[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Another use of force question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/27/2009 3:05:39 PM EDT
|
Subect is speeding, 72 in a 55. Pursuit is performed without lights or siren to the subject's house, approxamately 2 miles. On the patrol video the distance between the subject and pursuit vehicle is not within visual distance for all of the pursuit until pulling into the subject's driveway.
LEO enters drive and waits for subject to leave an out building he was seen leisurely walking into as the LEO pulled in. Subject leaves the outbuilding and asks the LEO why he is on his property pointing a gun at him. LEO screams at the subject to "Get on the ground or I will shoot your ass!" Subject replies, in a very calm voice, "Well don't be a pussy your whole life son, take the shot." LEO repeatedly screams at subject to get on the ground or he will shoot, subject calmly shows LEO he is unarmed and refuses to get on the ground while telling LEO to leave and return with a supervisor. He also repeatedly tells the LEO to take the shot in a laconic, matter of fact voice. At one point while waiting for backup to arrive, the subject chides the LEO for holding his Glock "gangsta" style. The subject is never aggressive or confrontational, nor is there evidence of fleeing. The question is, head shot or COM? This was a real incident and is the focus of numerous legal entanglements at present. For those who doubt this, please PM me and I will give you two LEO members here who can verify this story via PMs. |
|
Quoted:
Subect is speeding, 72 in a 55. Pursuit is performed without lights or siren to the subject's house, approxamately 2 miles. On the patrol video the distance between the subject and pursuit vehicle is not within visual distance for all of the pursuit until pulling into the subject's driveway. LEO enters drive and waits for subject to leave an out building he was seen leisurely walking into as the LEO pulled in. Subject leaves the outbuilding and asks the LEO why he is on his property pointing a gun at him. LEO screams at the subject to "Get on the ground or I will shoot your ass!" Subject replies. in a very calm voice, "Well don't be a pussy your whole life son, take the shot." LEO repeatedly screams at subject to get on the ground or he will shoot, subject calmly shows LEO he is unarmed and refuses to get on the ground while telling LEO to leave and return with a supervisor. He also repeatedly tells the LEO to take the shot in a laconic, matter of fact voice. At one point while waiting for backup to arrive, the subject chides the LEO for holding his Glock "gangsta" style. The subject is never aggressive or confrontational, nor is there evidence of fleeing. The question is, head shot or COM? This was a real incident and is the focus of numerous legal entanglements at present. For those who doubt this, please PM me and I will give you two LEO members here who can verify this story via PMs. First off, how can it be a "pursuit" if lights and sirens not activated? I would consider it following the vehicle not pursuing. If the officers vehicle is as far as you say, can the officer be absolutely sure the the man leaving said premises was the actual operator of the vehicle? Did the officer inform the "alleged" operator of the vehicle why the officer was on his property and the "alleged" operators offense(s)? definitely NOT a deadly force situation. Not even sure if the officer should have drawn his duty sidearm out of the holster at all? The three elements of "Jeopardy" was not there. The means or ability to do harm, the opportunity to do harm, and the intent to do harm. All in all, a very hinkey situation, IMHO. |
|
Quoted:
Subect is speeding, 72 in a 55. Pursuit is performed without lights or siren to the subject's house, approxamately 2 miles. On the patrol video the distance between the subject and pursuit vehicle is not within visual distance for all of the pursuit until pulling into the subject's driveway. LEO enters drive and waits for subject to leave an out building he was seen leisurely walking into as the LEO pulled in. Subject leaves the outbuilding and asks the LEO why he is on his property pointing a gun at him. LEO screams at the subject to "Get on the ground or I will shoot your ass!" Subject replies. in a very calm voice, "Well don't be a pussy your whole life son, take the shot." LEO repeatedly screams at subject to get on the ground or he will shoot, subject calmly shows LEO he is unarmed and refuses to get on the ground while telling LEO to leave and return with a supervisor. He also repeatedly tells the LEO to take the shot in a laconic, matter of fact voice. At one point while waiting for backup to arrive, the subject chides the LEO for holding his Glock "gangsta" style. The subject is never aggressive or confrontational, nor is there evidence of fleeing. The question is, head shot or COM? This was a real incident and is the focus of numerous legal entanglements at present. For those who doubt this, please PM me and I will give you two LEO members here who can verify this story via PMs. How is it even a pursuit at that point? How does the suspect even know the officer is trying to stop him? |
|
Quoted:
Interesting and well outside the human norm for these kinds of interactions. No source? Case number? I am curious to see the outcome. The case was dismissed by Superior Court judge earlier this year. The rest of the story is long and torturous, but after the subject was aprehended and placed in the back of the pursuing officer's patrol vehicle, the county Sheriff himself along with 6 deputies broke into the subject's house, then his truck, then his Corvette, then searched for two and half hours with numerous officers. After two and half hours the subject was brought into the residence, in cuffs, and and an investigator requested the subject to sign a consent to search form. The subject refused stating, "I ain't signing shit." The investigator said, "I'll just sign it for you." The subject replied, "I had no idea you could do that." At 10:35 PM, 8 hours after the traffic stop, an investigator sought a search warrant. He alleged numerous counts, including narcotics trafficking, posession of an SBR, and child pornography. The kiddie porn was due to a screen saver of a woman in her 20s naked in a bar. The SBR was a legally configured MP5. The narcotics were 2 legally posessed morphine pills still in the properly labeled prescription bottle that had the subject's name on it. In his dismissal of the case following the Jackson-Denno hearing, the judge noted that the investigator deliberately staged photos, that there was no evidence of narcotics trafficking, that there was no consent to search despite the investigator having written "suspect said "Let's go look." in the consent form's signature block, that the woman in the picture was clearly an adult, that they didn't seek a warrant until they hd been searching the house and cars for 7 and a half hours, that a complete copy of the warrant had not been left at the scene, and that the SBR was not an SBR until the Sheriff tampered with it himself at the scene and removed the barrel extension using tools found in the subject's home. The Sheriff admitted under oath and on the stand that the weapon was legal until he deliberately removed the extension. In his dismissal which was 5 pages long, the judge used words like "official misconduct", "warrantless", "evidence tampering", and "false swearing", all of which are felonies. Also worth of note: "Well don't be a pussy your whole life son, take the shot." Ahahaha
Noted by the court as being a statement that took "enormous balls". |
|
Quoted:
I think shooting him would be hard to justify considering he is passively resisting the officer. Actually he didn't resist. In fact he can be plainly seen on the video lifting his shirt to show he is unarmed, and then heard encouraging the deputy to arrest him. Again, all done in a calm fashion. |
|
Quoted:
First off, how can it be a "pursuit" if lights and sirens not activated? Good question. Also the deputy was radaring traffic from a hide, and that is illegal in the state of Georgia. I would consider it following the vehicle not pursuing.
The deputy claimed pursuit, and claimed he activated his lights. The video, the evil perp, and three bystanders say different though. If the officers vehicle is as far as you say, can the officer be absolutely sure the the man leaving said premises was the actual operator of the vehicle?
Good question. There are three other trucks exactly like that one in that small neighborhood. For the sake of argument, let's say he was the guy though. Did the officer inform the "alleged" operator of the vehicle why the officer was on his property and the "alleged" operators offense(s)?
After repeated requests from the subject, about 10 minutes into the video, the officer tells him 72 in a 55. definitely NOT a deadly force situation. Not even sure if the officer should have drawn his duty sidearm out of the holster at all? The three elements of "Jeopardy" was not there. The means or ability to do harm, the opportunity to do harm, and the intent to do harm. All in all, a very hinkey situation, IMHO.
And getting hinkier by the minute. The arresting deputy has a serious history of being badge heavy. He killed a woman on her porch because she wouldn't get on the ground when he told her to in an incident about 6 months after the incident in the OP. She was unarmed, but he "feared for his life". There were no witnesses, and an internal investigation cleared him of wrongdoing. The deputy has also pulled his gun on a teenaged boy over a routine traffic stop where the kid pulled over instantly, and he crippled an 85 year old man with his baton about a year ago after the man turned on his car in the summer heat to use the AC. Yeah, he is still here and on the road. |
|
Quoted:
How is it even a pursuit at that point? How does the suspect even know the officer is trying to stop him? Not only that, but he was never in visual range until the very end. Even if he had them on, there was no way to see them. The patrol vid speaks volumes. |
|
Quoted:
I don't even know where to begin on this one. And that sir, is eactly why I wanted to run it past you guys. BTW, the patrol vid has been show to a number of LEOs and civvies, and all said, spontaneously, "He never turned on his lights.". All of them were aghast at what went down in the vid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't even know where to begin on this one. And that sir, is eactly why I wanted to run it past you guys. BTW, the patrol vid has been show to a number of LEOs and civvies, and all said, spontaneously, "He never turned on his lights.". All of them were aghast at what went down in the vid. I would want to see the video before I even began to speculate. I'm not typically a fan of the Monday morning quarterback. I've been the Sunday quarterback too many times. |
|
Quoted:
I find it enlightening that not a single LEO here suggested de-escalation or wondered why the deputy did not consider that route. If I have a gun pointed at a suspect and he's telling me to shoot him that doesn't lend itself to de-escalation. That is, of course, assuming that the situation justified my having my gun out in the first place. The end of a legitimate pursuit would be one such occassion. My issue here is more about how he ended up pointing a gun at the suspect in the first place. A pursuit with no lights or siren, the search of the home without consent (or warrant or exigent circumstance), and baseless allegations of drug trafficking and possession of an illegal firearm are all far more serious than not de-escalating someone who is clearly confrontational. I'm not defending the Deputy's actions, but that guy was asking for trouble making comments like that. I always de-escalate if possible but the topic never occurred to me reading your post because of all the other issues with this case. |
|
Quoted:
Subect is speeding, 72 in a 55. Pursuit is performed without lights or siren to the subject's house, approxamately 2 miles. On the patrol video the distance between the subject and pursuit vehicle is not within visual distance for all of the pursuit until pulling into the subject's driveway. LEO enters drive and waits for subject to leave an out building he was seen leisurely walking into as the LEO pulled in. Subject leaves the outbuilding and asks the LEO why he is on his property pointing a gun at him. LEO screams at the subject to "Get on the ground or I will shoot your ass!" Subject replies, in a very calm voice, "Well don't be a pussy your whole life son, take the shot." LEO repeatedly screams at subject to get on the ground or he will shoot, subject calmly shows LEO he is unarmed and refuses to get on the ground while telling LEO to leave and return with a supervisor. He also repeatedly tells the LEO to take the shot in a laconic, matter of fact voice. At one point while waiting for backup to arrive, the subject chides the LEO for holding his Glock "gangsta" style. The subject is never aggressive or confrontational, nor is there evidence of fleeing. The question is, head shot or COM? This was a real incident and is the focus of numerous legal entanglements at present. For those who doubt this, please PM me and I will give you two LEO members here who can verify this story via PMs. PM inbound! |
|
Quoted:
I find it enlightening that not a single LEO here suggested de-escalation or wondered why the deputy did not consider that route. Your account is an obvious shitstorm of idiocy. We know you can't stuff shit back up your ass. There's nowhere to begin, no point in talking about it. It's morbidly fascinating, but I've got second thoughts about why you posted it. |
|
Quoted:
Subect is speeding, 72 in a 55. Pursuit is performed without lights or siren to the subject's house, approxamately 2 miles. On the patrol video the distance between the subject and pursuit vehicle is not within visual distance for all of the pursuit until pulling into the subject's driveway. LEO enters drive and waits for subject to leave an out building he was seen leisurely walking into as the LEO pulled in. Subject leaves the outbuilding and asks the LEO why he is on his property pointing a gun at him. LEO screams at the subject to "Get on the ground or I will shoot your ass!" Subject replies, in a very calm voice, "Well don't be a pussy your whole life son, take the shot." LEO repeatedly screams at subject to get on the ground or he will shoot, subject calmly shows LEO he is unarmed and refuses to get on the ground while telling LEO to leave and return with a supervisor. He also repeatedly tells the LEO to take the shot in a laconic, matter of fact voice. At one point while waiting for backup to arrive, the subject chides the LEO for holding his Glock "gangsta" style. The subject is never aggressive or confrontational, nor is there evidence of fleeing. The question is, head shot or COM? This was a real incident and is the focus of numerous legal entanglements at present. For those who doubt this, please PM me and I will give you two LEO members here who can verify this story via PMs. What is COM? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Subect is speeding, 72 in a 55. Pursuit is performed without lights or siren to the subject's house, approxamately 2 miles. On the patrol video the distance between the subject and pursuit vehicle is not within visual distance for all of the pursuit until pulling into the subject's driveway. LEO enters drive and waits for subject to leave an out building he was seen leisurely walking into as the LEO pulled in. Subject leaves the outbuilding and asks the LEO why he is on his property pointing a gun at him. LEO screams at the subject to "Get on the ground or I will shoot your ass!" Subject replies, in a very calm voice, "Well don't be a pussy your whole life son, take the shot." LEO repeatedly screams at subject to get on the ground or he will shoot, subject calmly shows LEO he is unarmed and refuses to get on the ground while telling LEO to leave and return with a supervisor. He also repeatedly tells the LEO to take the shot in a laconic, matter of fact voice. At one point while waiting for backup to arrive, the subject chides the LEO for holding his Glock "gangsta" style. The subject is never aggressive or confrontational, nor is there evidence of fleeing. The question is, head shot or COM? This was a real incident and is the focus of numerous legal entanglements at present. For those who doubt this, please PM me and I will give you two LEO members here who can verify this story via PMs. What is COM? Center of mass |
|
Quoted:
Your account is an obvious shitstorm of idiocy. We know you can't stuff shit back up your ass. There's nowhere to begin, no point in talking about it. It's morbidly fascinating, but I've got second thoughts about why you posted it. My my. 
Some have found the video enlightening, some have found it bizarre. None have found me to be either untruthful or posessed of an ulterior motive. Once this week's mail gets delivered two more will be able to see the DVD and make their own judgements, but you can do it in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. Amazing. |
|
Quoted:
Will we get the rest of the story with video and other evidence when this is completley settled? I am not disputing the story as written, I just want to see why the officer acted like he did. Sounds like a major asshole. Edited to add: You can have a copy of the video now if you like. PM me your physical address. Once this is done, most likely next month, anyone requesting copies of the dismissal, the as of now 3front page news stories, and any sworn testimony will get it at my expense. Guys, from start to finish this was an enormous frantic fuck up. There is a wealth of experience to be gained here on how to NOT conduct a stop, a protective sweep, a search, or how to swear out or serve a warrant. There are 6 guys who are going to be facing 42:1985 for a number of charges here shortly. There may be state charges as well. There is a lot of additional stuff here that I haven't addressed simply because it strains credulity. For instance, they stole a West German marked Sig 226, a bunch of Sig mags, a bunch of AR mags, camping gear, tactical gear, and the Trijicon Reflex II sight I had mounted on my MP5 with an ARMS #15. I can't prove any of it except the ARMS and Trijicon. The only reason I can prove that was that in one of the evidence photos they took a picture of it, but when the seal was broken on the evidence bag in court by the ADA, it was gone. Speaking of photos, nobody will admit to being the photographer. Why? They went and blatantly staged photos, and under GA criminal code 16-10-94 that is a felony. The photos were admittedly staged, and this was under oath by two LEOs. One investigator was fired last year for soliciting bribes. He took some of the pictures in my presence, but he also was acknowledged by a Superior Court judge as having LIED blatantly in his affadavit for the warrant in violation of 16-10-71. GBI won't take the charges. There are about 100 things here guys, and I promise to go over them fully and with substantiation after the suit is over. There are things here that will make your freakin heads spin. This is an educational opportunity, and an opportunity to avoid the coveted title of felon. |
|
Quoted:
Some have found the video enlightening, some have found it bizarre. None have found me to be either untruthful or posessed of an ulterior motive. Once this week's mail gets delivered two more will be able to see the DVD and make their own judgements, but you can do it in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. Amazing. I give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to story, and my comment did not impugn the story. Re-read my comment as "this is so screwed up there's nowhere to start". I do wonder why you introduce it before settlement and why the flippant tone in the original post. Just curious... are you counsel, plaintiff or affiliated with plaintiff? Or did you just think it was a hell of a train wreck to share? |
|
Quoted:
I give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to story, and my comment did not impugn the story. Re-read my comment as "this is so screwed up there's nowhere to start". Sorry. Tone is lost on the internet. I do wonder why you introduce it before settlement and why the flippant tone in the original post. No specifics, no way to lose, and I have a VERY dry sense of humor.
Just curious... are you counsel, plaintiff or affiliated with plaintiff? Or did you just think it was a hell of a train wreck to share?
I am involved, certainly. This is going to be an educational experienec that every single cop can use. There is so much bizarroland asinine failure associated with this case from start to finish that it will serve as an object lesson, and probably ought to be included in training classes. Every single guy n the road ought to take at least a cursory glance at this, because it will help them avoid trouble for themselves. |
|
Quoted:
I can't believe that no one else has asked this question, Tpalladium how are you related to this incident? You are obviously involved on one side or the other.... ETA: Because it affects your objectivity, that's why. Give it a few weeks. All the cylons will be revealed. In the meantime, let me know if you want a video. |
|
I would love to get this video......
If you have it and can release it to LE please let me know and you can send it to my dept address. This would make an excellent lineup discussion. I would bet good money that this LEO has less than a year on the job. He bluffed and got called on it. EDIT: Just read the rest of the post. Please send me everything you have on this.......everything. I in fact would like to speak to you as well. This type of crap blows my mind. I try every day to educate younger guys about "heavy-handedness" and the problems it causes. Thanks |
|
Quoted:
I would love to get this video...... If you have it and can release it to LE please let me know and you can send it to my dept address. This would make an excellent lineup discussion. I would bet good money that this LEO has less than a year on the job. He bluffed and got called on it. EDIT: Just read the rest of the post. Please send me everything you have on this.......everything. I in fact would like to speak to you as well. This type of crap blows my mind. I try every day to educate younger guys about "heavy-handedness" and the problems it causes. Thanks It appears that there were far greater problems in the dept than a single badge heavy officer - rookie or not. Fellow officers and/or shift supervisor SHOULD have stopped a badge heavy officer in his tracks before things went to complete shit. Brian |