Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/25/2001 3:38:34 AM EDT
Obviously the guy deserved it. I just wish I could legally shoot fleeing suspects in the back, especially unarmed ones that didn't threaten me. Unfortunately, I'm held to a higher standard. [url]http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=METHSUSPECT-05-24-01&cat=AN[/url] [b]Unarmed, drugged murder suspect killed by deputies[/b] By TED BELL Scripps-McClatchy Western Service May 24, 2001 SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A man wanted on felony warrants was shot and killed by Sacramento County sheriff's deputies in a Citrus Heights apartment complex Wednesday night. A department spokesman said the 26-year-old Sacramento man was unarmed. They said he had been on a 12-day drug binge, and was known to have been armed and to have threatened to kill police officers. The man, whom officials did not name, was running through an apartment complex when the two SWAT officers fired, one with a handgun, the other with a submachine gun. The suspect was running away from the officers and had not made any threatening gestures at them, Sgt. James Lewis said. Lewis said the man was a suspect a fatal shooting Saturday, and the pistol-whipping and robbery of an elderly couple the following day. There were no warrants for his arrest in either of those cases, Lewis said. "His acquaintances were scared of him," Lewis said. "He had been on methamphetamines for 12 days, hadn't slept in 12 days, and he was dangerous to everyone." Explaining why the officers shot a fleeing man inside a crowded apartment complex, Lewis said: "Clearly, allowing this guy to be loose in this apartment would have been irresponsible on our part. He was very much a threat to the public and the people in the complex."
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 3:51:39 AM EDT
yeah it would be much better to let the meth'ed up, senior citizen beating, murderer go. Most states have part of thier laws dealing with police using reasonable force to make an arrest. He represented a huge danger if he was not captured. The reasonable force includes up to deadly force to effect an arrest. Don't run from the cops, if you don't think you should be arrested tell it to the judge. Chuck Taylor (?) said on 60 minutes "some people just need to be shot". If you keep postin opinions like this we will start think you are a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 3:54:37 AM EDT
Chalk one up for the home team!
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:07:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 4:26:17 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Higher standard my eye... 1) they will have to submit to an administrative investigation. Oh that means no right to remain silent, no right to counsel. 2) they will be subjected to a criminal investigation, possibly a Grand Jury probe, and maybe a trial. 3) they will have to live for the rest of their lives dealing with killing another person. 4) they will probably face lawsuits, from the suspects family, and maybe apt. neighbors who were traumatized by the incident 5) they will get the attention of the media, and computer hero's like you F4YR. 6) they will be reassignmened to non-critical jobs, or placed on administrative leave. 7) they may have to participate mandatory counseling, which since their dept. ordered it will no be subject to Dr. patient confidentiality. 8) Their careers are most likely shot F4YR, this seems to be 2 officers doing their job what's the worst that can happen to YOU at your job. I read a lot of sniveling about the "them against us" wall that cops have. Make no mistake the "them against us" is perpetrated by moronic posts like the one at the start of this thread.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:08:51 AM EDT
Actually I think it was Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch that made the comment, "some people just need to be shot."
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:11:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jadams951: Actually I think it was Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch that made the comment, "some people just need to be shot."
View Quote
That's why I put the "(?)" thanx for straightening that out. [bounce] [heavy]
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:28:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 4:36:36 AM EDT by MOD]
NO-AR: Why is the first post moronic? How many times have we heard about cops, oh excuse me LEOs, busting down the door of the wrong place and/or shooting people and nothing happens to them? And yes, us non-cop civilians do have to meet a higher standard b/c we don't have a badge and the opinion of most sheeple that LEOs can't be wrong. P.S. Are you sure your name isn't GLOCKCOP?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:35:14 AM EDT
Quote from story -
There were no warrants for his arrest in either of those cases, Lewis said.
View Quote
Damn. Eric The Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:38:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NO-AR-:(: yeah it would be much better to let the meth'ed up, senior citizen beating, murderer go.
View Quote
You don't really grasp the meaning of the word "suspect", do you? He wasn't convicted of any of those things except, it seems, by you. Since the police shot him, he MUST have been guilty, right?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:40:36 AM EDT
Higher standard 6 months to 2 years to get hire including, background checks, psychological testing, physical testing, and medical tests. Most states require college degrees for new hires at LE agencies now. Then they go to the academy from appx 6 to 20 weeks. Including hours of decision making when it come to use of force and be trained to use weapons and tactics. Up to 6 months patrol training, during which they are assessed for their ability as an employee and decision making ability. (A little more extensive than is required for CCW.......higher standard) And I think I already posted what can happen to them after the shooting. My point isn't that LEO's are perfect. But I also know that there are consequences for screwing up. Yes, it does depend on a whole bunch of factors. The seriousness of the screw up, whether a citizen complains, the amount of damage done, and the attitude of the dept. etc....
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:42:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 4:41:22 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
[size=3]Look the guy was a scumbag. Fine. I'll grant you that. But what about his [i]Civil Rights?[/i] You all love to justify the police actions when it comes to scumbags, but if their Rights aren't protected, why do you think yours will be? What possible reason would they have for opening up with a machine gun and shooting him in the back? You'd better pray you never get "shot trying to escape" when they come to your house during the 2006 National Gun Registration operation.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:45:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The Anti-Christ: You don't really grasp the meaning of the word "suspect", do you? He wasn't convicted of any of those things except, it seems, by you. Since the police shot him, he MUST have been guilty, right?
View Quote
I've got a good grasp. Suspected of murder don't make him any less dangerous, then convicted of murder. If HE hadn't decided to run he would have been arrested and maybe if there was enough evidence tried and possibly convicted. And he did have felony warrants, wonder what those were for? Other felonies against people?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:49:05 AM EDT
NO-AR: You miss the point, we are not talking about a higher standard for getting on the force vs. getting a CCW. We are talking about a higher standard about the consequnces of an average joe vs. a cop if they shoot someone w/o justification. Yes cops may get admin leave and psych counseling but they won't have to deal with the zealous local DA who wants to make his bones by being tough on viligantes and they get the benefit out the doubt b/c they have a badge.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:51:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NO-AR-:(:
Originally Posted By The Anti-Christ: You don't really grasp the meaning of the word "suspect", do you? He wasn't convicted of any of those things except, it seems, by you. Since the police shot him, he MUST have been guilty, right?
View Quote
I've got a good grasp. Suspected of murder don't make him any less dangerous, then convicted of murder. If HE hadn't decided to run he would have been arrested and maybe if there was enough evidence tried and possibly convicted. And he did have felony warrants, wonder what those were for? Other felonies against people?
View Quote
No, you don't. You are equating supected with guilty. One hopes that if you are ever a victim of the legal system, that you are not subject to the judgement of people like yourself. Due, at least in part, to this guy's own actions he'll never get his day in court. Now, all sorts of crimes can be "cleared" by hanging them on his dead ass.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:52:51 AM EDT
NO-AR-:( - do we live in such a Police State that you are guilty until proven innocent (wait, non-guilty - us civilians are never innocent anymore)? Do we live in a society so paranoid that ANY resistance to authority is viewed such that it justifies deadly force? In England a boy's birthday party was raided by a SWAT team in a no-knock raid because the neighbors freaked out when they saw the 11 year old boy playing in the back yard with his new BB gun. They arrested the boy and confiscated the "weapon". Is this the Amerika we want? We are headed this direction at a rapid pace.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:06:01 AM EDT
Suppose they made a mistake, and shot your son, or your daughter, or your Mom? Regardless that it turned out to be the "Bad Guy" these guys should not have shot a "fleeing suspect" in the back. What was the shooter's name, Judge Dredd?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:09:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: [size=3]Look the guy was a scumbag. Fine. I'll grant you that. But what about his [i]Civil Rights?[/i] You all love to justify the police actions when it comes to scumbags, but if their Rights aren't protected, why do you think yours will be? What possible reason would they have for opening up with a machine gun and shooting him in the back? You'd better pray you never get "shot trying to escape" when they come to your house during the 2006 National Gun Registration operation.
View Quote
Well if the info at time of the shooting is the S.O. had probable cause to believe he committed a murder and a separate violent armed robbery, the police can use that information to decide what level of force is justifiable in attempting to effect an arrest. In this case I think they'll say that he constituted such a danger if he escaped, that deadly force was a reasonable measure to prevent him from getting away. (and possibly committing more serious crimes) I'm just a little more concerned with the rights of his victims and the people that he might have victimized if he got away. He made the CHOICE to run, he paid for his choice. I had no idea it was scheduled for 2006. [;)] MOD-No I've not GLOCK-COP And since I don't plan on going on a meth powered crime spree, including murder, senior citizen baeting, robbing, and running from the police I think my chances of taking 1 or more in the back are slim at best.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:17:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 5:21:40 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By MOD: NO-AR: You miss the point, we are not talking about a higher standard for getting on the force vs. getting a CCW. We are talking about a higher standard about the consequnces of an average joe vs. a cop if they shoot someone w/o justification. Yes cops may get admin leave and psych counseling but they won't have to deal with the zealous local DA who wants to make his bones by being tough on viligantes and they get the benefit out the doubt b/c they have a badge.
View Quote
Thank you for playing, our friend J. Reno made a hobby out of prosecuting police officers for their use of force, and she usually lost. Yeah benefit of the doubt just like the Officers of the Cinncinati PD that is getting investigated by the FBI? Or the cops from the Rodney King incident that were found not guilty in State Court and immediatley charged, then convited in Federal Court, for the same incident that had just been tried for in State Court?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:24:56 AM EDT
Now I'll switch sides. The Consent Decrees that the (so-called)Justice Department forces upon Police Departments like Cincinnati, is just plain WRONG. It's a Witch Hunt designed to bring most American Law Enforcement under control of the Federal Government. Welcome to the Police State.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:29:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FatMan: Suppose they made a mistake, and shot your son, or your daughter, or your Mom? Regardless that it turned out to be the "Bad Guy" these guys should not have shot a "fleeing suspect" in the back.
View Quote
And what if he got away and victimized your son, your daughter or your mom? Has there been even a suggestion that they shot the wrong guy?? The answer is no. Please don't try to interject what if, What if he was a space alien that escaped from Area 51 and it wasnt the S.O. that shot him it was FBI agent Mulder.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:32:30 AM EDT
I'm not defending the "police state" but I do believe that police officers have the privilege to use force under certain circumstances. Fleeing drugged up suspected murderer sounds like a likely candidate.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:40:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:42:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:42:38 AM EDT
Cops need better PR Druggies that are killing and beating and stealing need killin, esp if they have been awake for 12 days. I would assume the cops got the right person square in the BACK. I mean, cuase cops are always right. Right? They never get the wrong guy, they never shoot until shot at, right? Their lives must be in danger to justify a shooting, right? They are here to protect us from our selves, like Columbine, right? Cops need to work on their PR if they expect help from the people they are sworn to prosecute and kill, right?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:45:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:48:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:51:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 5:50:35 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
I'm surprised none of the police apologists haven't yet tried to claim that [i]"there must be more information than the article is telling us. I'm sure the justification just isn't being mentioned"
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:54:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep:
Thank you for playing, our friend J. Reno made a hobby out of prosecuting police officers for their use of force, and she usually lost.
View Quote
She did? Could you name some and the incicents that resulted in her prosecuting them? To the best of my knowledge, none have been prosecuted due to the fact they have soveriegn immunity. This is why Lon Horiuchi, the man that shot Vicki Weaver in the face while she was holding her baby never stood trial, nor the person that shot their son in the back as he was running home.
View Quote
Soveriegn Immunity?? they formed their own country?? [:)] You have terms mixed up. There is what's called qualified immunity. That is usually an individual officer is not civilly responsible for duty related acts done as a result of thier lawful performance of duties. In other words the PD or SO gets sued not the individual officer. Criminal acts due not have immunity. I should have specified, J Reno was a County prosecutor in the 80's in Florida and she was the lead prosecutor on several criminal trials dealing with police use of force. I believe she lost most of them, that's also when Massad Ayoob (sp?) started gaining national attention as an expert use of force witness.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 6:15:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 6:36:34 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
I didn't mean to make it seem like I thought this was a state of the art police tactic. I didn't like the "I'm held to a higher standard", because your not. My point is that police use of force is often a no win situation. 1) the police had a duty to arrest this person. 2) the police had to take what was known about this person and use it in their use of force continuum. ..... a) on meth for 12 days ..... b) suspect in a murder ..... c) felony warrant(s) issued for supsect ..... d) past criminal activity ..... e) behavior when contacted by police before 3) the police had to be aware of their own safety 4) the police had to take the public safety into account. 5) yes they should even take the suspects safety into account. 6) they had to consider the actions of the suspect. 7) they had to consider wheether or not it was likely he would escape if force wasn't used. 8) they had to consider what force was likely to prevent escape without endangering the officers or the public. And use the lowest level of force that would be likely to prevent the escape. 9) they had to consider how much danger this guy posed to the public if he escaped. (and I mean likelyhood of more crimes against people, not writing hot checks). 10) the had to consider the area that he was in. ie. if he ran into the desert and no-one was around, not much of a threat. He was running away apparently in a higly populated(victim rich?) area. I'm not sure there really is a right answer to this but there is a difference between what's right, wrong, and what's criminal. Many people try to make what they think is wrong criminal.... AW ban comes to mind, that's why a lot of you start talking about the "police state".
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 7:06:41 AM EDT
Police are an extention of the population, not a para-military organization sanctioned to shoot on sight. If this person broke into your house(felony) unarmed, and you shot him in the back outside the house, you're held responsible. Hold them responsible.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 7:56:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 7:58:41 AM EDT
chaingun's identified that higher standard. Any of us would be tried for murder. These poor guys had their careers ruined. Oh the horror.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:02:41 AM EDT
Sounds like Judge Dredd style justice! [b][red]"I am the law"[/red][/b]
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:09:35 AM EDT
i wasnt there so my .02 counts for shit but if he was high running away and "screaming" i'll kill you all" or some other threat and i didnt shoot and he killed someone. the police would have been held accountable its a no win scenario and if this happened every day i would be worried about the police state.. but le are human they make mistakes.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:24:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:29:26 AM EDT
The guy made statements as to wanting to kill police and that alone would justify the shooting as self defense. Leave it to you civilians to completely ignore the fact that cops risk their lives every day and need all of the tools available to be able to return safely home at night to their families.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:43:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 8:42:32 AM EDT by medicjim]
Do you guys all believe everything you hear, see or read as it is reported "in the news"? I have been on a number of violent encounters between police and "BG" types and in every case, the actions of the police were "PERFECT". In EVERY case, it was reported with an anti-cop spin by the news....sometimes I wondered if they were reporting on the same encounter, because there was no similarity to the facts I personally observed. If you want the police to "ALWAYS" act properly, you need to be a part of the solution.. Form a local citizen over-sight committee, review the FACTS, not the news spin developed to create "viewership". If you just sit there on your PC complaining about it, you are an un-American hypocrite and you deserve to live in fear. just my opinion
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:51:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:58:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:58:31 AM EDT
he was armed before just because it wasnt in his hand it could of been in his waistban the police didnt know it seems... If a family is at lunch together and a man storms into the room slaps a younger sister the five brother stand up kick his ass and hold him for police thier heros. but if the five brothers were LE its brutality. police have training but training isnt the all to end all and LEO have emotions their only human.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:02:14 AM EDT
I dont know of any Police force in this nation that will let you shoot to wound its shot to remove the threat not piss him off and let him fight back ...leg shots only work in the movies boys.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:07:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:12:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:24:41 AM EDT
Beer Slayer, in the original post read what it says right after Sacremento, Calif. If the had probable cause to beleive he did the homicide, and the elderly beating armed robbery that would make it valid to arrest on those charges. Yes he was running away from the cops, but where was he running to?? If he is running away from the cops he is no threat TO THEM, but he surely isn't running to return a page or get some ID.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:34:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:38:52 AM EDT
And if those wanna be SEALS had been at Columbine.............
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:46:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:48:39 AM EDT
Which was part of my long Use of Force post, there are often no "RIGHT" answers, but wrong answers are often found.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:51:31 AM EDT
What scares me is that this type of thing sets a dangerous precedent. The sheeple will accept shooting a dope head "for the children". What will happen during the coming gun confiscations??? * He owns an AR-15, so he is an obvious threat. (Media hypes up how evil and deadly these semi-auto machine-guns are.) Therefore, "use of deadly force is authorized" or even worse "Shoot on sight".
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:58:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 9:59:14 AM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top