Wethersfield cop shoots, kills unarmed man

First, this is not an anti-LEO post.....

http://www.courant.com/community/we...police-shooting-0203-20110202,0,1348243.story

I say this is interesting, considering the laws here if we ever have to defend ourselves. Whether we open carry or not, most incidents I hear of someone defending themselves have an armed opponent. Often, the armed citizen is drug through the ringer trying to convince the legal system that he was in the right.

I wonder how severe this will be for an officer with an unarmed suspect. Could be beneficial to any of us if we ever have to defend ourselves as a comparison if he does have no repercussion from this incident. Especially given all the training and such that an officer receives and still having to fatally discharge his weapon.

Time will tell,

Jonathan

Nothing will happen to the cop. Will be the usual whitewash and finding of 'justified.' The real shame is how easy this is to forecast as to the outcome.

The article said that the suspect tried to gain control of the officer's firearm and was shot.

but the man struggled violently and tried to take the officer's gun, he said.

Click to expand...

This may only be relying on the officer's word, but I willing to consider him innocent until proven guilty just like I would expect from anyone else if it were me involved in the shooting.

I can say without a doubt, that someone that unlawfully tries to gain control of my firearm is definitely inside my 'imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm' zone and will be handled as such. I cannot fault an officer for pulling the trigger when a suspect is actively trying to take his firearm.

Rich B said:

The article said that the suspect tried to gain control of the officer's firearm and was shot.



This may only be relying on the officer's word, but I willing to consider him innocent until proven guilty just like I would expect from anyone else if it were me involved in the shooting.

I can say without a doubt, that someone that unlawfully tries to gain control of my firearm is definitely inside my 'imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm' zone and will be handled as such. I cannot fault an officer for pulling the trigger when a suspect is actively trying to take his firearm.

Click to expand...

Or so he says. No witnesses: nice, easy whitewash.

Gunslinger said:

Or so he says. No witnesses: nice, easy whitewash.

Click to expand...

Why would he just blow the guy away for no reason? For a couple of days off? If the story happened as it is reported, this is justified, 100%, no question. He ran, struggled, tried to strangle the cop, attempted to take away his gun, the gun got loose, he got shot.

According to the article (and I know how inaccurate the press can be!):
- the man was seen sitting in a car (not a crime)
- the officer ordered him out of the car (for what crime?)
- they struggled, officer was injured, officer shot unarmed citizen

If the injuries (& his dash-cam) back his claim of being strangled, etc., & otherwise in fear for his life, & he couldn't use his less-than-lethal tools & training, then I can see calling this justified. (Or, of course, if state law presumes that a shoot by anyone is in self-defense unless the State proves otherwise.)

But he should be held at least to the same standard that any citizen would be.

But why contact a guy who wasn't doing anything?
Maybe he was lost, looking at a map; maybe he was tired, thinking about a nap; maybe he had to make a phone call; maybe... who knows. Too many maybes.
If the guy wasn't in the process of committing a crime, or didn't fit the description of someone who had recently committed a crime, why contact him at all?

That I'd like some LEO input on.

MKEgal said:

According to the article (and I know how inaccurate the press can be!):
- the man was seen sitting in a car (not a crime)
- the officer ordered him out of the car (for what crime?)
- they struggled, officer was injured, officer shot unarmed citizen

If the injuries (& his dash-cam) back his claim of being strangled, etc., & otherwise in fear for his life, & he couldn't use his less-than-lethal tools & training, then I can see calling this justified. (Or, of course, if state law presumes that a shoot by anyone is in self-defense unless the State proves otherwise.)

But he should be held at least to the same standard that any citizen would be.

But why contact a guy who wasn't doing anything?
Maybe he was lost, looking at a map; maybe he was tired, thinking about a nap; maybe he had to make a phone call; maybe... who knows. Too many maybes.
If the guy wasn't in the process of committing a crime, or didn't fit the description of someone who had recently committed a crime, why contact him at all?

That I'd like some LEO input on.

Click to expand...

Man was sitting on private property in a vehicle, after business hours, at night, possibly obstructing the driveway, who knows what type of neighborhood this was, Officer likely knows that people don't sit in the driveway/parking lot of that business on a regular basis at night. Probably enough RAS for a brief detention, order out of the vehicle, pat down and a few questions. It went down hill in obvious ways from there on out. Contact in and of itself needs no justification and the standard for a brief detention is relatively low. RAS of what...drug crime, trespass, burglary. . . judging by the guy's response it seems that at least something was not right with the situation.

emsjeep said:

Man was sitting on private property in a vehicle, after business hours, at night, possibly obstructing the driveway, who knows what type of neighborhood this was, Officer likely knows that people don't sit in the driveway/parking lot of that business on a regular basis at night. Probably enough RAS for a brief detention, order out of the vehicle, pat down and a few questions. It went down hill in obvious ways from there on out. Contact in and of itself needs no justification and the standard for a brief detention is relatively low. RAS of what...drug crime, trespass, burglary. . . judging by the guy's response it seems that at least something was not right with the situation.

Click to expand...

So he was maybe obstructing a driveway after business hours when no one was using it. Cop had less than lethal options--even if there was a struggle, but shot and killed an unarmed man. Hopefully, there will be video evidence of what happened, otherwise, like I said, it will be whitewashed based solely on the cop's account. Maybe he was justified, maybe not. But the take away is he killed an unarmed man. The burden of proof would be 100% on a citizen to affirmatively defend this action. On a cop, basically 0%--failing 3rd party evidence.

Gunslinger said:

So he was maybe obstructing a driveway after business hours when no one was using it. Cop had less than lethal options--even if there was a struggle, but shot and killed an unarmed man. Hopefully, there will be video evidence of what happened, otherwise, like I said, it will be whitewashed based solely on the cop's account. Maybe he was justified, maybe not. But the take away is he killed an unarmed man. The burden of proof would be 100% on a citizen to affirmatively defend this action. On a cop, basically 0%--failing 3rd party evidence.

Click to expand...

I'm usually the last one to say, "good shoot," but, in the end, a struggle over a gun is a lethal encounter. Why would he want the gun if he didn't intend to use it? If the guy was stable he would have said something to justify his sitting there, instead he ran and fought based on a mere encounter with the police, who knows if it was even at the level of an investigative detention....if the story is as written, I don't see a problem, I would hope that a private citizen could walk away from an encounter like that after being forced to shoot.

emsjeep said:

I'm usually the last one to say, "good shoot," but, in the end, a struggle over a gun is a lethal encounter. Why would he want the gun if he didn't intend to use it? If the guy was stable he would have said something to justify his sitting there, instead he ran and fought based on a mere encounter with the police, who knows if it was even at the level of an investigative detention....if the story is as written, I don't see a problem, I would hope that a private citizen could walk away from an encounter like that after being forced to shoot.

Click to expand...

The question is: was there, in fact, a struggle, and if there was with the cop gaining control of his pistol, was he in fear of death or grievous bodily harm. No one else was threatened so only the cop was at any risk and has to meet that standard the same as a citizen. And that is an affirmative defense to the fact that he took a life and must be set forth. That's the rest of the story and until it's told, conclusions either way are premature. Guess we wait and see.

My only part in all of this was the double standard.

If he felt his life was threatened, then I agree the use of force was indeed justified.

I only wish our citizens had the same protection when feel our lives are threatened.

Castle Doctrine could, of course, fix this.....

Jonathan

This looks bad for OC. If you get involved in a non-lethal fight of some kind, the guy could go after your openly carried firearm, escalating it to the same situation this cop faced. And the media will blame you for hanging the carrot on a stick for the other guy.

On the cop's actions.
If I tried to disarm a police officer, I'd expect the same response. Hell, if someone tried to take a gun from my hip I'd likely shoot him. Maybe it's not the right response, but I bet it would put you into a defensive mindset you've never experienced before.

AGust82 said:

This looks bad for OC. If you get involved in a non-lethal fight of some kind, the guy could go after your openly carried firearm, escalating it to the same situation this cop faced. And the media will blame you for hanging the carrot on a stick for the other guy.

Click to expand...

Not buying that one. By the same logic....

blame the rape victim for being young, attractive and waring makeup
blame the mugging victim for walking out of a bank with money in their pocket
blame the robbery victim for having such a nice flat panel TV and electronics

It is more of the same, though.

Blame someone for following the law and blame the victim because it's so much more politically correct than actually blaming the scumbag perp.

Jonathan

KIX said:

Not buying that one. By the same logic....

blame the rape victim for being young, attractive and waring makeup
blame the mugging victim for walking out of a bank with money in their pocket
blame the robbery victim for having such a nice flat panel TV and electronics

Click to expand...

It has never stopped ignorant people from telling me that someone is going to snatch my pistol while I am OCing.

No one ever stops to think that just because someone is OCing, does not mean that they are also not CCing.

Regardless, attempting to take someone's sidearm is a very, very bad idea that is definitely a justification for self defense.

agreed.

I'd really like to see dashboard cam or audio of the incident. Right now, we only have one side of the story.

As the saying goes, there's always three sides to a story, his side, her side and the truth!

Jonathan

Being disamred while OCing

It is extremely rare that a citizen open carrying can or will be disarmed, despite the hype form antis. Police are more frequently disarmed just because as sworn LEOs they have to chase the bad guy down dark streets, corner them like rats and wrestle with them in the mud.

AGust82 said:

This looks bad for OC. If you get involved in a non-lethal fight of some kind, the guy could go after your openly carried firearm, escalating it to the same situation this cop faced. And the media will blame you for hanging the carrot on a stick for the other guy.

On the cop's actions.
If I tried to disarm a police officer, I'd expect the same response. Hell, if someone tried to take a gun from my hip I'd likely shoot him. Maybe it's not the right response, but I bet it would put you into a defensive mindset you've never experienced before.

Click to expand...

A potentially lethal fight is any one in which a weapon of any sort is used, any which involves contact with the head or any which involves contact that risks or causes one to fall. Enough people have been killed by a single punch to the head that anyone who claims, "they should have beat each other up and gone home" can be made to look like an idiot.

Benefit of the doubt.

Gunslinger said:

So he was maybe obstructing a driveway after business hours when no one was using it. Cop had less than lethal options--even if there was a struggle, but shot and killed an unarmed man. Hopefully, there will be video evidence of what happened, otherwise, like I said, it will be whitewashed based solely on the cop's account. Maybe he was justified, maybe not. But the take away is he killed an unarmed man. The burden of proof would be 100% on a citizen to affirmatively defend this action. On a cop, basically 0%--failing 3rd party evidence.

Click to expand...

Gunslinger,

I have had several bad encounters with LE in my youth. I've been threatened and detained on enough false statements to have an inherent distrust in LE. In fact I attended protests against the Mesa police back when they were in killing spree mode. I think the protest was in 04. I question if that had anything to do with my DELAY on my first firearm purchase. The murder of Tasia Patton opened my eyes. I knew any citizen would at least be held accountable for manslaughter in a similar situation and I've always felt that those sworn to uphold the law should be held to a higher standard.

My point in all this is I am not an LE lover.

I do believe this officer is innocent until proven guilty. His statements, if true, show a justifiable kill. If there was a struggle for his weapon the man was armed. Retention training is a whole 'nother story.

By the way, I am happy to see that cops actually do get charged with murder these days.

soapbox/
Please remember, if/when you call police they are not there to mediate. They are there to arrest and trained to shoot at the first sign of danger. That includes hitting a police motorcycle in front of your vehicle even if the officer is behind you.
/soapbox

BTW, reading these articles again made my stomach churn. I think the police here have gotten much better but in the late 90's to early 2000's I hated and feared them. I'd personally been in more encounters with them than I care to admit and had their trigger-happy hands holding guns to my temple. When they weren't holding weapons to me they were concocting stories to search me and friends. I never once let them search me, I knew my rights then and I know them now.

Now the police call me sir and thank me.:lol: How the world changes.

KIX said:

agreed.

I'd really like to see dashboard cam or audio of the incident. Right now, we only have one side of the story.

As the saying goes, there's always three sides to a story, his side, her side and the truth!

Jonathan

Click to expand...

Or more accurately: 'Only two guys know what really happened.... me and that dead guy over there!'

Paranoid trolls

A few nuggets for all you conspiracy theorist. 1. The “victim” had an extensive record, 2. He was trespassing 3. If you had a suspicious vehicle trespassing in your area wouldn’t you want the cops to investigate? 4. Did the police officer choke himself to the point that he had to be hospitalized? 5. I know the police officer and respect the hard work our officers of the law do. 6. I hope when the day comes and you board trolls need the help of a police officer, that they don’t investigate.

I am not a cop.