck off Tulpa.

                    8. LOL dipshit
                      Why is it so inconceivable for you that more than one person disagrees with your snarky attitude? I don’t think this is a very hard concept.

        2. You’re the one insisting that they put their lives on the line every day. How is that any better for recruitment?

          1. There’s a bit of a difference between that and a job description that says “be ready to dodge a bullet to make sure someone is really a threat”. The latter sounds like a parody to me.

            1. Right, so don’t hire me to write job descriptions for police. All I’m really trying to say is that police need to give a lot of the benefit of the doubt to a person who has not been acting in a threatening or criminal way before using force. They signed up for the dangerous job. The random guy he pulled over didn’t.

              1. “All I’m really trying to say is that police need to give a lot of the benefit of the doubt to a person who has not been acting in a threatening or criminal way before using force.”

                That I totally agree with. Again, making zero excuses for the officer in the article.

            2. Sometimes truth trumps parodies. You ought to research the current UK last on self-defense. If your home invader has a knife or tire iron, you can’t respond with a gun, or even a crossbow.

              1. Sounds like a nightmare and very unfree country to live in. I bet such a country would treat their citizens in really totalitarians ways if there were something like a global pandemic, or other hypothetical adverse events.

                Can you tell me more about this UK country of yours?

              2. Didn’t mean to be snarky by the way. Been thinking about the UK actually. Do their cops even do anything these days?

    4. A few years ago, the FBI put out a report on active shooter incidents. Something around 50% of them were resolved before police arrived. If you sorted through the math (tossing out shooters who killed themselves, etc.), more often than not, unarmed, untrained civilians were just as willing and able to defeat an armed attacker than police were.

      1. In the USA, as of 2012:

        The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29.

        The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33.

        1. Police ARE civilians. That attitude and related propaganda on their part is a big cause of the issue.

          1. Whine Whine Whine 😀

        2. Meh, that’s a skewed statistic.

          First, there’s the adage. “When seconds count, the police are minutes away”. It’s true. If someone stops it quickly, then it’s over quickly, but if you have to wait for the cops, of course there will be a higher death toll.

          Second, one mass shooter isn’t like another. A drunk guy who pulls a gun in a bar fight is likely to be stopped before he can get more than a few shots off, and a gangster on a revenge killing is likely to face return fire. A prepared terrorist mowing down a school or shopping mall is going to be a lot harder to take down since they are aware of their surroundings and targeting unarmed bystanders.

    5. Cops are supposedly trained and should absolutely be held to a higher standard than “shoot first, ask questions later”.

      I’m reasonably sure the way most cops react to nearly any possible threat would get you court martialed in the military.

      More to your point about their reputation being dissolved: Selective enforcement of laws, enforcement of victimless “crimes”, and basically being a collection agency for local governments (not to mention their dogmatic adherence to the thin blue line) has done more than journalist or us crazy commenters ever could.

      But I agree, we need to figure out a way to stymie that and then turn the tide or we’re going to end up with even worse assholes than we have now.

      1. “Cops are supposedly trained and should absolutely be held to a higher standard than “shoot first, ask questions later”.”

        No objections. Can basically agree with the rest as well. Except that the mainstream media has probably made major contributions to law enforcement being held in lower than deserved regard. But yes, they have a lot of shit to answer for, even without any unfair treatment.

    6. It already is a magnet for the worst kind of individuals, not because of the author’s attitude about police, but yours.

      1. Another whiny little love letter, thank you. 🙂

        My attitude is bad why? All I’m saying is that shitting on them won’t help improve them. Is that bad?

    7. You’re a faggot.

      Cops aren’t even in the top 25 most dangerous jobs. And the ones who do die are more likely to die from a donut-fueled coronary than a gangbanger.

      And if it’s too much for your pussy to handle, you can always flip burgers at McDonald’s. I wouldn’t suggest delivering pizza. That actually carries a risk of death.

      1. Awesome, look at the triggered dipshits everywhere. Delicious tears on your end, NomanAzol. 😀

        Anyways, if you could give me your statistics, I might be able to tell you what could mask the dangers of their jobs (Hint: being armed and ready could be part of it). It’s kind of naive to assume that dealing with criminals every day wouldn’t make your job pretty dangerous. I think libertarian types (and lefties too) sometimes suffer a bit from police derangement syndrome.

      2. “You’re a faggot.”

        I love how you just cut to the chase

        ROFLMFAO

        1. Simple messaging for simple minds. They are into that sorta thing.

      3. Actually being a fry cook for extended periods will give you lung cancer even more readily than smoking. It is far more dangerous than police work.

    8. Cops choose to go into a line of work where they have “hundreds of potentially deadly or at the very least violent interactions every year.” That doesn’t entitle then to assume that everyone they encounter is out to kill them. The rest of us, by way of contrast, don’t choose to have encounters with cops–and I’m willing to bet that Hunter Brittain in particular didn’t choose to have transmission problems or to need to put a can of transmission fluid behind the wheel of his truck to keep it from rolling.

      1. The typical Reason conservative has never been so poor that they had to put fluid in their own transmission. They just call their BMW or Lexus dealer to arrange service.

        1. Adding Royal Purple to the front and rear differentials got me another 2 mpg.

        2. You aren’t carried around by your orphan slaves like a pharaoh? Do you even libertarian bro?

        3. Many a reason _libertarian_ has been. I had to sell my trusty Jeep last summer when it developed symptoms for repairs my lockdown income couldn’t cover. I’ve saved up enough to buy a replacement, but used car prices have spiked. I may be paying a hefty premium for a similar vehicle, or getting something less useful in a lower price range.

      2. Hell, I’m a truck driver right now. I probably have more potentially deadly interactions every day than most cops, just because people won’t look away from their fucking phones even while merging onto the freeway.

        1. Is the paranoia of police officers unwarranted? Or is their paranoia maybe one of the reasons their death stats are too low for the taste of cynical reason commenters with signs of police derangement syndrome?

    9. Only 40 or so of 2 million cops are killed each year. It’s hardly a dangerous profession.

    10. How can you suck cop cock when cops are, and trained to be, pussies?

  7. “so Brittain went to the back of the truck with a jug of antifreeze to prop behind a truck’s tire so that it wouldn’t roll backward and strike Davis’ vehicle.”

    Please tell me after he was shot, the truck rolled back and struck Davis’ vehicle – – – – – – –

    1. It would have been some small measure of poetic justice, if it had rolled to trap the cop between the cars mechanically asphyxiating him over many minutes.

      1. Crushed vertebrae with progressive organ decline and failure over the course of a few months to a few years. Ideally, he lives just long enough to see the ensuing litigation roll backwards over his entire career.

  8. But what is the cop’s race!?!? I don’t know how much to grieve without that tidbit, but given the teen’s race, it certainly should be less than for a saintly black man like George Floyd.

    1. Speaking of George Floyd as an individual, the media and the white house have clearly demonstrated that black losers matter. Big time. lol

    2. Oh and the city demonstrated that too. 27. Million. Dollars.

  9. Youtube just demonetized Brett Weinstein’s Darkhorse Podcast.

    Now, let’s have a long, frank discussion about the “conservative backlash”.

    1. What was their stated reason?

      1. I’m a watcher of his podcast, but I don’t know the specific reason. I do know that he’s had research physicians on talking about Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid, the Lab Leak, he’s been highly critical of Fauci. I’m guessing that creates an alphabet soup of reasons for Youtube to demonetize him.

        1. Brett shouldn’t be so whiny in his tweet. Family income, blah blah. Just go make your OWN youtube!

        2. You linked to Darkhorse last year or a couple years ago and I’ve been watching ever since.
          Bret’s commentary during covid and on ivermectin has been nonpareil.
          I’m skeptical the day will come, but it seems like Bret might end up being the catalyst for a public reckoning of the foul play surrounding covid.

    2. How are they still doing this given that the whole WIV-Daszak-Fauci house of cards is collapsing?

  10. white kid no one cares

  11. Time for Little Rock to burn!!!!

    Oh, wait.

  12. Has anyone at Reason written a similar article about the killing of Ashli Babbitt?

    1. Why would they?

      Any way, I’ll give it a crack:

      Traitor dead.

      The end.

      1. Black losers matter. In fact, only those.

      2. So it’s OK for traitors (assuming for the sake or argument that Babbitt was indeed a traitor) to be summarily executed, without regard to whether the executioners reasonably believe that the use of deadly force against them is reasonably believed necessary to prevent them from causing death or serious bodily harm?

    2. Maybe not, because as an anarchist the Editor in Chief KMW is sharp enough to know that having government goons fighting each other is better than having them working together to attack private individuals.

      That wasn’t an insurrection by private individuals. It was an attempted autocoup, autogolpe, by the incumbent Executive Caudillo. Babbitt and company, tragic dupes though they may have been, were / are all government goons in service of Trump and fighting for his autocoup. Pelosi’s goons versus Trump’s goons is much better than Pelosi’s goons and Trump’s goons together versus us.

  13. The wildly exaggerated focus on racism as the root of murderous and abusive cops, actually, provides those cops concealment for the true scope and scale of their murder and abuse. The problem is not that some few cops are rabid racists, but that all cops are rabid statists. Everyone focusing on racism instead of statism helped buy that cop a hunting license for Hunter and helped him fill his tag that morning.

    A.C.A.B.
    All
    Cops
    Are
    Bureaucrats

    “The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.” ~ H. L. Mencken

    1. Agreed.

      1. You tend to agree solely because of the simplicity, not the content of the statement I suppose. A roach will eat sugar or dry glue, doesn’t matter what it is, only that it is within reach.

  14. When the fuck is this country going to reform police training. They are the ones that are supposed to be putting their lives on the line, but instead they just start shooting. They then payoff the family of the murder victim and move on to the next one.

    1. Truthteller1 sounds like a prototype with massive bugs. You sound like they built you to be as lopsided as possible.

    2. To give you a hint: You get they put their lives on the line every day, and that’s why they are so paranoid and on edge to be begin with, yes?

      1. they put their lives on the line every day

        Bullshit. Being a cop is far from the most deadly profession. A few hundred at most are killed while on duty every year. And that includes accidents. A big part of the problem is that they are trained to believe they are putting their lives on the line every day when for the most part they are not. And when they do put their lives on the line, it’s because it’s their job. It’s what they are being paid for. If you aren’t willing to do that, don’t be a cop.

        1. They actually get in to trouble for putting their lives on the line. Officer safety is paramount.

          1. This Zeb character is getting hard to defend if you ask me…

            1. I didn’t.

        2. I think you are an out of touch wussy and have no clue about the most basic psychological dynamics. If you hear about one of your colleagues getting shot or knifed by a thug, you will make damn sure it’s not you who’s next. And because of a basic thing called survival instinct, this thought will become overriding and inhabit at least the back of your mind permanently while you are on duty and probably past that, for unfortunate cases into retirement.

          Nobody is qualified to fit the idiotic job profile you propose here.

          1. You’re making this personal, which is what people often do when they know they’ve lost an argument.

            I don’t know about where you live, but where I’m at the number of cops in the local police department who were killed (not by car accidents, COVID, or heart attacks) in the last century could be counted on one hand.

            It’s more dangerous to be a clerk at 7-11.

            1. Might be partly because they are armed and ready to shoot back? Also, show me these numbers please. Problem is, you would reveal where you live. And I can’t ask for that.

              1. Fair enough. Though the state I live in isn’t much of a secret.

                Look up the numbers yourself for where you live, where you grew up, where you went to school, etc.

                Lists of “Most Dangerous Jobs” tend to count the 20 worst, not the top 10. Why? I think it’s because policing doesn’t make the top 10.

                1. Where you live is largely irrelevant. Even if you live in one of the top 10 most dangerous counties in the country, heart attacks and traffic accidents are still at the top of the list. You have to get down to the top 10-20 precincts before homicide approaches the top of the list consistently.

                  1. I was looking at the website for the state police here. They’re listing COVID as a cause of death while in the line of duty or however they phrase it.

                  2. Heart attacks vs. homicides in the same statistic is kind of like comparing chocolate cakes with bullets.

                    1. Heart attacks vs. homicides in the same statistic is kind of like comparing chocolate cakes with bullets.

                      Agreed. Chocolate cake is more likely to kill most cops than a bullet.

                    2. Thank you. Because cops are highly specialized to deal with bullets and creatures that occasionally emit bullets.

                      Show me a job that requires combat training, a firearm, occasional body armor and whose workers tend to be on low-dose steroids just because it makes their life easier. Then, after showing me that job, tell me it is not one of the more dangerous ones. I may then be able to clarify something about the definition of danger.

                      Sole point I’m making is: It is very likely that multiple factors mask the perceived dangers of being a cop as precipitated in statistics or rankings of dangerous jobs.

                    3. “Show me a job that requires combat training, a firearm, occasional body armor and whose workers tend to be on low-dose steroids just because it makes their life easier”. The job does not require (or should not for the most part) require combat training. This is a big part of the problem – the inaccurate view among LEO that they are in combat (they are not). And that citizens are the enemy (we are not). Their job is to serve and protect. To keep the peace. To de-escalate situations. And, sadly, to fleece generally honest citizens to fund their salaries. Yes, of course, there are occasions where force is necessary, including deadly force on rare occasions. But to be a police officer one must absolutely be able to distinguish these rare situations from all of the rest. And if one cannot or will not, than one simply cannot be a peace officer. And I will take my chances with my own self defense skills and lawful 2nd amendment rights.

                    4. Show me a job that requires combat training, a firearm, occasional body armor and whose workers tend to be on low-dose steroids just because it makes their life easier. Then, after showing me that job, tell me it is not one of the more dangerous ones. I may then be able to clarify something about the definition of danger.

                      Speaks volumes about your intelligence and the accurate perception of danger when the primary threat to your life is cars and heart attacks and you dawn body armor and start a low-dose steroid regiment. Weird how, with all that combat training, the leading threat to officers in 2020 was a disease that typically killed people with multiple co-morbidities (by about two-fold).

                      My sole point is this: regardless of the training or perceived dangers, heart attacks, traffic accidents and COVID are more likely to kill more cops than bullets. The only way you worry about ‘masking effects’ is if you think, along the lines of gun control idiocy, *how* a cop died is more important than the fact that they died.

                    5. “when the primary threat to your life is cars and heart attacks”

                      Because you are specialized not to die from bullets. And then people tell you “You know, I don’t think you die from bullets often enough, your job doesn’t seem very dangerous to me”. Huh.

                    6. “”Thank you. Because cops are highly specialized to deal with bullets and creatures that occasionally emit bullets.””

                      Shouldn’t someone highly specialized know the difference between a container of anti-freeze and a firearm?

                    7. Because you are specialized not to die from bullets.

                      Far be it from me to be put myself forward as some sort of master tactician but it seems like the idea would be to train in not dying generally. Otherwise, you end up in the retarded situation of trying to make the point that lots of training to survive a rare shooting only to get run over by a car somehow gets you less dead.

                    8. Moreover, they don’t normally train in live fire exercises, much less fire/return fire exercises. Barring that, they don’t have any special training that most civilians don’t have or can’t obtain. Any 12 yr. old COD player knows not to reload in the open and the number of cops I’ve seen hiding behind cover that doesn’t stop bullets and firing a 9 mm at moving cars leads me to believe that they’re training isn’t so specialized.

                    9. Well, they can’t even do the anti-fat thing for political reasons alone. That last thing the police needs is female officers to form some idiotic body positivity movement that does nothing for the job. Though female police officers seem to be in better shape generally (but that’s just anecdotal, my experience). Anyways, I think they have host of reasons not to open that can of worms, including fat, proud sheriffs lol

                      I want to say one last time that we haven’t defined dangerous. We confuse it with deadly. Copying from below: Is dangerous just a measure of how likely the job is to lead to death? Is getting abused, assaulted, crippled, spat on, punched in the face, non-lethally shot etc. also a part of dangerous? Is the paranoia of police officers unwarranted? Or is their paranoia maybe one of the reasons their death stats are too low for the taste of cynical reason commenters with signs of police derangement syndrome? Don’t take this personally, but it seems that people are downplaying things a bit around here. I haven’t seen stats on when police get into dangerous situations without outcomes like death, which seems to be the only thing that causes people around here to acknowledge the existence of danger.

                    10. be bold. give me edit button.

            2. Also, might be hyperbole, but I do doubt that it’s more dangerous to be a clerk at 7-11. As a clerk, crime comes to you. As a LEO, you go to the crime. What’s more likely to get you in trouble? Ok, for a LEO, we can say “you go to the crime, sometimes delayed that is, and you are armed and have a reputation to shoot if you must”. Fair enough. Do you think the impact of that would put the risk for a LEO on lower levels than a clerk’s? I do not think so. But if you find something that deals with this question, I’d appreciate if you let me know.

              1. As a LEO, you go to the crime.

                How often does that really happen? It’s pretty rare for cops to find a crime in progress.

                The vast majority of the time cops arrive after the crime has been committed. If you’re lucky they take a report and/or just leave. If you’re not lucky they berated you for wasting their time and then look for contraband so they can arrest you. Investigate the crime? Ha!

                What’s so dangerous about that?

                1. Ok. Well I made the restriction “you go to the crime, sometimes delayed that is, and you are armed and have a reputation to shoot if you must”. I still think that duty, especially at night, is probably rather tough. So we can argue about how often the scenario you describe really happens. Because you are only on the receiving end of that scenario (the one where cop comes to private property, being a douche, looking for contraband etc.). You are never the receiving end where the police arrives somewhere where crime is happening or where they have potentially dangerous criminal on a property. Therefore we are probably going to argue about proportions between scenario 1 / scenario 2 / scenario 3 and so on.

                  1. Cop is armed and keyed up to initiate deadly force at any sign of noncompliance. Everyone there, victim and criminal alike, are in danger. The cop? Not so much.

                    1. I don’t know about that. Chicken/egg problem. Maybe their job risk is on lower levels than it would be BECAUSE of what you just mentioned? Maybe immigrants have low crime statistics BECAUSE of our not-so-open borders (and illegals not really being properly tracked at all). Maybe. Maybe not.

                    2. So what’s your point?

                      That the job really isn’t that dangerous because, as someone who is primed and ready to use deadly force when threatened, you’re allowed to overreact to any threat, real or perceived, without consequence?

                    3. No, that’s not my point. Though people believing you might be ready to overreact helps. My point is that, of course, some of the dangers of dealing with violent criminals are clearly masked by you not taking harm too often because you go into the situation ready and armed. Looking at the stats alone may only help so much, because those only reflect cases where the violence wasn’t prevented. Says nothing about deterrent effects. Says nothing about how well police would be able to do their job if we nerfed them or shat on their reputation further.

                2. Hmm:

                  Cops, at their best, are, just, ruder and more dangerous insurance adjusters, that too often shoot their clients instead of just denying their claim.

                  1. Agreed. If we applied this definition of a cop, we would really get a good, objective grasp on what their problems are and find ways to solve them super fast.

                3. Well yes, but only if you don’t count all the crimes committed by LEOs. They’re there for those!

              2. What’s more likely to get you in trouble?

                The crime coming to you will always be more troublesome than going to where the crime is at the time of your departure. Always and de facto. See my note about the FBI active shooter report above. 100% of the civilians were at the scene of the crime, 50% of the time, the crime was over before cops showed up.

                1. In a single instance, yes. Read my post. A crime coming to you while it is still hot, as a single instance, is more dangerous. I’m sure you understand my point though, that the remaining 50% of times where police arrives and the crime is NOT already over might make the job of a cop statistically more dangerous than that of a clerk. The reason being that, for cops, their single coin toss is less dangerous on average than it is for clerks, but they toss way more often than the clerk.

                  1. My point was the other way based on the specific statment I quoted. I agree the convenience store clerk is a bit of a trope, but cops are as well. Regardless, cop or clerk, a crime coming to you is always more dangerous than you going to a crime. There will always be a crime at an impending crime scene definitively, after which, there may or may not be another crime. Cop vs. clerk gets into knowing and preparedness for a crime coming to you vs. going to a crime but, still, police are generally more prepared to go to a crime than convenience store clerks are to receive one.

                    1. “police are generally more prepared to go to a crime than convenience store clerks are to receive one.”

                      ^This exactly. I am merely arguing that this could be the reason they don’t end up on the top of dangerous job statistics. They are based on outcomes. Doesn’t make the job any less dangerous or what it does to you mentally. Again, a job requiring combat training and firearms and so on should tell us something about the danger. (and my side point: Nerfing them or shitting on them is likely to increase their ranking because of worse outcomes.)

                    2. I am merely arguing that this could be the reason they don’t end up on the top of dangerous job statistics. They are based on outcomes. Doesn’t make the job any less dangerous or what it does to you mentally. Again, a job requiring combat training and firearms and so on should tell us something about the danger.

                      It’s an apples to oranges comparison. Walking out into the woods and felling trees with noting but your wits and a hatchet is more dangerous than showing up to write speeding tickets without a bulletproof vest. More lifeguards are given more life saving training than police officers, does that mean lifeguards save more lives? Just because the participants and the establishment think COVID, er, I mean police work is synonymous with the Spanish Flu doesn’t make it so.

                    3. It’s apples and oranges if we haven’t defined dangerous. Is it just how likely the job is to lead to death? Is getting abused, crippled, spat on, punched in the face, non-lethally shot etc. also a part of dangerous? Is the paranoia of police officers unwarranted? Is their paranoia maybe one of the reasons their death stats are too low for the taste of cynical reason commenters with signs of police derangement syndrome? I don’t know. And depending on the particular table, they still rank pretty high. Also high in stuff like ptsd and suicide.

              3. From what I can see, convenience store clerk doesn’t make the top 20 deadliest jobs (though I would imagine it might be if you just look at certain parts of certain cities). Most of the most dangerous are transportation or construction trades. Logging and fishing are the deadliest pretty much forever.

                1. In terms of outcome. But a lumberjack doesn’t need a gun and combat training for their job. This should tell us something about the dangers or risks of the job.

                  1. But they do need a saw and a whole lot of training on how to fell trees safely.
                    Yeah, some cops have to deal with a lot of violence and danger. But most really don’t.
                    I feel like you have an exaggerated sense of both the dangers cops face and the quality of their training. Yeah, you can’t expect them to be perfect in every situation. But you can expect a lot more than what you often see in cases like this. Which are rare, thank god, but so are situations where cops need to use deadly force to defend their own lives. Most cops never draw their weapons on someone, let alone shoot anyone.

                    1. “Yeah, some cops have to deal with a lot of violence and danger. But most really don’t.”

                      That’s great if that’s true. Let’s see for how long that stays so if we keep shitting on them and wanting to nerf them based on rare cases instead of shitting on rioters and criminals. By the way, I totally don’t support QI in it’s current form.

                    2. Additionally, if you were going to (re)train cops to save their lives you’d prioritize more training in driving and traffic stops, and how to avoid cramming food into their cakeholes.

                  2. The majority of cops also do not need combat training, because they are not in combat. This attitude is a big part of the problem. And frankly, what difference does it make if one is killed logging or killed policing. Dead is dead. And from the stats I have seen, being a cop is not for the most part, one of the more dangerous professions. Especially in the suburbs of Little Rock. Really, I want to respect LEOs. And in some sense I do. But these incidents are far far too numerous.

                    1. Some seem to confuse deadly with dangerous. If it doesn’t kill you, it could be that you are overly prepared. That tempts people to think there is no danger. But you still have extremely high rates of ptsd and suicides in law enforcement. Of course officers are permanently on edge, and for a reason. But I expected a solid deal of police derangement syndrome on reason. I don’t know any officers personally but I think shit’s being downplayed here.

                    2. Are they on edge because they’re in actual danger or are they on edge because they’ve bought into their own propaganda that “it’s a war out there”?

                    3. Hi, see my post below. Will just rephrase whats important:

                      There is a difference between deadly and dangerous. If they don’t rank very highly in deaths, but still in ptsd and suicides, it’s not unreasonable to believe that their death stats are a result of their paranoia. A situation that wasn’t deadly can still be dangerous and being less alert and prepared could lead to deaths more frequently. Therefore, I think it hasn’t been shown that there would be propaganda or that being on edge is inappropriate.

                      Also, depending on the table, officers do rank in the top 25 pretty easily.

          2. But the thing is, most cops haven’t been shot by a thug and don’t know anyone personally who has been. There is a problem with perception. I think it’s quite similar to the false narrative built by BLM that being killed by police is a main threat faced by young black men. Cops are far more in danger from traffic accidents than getting shot by someone during a traffic stop. Young black men are in far more danger from other young black men than from cops. These skewed perceptions of risk aren’t helping anyone.

            1. How dare you insert realism and fact into the narrative! Damn you!

              1. sarcasmics butthurt because I did better in college than him and now he is on a troll trip.

                I’m sorry sarcasmic. Can you forgive me, baby please? Can you just call me back or send me a text so I know we are ok again? Please, baby? 🙁 🙁 🙁

            2. “But the thing is, most cops haven’t been shot by a thug and don’t know anyone personally who has been. ”

              First part is likely correct. And a perception of more danger than there really is always counter productive. But speaking of realism and fact, don’t you think that some of the seemingly lower risk of that job is a direct function of them being so overly ready and armed? Also being perceived that way? This might turn out to be a discussion on what increased degrees of danger and risk are acceptable and how to balance this with hiring interests. And also if this might make them less effective in general, but some shootings of civilians could be prevented (a good goal of course)

              1. Sure, that may be part of it. How much, I don’t know. And we aren’t going to figure it out here.

                1. One of the reasons I like Reason is that no matter what your opinion is, someone will come along and happily take it apart for you. That’s a feature.

                  What I’m saying right now is mainly based on what sounds plausible to me. When you say “Yeah, some cops have to deal with a lot of violence and danger. But most really don’t.” is that based on what sounds reasonable or do you have numbers? It does sound somewhat reasonable to me given that the police are tasking themselves with many things unnecessary. But when someone (not you) says “Policing is a well paying workfare program with safe and comfortable “working” conditions.” that sounds out of touch. Policing is not your nice and cozy office job. And I think that certainly a lot of the perceived danger is still masked.

                  1. I don’t think there is much that is ‘comfortable’ about being in law enforcement. One must deal with the general public, often in unpleasant situations. But the data simply do not support the assertion that it is among the most dangerous professions. And if the danger is only ‘perceived’, then we as a society must correct that perception so that we can have fewer dead teenagers trying their best to fix their trucks and not damage other vehicles in the process.

                    1. The data doesn’t support it. What data? Where? Is it based on outcomes? What outcomes?

                    2. 5.56, not sure about the source, but here are some stats:

                      https://www.thetrace.org/2020/07/guns-policing-how-many-deaths-data-statistics/

                    3. Thank you, DesigNate, for giving me some data. And I don’t want to dismiss it because you actually took the time to send it to me. Though this data is on how ‘deadly’ the job is. That is a matter of outcomes after all preventive measures have been taken. I still think that a distinction needs to be made between deadly and dangerous.

                      If someone doesn’t get killed in a shootout with a criminal because they are trained and have better equipment, would you conclude the shootout wasn’t dangerous because they didn’t die? So, just because someone is trained to handle dangerous situation which decreases their likelihood to die, that doesn’t say anything about the danger they may or may not handle frequently, and consequently how it warrants extreme levels of caution or not. And police still ranks high in ‘dangerous’ jobs depending on what table you use and in some is in fact in the top 20.

                      I should have said that earlier, but the ptsd and suicide stats seem high for police officers too. If police officers were less alert and ‘paranoid’, the numbers would be higher. And that goes back to my original point, that there is some reason for LEOs to be paranoid. Maybe it’s blown outta proportion to a degree, but that’s just what survival instinct does to you. To most of us. And that’s why I said that the author of the article is out of touch.

                      You say they could just be ‘paranoid’ because of the propaganda they buy into. Strictly speaking, you haven’t shown it is propaganda. That would only be true if deadly were the same thing as dangerous, which I do not think it is. It’s also basic biological reasoning: Why are biological creatures paranoid? Because it tends to save their lives. Is paranoia inappropriate at night on the streets of a bad neighborhood when you are a LEO? Out of all, this seems to be one of the situations where it seems more appropriate to be on edge.

          3. If you hear about one of your colleagues getting shot or knifed by a thug, you will make damn sure it’s not you who’s next.

            So it sounds like you’re telling me I’d better not make any sudden moves while I’m in the back seat of a cab, and that if I do, I have only myself to blame if the cabbie reasonably makes a split-second decision to waste me in order to make damn sure he’s not shot or knifed like many of of his fellow cabbies have been.

            1. “So it sounds like you’re telling me I’d better not make any sudden moves while I’m in the back seat of a cab, and that if I do, I have only myself to blame if the cabbie reasonably makes a split-second decision to waste me”

              You got to be on a solid dose of LSD to hear that from me. I’m just saying you get paranoid on the job.

              1. And cabbies don’t get paranoid on their job? Or do they just deal with their paranoia better than cops do?

        3. A few hundred at most are killed while on duty every year. And that includes accidents.

          Yup. Year over year, heart attacks and traffic accidents kill far more cops, on duty and off, than being shot by gunmen or mortally wounded by attackers. I have yet to see cops or police unions advocate for getting wider pulloffs, vehicles that can be exited from either side, or mandatory desk duty/suspension for lack of fitness.

        4. The last time I checked, my job was higher on the list than ‘police officer’.

      2. “”that’s why they are so paranoid and on edge to be begin with, yes?””

        People that paranoid should not be given a gun.

    3. “They are the ones that are supposed to be putting their lives on the line, but instead they just start shooting.”

      Policing is not about public safety, anymore. Policing is a well paying workfare program with safe and comfortable “working” conditions.

      We should have, first, fully translated that “To Protect And Serve” police training manual, because it’s a cookbook.

      “The Twilight Zone (Classic): To Serve Man – It’s A Cook Book!”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp_EhjlLGkQ

      1. “Policing is a well paying workfare program with safe and comfortable “working” conditions.”

        Deluded statement.

    4. Police are not there to enforce the law.

      They aren’t there to help people.

      Their job is to make people obey while keeping themselves totally safe.

      As in compliance or violence.

      Officer safety is number one. They get fired if they put their lives on the line. They get fired if they take risks. They get fired if they feel threatened and don’t start shooting.

      Number two is total compliance. They get fired if they don’t escalate when someone fails to obey. They get fired if they try to deescalate a situation instead of waving their dick around and busting heads.

      Peace officers are a quaint idea from the past. Like rotary telephones.

      They may still exist, but nobody has any use for them.

      1. I think that was about an officer who was fired by a special kind of jerk for delaying using his gun as much as possible, on a dipshit wielding a knife seemingly intent on committing suicide by cop. I think I saw the body cam video.

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/12/stephen-mader-west-virginia-police-officer-settles-lawsuit

        That one? Anyways, that is one story. You don’t hear about that as a general pattern. Certainly not as a job requirement, as in shoot or get fired.

        1. No it’s a different one. It was on Reason. And I’m too lazy to research it.

  15. No rioting, burning or looting going on. Something’s different…

    1. There’s always a way to get those racial jabs in, if you look for them hard enough.

      1. Sometimes you can just toss out a racial jab and have it land and sometimes you have to throw a brick through the window of a Nike store first.

      2. That’s right. Tell the media. They started it. Naturally people react to it.

  16. Police are a progressive establishment and are NOT American law enforcement.

    Support your local sheriff. Abolish all police.

    With the police gone, sheriffs will have no time nor resources to impose these stupid laws that politicians keep pushing and politicians can again learn to fear Americans.

    If we want the bill of rights and the US Constitution imposed, we start by eliminating Progressive LEOs. All police and all DHS must go.

    1. While, I largely agree with you; this case shows that sheriffs, at least in their current form, differ far less than we’d like to think from other cops.

      “Family and friends of 17-year-old Hunter Brittain are speaking out after he was shot and killed by a Lonoke County, Arkansas, sheriff’s deputy…”

      1. Get rid of the police and DHS and we can deal with sheriffs the same way we dealt with them in Athens GA.

        1. DHS did help train, brainwash, Deputy Davis to shoot down Hunter with no hesitation.

          “SHOCKING: DHS “No More Hesitation” shooting targets (PHOTOS)”

          https://www.guns.com/news/2013/04/26/shocking-dhs-no-hesitation-shooting-targets

  17. The family needs a full refund on their white privilege.

    1. This shooting represents progress towards equity.

  18. What happened is terrible. I’ve a question; please don’t interpret it as an attempt to blame the victim. I just want to understand this country better.

    I’m an immigrant, look white, came to the US legally, for a high-tech job, have been always driving cars in good condition. When I came to the US somebody (a friend) explained to me briefly the rules of engagement when you are stopped by police – don’t leave the car, open the window, pull your car registration, keep your hands visible, don’t leave the car, wait till the officer comes to you. I have been stopped a few times over the years, always followed this procedure. It kind of makes sense – reduces the risk both for me and for the policeman, probably gives me higher chance to get away with a warning instead of a fine.

    The question to people raised in this country – are you taught different rules, is this only for the immigrants?

    1. No, that basically applies to everyone. I would add that if it’s dark, turn your car’s overhead light on so the officer can see inside the care.

    2. Also, don’t get registration or license until instructed.

      But don’t start reaching around. From a distance, it looks like you’re hiding contraband or locating a weapon.

      Just sit there, roll window down a bit, wait, then be nice. If the cop needs a document, tell her where it is before you reach for it.

  19. Need more details and especially interested in the bodycam footage. This description isn’t making sense. Why was the truck pulled over? Were any words exchanged? Did the kid immediately get out and move towards the officer after the officer got out of the vehicle? I’ll assume the parking gear was messed up, but was the emergency brake also broken? Why would a jug of coolant be used rather than something more effective (since this was a known issue i figure they would have something better to use as a wheel chock.) Logically I’d also assume the passenger is who was shot, since you’d think the driver would hold the brakes until the wheel stop was in place.
    Just once I’d like these to make some sense as reported. I’m fully willing to believe the cop acted stupidly or overreacted, but the lack of details to provide context makes me suspect there is something known and intentionally left out that doesn’t conform to the anti-police narrative.
    Let’s see the bodycam video before rushing to uninformed judgments.

    1. No details needed. The kid is innocent until proven guilty. Ethically, the person acting under color of law isn’t or shouldn’t be. Being stopped on the side of the road isn’t a crime, let alone one punishable by death. Neither is weilding a jug of antifreeze or getting out without chocking your truck. Shooting an unarmed suspect on the side of the road is a no-shit crime. I freely admit that Reason *loves* to report that someone shot in the chest while armed was fleeing, unarmed, and shot in the back. But without even a whiff of evidence to support the notion that the kid was guilty of… anything, you’re insinuating he committed a crime and siding with someone who, under other circumstances, would almost certainly be indicted for a homicide or similar charge.

      Objectively, you’re reaching, and without evidence.

    2. Here’s an interesting question about details that I’d appreciate you answering; what exactly did the officer pull Brittain over for? He couldn’t have known the truck didn’t shift into park effectively while rolling down the road and no other indication is given to justify the stop. So, why do you think he pulled Brittain over?

      1. I’m not saying the kid was guilty of anything. I suspect he did actions that weren’t a threat but could be misconstrued as such late at night (such as jumping out of the truck moving towards the back and the cop with an unidentified object in his hand.) My assumption is that it’s a case of a jumpy cop and misinterpreted body language and the fault lies with the cop. What I assume it isn’t is an assassination because a kid was holding a jug of coolant.
        I can’t answer why he was pulled over. This is a question I asked and being generous I’d guess it was a busted tail light. At 3am I could also be less generous and question whether the reason was reckless or drunk driving. The problem is that the article doesn’t venture into what started the interaction.
        The cop couldn’t have known the vehicle doesn’t shift into park. Did the brakes work? Wouldn’t it have been wise to have the driver hold down the brakes while the passenger chocks the back wheel? Were there any words exchanged between the officer and either boy?
        I would like to know why they were pulled over. I would like to know if Brittain immediately jumped out of the truck with an object in hand before the officer could come to the window. I want to know if Brittain got a warning before being shot or if he had attempted to communicate what he had to do. These are details that clarify the nature of the interaction. There are major gaps in the narration here that require explanation. From the description here it does sound like he was stopped and unexpectedly got out of the car and moved towards the officer with an item in hand at night and was wrongly assumed to be a threat. Fitting all the pieces together paints a better picture of whether Brittain did anything foolish (if not actually wrong) and how inexcusable was the officer’s response. I have no trust in these writers to accurately relay information and the gaps in logic, details, and sequence of events doesn’t inspire faith that it is as simple as they choose to portray it.

        1. Ah, I misinterpretted the ‘Why was the truck pulled over?’ question (more ‘What broke on the truck?’ as opposed to ‘What law are they alleged to have broken?’).

          I agree facts are sparse but even if Brittain brought the antifreeze to his shoulder and pointed it like a gun, the facts as presented are still the facts. An armed man, who’s supposed to be well trained at recognizing and responding to threats, shot an unarmed man with no apparent reason or cause.

    3. The story, as reported, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

      The victim picked up his truck at 3 am from a body shop. How do you pick up your truck at 3 am? Don’t you have to get your keys back from the shop that was working on your vehicle? Maybe the victim used an extra set of keys and took the truck without paying the body shop for the work they had done on the truck. Perhaps this is related to why the cop pulled him over.

      I don’t see how a jug of antifreeze will work as an effective chock for a truck. On the other hand, the victim was young, so perhaps he thought the jug was heavy enough to keep a 2000+ pound vehicle from moving.

      1. Read the linked article.

        The kid was working on the truck at night, because he needed it to be ready for his job in the morning. He was using his buddies auto shop with permission to fix his transmission.

        Far from a thief, this industrious kid was working “for years” in construction and owned his own truck.

  20. Arkansas hillbilly politicians order their simian cops to shoot unarmed kids over plant leaves, twigs and seeds–so why not over antifreeze? Youths in Klavernous fascisti states need asylum and help relocating to civilized States represented by less superstitious and ignorant elected officials. Arkansas clearly confuses subject and object in “You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin'”

    1. I’ve never been to Arkansas and can’t argue with your assessment, but you are deluding yourself if you think that the murderous cops problem is an isolated problem. It’s national and systemic.

      You can’t ask young, pretty Paige Pierce if Colorado is safer than Arkansas from cops because one murdered her there.

      “No Charges Despite Cop Shooting and Killing Unarmed Young Woman on Video”

      https://thefreethoughtproject.com/no-charges-cop-kills-young-woman-vehicle/

    2. Maybe you think that the East Coast is the safe spot from cops; but in Rhode Island, even off duty, they are chasing down motorists in shooting rages.

      “WATCH: Off-Duty Road Raging Cop Chases Down Teen, Shoots Him — NOT Arrested”

      “Anyone who watches the video below can clearly see that the use of deadly force was not made in self-defense, making it an act of assault. Had anyone but a police officer used such deadly force against another motorist, rest assured they would be in jail right now.”

      https://thefreethoughtproject.com/watch-off-duty-road-raging-cop-chases-down-teen-shoots-him-not-arrested/

  21. never go to Arkansas.

    1. But…it isn’t my Kansas or your Kansas. It is Arkansas.

  22. Unfortunately and wrongly he won’t get any major press as he is not a minority. It doesn’t fit the current narrative of whites are not shot by cops, have unlimited privileged and are all oppressors, never they oppressed. Don’t expect CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC to report on this wronged kid or his grieving family.

  23. Unfortunately and wrongly he won’t get any major press as he is not a minority. It doesn’t fit the current narrative of whites are not shot by cops, have unlimited privilege and are all oppressors, never they oppressed. Don’t expect CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC to report on this wronged kid or his grieving family.

    1. ABC station is covering it. Should make national news within the next few days. https://katv.com/news/local/teen-witness-to-hunter-brittains-death-by-deputy-shares-his-story

  24. Privatize the roads.
    “The great masses of men, though theoretically free, are seen to submit supinely to oppression and exploitation of a hundred abhorrent sorts. Have they no means of resistance? Obviously they have. The worst tyrant, even under democratic plutocracy, has but one throat to slit. The moment the majority decided to overthrow him he would be overthrown. But the majority lacks the resolution; it cannot imagine taking the risks.” ~ H. L. Mencken (1926). “Notes on Democracy,” p. 50, Alfred A. Knopf
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

  25. Why are we getting all worked up over this? It’s just a white kid. Nothing to see here.

  26. “…he was killed by a….deputy…” Here we go again, big protests, riots, looting, arson. Oh, wait! This teen was white. There’s no “White Lives Matter” gang to speak for him. There’s no govt. to speak for him. Law enforcement will “investigate” law enforcement. People will grumble, call this murder, and MSM will ignore it and call them anarchists.
    Nobody who asks: “Who will protect us from our protectors?” will be given time or consideration. Why? It’s either a monopoly of violence by authorities, or social chaos, correct? A public protecting itself like it did for eons is unthinkable, unmentionable, a threat to the rulers.

    1. The Government Class is bigger than many think, and they have every interest in hiding 2/3 of the policing problem as well and as long as they can. The police are its club wielding hands and its hob-nailed booted feet it would be crippled without them.

      Racism make a good facade behind which statism can be hidden.

      1. You shouldn’t need to go to Australia to get news like this about the local reaction in Arkansas.

  27. Just hoping someone doxxes that deputy so he can get what he deserves since internal affairs will surely say he acted according to deparment policy.

  28. Fake news.

    Cops only shoot black people without cause. Nothing to see here.

  29. Arkansas less child rapey than R Kelly

  30. It’s pretty clear that this is a case where unQualified Immunity should protect the poor, frightened LEO. (Understand that especially at night, you should assume the cop you’re interacting with is so scared he is about to, if he has not already, wet his pants, and any – repeat any – action that causes his bladder to twitch may also cause his forefinger to twitch.) He has the gun – you probably don’t. If he shoots you nothing bad happens to him – you have no chance of overcoming certain presumptions if SHTF and you shoot or shoot at him, even it unusual circumstances warrant such an action. And FWIW, if the deceased’s family wants any justice in this case, they’re going to have to get it for themselves, however they define justice.

  31. Did the pants-wetting cop also shoot at the truck as it then rolled backwards into his patrol car?

  32. Police enforce laws. Bad laws lead to bad enforcement. The issue here is not those “dirty rotten cops.” The issue is the Arkansas legislature and the atrocious laws and rules they have crafted for the cops to operate under. Rules governing life and death should never be “ambiguous.”

    They need to throw the rules out and rewrite them. That an officer can theoretically use deadly force without issuing any warning when there is no clear and immediate threat to his personal safety is, in of itself, criminal. This crime, however, was committed by the legislators.

  33. Partial remedy from reason:

    “No More Traffic Cops
    Returning traffic enforcement and criminal law enforcement to their proper spheres could put both police and drivers at ease.”
    https://reason.com/2021/06/17/no-more-traffic-cops/

    1. A more complete remedy:

      “5 Reasons to Disarm the Police
      Everyone will be safer, including cops”

      https://medium.com/bigger-picture/5-reasons-to-disarm-the-police-4a95e706edee

      Their reason four is pretty bad and hides part of the problem, a part that contributed to Hunter’s murder; but the rest are good, as is the conclusion.

  34. Why peoples are killing to the teen age boys. Government should be action on this case.

  35. Cop was fired, had body cam off. “Violated policy.”

    No dash cam. Little sheriff department can’t afford.

    So there’s no video at all.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.