• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Cop shoots firefighter in KCMO

thedudejdog

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
9
Location
United States
http://fox4kc.com/2014/02/25/cell-phone-video-shows-final-moments-of-confrontation-between-bruno-and-hubbard/

This video was posted yesterday on the FOX4 website.

I personally grew up with Anthony Bruno, the man in this video. I didn't know him well but his sisters knew and hung out with my sisters.

Anyway, two reasons I'm posting this here.

1. I'm a long time reader of the site and I've come to respect the opinions of most of you here.

2. Your take is on this and mostly what are the responsibilities of off-duty LEOs to put themselves in situations like this. Couldn't he have simply called it in and kept over-watch over the suspect until backup arrived?

Thanks for reading.
 

Mo

Banned
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Location
usa
It was a clear cut case of self defense by the officer. Bruno was completely out of control and was beating the hell out of him.

He also ran from the scene, so I'm not sure how the officer was supposed to just watch him until backup arrived.

I support the decision of the grand jury 100%.

I'm also sorry that this happened to somebody you knew and can understand why you're looking for answers.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Tough for all concerned.

A "cop did not shoot a firefighter."

A "cop" defended himself from a citizen who was attacking him while he was attempting to do his job.

Alcohol is a factor, .21 BAC, good judgement was impaired and a tragic outcome is the result.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Now when cops do this to other cops, usually the shooter gets harassed to heck by his fellow workers. WOnder if the same will happen here. "Sorry I sprayed ya with the hose and then ran you over with the fire truck"
 

thedudejdog

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
9
Location
United States
Tough for all concerned.

A "cop did not shoot a firefighter."

A "cop" defended himself from a citizen who was attacking him while he was attempting to do his job.

Alcohol is a factor, .21 BAC, good judgement was impaired and a tragic outcome is the result.

Yes, the main thing I'm hung up on I guess is the fact the officer was off duty. What are your responsibilities in a situation like this? Should you be chasing groups of people down the street and attempting arrests while off duty?

The thread title was just the headline I've heard locally around the city, figured locals would recognize the topic faster.



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Yes, the main thing I'm hung up on I guess is the fact the officer was off duty. What are your responsibilities in a situation like this? Should you be chasing groups of people down the street and attempting arrests while off duty?

The thread title was just the headline I've heard locally around the city, figured locals would recognize the topic faster.



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Depends on your department. We have a policy that your never really "off-duty". You have to respond or assist if you see something blatantly right in front of you. Its on the officer to use discretion as to how he responds to incident. If someone is clearly getting hurt then I'd say you have to intervene or get possibly fired. This case didn't seem as if anyone was initially getting hurt and I don't know their policy.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Mo

Banned
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Location
usa
Depends on your department. We have a policy that your never really "off-duty". You have to respond or assist if you see something blatantly right in front of you. Its on the officer to use discretion as to how he responds to incident. If someone is clearly getting hurt then I'd say you have to intervene or get possibly fired. This case didn't seem as if anyone was initially getting hurt and I don't know their policy.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

From what I understand, there was a fare dispute between Mr. Bruno and a taxi driver where Mr. Bruno allegedly assaulted the driver and called police. The off duty officer was in uniform and working at a nearby hotel and heard the call.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
From what I understand, there was a fare dispute between Mr. Bruno and a taxi driver where Mr. Bruno allegedly assaulted the driver and called police. The off duty officer was in uniform and working at a nearby hotel and heard the call.

Got it.. thanks for the clarification.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
From what I understand, there was a fare dispute between Mr. Bruno and a taxi driver where Mr. Bruno allegedly assaulted the driver and called police. The off duty officer was in uniform and working at a nearby hotel and heard the call.

Tough for all concerned.

A "cop did not shoot a firefighter."

A "cop" defended himself from a citizen who was attacking him while he was attempting to do his job.

Alcohol is a factor, .21 BAC, good judgement was impaired and a tragic outcome is the result.

^^^
Bottom line!!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The cop was in uniform and as such his status is irrelevant. RSMo 565.081,.082, and .083 make it a crime to assault a cop.

I suspect that the cop was authorized to engage Bruno. Bruno made a poor choice when confronted by a uniformed cop. He should have submitted to the cops authority and then pursued a redress of wrongs later.

RSMo 544 enumerates the powers that a cop in MO has regarding arrests. RSMo 544.216 specifically provides the authority for the cop to engage Bruno:
...may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, or has violated any ordinance over which such officer has jurisdiction.
It is reported that the cop was responding to a report of a assault. He had a reasonable belief based on the report he received/heard. As a reminder, there is no such thing as a detainment in MO, only arrest. Whether or not the cop cuffs and stuffs, or just talks, once you submit to his authority you are under arrest.

Bruno resisted arrest. This entire incident is on Bruno and no other person.

No winners, only losers.
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Anyone else find the nearly constant misuse of the term "assault" as frustrating as I do?

In many states, including Kansas, Assault = threatening bodily harm. Battery = causing bodily harm. If this guy assaulted someone with his bare hands, as the article says, then he should be arrested, but it really isn't that big of a deal and it could have waited for on-duty police to show up. If he ran, he could be tracked down later since his bride was there, and it was a minor crime anyway. So if he was only accused of assault the off-duty officer arguably went to far by chasing him down and trying to arrest him. Still a good shoot, just could have been handled much better.

However, if he was battering the cabbie as I suspect is actually the case, then physical intervention and immediate restraint is called for if possible, and so the officers actions are fully justified in my opinion.

My point being... If you are going to report news in a particular state, take the time to learn the laws that apply to any legal terms you might frequently need to use.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Anyone else find the nearly constant misuse of the term "assault" as frustrating as I do?

In many states, including Kansas, Assault = threatening bodily harm. Battery = causing bodily harm. If this guy assaulted someone with his bare hands, as the article says, then he should be arrested, but it really isn't that big of a deal and it could have waited for on-duty police to show up. If he ran, he could be tracked down later since his bride was there, and it was a minor crime anyway. So if he was only accused of assault the off-duty officer arguably went to far by chasing him down and trying to arrest him. Still a good shoot, just could have been handled much better.

However, if he was battering the cabbie as I suspect is actually the case, then physical intervention and immediate restraint is called for if possible, and so the officers actions are fully justified in my opinion.

My point being... If you are going to report news in a particular state, take the time to learn the laws that apply to any legal terms you might frequently need to use.

Of course in the case it's Kansas City this is all further complicated by the fact that what is called battery in Kansas is called Assault in Missouri. So this article may be correct, but it is very confusing if you don't also specify in which state the incident took place.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
 
Top