Officer kills armed civilian

[Kutnupe14]

A) I'm from Crawfordsville. B) Did not know this guy. C) Past behavior is often a good indicator of present/future action/s. D) The hospital in Crawfordsville is less than ideal. He'd probably receive a diagnosis of a UTI and sent home anyhow. E) There is no ISP post in Crawfordsville (There is, apparently, a State Excise Police District office near the INDOT facilities, however)

This whole situation seems to suck. And I'm quite glad that I'm not any part of it.

Also) Just how is one officer, who is using his commission as cover/concealment supposed to somehow also stop traffic? Seriously. Think about it for a bit. How can that be achieved?

In theory, another officer who is aware of the location, would call out for other cars to block intersections.... but in midst of an active engagement, doubtful. Most officers nearby aren't worried about blocking traffic compared to reaching the scene to provide backup. And of course, it also depends on available manpower; which during the holidays, is quite likely to be at bare minimum (sometimes less).

 

[Kutnupe14]

Staying away from why the guy was shot, I still have difficulty with what seems to be SOP.

I have difficulty understanding why two officers could not approach and disarm a man on the ground, with his gun still in the holster.

Who is covering the other vehicles? Or should the officers assume they were empty?

 

[ditcherman]

But? C'mon. There's always a "but". Having been in similar police action shootings, scenes DON'T get ran perfectly...LIFE HAPPENS. Traffic didn't get shut down immediately, OK. I'm sure it eventually did. I've explained they WHY on medical treatment several times. Again, how do I know? Been there time after time. I am not passing judgement one way or another on the validity of the shoot. However, MOST (not all of course) of the concerns I've heard are easily explainable. Yet, I see that the explanations are not enough. I'm not sure what else I can say that I haven't said numerous times already.

Life happens? Tell that to the dead guys family. But there’s that unfair ‘higher standard’ thing.
I think what surprises us is that we (civies) see you run towards danger, lay down your lives for us/the greater good, have true servants hearts, and now we’re being told ‘oh no way procedure is just shoot the guy while your running backwards and then stay away til help comes’. This is hard to reconcile for me.
Thank you for explaining your position it was not a waste of time, in fact it may save someone’s life in the future.
We May never know, and we don’t have too, but I hope the powers that be can learn and if there’s justice to be found it is.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Life happens? Tell that to the dead guys family. But there’s that unfair ‘higher standard’ thing.
I think what surprises us is that we (civies) see you run towards danger, lay down your lives for us/the greater good, have true servants hearts, and now we’re being told ‘oh no way procedure is just shoot the guy while your running backwards and then stay away til help comes’. This is hard to reconcile for me.
Thank you for explaining your position it was not a waste of time, in fact it may save someone’s life in the future.
We May never know, and we don’t have too, but I hope the powers that be can learn and if there’s justice to be found it is.

I think we he was saying "life happens," he was explaining the constant variables that officers have no control over. I wish SOPs covered every possibility, in-depth, but they don't. Sometimes you have the work with the situation you're given.

 

[Spear Dane]

Life happens? Tell that to the dead guys family. But there’s that unfair ‘higher standard’ thing.
I think what surprises us is that we (civies) see you run towards danger, lay down your lives for us/the greater good, have true servants hearts, and now we’re being told ‘oh no way procedure is just shoot the guy while your running backwards and then stay away til help comes’. This is hard to reconcile for me.
Thank you for explaining your position it was not a waste of time, in fact it may save someone’s life in the future.
We May never know, and we don’t have too, but I hope the powers that be can learn and if there’s justice to be found it is.

Yep. Shooting the guy is one thing. Letting him lay there and die and putting him through the dog and pony show while he bleeds out is a whole other level of wrong. There's simply no excuse for that.

 

[bwframe]

Staying away from why the guy was shot, I still have difficulty with what seems to be SOP.

I have difficulty understanding why two officers could not approach and disarm a man on the ground, with his gun still in the holster.

Who is covering the other vehicles? Or should the officers assume they were empty?

If that is the concern, shouldn't the officer have taken cover and waited on backup before approaching the threat?

 

[Kutnupe14]

If that is a concern, shouldn't the officer have taken cover and waited on backup before approaching the threat?

That's what he did.

 

[bwframe]

If that is the concern, shouldn't the officer have taken cover and waited on backup before approaching the threat?

​

That's what he did.

Before the officer approached the threat initially.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Before the officer approached the threat initially.

Wait what? You're pulling my leg right?

 

[Joniki]

But? C'mon. There's always a "but". Having been in similar police action shootings, scenes DON'T get ran perfectly...LIFE HAPPENS. Traffic didn't get shut down immediately, OK. I'm sure it eventually did. I've explained they WHY on medical treatment several times. Again, how do I know? Been there time after time. I am not passing judgement one way or another on the validity of the shoot. However, MOST (not all of course) of the concerns I've heard are easily explainable. Yet, I see that the explanations are not enough. I'm not sure what else I can say that I haven't said numerous times already.

I admire you for trying to explain things to a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks. I'll wait for the facts.

There is a very good reason for the old saying "hindsight is 20/20"...

 

[d.kaufman]

Wait what? You're pulling my leg right?

Why not wait for backup? Especially if you see an armed man and that has you concerned. Apparently that was at least 1 of the factors of the trooper stopping to begin with

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why not wait for backup? Especially if you see an armed man and that has you concerned. Apparently that was at least 1 of the factors of the trooper stopping to begin with

It's not practical in most instances, especially in relatively rural places with manpower issues.

 

[Denny347]

Staying away from why the guy was shot, I still have difficulty with what seems to be SOP.

I have difficulty understanding why two officers could not approach and disarm a man on the ground, with his gun still in the holster.

He was still mobile. They could have but there are a number of options that will work and they took this one. Why leave cover to approach an armed person when you can direct the suspect to your cover? In felony (high risk) traffic stops this is EXACTLY what officers do. They give commands to the passengers from behind the patrol car's doors (cover). They then direct the suspects to walk backwards to the Officers' cover (patrol cars) and when they are close enough, an arrest team will approach and handcuff the suspect. They used that scenario to deal with this situation. There is no SOP on this as each incident is so unique that one way will never work all the time.

 

[Sigblitz]

There was no threat. Just a guy working on a car. There was no crime here. There was a perceived threat because he had a gun on his belt. That's what started the escalation.
Everyone knows OCers are criminals, that's why I CC.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There was no threat. Just a guy working on a car. There was no crime here. There was a perceived threat because he had a gun on his belt. That's what started the escalation.
Everyone knows OCers are criminals, that's why I CC.

That's not what the Trooper indicated. According to him it escalated when Rightsell reached for his gun.

 

[Denny347]

Life happens? Tell that to the dead guys family. But there’s that unfair ‘higher standard’ thing.
I think what surprises us is that we (civies) see you run towards danger, lay down your lives for us/the greater good, have true servants hearts, and now we’re being told ‘oh no way procedure is just shoot the guy while your running backwards and then stay away til help comes’. This is hard to reconcile for me.
Thank you for explaining your position it was not a waste of time, in fact it may save someone’s life in the future.
We May never know, and we don’t have too, but I hope the powers that be can learn and if there’s justice to be found it is.

What are you talking about? What does not stopping traffic have to do with me telling anything to the dead man's family? Sigh...Life happens meaning they are dealing with an active scene and overlooked the traffic. Good Lord... Again, what does running towards gunfire have to do with taking a position of advantage after a shooting? You are trying to make a connection where none exists. You shoot a person who you thought was going to shoot you and you know is armed. You do so out in the open. The guy falls but is still alive. Do you continue to stand in the open or do you find cover while you get on the radio (or cell phone for you) and call for help and wait for back-up while keeping an eye on the "bad guy" while doing so?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So the deceased guy has had an issue with police in the past. Specifically, when told that a car would be towed, he led police on a chase, and physically resisted officers when they tried to extract him from the vehicle....
...In this particular instance, Rightsell is working on a car, on the side of the road (hood up). Depending, there are a number of places that won't allow that to be done, if it poses a risk to the person working on the vehicle, or other traffic. In such cases, Officers will have the car towed (which makes people mad). Is it possible that Rightsell may have been conveyed that fact, and had no intent of letting the Trooper tow the vehicle? It's not like he has a history of compliance concerning vehicles and LE.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Leaving out the shooting itself, because we will never know what the interaction between the two of them was. I have a problem with

1. What was the reason for the initial contact?
2. What apparently is SOP for after a shooting takes place. Turn the tables and say it was the officer that got shot, would it now be SOP for 5-6 officers to stage behind cover, and make the wounded officer come to them, and not get the ambulance rolling until the suspect is secured?

 

[Denny347]

Before the officer approached the threat initially.

Why not wait for backup? Especially if you see an armed man and that has you concerned. Apparently that was at least 1 of the factors of the trooper stopping to begin with

Because we fall into that trap of knowing that the VAST majority of people we deal with follow our commands without incident. Thus we approach situations alone when maybe we shouldn't. When I was on shift still, we were (and still are) short handed and were handling runs alone when we should have waited for back-up because we get comfortable that our authority is enough in 97% of interactions. Example, we get an alarm run and 2 cars are assigned. One car is coming from a distance and the other is close. The close car gets to the scene and finds a burglar and has to fight them...alone...until back-up gets there. In reality, the close car should have waited for the 2nd car to get close before approaching. However, runs are stacking up and the close car wants to get this routine alarm run handled quickly and move on to the next pending run.

 

[Jaybird1980]

So the deceased guy has had an issue with police in the past. Specifically, when told that a car would be towed, he led police on a chase, and physically resisted officers when they tried to extract him from the vehicle....
...In this particular instance, Rightsell is working on a car, on the side of the road (hood up). Depending, there are a number of places that won't allow that to be done, if it poses a risk to the person working on the vehicle, or other traffic. In such cases, Officers will have the car towed (which makes people mad). Is it possible that Rightsell may have been conveyed that fact, and had no intent of letting the Trooper tow the vehicle? It's not like he has a history of compliance concerning vehicles and LE.

To me this implies that they new Rightsells identity before making contact. And if the vehicles location was a danger to others it should of already been towed