Police opens fire on mini-van of kids; getting the full story is key...

The first video the news used the sensational parts of the video in order to create a story of rogue police officers. By watching the 1st 3rd of the second video you understand that something more than officers just shooting at a woman and kids for no reason has happened. The driver of the car could have made a decision and driven off with nothing else ever happening (minus the fine or court appearance). As with most things there are at least three stories what he said, what she said, and the truth. The number of stories is usually one more than the number of people that are involved with any situation.

I just joined RP Thursday morning and since that time I've noticed a trend of what appears to be people criticizing the police. Makes me wonder how many of them have first hand knowledge of what it's like to be a law enforcement officer of any type (military included)? As it is, I happen to be an 11 year veteran of civilian law enforcement. Before I got out of the military I transfered from the Army Guard to the AF Reserves where I also served as a Security Forces Airman for a brief time.

I'm not here to make excuses for the actions of any of the officers involved in this incident. I wasn't there and I don't have any more first hand knowledge than likely any of you do. However, it's very easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and scrutinize the actions of all the cops seen on these videos now that we all have the advantage of time, which as the saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20.

I'd like to point out a few things in my observations of the video. The vehicle was stopped for a speeding violaiton. I believe 71 MPH in a 55. That's over 15 MPH above the speedlimit. As a cop I think that's a good traffic stop. He's not nitpicking and stopping her for 3 to 5 over. Lets get this straight, driving is a priveledge, not a right. In most states when you recieve a drivers license you so under the agreement that you will obey the laws of the road (IE the speedlimit) and cooperate with lawful order given by law enforcement. In my state we call this "Implied Consent." I think the Trooper is using fairly good "Verbal Judo" with her. Though he may come off as being overly stern or "mean" to some, he is not rude to her and even points out that he gave her a break by not citing her for having an expired license. I can here them arguing over her lack of wanting to make a decision in regards to something with the speeding citation and court. Contrary to her statement of "He gave me my license back I thought it was over … so I started pulling out slowly, like we do from any traffic stop." I can clearly here the Trooper ask her repeatedly to shut her vehicle off and remain stopped on the side of the road. A request to which she argues with him over almost immediately before she pulls back onto the roadway and drives away.

From that point the situation really goes down hill.... He gets the vehicle stopped a second time during which she continually argues with the officer and disregards his repeated requests for her to exit her vehicle. During the 14 Y/O son exits the car and approaches the officer. I'm sure some on here will say "But he's only 14." My second homicide scene as a cop was a 14 Y/O kid who got shot by his 14 Y/O best friend. Point being, 14 Y/O are more than capable of carrying a firearm and pulling the trigger. Point of fact, when I was going through Security Forces School we had a training scenario on the Firearms Training Simulator (FATS) machine which involved an officer placing the male driver of a vehicle into custody and his 10 Y/O daughter pulling out a shotgun on the officer. The scenario ends one of two ways. Either the Officer doing the training gives good enough verbal commands for the simulator operator to input the girl to put the gun down, or, in the other scenario, the girl turns the shotgun on the cop. I should point out that Security Forces School is not only a military approved course, but a Federal Law Enforcemnt Center certified course as well.

In my opinion I think this whole thing could've ended differently had the Trooper waited another another 3 minutes for his backup to arrive on scene. I don't know why, but for some reason he jumps the gun and attempts to cuff the woman almost immediately as they get to the back of the van. Given that both the woman and her son had already been uncooperative with him, and her son had already exited the vehicle one time (forcing the Trooper to pull his Taser on him), I think the better decision would've been to wait for his back up to get on scene. One of the first things I was taught in my police academy, saftey in numbers, and whenver possible, the more cops the better. Especially in a situation like this. Like I said though, it's easy for all of us to second guess and Monday morning quaterback after the situation. And I don't his agency's policy on the matter either? Maybe his agency policy dictates that thier Troopers immediately take violators into custody.

As for the cop who shot at the car? I got nothing. But once again, I'm not him, and I don't know what he was thinking at the time he pulled the trigger. Certainly it doesn't look good that he was behind the vehicle and the van was pulling away from him. At that point in time I don't think he make the claim that he feared for the lives of him or his fellow officers. Maybe for the motoring public, but I think that at that moment in time that would be a stretch; however that was the point where a very dangerous high speed pursuit ensued. At least none of the children in the van were hurt as a result.

According to the article Ms. Ferrell was arrested on suspicion of intentional child abuse, fleeing and possession of drug paraphernalia. I think it needs to be pointed out that she bears some responsibilty for how the events unfolded that day as well. Certainly in regards to the cop who shot at her van, but definitely in that she was not cooperative with the Trooper who initially stopped and cited her. Furthermore, she is being charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, I do wonder if she wasn't under the influence of illegal drugs at the time of the incident, which certainly would alter he state of being and effect her attitude in dealing with the situation. And if that is the case, no, that is still not a ligitimate excuse for her actions. Keep in mind the example this woman is setting for her children with her actions if she was under the influence of illegal drugs, much less the reality that she absolutely put all of her children in harms way, as well as that of the officers and the motoring public, while leading several officers on a high speed pursuit!

Once again, if any of you think that a person of less than 18 years of age isn't going to intentionally try to harm an LEO, take a look at this video. This occurred in West Memphis Arkansas after one of thier officers stopped a vehicle on the highway while performing drug interdiciton. The vehicle was occuipied by a father and son who were members of the Sovreign Citizens Movement. The son is only 16 years old.

http://blutube.policeone.com/videos/ [login to see] 001-officers-down-in-west-memphis-shootout/

I know many of you will think I'm biased given my history as an LEO. And lets be honest, I am to a certain extent. If for nothing else because I've been there. For 11 years I've donned a vest and hit the streets not knowing what my shift would bring my way. But, I can assure you that I also hold my profession and my colleagues in high regard and under high scrutiny as well. I'll be the first to tell you that if a cop is dirty, or has done something that he shouldn't have, then he needs to be held accountable for his actions.

I'm alwasy up for a little healthy debate. Good discussion!

SSG Pete Fleming. I am routinely biased in favor of the lone officer who has his hands more than full with a felony fleeing driver who when all is said and done chose to drive with reckless disregard for anyone's safety often at 100 MPH and on the wrong side of the road on multiple occasions through what are quite obviously crowded residential and commercial parts of town.

But, I'm also deeply troubled by at least one officer opening fire for whatever reason on this fleeing vehicle without clearly and adequately identifying his targets. I do not for one minute believe his marksmanship skills would enable him to safely take out the tires without risking mortal injury to the remaining passengers who are not in control of the fleeing vehicle. I don't know what the rules of engagement/use of force guidelines require in this jurisdiction -- but I would be tempted to take the video and all associated evidence to a state/federal grand jury.

Warmest Regards, Sandy