Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: LEO's accidentally shoot homeowner.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, , USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/cri....homeowner.cnn

    I was following this story on cnn.com. This is a terrible tragedy that happened to a homeowner who was protecting his family and his home. He had a text book encounter where he subdued the assailant, and requested for the LE to come and make the actual arrest. Upon entering the home, with full knowledge that the homeowner was the one with the gun, they open fired on him hitting him in the back first, and then 5 additional times.

    I've never had to deal with the stress that the Phoenix PD has to deal with in these situations, but what else could the homeowner have done to have not been shot? I think a review of this situation could benefit us all.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    was Meridian ID, just moved to Killeen, Texas, USA
    Posts
    185

    Post imported post

    Wow. There are several lessons to be learned here for both sides.

    Sounds to me that both homeowners, husband and wife did everything right. They notified everyone who needed to know the situation. They stayed on the phone with 911.

    The officers going in the house made mistakes, they did not announce there presence in the house according to the reports which would have given the homeowner a chance to posture in a way to keep something like this from happening. Did the dispatcher relay the info prior to them arriving on scene?

    I had a incident here in Meridian where my wife called 911 for what we thought someone had broken into the back yard, I didn't tell her to tell them I had a gun out and drawn around the front of the house and I realized this so when I was out front and saw the LEO pull up I put the gun back in the house in a manner that he didn't see it. That is what I meant by "posture". Together my wife and I have fixed this and now know what to say to 911 and do in that situation regardless of where we are at the time. This can happen anywhere, not just in the house. I didn't have the same situation but I know that if I was standing out front with a gun, regardless if the LEO knew there was a gun out of not, it could have went bad.

    In this gentleman's situation it may have been tough to lay down the gun in a safe place, certainly if he didn't know LEO were in the house. His wife and lawyer stated it would have been hard to see the gun from that vantage point of the LEO, shot in the back says it all.

    I am not defending the LEO, but they have a damn tough job, and made a huge almost deadly mistake. Every time they are on duty, they have to remember to not violate our rights, that is not easy when you throw in the stress factor. As widescreen said, some of us have never had to deal with that stress the officers did. Again, not defending them, I can only hope the department figures out how to fix this for the next time they find themselves in this same situation. I hope the Dept. does the right thing and doesn't cover anything up and hadles it properly. They already cleared the officer based on the video report.

    Widescreen said it well, we review this from what we know so far, watch the development of this and learn from it.



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Maybe the homeowner should have been wearing one of these. This is something that has been discussed many times but you call the police and they show up fining one person holding another at gun point a lot ot things can happen and very quickly. Unfortunately some of those things are bad. Much like the incident where the officer though the woman was being attacked by a dog. If he stands around waiting to be sure and the dog kills her then he has screwed up. As they say seconds count and sometimes you just have to flip a mental coin. Sometimes is comes up heads and sometimes tails. It started out as a bad situation and got worse.



    http://www.newamericantruth.com/revi...smbannerfb.jpg

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I hope he wins multimillion dollar compensation.


    Edit: This is just another example of why police shouldn't be trusted with guns. Only citizens have the judgement and training to use guns properly.

    This case is all the evidence you need. The citizen did everything by the book, according to the law. The police, on the other hand, represent a danger to the law-abiding and little threat to the criminal. Other recent events that can be read about here further underline the point.

    Further edit: Yes, I am intentionally using the arguments of the Brady Bunch, turned on their head. The question is whether those arguments might actually have validity when inverted so! :shock:

  5. #5
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613

    Post imported post

    Calling this an accidental shooting is wrong. An accident infers that the officer did not intend to fire his weapon. This officer saw a man, either saw the gun or just assumed the man was holding the other man with one, and summarily chose to take him out. It was a conscious decision and thus cannot be labeled as an accident.

    Also, according to the transcripts with 911, the operator knew the homeowner was armed and holding the suspect at bay. Thus, the officer should have known too.

    Even if he did not know, there is nothing to indicate that the homeowner did anything whatsover that would warrant the officer firing upon him. He did not point the firearm at the officer by all accounts. He was merely standing, holding a suspect at gun point.

    The tape does not have the officers identifying themselves and telling the homeowner to drop his gun.

    The tape does have the homeowner identifying himself. Also, the wife of the homeowner told the officers her husband had a gun and to not shoot him.

    From all appearances, this was one officer, for whatever reason, had it in his head that someone with a gun was to be treated as a threat. No questions asked, just shoot and take out the one with the gun, or in this case, the one that appears to be holding a gun.

    This is why the OC movement is so important.

    Guns have for too long been depicted by the media and hoplophobes as evil, as something to be feared. The anti's would like everyone to believe, cops included, that someone with a gun is to be instantly suspect, a danger to societal norms.

    This officer, INHO, had been programmed in just this manner. He went in there to neutralize the threat and the threat was the MWAG.

    Carry On people, for we have a long battle ahead...

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Phoenix? Why is this not in the AZ forum? CA, ID...

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    From possibly fuzzy memory:

    A few years ago I read in one of the gun magazines about a training scenario at some shooting school. Shoot house situation; but with air-soft or something like that.

    The students did the shooting scenario individually. The students were told the scenario was that they were arriving to work. Walking down the hall they hear a fight. They turn the corner in one of the "offices" to see one man on the floor on his back, the other atop him stabbing him with a knife. The students were told to solve the problem.

    Except one,all the students shot the knife-man.The student who didn't automatically shootordered the knife-man to drop the knife or he wouldshoot. Afterward the coaches were curious and asked the student why, unlike everyone else, he didn't just shoot the knife-man.

    The student replied that he didn't know if the knife-man was the attacker ora defenderwho had gotten the knife away from an attacker.

    Mymemory is even fuzzier on this next point: apparently even the coaches were thinking narrowly, not taking into account that the knife-man might be a good guy fighting for his life having gotten the knife away from the bad guy.

    At least one self-defense authorityharps on making darn sure you know whether its the good guy or the badguyyou are shooting, recommending that if you are not 100% sure, save your rounds.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sneads Ferry, ,
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    According to comments made by the home owners lawyer in an interview on Fox that I saw the cops not only shot the home owner but were clearly heard on the 911 tape that they didn't know was being picked up by the phone still in the hand of the home owner declaring their intent to cover up their goof. BTW the department investigation declared the shoot "good".

  9. #9
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    I read about this story a few days ago somewhere else, had to try and find a somewhat credible link. The homeowner alledges that the officers on the scene tried to cover it up somehow.

    I'm not sure how credible this is.....as far as what they are saying on the 911 tape its hard to hear in the background.

    http://www.abc15.com/content/news/ph...ymRsuVjJg.cspx

    The one thing that gets me is they say that the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing, but if he didn't assess the situation properly and shot the man in the back, how could they clear him???
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    buzzsaw wrote:
    According to comments made by the home owners lawyer in an interview on Fox that I saw the cops not only shot the home owner but were clearly heard on the 911 tape that they didn't know was being picked up by the phone still in the hand of the home owner declaring their intent to cover up their goof. BTW the department investigation declared the shoot "good".
    Of course they did. Blue wall of corruption. We need more Serpicos.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Man, that is AWFUL!! Certainly gives credence to the concept of unloading a mag into anyone unlawfully entering your house, reholstering and THEN calling 911 meeting them unarmed on the front lawn. While not legal in some states, in many states it would be and perhaps safer for the LAC and his family in the short and long term.

    And no, I'm not actually advocating this but this whole thing certainly makes one think about how to protect one's family and self from the "good guys" if you actually capture a bad guy.

    The most heinous aspect to me is that the LEO was cleared of all wrong doing. I can't believe that didn't at least conclude "Hey, you really screwed up, but it was an honest mistake."

    Exit question ... what consequence if the homeowner had instead shot the LEO thinking he was another bad guy?
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Accidentally shot the home owner 6 times?

    Shot once - an accident.

    AFter that, it's deliberate.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Accidentally shot the home owner 6 times?

    Shot once - an accident.

    AFter that, it's deliberate.
    You got that right.

    Some folks have implied he should have shot the perp. I don't see how that would have prevented this. He did the right thing not shooting the intruder he had captured if he didn't feel he needed to.

    The other criminal intruders are a different story however.

    Like I said, I'm beginning to feel more threatened by and at-risk due to police than criminals.

    I've been the victim of police aggression more times than criminal aggression since I left the UK (where I was a victim of criminal aggression more than once).

    This needs to stop. I can handle a few crackheads and some risk of gang violence (I can dish it out as well as them, for the most part). Not true for the police.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    So much for relying on the police to protect you and yours.

    There are also lessons here regarding the wisdom of believing the highly-trained police department is competent with their weapons and should be the only ones allowed to carry them around.

    I hope they are successful in their civil suit and maybe at least the man and his familycan live the rest oftheir life with a bit of relaxation between the bouts of agony and remorse over trusting the police to protect him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    I hope they win. I hope they sue for more after they win. That cop needs to be fired, and so does anyone who even thought of a cover up.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Accidentally shot the home owner 6 times?

    Shot once - an accident.

    AFter that, it's deliberate.
    You are correct, and so is rscottie. 1 shot or the gun slipping out of the officers hands is an accident, not 6 center mass shots, that is training and that is deliberate.
    I wonder if the officer knew the man prior and had it out for him or something.

    However on a plus side you can see how bad of shots the cops are, the cop was probably aiming for the head or the heart, if the cops actually knew how to use the weapons they carry the guy would be dead.

    Kinda off topic but my neighbor had a skunk in he yard I offered to come and shoot it but the Fish and Game and the local police said that would be illegal because it was in city limits so 3 officers came out screwed on silencers and one of them emptied 2 full clips and other ones each emptied 1 full clip finally my friend just through a rock and killed it. I have seen some cops that can shoot but most are horrible shots. One more reason cops should not be allowed to carry guns, they dont even know how to use them.

    I think they should ask for 60 million not 6 make the city squirm a bit to train their officers better both on how to handle a situation like this and accuracy.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, , USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    Gizmoe142 wrote:
    However on a plus side you can see how bad of shots the cops are, the cop was probably aiming for the head or the heart, if the cops actually knew how to use the weapons they carry the guy would be dead.
    Most LEO's that I know can outshoot me. But given that they probably have more range time than I do, they had better be better shots. Not only that, but I've noticed whenever one cop has a weapon drawn... so do 4 others. So you can afford quantity over quality when it comes to gun shots, which is the reason when cops fire, they normally have to account for 50+ casings.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    That's truly terrible. A responsible citizen exercising his God (and constitutionally) given right to defend himself and his family gets what the intruder had coming. The fact that they cleared the officer when it is known and acknowledged that he did not identify himself as a LEO or give the homeowner a chance to identify himself before they fired is a travesty. It disgusts me that this was a "good" shooting as far as Phoenix PD is concerned. If the homeowner was using police logic (I see a gun, open fire!) he would have shot the first LEO in the door. But no, he was responsible. He didn't shoot an intruder he probably had every right to shoot because he didn't feel he needed to. Maybe the PD should take a lesson on when to use/not use deadly force from this gentleman. This whole thing makes me feel disgusted and a little sick. I'm sure this just echoes what has already been said but I needed to vent.

    PS. I always learned that you don't shoot an intruder in the back. He's probably fleeing or at the least, not in a position to fight back.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    Phoenix? Why is this not in the AZ forum? CA, ID...
    Because the people in the AZ forum are in denial about the real gun rights situation in their state. This becomes more obvious every time I read the AZ forum.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I think one thread on this story already got locked.

    In any case, it makes one wonder why they don't just pass a law making it legal for cops to shoot anyone they want and just get it over with already.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    I think one thread on this story already got locked.

    In any case, it makes one wonder why they don't just pass a law making it legal for cops to shoot anyone they want and just get it over with already.
    why pass a law that is unnecessary?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    I read that the officer admitted on the 911 tape that he didn't see the weapon. Not all the 911 tape was released. Home owners Beware, LEO have 'qualified immunity'. That means that 'as long as the officers have 'good intentions' in what their doing , their covered. If doctors had this the it would solve the high cost of medical coverage.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    JSlack7851 wrote:
    I read that the officer admitted on the 911 tape that he didn't see the weapon. Not all the 911 tape was released. Home owners Beware, LEO have 'qualified immunity'. That means that 'as long as the officers have 'good intentions' in what their doing , their covered. If doctors had this the it would solve the high cost of medical coverage.
    More courts all the time are disallowing a "qualified immunity" defense. Cases in point are St John v. Alamogordo and Lund v. Salt Lake City. In both of these cases, the courts ruled that where there was well established law, the officers were liable for their actions.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    JSlack7851 wrote:
    I read that the officer admitted on the 911 tape that he didn't see the weapon. Not all the 911 tape was released. Home owners Beware, LEO have 'qualified immunity'. That means that 'as long as the officers have 'good intentions' in what their doing , their covered. If doctors had this the it would solve the high cost of medical coverage.
    More courts all the time are disallowing a "qualified immunity" defense. Cases in point are St John v. Alamogordo and Lund v. Salt Lake City. In both of these cases, the courts ruled that where there was well established law, the officers were liable for their actions.
    Not to mention the whole "cover up" planning either. Anytime there's a conspiracy to cover up, immunity should go right out of the window.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    277

    Post imported post

    Man, this is disgusting. Another sad thing is that if the wife responded to her husband being shot upby the JBT by opening fire on themthen she would have either been gunned down like a dog or locked up waiting for the needle.



    -Gruu

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •