Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Neubob on October 01, 2006, 04:31:02 PM
-
Shot 68 times by swat (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15012086/)
A lot of you are gonna say that this is just. Some of you may mention that the suspect was deprived of his rights to due process. No trial, no jury, etc.... Personally, I think it's scary when law enforcement officers act on their anger, whether or not the guy did it. For the sake of the deceased Cop, and for justice, I really hope they got the right guy.
-
“That’s all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more,” Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd
I'm not so concerned they killed the man, or even the amount of lead they threw at the guy. Its the statement above, long after the incident, that shows the complete lack of control (or lack of respect for due process) long after the 'adrenaline rush' had passed. It shows deliberate intent...
Was the guy a dirt-bag? Heck yes, and I'm happy he is dead... but adding comments like that is an easy way for people to question their judgement.
-
It's the weight of the bullets that kill now ?
-
It shows complete stupidity.
What are you guys hiring for cops these days? Maybe if they interviewed some newbie you'd expect the to say that. While I fully support the police actions that sheriff needs to be 'retired' or taught some subtlety.
-
That statement was foolish and inappropriate. They knew who they were after and found him hiding with a gun in his hand, 68 bullets were not inappropriate.
-
without knowing the specifics, perhaps there is a good reason, my question is why did they miss 40% of the time?
-
Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting 68 times. The number of bullets is irrelevant, it's the initial one, plus any that may have been fired after he was no longer a threat, that should be questioned.
The media loves to play up these events with high bullet counts because they sound on the surface like excessive force. But if the guy was surrounded by a SWAT team with 8 members, each with an automatic weapon or 12 buckshot pellets per shell, there could easily be 68 holes in the guy before he has a chance to hit the ground.
-
He was armed, and they were not about to let him shoot again. It wasnt like the guy surrendered and was then executed. 100 rounds fired is not unexpected from a tactical team armed with automatic weapons. Mr. Bone Head should have surrendered while he could.
As for the statement, do you know the context? maybe he was caught off guard or overheard saying that, in any case, its not what you say to the media, ok, but really, tough cookies, im sure it was a long day for all of them..and roasting the guy over that is silly. Be more concerned that no other police were injured than what was said to some reporter looking for a headline.
-
pwned
-
Im thinking the sheriff was p/o about losing a good man and a friend to a POS like that. If it were me Id have gone back to the station for more ammo. Good for him..no PC BS here!
-
Originally posted by Squire
As for the statement, do you know the context?
I don't think that is acceptable in any context... except for the locker room of the police station. If it was obtained by some 'hidden microphone', I would agree... otherwise, this person needs a reprimand.
-
I'm saving my outrage and sympathy. I'm not going to use it up on Freeland. Just call me frugal.
-
Originally posted by storch
without knowing the specifics, perhaps there is a good reason, my question is why did they miss 40% of the time?
I took a concealed handgun class a few years ago. I remember being taught that among Dallas Police officers something like 67% of their first shots fired missed. Might have been a higher percentage but it was at least that.
-
spray & pray is for nooobs
-
Originally posted by lukster
I took a concealed handgun class a few years ago. I remember being taught that among Dallas Police officers something like 67% of their first shots fired missed. Might have been a higher percentage but it was at least that.
that's alarming. course the police in my town can't shoot to well either. they sure can whip up traffic violations though.
-
Originally posted by storch
that's alarming. course the police in my town can't shoot to well either. they sure can whip up traffic violations though.
Sure it's alarming if you're not given any context. Try recognizing a threat, stepping away, drawing, and firing accurately in the time it takes the scumbag sitting in his car an arm's reach away to lift his gun from his lap to point in your face. Officers in those quick-draw situations nearly always fire low, as the gun is still coming up as they pull the trigger.
-
I have the opportunity to shoot with and observe swat and can easily see why they needed to fire so many rounds to hit something... I am surprised they got that many hits....for 68 hits I would expect a thousand or so rounds fired.
I also seen the aftermath of their precison shooting in Santa Cruz where they did 30k damage to surrounding buildings... a friends 55 chevy had 5k damage and it was in no way in the line of fire for what any of us would see... It was a bank robbery and the bandits were not hit. most of the buildings hit were not in the line of fire that any reasonable person would see... fortunately... no innocents were hit either.
I am not a fan of this new miltitary type training of "suppresing fire" and the current issue of ex military m16's to police. The training is also sub par in my opinion and is causing the "spray and pray" type of police shooting we see. One thing for sure.... you are probly in more danger from police bullets in a shooting than the bandits.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Im thinking the sheriff was p/o about losing a good man and a friend to a POS like that. If it were me Id have gone back to the station for more ammo. Good for him..no PC BS here!
EXACTLY!!
Lakeland FL is a rural/close community. Some dirt bag drug dealer from Miami gets pulled over, shoots two cops and the K-9. The dog and one office dies and some of you are concerned how many times they shot the bad guy????
How about his family, his wife and children the officer left behind? Any concern there?
Your concern for the scumbag is what is wrong with todays diluted justice system which allowed the creep with a rap sheet longer than his corn rows the freedom to kill...
guess what, he ain't able to shoot anyone ever again.
I hope the cop that shot the scum get a medal and a promotion
(http://www.bn9.com/images/news/2006/9/29/diog2.jpg)
R.I.P.
-
As much as I feel for the cop and his family, I think it would be wise to consider Civil Rights here. Can anybody here, or the police, for that matter, say that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime of killing a police officer? Yes, it's more than likely that this 'dirt bag' did it, but I would rather the courts make the final decision, and not a volley of bullets. Police are not judge and jury in this land, and they shouldn't be. They certainly shouldn't be fullfilling the role of executioner.
No, I feel nothing for the guy the cops killed. 1 bullet or a thousand. If he threatened them, thus causing them to fire first, then so be it, but if this was a retributivist execution, then it is wrong, plain and simple. Go ahead and tell me that I am igonorant, myopic and disjointed from reality. Go ahead and say 'you've never been a cop before', or 'you've never lost a good buddy'...I've also never been dragged out of my car and beaten or shot by police because of a suspicion of guilt, and I'd like to keep it that way.
The fact stands that in the US, you're supposed to be innocent until a court proves you otherwise. It is a good and decent value that protects us from our own government, and nobody, much less a worthless cop-killer, should be used to justify the violation of this value. NOBODY.
If every cop acted on his anger, wielded his deadly force based on his adrenal gland and not his brain and his training, then this nation would consume itself from the inside. Cops are enforcers of the laws, and keepers of the peace, not vigilantes. Small community or large, it makes no difference. What's next? Blowing a guy away for failure to stop? I don't want to be a prisoner of the law enforcement community. I doubt anyone here would either.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
As much as I feel for the cop and his family, I think it would be wise to consider Civil Rights here. Can anybody here, or the police, for that matter, say that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime of killing a police officer? Yes, it's more than likely that this 'dirt bag' did it, but I would rather the courts make the final decision, and not a volley of bullets. Police are not judge and jury in this land, and they shouldn't be. They certainly shouldn't be fullfilling the role of executioner.
No, I feel nothing for the guy the cops killed. 1 bullet or a thousand. If he threatened them, thus causing them to fire first, then so be it, but if this was a retributivist execution, then it is wrong, plain and simple. Go ahead and tell me that I am igonorant, myopic and disjointed from reality. Go ahead and say 'you've never been a cop before', or 'you've never lost a good buddy'...I've also never been dragged out of my car and beaten or shot by police because of a suspicion of guilt, and I'd like to keep it that way.
The fact stands that in the US, you're supposed to be innocent until a court proves you otherwise. It is a good and decent value that protects us from our own government, and nobody, much less a worthless cop-killer, should be used to justify the violation of this value. NOBODY.
If every cop acted on his anger, wielded his deadly force based on his adrenal gland and not his brain and his training, then this nation would consume itself from the inside. Cops are enforcers of the laws, and keepers of the peace, not vigilantes. Small community or large, it makes no difference. What's next? Blowing a guy away for failure to stop? I don't want to be a prisoner of the law enforcement community. I doubt anyone here would either.
piss off!
-
Out of all this outrage, how many of you are part of the lakeland community? None?
Why don't we wait and see what they say?
-
Nuebob, why do you think this was an "execution"?
-
"Williams, 39, was shot eight times—one bullet fired at close range behind the deputy’s right ear and another in his right temple, according to autopsy results released on Saturday by the sheriff’s office."
I guess his civil rights might have been violated there, just a hunch I have. Call me crazy.
"Sheriff’s officials said SWAT team members found Freeland on Friday hiding under a fallen oak tree in a wooded area near where the deputies were shot, and began firing when they saw a gun in his hand."
They should have approached him and said "stop in the name of the law", it worked so well on "Dragnet".
...im going to rent "Dead Man Walking" tonight with my girlfriends, and yes, I will have a box of kleenex handy when Sean goes to his end, that part always gets me.
:lol
Geezus.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Nuebob, why do you think this was an "execution"?
I don't think it was, but I'm not sure that it wasn't. I said that IF it was, then it was wrong, unjust, illegal, and every other adjective you can lump in there. The police are responsible for enforcement , not adjudication. They have no right to overstep their bounds, no matter how angry they are.
A lot of you guys like to talk about the founding fathers and their intentions when they drafted the constitution. Like it or not, absurd as this may be, justified as this may seem, if the police did in fact put him down like a dog, it goes against this consitutional intent. Period.
-
well, if you don't think it was an execution ..... relax :)
I don't think it was either...
-
I'm not as emotional as some of the others here, gunthr. I support and respect the police. I don't fear them because I don't break laws. I'd like to keep it that way though. Respect goes a lot farther, and is a hell of a lot more productive than fear.
-
I agree. :)
I'm sure the unthinkable does happen from time to time, but I don't think this is it...
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I agree. :)
I'm sure the unthinkable does happen from time to time, but I don't think this is it...
I just wish that everyone here would see it that way, Gunthr. It's not a matter of how many bullets. It's a matter of justice over vigilantiism. The people here with law enforcement experience, above all others, should value the difference between those two terms--because it is that difference that places their role, and responsibility, above that of the average person on the street.
-
It's really amusing to see some of the posts here. Some of them are real knee slappers like the bit about a possible civil rights violation of the shooter here.
Read the article again. Please note that the chances of getting the entire story here is rather slim due to print space constraints of the publication.
The civil rights violations were the 2 deputies who were shot. One was obviously executed with clear intent to kill him. The other was shot during the same incident and apparently hit badly enough that the ability to return fire was not present. Sounds like their civil rights were terminated rather callously. They had not committed a felony; they had not been convicted of a crime, yet this individual felt he had the right to deny them the right to live and their families the right to maintain a whole family.
This individual did not surrender but fled the scene and maintained control of a weapon.
Responding Officers already have a crime scene and 2 fallen Officers. They already KNOW the suspect is obviously armed and certainly has no apparent qualms about shooting a Police Officer. Do you really expect them to simply walk up to him and ask him to pretty please come out and be arrested??? They spot the guy and he has a weapon. They do NOT have a requirement for him to fire the first shot. They do not have a requirement to wait until another Officer is killed or wounded before taking action to protect their own lives.
If this dirtbag (I have several other names but why screw with the profanity filter) had any intention of surrendering he could have walked out from his cover position with both hands raised and surrendered. Instead he was in a position of cover and concealment, obviously in a position of tactical advantage to ambush other Officers.
The Officers are under no constraint to fire a shot then walk up to see if the bad guy decides to quit playing nasty. They have families and their constraint is to go home at the end of the shift. They fired until they were sure no other Officer was going to be wounded or killed by this dirtbag. This is no freaking computer game where if you "die" you get to come back and play some more. It's for real and death is rather permanent.
Some of you criticize the Sheriff for his humanity. He is a human being and he is subject to having feelings inspite of his training. After you deliver a death message to someone then you might, I say might, have an idea about the impact of that kind of job on a person. He likely had to tell the widow of that Deputy her husband was dead. He likely had to tell the wife of the other Deputy that he also was in fear of losing his life. He likely had the sad duty to go see his people dead and wounded at the scene of the ambush. One or both of those Deputies may have been a personal friend of his.
I have no doubt he was pissed off. I don't fault him for it in the heat of the issue. He is also telling anyone else in the area what the result of shooting his Deputies will gain the next scumbag who tries it. Hell, I'd be happy to work for someone like that. He obviously backs his Deputies instead of catering to the PC crowd who never get into the line of fire.
-
Well stated Maverick. This is one of the times I think justice was served well. It's a shame two officers had to die before this dirtbag was stopped.
-
As Maverick said, the police were under no obligation to allow him to fire first. In point of fact, the perp had already fired the first shot...the one which killed the officer. After that, their only obligation was to prevent him from killing anyone else.
He could have surrendered. He chose not to. It doesn't say much for his intelligence that he chose to stand up to a bunch of righteously angry deputies.
The perp bears the full responsibility for his own death.
-
This time, justice was served. Probably.
Next time, with the facts just an iota different, with just a bit more uncertainty, with the police officers angry over one of their own, slain in cold blood, justice will again be served. Swiftly, and efficiently.
The next time, with the facts different still, with images of another dead officer in the papers, justice will, yet again, be served.
Eventually we won't need the court system anymore. Your justice will be administered by lynch mobs with badges and automatic weapons, who single handedly distribute retribution and deterence.
This is not political correctness. This is just me not willing to admit that everything in this case was as clear and certain as some of you make it out to be. I read three articles about this incident. They say the investigation will go on for months. Seems like such a waste of time, when based on just a couple of paragraphs, there are people to whom the facts, and the outcome, are as clear as day from the very first time they skimmed the headline. No judge, no jury, just a guy at his computer who is as sure of this as he is that the sky is blue. A guy that will be just as sure next time he reads a headline about a shooting involving police.
There is a reason why the law has various branches. There is a reason that punishment is not legally served by an group of enraged men with guns. This time, probably, there was justice. The guy made his own bed, gave the cops a choice between risking themselves and firing first. They made a choice that was, probably, more logical and reasonable than emotional. Next time, when anger and emotion turns a group of public servants into a mob bent on revenge, and the facts aren't quite as clear, the totality of the response will nevertheless be just as swift and efficient. So maybe the unthinkable didn't happen here. Which one of you is willing to explain how this sort of mentality is going to prevent the unthinkable from happening when this 'perp' wasn't so clearly guilty. Anger, they say, is a poor advisor, but it's more than sufficient to pull the trigger. The bullets will fly just like they did in this case.
Of course, the police will still be just in their actions. Cops don't make mistakes. Never have. Especially when they're grieving for a fallen friend.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
EXACTLY!!
Lakeland FL is a rural/close community. Some dirt bag drug dealer from Miami gets pulled over, shoots two cops and the K-9. The dog and one office dies and some of you are concerned how many times they shot the bad guy????
How about his family, his wife and children the officer left behind? Any concern there?
Your concern for the scumbag is what is wrong with todays diluted justice system which allowed the creep with a rap sheet longer than his corn rows the freedom to kill...
guess what, he ain't able to shoot anyone ever again.
I hope the cop that shot the scum get a medal and a promotion
(http://www.bn9.com/images/news/2006/9/29/diog2.jpg)
R.I.P.
:aok
JMFJ
-
Neubob, next time the world will be hit by a rogue Comet. It pisses me off too! So I will do what I can to get people worked up over something that has not happened yet.
No offense, but that is what your post sounds like. This nutjob killed, was caught, did not give up, and got killed. Saved the tax payers a ton of money. Good all around, except for the families of the officers who lost thier lives doing one of the most thankless jobs in existence.
Cops are people and they will make mistakes, but this is not one of them.
-
t's not a matter of how many bullets. It's a matter of justice over vigilantiism.
God forbid the government loses some power and control over the people. :rolleyes:
-
Shooting a perp 68 times seems to be excessive to me. While killing the perp did save the system money in terms of not having to house him for the rest of his live, not having to administer a trial. The justice system should have been used if all all possible.
Even those who are guilty are guaranteed their day in court in this country. The job of police in this country is to enforce the law, not act as executioners. There are other options available other than just blowing the guy away.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
As Maverick said, the police were under no obligation to allow him to fire first.
This dude more than qualified for the "fleeing felon" rule, which give police officers the green light, legally, to shoot him in the back if necessary. He's an obvious danger to the community, and desperate, allowing him to escape is no longer an option... its assumed he'll kill again, stopping him is seen as saving a life.
He was smarter than the average common street dude, he hunkered down under an Oak tree which hides his heat signature from the air, and was lying in wait behind concealment to ambush the officers looking for him.
The media loves to count the # of rounds, I'll bet the officers only stopped firing when they believed the threat to have been stopped and probably had no idea how many times they fired.
Shootings like this are over in a matter of seconds, the noise, smoke, ringing ears and slow motion thinking all hit at once.. then just as fast its over, there's no time to count the # of rounds...
-
The world getting hit by a rogue comet and a cop, or a group of cops, being overtaken by emotion and anger are not the same thing. The former has yet to happen during the age of humanity. The latter is known as police brutality.
I've agreed that this case, most likely, is not an example of a mistake(it is futile, but I will again point out that in this land, men are innocent until proven guilty). My point is in principal. The police should not be playing the role of judge jury and executioner. A dead cop is not something I, or anyone here, takes lightly. It is tragic. His family has lost. I've lost suddenly and unexpectadly too, and I know how it feels. And I do feel for them as well.
Nevertheless, summary judgement outside in a forest is a value this nation needs to set aside, no matter how awful the crime and how clearly guilty the criminal. The .001% chance that the next guy is innocent, to me, is too high a probability.
Instead of lighting the torches and marching along, you men should understand what I am trying to get at. Forget Freeland. Imagine the prospect of this sort of behavior growing more and more common, with the standard of certainty required for a summary judgment of 'guilty' growing more and more flexible.
-
I'll tell you what, you people who are *****ing about the cops in this case can carry your tulips out and aprehend the next armed suspected cop killer that gets cornered. I'm betting we get no takers. You know what job one for a cop is? Go home to your family when your shift is over. A cop has NO obligation to take a chance on getting shot while taking a scumbag known to shoot cops into custody.
-
You have yet to provide any evidence that there was any summary judgement, or that they let their anger get the better of them, or that they did anything improper, other than the Sherrif making a politically incorrect comment at some point afterwards to a reporter who overheard him.
Its you who have rushed to "judge".
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
The number of bullets is irrelevant, it's the initial one, plus any that may have been fired after he was no longer a threat, that should be questioned.
Hey! Those bullets cost the taxpayer money. :furious
-
I'll be happy to reimburse the county for the ammo. That's far more than those who have done nothing more than criticize for a situation they have not nor would ever face themselves.
-
You know, criticising the way others do their jobs is something we're all guilty of, to a certain extent. Whether they're doctors, lawyers, engineers, truck drivers, politicians or teachers, we've all taken a swipe at somebody. For some reason, police officers hold a special place in the hearts of many.
Here's a list of dangerous jobs:
Most dangerous occupations (http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/)
No, these guys don't all face scum for a living (or spend the vast majority of their time writing traffic tickets, either), but they do die at a rate that eclipses that of any American law-enforcement officers. And yet, I don't see the same sort of fanatical support I see regularly for the actions of police officers.
The world, and specifically, our society, benefits greatly from all these occupations. Yet this status of infallibility seems to be reserved for only one group. It's not this Freeland case that I'm talking about anymore, it's the vast majority of cases that took place under questionable/contraversial circumstances. Mention a cop and say he was in the wrong, and you get the requisite 'Well, it's more than you've ever done to fight crime....', or 'if you don't like it, do it yourself....' or, my favorite 'It's his job to get home alive.' I thought it was his job to protect and serve. If it's not, why isn't he doing data entry or carpentry? He'd have a much greater chance of accomplishing his 'job' in either of those two positions.
Why should I? They chose their jobs. From what I understand, most of them like what they do. Careers aren't made under duress, afterall. I firmly believe, and am all ears to evidence to the contrary, that they do their work with a passion. And they should. They took on the responsiblity. I give them respect when I encoutner them and I pay my $100 a year to the charities that support them and their families.
But when a doctor does something questionable, or worse yet, a lawyer or an engineer, I'm just not seeing the same sort of solidarity. With cops, before you say ANYTHING about their conduct, you must preface it with 'of, course, I have utmost respect for their work'--as if they're some sort of protected class. What about the same respect for everyone else with a hard, dangerous job? Where is it? Furthermore, why don't they pursue any and every murder suspect with this same passion? Is the murder of a plain and simple civilian not worthy of a swat team and 110 rounds fired, 68 of which met their mark?
-
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/
Lol! Is it bad if I've had 5 of those jobs at one time or another?