- A former West Virginia police officer is suing the city where he was employed, claiming that he was fired for not shooting a 21-year-old suicidal black man.
When Officer Stephen Mader saw the gun in RJ Williams’ hand on May 6, 2016, he raised his duty weapon in defense. But then Williams said something that gave Mader a new understanding of what was going on.
“Just shoot me,” he remembered the visibly distraught Williams saying.
Mader, an Afghanistan war veteran, deduced that Williams was attempting suicide by cop, a suicide method in which a person engages in actual or apparent danger to others with the desire to be killed or injured by law enforcement.
The cop used his training and personal war experiences to deduce that the subject's actions were a desperate cry for help. So he did what he thought best - negotiated...or if you like, "de-escalated." So he's a hero, right? A shining beacon of police work held up as an example to all, right?
Well, no. He's fired.
- The two argued back and forth — Williams asking to be shot, Mader asking that he put down the gun.
But when another cruiser approached, things escalated. Williams began waving the gun around toward Mader and the other officers, who immediately fired.
“Within seconds, shots were fired and the last shot fatally wounded Mr. Williams to the head,” Mader claimed.
And the kicker of it all?
- When they inspected Williams’ pistol, they found that it wasn’t loaded.
So now the whole thing is in court. The cop who fired the fatal shot wasn't dismissed but is alleged to have sent a number of threatening messages to the fired cop about cowardice. Past incidents of "failure to report" are being dredged up to sustain a case for firing the non-shooter (sound familiar?) and the ACLU of all people is involved with this argument:
- Under the law, an officer is only allowed to use deadly force when he or she perceives a threat.
“Once he made the decision Williams was not a threat, the U.S. Constitution says he’s not allowed to shoot,” the ACLU of West Virginia executive director, Joseph Cohen, told HuffPost. “Not only was his belief reasonable, it was objectively correct. The gun was unloaded.”
So the ACLU is saying that one officer's decision (or PERCEPTION) is valid, while the other officer, arriving on scene and being threatened with the same gun, well, his PERCEPTION is invalid because the gun ended up being unloaded. Remember, these are the people who just helped write gut the street stop order, the ISR disaster and the Non-Use of force order, judging an incident that took seconds to unfold.
Discuss. We've made no judgements and provided the link so you can read it. To us, it seems like yet another set of rules that allow the progressives to harshly judge a dynamic situation with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, simply to screw coppers attempting to do a difficult job.
Labels: general, out-of-state