A little more than three years later, the dashcam video of Airman Michael Edwards being shot by Opelika, Ala., police officer Phillip Hancock on Interstate 85 has now been released to the public.
A call came into the Opelika Police Department on the night of March 6, 2014 about an erratic driver on Interstate 85. Officer Phillip Hancock responded to the call. Davidson got into a minor accident with a tractor trailer where Davidson swiped the back of the tractor trailer.
The tractor trailer and Davidson pulled over on the side of the road to exchange information. Officer Hancock arrives on the scene and pulled up behind Davidson’s car and had his headlights and spotlight on the vehicle and exits his vehicle. One of Davidson’s attorney’s, Brian Mosholder said that his client was parked on a downslope, which made it difficult for him to get the door open.
“It’s very obvious from that part of the video that Officer Hancock is creating a situation that he wished had happened that would have justified this shooting,” Mosholder said. “When you look at the video, none of that happened. When you look at the video, in less than six seconds, from the time Michael Davidson opens his door, Officer Hancock shoots him, and he shoots him for absolutely no reason.”
[Publisher’s Note: Decisions made in the blink of the eye are much tougher than they 
look with the benefit of hindsight. The officer is obviously distraught, and now the whole country will give an opinion despite the court ruling in the officer’s favor. That said, the video is an opportunity to have discussions about use of force and decision-making.]
Wow. While the driver’s movements were furtive, that’s a tough one to justify.
Hard one to justify, I don’t want to second guess but just don’t see the threat.
I have to agree with you both on this one – very hard to justify even without the hindsight of the case.
That is why I hate the law enforcement proffession. You should be second guessing and denouncing LEOs who do this. You are the POS scumbag , that you claim to be fighting on the street. YOU!
Yes, hate an entire profession for a <1% unjustified shooting margin. You do realize there are nearly 900,000 police officers nationwide, 320 million Americans, and in 2015, 965 people were killed by police, <90 were unarmed and <10% of those were unjustifiable. That's about 9 out of 965. Granted a 0 would be ideal, but I guarantee, those 9 unjustified fatalities, or even the 90 unarmed fatalities, do not represent the other 899,910 police officer interactions nationwide. So your philosophy of hating an entire profession for the unimaginable acts of an extremely small percentage is akin to hating all black people for the hundreds of annual black on black murders in Chicago, or hating all Mexicans for the millions of illegal immigrants, or hating all liberals because of the radical liberals who hate entire professions for the actions of a few… Sounds pretty stupid.
You mean IMPOSSIBLE to justify….
Even with the slow motion video at the end, there was absolutely nothing threatening about him exiting his car. With the officer getting an innocent ruling, could you imagine the outrage if the driver would have been a person of color? I am a medically retired police officer, with 5+ years since I wore a badge, and I do not remember seeing this video.
QUOTE “The officer is obviously distraught, and now the whole country will
give an opinion despite the court ruling in the officer’s favor.”
A miscarriage of justice should be given an opinion! So ANY time a cop is upset he can shoot at will!!? To even TRY to use that as an excuse is laughable!
I can only imagine what the ‘court’ would have done if this was a concealed carry citizen that was ‘distraught’.
This is complete BS!
It took me 3 times watching the video before I started to better understand the real dynamics of what occurred in less than 6 seconds after Officer Hancock began to exit his patrol car. The original call – “erratic driver,” ultimately resulted in a crash. Reasonable police officers understand that intoxicated persons who may be facing arrest can be very unpredictable, and even violent in an attempt to avoid arrest.
As Officer Hancock exits his vehicle, Edwards attempts to exit but there is a problem with the door. The script tells us they were on a downward slope, which would perfectly explain this phenomenon. However, at 0:34, Edwards lowers his torso and head, while raising his right arm upwards at the same time. This action looks very much like Edwards is reaching for an item on his waistband (a very common firearm carry location). Additionally, at 0:36 Edwards looks back towards Officer Hancock, which could easily be interpreted as an attempt by Edwards to determine Officer Hancock’s location.
Officer Hancock obviously recognizes this potentially dangerous movement, and orders Edwards to “let me see your hands.” Edwards does not immediately show his hands, but instead raises his left arm to brace against the side of his vehicle to assist him out. This partially blocks the view of Edwards’ right arm, as it comes into view with an unknown black object in his right hand. In addition, Edwards exits his vehicle in a fairly aggressive (determined) manner. This action could be seen as Edwards refusing to comply with a lawful request, and potentially preparing to assault the officer. This all happens in a little over 1 second.
Officer Hancock immediately repeats his order in a much more loud and concerned tone, “let me see your hands.” However, by this time (0:37) Edwards has successfully exited his car, is facing Officer Hancock, and has assumed what is close to a 2-handed grip on the unknown black object that is in Edwards’ right hand. This could very reasonably be considered a “fighting” or “preparatory” shooting stance with a firearm. Almost immediately afterwards, Officer Hancock opens fire on Edwards, striking him and causing him to fall. Anyone questioning this action needs to spend more time reading the scientific research of life-and-death encounters at the Force Science Institute.
My analysis took me over 30 minutes to evaluate, and provide defenses to action, for just under 6 seconds of video of an officer’s actions. First impressions often can provide an overwhelming opinion. Reasoned and careful evaluation often provides more clarity. Based upon everything I’ve seen, I’m not surprised the Court ruled the officer’s decision to shoot in less than 6 seconds were reasonable.
Thanks for your insightful, thorough, and in depth reasoning of your opinion… Much better than the juvenile, emotional, ignorant “all cops suck” responses these articles usually bring.
Thanks Andy. I’ll admit my first viewing of the video made me cringe. It wasn’t until I started pausing along the way, thinking about all the surrounding events (nature of call, traffic, etc.), and then analyzing Edwards’ movements, that I could clearly see how Officer Hancock could have assessed a threat and responded accordingly. Thankfully the Courts were willing to take this same critical analysis approach, and sided with Officer Hancock.
I won’t say it was a good, bad, or justified shoot, I understood what the judges saw in that under the circumstances the officer’s response was considered reasonable or in other words, a reasonable individual under similar circumstances might have reacted in a similar way, not to be confused with right, wrong, or justified. The judges recognized the officer made a ‘mistake’. There are good points made by others, but this may be a small department with limited experience(s) and training opportunities. I always try to give other LEOs the benefit of the doubt, but I’d hate to think that could have been a ‘dumb’ relative or friend of mine exiting his vehicle with good intentions but with bad reactions to the presence of any officer or his instructions. I struggle with the firing the shots without giving the motorist an opportunity to fully comply. I reviewed the video (x10) and it shows the individual with his arms and hands spread out to his side when the rounds are fired almost immediately after the officer issued those commands, so I might argue ‘give me the time react to your command’. I saw the individual struggling to get out of his vehicle and looked like he was pulling something out of what could have been perceived as a right-handed holster, so I can certainly see what the officer may have been thinking. These are those rough situations requiring tough decisions requiring us to get it right 100% time, not most of the time, but all of the time. I’ve read that most of my LEO peers are about split on this one, after all it is a LEO worst nightmare whether public opinion condemns or the science behind the force matrix justifies it. I always remind myself I wasn’t there and didn’t know, see, or understand everything going through that officer’s mind. I would caution all LEOs after the use of deadly force to be vigilant of your comments (expletives) , behavior (body language) , and admissions (‘It was a wallet!’) especially while being recorded as mistakes are made, but they probably don’t need to highlighted at the scene on tape. Let the investigation takes it’s course. Hope it all works out for everyone, stay safe…
WTF! And it’s a WTF not becouse of shooting, but becouse of article, and how it is written . I may be hallucinating , but I am confused as to who was shot and why. Story starts with an Air Force Airman Mike Edwards shot by Ofc. HAncock. OK. Then story switches to someone named Davidson. So now we have Davidson being shot by Ofc Hancock. So who in the bloody he’ll was shot? Edwards or Davidson? What kind of effing f’up reporting is this?
I re-read the article five times. We’re name victim , switched? Noone picked that up or commented on name switch. Utterly frigging confusing.
It’s called a typing error, we’re in a digital age, spell check and all, more commonly known.as a typo. If only everyone else in the world were as perfect and error free as you, we’d all be riding unicorns and throwing pixie dust on each other.
As a former police officer, the first thing I saw was the driver’s right arm, elbow high, which looked like he was drawing a weapon (likely pulling his wallet out of rear hip pocket). Then as his left foot hits the ground, he puts his right hand (with the wallet) in his left hand, it looks like he’s aiming at the officer. The wallet is black. Add these things to the ‘erratic driving’ call, and with the totality of these circumstances, it sure sets up an easy scenario in which to make a mistake. I feel the court’s decision was fair, when it wouldn’t be hard for the officer to reasonably show why he felt the need to shot in self defense. I’d add some remedial firearm training, and extensive “shoot don’t shoot” scenario training.
A few things that I feel mitigated well for the officer were, he didn’t try to make up a false narrative (he pointed a shiny metallic object at me and shouted I’ll kill you). He showed remorse which I viewed as sincere. His command LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS, then the driver puts his hands together, pointing towards the officer, with a small black object in his hands. Had the driver just jumped out and the officer shot him, different story in my opinion.
When an officer is pointing a firearm at you, and is yelling LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS, you put those hands straight up in the air immediately. NOT fumbling around with an item, and certainly not making a pointing movement towards the officer.
Regardless of anyone’s view, this is obviously NOT a rogue cowboy cop looking to notch his belt.
Watching this video sitting at a desk, in a warm, dry, well lit environment, without a shred of concern about what might be coming out of that vehicle (erratic driving call), it is EASY to say you’d do this or that.
I feel terrible for the man that was shot. I also feel bad for the officer. Being in those shoes many, many times, I can see how the officer thought it was being drawn on…
This is not justice! But public should not expect justice, in 99% of OIS incidents.
When a man cannot get justice, he will have to settled for revenge.
99%? Thanks for your substantive response… Really adds to the conversation.
What is there to converse about? Law enforcement is a threat to life and safety of US Citizens. It is not the only threat, common crime, and terrorism are very much a threat. The non-Federal LEO simply makes the problem worse. He, the county or municipality LEO, is a coward, arrogant, over-empowered, dishonest, dishonorable, often over-weight bully, interested in punching the clock, racking up OT, looking to retirement. In short a L.I.F.E.R. LEOs talk about accountability and being held to higher standard, yet the citizenry has to cope with LEOs walking away scott-free after OIS such as this one. This incident has similar dynamics to Diallo killing, to Trp. Sean Groubert (S.C.) shooting of Levar Jones, and Lousiville KY PD recent OIS. In all these cases there is no chance, NONE, for citizen or suspect to comply. It makes one think that there are cops who are looking to be in an OIS, from which they can walk away in a legal sense. This condition cannot stand, and must be countered. If neccessary, by force from the citizenry.
You sir, and your bigoted, biased, ignorant philosophy are a MUCH larger and more dangerous part of the problem in this country. Any valid platform you might stand on is drowned out by your incessant hate, ignorance and lack of common courtesy. Enjoy your life, and remember to NOT call the police for help, ever.
“This condition cannot stand, and must be countered. If neccessary, by force from the citizenry.” That’s your sure fire way to NOT get citizens shot by police, to advocate force against them.. This fully exposes the terrible insanity of your delusional thought processes. I presume your method of getting rid of ants in the house is to lays out barriers of sugar? Maybe you add water to your vehicle oil to help it remain cool in the summer? You are against citizens being shot by police, yet here you are advocating making that point by bring violence to the police? Brilliant liberal logic.
Dmitri you need to take a laxative man. You’re so uptight you could produce a diamond in a week if you swallowed a piece of coal. The vast majority of officer-involved-shootings are clearly justified (many with videos nowadays). Your other comments clearly show you just want to make outrageous claims, and hate on cops. That shows ignorance. You even reference Levar Jones – the Trooper was charged, plead guilty and is looking at serious prison time. You talk about “force from the citizenry” but I can tell you the majority of the “citizenry” are pro-police and will back the officers over you.
This is why I DESPISE the police in this country, and hold each and every non-Federal LEO in utter contempt. This a-hole got away with attempted murder. Courts and agencies refuse to hold officers accountable for their misdeeds. Aside from settlement check, if any, this airman will not receive justice, only injustice. Revenge and retaliation is the way to go to get some releif.
This really is “HANDS UP DON’T SHOOT!” scenario. Caught right on camera. This is utterly unjustifiable, how a court could clear a-hole cop is beyond understanding.
Do what cop tell you, and you won’y get shot. BS. The reality is do what the cop tells you, and he may still shoot you, and if he elects not to, consider yourself fortunate. More obvious then ever, the police are THE ENEMY of citizenry.
You are a complete moron
It’s very difficult to tend to a wound in the pelvic area where this guy was shot. Especially if the spine could be involved, officers rarely render aid for fear of further injuring the victim by movement or pressure.