Officer kills armed civilian

[Sigblitz]

The "In the dark" thing. Did not the trooper state he "Saw" the man was OC before he stopped...??? I am sure reading back would answer this one but I believe it was stated up thread.

So, in all of this #1 this is a gun forum. We are all advocates at some level so the discussion will hinge on the "OC" thing regardless.
#2...It was dark how was the sidearm seen. A curious if nothing else question. This seems to be a hinge point.
#3...we get "GRILLED" by LEO on most encounters. I have. It is sometimes enough to **** me off. So yes, we have questions. Especially in this instance.
#4...There are a few holes in this one. Just enough to raise a few flags.
#5...Thanks to all the LEO's for chiming in. There has been some clarity from this.

And a lot of patience with some people.

 

[Butch627]

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.

First of all I wast to thank you for your patience in responding to posts, your contributions are an asset to the thread.

What gets me the most angry over this is 90 percent of the people I know would be calling me if they needed assistance with a stalled car. I don't open carry but if i was alone in the middle of nowhere and felt vulnerable I very well might. I can't think of any reason that would cause me to draw on an officer in a million years. I can see how it would be hard to hear an officers commands with a lot of traffic driving by as my hearing sucks. I can see how i might be disorientated if one second I am engrossed and focused on what I am doing under the hood and a second later some guy is shinning a bright light in my eyes and screaming at me. None of these reasons seem like they should cause me to get shot.

If the officer saw the guy was armed and thought he was about to steal a battery shouldn't he have called for backup rather than approaching him? Ive yet to hear any thing else illegal that the guy would have reasonably been suspected of doing.

 

[Brad69]

This situation IMO doesn’t have a good answer one man is dead and another took his life. The shooting may be deemed “justified” some people will still have doubts. That is for others to decide.
I do know that in my experience I have witnessed the effects of a “bad call” and the constant replay of the events. I have watched it consume a person the “what if“ factor can be everlasting. In one situation a man I know made a decision that turned in to a nitemare this was in 2003.
I ran into him in 2009 he started to relive the situation and I guess ask for my approval of his actions. I am sure of one thing it haunts him every day.
I sincerely hope this was not a “bad call” for the Trooper.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I agree with Butch and Brad, but I also think questions need to be asked when things don't seem right. Just saying protocol was followed so it has to be right is not the way to improve a system.

 

[edporch]

Trooper only activated his rear deck lights?

That's one possibility.

I know from carrying for 35 years, that the only occasions I've ever reached toward my pistol was when I was approached by somebody that I hadn't decided was "friend or foe", or when somebody appeared of out of nowhere and approached me.

To the law abiding, a uniformed state trooper who identified their self would instantly be recognized as a "friend".

I'm just having trouble swallowing the story that Rightsell just went for his sidearm like is claimed.
There HAS TO BE more to the story.

 

[HoughMade]

You guys are not seriously contending that, in the dark of night, even if only the rear lights were engaged, they would not be obviously visible to someone in front? Daytime, sure, but at night?

ETA

[video=youtube;AdptwYKp5dI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdptwYKp5dI&t=82s[/video]The lights appear to light up the area quite well.

Until there is evidence that changes things, which there very well could be, this may well be a horrible misunderstanding where it appeared that the guy was going for a gun, but wasn't, or for some reason, the guy may actually have gone for his gun. Either way, at this point, it looks like one of those.

 

[oskarsprk]

They always shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[churchmouse]

They always shoot first and ask questions later.

I seriously hope this was supposed to be purple. This is not a bashing thread. The discussion is going just fine.

 

[Sigblitz]

They always shoot first and ask questions later.

FIFY

 

[drillsgt]

That is a tough duty. Moving all over the state etc.

Who would want to, starting pay after the academy is 48K that's pitiful.

 

[ditcherman]

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?

i understand that your ‘life happens’ comment was toward the fact that the officer prioritized the needs on the scene and traffic control was not one of them, looking at the overall picture though something went terribly wrong for someone, we don’t know who yet (meaning we don’t know if it was a good call yet) and life isn’t going to happen.
The connection that I make is that trooper got the drop on him once, now he’s wounded, and the situation is less dangerous now than the first time he approached.
i again sincerely thank you for your informative posts and your patience.

 

[Sigblitz]

 

[Beowulf]

While I do appreciate the LEOs on the forum chiming in with their perspectives, I'm seeing a lot of benefit of the doubt being given to the officer... and a lot of character assassination done on Rightsell. Rightsell's criminal history, as previously posted, was almost entirely made up of traffic violations. Even the despicable crime of resisting arrest (purple heavily intended) 13 years ago, revolved around a traffic violation. He was pulled over in a car without valid plates and when informed the vehicle would be impounded, he drove home and refused to get out of the car. The officers then pepper sprayed him and dragged him out of the vehicle, at which point he supposedly kicked one of the officers. Frankly, that doesn't convince me this man was another Jesse James on a rampage. Also notice, he was not convicted of felony assault or anything like that and the charges were dropped and he pled guilty to a misdemeanor, which tells me that likely there was some error on both sides (he stupidly reacted to the police, but the police likely overreacted to him).

Here's the the thing. Police should always be held to a higher standard of behavior than the average civilian. Police are issued deadly weapons by the state and given the authority to use them on citizens by the state. As such, police need to be always held to a high standard of behavior and restricted heavily to when they can use force against people in the name of the state. I'm sorry if that is hard and I'm sorry if the job is difficult. But if it bothers you that much, please choose a different line of work. No one is forcing you to put on a badge. We don't draft police officers. If you can't take the heat of public scrutiny, might I suggest you move into the private sector.

Frankly, this whole situation stinks to high heaven and none of the situation described by ISP makes any sense. Maybe a toxicology report will show that Rightsell was out of his gourd on meth or PCP. Honestly, that's the only way what ISP is describing seems possible. Their initial statement was that Rightsell was shot after he ignored the trooper's commands and reached for his gun. However, the gun was still in its holster on his hip after he was shot and Rightsell never reached for it again after he was hit and the trooper was telling him what to do (while the trooper was behind cover). If Rightsell was really planning on engaging an ISP trooper (for no good apparent reason), why was he suddenly so docile after he was hit? He certainly didn't try to fire back and he certainly didn't try to flee. He was ambulatory enough to do so. His actions seem more like a person who really has no idea why they were shot and are trying to follow the commands issued by the police on scene to prevent being shot again.

Regardless, this proves again why dash cams and body cams need to be mandatory for all police (from the FBI on down to the town deputies). If the money is tight, maybe spend a little less on all the toys they need to play soldier to free up some cash. I bet they could sell all those MRAPs for a good chunk of change.

 

[Terry4570]

While I do appreciate the LEOs on the forum chiming in with their perspectives, I'm seeing a lot of benefit of the doubt being given to the officer... and a lot of character assassination done on Rightsell. Rightsell's criminal history, as previously posted, was almost entirely made up of traffic violations. Even the despicable crime of resisting arrest (purple heavily intended) 13 years ago, revolved around a traffic violation. He was pulled over in a car without valid plates and when informed the vehicle would be impounded, he drove home and refused to get out of the car. The officers then pepper sprayed him and dragged him out of the vehicle, at which point he supposedly kicked one of the officers. Frankly, that doesn't convince me this man was another Jesse James on a rampage. Also notice, he was not convicted of felony assault or anything like that and the charges were dropped and he pled guilty to a misdemeanor, which tells me that likely there was some error on both sides (he stupidly reacted to the police, but the police likely overreacted to him).

Here's the the thing. Police should always be held to a higher standard of behavior than the average civilian. Police are issued deadly weapons by the state and given the authority to use them on citizens by the state. As such, police need to be always held to a high standard of behavior and restricted heavily to when they can use force against people in the name of the state. I'm sorry if that is hard and I'm sorry if the job is difficult. But if it bothers you that much, please choose a different line of work. No one is forcing you to put on a badge. We don't draft police officers. If you can't take the heat of public scrutiny, might I suggest you move into the private sector.

Frankly, this whole situation stinks to high heaven and none of the situation described by ISP makes any sense. Maybe a toxicology report will show that Rightsell was out of his gourd on meth or PCP. Honestly, that's the only way what ISP is describing seems possible. Their initial statement was that Rightsell was shot after he ignored the trooper's commands and reached for his gun. However, the gun was still in its holster on his hip after he was shot and Rightsell never reached for it again after he was hit and the trooper was telling him what to do (while the trooper was behind cover). If Rightsell was really planning on engaging an ISP trooper (for no good apparent reason), why was he suddenly so docile after he was hit? He certainly didn't try to fire back and he certainly didn't try to flee. He was ambulatory enough to do so. His actions seem more like a person who really has no idea why they were shot and are trying to follow the commands issued by the police on scene to prevent being shot again.

Regardless, this proves again why dash cams and body cams need to be mandatory for all police (from the FBI on down to the town deputies). If the money is tight, maybe spend a little less on all the toys they need to play soldier to free up some cash. I bet they could sell all those MRAPs for a good chunk of change.

Yes, what Beowulf said here .

 

[2A_Tom]

This needs to be edited to read Hands Up Don't Shoot.

After reading all of the LEO responses. That may be the only way to keep from getting shot, then again maybe not.

The guy drove an unplated car 13 years ago, against police orders, so he is a threat?

 

[Sigblitz]

.

 

[churchmouse]

Who would want to, starting pay after the academy is 48K that's pitiful.

For the responsibility's yes that is pitiful. And are they not requiring a degree of some kind as well.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

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

If that was a concern why didn't the first trooper when realizing the man was armed and other folks could be inside of the cars / trucks, didn't he get back in his cruiser and use his bullhorn to engage with the dead man and wait for backup?

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Who would want to, starting pay after the academy is 48K that's pitiful.

My son is a Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps, if you want to see a crappy paycheck you should see his. But to make 48K plus over time is a damn good check living in Indiana.

 

[HoughMade]

My son is a Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps, if you want to see a crappy paycheck you should see his. But to make 48K plus over time is a damn good check living in Indiana.

That's about what my starting salary was....in 1998.

I get it, I had more school and was in a different profession, but that's not great for what Troopers do. Even in Indiana.