Eboni Pouncy, identified as a friend of the apartment’s resident, sustained five gunshot wounds to her leg and torso during the incident.

Attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Pouncy, said the video is evidence of “unnecessary and excessive force.”

I’d agree completely.

Police should not be allowed to shoot through a barrier into a house or anything else.

Maybe, just maybe, I’d allow it if they were fired on through the barrier first.

These cops shot through blinds. How could they see what they were shooting at?

How did they identify the target?

They could have killed an entire family just spraying bullets through a curtain covered window.

Then there is this fact.

As an American citizen, I have an absolute right to walk around inside my house with a gun. A cop peeking in my window shouldn’t have the ability to blast my ass through the glass because he saw me with a gun in my own house.

This was utterly insane and dangerous.

This was a bad shoot and the cops should go to prison for it.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

11 thoughts on “I agree with Ben Crump on this one”
  1. The cops should go to prison. The cop(s) who trained them should go to prison. The police firearms instructor who taught them to handle their guns should go to prison. Their sergeants, lieutenants, captain, and chief — anyone in the chain of command who so much as hinted that this might be an appropriate action — should go to prison.
    The ones who can clearly show, with records, that they taught/ordered/advised these two cops correctly and these two did NOT “follow their training/orders/advise” can come back out.
    This crap isn’t going to stop unless something or someone stops it.
    I understand why “qualified immunity” exists, but it shouldn’t apply to someone who is patently and objectively UNqualified to wear a badge and carry a gun in public. Based on their actions, I wouldn’t trust these two with a box of crayons.

  2. what TF was she shooting at with that 2nd mag? Is she gonna be able to clearly articulate a continuing threat after the first mag? that’s going to be a sticky wicket…

  3. Female police know full well that they are physically overmatched in all male encounters, which necessitates in their minds, to go to the equalizer when in doubt. It’s a natural mental reflex action of self-preservation, it’s human, it’s based on an irrefutable truth, it’s an absolute truth, females are not naturally designed for the trenches of war whereas men are.
    Thus, the reason why females should not be put into positions of enforcement, i.e. physical risk situations.
    When I teach an all women class and get to the ‘Orient-Failure’ analysis of an imposed high-risk scenario, a majority of the students double-down repeatedly on subjective feelings, which they believe is true-analysis, rather than objective reasonings derived from the actual visual indicators produced by the scenario which is actual true-analysis. This same thing does occur occasionally with men but nowhere near the percentage it does with females.
    The video clearly reveals an uncontrolled sense of panic when the vehicle alarm began. Both officers either did not have infield scenario training or forgot it all once ‘they sensed an increase in risk from their personal perspective’ unable to know anything else beyond their own ignorance. They knew they did not know what to do and it’s clear by their actions they also had previously decided should this happen; they were going err on the side of going to the gun when in fear and doubt.
    The same societal engineering which promotes and enables the existence of these officers also promotes and enables the Benjamin Crumps of the world. One intentional crisis creates another and another etc. Until society is so chaotic, the only intelligent thing to do is to burn it down to the ground and start over.
    Which is going to happen as designed, right on time. Prepare and act accordingly.

  4. hard to trust “authority “ when things like this happen more and more. concealed carry becomes a high stress nightmare when considering the aftermath of a defensive shooting and clowns like this could show up.
    people have been programmed by multiple cop tv shows to immediately call 911 and the “good guys” will come to the rescue. We the People are truely on our own.. we had a gang banger style incident in a large town here recently- 2 vehicles, in an intersection crowded with people. 4 or more non Americans open up with guns. and the “news” response?? “we need to do something about “gun violence “……. nothing about crime, just restrictions on FREEDOM.

  5. Herschel Smith, over at The Captain’s Journal, has repeatedly offered that “one is in no greater danger than when the police are present.”

    My local branch of the Geheime Staatspolizei is a bunch of overweight, under-trained adult children with dull normal IQs; they are the last people I would want helping me. And, no disrespect to Lawful to Shoot (above) but I have not observed any significant difference between the acumen of The Badged with testicles versus those with ovaries (I do agree that simple physical and emotional limitations should prohibit females from street duty in LE, but, again, so should that extra 40-60 pounds the majority of the males possess, not to mention the across-the-board IQ deficit).

    The goal is, or should be, prevention of any intrusion which might necessitate active response on the part of anyone; systems, and procedures, do occasionally fail, however. And, having done a bit of it in other venues, I am not unaware of the inherent hazards and complications of house clearing, but I am confident that however I accomplish the task will be quite a bit less destructive to the appliances, furniture and bystanders; the folks with the bright lights and fancy colored wraps on their vehicles can bring mops and brooms for the after party.

  6. “believed to be armed”
    That is not a standard that would be acceptable for anyone. You couldn’t even get away with that in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Absolutely criminal.

    1. “Believed to be armed”
      Based on what, exactly? If you have to have a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” of criminal activity — meaning: based on evidence or observation — in order to detain someone; and actual evidence, first-person-witness of a criminal act, or a warrant issued by a judge (based on the above) in order to arrest someone, how much higher of a standard is it to “go to guns”?
      Because if I were a judge — and even more so as a private citizen who might have to deal with these “officers” in person — I need a little more than “I believe” if I’m going to find the use of extreme levels of lethal force justified. (Two magazines emptied probably means between 30 and 35 rounds fired, which is 30-35 chances to re-evaluate “Is this really necessary?”)

  7. Glossing over the obvious.
    Diversity hire.
    No doubt in my mind about that one. Passed through the system with the assumption the police needs more women as beat cops.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.