Officer kills armed civilian

[ditcherman]

I have this picture in my mind of the cruiser in the rear, then the disabled car, and the guy on the ground between the front of the disabled car and the rear of his car. I have trouble picturing how the cop could see the guy once he returned to his cruiser unless the guy had traveled some distance from where he was when the encounter started. All I know is if I thought someone was a threat there is no way in hell I would let him out of my sight and still stay close enough for him to re engage me. I take it that these cops do not carry a portable radio or cell phone that they could use for communication and must return to the cruiser? That seems to me to put them in a very dangerous situation.

If he couldn't out draw the officer when he was standing and not wounded how could anyone reasonably expect that a 57 year old guy who is now shot and on the ground was going to draw and shoot his gun faster than the officer could react?

I seldom see less than 2 squad cars when someone around here is pulled over around here and I think all the cops have cell phones on them and most have portable radios. I should edit it to say that I spend a great deal of time around Chicago cops and they all have radios and cell phones on them all the time, I seldom am around LE in Indiana and haven't noticed if they carry portable radios or not.

I readily admit I know nothing about what police are trained to do in such a situation but I would have expected the initial officer to keep a weapon drawn on the guy, call for backup on cell or radio, and then when backup arrived with medics close behind disarm and cuff the 57 year old guy and let the medics have at him. Maybe I watch too much TV.

If the officer did not have a radio or cell on him how long would it take for them to dispatch backup after he made the call about the initial stop and then did not radio back to the dispatcher?

+1 on this. Every bit of it, including before the but and after it. Makes sense to me, but apparently doesn’t to others, I guess because of our confirmation biases.
Also, timing of backup was discussed up thread, Cville and maybe a state post was pretty close.

 

[ditcherman]

With all that stacked up against him it would have seemed more prudent for the officer to back up to a safe distance and call for backup rather than approach the scene by himself.

I’m new around here, is it a rule that you HAVE to color something purple that’s meant as sarcasm?

 

[ditcherman]

Me, three days ago, looking at this brand new thread: Hmm, that could be interesting. I'll check it a bit later to see how it progresses and what sort of conversations are coming out of it.

Me, today, seeing this at 48 pages:

This is why I lurked around here so long before joining up, this seems to be pretty common and I was scared.

 

[JettaKnight]

I’m new around here, is it a rule that you HAVE to color something purple that’s meant as sarcasm?

No, but it helps, because tone is often lost.

 

[churchmouse]

OK.

You do know how conversations work, right. Sometimes they're on point, sometimes they stray a little.....

No one said anything about the pay affecting anything in the situation at hand.

Exactly.

 

[HoughMade]

My question is what was the criminal activity that he was originally stopping for. Having a gun is not breaking the law. He already knew the vehicle was there and should of expected someone to be working on it at some point. So unless he was stopping to offer some assistance, which he could been. It's just hard for me to go from, Hey buddy is there anything I can do to help, to shots fired is a big jump

"Y'know, there's a guy with out-of-state plates. Maybe he's working on it, maybe he's stealing stuff......screw it, I don't have a jury with me to render a final verdict, I'm driving on."

 

[churchmouse]

I’m new around here, is it a rule that you HAVE to color something purple that’s meant as sarcasm?

Being new we are not used to your posting style. Some of us actually know each other in person and are aware of sarcasm regardless.
It is a coming thing to put some purple in where is applies.

 

[cb46184]

OK.

You do know how conversations work, right. Sometimes they're on point, sometimes they stray a little.....

No one said anything about the pay affecting anything in the situation at hand.

OK, maybe it did "stray a little" but the point about pay Was MADE. Just look back a couple of pages and you'll find that, in fact, you were the one mentioned how officers were not paid enough.

 

[churchmouse]

OK, maybe it did "stray a little" but the point about pay Was MADE. Just look back a couple of pages and you'll find that, in fact, you were the one mentioned how officers were not paid enough.

Welcome to Ingo. Sometimes these threads go well off the rails. It is amazing we are not swapping PUDC recipes by now.....

 

[cb46184]

Welcome to Ingo. Sometimes these threads go well off the rails. It is amazing we are not swapping PUDC recipes by now.....

Yep. I think, after several attempts to reply on various threads, I maybe just need to limit myself to the classifieds.

 

[churchmouse]

Yep. I think, after several attempts to reply on various threads, I maybe just need to limit myself to the classifieds.

If you have been around since 16 you should know we are not a group that stays dead on point until the bitter end. Discussions ebb and flow. It is just the way of things here. Sometimes it lightens the tone with humor and sometimes the deviations have merit over all.

Sometimes the train just jumps the rails. To take this too seriously is tough. OCD applies...

 

[HoughMade]

OK, maybe it did "stray a little" but the point about pay Was MADE. Just look back a couple of pages and you'll find that, in fact, you were the one mentioned how officers were not paid enough.

Yes, a couple of people did before me too. It was commentary on the difficulty of police work in general in reference to the compensation, not an excuse for anything that happened here. No one even came close to hinting that he should be given a pass because of his wages.

 

[Butch627]

I’m new around here, is it a rule that you HAVE to color something purple that’s meant as sarcasm?

It was mentioned earlier that the officer was concerned that one of the vehicles had tinted windows and he retreated back to the safety of his cruiser due to concern that there may have been someone in there besides the guy bleeding to death on the ground with his gun in his holster. I would think that if that was the case than perhaps the officer should have stayed a safe distance back and called for backup before engaging the scene. If there was actually someone in the vehicle with tinted windows it seems that he could have shot the cop at any time from when he first left the cruiser until backup arrived to secure the vehicle with the tinted windows and the officer was putting himself in danger by remaining so close to the other vehicles.

 

[tbhausen]

It’s highly unlikely enough facts will ever come to light to answer the questions in many peoples’ minds about this incident. I’m glad to hear so many LEO’s favor body and dash cams. Maybe it’s time we citizens get organized and apply some real pressure to make this happen for everyone’s sake.

 

[Jaybird1980]

"Y'know, there's a guy with out-of-state plates. Maybe he's working on it, maybe he's stealing stuff......screw it, I don't have a jury with me to render a final verdict, I'm driving on."

So is it the out-of-state plates, or the working on a broken down vehicle, that would lead someone to believe a crime is being committed? As previously stated, there is not much to be stolen from under the hood

 

[VUPDblue]

So is it the out-of-state plates, or the working on a broken down vehicle, that would lead someone to believe a crime is being committed? As previously stated, there is not much to be stolen from under the hood

I check on broken down cars ALL THE TIME but not because I suspect any crimes, but to see if someone needs help. That’s not to say I let my guard down in doing that though.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I check on broken down cars ALL THE TIME but not because I suspect any crimes, but to see if someone needs help. That’s not to say I let my guard down in doing that though.

This I understand, like I said it's hard for me to understand how it would go from offering assistance to a shooting. Not saying it can't happen. Wouldn't it be more plausible that he started trying to ID a guy that could of already been stressed out over the situation. Therefore esculating the situation for know apparent reason.
I understand that if the guy grabbed for his gun then, the officer has a duty to protect himself. I just think mistakes could off been made that led up to it.

 

[HoughMade]

So is it the out-of-state plates, or the working on a broken down vehicle, that would lead someone to believe a crime is being committed? As previously stated, there is not much to be stolen from under the hood

Read the OP article. There was concern that someone may have been stealing something from the vehicle. I would think out-of-state license plates may play into that a bit, but I don't know.

According to Riley, the trooper involved in the shooting earlier in the day had checked on the Chevy Tahoe, which appeared to be abandoned on the side of the road. The trooper, after checking for occupants, put a sticker on the vehicle to let other police officers know it had been checked. That happened at 3:48 p.m. Friday, Riley said.Riley said that nearly three hours later, the same trooper passed the Tahoe and saw that a second car, a white 2018 Dodge, had pulled in front of the SUV.
Riley said the trooper “noticed a handgun on the waist of Mr. Rightsell as he pulled around behind the Tahoe.” Riley said the trooper turned on his emergency lights and spotlight to investigate why a second vehicle was there.
“The trooper wasn’t sure whether someone was there stealing something or what,” Riley said.

Seems like a reasonable reason to stop to me.
In any event, what if a police officer just wants to stop when a guy is working on a vehicle he tagged to see if it was going to be removed soon, does he need a tow? Who knows? Sure, the guy had a gun....but nothing I have seen said that he was shot because he had a gun, it was because he ignored instructions and reached for his gun. Some may think this is a small distinction. I don't.

An account given by Indiana State Police, via Sgt. Kim Riley, was that Rightsell reached for a gun after being approached by the trooper, who pulled his sidearm and fired.

This is a tragic situation to be sure, but based upon what I have seen so far, I can see why it happened. Additional facts may change that.....and it's way too early to claim that there will be no additional facts that come into play.

 

[Beowulf]

By all rights i'm sure it was a good shoot, the guy might have been a curmudgeon with a problem with authority or he may have made some sort of furtive movement or one of many other things but i'm sure the troop would have preferred not to shoot someone that day. It's definitely a learning opportunity for everyone that shouldn't be in vain.

So he was just a guy on the side of the road, working on his daughter's car, carrying a handgun, with a history of disorderly conduct. How can this go sideways.

So is it the out-of-state plates, or the working on a broken down vehicle, that would lead someone to believe a crime is being committed? As previously stated, there is not much to be stolen from under the hood

It goes further than that, it was the gun on his hip that required investigation.... but having a potential car thief open carrying is not enough of a risk to call for back up before approaching.

So which is it?

Open carry is legal. Having a broken down vehicle is legal. Trying to fix the broken down vehicle (as long as you are not obstructing traffic and becoming a safety hazard) is legal.

I don't see an issue with the trooper stopping to ask if everything is alright, but given what we know of Rightsell (checkered past and all) nothing else makes sense. Why would Rightsell make a grab for his gun? Also, lets say he was going to. The only way Rightsell gets shot before he can even pull the gun from its holster is if the trooper already had his gun drawn. But why was the trooper's gun drawn, if all the activities were nominally legal (and since the trooper had no way to know any different)? That tells me that the trooper, very likely, unnecessarily escalated the whole engagement and then opened fire. All that makes me very seriously doubt it went down anything like ISP is claiming.

 

[Jaybird1980]

That is what I'm afraid happened as well, and since the ISP has decided that it doesn't have to justify officers actions. They decided that cameras are just expensive, and the public will just have to believe the reports.