Twinsburg Police Officer Shot and Killed

SWhetsel · Jul 15, 2008

imported post

A police officer was shot in the head 4 times in Twinsburg. The man accused has plead not guilty and is claiming self defense. Kicker of it all is that the man had a CCW. The two links cover all the aspects.

What do you think the public at large will think of CC or OC after something like this?
The reason I ask is that I work in Twinsburg and live 20 min from there, so this directly effects me. I'm worried that those little red signs will start going up everywhere since the accused man had a CCW permit and was "maybe" the cops killer.

http://www.woio.com/Global/story.asp?S=8666696

http://www.wkyc.com/news/state/ohio/news_article.aspx?storyid=93022&catid=23

Pauly · Jul 15, 2008

imported post

Josh was one of my pee-wee football coaches. I wasn't really close to him but we went to the same school, I bought pizza from his joint and he has purchased motorcycle parts from me in the past. An overall great person and always smiling. It is a real shame what happened to him.

As far as the CCW part goes I thought this guy had his license revoked prior. That is the story I am getting. Also, I heard Josh noticed his gun when he tried to subdue him. Why he didn't draw right then and there we'll never know. He should have drawn his weapon. If he had he may very well have been here today. He was shot 4 times and never drew his weapon. I think that detroys the self defense story but still won't bring back a wonderful human being.

God Speed, Josh. Tallmadge Blue Devil Football Rules!!

SWhetsel · Jul 16, 2008

imported post

Yeah I was wondering how you can claim self defense agaist a police officer restraining you into cuffs. How is shooting an officer self defense? I didn't get that one.

Anyway, I did not hear about his CCW being revoked and I'm sure neither will the public. I would bet a dime a dosen that its just made to sound like he still had his CCW.

I wondered if he truely had his CCW, because why didn't he do his "duty to inform", because I'm sure if the officer knew the drunk man had a gun, it may have been a little different approach.

Pauly · Jul 16, 2008

imported post

If the car was registered to him and he had a CCW permit Josh would've known when he ran the plates. Of course, he could have been in someone else's car. Hard to say, just speculation on my part. I sure wish he would have drawn that weapon, though. Terrible loss. He was a great guy.

tito887 · Jul 16, 2008

imported post

it's too bad the public does not realize that it really doesn't matter if someone had a permit. If this guy really murdered a police officer in cold blood then that permit did not allow him to do anything he would have done on his own.

Pauly · Jul 16, 2008

imported post

True. It just makes us look like a bunch of wankers. A nice little blemish on our fairly pristine record.

johnnyb · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

I wonder if it really was self defense? In times past before our constitution was spit on if you were being arrested illegally you were well within your rights to resist.

it would be nice to get the entire story

Pauly · Jul 22, 2008

imported post

No, I knew Josh personally. It wasn't self defense. It isn't self defense if your life isn't in danger. You cannot shoot someone for being arrested, even falsly arrested.

johnnyb · Jul 23, 2008

imported post

Pauly wrote:

No, I knew Josh personally. It wasn't self defense. It isn't self defense if your life isn't in danger. You cannot shoot someone for being arrested, even falsly arrested.

used to be able to.

bobernet · Jul 23, 2008

imported post

Pauly wrote:

You cannot shoot someone for being arrested, even falsly arrested.

Not commenting on whether the arrest was lawful or not.

However, on the quoted comment, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you:

Code:

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1. "These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903. "An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

Pauly · Jul 23, 2008

imported post

I stand corrected. Thanks for the education. Although I doubt the % of victims that make a court appearance is pretty small. (ugh)

rds801 · Jul 23, 2008

imported post

is it a common thing for the dash cams not to record every police stop?

ilbob · Jul 23, 2008

imported post

rds801 wrote:

is it a common thing for the dash cams not to record every police stop?

Idon't know. I thought most of them were tied into the lights so when the overhead lights went on, the camera turned on.

Perhaps there was something wrong with it.

The problem with it not being on is it leads to the possibility of it being off for a reason.

The cop is dead, and the apparent shooter is in jail. The shooter's witness may decide to change her story of self defense once she faces police interrogation and finds she may well be charged as an accessory.

rds801 · Jul 23, 2008

imported post

ilbob, that's what I was thinking...about the cam not being on. Maybe there is something that went down that the cops don't want people to see? just guessing here.

dng · Jul 24, 2008

imported post

Many car cameras start manually. Some will turn on automatically with lights, or if you reach certain speeds. But I don't think that assuming something shady happened would be wise.

ilbob · Jul 24, 2008

imported post

rds801 wrote:

ilbob, that's what I was thinking...about the cam not being on. Maybe there is something that went down that the cops don't want people to see? just guessing here.

I don't know. Its an odd part of the incident.

It is true that many times when the video is unflattering to LE conduct, the video just vanishes. Not real surprising.

Legba · Jul 25, 2008

imported post

Detectives and plainclothes units in unmarked cars typically don't have the dash-cam setups (at least around here). Dunno who arrested the guy but that may explain the lack of audio/visual record.

-ljp

SWhetsel · Jul 25, 2008

imported post

Why is it that most of you are so against the police? There is a negative attitude towards all officers here in these forums on many threads. I understand that people here and everywhere for that matter, have been unjustly treated in instances by the police. However, to be so anti LEO to assume that just because something happened and the video cam didn't work is just paranoid.

Everyone here that assumes the cam not working is a cover up, to me just seems paranoid that the big bad government is lying to them. The man SHOT and KILLED an officer that was arresting him. If you are being arrested, contest your point later, don't just haul off and blast the LEO in the face 4 times.

Maybe they are hiding the tape because its not flattering, or maybe, just maybe, it really didn't work. The officer was a K-9 unit, maybe it was an older car. Just some food for thought.

bobernet · Jul 25, 2008

imported post

SWhetsel wrote:

Why is it that most of you are so against the police? There is a negative attitude towards all officers here in these forums on many threads. I understand that people here and everywhere for that matter, have been unjustly treated in instances by the police. However, to be so anti LEO to assume that just because something happened and the video cam didn't work is just paranoid.

Everyone here that assumes the cam not working is a cover up, to me just seems paranoid that the big bad government is lying to them. The man SHOT and KILLED an officer that was arresting him. If you are being arrested, contest your point later, don't just haul off and blast the LEO in the face 4 times.

Maybe they are hiding the tape because its not flattering, or maybe, just maybe, it really didn't work. The officer was a K-9 unit, maybe it was an older car. Just some food for thought.

No one, that I've seen, has assumed anything yet.

We know that a cop is dead and the man who allegedly shot him is claiming self-defense. He, apparently, has a witness that backs up his side, and we have no video, audio or other witnesses giving a conflicting report.

Until there are more facts, there's no reason to assume the LEO "had it coming" although he may, nor is there any reason to assume the suspect shot illegally (though he may have).

No one has said "the cop had it coming" or "there's definitely a cover up." People have said it might be suspicious that there's no video.

Tomahawk · Jul 25, 2008

imported post

SWhetsel wrote:

Why is it that most of you are so against the police?

Who in this thread, exactly are you talking about?

What do you mean by "against the police"?

How many of these people do you sample before using the word "most"?

Are you an apologist for policemen? If so, why?

Twinsburg Police Officer Shot and Killed

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

State Researcher

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member