# Police & Deadly Force



## jks9199 (Nov 9, 2009)

In response to some dispruption in on another thread, I thought it would be worthwile to discuss the issue of police and deadly force.  While I'm sure that there are a few cops out there -- just like there are a few soldiers who like to kill or surgeons who enjoy cutting on people -- most cops do not want to kill someone.  They don't wake up each day, go to work saying "I hope I can shoot a kid today..."

The use of deadly force is the most serious thing a cop (please realize that I'm including sheriff's, special agents, and any other LEO in this) will ever do.  Many cops leave the profession after a shooting; it effects them that powerfully.  We are held to a high standard regarding the use of deadly force -- but not one that says that we must sacrifice our lives before using deadly force.

Generally, a police officer may use deadly force to protect themselves or another from imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death.  Let's look at each part of that sentence.  What is deadly force?  Deadly force is that force which is likely to cause serious bodily harm (loss of limbs, major disfigurement, significant internal damage, etc.) or death.  Who can the police protect?  Either themselves, or another person.  With a few exceptions, deadly force is only justifiable when a PERSON is in danger.  What does "imminent threat" mean?  It has to appear likely that someone has means, motive, and opportunity to cause serious bodily harm -- but they don't have to be causing the harm at that moment.  (See Tennessee v Garner, among others.)

How is the use of force assessed?  In the light of the officer's situation.  It is a somewhat SUBJECTIVE assessment, recognizing that an officer in a use-of-force situation is in a complex, rapidly changing situation and must make decisions in that moment, rather than with the luxury of hindsight and calm deliberation.  (See _Graham v Connor_)  On top of the Supreme Court's guidance -- state laws and agency policies can be more restrictive.

In short, being a cop isn't a license to shoot anyone you want.  And most cops don't ever want to shoot someone -- but they accept that responsibility to do so in order to protect others and in order to return safely home to their families.  You might want to read Dave Grossman's piece On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs for insight into the mindset of many officers.


----------



## MJS (Nov 9, 2009)

I tip my hat to all LEOs for the job they do, as its one that is defintately not for everybody.  Every call they go on, no matter what it is, they are a potential target.  And yes, I doubt they get up and think "Yeah, I hope I can blow someones head off today!"  If they do, then IMO, they should not be on the street.

As far as thge deadly force issues go...well, I love these uneducated people that say, "Why didn't the cop use a taser, his OC, his empty hand skills, shoot the guy in the leg"  Its those people that are uneducated, because they're talking out their ***, IMO.  Sorry, when you're faced with a gun, a deadly force situation, you're not going to use OC and you're not going to hit their leg. Center mass.  Maybe a taser is an option, but not in every deadly force situation.  

The critics that complain, have probably never set foot in the life of a cop, so they should not offer up their .02, until they know what its like being on the other end of some nut with a gun, who wants to shoot them.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 9, 2009)

I could not find info on the shooting i talked about in the other thread, however i did find info on the other shooting mentioned therein:

*Family files wrongful death suit in 2000 Levelland police shooting *



The family of a man killed by Levelland police two years ago has filed a federal civil rights and wrongful death suit against the city, police and the Department of Public Safety. 
David Rodriguez, 19, died April 17, 2000, one day after he was shot in the head during a police chase in Levelland. 
The suit  filed on behalf of Rodriguez's parents, wife and his 3- and 4-year-old sons  accuses police of excessive force "committed maliciously, intentionally and sadistically for the very purpose of punishing and causing injury to David Rodriguez." 
Named as defendants are the city of Levelland, the Levelland Police Department, Police Chief Ted Holder, former officers Rick Wooten and Fred Gonzales and the DPS. 
According to police reports, the DPS started following Rodriguez's car at 12:05 a.m. April 16, when he sped through a stop sign at College Avenue in Levelland. 
Rodriguez refused to stop, and the trooper yielded the chase to Wooten. Gonzales, a reserve officer, was a passenger in Wooten's car. 
*The chase lasted four minutes, according to police records, and Wooten and Gonzales fired 16 shots*. 
According to the Texas Rangers, who investigated the shooting for Levelland police, Gonzales fired the fatal shot unintentionally. Gonzales was shooting at Rodriguez's tires and pulled his arm inside the window as the two vehicles collided, causing his gun to fire. 
A grand jury cleared the officers of any wrongdoing. 
The lawsuit says the officers' actions were unreasonable under the circumstances and accused police of covering up law enforcement misconduct. 
"In light of the fact that David Rodriguez was merely being detained for what is alleged to be a moving violation, it is initially absurd that defendants would deem deadly force was warranted and/or required," the suit says. 
The suit seeks unspecified damages for Rodriguez's parents, Bernardo Lopez-Rodriguez and Maria Magdelana Rodriguez; his wife, Susie Resendez; his two sons, David Jr. and Don Leon Rodriguez; and his estate. 
Christopher Gale, a San Antonio attorney representing Rodriguez's family, said their goals for the suit go beyond money. 
"For the family, if they can accomplish anything ... they want to prevent this from ever happening again. That's their driving concern," Gale said. 
"*The guy ran a stop sign and was shot dead. That should raise the community's concerns. That should not be happening.* I don't know why that happened, but we will find out." 
City Manager Greg Ingham referred questions to George Thompson, a Lubbock attorney representing the city. Wooten is now an investigator for the Hockley County District Attorney's Office, and Gonzales is a South Plains College police officer.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 9, 2009)

*A few other examples:*

*Cornelius Ware:* A 20-year-old man who was shot and killed in a car during a traffic stop. The police claimed that the shooting was justified because Mr. Ware allegedly pointed a gun at them, but the eyewitnesses denied seeing a gun. There was a gun recovered in the car, but we proved at a jury trial in February 2007 that the gun was planted by the police. After the jury found against the police officers, the case was resolved for $5.25 million.

*Michael Russell*: Our client was shot and killed in Cabrini Green by a Chicago police officer who insisted that Mr. Russell was shooting at a rival gang member at the time. The jury credited the testimony of two admitted gang members over that of the Chicago police officers, and awarded Mr. Russell's family $1.5 million in damages.

*Devon Nelson*: Mr. Nelson was shot and killed in the back as he ran away from a Harvey police officer. Shortly after the shooting, a 13-year-old girl witnessed the police approach Mr. Nelson's body and drop a gun on the ground, falsely claiming that it had belonged to Mr. Nelson. The case settled favorably to Mr. Nelson for a confidential sum.

*Archie Robinson*: Shot in the buttocks by a Harvey police officer who then accused Mr. Robinson of pointing a gun at him. Two juries (at a trial and then a retrial) credited Mr. Robinson's testimony that the gun had actually been planted by the police, and he was awarded $300,000 in damages. The City of Harvey was also found independently liable on a Monell "policy and practice" claim for failing to investigate and punish prior police abuses, thereby encouraging the sort of evidence planting that happened here.

*Michael Walker:* Our client was shot and killed in Cabrini Green by a police officer who claimed that Mr. Walker was grabbing his gun. The forensic evidence was disputed, and a nearby witness denied certain parts of the police account. The case recently settled for $400,000.

*Demetri Centura:* We presently represent a young man who was shot and killed by an off-duty Chicago police officer. After getting into a bar fight with the driver of the vehicle in which Mr. Centura was driving, the officer pulled up alongside them in his Hummer and fired nine times, killing both civilians. 

*Michael Dunbar:* was shot and killed by police officers without justification during a traffic stop. The police are falsely contending that Mr. Dunbar "dragged" a police officer. The case is pending before Judge Conlon.


*William Samuels*: Senior citizen mistakenly shot in the groin by a police officer who entered Samuels' apartment and fired a gun at Samuels' dog. 

*Lataya Edwards*: Ms. Edwards was shot by the police several times from behind as the car in which she was an innocent passenger drove away from a group of Chicago police officers. The City has since changed its policy to prohibit its officers from firing at fleeing cars. The case was settled favorably to Ms. Edwards.

*Dellace Holton*: Mr. Holton was shot in the back and buttocks as he lay prone in an automobile. Although he is presently incarcerated on charges that he endangered the lives of police officers, the physical evidence and our expert witnesses will prove the police are lying about what happened. Our civil suit is presently pending in Rockford.
Contact us today to discuss your civil rights if you were unjustifiably shot by the police.


----------



## Carol (Nov 9, 2009)

The officers were not shooting Rodriguez because he ran a stop sign.  They saw the car driving erratically and not stopping, which put other drivers on the highway at risk.   

The officers shot at the tires of the car to stop it, which resulted in the driver of the car unintentionally being shot.

The officers were cleared of any wrongdoing, as was the town.


http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/071803/reg_071803068.shtml

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/042500/loc_042500030.shtml

http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\C05\2004\20040603_0001418.C05.htm/qx


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 9, 2009)

The article states that the officer accidentally shot during a vehicle collision and then says that it was an "intentional and malicious" execution intended as punishment. 

Which is it?

We cannot fire at a moving vehicle here unless it is a DIRE emergency. I don't know what the accepted policies in Texas are.

Don't confuse the allegations in a civil suit with those of a criminal prosecution.

The "HE WAS SHOT FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN" is the typical erroneous misdirection used in these situations. This was NOT a case of "look he ran a stop sign lets shoot him" and everybody knows it. Was it a justified use of force (shooting at the tires followed by an accidental shot during a collision)?? Maybe...maybe not. If not then let the proper discipline be applied. People with an agenda always seem to want to portray these incidents as if the cops dragged a guy out of a car and executed him with a head-shot while cuffed...99% of these cases are not that cut and dry.


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 9, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> *The chase lasted four minutes, according to police records, and Wooten and Gonzales fired 16 shots*.
> According to the Texas Rangers, who investigated the shooting for Levelland police, Gonzales fired the fatal shot unintentionally. Gonzales was shooting at Rodriguez's tires and pulled his arm inside the window as the two vehicles collided, causing his gun to fire.
> A grand jury cleared the officers of any wrongdoing.



Well, it is not exactly safe to run a stop sign.  Point saying, a person who is fleeing in a vehicle often take very little regard of the possibility of injuring others up the road (or wherever the car is going).

While I would hesitate to second guess the actions of police officers, they are often very cognizant of the fact there are other people possibly in the way of the fleeing vehicle.  This is most likely the reason why the reserve officer tried shooting out the tires, not just to stop the vehicle, but also to avoid more harm up ahead.  

As to your short excerpts of LEOs shooting their suspects, this only shows that it is part of the nature of their duties.  It is not to say that they have to shoot, but often it is a result of their perception that they felt it was necessary.   Your excerpts do not give enough information (the full stories) to say whether or not any of them are justified.  What the list does show is that there are always some bad apples in every profession.  Not all shootings mean that every LEO "wants" to shoot or is evil for the decision to shoot.

Care should be taken not to take a brush too broadly over every LEO's behavior.  There are many more good ones out there than bad ones.

- Ceicei


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 9, 2009)

Now please don't get me wrong. I fully aknowledge that most LEOs are honorable protectors, who risk their lives for us on a daily basis, and deserve all the respect that they have earned. However, there are the bad apples who kill innocents (intentionally or otherwise) who should not be in a position of authority. 

In the previous thread, I was disrespectfull to some LEOs that I do not know, and basically got out of line. For that I appologized, as those LEOs did nothing (that I am aware of) to merit that disrespect.

I merely wished to point out that, while we all have the right to defend our lives and our famillies, those in a position of authority have the burden of responsibillity, and must excersise implicit judgement in the line of duty, and otherwise, to avoid taking life when it is not neccesary.

Once again, I appologize to all I offended.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 9, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> Contact us today to discuss your civil rights if you were unjustifiably shot by the police.



It's worth noting who provided the cases listed:
Loevy & Loevy, Civil Rights Law Firm.

They're based in Chicago, and clearly a lot of their business comes from suits against the Chicago PD.  That just might taint some of what they say...

Cabrini-Green in Chicago is worthy of a topic all its own when discussing police and community relations.  After all, how many other high rises have been fortified to attack responding police?  Today, it's been largely torn down.

The simple fact is that any police use of force, and most especially a lethal force incident, is complex.  A lot is happening in a very short time.  I've never said everyone was handled perfectly.  Or that there were no bad shootings.  But the vast majority of them, despite public perception, are clean and justified -- no matter how ugly.  For example, a deaf kid walking with a gun, refusing commands to stop.  It's easy in hindsight to realize that he wasn't refusing to obey -- he wasn't hearing them.  But in that moment?  All the cops know is they've got a guy, who appears to be armed, who isn't doing what he's told...  How long do they have to wait?  Ask Kyle Dinkheller.  That's how fast a situation can change.  

Some people ask about shooting to wound or warning shots...  I'll handle the warning shots first, because it's simplest.  A cop is responsible for every round he fires; where is that bullet fired as a warning shot going to go?  Shooting to wound or shooting the gun out their hands isn't much more complex.  The simple reality is that under the pressure of a life or death situation, fine motor control goes down.  So shooting to wound may well be physically impossible.  Even if that weren't a factor -- cops shoot to stop an immediate threat.  They don't shoot to kill; they shoot to end the threat.  What wound will guarantee that a threat ends?  The best odds to do this are shots that do significant injury...  And, even if a cop shot to wound -- what's to say they won't inflict a fatal injury anyhow, as the guy bleeds out from a shot in the leg that hit the femoral artery, for example?

The case you provided the most information on involved shooting at a moving vehicle; in my area, you'd better have a really strong reason for doing this.  We don't shoot the tires out of cars.  (Personal opinion -- it's not likely to stop a chase anyway.)  Even then -- why didn't the kid stop?  How many people did he endanger by running from the cops?  Wouldn't the situation have been completely avoided had he simply obeyed the law and stopped for the police?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 9, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> Now please don't get me wrong. I fully aknowledge that most LEOs are honorable protectors, who risk their lives for us on a daily basis, and deserve all the respect that they have earned. However, there are the bad apples who kill innocents (intentionally or otherwise) who should not be in a position of authority.
> 
> In the previous thread, I was disrespectfull to some LEOs that I do not know, and basically got out of line. For that I appologized, as those LEOs did nothing (that I am aware of) to merit that disrespect.
> 
> ...


Let me make a suggestion to you.  You list that you live in Houston, Texas.  There is a Citizen's Police Academy available to you.  Take advantage of it; many provide a chance to go through a firearms simulator and some scenarios during the program.  Citizen's Academies are set up as a chance to learn about the police department and the cop's job; they're an effort to reduce the wall of mystery between the public and police, and to debunk some of the myths about law enforcement.  Many agencies have them today -- even the FBI!  Most meet one night a week for a couple of hours over several weeks.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 9, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> why didn't the kid stop? How many people did he endanger by running from the cops? Wouldn't the situation have been completely avoided had he simply obeyed the law and stopped for the police?


 

-obviosly, he didn't want to get arrested.

-at 12:05 am in levelland, tx, the chances anyone was on the streets besides the victim and the pursuing officers is very small to nill.

-and yes, had he pulled over he wouldn't have been shot.
but why were they shooting in the first place? i'm pretty sure that's not SOP for traffic violations.

post script: i don't mean to be argumentative here. just trying to anwer these questions.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 9, 2009)

Was it SOP for terminating a car chase?

You are using the same "they shot him for running a stop sign" fallacy. SOP for a traffic violation is that I hit the lights and YOU stop. When you tear off and refuse to stop you have crossed the line into a whole other arena.


----------



## MJS (Nov 9, 2009)

IMO, shooting at the tires, is no different than those people that suggest shooting the legs.  Sorry...way too small of a target.  Perhaps stop sticks would have been a better option.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Was it SOP for terminating a car chase?
> 
> You are using the same "they shot him for running a stop sign" fallacy. SOP for a traffic violation is that I hit the lights and YOU stop. When you tear off and refuse to stop you have crossed the line into a whole other arena.


 
I'm sorry. I still don't see the justification in shooting at the kid. How about a roadblock? or spike strips? or... i don't know... something that doesn't involve people getting shot in the head...


----------



## MJS (Nov 9, 2009)

Why does the Chris Rock clip flash thru my head right about now. LOL!  I agree with what Arch and the others are saying....pull the **** over!  99% of the time, these jerks bring the problems on themselves.  Case in point...last week, a guy crashes with another car, but instead of stopping, he takes off.  The cops got there pretty quick, as they were already in the area on a non related call.  1 cop stops at the crash, while another takes off after the other car.  Car crashes, gets hung up on a curb on the highway.  Tries to shake the car lose and hit the cops, but that fails.  He locks the doors, which forces the cops to force their way in.  K9 goes in the rear door, and latches onto the shoulder of the scumbag.  He gets out, finally.  Now, you'd think that he'd stop.  Noooo...he continues to fight.  

Why did he run?  Well aside from the obvious, him being a 1st class piece of ****, he had drugs in the car.  So, instead of a few charges, he gets a laundry list added on.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 10, 2009)

so by that logic, if i don't do what you say, when you say it, you are justified in killing me?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 10, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> I'm sorry. I still don't see the justification in shooting at the kid. How about a roadblock? or spike strips? or... i don't know... something that doesn't involve people getting shot in the head...


It was, apparently, a tactic within their general orders and within Texas law.  Whether it meets an objective reasonableness test is a different question.

You're pushing the entirety of the blame onto the police while ignoring the root issue:  HE WAS ACTIVELY DISOBEYING MULTIPLE LAWS and he was putting people (at least 3 cops from the article you posted, as well as himself, and anyone else who happened to be on the road) at serious risk.

With that said -- there is a reason that cops in my area are not permitted to shoot at vehicles except under dire circumstances.  A couple of years ago, an officer working an off-duty gig at a restaurant attempted to detain several teens for skipping on their check.  When they refused to stop, and (depending on whose account you buy) swerved towards him in their car, he fired on the car, killing an occupant.  (http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/08399/ihop-wrongful-death.html)  

Here's another example about how some of these cases can happen: In 2006, the Fairfax County PD went to arrest Salvadore Culosi for illegal gambling.  As they went to conduct the stop, an officer's arm was jostled, causing him to reflexively fire, hitting Culosi in the chest, killing him on the spot.  While civil suits are still proceeding as far as I know, the FCPD released a lengthy public report which details much of the case.

The bottom line is simple:  police are not perfect.  But most do their best to do the right thing, and to use only the force which is appropriate.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 10, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> I'm sorry. I still don't see the justification in shooting at the kid. How about a roadblock? or spike strips? or... i don't know... something that doesn't involve people getting shot in the head...



Again...how do you come to the conclusion that they were "shooting at the kid"? The kid GETTING shot is not in question. HOW he got shot is. You seem to be following along with the "THEY SHOT HIM FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN" crowd. There were shots fired..the person was struck.. that is verifiable. HOW it happened and the intent of the person pulling the trigger are the issue here. None of us have any information to know that...but the local courts clearing the officer of criminal charges says something IMO.

By all accounts they were shooting at the tires. THAT is wide open for debate and something I would not be allowed to do nor would I have done in that circumstance. We do not know if it was against policy in the dept. we are discussing.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 10, 2009)

"Again...how do you come to the conclusion that they were "shooting at the kid"? The kid GETTING shot is not in question. HOW he got shot is. You seem to be following along with the "THEY SHOT HIM FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN" crowd. There were shots fired..the person was struck.. that is verifiable. HOW it happened and the intent of the person pulling the trigger are the issue here. None of us have any information to know that...but the local courts clearing the officer of criminal charges says something IMO.

By all accounts they were shooting at the tires. THAT is wide open for debate and something I would not be allowed to do nor would I have done in that circumstance. We do not know if it was against policy in the dept. we are discussing"
__________________



again, i'm sorry, but if the police had not been shooting, no one would have been shot. bottom line.


----------



## Carol (Nov 10, 2009)

Laws wouldn't have been broken, motorists wouldn't have been endangered, guns wouldn't have been drawn, and the perp would have a very different future today if he had simply pulled over for the officer.  Bottom line.


----------



## MJS (Nov 10, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> so by that logic, if i don't do what you say, when you say it, you are justified in killing me?


 
Are you talking about my post?  If so, please show me where I said that.  Also, please do not twist my words to suit your needs.  My point was simple....99% of the time, the badguys bring on the headaches themselves.  If you read my other posts, I also said that I didn't think that shooting the tires was the best option, compared to the stop sticks.  You did see that post didn't you?  

As far as not doing what the cop says...well, I applied this same idea when I worked for Corrections.  I'd nicely ask someone to do something.  They had 2 options....1) do it or 2) not do it.  However, I made it very clear that it would be in their best interest to do option 1, because one way or another, that is what they'd end up doing, either the easy way or the hard way.  If they failed to comply, I'd simply call for assistance, and we'd make them comply.

As far as the deadly force issue goes....if the cop is faced with it, then yes, he has the right to use it.  I'm not saying that all cops are bad, that there aren't ones who abuse their power, because there are ones that do that.  

The people who cry foul, the ones that say the cops abused the suspect, are the clueless ones that make me laugh.  If the cop is going to cuff someone, he tells them to put their hands behind their back.  They do it or they dont, but either way, they're gonna be cuffed.  If they fight and it takes 4 cops to bring them down, and put their hands behind for them, then so be it.  But the armchair QBers, should keep quiet, because I doubt they have a better answer.  Maybe if the BG didn't resist and just complied, maybe if that guy didn't race away from the cops, he wouldn't have ended up getting bit.  From what I hear he ended up with a number of dog bites.


----------



## MJS (Nov 10, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> "Again...how do you come to the conclusion that they were "shooting at the kid"? The kid GETTING shot is not in question. HOW he got shot is. You seem to be following along with the "THEY SHOT HIM FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN" crowd. There were shots fired..the person was struck.. that is verifiable. HOW it happened and the intent of the person pulling the trigger are the issue here. None of us have any information to know that...but the local courts clearing the officer of criminal charges says something IMO.
> 
> By all accounts they were shooting at the tires. THAT is wide open for debate and something I would not be allowed to do nor would I have done in that circumstance. We do not know if it was against policy in the dept. we are discussing"
> __________________
> ...


 
Then please post the SOPs for the dept in question regarding use of force and when they can/can't shoot.  

IMO, you seem to be following the footsteps of a few past members here, ones that a) had a bad experience with the police, so you harbor a grudge, b) hate cops and look for every excuse to bash them, c) do not want to see someone elses point of view.

And maybe, if the ******* behind the wheel just stopped, none of this would be happening in the first place.  Bottom line!!!!!!  I find it interesting how you keep blaming the cops, but the actions of the BG seem to go unnoticed.  Hmmm......


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 10, 2009)

Im not even going to get into the "so if I don't do what you say you can kill me" crap (again...). Everybody knows thats not the fact, and I get tired of repeating the same police related debates here. 

The bottom line is..no not doing what I say isn't cause to use deadly force, but WHAT exactly do you think the result is going to be? "Oh he doesn't want to be arrested...oh well perhaps another day"??

The moment a "I really respect the cops...I really do" poster becomes the person who constantly posts "killer cop" threads and lists of police shootings, my "not again" sensor goes off.

I mean...does anybody here NOT know that cops need to be judicious in their use of force? Is anybody truly shocked that there are indeed some bad cops out there? Does anybody really think that us cops really think we can just shoot somebody for not "doing as we say"?? Really? Do these posters really believe that they are teaching us all a lesson that we have never thought of or heard before?


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 10, 2009)

:asian:





MJS said:


> Then please post the SOPs for the dept in question regarding use of force and when they can/can't shoot.
> 
> IMO, you seem to be following the footsteps of a few past members here, ones that a) had a bad experience with the police, so you harbor a grudge, b) hate cops and look for every excuse to bash them, c) do not want to see someone elses point of view.
> 
> And maybe, if the ******* behind the wheel just stopped, none of this would be happening in the first place. Bottom line!!!!!! I find it interesting how you keep blaming the cops, but the actions of the BG seem to go unnoticed. Hmmm......


 
in this case, i do blame the cops, because they killed a kid who didn't deserve to be killed. 

i do not hate cops, but i do have a problem with the corupt, trigger happy ones, who can justify anything to themselves.

***you guys don't seem to want to see anyone else's point of view either. only your own.***

this thread has somehow turned into LEOs vs me, and it's clear to me now that this entire conversation has been pointless, as i am only an "armchair qb", who "should keep quiet". alright. you got it. i'm done with this post. no one here can hear what i'm saying anyway.

I honestly respect what everyone has said, even though i may not agree with it, and i wish all the police officers here safety and happiness in their jobs, and their lives. again, if i have offended, i appologize, and i hope that you will not think badly of me based on my opinions and experiences.:asian:


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 10, 2009)

So, he didn't do anything but run a stop sign huh?...really?

(Don't ya just love Google?...hell, I was bored) 



> The chase began when Rodriguez ran a stop sign and refused to stop for a Department of Public Safety trooper. *During the chase, Rodriguez can be seen on a DPS videotape ramming a Levelland police car at least twice.*
> 
> 
> The Rangers' report says the fatal shot occurred when reserve Officer Fred Gonzales was shooting at Rodriguez's tires. Gonzales had his arm outside the police car's passenger-side window while another officer drove. As Rodriguez swerved to strike the police car, Gonzales pulled his arm back, and the impact of the collision caused the gun to fire, striking Rodriguez above his left ear, the report stated.
> ...


http://www.avalanchejournal.com/stories/051600/loc_051600035.shtml



> [FONT=arial,sans-serif]The chase lasted four minutes, according to police records, during which time Rodriguez's car rammed a police patrol car at least twice and Wooten and Gonzales fired 16 shots.[/FONT]
> [FONT=arial,sans-serif]According to the Texas Rangers, who investigated the shooting for Levelland police, Gonzales fired the fatal shot unintentionally. Gonzales was shooting at Rodriguez's tires and pulled his arm inside the window as the two vehicles collided, causing his gun to fire, the Rangers concluded.[/FONT]
> [FONT=arial,sans-serif]
> [/FONT]


http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/071803/reg_071803068.shtml[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

The wording in the second article I cited is close enough to the segment you originally posted that it appears to me that you may have left out some of the damning details of Rodriguez's actions.

From reading these two articles, it sounds like they opened fire after he started ramming their car or attempting to force them off the road.  
Now, I don't personally think that shooting at tires is an effective method of stopping a car.  I've seen a tire shot with a handgun and it takes quite a while for the tire to flatten.  Shooting through the rim with a rifle is a little more effective in terms of the rate of air loss.  Furthermore, I've talked to/heard from guys who have done quite a bit of shooting at vehicles (roadblocks in Iraq) and the consensus is that if you want to stop a car by shooting at it, aim for the driver.  Why?  Because even with flat tires or rounds through critical engine components, the car can still be driven quite a ways.

It sounds like the fatal shot was unintentional.  Was it unfortunate that the guy died?  Sure, I guess...  However, he was the one that precipitated the situation and was, apparently, deliberately engaged in actions that posed a serious risk to the officers who were trying to apprehend them.  Make no mistake about it, a vehicle is a deadly weapon when used with that intent.  If the news stories are accurate and he was actively trying to ram them, they were perfectly within their rights to shoot him.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 10, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Laws wouldn't have been broken, motorists wouldn't have been endangered, guns wouldn't have been drawn, and the perp would have a very different future today if he had simply pulled over for the officer. Bottom line.


The above post is very true, and my sentiments exactly. Also, it was said in earlier posts, that LEO don't start their day saying to themselves, hopefully I can draw down on someone today, and take a life. More over most officers think, today, I need and want to stay safe, and return home to my loved ones after my shift. My suggestion would be, don't raise red flags when interacting with LEO. Red flags can be raised by our actions and our attitude along with our verbal actions. Once a red flag goes up, we start down a slippery slope. Kind, courteous, and respectful, is the order of the day, when dealing with anyone, even LEO.


----------



## MJS (Nov 10, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> :asian:
> 
> in this case, i do blame the cops, because they killed a kid who didn't deserve to be killed.


 
And while I agree with that, you seem to be forgetting one very important thing....if this kid stopped, none of this would have happened.  I also said, which you're either not seeing, or intentionally avoiding, the parts when I said, a) that if you're questioning the policies and procedures sooo much, please post them so we can see exactly what they are and if anything was violated, b) that stop sticks probably should have been used, c) that you continue to avoid the comment that I've said, which is, that you're failing to see any other view except the one from the badguys point of view.  



> i do not hate cops, but i do have a problem with the corupt, trigger happy ones, who can justify anything to themselves.


 
Have you been reading anything I or anyone else is saying?  Because it sure as hell seems like you're not.  Once again, I've said that I agree that not all cops are sqweeky clean.  

*



			*
		
Click to expand...

*


> you guys don't seem to want to see anyone else's point of view either. only your own.***




Right back at ya pal. 



> this thread has somehow turned into LEOs vs me, and it's clear to me now that this entire conversation has been pointless, as i am only an "armchair qb", who "should keep quiet". alright. you got it. i'm done with this post. no one here can hear what i'm saying anyway.


 
If you actually were reading what we were saying, instead of twisting our words around, maybe you'd have a clue here.  Fact is, you are only looking at this from one side, that side being from the bagguys eyes.  You harp and harp that the cops shouldn't have killed the kid, and while I do agree that it was tragic, it could have been avoided, IF HE STOPPED!!!  From the beginning, your posts have been anti cop, which if you actually read the rules, of not only the forum but of this section, you'd see that the bashing is not allowed.  Go, stay, whatever dude.  Fact is, I'm not the only one who's saying that you're only seeing this as, "Ohhh poor poor bad guy."  You and I listed other options, ie: stop sticks, but unless you know the rules and regulations, the pursuit policy, use of force policy, yes you are doing nothing but armchair QBing this thread.



> I honestly respect what everyone has said, even though i may not agree with it, and i wish all the police officers here safety and happiness in their jobs, and their lives. again, if i have offended, i appologize, and i hope that you will not think badly of me based on my opinions and experiences.:asian:


 
Do you really?  Looking at your posts, I'm inclined to say I beg to differ, but anyways.....

the problem is that it appears that you're not willing to look at this any other way, other than harping on what Arch said.  You're looking at it 1 way and 1 way only.


----------



## MJS (Nov 10, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> So, he didn't do anything but run a stop sign huh?...really?
> 
> (Don't ya just love Google?...hell, I was bored)
> 
> ...


 
Well, well, well...look what we have here!   Very interesting.  And yes, this is the reason why I put little faith in only one article.  See, here we have more info, info that explains more, why the cops did what they did.  We have people crying foul at the cops, because they assumed the kid just ran the stop sign, now we have this.  Very interesting.  

As for shooting the driver not the car...yes, there've been a few cases in CT in which the cop did the same thing...shot at the driver, not the car.  The driver is using the car as a deadly force weapon.  

Nice articles.  Thanks for posting this.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 10, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> :asian:
> 
> in this case, i do blame the cops, because they killed a kid who didn't deserve to be killed.
> 
> ...


I hear what you're saying.  The death of that kid was a tragedy -- and it was partly the result of the police action.  It was at least equally the result of HIS choice to flee.  Would you be as upset over his death if he'd gone too fast into a curve while fleeing, and crashed, killing himself?  The situation isn't that different -- only the mechanism.

Do you hear what we're saying?  That police use of deadly force is not something that is taken lightly, and that few cops want to kill someone?  I'll tell you -- the "I respect you but..." has a rings a lot like the "some of my best friends are... but I wouldn't want one to date my sister" argument.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 10, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> No, again...if the kid had not been committing a felony he wouldn't have been accidently been shot when his car ran into the police vehicle.  Again, that is the fallacy that news wants to portray.  It INITIALLY started as a traffic violation (running the stop sign) when he CHOSE to run from the police in his motor vehicle he now changed the situation to that of a felony crime in progress.
> 
> Why second guess what COULD have been done by the police?  How do we know they had stop sticks, were the officers there certified to use them?  Were they certified or within policy to do a PIT maneuver on the car to stop it?  Were they within policy to shoot out the tires?
> 
> It's easy to quarterback after the fact and say what could have been done differently, but if they were within their policy then they didn't do anything legally wrong.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 10, 2009)

wow. you guys are really something. you have effectivly proven that there can be no discussion with your kind, and any attempts for rational discussion are futile. :deadhorse whatever respect i have for you has been significantly diminished by the posts in this thread. i had other thoughts and points to make, but they would only fall on deaf ears, so i choose not to associate with you, or those like you any longer.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 10, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> wow. you guys are really something. you have effectivly proven that there can be no discussion with your kind, and any attempts for rational discussion are futile. :deadhorse whatever respect i have for you has been significantly diminished by the posts in this thread. i had other thoughts and points to make, but they would only fall on deaf ears, so i choose not to associate with you, or those like you any longer.



Color me not surprised. It looks like most people here saw the true intent behind all the words from the get-go.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 10, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> wow. you guys are really something. you have effectivly proven that there can be no discussion with your kind, and any attempts for rational discussion are futile. :deadhorse whatever respect i have for you has been significantly diminished by the posts in this thread. i had other thoughts and points to make, but they would only fall on deaf ears, so i choose not to associate with you, or those like you any longer.


First -- people have listened to you.  They simply haven't fallen into the trap of simplifying the events that you have.  You see "kid ran from the cops and got shot."  We see "kid ran from the cops, tried to run the cops off the road, and the cops tried to stop him by shooting the tires out, and tragically ended up shooting the kid unintentionally."  Very similar -- but a very significant difference, too.  It's kind of like the scene in one of the Pink Panther movies where Clouseau asks a man if his dog bites, and the man says "no."  Clouseau proceeds to pet the dog, and get bit.  He asks the man, "I thought you said your dog did not bite" and the man answers "That is not my dog."
[yt]SXn2QVipK2o[/yt]

You're skipping a few key details in your rush to find the cops to be vicious killers.

But this one single case was not what I was intending in starting this thread, anyway.  I was hoping to enlighten people who have learned what cops are like from movies like *Training Day*, *The Lethal Weapon*, *Dirty Harry*, and other similar sources about the real truth of lethal force issues in law enforcement.  There are simply tons of misunderstandings, misconceptions, and misperceptions about the issue...

But, then, sometimes, talking to people is like trapping a raccoon.  One way to trap a raccoon is to put some bait in a knot hole, with a couple of nails angled so that the raccoon can't pull it's closed hand out of the hole...  The raccoon will grab the bait, and be stuck simply because it won't open it's hand.  And some people are so fixed on their ideas that they won't hear anything else.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2009)

There's probably no one on this site who will take bad cops to task more than me here. I've posted countless bad cop articles and clips, from cops harassing law abiding protesters and issuing illegal orders to photographers to delete photos, to clips of questionable take downs and outright assaults by them. There is NO excuse for cops who cross those lines and violate their oaths, uniforms and the public trust.

That said, people bear the responsibility for the results of their actions.  Run from police, force an escalation, and you will end up hurt and possibly dead.  People have been killed because they -CHOOSE- to run from a minor traffic stop, or because they saw a cop across the street.  

"Rodriguez refused to stop,"  Why?  what was he hiding? Every MV law I've read states "you stop for cop, you show id, you take breath test if asked"  It's a damn shame he was shot and killed, however if he had 
#1 first of all not run the stop sign there'd have been no reason for the cops to order him to pull over. 
Second, if he had complied with their lawful order, they wouldn't have had to try to stop him.

He had 3 chances to do the right thing that could have saved his life.

You want to look at bad cop cases like the NYC cops who sodomized a prisoner, or the Iowa (??) cop who jammed a taser up a guys ***, or the cop who executed a guy at a subway stop, those threads are in the Study I believe. I'm happy to see them examined with credible info and facts brought up.

Some loser whose own stupidity got him offed by a chance shot, doesn't interest me.


----------



## MJS (Nov 11, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> wow. you guys are really something. you have effectivly proven that there can be no discussion with your kind, and any attempts for rational discussion are futile. :deadhorse whatever respect i have for you has been significantly diminished by the posts in this thread. i had other thoughts and points to make, but they would only fall on deaf ears, so i choose not to associate with you, or those like you any longer.


 
Dude, I dont know what you're talking about, but you are the one thats not reading...anything!  YOU are the one who is the only bleeding heart, who doesnt want to see ANYTHING that the badguys do.  You instead, just harp on how wrong, supposedly the cops are.

I and others, have pointed out, which you FAIL to see, that while there may have been other options, until you know what those options are, dont say they were wrong.  Did you research the SOPs for that PD?  Probably not!  So until you know if they were wrong or right, stop flapping that the cops are the badguys.  I find it VERY interesting that you see nothing wrong with the scumbag punk kid fleeing, driving like an *******, and endangering the lives of others that may have been on the road.  You see nothing wrong with that though, do you?  And you call us closed minded?  Please.

As I pointed out, which I will do again.  Read the rules for this section.  If you're going to post nothing but anti cop comments here, go elsewhere.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 11, 2009)

:sadsong:


----------



## The Last Legionary (Nov 11, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> :sadsong:


Tell me Squidling, you just here to **** on some cops or do you actually have something worth reading to post?  I ask because so far all I've seen from you is here is the idea that cops should let asshats who break the law get away so they don't get hurt.  I think you run from cops, you deserve the *** whoopin you get.

Let me guess. You got your *** whooped sometime just because to thought you were a smart guy and it chaffs your panties?


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 11, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> Tell me Squidling, you just here to **** on some cops or do you actually have something worth reading to post? I ask because so far all I've seen from you is here is the idea that cops should let asshats who break the law get away so they don't get hurt. I think you run from cops, you deserve the *** whoopin you get.
> 
> Let me guess. You got your *** whooped sometime just because to thought you were a smart guy and it chaffs your panties?


 

...:wah:


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 11, 2009)

I will go as far to say that perhaps the officers in question WERE outside of policy and perhaps were negligent in their use of force. I have agreed many times that some cops are "bad" and some cops while not "bad" made poor choices in use of force. Is that the case here" Dunno. But their local court system didn't think so....

BUT! This *WAS NOT* a case of "HE WAS KILLED FOR A TRAFFIC VIOLATION!!". or the good old "COPS KILL MAN FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN!!". 

The moment people start the game of .."I really respest cops but...THEY KILL PEOPLE FOR RUNNING STOP SIGNS!!!"...I hit the ignore option.

Which I have.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 12, 2009)

*Hockley County Law Enforcement Crumbling from the Outside In*

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/levelland-tx/T4VIC6SJGUI31G56F

stories i could not find but happened when i lived there include a questionable suicide by cop, people of legal drinking age being arrested in their home for public intoxication, an officer being fired for not reponding to a call- because he was fornicating with a conveniance store clerk in the alley, drug plants, etc... i tried to find documentation, but maybe you guys will have better luck than me. seriously, check it out. let me know what you find.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2009)

I see a link to a forum that looks to be a lot of hearsay, with no supporting documentation.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 12, 2009)

please try to find the documentation. i have tried, with no luck. i know you won't believe me, but you may believe another source.

here's a more recent one:

*F.B.I. arrest TWO Texas sheriff Deputies in METH-ring 'round-up'*

http://www.topix.com/city/trinity-t...-texas-sheriff-deputies-in-meth-ring-round-up


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 12, 2009)

What exactly is your goal in posting all the comments you've posted?

-That there are cops who made a bad call at some point?
-That there are _some_ cops who shouldn't be doing the job because they don't have the correct mindset and/or have a track-record of using poor judgement or?
-That there are _some_ cops who are nothing more than scum who intentionally violate the rights of the very people they exist to protect (and as a result, are traitors who deserve to be hung)?
-That cops should be held to a "higher standard" because of the powers entrusted to them?

I happen to believe that all of the above are true and I don't think anybody else is really going to argue the validity of those statements either.

The problem with your posts is that you are just throwing out the typical, stupid "cops are bad 'cause they kill people for jaywalking" crap.


----------



## FierySquidFace (Nov 12, 2009)

the point is to give you an idea of the mentality and actions of the police in levelland. i grew up there, and know first hand alot of what went down there, but you guys did not/ do not. i was hoping that if you had more information, you might not be so quick to lynch me for cop bashing. you're all telling me that i think/say/believe this and that, anti-cop, pro badguy, cop basher, etc, putting words in my mouth and then say i'm twisting your words. I'm sorry no one here understands. and i'm sorry for being immature. last post. really.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 12, 2009)

Well first of all, I spent about 4 years in that part of Texas and know people from all over that region, but that's neither here nor there.

From the beginning of the discussion, no one denied that there are plenty of examples of cops abusing their authority. That does not mean that you can paint all of them with that brush.
If you have "first hand" information, perhaps you should have posted it and actually answered some of the questions asked of you. Instead, you just posting select bits of information that only told the part of the story that you wanted to tell.

I'll once again advise you to think a little, and do some more reading around here, before making inflamatory remarks that really don't amount to much more than trolling.


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> :sadsong:


 
Umm...for someone who said he was done with this thread, notice howhe comes back to troll the thread.  If you have nothing useful to say, dont say anything at all.  After all, trolling is against forum rules.  You know what the rules are right....those things YOU agreed upong when YOU joined.  I'll be sure to report this post.


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> the point is to give you an idea of the mentality and actions of the police in levelland. i grew up there, and know first hand alot of what went down there, but you guys did not/ do not. i was hoping that if you had more information, you might not be so quick to lynch me for cop bashing. you're all telling me that i think/say/believe this and that, anti-cop, pro badguy, cop basher, etc, putting words in my mouth and then say i'm twisting your words. I'm sorry no one here understands. and i'm sorry for being immature. last post. really.


 
And I as well as a few others, have repeatedly said to you that we do understand and fully know, that there are bad cops.  But this is all that YOU are harping on.  Back to the articles....many of us acknowledge that shooting the tires probably wasn't the best thing, but again, until we know the SOPs for that dept...did you find them BTW?....then you really have no ground to stand on, as far as saying they were wrong.  

Also, you still fail to see what the badguys do, to make the cops respond with force.


----------



## xJOHNx (Nov 12, 2009)

Don't know about that last one. 

When I was travelling in America (been there 3 weeks in california, arizona, nevada and georgia), I've seen people getting arrested on 5 different occasions.

In one case: 10 officers with guns drawn approached someone who had his hands up. This seemed dangerous to me, as both the "bad guy" as well as bystanders could get shot from a accidental gun shot. 
I know that some criminals carry guns, but approaching someone who was almost 70 with guns blazin'.. A bit overkill no?

Another case (happened in Vegas), they were arresting a woman. Now the woman was already on the ground with 5 or so police officers around here all with their guns drawn and pointed at her head/back. One guy puts his gun away and puts his knee on her head. Up until that point she wasn't resisting. She started resisting when the musclehead who was triple her size started putting his knee on her temple. Another arrest also had 2 officers putting their knees on a suspects throat/neck.

I was shocked, because here stuff doesn't go off like that.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 12, 2009)

oh geez...



xJOHNx said:


> Don't know about that last one.
> 
> When I was travelling in America (been there 3 weeks in california, arizona, nevada and georgia), I've seen people getting arrested on 5 different occasions.
> 
> ...



Do you know the full story as to what may have caused 10 officers to have guns pointed at the guy?  If there were that many officers on scene and all of them were pointing their weapons at the subject, I'd imagine it could have been for a reason.

Also, "approaching someone...with guns blazin" would mean they were actually shooting.  Comments like that don't do anything to lend credibility to your post.



xJOHNx said:


> Another case (happened in Vegas), they were arresting a woman. Now the woman was already on the ground with 5 or so police officers around here all with their guns drawn and pointed at her head/back. One guy puts his gun away and puts his knee on her head. Up until that point she wasn't resisting. She started resisting when the musclehead who was triple her size started putting his knee on her temple. Another arrest also had 2 officers putting their knees on a suspects throat/neck.
> 
> I was shocked, because here stuff doesn't go off like that.



Once again, do you know the full story...do you know what she may have done right before she ended up on the deck with a bunch of guys holding her at gunpoint?  

Without knowing the full story, you are in no position to judge what may or may not have been excessive or overkill.


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2009)

xJOHNx said:


> Don't know about that last one.
> 
> When I was travelling in America (been there 3 weeks in california, arizona, nevada and georgia), I've seen people getting arrested on 5 different occasions.
> 
> ...


 
Any idea as to what led up to the end results that you posted here?  Reason I ask, is while it may seem like 'overkill' is many times people see the end result...which is what you described...cops with guns drawn, multiple officers holding someone down.  Who knows what this guy did prior to that.  If he did have a weapon, tried ramming a police car, etc., thus the reason for the drawn guns.  The woman on the ground...its very possible that she was resisting, was told to do something, refused, and was taken to the ground, fighting while that was happening.  

People seem to forget one thing....if the cops are telling you to do something...DO IT.  If you feel its wrong, complain about it later.  If the cop tells you to get on the ground, and you tell him to **** off and start walking towards him, fists clenched, swearing, yelling, I can assure you, he will be put down.

Again, 99.9% of the people that interact with the police, could avoid headaches, if they just acted normal, and not like a jerk.  

I recall one day while working in Corrections, I was doing my routine pat downs of some inamtes in my block.  I felt something in the pocket of one guy, went to look and he pulled away from me, and started yelling at me.  I told him to get back against the wall so I could finish.  He refused, so I called for assistance.  Needless to say, when 5 other COs arrived, he suddenly had a change of heart.  One way or another I was going to see what was in his pocket, which turned out to be a plastic comb, but had he not been an *******, I could have looked, seen it was a comb and sent him on his way.  So, because he failed to comply with my search, not only did he cause a seen, but he was written up, which caused him to lose some privledges, ie: phones for a week, visits, etc.  Of course, I would have been well within my rights, to slam him to the ground as well, due to his resisting, but opted to try a different route.  Funny how the big man, suddenly looses his steam when he's outnumbered.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 12, 2009)

I understand that this is a topic where feelings are going to be strong, regarding the issue, but that doesn't give anyone a license to start flaming.  


_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
*
_Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. 

Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). 

Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 12, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> *Hockley County Law Enforcement Crumbling from the Outside In*
> 
> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/levelland-tx/T4VIC6SJGUI31G56F
> 
> stories i could not find but happened when i lived there include a questionable suicide by cop, people of legal drinking age being arrested in their home for public intoxication, an officer being fired for not reponding to a call- because he was fornicating with a conveniance store clerk in the alley, drug plants, etc... i tried to find documentation, but maybe you guys will have better luck than me. seriously, check it out. let me know what you find.





FierySquidFace said:


> please try to find the documentation. i have tried, with no luck. i know you won't believe me, but you may believe another source.
> 
> here's a more recent one:
> 
> ...



And these posts have exactly what to do with the topic of "Police & Deadly Force"?

They'd be perfectly appropriate were the thread about police corruption -- and I even encourage you to start such a thread -- but they're off topic here.  Even so, for the record, I'll state that there are indeed corrupt LEOs and even corrupt LE agencies.  MPDC and New Orleans PD both had cases where cops were providing protection (and worse) to drug dealers, for example.  I know of a sheriff's department in Virginia which was recently all but closed down because of selling drugs from the property room...  Yep, there are corrupt agencies and even cops who aren't corrupt, but just have stupid judgement.

One thing that does touch on the topic of deadly force is suicide by cop...  And that's something I definitely want to discuss.  One of the most difficult and trying things a cop can respond to is a person who has decided to die -- and decided to make a cop the instrument of their death.  Most of the time, we're not talking about bad guys here.  We're talking about someone who has found themselves in such a deep hole that they can't find a way out, and they've decided the only help they want is someone to close that hole over them.  It's the last thing the cop wants to do -- but the person is often leaving them no alternative.  I can't think of another profession that faces that particular challenge or anything comparable.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 12, 2009)

xJOHNx said:


> Don't know about that last one.
> 
> When I was travelling in America (been there 3 weeks in california, arizona, nevada and georgia), I've seen people getting arrested on 5 different occasions.
> 
> ...


I recently completed training to be a police firearms instructor.  One thing that I was reminded of, and it was stressed to remind recruits in training, is that just because the gun is out doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot someone.  I can't count how many times I've had my gun out in the course of my duties; the times I've shot it outside of a firing range is exactly zero.  (Haven't even had to put down a critter...)  I have been within a fraction of an inch of shooting some, as in I had about 6 1/2 pounds of pressure on the 7 pound trigger pull...  He complied, he didn't get shot.

I can't address what you saw because I wasn't there.  I've participated in arrests where 10 to 15 of us drew down on the suspect because of the potential resistance.  Action is faster than reaction, and if my gun is already out, I'm ahead of the reaction curve.  It's a scary situation because there are lots of potentials for bad things to happen to every one, including the suspect.  (See the Salvatore Culosi case I described early in the thread.)  

Ideally, most arrests follow a simple script:  The cop tells the person "You're under arrest, put your hands behind your back" and they comply.  Reality is that a few people do this, most will mostly comply but maybe need some "assistance" in being handcuffed (steering the arms behind their back, etc.), and some will resist at various levels.  A prone arrest is a clue that there's a problem; generally we try to do it standing 'cause it's much easier.  You don't have to lift 'em off the ground (try standing up from lying on your belly without using your hands...), you don't have to get on the ground yourself...  It's just simpler.  In the case described -- I'm going to make some assumptions and "possibles" since I don't know any of the circumstances.  There was already some sort of higher risk situation, since she was proned out.  As the cop who's going to cuff her approaches, he may have seen a gun, knife or other concern in her waistband...  and ratchets his control up.  You can't see it from the outside -- but it's still there.

Also, one general note on cuffing anyone -- the most dangerous moment is as the first cuff is being applied; that's the instant that the fact of the arrest really sinks in, and it's the moment a person who was complying (however reluctantly) will sometimes flip out and start to buck and fight.

Finally, one note on your travels...  I've traveled over most of the East Coast, professionally and on my own.  Off duty, I've seen maybe 3 or 4 arrests in my life, and I'm more clued in to pick up on it than most... and that's including some of the worst parts of DC during the years it was called the "Murder Capitol."  You just might be going to some places of questionable wisdom on your travels...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2009)

For finding corroborating information, use Google or Bing.
Reputable links will include news sources such as CNN, Fox, WP, the major networks, the papers. Some of these will be dismissed due to particular biases (Hint Page 3 in the Sun is not a reliable source) 

A link to a discussion forum isn't seen as a trustworthy main source. Especially if it is populated by anonymous and non verifiables.  

Contrast your link to this one:



> *Officer Fired for Unjustified Use of Deadly Force*
> 
> BY *JORDAN SMITH*
> 
> On Aug. 27, Austin Police Chief *Art Acevedo* indefinitely suspended (read: fired) nine-year veteran Officer *Wayne Wil*liam*son*, also a vet of the war in Iraq, for unjustified use of deadly force. In March, Williamson fired his gun several times into a crowded parking lot at a suspect who was fleeing from officers on foot from a fight in Southeast Austin. William*son's shots did not injure anybody, but one bullet did hit the back of a minivan parked near an HEB, with two children &#8211; ages 14 and 4 months &#8211; sitting inside. "It is pure luck that neither of the two children occupying the van were struck by one of the bullets," says Acevedo in a 10-page disciplinary memo.


http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:531755
Also
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/cityhall/entries/2008/10/13/


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 12, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I recently completed training to be a police firearms instructor. One thing that I was reminded of, and it was stressed to remind recruits in training, is that just because the gun is out doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot someone. I can't count how many times I've had my gun out in the course of my duties; the times I've shot it outside of a firing range is exactly zero. (Haven't even had to put down a critter...) I have been within a fraction of an inch of shooting some, as in I had about 6 1/2 pounds of pressure on the 7 pound trigger pull... He complied, he didn't get shot.
> 
> I can't address what you saw because I wasn't there. I've participated in arrests where 10 to 15 of us drew down on the suspect because of the potential resistance. Action is faster than reaction, and if my gun is already out, I'm ahead of the reaction curve. It's a scary situation because there are lots of potentials for bad things to happen to every one, including the suspect. (See the Salvatore Culosi case I described early in the thread.)
> 
> ...


 
I work in Michigan, we have over 62,000 car/deer accidents a year.  About 1800 in my county alone.  It's par for the course to have to put an injured deer down at least 6-10 times a year for our deputies.  Only reason I point that out is people always second guess that decision as well without understanding the facts.  Either the officer/deputy has to use more than one shot and citizens think we should all be trained assassins that can do it one shot every time with an injured animal moving around.  Or second, that we can somehow put the injured deer in our patrol car and take them to the vets office (you know it's just like an ER for animals) to get it taken care of.

I agree, most people don't understand what a PD's "Use of Force" policy is and what LEO's can do and at what time.  ANY time you have to put your hands on someone other than a compliant handcuffing it is going to "look bad".  I am NOT saying that there is NEVER any excessive force by officers, but sticking to legitimate uses of force the amount that citizens will say it was excessive is a high percentage.


----------



## xJOHNx (Nov 12, 2009)

MJS said:


> Any idea as to what led up to the end results that you posted here?  Reason I ask, is while it may seem like 'overkill' is many times people see the end result...which is what you described...cops with guns drawn, multiple officers holding someone down.  Who knows what this guy did prior to that.  If he did have a weapon, tried ramming a police car, etc., thus the reason for the drawn guns.  The woman on the ground...its very possible that she was resisting, was told to do something, refused, and was taken to the ground, fighting while that was happening.
> 
> People seem to forget one thing....if the cops are telling you to do something...DO IT.  If you feel its wrong, complain about it later.  If the cop tells you to get on the ground, and you tell him to **** off and start walking towards him, fists clenched, swearing, yelling, I can assure you, he will be put down.


Yeah, first case was some old chap who ran into another car with his. I stood by waiting (you have to witness overhere) to tell them what I saw. 6 cars and 4 motors pull up at the old guy who was standing there. Like woody allen. After I testified, I asked why such show of force was needed. Police officer just muttered: "drugs and stuff". Old man took nitrates because he had a heart condition, which I told the officer. Because I was present when he administered them.

Don't know about the women, but someone triple my size putting his knee on my temple and then starts leaning in...

Don't know about my travels, because I'm not an US citizen. Saw 2 arrests while on the motorway, the 2 others I described and 1 in SF. The old guy one was in LA.

Maybe I'm too soft.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 12, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> I work in Michigan, we have over 62,000 car/deer accidents a year.  About 1800 in my county alone.  It's par for the course to have to put an injured deer down at least 6-10 times a year for our deputies.  Only reason I point that out is people always second guess that decision as well without understanding the facts.  Either the officer/deputy has to use more than one shot and citizens think we should all be trained assassins that can do it one shot every time with an injured animal moving around.  Or second, that we can somehow put the injured deer in our patrol car and take them to the vets office (you know it's just like an ER for animals) to get it taken care of.
> 
> I agree, most people don't understand what a PD's "Use of Force" policy is and what LEO's can do and at what time.  ANY time you have to put your hands on someone other than a compliant handcuffing it is going to "look bad".  I am NOT saying that there is NEVER any excessive force by officers, but sticking to legitimate uses of force the amount that citizens will say it was excessive is a high percentage.


It's just been pure luck that I haven't had to put a deer down...  We get plenty of car/deer accidents, not to mention deer in basements & stores.  I have put several squirrels down... but not with a firearm.

Putting animals down is, like you said, another area of controversy.  You covered it pretty well; people have a lot of misconceptions about putting animals down.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2009)

Theres a few threads here where we've looked at excessive force issues, including kneeling on the neck.  If not here, check the Study.


----------



## K831 (Nov 12, 2009)

Someone I know was shot by LEO last week. He worked with me for over a year. I knew him and his family. They have been over to my house. It's sad that he died in a tragic way, it's sad for his family. It's sad he made life choices that put him in the position he was in. Of course he will be missed.

Having said that, here are the basic details and my thoughts;

His girlfriend had called the cops several times about abusive behavior. Cops had been out to the house several times on domestic abuse calls.

She filed for an order of protection. Officers arrived at the home to serve the order. He became angry, and pulled out a knife.

Officers shot him.

Friends and family are saying the following;

Could have talked him down.

Could have tased him.

Could have shot him in the leg or arm.

Knife was planted.

I am sure they tried to talk him down, but in a 10x10 room and an assailant with a knife, your lucky to even get a shot off. It is not SOP to tase unless another officer can give lethal coverage, and that makes sense to me. Any of us who shoot know the likelihood of successfully hitting an arm or a leg of a moving attacker.  To try would have been a tactical error, and put the officer and others at greater risk. I highly doubt the knife was planted.

I have been pulled over by dick cops. I have been mistreated and disrespected by ignorant cops on a power trip. I think they are in the minority, and I give them extra margin for error in the attitude department because I can guess as to how they are treated by many, day in and day out. I can guess as to the stress they face daily regarding their safety. I support LEO's (so long as they are not deployed in a way that infringes on my basic freedoms and constitutional rights). I believe they have a tough, often thankless job, but it is a job that needs doing.

My opinion, I think this was a good shoot. I have taken some fire for saying so by others who know the individual, but I can not honestly expect and LEO to risk not going home to his family, simply because I wish someone was still alive.

Now, some of the local blogs are buzzing over this. Some family and friends are hurt, angry and want to blame someone. People who are pointing fingers and claiming "trigger happy" cops are citing a case from a few years ago where the local PD paid a large settlement to a family after the shooting. They feel the settlement indicates "wrong doing" on the part of the police.

I became curious, and read some articles, as well as the attorney's web page who represented the family. His webpage reads as though this was a major victory for the citizens showing that attorney's are good and cops are bad. His website reported that the father called the PD because his son had a knife and was going to kill himself. The PD arrived, tased his son until he was on the ground and then shot him, fatally.

This is the publics general perception of the incident. I found it hard to believe. Via the freedom of information act, some more digging and google fu, LEO forums etc, I found information on the evidence that was never presented, because the case never went to trial. Here are the bullet points;

- County medical examiner, state Department of Public Safety and the FBI found that forensic evidence proved the man was shot while still standing and moving forward (despite family's testimony to the contrary.

- The independent forensic scientist hired by the family reached the same conclusion

-original 911 call has the father asking, what do I do if I have to shoot my son to defend myself, and, can I shoot my son.

- Officer who deployed his taser had a slash mark on his shirt and belt from the carving knife held by the attacker.

Interesting, how these "news stories" like some of those posted earlier, don't really tell how the shooting went down.

The settlement was paid because accounting determined a drawn out trial would cost more taxpayer money than the settlement. It was a business decision. 

Great accounting decision, poor PR decision.

Regardless, I am slow to believe a lot of the conspiracy theory stories out there, and quick to assert that LEO's in harms way must be able to confidently use lethal force in their own defense. They have a right to ensure they go home to their families.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 12, 2009)

Settlements in civil trials are a whole 'nother thing.  Too often, it's done because it's the right financial decision (even a successful defense in a use-of-force trial can run in to the tune of several tens of thousands of dollars...) but it creates a false impression that the cops are settling because they cannot win.  Unfortunately, a lot of agencies risk management people just lack the intestinal fortitude to fight when they can save a buck or three...


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2009)

xJOHNx said:


> Yeah, first case was some old chap who ran into another car with his. I stood by waiting (you have to witness overhere) to tell them what I saw. 6 cars and 4 motors pull up at the old guy who was standing there. Like woody allen. After I testified, I asked why such show of force was needed. Police officer just muttered: "drugs and stuff". Old man took nitrates because he had a heart condition, which I told the officer. Because I was present when he administered them.


 
Hmm...I'll list a few reasons, many of which will not be known by the general population average citizen.

First, just so I'm understanding this correctly here...you're stating that for a simple motor vehicle accident, this is how many officers arrived?  There was no chase or anything leading up to the initial crash?  All of the officers arrived at the same time?  Its possible the officers knew this person.  Did he have some prior history with the police, which may lead them to think he might cause trouble?  Were there any weapons in the car?  Were there drugs other than prescribed meds?  Did he have warrants?  



> Don't know about the women, but someone triple my size putting his knee on my temple and then starts leaning in...


 
There was a thread somewhere on here, maybe in the study, that Bob posted, regarding the use of the knee.  The picture or clip that was posted was being discussed because some were saying the knee was on the head and others were saying it was on the shoulder.  I'll also add, that just because its a woman does not mean that she is not capable of fighting.


----------



## Hudson69 (Dec 9, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> wow. you guys are really something. you have effectivly proven that there can be no discussion with your kind, and any attempts for rational discussion are futile. :deadhorse whatever respect i have for you has been significantly diminished by the posts in this thread. i had other thoughts and points to make, but they would only fall on deaf ears, so i choose not to associate with you, or those like you any longer.


 
I just found this ariticle and have been reading through it; nice research KenpoTex for the clarification.

I would like to know if it is LEO's that upset you or guns?  I say this because in another thread you were less subtle in your statements regarding law enforcement but here you seemed to be contributing to the discussion but then veered into areas that obviously would get a rapid response from others (notably our LEO/Security/Military members, myself included).

In your diatribes you also used information that was easily researched for clarification, no offense KenpoTex, that quickly put better light on the subject.  

Your statements in regard to "Most Officers are good" or along the line of "I respect police" just feels sarcastic and hollow.  It seems like someone wronged you (rightfully or not) at some point and if they were not LEO(s) then they were an authority figure of some kind.

Enough behavioral science (BS) though.  From a professional perspective I do not know what the pursuit policy is for that city but the fact remains, the officers involved were exhonerated by a court of law.  And since none of us were there and involved we cannot say who was right or wrong (out side of the court case) but it is a good thread starter for comment/learning issues.  To be picking at them(the officers involved) now at this point is fruitless.

My .02 only.


----------



## MJS (Dec 10, 2009)

Hudson69 said:


> I just found this ariticle and have been reading through it; nice research KenpoTex for the clarification.
> 
> I would like to know if it is LEO's that upset you or guns? I say this because in another thread you were less subtle in your statements regarding law enforcement but here you seemed to be contributing to the discussion but then veered into areas that obviously would get a rapid response from others (notably our LEO/Security/Military members, myself included).
> 
> ...


 
Just so you know, this user will not be able to reply to you, due to issues with his account.  Aside from that...good post though.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> -obviosly, he didn't want to get arrested.
> 
> -at 12:05 am in levelland, tx, the chances anyone was on the streets besides the victim and the pursuing officers is very small to nill.
> 
> ...



You'll have to ask the officers why they were firing on the vehicle.

As for 'fleeing' in a motor vehicle, it is more than just 'running a stop sign'......it is a violent crime that can and does kill other people far too often.  When one propels their 2,000 pound projectile of a vehicle down the road at excessive speeds in an effort to avoid being arrested, one is committing a dangerous and potential lethal act, not 'Just running a stop sign'........lets get that straight.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> I'm sorry. I still don't see the justification in shooting at the kid. How about a roadblock? or spike strips? or... i don't know... something that doesn't involve people getting shot in the head...



Are you certain they intended to shoot him in the head?  If not, then you're asking for justification for an act that was not intentional if facetious.

Since the investigation indicates that the act was not intentional, no criminal charges were filled.

That is why a civil lawsuit is pending, to determine if the act was the result of negligence.....which it may have been or it may not have been, but it clearly wasn't an intentional act.

Here's the thing, though.......fleeing in a motor vehicle involves the INHERENT risk of not only the driver, and the officers, but of the public in general, it is a dangerous and violent act......not just 'running a stop sign'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> so by that logic, if i don't do what you say, when you say it, you are justified in killing me?



That would be a vast distortion of what he said.  If you resist arrest by utilizing a means that makes you a threat to the public and the officers involved, you are engaging in activity that justifies a high level of force to stop you......are we clear, or are you still confused?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> :asian:
> 
> in this case, i do blame the cops, because they killed a kid who didn't deserve to be killed.
> 
> ...




Actually, it might be better if lethal force were authorized to stop a fleeing motorist from using his vehicle as a weapon against the public........fleeing in a motor vehicle is VASTLY more dangerous than fleeing on foot, so Tennessee v. Garner can be argued not to apply, given the greater degree of danger, and the amount of times fleeing criminals kill people as a result of fleeing in a motor vehicle.

Ergo, it would not be unreasonable to argue that shooting a fleeing criminal to stop their flight from potentially injuring or killing some innocent party further down the road is reasonable......most ESPECIALLY if he has now decided to use his vehicle as a 2,000 pound offensive weapon by striking other officers vehicle with it.........a vehicle IS the most dangerous weapon in America, killing and injuring far more people than firearms.

Now, before you get started, it's not the 'Running the stop sign' that makes him a dangerous criminal........it's the FELONIOUS FLIGHT subsequent to an attempt to detain him that is the SERIOUS POTENTIALLY VIOLENT ACT!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2009)

FierySquidFace said:


> *Hockley County Law Enforcement Crumbling from the Outside In*
> 
> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/levelland-tx/T4VIC6SJGUI31G56F
> 
> stories i could not find but happened when i lived there include a questionable suicide by cop, people of legal drinking age being arrested in their home for public intoxication, an officer being fired for not reponding to a call- because he was fornicating with a conveniance store clerk in the alley, drug plants, etc... i tried to find documentation, but maybe you guys will have better luck than me. seriously, check it out. let me know what you find.




We call that the shotgun method of discussion........when a particular topic of debate doesn't go your way, you throw 20 other incidents up and say 'Oh yeah, well, these incidents are legitimate, so Nyah, Nyah'.


----------

