Police Officer Gives 30 Commands Before Using Deadly Force

Kettering (Ohio) police officer Jonathon McCoy gave nearly 30 commands to the occupants of a gray Ford van last Sunday once he saw the front-seat passenger had a gun in his right front pocket.

What started as a traffic stop of the woman driver for not signaling while changing lanes and malfunctioning brake lights escalated into an officer firing nine shots at Jason Hoops.

Many of McCoy’s commands included swear words as he yelled, “You reach for that gun I will blow your brains out, do you (expletive) understand me?”

Kettering police Chief Chip Protsman said during a Friday press conference that in the 69 seconds from when McCoy noticed a Ruger handgun’s grip sticking out of Hoops’ front-right pants pocket, the officer told Hoops many times to comply.

Protsman said McCoy told Hoops six times to get his hands up, six times to put his hands on the dash, four times not to move, twice not to reach for the gun, twice not to do anything stupid and four times to relax.

“Through the investigation, we now know that at that time, that Mr. Hoops was looking at him and his hands did drop down towards where the weapon was again and the officer fired again for the second time because he felt threatened.”

Hoops, 33, died of multiple gunshot wounds, according to the Montgomery County Coroner’s Office.

Read More

Facebook Comments




  1. howie roak

    Questions for police officers here.

    Question: the mere presence of a gun on the driver constituted a Threat? Exactly why? Is the police that fearful of an armed populace?
    Question: did the presence of the gun and the immediate reaction of the officer enflame the situation?
    Question: does the mere movement of the suspect justify shoot?

    If the answers to the above questions are what I think they will be that implies the police believe they are in a war zone — the foes are an armed populace.

    Maybe we need to look at it from both sides. The police need to back off a bit and react to real threats not just the presence of a possible threat. Society in general need to step back and realize the officer believes they are at war and have trigger happy tendencies and act more cautiously — in blunt terms” obey then debate — not disobey and die!

    its like high speed pursuit — hey Motorola moves faster than a speeding car and time is on the police side. In this heavily video recorded society it is extremely hard to get lost — good detective work can locate the car and person fairly quickly and easily. The chase can end and the suspect picked up later with little or no danger to innocents on the road — Just IMHO.

    Same as in this situation, a cautious police offier should draw his gun and be ready if need be to defend himself and others. Howeer, a calmer approach might have prevented the shooting and death. Likewise some common sense on the suspect and he would have been alive.

    My experience with police taught me they they they are the law — they are not! They are there to provide arrest of criminals as needed, citations for run of the mill breaches of order and, to provide directions and guidance for maintain social order, and investigate to gather evidence and capture of the criminal — that is it folks anything else is beyond what is their role.

    So again maybe we need to look at this whole situation again. We can not have the police thinking they are in a war zone and acting accordingly and we can not have people thinking that they can pose threats and not suffer consequences.


  2. MollyPitcher 2

    I’m white and I would have expected to be shot a whole lot sooner than that. I would have glued my hands to the dash and told the officer that he could reach in and take my weapon until backup arrived. Sort it out then. What do I need the gun for at that time? I have police protection!

  3. david5300

    he chose poorly

  4. Just say no

    For what it’s worth, Just noted a go fund me page has been set up for the deceased and one of the donors has posted a link to a video.

    • howie roak

      having a badge does not automatically make you right — just deadly!

  5. Sue

    Patient officer! WOW. Every conceal carry owner is trained to follow an officers orders, which requires hands up,, on the steering wheel or dash, fingers extended (AND stating that you are “carrying”). Every concealed carrier is trained that not complying can result in death. VERY patient officer who was lucky not to lose his life.

  6. Just say no

    Death by Cop.

    Charge the driver with obstruction. It looks to me that she was attempting to distract the Officer. In doing so, she escalated the situation and by the grace of God, the nice Officer wasn’t killed in the line of duty because she CHOSE to disobey his commands.

    Blue lives MATTER.

  7. Steve_o

    Would 31 have hurt?

    • Just say no

      Come on, you know the nice Officer would never even have given one command had Jason not have been white. They call it white privilege. J/k

  8. Social.Justice.Warrior

    One less dirtbag on the streets. Meh…

    • howie roak

      Exactly what made him a dirt bag — possess of a firearm?
      being a dirt bag is not a capital offense the last time I checked.

      • Senseless_Violins

        No, being a convicted felon made him a dirt bag. And being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm is also (usually) another felony, often worse that the original felony.

        Reaching for said firearm when a police officer is instructing you to keep your hands on the dash is not a capital offense, it is suicide by cop. Good riddance to bad rubbish, as the saying goes.

      • EdCrunk

        How hard is it to keep your hands on the dash? I’ve had cops pull guns on me before and I had no problem following their orders.

  9. ATTILA727

    Darwinism be workin.

  10. SWohio

    Thinning the herd.

  11. 1BigNasty

    Very glad to hear that no LEO’s were injured.

  12. bacchys

    How do we “know” the suspect was looking at him and reached for the firearm?

    • LegalBeagle

      Witness statements, including the officer? Apparently the gun was located in a position consistent with the officer’s statements. There is nothing inconsistent with the description. I also noticed early in the event, after the officer starts giving commands, that it sounds like (the audio quality is predictably poor) other people in the van yelling at the suspect to comply.

      • bacchys

        The officer I can believe is the source for that. Other than those in the car, I don’t see where other witnesses would be able to see into the car any better than the dash cam.

        • SWohio

          The video is available and is being played constantly in our area, with a warning about the language in case children are in the room.

          There is NO question that the officer gave the victim every possible opportunity to do the right thing, but apparently the signed statement from an acquaintance of the victim that he ‘was not going to go back to prison’ does even more to prove the mindset of the victim.

          Here in Dayton we had another shooting of a very stupid man by the police. The ‘victim’ was roaming thru Walmart with a gun – which was a pellet gun but looked exactly like a rifle – slung over his shoulder. I have no idea what he thought he was doing, or why he didn’t realize that he was terrifying other customers – which I suspect was his intent – but customers ran out of the store, hid, called the police. When the police arrived they order the man to drop the gun but he refused and was shot and killed.

          Obama and jackson and the rest of the race baiters were getting ready to head for Dayton to cause their normal brand of trouble, when the Wal Mart store footage was aired. It was terrifying just to watch it, even knowing that gun was a pellet gun. The casual way the victim strolled thru the aisles as if looking for victims to shoot, was truly chilling.

          Needless to say, the rabble rousers cancelled their trips, I suspect that that the victim’s baby mothers and their families who raised a hue and cry about the poor black man being shot for no reason, may have tried to sue but I suspect it went nowhere. In any case, the video was the proof, just as it is in this case.

          When a pollceman gives you an order, obey it unless you have a death wish. That’s pretty simple to understand.

          • LegalBeagle

            Not a victim, for the record. Suspect/offender/decedent. Pick one.

            I would also not use such a broad term as death wish, as it plays into the morons who refer to “comply or die”. It is comply as the law mandates or be forced; how much force is required is a function of the resistance encountered.

          • bacchys

            It almost seems like you’re talking about shooting of Jon Crawford III in Beavercreek, OH, which is near Dayton. But that can’t be the one you’re talking about, because while he was walking around a Wal-Mart holding a pellet rifle he’d picked up in the store, the rest of your description doesn’t match it at all.

            He wasn’t waving it around or pointing it at people. The man who called 911 claiming that he was later admitted he didn’t see any of that happening. Crawford is on surveillance video pretty much
            the entire time he’s in the store and no one ran out of the store or appeared to be terrified by him. He is nowhere on the video waving the gun around, let alone threatening anyone. The police claimed they ordered him to drop the gun, but it’s plain from the video they shot him without any announcement or warning. He’s talking on a cell phone when they approach him, and the first indication he’s even aware they’re present is when they shoot him. The gun is never pointed in their direction. He has it pointing downward and he swings his arm slightly, but it’s pointing downward into the shelves in front of him, not towards anyone. The prosecutor, in discussing the case in a press conference after a grand jury declined to indict
            the officers, said they shot on sight.

            Left out by the prosecutor, the police, and most of the press reporting on it is the fact that openly carrying a long gun in Ohio is
            lawful. The police didn’t witness Crawford doing anything illegal or threatening before, during or after they shot him. So much for Second Amendment rights when the government can gun you down with impunity for lawfully exercising them, eh?

            The rest of your post reads like one of the idiot screeds at rightwing nutjob sites: the fantasy of some diseased parasite on our Republic and completely unmoored from reality. While I’ve never understood why BLM and other, similarly concerned groups focused on Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson over that of Crawford in Beavercreek, it remains that they did so. The protests in Beavercreek were orderly and well-mannered, and the police response to them was professional. Both were in marked contrast to what was seen
            in Ferguson.

            On the case in this particular article, it seems like you’re
            reading from the same rightwing moron. Yes, this officer doesn’t seem to panic and gives multiple commands which those in the car have ample time to obey. We still can’t see in to the vehicle. We can’t see what the officer saw or anyone inside the vehicle saw. This doesn’t appear to be another panicked cop, as we saw with Officer Yanez shooting Philando Castile, and I think the video evidence supports the officer having a reasonable justification for shooting. That’s a marked contrast with the Castile shooting and, for that matter, the Crawford one.

          • howie roak

            Totally agree with “obey it unless you have a death wish”

    • Tammy Pearce

      The officer gave him 30 f! $*/&# chances to live.

      • howie roak

        He also play cop, judge, jury and executioner ….

        • Tammy Pearce

          Man in van was given many chances to not be shot. Others in van also state that they told him to what the officer was telling him but he did not want to go back to prison.

          • howie roak

            You missed my point. The cop should have controlled the situation vs being hyper-active and shouting. the suspect could have been dealt with calmly and maybe without bloodshed. I saw no evidence the cop attempted to control the situation vs angrily shouting and firing his gun. So mention of the suspect attempting to shoot or even grabbing the gun .

            The police are operating under rules one exercises in a war zone. We need to get both sides to recognize the pitfalls of those situations.

            When an officer draws a gun, fires with minimal provaction he is acting as the judge, jury and executioner. Likewise stupidity on the suspects part should not be a death sentence unless it clearly endangers the officer’s life or other lives.

            I know of no police officer that was forced into the profession — if they can adhere to the laws then they should seek employment elsewhere. not

          • Tammy Pearce

            Did you watch and listen to the
            u tube clip? You can hear others in the van telling him to stop and do as he is being told. Of course, the officer tone of voice is different. He is one officer with a van full of people. The officer made the decision and it is easy for others to say what he did was wrong. Have you ever spent anytime with people in high stress situations? Voice inflection will always change weather up or down but it will always change. I think he gave him ample opportunity to do as he was being told it’s not hard to understand what he was being told to do the man in the band obviously made his choice good bad or indifferent he made his own decision and he made the choice.

          • Fire_and_Steel

            “Controlled the situation.” Typical comment from one more Internet Expert who doesn’t have to do the job (and probably couldn’t qualify or it).
            Please don’t bother telling us all about how to do it “right.”

          • EdCrunk

            Sounds like youve never been a cop or in any situation like that.

          • LegalBeagle

            Cops are operating under Constitutional and statutory law about the use of force in making a seizure. It is not at all like the Rules of Engagement under the which the military operates. The officer was trying to use verbal direction as a means of control by informing the offender of the legal obligation applicable, and the outcome of bad choices. This was not “minimal” or “provocation” – it was, pure and simple, self-defense under an analysis very similar to that applicable to private citizens (except that of course private citizens are neither obligated to go to bad situations nor authorized by the law to exercise complete control of such a situation.

        • EdCrunk

          It’s the same thing if someone breaks in your house. You have every right to use lethal force.

    • howie roak

      Also add with the hyper shouting from the officer the suspect might have thought “what the hey he is going to shoot anyway…”

Submit a Comment

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from Law Officer.

You have Successfully Subscribed!