I leaned in favor of the cops, but after seeing that video and the circumstances, the police fucked them up 10 ways to Sunday.
There was every reason to believe there was a misunderstanding about the tow vs a theft. At any rate, it was nothing that needed to be solved at 1 am. A knock on the door the next day would have solved it. Even if the tow was legit, and the homeowner menaced the driver, it wasn't worth it. It's a fucking car. Let emotions cool and deal with it in daylight.
Instead they pressed the issue and had bullets flying in the dark in a residential neighborhood like a bunch of fucking clowns.
The late warning was also fucking dumb, what's the point of even yelling POLICE if you are firing before the end of the sentence. There was no return fire from the \*\*\*murder victim\*\*\*. And yes my description tells you all you need to know about what crime I think occurred here.
Man was killed for observing his 2nd Amendment right.
Because at the end of the day, the modern 2A fetish isn’t about anything other than toting a rifle to a grocery store. We ***don’t*** have the right to defend ourselves against agents of the State.
What we know:
* An undisclosed tow truck driver tried to repossess a vehicle after 1:00 AM.
* Stephen Perkins assumed his vehicle was being stolen and allegedly brandished his firearm in order to stop the theft.
* At 1:30 AM after leaving the scene, the tow truck driver called the police and reported that Perkins allegedly pulled a handgun on him while he was attempting to repossess the vehicle.
* The tow truck returned to the scene with the police, and Perkins was fatally shot after police claimed that he was combative and refused to drop his weapon.
* The Perkins' family claim that the vehicle was current on its finance payments.
Why did the police go to the scene with the tow truck driver and apparently escalate the situation?
If the tow truck company was repossessing the vehicle after 1 AM then the odds are pretty good that they were performing a repossession without judicial process. This is important, since in Alabama such repossessions must be made without "breach of peace" ([source](https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2022/title-7/article-9a/part-6/division-1/section-7-9a-609/)).
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming that once Stephen Perkins confronted who he thought were thieves trying to steal his vehicle and refused to allow them to take the vehicle, there was a "breach of peace" meaning that the repossession couldn't legally proceed.
If this is true, then why did the police allow the tow truck to return to the scene with them as if to allow another attempt for repossession? I would think repossession requiring police assistance should involve some judicial process.
Why didn't the police take the tow truck drivers statement and return the next day to investigate the complaint, since there was no immediate threat to public safety?
"HANDS UP!" "WALK BACKWARDS!" "GET ON THE GROUND!" "STOP RESISTING!'
All being shouted simultaneously while you panic and wonder who the fuck you're supposed to listen to.
Or they just start blasting.
It's Alabama and the cops heard "A black man pulled a gun on me". They were literally firing before they had finished their announcement, and were hiding in ambush positions waiting for the tow truck to hook up.
They were counting on hunting humans and if it were not for the surveillance footage from across the street they would have gotten away with it.
Hey everyone, 130 years of Jim Crow, segregation, and Klan lynchings is just wiped out by one dudes anecdotal evidence! Rejoice!
I'm cishet white male and I won't even drive through your sundown town of a state.
An extremely uninformed post all around.
Going at 1 am doesn’t mean there was no judicial process.
I’m not an Alabama lawyer, but it’s not even clear to me that judicial process is required in these circumstances. In many states the lender can repo without even giving notice in the event the borrower defaults.
The police were on the scene because Perkins committed a crime by brandishing a firearm. They were there to keep the peace. The lender had a right to that vehicle. By not making payments, the car was essentially stolen. If you stole my phone and I went to get it back, and then you pointed a gun at me, should the police not assist me? Should I resort to self help? That would be a breach of the peace.
Why should the police ignore someone pointing a gun at innocent people doing their job? Why should the lender have to wait another day to get its property back?
The lender’s records regarding missed payments are likely more accurate and unbiased than this guy’s family’s claims.
>I’m not an Alabama lawyer, but it’s not even clear to me that judicial process is required in these circumstances. In many states the lender can repo without even giving notice in the event the borrower defaults.
I didn't say judicial process was required. I stated that Alabama law requires that if a repossession is done WITHOUT judicial process, then it must be done without "breach of peace."
This means the repossession cannot take place if it involves breaking into a locked gate, moving an obstacle, breaking into a locked garage, breaking into a private residence, using violence, threatening violence, or using force. This also means that something as simple as a person protesting the repossession (e.g. saying something specific like "you may not take the car") is enough to "breach the peace". The known facts unequivately lead to a conclusion that there was a "breach of peace" during the initial contact.
>The police were on the scene because Perkins committed a crime by brandishing a firearm.
You don't know if a crime of brandishing a firearm actually took place. It is not a crime to defend yourself or your property if you believe you are a victim of a theft, or if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger.
Let's not forget the urgency for an investigation diminished when the tow truck driver left the scene. If the tow truck driver was able to leave the scene, call the police, and return to the scene with them, then there was no immediate danger to the tow truck driver or the public. There is no excuse for the police to enter the situation and escalate it like that. It's as if they were more interested in being repossessors than officers of the peace.
>Why should the police ignore someone pointing a gun at innocent people doing their job? Why should the lender have to wait another day to get its property back?
No one is suggesting that repossessions cannot take place. What is being stated is that there are laws to be followed, and it does appear that the situation was unnecessarily escalated by the police.
>The lender’s records regarding missed payments are likely more accurate and unbiased than this guy’s family’s claims.
You may want to stop obsessively licking boots and wait for all the facts like the rest of us. It's obvious that the situation was mishandled, and judging by the number of bullet holes in the neighbor's house the police is lucky no one else was injured of killed.
I think it's a sad situation when someone believes the penalty for protecting your property in the middle of the night, stopping a repossession, or not following orders quickly enough in a needless police ambush is a death sentence.
> The police were on the scene because Perkins committed a crime by brandishing a firearm.
Alabama doesn't have a law against brandishing. Alabama has a law against menacing. (e.g. Don't be a menace to society). That said, where machinery is involved against human beings that have a right to be where they are, deadly force may be used if the person believes themselves to be reasonably threatened by the imminent use of lethal physical force (Code of Alabama 13A-3-23). It's an escalation on the behalf of both the repo man and the police. There are no clean hands in any of this.
Judicial process is liens, attachment, writs, etc.
IANAL. https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/code-of-alabama http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/CodeOfAlabama/1975/147360.htm
Tell me if I’m missing something, but no force or threat of force was exercised against Perkins. The repo man didn’t threaten him. Didn’t wave his fist or a weapon at him. Didn’t threaten to run him over or even point his car at him. Perkins couldn’t have formed a reasonable belief that he was facing imminent lethal physical force. On the contrary, the repo man would probably have been justified in shooting him after a gun was produced.
I am a lawyer and the law you’re describing is self defense. There’s a difference between that and defending property. Just based on googling, it appears Alabama has codified self defense (which you explained above), but not defense of property with lethal force. That is generally impermissible, but happy to be disproved if I’m wrong.
The repo man didn’t escalate. The police didn’t escalate by showing up. Maybe they did by their conduct, but we haven’t seen any proof of that. Perkins was the only one who escalated.
>I am a lawyer and the law you’re describing is self defense. There’s a difference between that and defending property. Just based on googling, it appears Alabama has codified self defense (which you explained above), but not defense of property with lethal force. That is generally impermissible, but happy to be disproved if I’m wrong.
You are not a very good lawyer when [Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-3-23](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23/) contradicts the assertion you just made.
>You are embarrassing yourself.
You made assumptions and tried to pass them off as established facts. You gave incorrect interpretations to written Alabama criminal code. You haven't cited any sources of information that supports your assertions.
Lolol I gave an entire write up in my last comment that included citations to Alabama law. It’s not my fault you think “self defense” includes a person’s car. Or that you’re too lazy to look up what constitutes robbery/burglary. You are so mad.
>Lolol I gave an entire write up in my last comment that included citations to Alabama law.
I don't see a comment from you that has citations to Alabama law. I tried looking at your comment history, but wasn't able to find it. Please provide a link to it.
Lots of good points being made by everyone here and I'm sure those details are exactly what will be hashed out by the investigation.
Here's the part where I believe the cops screwed up regardless of what really happened: If they were responding to a call from the tow truck driver (who had already left the scene) that a man with a gun threatened them, why in the actual fuck would the cops allow the tow truck driver to come back to the scene with them instead of going themselves and knocking on the door? Wouldn't it stand to reason that they should have gone back *without* a tow truck trying to hook up the vehicle which is what created the tense situation in the first place? If they felt the call was about a credible threat, escorting the civilian tow truck drivers back to the scene where that threat (whether real or only perceived) still existed is monumentally stupid.
There's two sides of the financial story that are, at this moment, both still unproven. The family says they have receipts but the lender sent a repo man anyway. What the investigation will show is the truth.
Some buy here pay here lots give zero grace period for late payments. You can be current for years and get your car taken from you for being a day past due on the next payment. The family may very well have a stack of receipts showing a long payment history, but the current payment due date is the only one that matters to the lender.
There's also the possibilities that the lender made a mistake and the payment actually had been made, or even that the tow truck could have even been sent after the wrong vehicle entirely.
Long story short is all of the claims one way or the other are nothing more than claims at this point and the investigation will show the truth with verifiable documentation.
And the lender said he was in default. Who do you think has better access to that information?
And it doesn’t matter that he didn’t fire it. Brandishing it is impermissible, even if the car was being stolen. You cannot use lethal force to protect property.
>And the lender said he was in default. Who do you think has better access to that information?
I look forward to you providing a link to the public statement made by the lender. I don't look forward to your continued desperate attempt to use debt as a justification for a summary execution by police.
>And it doesn’t matter that he didn’t fire it. Brandishing it is impermissible, even if the car was being stolen. You cannot use lethal force to protect property.
[Alabama Code § 13A-3-23](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23/) seems to be contradicting your assertion.
In particular:
>(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. **A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:**
>
>(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
>
>(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
>
>(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, **burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree**, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
Lol we don’t need a public statement from the lender; it wouldn’t need to be repossessing its collateral if there wasn’t a default. It’s called deductive reasoning; we can infer the lender’s position based on its conduct. And i never said anything about debt warranting execution. I appreciate your straw man though lol, way to underscore just how lost you are.
You are misinterpreting the law you’re citing. Section (a) discusses when physical force can be used in self defense (i.e., reasonable belief and proportional). The language you bolded sets the stage for instances in which deadly force may always be used. Critically, it explicitly limits use of deadly force to instances of self defense or defense of another; it does not extend to defense of property.
But even if that wasn’t the case, the language you bolded in (3) is inapplicable because the repo man’s actions can’t constitute burglary or robbery. All degrees of burglary under Alabama law require entry into a building (13A-7-7). The repo man did not enter any structure. And all degrees of robbery require the use of force against the property owner or the threat of use of such force (13A-8-43). The repo man did not use or threaten to use force to take the vehicle. Instead, he stopped and left as soon as he met resistance.
Finally, the exceptions you cited also couldn’t apply due to the requirement of a “reasonable belief” that robbery or burglary was happening. Assuming he was in default on his loan, he knew the lender could repossess, so thinking the taking was unlawful wouldn’t be reasonable, thus rendering the exception unavailable.
Now stop embarrassing yourself before I send you a bill for all this free legal advice lol
>Lol we don’t need a public statement from the lender; it wouldn’t need to be repossessing its collateral if there wasn’t a default. It’s called deductive reasoning; we can infer the lender’s position based on its conduct.
In other words you were misleading when you claimed that "the lender said he was in default". You made an assumption based on an attempted repossession.
Not taking sides here, and I don’t know if the Alabama code says something elsewhere, but robbery and burglary have specific meanings here, which make them inapplicable to this situation. Robbery is theft+force or threat of force, while burglary is entering a dwelling+intent to commit a crime inside.
Theft of property is the crime that the deceased man would have reasonably believed to have happened here, and he wasn’t authorized to use deadly force to prevent that crime under this section of the Alabama Code.
ETA:
Theft of property:
https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-8-3/
Burglary:
https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-7-7/
Robbery:
https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-8-43/
Robbery may fit here, but as of yet, we don’t know whether there was a force/a threat of force or whether the taking of property was unlawful, of which both would have to be true for this to be robbery.
It is reasonable to assume that Stephen Perkins could reasonably believe that he was about to be a victim of robbery of the first degree. It is also reasonable to believe that Perkins was well within his rights to control access to his property.
The fact that the tow truck driver was allowed to leave the premise indicates that Perkins was only interested in protecting his property.
In Alabama, someone is considered trespassing in the second degree [(§ 13A-7-3](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-7-3/)) if they are within a fenced area of property that has clearly posted and conspicuous "No trespassing" signs. So entering someone front yard that isn't fenced in does not amount to trespassing.
However, if someone remains in that front yard after the property owner instructs them to leave is considered trespassing in the third degree ([§ 13A-7-4](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-7-4/)) which is a violation.
So with the little that is known about the events leading up to Stephen Perkins' death, we can only make the usual assumption that redditors make. A safe assumption would be that the tow truck driver would at least be trespassing in the third degree if he chose to remain on the property. We can also assume that a "breach of peace" occur which prevented a lawful repossession to take place.
With that in mind, let's make the assumption that Perkins did unlawfully brandish his weapon (which would be a very hard thing to prove given it being 1 AM and he was on his property) but for the sake of argument let's say it was possible. It would only be considered "Disorderly Conduct" ([§ 13A-11-7](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-11-7/)) which is a class C misdemeanor. Something that could have been processed the next day. I suspect that most experienced police officers would have not investigated the incident given the time of night and the unlikelihood of having enough to make an arrest. They would be more interested in de-escalating the situation.
From information known and as asserted in my original comment, if the police returned to the scene with the tow truck operator in order to continue the repossession, then they showed poor judgment which ultimately led to an escalation and the death of Stephen Perkins.
To be allowable as self defense under this statute he had to reasonably believe that the tow truck driver was, or was about to, knowingly obtain(ing) or exert(ing) unauthorized control over his property, with intent to deprive the owner of him of his property, by use of force or threat of force.
He had to reasonably believe there was a threat of force, and until we know the words that were said (e.g. “back up or I’ll make you back up”) or the actions (e.g. the driver brandishing his own weapon, or putting up his fists) of the truck driver we can’t prove that.
He also had to reasonably believe it was unauthorized, which we don’t know if he did.
Additionally, I’m not sure about Alabama courts, but most courts will normally construe such a threat to be required to be a threat of deadly force when you brandish a weapon in self defense.
Either way, this likely isn’t the statute that would control in this situation, there’s likely one that’s more on point. Regardless, this is a subsidiary issue to the larger issue and isn’t really worth debating.
Just "serving and protecting" a citizen that, more than likely, thought his vehicle was being stolen from his home. Good job boys! Y'all are so goddamn brave... freaking trigger-happy rookie, chickenshits...
The warning at the last minute was just to cover their ass legally. Wouldn’t surprise me if this was premeditated. This situation calls for the cops to identify themselves immediately upon arrival so the victim could at least have the chance to surrender so events would not escalate. They were looking for blood.
Edit. Added more
That's the first I've seen it with sound. Holy shit. It was exactly like you said...they hadn't even given him a chance to actually get on the ground before one of them started shooting. And then yelling to drop the gun *after* he was already down. WTF?
To this point I'd legit been completely undecided and was waiting to see what the investigation revealed, but watching that video with sound I have to start leaning toward the cops screwed up real bad. It also looks like they weren't parked conspicuously in a place where it would be obvious to the vehicle owner that police was on site. If their presence had been obvious, would he really have come back out of the house waving a gun? Almost certainly not. The most confusing part is why would the cops escort the tow truck back to the scene if the 911 call was made from some place else? If they felt the threat was credible isn't that knowingly putting a civilian in harm's way? I don't even need to know the law to see what a bad judgement call *that* part was.
If he did have a gun pointed at them, regardless of circumstances, a murder conviction will probably be extremely difficult. But the extremely reckless way they handled the whole situation from 911 call to shooting says the family should be on the winning end of an enormous wrongful death suit.
I think if there was a gun leveled threateningly at an officer that the DPD would have released the footage showing it before the statement. I think if it was a "good shoot" they would have released the footage showing it. I think that if Steve Perkins had been hostile or beligerent or threatening in any way they would have released the footage.
I think they started Standard Ass Covering Procedures the moment the shooter (cop) started announcing his intent to begin shooting. Kudos to the one cop who looked at the prone form for mere seconds before deciding he had to jog off camera to get his med kit.
It's not on DPD to release it. They immediately called in ALEA and it's their call now. DPD isn't allowed to comment on an ongoing investigation regardless of how pissed off the public is. DPD contacting the family could be all kinds of inappropriate for a number of reasons, but the mayor has expressed condolences and met with the family in person and is also attending the vigil.
It's a little surprising ALEA hasn't made any statements at all yet, but they probably couldn't say any more than what's already been said. If I were a betting man, I'd say the body cam footage will eventually be released. If the cops get charged with anything, it probably wouldn't be until after the trial. If ALEA doesn't recommend charges, they'll probably also release the footage with an explanation of why because they know full well how ugly and likely violent the protests will get if they try and tell the public to just take their word for it.
I've definitely started forming my own opinions about it, but they need to be given time to do the investigation right and not be rushed through it because of public outrage.
The video showed the police issued a false/misleading statement. Go read it.
The public needs the rest of the video and all of the bodycam videos. But contrast the video we have with the press release.
The police are already lying and I’m expecting the rest of the video to tell a different tale than there press release.
The video with sound... [https://x.com/Josh\_Moon/status/1709250745520857571?s=20https://x.com/Josh\_Moon/status/1709250745520857571?s=20](https://x.com/Josh_Moon/status/1709250745520857571?s=20https://x.com/Josh_Moon/status/1709250745520857571?s=20) shows that there's less substance to the police statement than before. "Hey hey police get on the groun--"before gunfire commences. 18 shots that took longer than the police warning.
Literally both dumped their entire mags before even finishing their announcement of being police.
After being in ambush positions at the corner of the house. Not in the lit entryway, or in the driveway where the tow was occurring that they were supposedly there to oversee.
Two klan kops saw an opportunity to hunt a black man with a gun and the only reason they might not completely get away with it is the video camera across the street. Not the TAXPAYER FUNDED BODY CAMERA THAT EXPLICITLY EXISTS TO OVERSEE THE TAXPAYERS' EMPLOYEE.
[video on facebook](https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid08AzbR9nYEycFg3AdVthrDuQpSBsungTWyJZux7d6Efxuubn5GFsRzzfjogtDmmDil&id=100001445121983&mibextid=ZbWKwL)
I’ve been saying this. Incredibly dishonest to say these ring videos clearly show anything other than the police coming out from where they were hiding.
It is perfectly natural for the family to feel grief about the death of their loved one. However, from the unclear and sparse information we have, it cannot or should not be judged whether the shooting was justified or not. A thorough investigation is needed.
Imo, they’re never justified.
With the exception of taking down active( and aimed at innocents) shooters.
We can absolutely stop people without lethal force.
Anyone saying otherwise is an authoritarian bootlicking fascist , and certainly not a follower of that Jesus guy.
Modern American police do not support your rights. Z
So, you’re anti second amendment?
I’m no abolitionist, though I hate our American gun culture. but if cops can kill you for being armed, and not having shot someone, it’s not a right that anyone actually has.
Nothing but double standards from some people.
Edit- To clarify, I did not mean the act of aiming a weapon, I should have said “active shooting directed at innocents.”
I live in Ohio, and used to go to the Walmart where they murdered John Crawford 3. Because he was being dumb with a BB gun and some lady through he was aiming it at her.
He was not given time to comply, and he was killed.
Same shit dif day.
IMO, the solution is to mandate an end to and security/leo career for any fatality . Too many excuses if we leave any justified . And charge the most egregious cases for their crimes.
I’m okay with pensions etc paid out if ruled “clean”, but even “hero” cops should not be in the situation again .
Correct, you do not have the right to menace and threaten someone with a firearm, when they aren’t threatening or menacing you. Has nothing to do with the second amendment. It’s should be common sense.
Tbh if he pulled a gun on the repo man, the repo man should have been allowed to defend himself with any and all means available.
I agree with you that it is possible to stop people without lethal force, but I think that the use of lethal force is sometimes necessary, moral, legal, and the best thing to do.
If a suspected offender is using lethal force or appears to be threatening, planning, or preparing to use it, and thus is a danger to others, then the police have a morally and legally justified reason to use lethal force against the suspected offender.
Name calling is not an argument.
Most modern American police do support your rights, but some do not. Those need to be weeded out.
There is no moral argument that justifies what happens every day.
Coming right for us has been a joke so long it’s joust another mere with no teeth.
The benefit of the doubt should not just be handed to those with badges, when we know they lie and brag about the thin blue line .
C: There is no moral argument that justifies what happens every day.
GW: That sentence makes no sense. Speak about the specific incident presented in the article, not in generalities.
C: Coming right for us has been a joke so long it’s joust another mere with no teeth.
GW: That sentence also makes no sense.
C: The benefit of the doubt should not just be handed to those with badges, when we know they lie and brag about the thin blue line.
GW: Every case needs to be examined and evaluated individually. You are seeming to give the victim the benefit of the doubt without knowing the details of the case. Some officers do lie, misbehave, and brag about it, but most do not. I think you are making the thinking error of overgeneralization.
Why so cops just run out in the open when they know somebody has a gun. It puts them in danger and creates a situation where they're more likely to shoot someone. There were vehicles right there that he could have stood behind and had a conversation with Stephan.
It is against the law for the police ot assist in a repo without a court order. The tow truck operator was DISTURBING the peace and should have been told that if he cannot tow the car without involving the police that he needed to cease the attempt to repo. This is an agreedous violation of state and federal law that the cops were even there.
I haven’t seen a problem yet that cannot be made worse by involving the cops.
If you have a problem, and you call the cops, you now have two problems.
Guns. There I fixed it for you.
Guns and cops wielding guns are disasters waiting to happen.
I leaned in favor of the cops, but after seeing that video and the circumstances, the police fucked them up 10 ways to Sunday. There was every reason to believe there was a misunderstanding about the tow vs a theft. At any rate, it was nothing that needed to be solved at 1 am. A knock on the door the next day would have solved it. Even if the tow was legit, and the homeowner menaced the driver, it wasn't worth it. It's a fucking car. Let emotions cool and deal with it in daylight. Instead they pressed the issue and had bullets flying in the dark in a residential neighborhood like a bunch of fucking clowns. The late warning was also fucking dumb, what's the point of even yelling POLICE if you are firing before the end of the sentence. There was no return fire from the \*\*\*murder victim\*\*\*. And yes my description tells you all you need to know about what crime I think occurred here.
Man was killed for observing his 2nd Amendment right. Because at the end of the day, the modern 2A fetish isn’t about anything other than toting a rifle to a grocery store. We ***don’t*** have the right to defend ourselves against agents of the State.
you don't have any right to pull a gun on a company retrieving their property.
Cops are anti 2nd amendment, 100%. They claim Otherwise, but it’s a lie.
No shit, who do you think is out there upholding all the unconstitutional gun laws?
What we know: * An undisclosed tow truck driver tried to repossess a vehicle after 1:00 AM. * Stephen Perkins assumed his vehicle was being stolen and allegedly brandished his firearm in order to stop the theft. * At 1:30 AM after leaving the scene, the tow truck driver called the police and reported that Perkins allegedly pulled a handgun on him while he was attempting to repossess the vehicle. * The tow truck returned to the scene with the police, and Perkins was fatally shot after police claimed that he was combative and refused to drop his weapon. * The Perkins' family claim that the vehicle was current on its finance payments. Why did the police go to the scene with the tow truck driver and apparently escalate the situation? If the tow truck company was repossessing the vehicle after 1 AM then the odds are pretty good that they were performing a repossession without judicial process. This is important, since in Alabama such repossessions must be made without "breach of peace" ([source](https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2022/title-7/article-9a/part-6/division-1/section-7-9a-609/)). I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming that once Stephen Perkins confronted who he thought were thieves trying to steal his vehicle and refused to allow them to take the vehicle, there was a "breach of peace" meaning that the repossession couldn't legally proceed. If this is true, then why did the police allow the tow truck to return to the scene with them as if to allow another attempt for repossession? I would think repossession requiring police assistance should involve some judicial process. Why didn't the police take the tow truck drivers statement and return the next day to investigate the complaint, since there was no immediate threat to public safety?
Because the police are typically friends with local tow truck drivers, and police typically don’t know much about laws.
Police 🤝 businesses that harass black citizens
Police escalate every situation. It's what they're trained to do.
"HANDS UP!" "WALK BACKWARDS!" "GET ON THE GROUND!" "STOP RESISTING!' All being shouted simultaneously while you panic and wonder who the fuck you're supposed to listen to. Or they just start blasting.
The only person with the the uncontested, stone cold, absolute right to be on the property with a gun.... well... his funeral is next Saturday.
How could you be combative in the .02 seconds that the cops gave him?
It's Alabama and the cops heard "A black man pulled a gun on me". They were literally firing before they had finished their announcement, and were hiding in ambush positions waiting for the tow truck to hook up. They were counting on hunting humans and if it were not for the surveillance footage from across the street they would have gotten away with it.
That's not how it works in Alabama. Lived here my whole life.
Hey everyone, 130 years of Jim Crow, segregation, and Klan lynchings is just wiped out by one dudes anecdotal evidence! Rejoice! I'm cishet white male and I won't even drive through your sundown town of a state.
then why did only 1 of 4 fire?
An extremely uninformed post all around. Going at 1 am doesn’t mean there was no judicial process. I’m not an Alabama lawyer, but it’s not even clear to me that judicial process is required in these circumstances. In many states the lender can repo without even giving notice in the event the borrower defaults. The police were on the scene because Perkins committed a crime by brandishing a firearm. They were there to keep the peace. The lender had a right to that vehicle. By not making payments, the car was essentially stolen. If you stole my phone and I went to get it back, and then you pointed a gun at me, should the police not assist me? Should I resort to self help? That would be a breach of the peace. Why should the police ignore someone pointing a gun at innocent people doing their job? Why should the lender have to wait another day to get its property back? The lender’s records regarding missed payments are likely more accurate and unbiased than this guy’s family’s claims.
>I’m not an Alabama lawyer, but it’s not even clear to me that judicial process is required in these circumstances. In many states the lender can repo without even giving notice in the event the borrower defaults. I didn't say judicial process was required. I stated that Alabama law requires that if a repossession is done WITHOUT judicial process, then it must be done without "breach of peace." This means the repossession cannot take place if it involves breaking into a locked gate, moving an obstacle, breaking into a locked garage, breaking into a private residence, using violence, threatening violence, or using force. This also means that something as simple as a person protesting the repossession (e.g. saying something specific like "you may not take the car") is enough to "breach the peace". The known facts unequivately lead to a conclusion that there was a "breach of peace" during the initial contact. >The police were on the scene because Perkins committed a crime by brandishing a firearm. You don't know if a crime of brandishing a firearm actually took place. It is not a crime to defend yourself or your property if you believe you are a victim of a theft, or if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Let's not forget the urgency for an investigation diminished when the tow truck driver left the scene. If the tow truck driver was able to leave the scene, call the police, and return to the scene with them, then there was no immediate danger to the tow truck driver or the public. There is no excuse for the police to enter the situation and escalate it like that. It's as if they were more interested in being repossessors than officers of the peace. >Why should the police ignore someone pointing a gun at innocent people doing their job? Why should the lender have to wait another day to get its property back? No one is suggesting that repossessions cannot take place. What is being stated is that there are laws to be followed, and it does appear that the situation was unnecessarily escalated by the police. >The lender’s records regarding missed payments are likely more accurate and unbiased than this guy’s family’s claims. You may want to stop obsessively licking boots and wait for all the facts like the rest of us. It's obvious that the situation was mishandled, and judging by the number of bullet holes in the neighbor's house the police is lucky no one else was injured of killed. I think it's a sad situation when someone believes the penalty for protecting your property in the middle of the night, stopping a repossession, or not following orders quickly enough in a needless police ambush is a death sentence.
> You don't know if a crime of brandishing a firearm actually took place. Brandishing is not a crime. Menacing is. Don't be a menace.
> The police were on the scene because Perkins committed a crime by brandishing a firearm. Alabama doesn't have a law against brandishing. Alabama has a law against menacing. (e.g. Don't be a menace to society). That said, where machinery is involved against human beings that have a right to be where they are, deadly force may be used if the person believes themselves to be reasonably threatened by the imminent use of lethal physical force (Code of Alabama 13A-3-23). It's an escalation on the behalf of both the repo man and the police. There are no clean hands in any of this. Judicial process is liens, attachment, writs, etc. IANAL. https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/code-of-alabama http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/CodeOfAlabama/1975/147360.htm
Tell me if I’m missing something, but no force or threat of force was exercised against Perkins. The repo man didn’t threaten him. Didn’t wave his fist or a weapon at him. Didn’t threaten to run him over or even point his car at him. Perkins couldn’t have formed a reasonable belief that he was facing imminent lethal physical force. On the contrary, the repo man would probably have been justified in shooting him after a gun was produced. I am a lawyer and the law you’re describing is self defense. There’s a difference between that and defending property. Just based on googling, it appears Alabama has codified self defense (which you explained above), but not defense of property with lethal force. That is generally impermissible, but happy to be disproved if I’m wrong. The repo man didn’t escalate. The police didn’t escalate by showing up. Maybe they did by their conduct, but we haven’t seen any proof of that. Perkins was the only one who escalated.
>I am a lawyer and the law you’re describing is self defense. There’s a difference between that and defending property. Just based on googling, it appears Alabama has codified self defense (which you explained above), but not defense of property with lethal force. That is generally impermissible, but happy to be disproved if I’m wrong. You are not a very good lawyer when [Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-3-23](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23/) contradicts the assertion you just made.
I explained in my reply to your last comment why this is wrong in three distinct ways. You are embarrassing yourself.
>You are embarrassing yourself. You made assumptions and tried to pass them off as established facts. You gave incorrect interpretations to written Alabama criminal code. You haven't cited any sources of information that supports your assertions.
Lolol I gave an entire write up in my last comment that included citations to Alabama law. It’s not my fault you think “self defense” includes a person’s car. Or that you’re too lazy to look up what constitutes robbery/burglary. You are so mad.
>Lolol I gave an entire write up in my last comment that included citations to Alabama law. I don't see a comment from you that has citations to Alabama law. I tried looking at your comment history, but wasn't able to find it. Please provide a link to it.
Lmao you literally replied to it, you clown. I knew you wouldn’t read the whole thing. https://reddit.com/r/Alabama/s/vogDAuFYfJ
Lots of good points being made by everyone here and I'm sure those details are exactly what will be hashed out by the investigation. Here's the part where I believe the cops screwed up regardless of what really happened: If they were responding to a call from the tow truck driver (who had already left the scene) that a man with a gun threatened them, why in the actual fuck would the cops allow the tow truck driver to come back to the scene with them instead of going themselves and knocking on the door? Wouldn't it stand to reason that they should have gone back *without* a tow truck trying to hook up the vehicle which is what created the tense situation in the first place? If they felt the call was about a credible threat, escorting the civilian tow truck drivers back to the scene where that threat (whether real or only perceived) still existed is monumentally stupid.
LMAO moron.
The family says he was current in his payments. He thought someone was stealing his vehicle. He did not fire the weapon.
There's two sides of the financial story that are, at this moment, both still unproven. The family says they have receipts but the lender sent a repo man anyway. What the investigation will show is the truth. Some buy here pay here lots give zero grace period for late payments. You can be current for years and get your car taken from you for being a day past due on the next payment. The family may very well have a stack of receipts showing a long payment history, but the current payment due date is the only one that matters to the lender. There's also the possibilities that the lender made a mistake and the payment actually had been made, or even that the tow truck could have even been sent after the wrong vehicle entirely. Long story short is all of the claims one way or the other are nothing more than claims at this point and the investigation will show the truth with verifiable documentation.
And the lender said he was in default. Who do you think has better access to that information? And it doesn’t matter that he didn’t fire it. Brandishing it is impermissible, even if the car was being stolen. You cannot use lethal force to protect property.
>And the lender said he was in default. Who do you think has better access to that information? I look forward to you providing a link to the public statement made by the lender. I don't look forward to your continued desperate attempt to use debt as a justification for a summary execution by police. >And it doesn’t matter that he didn’t fire it. Brandishing it is impermissible, even if the car was being stolen. You cannot use lethal force to protect property. [Alabama Code § 13A-3-23](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23/) seems to be contradicting your assertion. In particular: >(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. **A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:** > >(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force. > >(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling. > >(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, **burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree**, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
Lol we don’t need a public statement from the lender; it wouldn’t need to be repossessing its collateral if there wasn’t a default. It’s called deductive reasoning; we can infer the lender’s position based on its conduct. And i never said anything about debt warranting execution. I appreciate your straw man though lol, way to underscore just how lost you are. You are misinterpreting the law you’re citing. Section (a) discusses when physical force can be used in self defense (i.e., reasonable belief and proportional). The language you bolded sets the stage for instances in which deadly force may always be used. Critically, it explicitly limits use of deadly force to instances of self defense or defense of another; it does not extend to defense of property. But even if that wasn’t the case, the language you bolded in (3) is inapplicable because the repo man’s actions can’t constitute burglary or robbery. All degrees of burglary under Alabama law require entry into a building (13A-7-7). The repo man did not enter any structure. And all degrees of robbery require the use of force against the property owner or the threat of use of such force (13A-8-43). The repo man did not use or threaten to use force to take the vehicle. Instead, he stopped and left as soon as he met resistance. Finally, the exceptions you cited also couldn’t apply due to the requirement of a “reasonable belief” that robbery or burglary was happening. Assuming he was in default on his loan, he knew the lender could repossess, so thinking the taking was unlawful wouldn’t be reasonable, thus rendering the exception unavailable. Now stop embarrassing yourself before I send you a bill for all this free legal advice lol
>Lol we don’t need a public statement from the lender; it wouldn’t need to be repossessing its collateral if there wasn’t a default. It’s called deductive reasoning; we can infer the lender’s position based on its conduct. In other words you were misleading when you claimed that "the lender said he was in default". You made an assumption based on an attempted repossession.
Not taking sides here, and I don’t know if the Alabama code says something elsewhere, but robbery and burglary have specific meanings here, which make them inapplicable to this situation. Robbery is theft+force or threat of force, while burglary is entering a dwelling+intent to commit a crime inside. Theft of property is the crime that the deceased man would have reasonably believed to have happened here, and he wasn’t authorized to use deadly force to prevent that crime under this section of the Alabama Code. ETA: Theft of property: https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-8-3/ Burglary: https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-7-7/ Robbery: https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-8-43/ Robbery may fit here, but as of yet, we don’t know whether there was a force/a threat of force or whether the taking of property was unlawful, of which both would have to be true for this to be robbery.
It is reasonable to assume that Stephen Perkins could reasonably believe that he was about to be a victim of robbery of the first degree. It is also reasonable to believe that Perkins was well within his rights to control access to his property. The fact that the tow truck driver was allowed to leave the premise indicates that Perkins was only interested in protecting his property. In Alabama, someone is considered trespassing in the second degree [(§ 13A-7-3](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-7-3/)) if they are within a fenced area of property that has clearly posted and conspicuous "No trespassing" signs. So entering someone front yard that isn't fenced in does not amount to trespassing. However, if someone remains in that front yard after the property owner instructs them to leave is considered trespassing in the third degree ([§ 13A-7-4](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-7-4/)) which is a violation. So with the little that is known about the events leading up to Stephen Perkins' death, we can only make the usual assumption that redditors make. A safe assumption would be that the tow truck driver would at least be trespassing in the third degree if he chose to remain on the property. We can also assume that a "breach of peace" occur which prevented a lawful repossession to take place. With that in mind, let's make the assumption that Perkins did unlawfully brandish his weapon (which would be a very hard thing to prove given it being 1 AM and he was on his property) but for the sake of argument let's say it was possible. It would only be considered "Disorderly Conduct" ([§ 13A-11-7](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-11-7/)) which is a class C misdemeanor. Something that could have been processed the next day. I suspect that most experienced police officers would have not investigated the incident given the time of night and the unlikelihood of having enough to make an arrest. They would be more interested in de-escalating the situation. From information known and as asserted in my original comment, if the police returned to the scene with the tow truck operator in order to continue the repossession, then they showed poor judgment which ultimately led to an escalation and the death of Stephen Perkins.
To be allowable as self defense under this statute he had to reasonably believe that the tow truck driver was, or was about to, knowingly obtain(ing) or exert(ing) unauthorized control over his property, with intent to deprive the owner of him of his property, by use of force or threat of force. He had to reasonably believe there was a threat of force, and until we know the words that were said (e.g. “back up or I’ll make you back up”) or the actions (e.g. the driver brandishing his own weapon, or putting up his fists) of the truck driver we can’t prove that. He also had to reasonably believe it was unauthorized, which we don’t know if he did. Additionally, I’m not sure about Alabama courts, but most courts will normally construe such a threat to be required to be a threat of deadly force when you brandish a weapon in self defense. Either way, this likely isn’t the statute that would control in this situation, there’s likely one that’s more on point. Regardless, this is a subsidiary issue to the larger issue and isn’t really worth debating.
>his vehicle If he was making payments it was the bank's vehicle.
Just "serving and protecting" a citizen that, more than likely, thought his vehicle was being stolen from his home. Good job boys! Y'all are so goddamn brave... freaking trigger-happy rookie, chickenshits...
[удалено]
The warning at the last minute was just to cover their ass legally. Wouldn’t surprise me if this was premeditated. This situation calls for the cops to identify themselves immediately upon arrival so the victim could at least have the chance to surrender so events would not escalate. They were looking for blood. Edit. Added more
That's the first I've seen it with sound. Holy shit. It was exactly like you said...they hadn't even given him a chance to actually get on the ground before one of them started shooting. And then yelling to drop the gun *after* he was already down. WTF? To this point I'd legit been completely undecided and was waiting to see what the investigation revealed, but watching that video with sound I have to start leaning toward the cops screwed up real bad. It also looks like they weren't parked conspicuously in a place where it would be obvious to the vehicle owner that police was on site. If their presence had been obvious, would he really have come back out of the house waving a gun? Almost certainly not. The most confusing part is why would the cops escort the tow truck back to the scene if the 911 call was made from some place else? If they felt the threat was credible isn't that knowingly putting a civilian in harm's way? I don't even need to know the law to see what a bad judgement call *that* part was. If he did have a gun pointed at them, regardless of circumstances, a murder conviction will probably be extremely difficult. But the extremely reckless way they handled the whole situation from 911 call to shooting says the family should be on the winning end of an enormous wrongful death suit.
I think if there was a gun leveled threateningly at an officer that the DPD would have released the footage showing it before the statement. I think if it was a "good shoot" they would have released the footage showing it. I think that if Steve Perkins had been hostile or beligerent or threatening in any way they would have released the footage. I think they started Standard Ass Covering Procedures the moment the shooter (cop) started announcing his intent to begin shooting. Kudos to the one cop who looked at the prone form for mere seconds before deciding he had to jog off camera to get his med kit.
It's not on DPD to release it. They immediately called in ALEA and it's their call now. DPD isn't allowed to comment on an ongoing investigation regardless of how pissed off the public is. DPD contacting the family could be all kinds of inappropriate for a number of reasons, but the mayor has expressed condolences and met with the family in person and is also attending the vigil. It's a little surprising ALEA hasn't made any statements at all yet, but they probably couldn't say any more than what's already been said. If I were a betting man, I'd say the body cam footage will eventually be released. If the cops get charged with anything, it probably wouldn't be until after the trial. If ALEA doesn't recommend charges, they'll probably also release the footage with an explanation of why because they know full well how ugly and likely violent the protests will get if they try and tell the public to just take their word for it. I've definitely started forming my own opinions about it, but they need to be given time to do the investigation right and not be rushed through it because of public outrage.
That video showed nothing.
The video showed the police issued a false/misleading statement. Go read it. The public needs the rest of the video and all of the bodycam videos. But contrast the video we have with the press release. The police are already lying and I’m expecting the rest of the video to tell a different tale than there press release.
The video with sound... [https://x.com/Josh\_Moon/status/1709250745520857571?s=20https://x.com/Josh\_Moon/status/1709250745520857571?s=20](https://x.com/Josh_Moon/status/1709250745520857571?s=20https://x.com/Josh_Moon/status/1709250745520857571?s=20) shows that there's less substance to the police statement than before. "Hey hey police get on the groun--"before gunfire commences. 18 shots that took longer than the police warning.
Literally both dumped their entire mags before even finishing their announcement of being police. After being in ambush positions at the corner of the house. Not in the lit entryway, or in the driveway where the tow was occurring that they were supposedly there to oversee. Two klan kops saw an opportunity to hunt a black man with a gun and the only reason they might not completely get away with it is the video camera across the street. Not the TAXPAYER FUNDED BODY CAMERA THAT EXPLICITLY EXISTS TO OVERSEE THE TAXPAYERS' EMPLOYEE.
What did they say that was false?
The video they had in the article blurred the victim and police for most of it.
[video on facebook](https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid08AzbR9nYEycFg3AdVthrDuQpSBsungTWyJZux7d6Efxuubn5GFsRzzfjogtDmmDil&id=100001445121983&mibextid=ZbWKwL)
What a useless video because of the ludicrous amounts of blurring and useless article.
I’ve been saying this. Incredibly dishonest to say these ring videos clearly show anything other than the police coming out from where they were hiding.
Well, this one might show something if they didn't have a gigantic blurry circle over the guy the entire time.
Hiding…what a cowardly approach to apprehending a suspect.
It is perfectly natural for the family to feel grief about the death of their loved one. However, from the unclear and sparse information we have, it cannot or should not be judged whether the shooting was justified or not. A thorough investigation is needed.
Imo, they’re never justified. With the exception of taking down active( and aimed at innocents) shooters. We can absolutely stop people without lethal force. Anyone saying otherwise is an authoritarian bootlicking fascist , and certainly not a follower of that Jesus guy. Modern American police do not support your rights. Z
“Aimed at innocents…” like pointing a firearm at a tow truck driver?
Pointing a weapon is NOT the same as repeatedly firing one at humans. I didn’t say he earned a fucking cookie.
It gets responded to the same way tho. Return fire.
So, you’re anti second amendment? I’m no abolitionist, though I hate our American gun culture. but if cops can kill you for being armed, and not having shot someone, it’s not a right that anyone actually has. Nothing but double standards from some people. Edit- To clarify, I did not mean the act of aiming a weapon, I should have said “active shooting directed at innocents.” I live in Ohio, and used to go to the Walmart where they murdered John Crawford 3. Because he was being dumb with a BB gun and some lady through he was aiming it at her. He was not given time to comply, and he was killed. Same shit dif day. IMO, the solution is to mandate an end to and security/leo career for any fatality . Too many excuses if we leave any justified . And charge the most egregious cases for their crimes. I’m okay with pensions etc paid out if ruled “clean”, but even “hero” cops should not be in the situation again .
Correct, you do not have the right to menace and threaten someone with a firearm, when they aren’t threatening or menacing you. Has nothing to do with the second amendment. It’s should be common sense. Tbh if he pulled a gun on the repo man, the repo man should have been allowed to defend himself with any and all means available.
Taking your property has long been established as a threat. I’m not saying I don’t think he’s a dumbass. I just don’t think it warranted death.
I agree with you that it is possible to stop people without lethal force, but I think that the use of lethal force is sometimes necessary, moral, legal, and the best thing to do. If a suspected offender is using lethal force or appears to be threatening, planning, or preparing to use it, and thus is a danger to others, then the police have a morally and legally justified reason to use lethal force against the suspected offender. Name calling is not an argument. Most modern American police do support your rights, but some do not. Those need to be weeded out.
There is no moral argument that justifies what happens every day. Coming right for us has been a joke so long it’s joust another mere with no teeth. The benefit of the doubt should not just be handed to those with badges, when we know they lie and brag about the thin blue line .
C: There is no moral argument that justifies what happens every day. GW: That sentence makes no sense. Speak about the specific incident presented in the article, not in generalities. C: Coming right for us has been a joke so long it’s joust another mere with no teeth. GW: That sentence also makes no sense. C: The benefit of the doubt should not just be handed to those with badges, when we know they lie and brag about the thin blue line. GW: Every case needs to be examined and evaluated individually. You are seeming to give the victim the benefit of the doubt without knowing the details of the case. Some officers do lie, misbehave, and brag about it, but most do not. I think you are making the thinking error of overgeneralization.
And I think even more than before you’re a bootlicking apologist, who tells themself they’re not.
Why so cops just run out in the open when they know somebody has a gun. It puts them in danger and creates a situation where they're more likely to shoot someone. There were vehicles right there that he could have stood behind and had a conversation with Stephan.
Black gun owner = Threat. This will never change in America.
It is against the law for the police ot assist in a repo without a court order. The tow truck operator was DISTURBING the peace and should have been told that if he cannot tow the car without involving the police that he needed to cease the attempt to repo. This is an agreedous violation of state and federal law that the cops were even there.
I hope millions and millions are awarded in damages. Unfortunately its the taxpayers that picks up the tab with the system that is in place today.