Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/1/2001 12:51:04 AM EDT
Man, 65, killed by police The Martinez resident continued to threaten his son with a metal pipe, officers said By Kristi Belcamino CONTRA COSTA TIMES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MARTINEZ -- Police shot and killed a 65-year-old man Saturday morning after he attacked his son with a metal pipe. Police say officers were called about 9 a.m. to a house in the 400 block of Blue Ridge Drive to assist in a dispute between Ernest Donald Smith and his 39-year-old son. At the time, the son agreed to leave the house for the day, said Lt. Tom Simonetti. About 10:15 a.m., officers were again called to the house. They found an agitated Smith threatening his son with a metal pipe. An officer ordered Smith several times to drop the pipe, but Smith ignored the orders and swung the pipe at his son. The officer, fearing for the son's safety, fired one shot, striking Smith in the upper torso, Simonetti said. Smith was pronounced dead at the scene. Police say in July, Smith had been arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon after he allegedly struck a visitor at his home with a metal pipe. Neighbors said arguments between Smith, known as "Donny," and his son, who did not live at the house, were common. It was not unusual to see police cars at the house, they said. One neighbor, who lives four houses away, said there had been a loud argument around 2 a.m. Saturday. One neighbor, Joe Jose, 19, said Smith was a nice man. Growing up, Jose often brought his bicycle to him for help fixing a flat tire. Another neighbor, Coke Hill, said her late husband would turn to Smith for help with his car troubles. The officer involved in the shooting was placed on routine paid administrative leave. Police have not yet released his name. The officer was new to Martinez's department, but had been hired with two years' experience in law enforcement. The shooting is being jointly investigated by the Martinez Police Department and the District Attorney's Office. In April, Martinez police shot and injured a 31-year-old man after he led them on a high-speed chase, crashed and then acted as if he was about to pull a weapon on pursuing officers. The last fatal shooting involving Martinez police officers occurred Sept. 25, 1998, when a 25-year-old parolee drew a handgun and attempted to fire at undercover drug agents outside a Pittsburg Wal-Mart.
View Quote
[url]www.contracostatimes.com/news/contracosta/stories/shooting_20010930.htm[/url] I vaguely knew the guy. He lived a couple of blocks away. I used to see him working on his yard when I took my evening walk. Always seemed like a nice guy. Always said hi and offered a smile. He lived on the same street as two cute girls who unfortunately ended up as wives to David Koresh. They both died at Waco. Do you think shooting the old guy was a little harsh? I don't know the specifics, but he was an old guy.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 1:12:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/1/2001 1:10:33 AM EDT by platform389]
Let's skip to the ending... "Shooting determined to be proper" the headlines will read. Why do they even bother to issue nightsticks, pepper spray, and other Less Than Lethal equipment to these "professionals"? Just shoot the "prep" and get it over with! Do I think shooting the guy was harsh? Maybe not. Do I think KILLING the guy was harsh? YES![pissed] Edited to add: If this "highly trained" professional could not wrestle a 65 year man down he should turn in his badge and hang his head in shame. Of course, looking at the shape most of the Barney Fife crew is in, I don't wonder why that didn't happen!
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 1:19:01 AM EDT
No pepper spray? Seems like lethal force comes first these days.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 1:20:47 AM EDT
I see there is no longer a need to pay a hitman to dispatch a member of your family. There are people who can do it for free.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 1:27:41 AM EDT
The first thing I thought was why not pepper spray and the baton (if need be)? But a chest shot? Wow. Anyway, I wasn't in the guy's shoes, but you have to assume the LEO was trained to handle this kind of stuff without having to resort to using deadly force. Especially against an old fart. And why the hell can't the 39 year-old son protect himself from the old guy? The LEO said he fired to protect the son. I don't know about this story.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 1:53:09 AM EDT
I know, is the 65 year old dude some prize fighter or something? Damm sissy 39 year old.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 1:54:15 AM EDT
And what the hell's a 39 year old dude living at home anyways?
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 1:56:21 AM EDT
I know, 39 years of supporting the son must have finally gotten to him.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:06:46 AM EDT
According to the article, the son did not live at the house. But, who knows, he may have been one of those kind of guys who moves in and out every two years. But couldn't the son get out of his dad's way? I'm 39 myself and even in the degraded shape I'm in I'm pretty confident I could move out of the way and if not, block the blows a little. Old guys like that aren't known to move real fast. Anyway, I don't have the entire story, but I'm leaning towards unneccessary use of deadly force. Hell, the guy wasn't 20 and carrying a sword for God's sake! I hope I don't get flamed for second guessing the LEO.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:12:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/1/2001 2:10:55 AM EDT by Ulysse_Nardin_1846]
Originally Posted By mattja: According to the article, the son did not live at the house. But, who knows, he may have been one of those kind of guys who moves in and out every two years. But couldn't the son get out of his dad's way? I'm 39 myself and even in the degraded shape I'm in I'm pretty confident I could move out of the way and if not, block the blows a little. Old guys like that aren't known to move real fast. Anyway, I don't have the entire story, but I'm leaning towards unneccessary use of deadly force. Hell, the guy wasn't 20 and carrying a sword for God's sake! I hope I don't get flamed for second guessing the LEO.
View Quote
I missed that part. It would have been pretty funny if he did live at home at 39. I can think of a good headline: [b]Dad 65, Finally Blows His Top At Son 39 Who Freeloaded All His Life[/b] As for second guessing, my initial comment can also construed as such.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:17:36 AM EDT
I will try to help just a bit. We all work inside our department's use of force policies. There are two accepted use of force models that generally police departments follow. The first allows the officer to use one weapon to deal with any situation. Such as the PR 24, usually referred to single weapon philosophy. The second model that is most often utilized and supported by a Supreme Court Ruling - says that an officer may use one level of force above what is being faced. So in this case, a metal pipe is considered a deadly weapon. The officer believed that the person's life was in danger; pipe being swung at person's head - high probability of serious bodily injury or death. Thus the appropriate response is to use deadly force in return. We as police officers have no duty to use lesser forms of force when dealing with a deadly force encounter. Pepper Spray is often used very first if not very soon on use of force continum. Why? Because of the low injury potential. Pepper Spray is not 100% guarantee. Most often an enraged person who is attacking will not feel the initial effects of the spray and/or become even more enraged and continue with their aggressive actions. We are trained to shoot center mass. It has the highest probability of stopping the assualt/encounter or whatever is the appropriate term. I know that I am looking at this from the arm chair but it appears that this officer responded appropriately. Does this help at all?
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:21:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pakrat: I will try to help just a bit. We all work inside our department's use of force policies. There are two accepted use of force models that generally police departments follow. The first allows the officer to use one weapon to deal with any situation. Such as the PR 24, usually referred to single weapon philosophy. The second model that is most often utilized and supported by a Supreme Court Ruling - says that an officer may use one level of force above what is being faced. So in this case, a metal pipe is considered a deadly weapon. The officer believed that the person's life was in danger; pipe being swung at person's head - high probability of serious bodily injury or death. Thus the appropriate response is to use deadly force in return. We as police officers have no duty to use lesser forms of force when dealing with a deadly force encounter. Pepper Spray is often used very first if not very soon on use of force continum. Why? Because of the low injury potential. Pepper Spray is not 100% guarantee. Most often an enraged person who is attacking will not feel the initial effects of the spray and/or become even more enraged and continue with their aggressive actions. We are trained to shoot center mass. It has the highest probability of stopping the assualt/encounter or whatever is the appropriate term. I know that I am looking at this from the arm chair but it appears that this officer responded appropriately. Does this help at all?
View Quote
Thanks for the insight. However, I smell a lawsuit brewing.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:27:05 AM EDT
Pakrat, I understand where you're coming from and respect your point of view. Center of mass makes sense as that's what you train for and perhaps it's close to being a reflex in those situations. My dear old mother always asks why the LEO didn't shoot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand, which we know only happens in Hollywood. But with an old guy like that, why not try the baton and/or pepper? A pipe has the potential to be a deadly weapon, of course, but in the hands of an old man against a young man? Again, I was not there so I probably cannot accurately judge what I would have done. For all I know the LEO felt he was cornered and may be next. I hate to use the word "overkill", but it keeps popping into my mind.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:06:27 AM EDT
Do you people really think when this officer shot this man his intention was to kill him!? You seem to judge this situation based on two facts, 1. the suspect was older, and 2. the person who shot him was a cop. If there is one thing I know and practice, it's not judging someones actions unless you were there or know all of the facters leading up to the use of force. The man refused to comply and drop the pipe. Pepper spray is not an option, why, because you have to be within a few feet of the suspect to get a concentrated amount to the face. This would put the officer in danger of being hit with the pipe, resulting in serious injury or possibly death. The same goes for the baton, if the officer is close enough to deliver baton strikes, he is close enough to the suspect to be at risk of having his skull crushed with the pipe. Another thing, an officer is trained to shoot center mass, the largest target area. The officer fired where he is trained to fire in an attempt to stop the threat and keep the man from smashing the pipe into his son, not to kill him! The suspect unfortunatly died as a result of his injuries. The suspect determined the amount of force to be used by his actions. We should be mad at him for causing a son to lose his father, and a cop to have to go through years of self doubt, guilt and asking himself over and over "why me". And Stealth, a cop endures more bruises and scrapes in a month than someone like you will endure in you entire life. 99.9% of all cops ARE professionals and would run towards situations that would leave most people frozen in fear, or hauling ass the other way. I know this reply will get run through the grinder by some of you, but I'm sure there are more that would agree. (I doubt you would call most of the officers I know Barney Fife, they're probley in twice the shape you are Platform.)
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:11:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:11:51 AM EDT
Three words: JUDGE - JURY - EXECUTIONER
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:17:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jestersdead: Do you people really think when this officer shot this man his intention was to kill him!? You seem to judge this situation based on two facts, 1. the suspect was older, and 2. the person who shot him was a cop. If there is one thing I know and practice, it's not judging someones actions unless you were there or know all of the facters leading up to the use of force. The man refused to comply and drop the pipe. Pepper spray is not an option, why, because you have to be within a few feet of the suspect to get a concentrated amount to the face. This would put the officer in danger of being hit with the pipe, resulting in serious injury or possibly death. The same goes for the baton, if the officer is close enough to deliver baton strikes, he is close enough to the suspect to be at risk of having his skull crushed with the pipe. Another thing, an officer is trained to shoot center mass, the largest target area. The officer fired where he is trained to fire in an attempt to stop the threat and keep the man from smashing the pipe into his son, not to kill him! The suspect unfortunatly died as a result of his injuries. The suspect determined the amount of force to be used by his actions. We should be mad at him for causing a son to lose his father, and a cop to have to go through years of self doubt, guilt and asking himself over and over "why me". And Stealth, a cop endures more bruises and scrapes in a month than someone like you will endure in you entire life. 99.9% of all cops ARE professionals and would run towards situations that would leave most people frozen in fear, or hauling ass the other way. I know this reply will get run through the grinder by some of you, but I'm sure there are more that would agree. (I doubt you would call most of the officers I know Barney Fife, they're probley in twice the shape you are Platform.)
View Quote
Not trying to start anything here, but there are a whole hell a lot of overweight cops around. How the hell can they possibly climb over a 6 foot fence?
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:25:08 AM EDT
It is hard to call after the fact and without all the information. But Police are drilled and drilled in use of force. Also all the armchair cops, unless you have been there, you just don't know. I used Pepperspray on a guy, he ran 10 steps and turned and went at me again. I had to use it again and it takes up to 30 seconds to work. that is two lifetimes when it happens to you. THere is muich more to this, remember how the media paints gunowners? Can we go only on their reporting?
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:42:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TheWind: It is hard to call after the fact and without all the information. But Police are drilled and drilled in use of force. Also all the armchair cops, unless you have been there, you just don't know. I used Pepperspray on a guy, he ran 10 steps and turned and went at me again. I had to use it again and it takes up to 30 seconds to work. that is two lifetimes when it happens to you. THere is muich more to this, remember how the media paints gunowners? Can we go only on their reporting?
View Quote
Did not realize pepper spray was so inaffective.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:52:00 AM EDT
The news story makes it sound like the officer was alone. That does make a difference. In a situation like this, one needs "cover" officers, to handle different levels of force. If there was another officer present, then deploying OC would have been a viable option. This exact scenario is why so many PDs are going to beanbag rounds. The problem is that many PDs only do a limited deployment of the beanbags (SWAT or supervisors) because they are expensive ($3-5 a round) so training is cost-prohibitive, and the best deployment option is often using a second, completely different weapon. My folks put one in every car, but you still need two officers for a deployment. Most police shootings are a tragedy, but oftentimes they are simply the last resort. Technology can help with these situations, but (for now) can not completely eliminate them.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 4:15:45 AM EDT
Son was asked to leave at 9am, and agrees. What the EFF was he doing back at 10:15? And having a history of fighting with your father? What an ass.
View Quote
I agree.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 4:28:54 AM EDT
Anybody who follows the news these days knows, that 2 commands given by the police "halt" and "drop the weapon" supercede all constitutional rights to due process. It's just the way it is. Refuse to obey either of these commands, the LEO [b]IS[/b] judge, jury and executioner. This will be called a good shoot. Don't bother flaming me over it either, 'cause I'm not telling you what I think about it. I'm just stating the facts.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 5:13:18 AM EDT
Hell, if there's anything the Rodney King case proved is that the lawful orders of LEOs mean [u]nothing[/u] to some people! Eric The(StayDown,Rodney,StayDown!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 5:29:42 AM EDT
Just a couple of thoughts. A metal pipe could be anything from light weight aluminum to heavy steel, big difference in the threat potential. I know several men and a couiple of women in thier 60's that I would not want to tangle with given the choice. Too many details not listed in this article to make any kind of judgement.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 5:32:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By a3kid: Anybody who follows the news these days knows, that 2 commands given by the police "halt" and "drop the weapon" supercede all constitutional rights to due process.
View Quote
It's kinda' like the characters from the South Park cartoon yelling "He's comming right for us", before blowing away some endangered species.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 5:45:59 AM EDT
Strange thing......people tend to die when they get shot, at least sometimes. OC is a great thing, but it is not a cure all.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 7:09:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/1/2001 7:05:46 AM EDT by pakrat]
OC is a wonderfull product but it has been correctly stated not a cure all. Don't know about our non-LEO guys on this thread but have you all ever fought a elderly person? I have on two occasions. It is a surprise waiting to sneak up on you. Both were very surprisingly strong and it took some very strong measures to subdue them. Both occasions, I was greatly surprised when I put my hands on them, the amount of strength that was there and in one occasion the high tolerance to pain. Platform it is very evident you have not had to be in this position! Stealth, no where in my oath does it say I must take bruises in my line of work. Also, you will not find that anywhere in my job description. It is a proven fact, if I'm close enough to touch you, you can touch me and in turn hurt me, which causes me not to work and draw a greatly reduced pay check thus causing my family to suffer. I am not paid to take bruises, nor will I, if I can prevent it. Very well, stated, baton to baton is just asking for a skull crushing. The Supreme Court has decided in a number of cases on using deadly force. Most of all on this thread would greatly benefit from reading some of the cases. Such as: Tenn v. Garner Graham v. Conner Federal Rulings: Brothers v. Klevenhagen Elliot v. Leavitt Malignaggi v. County of Gloucester O'neal v. DeKalb County, Ga ******] Reed v. Cheney ***** Reynolds v. County of San Diego Wilson v. Meeks Everyone of these, pertain to this thread or the use of or decision to use deadly force. These are our guidelines, in which we are drilled on and must review. Hope someone takes the time to review them.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 7:11:52 AM EDT
Main problem: Son wasn't supposed to be there. Situation: Father was waving pipe at son that wasn't supposed to be there. Solution: Ploice order son to get the F*&( out of the area. Result: Father has no one to swing pipe at. Nah, that would be too easy.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 7:31:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schnacke: Main problem: Son wasn't supposed to be there. Situation: Father was waving pipe at son that wasn't supposed to be there. Solution: Ploice order son to get the F*&( out of the area. Result: Father has no one to swing pipe at. Nah, that would be too easy.
View Quote
Actually, the police [b]did[/b] do that. The problem is that the son came back. BTW, is it possible that the son was already lying on the ground in a bloody mess when the police arrived? If it appeared that Pa was about to administer the [i]coup de grace[/i] to an unconscious Junior, then I think that the immediate use of deadly force was appropriate.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 7:34:22 AM EDT
I think everyone is assuming that because this guy was 65, that was weak and feeble. My dad is 60, has been a farmer all his life, is strong, and could still probably take me if he was mad enough. Have no idea what level of health this guy was in. Now I wasn't there, but I do have a respect for LEO's. I know there are some that are very professional and some that are very inept, but they have to put up with some very bad situations. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, unless they go way overboard.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 7:47:00 AM EDT
Some of you people are hippocrites! If you were armed, and someone else was getting his ass beat by a guy with steel pipe, and you told him to drop it and the guy kept swinging. Would you wrestle it away from him? He could have used pepper spray on the turd, but the guy had a lethal weapon and kept swinging. A head shot would have been appropriate. Some of you talk tough about what you would do with your assortment of weapons, but when a LEO caps somebody who is trying to kill somebody with a steel pipe you gripe about it. Jeeez!
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 8:14:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/1/2001 8:13:26 AM EDT by gardenWeasel]
Look up info on the Tracy Thurman case. They even made a cheesy TV movie about it!! I'd claim hometown pride but I lived up in Snobsbury when all of this happened. (She was an abusive alkie too but the film made her a saint!!) [url]http://lyns.aaahosting.net/movies/thurman7.htm[/url] Look at the link it's so simple. He was paroled a few years back so every now and then these two cause problems for each other and it makes the paper. She follows him and tries to make him leave etc etc
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 8:25:08 AM EDT
Just put yourselves in the sons shoes and the cops shoes for that matter. Assuming the worst, the pipe is not a piece of aluminium, it's actually a metal pipe, swinging towards somebody's head, full force. As a cop, would I "TRY" my baton to stop it from swinging, would I "TRY" my pepper spray AND hope it works THIS time BEFORE it strikes this persons head and possibly kills him, or do I shoot him to stop him and the the pipe. I know what option I would choose given the above situation, the father is using deadly physical force! But, none of us were their.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 11:34:26 AM EDT
One member said on a previous post, that the officer could have taken him if he didn't mind getting bruised up a bit. Shit, you obviously have never been hit with a steel pipe. That is a deadly weapon. I know 65 and even 75 year olds who will not only hurt you, they will kill you. OC is a tool. It does not work all of the time. I have used an entire MkIV can of 10% OC on a suspect, all it did was piss him off enough so that he damn near beat me to death with a fan, which was running, and an upright vaccum cleaner. Armchair warriors, you were not there! Warning shots, or shots to wound are not allowed! When you shoot, you shoot center of mass to stop the action which caused you to use deadly force in the first place. Bean bags are not universal in issue. And you only use less lethal when you have backup that has lethal options. Also, all you know is what is in a newspaper article. Since when do you belive what is in the news? Since you get a chance to bash an LEO. This needs to be the BS15.com forums, 'cause so much of what is on here is BS!
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 11:40:32 AM EDT
Stg44, that was me. I was thinking the LEO could use the baton to fend off any blows. But, again I wasn't there and I've never had to deal with a pipe, so take what I say with a large grain of salt. By the way, no LEO bashing here.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 11:47:40 AM EDT
I think an old man could easily have been tackeled by the officer and have the pipe taken away.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 11:58:43 AM EDT
[b]In a different perspective...[/b] An individual has the right to protect someone else from great bodily harm by the use of lethal force. Could a neighbor have shot this 65 yo man and call it justifiable homicide? Many of us could have taken on this guy with a boomstick or other devices without having to kill him.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:25:46 PM EDT
If the 39 Y.O. son couldn't kick some 65 Y.O. ass, he should have at least been able to OUTRUN the old man. Besides, we have to assume the son would know the old man was a tough SOB if that was the case. The son was were he wasn't supposed to be and was apparently getting his ass kicked for it. I find it hard to believe that with the wide range of tools on the force continuim available to your average cop, this couldn't have been ended without the use of leathal force.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:38:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:40:30 PM EDT
An individual has the right to protect someone else from great bodily harm by the use of lethal force. Could a neighbor have shot this 65 yo man and call it justifiable homicide?/quote] Yes. In most states, Police use of deadly force in defense of a another person is the same use of force that is allowed to any person.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:42:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 2:51:43 PM EDT
I could kill ya dead with a pipe if you came in close enough to use spray before you figured out which end was the nozzle. My 80 y.o. former roughnecker grandpa could wail on ya just as fast and even harder. Spray is for unruly hippies. If someone broke into your house in the dead of night, you see he's only armed with a pipe, do you put away your gun in favor of spray? What if he swings at you?
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:15:28 PM EDT
They should have wheeled in the APC and opened up with the 60.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:21:51 PM EDT
I have been trained to fight and love to fight but do any non LEOs know How hard it is to retain your firearm during a fight.Don't forget The son may help dad. One_Slayer
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:22:54 PM EDT
65 years old? Not always,,the guy across the street is at least that and is a working brick layer,,great shape and has had a long life of dealing with assholes and life. I've seen "old" men fight,,and boy all those years of shit comes out something fierce,, alot lot of men in this age group grew up in tough times and fight hard. I saw a older guy seriously f up a young butt head in short order. Sure he could not go 12 rounds,,but boy he could kick ass for at least 1 round.....and volunteers out there to fight a young butt hole? and the cop is not obligated to get in a position where by someone might get his firearm.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:36:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:42:00 PM EDT
Don't forget, the old guy could have thrown the pipe at the cop before he got close enough to use his baton or OC and done some serious damage. Perhaps a beanbag gun or taser would have ended the incident without loss of life, but we'll never know for sure. You gotta wonder, though, how many beanbag guns and $3-$5 training rounds could have been bought and officers trained in their use with the money the city will spend defending against the wrongful death lawsuit the family will file. I guess the lesson here is that a cop can never do the right thing by everybody, and no situation he finds himself in is a textbook situation. So, you generally have a few seconds to assess the situation, consider possible courses of action, make a plan based on the information available to you (which won't be ALL the information available), and implement that plan while trying to maintain a balance between adhering to department policy and keeping your melon in one piece.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 3:57:55 PM EDT
Mattja, that was not an attack, it's just baton's are not always capable of being used to ward off the blows of a pipe. I came up on the PR24, awsome impact weapon. Takes ton's of training to keep current. We retired them years ago, and went to the ASP expandable baton. Our issue ASP is 21" long when fully extended. I, for one, am not going to stand there and let anybody whail away at me with a pipe. I have broken up fights in very simular circumstances several times. I have not had to use deadly force. Steel pipes, ball bats, knives, bike chains on a handle, hell even a Hoover upright. They, and any number of weapons can kill you. If possible I will command you to drop it. If you don't and are a direct threat to others or myself, I am justified in using deadly force. We had a fellow sergeant a few years ago try one of the trick shots. A woman had been shooting at her husband with a .38 revolver(Ms. Imbroglio?) She advanced on several officers who were behind concealment, not cover. The sgt. shot her in the arm after she refused to drop the pistol after repeated orders. After being hit in the forearm by a .40 165gr Hydrashok, she put the pistol under her arm and walked away. His actions left other deputy's vulnerable to return fire from her. She was later arrested with minor injuries. Point is, if deadly force is justified, you don't try the trick shots. You shoot center of mass till the threat ceases. Is this being judge, jury, executioner? Not at all. Apparently, from what little we know in this case, 1. the officer was there on a legitimate call. 2. there apparently was a deadly force issue. 3. apparently the officer gave lawful commands for the suspect to drop the weapon, he didn't so 4. the officer used deadly force as authorized by the department, state, and federal guidlines. The suspect had the ability to bring the situtation to a peaceful ending. He chose not to, so he is the one who brought it on himself. He was shot, according to the press, once. It would seem the officer acted prudently, and within the boundaries of the law. You can second guess till you are blue in the face, but it will not change the outcome of the legal proceedings.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 4:10:15 PM EDT
Anybody ever stay up late, drink four beers, a dose of nyquil, then try to impart wisdom on an AR-15.com thread? Wow, couldn't believe what I wrote, so I deleted it. I still believe, that deadly force should be a last resort. And given the above information, there seems to be so many ways that could've happened. The truth is, I wasn't there, and niether were any of you. An escalation of force is not always the best approach. Dragging the son out of there and diffusing the situation sounds like a more reasonable approach. Again, I wasn't there.
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 4:19:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/1/2001 5:54:48 PM EDT
I see the keyboard kommandoes are out again, telling us how they would have handled a situation that they have never or will never be in. STG-44, natez, shotar, I respect your collective patience and willingness to try to make people understand the dynamics of a given leathal threat scenario. I read about everyones prowess with weapons, ability to fight, and large amounts of wisdom possessed. If they can do the job so well, maybe they should. Would they be willing to sacrifce life and limb for some abstract conception of machismo? I doubt it. I'm 5-9 175 and have tried to tangle people 6-4 270. You know they always ended up in jail......and I always ended up broken up. Literally. I like to think I'm smarter now. No way would I attempt to disarm a man with a steel pipe with OC or an ASP. To those out there that think I should, kiss my ass.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top