So this is maybe the worst sort of thing... a crusader, pumped up with adrenalin from high speed driving. He was incredibly irresponsible with his weapon. In a way, he was lucky that he shot the suspect -- under slightly different circumstances, he could have just as easily shot a bystander, or another officer, or an EMT.

And you're right; under the same circumstances, an ordinary citizen would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon at the very least, and more likely manslaughter or negligent homicide. There's a conceit here, somewhat analogous to the conceit that media people have that holds that the First Amendment grants special privileges to them. Police should not have the right to shoot people under circumstances where an ordinary citizen would not be justified in doing the same.

Note the careful wording - the investigation claims that the discharge was 'accidental'. This is a word carefully chosen to make the reader/viewer think that it was some random event. Could happen to anybody. Just fell from the sky.

Nonsense. On stilts.

There's no such thing as an 'accidental' discharge of a firearm. They do not fire by themselves. They fire because you pulled the trigger. The correct term is 'unintended discharge', which correctly describes what actually occurred - he pulled the trigger, he just didn't mean to.

' . . was not prepared for and was surprised by the gun's firing . . .', my chrome-plated ass. Again, note the careful use of the passive voice - 'the gun's firing', as though the gun has some agency in the matter. Nonsense. It was his finger on the trigger, he pulled the trigger. I accept that he may not have meant to do it, but do it he did. That's not an accident - that's negligence.

Officers are trained to keep finger off trigger until the situation develops to the point where deadly force is justified. Looks like his training - didn't take. And, since he knows that the dashcam video will show that he was not justified to have finger on trigger, now he's going with the 'oops, it was an accident' defense.

Thing is, there is no 'oops, it was an accident' defence. The fact that he didn't mean to do it does not absolve him of responsibility. It merely changes the charges that should be brought. Negligent discharge, attempted (some degree of homicide), assault with a deadly weapon. Never mind the attempted cover-up - the paramedics pull up and you don't tell them you shot the guy? Just what was he trying to pull? Was he hoping maybe he'd missed, and that he wouldn't be found out?

The video is a perfect example of so much that's wrong with US policing, including the crazy Rambo compulsion to exit the patrol car and immediately draw a weapon, when there is no credible threat to life or limb. Even if the officer thought that the suspect was intending to flee, he is not justified to draw his weapon. But it has now become the accepted norm, and these are the results we see - excited officers with loaded weapons = more unintended discharges.

llater,

llamas

That looked pretty cold blooded. The investigators said: "Additionally, officers normally train to fire a minimum of two shots. There was no second shot and the officer immediately holstered his weapon after the discharge."

In the video it sure looks like the cop fired two shots. Then after shooting the guy while he was trying to get out of the car the cop says, "I've got a male in the car refusing to get out."

The purpose of internal investigators is to exonerate the police.

Weapon safety rules:

1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are prepared to fire.
4. Keep your weapon on safe until you are prepared to fire.
5. Know your target, and consider the background.

The above rules are the only gun control we need, and no one needs to be trained more than the police.

This is a flagrant disregard for human life. The police officer and the driver should be cellmates.

In other cases, a bad judgment call? I'd be willing to give the officer the benefit of the doubt since I'm not in their shoes everyday.

But an "accidental" shooting? I'd argue that someone who cannot control their weapon should NOT be on the force. period.

Oh, and just would happen to a civilian if their gun went off "accidentally"? No charges? Ha! If anyone believes that I've got a bridge going to Brooklyn to sell.

Yes, the police officer was reckless, and probably stupid, and on the other end we need to count the felonies the guy who got shot, was engaged in at the time.

He had just killed his wife....

Not a real sympathetic plaintif if this ever gets to trial.

Look at him after the shooting; he's scouring the pavement trying to find the ejected casing so there wouldn't be any evidence of the shot being fired.

Yes, I support the cop being prosecuted for his actions, but as Isab points out, a less-sympathetic plaintiff could hardly be found. Literally, seconds earlier, he just killed his wife, probably because he decided he was okay to drive, and too macho to let his likely much-less inebriated wife take over the driving duties.

Congratulations, you fucking dick. You're a widower of several seconds and you're probably going to spend the rest of your natural existence in prison. Oh, please, let's make the story even more dreadful. Let's give this couple young children.

I'm as pro-cop as they come, but I can't find anything to defend this cop with. Except the fact that he probably did the world a favor, on the whole, but....we don't get to do favors like that, they're called murder, so, yeah, he needs to be in jail.

momof4-my sentiments exactly.

I get the feeling that perhaps he didn't realize initially that the bullet struck the guy.

Depending on how much paralyze the guy has, it could be quite a bit more expensive to keep him locked up.

I'll say one thing for the stupid cop; at least a crusade against drunk drivers is a worthy cause. Drunk driving is just one of things that people do that frustrate me with its stupidity. It makes me want to literally try to pound some sense into their heads. Just don't do it. Call a taxi. Call a friend. Give the keys to your sober friend. If you don't have a ride home, sleep in the back of your car.

A few years ago, a coworker of mine lost her father to a hit-and-run drunk driver. The elderly gentleman was trying to cross a street in his motorized wheelchair when he was mowed down by a pickup truck that didn't even bother to slow down. It happened around this time of year, too. Eventually, they caught up with the perp a few weeks later. My coworker was actually on the local news when the driver was apprehended, and remarked dryly that she hoped the driver enjoyed his holidays with his family. We even saw some footage of the driver in the back of the police car, looking annoyed, as if being picked up after killing someone and fleeing the scene of the accident was the most outrageous injustice ever perpetrated on someone.

Quite possibly Patrick Feaster believed, as M4 points out, that he was doing the world a favor. If drunk driving were my personal crusade, this guy would definitely piss me off like no other. He just killed his wife with his stupidity and selfishness. All it takes is a few seconds of abandoning one's reasoning mind to decide this fuckhead is better off dead.

I agree with Patrick, kona and Mo4: No sympathy for the drunk driver. The cop is reckless and dishonest. They both screwed up big time and are danger to others. They should both be in jail.