Police in Stevens Point investigate shooting by one of their own

imported post

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/34147274.html#

Once again, the protectors of society make us wonder how they are supposed to enforce right when they can't prove they know what it is.

Of course not all of the facts are listed in the article, but we do know that the officer is allowed to keep his job and pay until he is proven in the wrong. I just think using all of the measures to stop someone considered a suspect is a bit on the rough side. After all, isn't force to be considered a last resort? And it is not even known whether or not the dead suspect was even carrying a weapon.

No matter what, it just leaves a person wondering what is considered excessive force and why there isn't the whole issue of entrapment anymore (although slightly off topic, still a concern to me).

imported post

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/34147274.html# wrote:

Authorities plan to release the name of the Stevens Point officer involved in a fatal shooting Monday.

Police say the officer shot and killed a man in Stevens Point near SPASH Saturday around 2:15 in the afternoon.

The Stevens Point officer, a 14 year veteran, pursued the man after the suspect fled from a parking lot in front of County Market in Stevens Point. Authorities say they wanted to talk to the man about a stolen car.

Stevnes Point Police Chief Jeff Morris says the suspect was cornered off by the veteran officer on Second Street near SPASH, where he was tazed, sprayed with OC and then shot twice in the chest.

The suspect was pronounced dead at St. Michael's Hospital.

Chief Morris says they found no identification on the suspect.

He would not say whether the man had a weapon when the officer fired.

The officer is currently on administrative leave until the department has completed their investigation.

Sunday investigators interviewed the officer involved in the shooting.

The Portage County Sheriff's Department along with the State of Wisconsin Department of Criminal Investigation are aiding in the investigation of the incident.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this horrible incident. (And what a horribly coded page it came from!)

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20081109/WDH0101/81109041/1981

The Stevens Point Police officer who shot and killed a man Saturday afternoon was interviewed Sunday by investigators and he remains on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

Around 2 p.m. Saturday police responded to the Trig’s County Market parking lot at 1600 Academy Ave., for a report of a stolen car. When the first officer tried to handcuff the suspect, he broke free and fled. Officers fanned out and searched the area, and a different officer spotted the suspect near Stevens Point Area Senior High in the 200 block of Second Street North.

Stevens Point Police Chief Jeff Morris said the officer twice used a Taser and then chemical spray to subdue the suspect. The two men scuffled and the officer shot the man twice in the chest.

The man was pronounced dead at Saint Michael’s Hospital, and the officer was treated for minor injuries.

The officer’s name will be released later this week.

Although there were no witnesses to the shooting, Morris said law enforcement will be able to get a “pretty accurate picture” of what happened, because some people saw at least part of the altercation.

The Portage County Sheriff’s Department and the state Department of Criminal Investigation is investigating the shooting.

Morris said he wanted a separate agency to look at the incident to form a neutral opinion of what happened. “We want to get an outside, objective perspective on this and we want to find out the truth,” Morris said.

There was no identification found with the suspect, and Portage County Coroner Scott Rifleman said he hoped next of kin would come forward to help identify the man.

Morris would not say if any weapons were found with the suspect, but said police officers are trained to use deadly force only in defense of their life or a civilian’s life.

Police train seven times a year on the shooting range and are put through training to simulate real life scenarios, Morris said. “To fire your weapon, the officer has to feel that the person has the means and the intent to do great bodily harm. It has to be more than a fist fight,” Morris said.

Morris said there were multiple times for the suspect to surrender peacefully, and the officers that responded showed restraint throughout the situation. He said the officer who fired the shots will undergo a mandatory counseling session and additional sessions for him and his family are available.

The neighborhood near the shooting was quiet Sunday afternoon. The police tape was gone and neighbors were inside.

Several people said they were out when the shooting occurred and only learned about it Saturday night.

Click to expand...

Thank goodness there were witnesses after all!

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and buns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

Tazered twice, pepper sprayed, and you still don't go down. You are either brain dead or high on drugs.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

Tazered twice, pepper sprayed, and you still don't go down. You are either brain dead or high on drugs.

Click to expand...

That was my thought as well.

imported post

I wonder if we'll ever know. I doubt that this would have been presented as it was without the witnesses.

imported post

If you want to question someone, and they run away. do they deserve to die? or even be pursued at all?

I don't understand why they can taze, pepper spray, shoot, and kill someone who essentially did not want to be questioned.

imported post

Or, just plain scared. Blind rage or panic will also stop normal reponse to pain.

He obviously had reason to fear police, as his body shows
he was correct in the assesment. Maybe he was worried about being harrassed
for not having his 'papers'. Shame he didn't remember to carry recorder.
Since they can't identify him by prints, he can't have much of a record, or
been in much trouble before.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

Tazered twice, pepper sprayed, and you still don't go down. You are either brain dead or high on drugs.

Click to expand...

Concur. If true as reported, I'll go way out on a limb& suggest that meth might be involved.


Does no good to 2nd guess the officer's decision; that's what an investigation is for and putting the officer on admin leave is standard protocol - well, except on some TV shows.

Sounds on the surface as if less-lethal methods weren't gettingthe job done. I suppose if multiple officers had taken the suspect to the ground with extreme authority he'd have not broken free in the first place, ergo... so perhaps the officer might be guilty of failing topickup the clues that this guy was fixing to boogie but I don't know because I wasn't there.

What would the OP suggest is the proper escalation of force protocol for someone who apparently has no intention of complying in any way?

Oh, yeah. This has to do with championing the cause of open-carry in WI how?

imported post

I posted this new story because I wanted to prove the point that as individuals we have the responsibility to know what is going on around us if we are to retain our rights as free people. For instance, how can a person argue that they are not aware of their surroundings and acts that could potentially have a negative outcome on their safety and that of their family if they remain oblivious to the fact that ultimately we are responsible for our own fates and lives. Yet opposition to individual 2nd A rights contend that we are to depend on the "protectors" of society such as the police and other government entities to keep us free from harm, when the truth is that even those "protectors" have their own safety and best interest in mind.

We need to be reliant on our own abilities, not on the hopes that someone will always be there to intervene when we need it. Therefore I find it a good argument that we should prepare for any situation and be aware of situations that could cause us great harm, and definitely make sure we can defend our own safety in the end. But most of all, we need to understand that sometimes the welfare of those we love is in our hands.

I know this is a roundabout way of making an argument, but examples make for better information than conjecture.

The officer in this situation could have been justified of his use of deadly force and all the other measures he took prior to using his weapon, or it may have been a case of abuse of power. The point is that it should never be assumed that any person would have a superhuman sense of right and wrong, that they could also be going to unwarranted degrees of force where it wasn't needed. Any rational person can see that as responsible citizens we are in charge of our lives, and sometimes that requires being ready for situations that we'd rather not deal with but just have to.

In the end, hopefully the missing tape will surface and the truth will be seen. Or maybe a credible witness steps forward and presents either justification in the matter, or a condemning blow to the officer's defense. Either way, there is reason to believe that we do need to look at this as another reason to carry the right protection for whatever situation arises.

Forgive me if I seem to ramble on. Lately sleep has been a missing component in my life as I am taking of my newborn son. And that is another reason I am paying more attention to rights and liberties as I intend to do what is necessary to protect my family. Part of that is passing on information I think will affect others as I feel it also affects me and those I love. Even if it means some sleep deprived posts that may not make the "Got To The Point In Ten Words Or Less" Award category.

Bear with me, I'll eventually adjust to less sleep.

imported post

opusd2 wrote:

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/34147274.html#

Once again, the protectors of society make us wonder how they are supposed to enforce right when they can't prove they know what it is.

Of course not all of the facts are listed in the article, but we do know that the officer is allowed to keep his job and pay until he is proven in the wrong. I just think using all of the measures to stop someone considered a suspect is a bit on the rough side. After all, isn't force to be considered a last resort? And it is not even known whether or not the dead suspect was even carrying a weapon.

No matter what, it just leaves a person wondering what is considered excessive force and why there isn't the whole issue of entrapment anymore (although slightly off topic, still a concern to me).

Click to expand...

I understand fully your treatise on self-reliance. It's the antithesis of collectivism as Ms. Celinska points out in her recentstudy. (Those who are self-reliant already knew that.) I get it, I really do. I would no more expect 911 to bemy solution to an immediate problem than I believe Joe Biden is going to "challenge the Washington establishment."

My point is, if you'll review your opening, you seem to assert that they don't know what's right because they can't prove they do. They don't have to, all things are not known yet, that's what an investigation is for. (One thing I'llwager on; at some point things were quickly heading to where that officer wasn't going to go home that night.) Your middle paragraph is fairly clear:

- Neither we nor you know all the facts. (this is an important assumption)

- Innocent until guilty applies to everyone, not just people who aren't police officers.

- Force is a last resort? You bet. Ask any officer who's had to investigate a road-rage incident wherein a CC-permit holder has gone to the gun over a fender bender. Ask yourself if, again absent all the facts, we tend to immediately judge police officers more harshly than others.

- You're right again, not yet known whether the suspect was carrying a weapon. Again, that's why an investigation. Not yet known

(Your comment about entrapment is a mystery to me.)

Congratulations on your son; some sleep deprivation is part & parcel of that experience and I'll admit I wouldn't go through that again for anyone.When you've gotten some rest, there are some good works out on the internet that might illuminate how quickly and dynamic a hands-on encounter with a suspect can be and how quickly things can go south. Try the Force Science Institute with the Univ of Mankato. Life doesn't happen on a square range, 21 feet away.

Good luck!

imported post

In the end, hopefully the missing tape will surface and the truth will be seen

Click to expand...

The missing tape they are talking about is the yellow tape they use to secure a crime scene.I doubt that anyone is really worried about that tape being missing and doubt that it can provide much information about what happened.

imported post

mrbiggles wrote:

If you want to question someone, and they run away........or even be pursued at all?

Click to expand...

He was a suspect in a crime. Yes he should have been pursued.

imported post

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz deleted my post it seems

imported post

WIG19 wrote:

- Force is a last resort? You bet. Ask any officer who's had to investigate a road-rage incident wherein a CC-permit holder has gone to the gun over a fender bender.

Click to expand...

Are you saying the ANTI's have it right, CC holders and those who carry in general are a DANGER to society?

If I misunderstood, please clarify.

imported post

pkbites wrote:

mrbiggles wrote:

If you want to question someone, and they run away........or even be pursued at all?

Click to expand...

He was a suspect in a crime. Yes he should have been pursued.

Click to expand...

Indeed, that's one of the reasons we employ police. It's in their job description, not ours.

As far as the guy who was shot being "tazered twice" let's not forget the weather is cold now and he could have been wearing thick clothes. Best to let the facts come in before running off with this one.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

In the end, hopefully the missing tape will surface and the truth will be seen

Click to expand...

The missing tape they are talking about is the yellow tape they use to secure a crime scene.I doubt that anyone is really worried about that tape being missing and doubt that it can provide much information about what happened.

Click to expand...

I was wrong when I incorrectly misread "Police Tape" as being the tape made in a camera in the car and not as the tape used to section off the area where this took place. I stand corrected, thank you for the clarification. It changes my view a little. There was a moment when I took it as a bad thing as I thought someone had removed the recording from inside the car, as it stood that way it seemed fishy to me.

Perhaps I am a bit jaded in my views of LEO. I have relatives in various positions from officer to investigator to my uncle who teaches and have seen a bit of 'Do as I say - not as I do' behavior growing up. Even as a freshman in college while taking my criminal justice courses as I initially decided to become LE I learned many facts and means of operation that made me uncomfortable since it didn't seem that the law provided equal protection and punishment across the board. But that is just a fact of life, and a change of major was in order...

And I have friends involved in the system in Door County who should have gotten DUIs and other offenses only to be protected by fellow LEOs. Only a couple of those instances were investigated after coming to light, but that's just life.

imported post

*

imported post

Pointman wrote:

Look at the progression: The police want to talk to "a guy," and the guy doesn't want to talk to police. He runs, they catch him, taser him, spray him, probably smack him up a bit and try small joint manipulation, and finally shoot him. All this because he doesn't want to talk to authorities.

Click to expand...

Since they were trying to put hanfcuffs on him I would say that it was a little more than just wanting to talk to him and in fact I would say that they had already talked to him and felt that he was a prime suspect. Normally the police don't place handcuffs on someone just to talk to them so I can't go along with this some guy just not wanting to talk to authorities.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Since they were trying to put hanfcuffs on him I would say that it was a little more than just wanting to talk to him and in fact I would say that they had already talked to him and felt that he was a prime suspect. Normally the police don't place handcuffs on someone just to talk to them so I can't go along with this some guy just not wanting to talk to authorities.

Click to expand...

So the police attempted an arrest and the guy fled. If the story is correct about the guy not talking to the police, unless they actually saw him trying to break into a car then they didn't have the grounds to arrest in the first place.

If, during the scuffle, the man verbally threatened the officers life then the officer is now in fear of great bodily harm and may act with lethal force. Though witnesses far away probably couldn't hear anything that was said between the officer and the suspect, if anything was.

imported post

smithman wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Since they were trying to put hanfcuffs on him I would say that it was a little more than just wanting to talk to him and in fact I would say that they had already talked to him and felt that he was a prime suspect. Normally the police don't place handcuffs on someone just to talk to them so I can't go along with this some guy just not wanting to talk to authorities.

Click to expand...

So the police attempted an arrest and the guy fled. If the story is correct about the guy not talking to the police, unless they actually saw him trying to break into a car then they didn't have the grounds to arrest in the first place.

If, during the scuffle, the man verbally threatened the officers life then the officer is now in fear of great bodily harm and may act with lethal force. Though witnesses far away probably couldn't hear anything that was said between the officer and the suspect, if anything was.

Click to expand...

I am misssing something in this. Where is the refusal to talk to police coming from? Evidently there is a report that I haven't see as all I saw was they were trying to put the cuffs on him and he fled. Did the police have some reason to try and handcuff him other than he looked guilty or they just chose him to have a bad day? Did they try to arrest him because he didn't want to talk to them. I missed the part about why they were trying to handcuff him Can someone post why they chose the dead man to be the suspect in the car theft? Normally the police don't just choose someone out of the blue to place handcuffs on or at least I didn't think they did. Usually they at least give some reason even if it is a made up one.