Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 92

Thread: Tacoma officer fatally shoots driver near Purdy

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Tacoma officer fatally shoots driver near Purdy

    http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=498301

    A Tacoma police officer has shot and killed a man during a traffic stop on the Key Peninsula near Gig Harbor.
    The officer was heading home about 2 a.m. on Wednesday when she pulled over a driver on highway 302, west of Purdy.

    "The officer made a traffic stop. The subject pulled over, exited his vehicle armed with a gun and the officer opened fire, hitting the subject," explained Tacoma Police spokesman Mark Fulghum.

    Fulghum says the officer who fired on the driver is a seven year veteran of the Tacoma Police Department. She was not hurt in the confrontation.

    The wounded driver was taken to a hospital but Fulghum confirms he died.

    Highway 302 has reopened after being closed for the investigation.


    Anyone know anything more on this? i am really curious about "The subject pulled over, exited his vehicle armed with a gun"
    It dosent say he pointed it at the officer i hope that is what happened and not a open carrier who had it on his hip.

  2. #2
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckUFarley View Post
    http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=498301

    It dosent say he pointed it at the officer i hope that is what happened and not a open carrier who had it on his hip.
    If it indeed was simply a holstered firearm, it was incredibly stupid to exit his/her vehicle before allowing the LEO to make proper contact.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    The officer got out of her patrol car. The driver reportedly got out of his truck and brandished a semi-automatic handgun, Troyer said.
    Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime...#ixzz1PNJnFXei
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 06-15-2011 at 03:36 PM.
    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Superficially, it appears that the officer did what she had to do to make it home that evening. if the driver was intoxicated, and exited their vehicle with wagon in hand, they got exactly what any one of us would have given them, a trip to the ER, and possibly the morgue.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Thanks, the story MNW has is so vauge

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    81
    From first accounts, it appears to be a good shoot. The witness seeing something in the driver's hand before the officer fired helps the officer's case. Being shot at is not required before using deadly force.

    One stupid aspect is the "partially marked" car, with a light bar but no insignia decals on the doors. What would be the purpose of that? Shouldn't play into this situation however, since the driver being pulled over couldn't see the decals anyway.

    At first, I thought it meant recessed lights, like in unmarked cars, but the author of the Tribune piece added a note in the comments section that the car had a light bar.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Dain Bramage View Post
    From first accounts, it appears to be a good shoot. The witness seeing something in the driver's hand before the officer fired helps the officer's case. Being shot at is not required before using deadly force.

    One stupid aspect is the "partially marked" car, with a light bar but no insignia decals on the doors. What would be the purpose of that? Shouldn't play into this situation however, since the driver being pulled over couldn't see the decals anyway.

    At first, I thought it meant recessed lights, like in unmarked cars, but the author of the Tribune piece added a note in the comments section that the car had a light bar.
    The driver was aware enough to pull over for the officer and police car. If not then the driver could of called 911 or driven to a police station. The driver also had a history of DUI according to the TPD, looks like a good shoot.
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckUFarley View Post
    Thanks, the story MNW has is so vauge
    That word "brandished" appeared in the article. It's such vague and open to interpretation word. Did it mean holding, pointing, waving in a threatening manner?

    Does it matter or not?

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Superficially, it appears that the officer did what she had to do to make it home that evening. if the driver was intoxicated, and exited their vehicle with wagon in hand, they got exactly what any one of us would have given them, a trip to the ER, and possibly the morgue.
    Having a gun in hand only covers Ability and Opportunity. Jeopardy/Intent is still missing.

  10. #10
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    Since brandishing is not well defined by the article I am going to go with RCW 9.41.270 as a basis until more information becomes available. Having a weapon in hand alone would be brandishing because it "warrants alarm". An officer arriving on seen observing a man getting out of his car with a handgun in hand (if that indeed was what happened) would be a major problem. If that happened to any one of us, how much time would we effectively have to determine if the person was endangering us to the point of needing to return fire. A moments hesitation could cost you your life if you are wrong.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    Since brandishing is not well defined by the article I am going to go with RCW 9.41.270 as a basis until more information becomes available. Having a weapon in hand alone would be brandishing because it "warrants alarm". An officer arriving on seen observing a man getting out of his car with a handgun in hand (if that indeed was what happened) would be a major problem. If that happened to any one of us, how much time would we effectively have to determine if the person was endangering us to the point of needing to return fire. A moments hesitation could cost you your life if you are wrong.
    Please use the entire phrase...'warranting alarm' is not the phrase..

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons
    .

    At the point where the safety of other people is warranted then this last phrase becomes true.
    Live Free or Die!

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    3:30 Update (and Mainsail and gogodawgs response in the TNT)

    3:30 p.m. UPDATE: The truck driver who was killed has been identified as Brooks Papineau. He died of a gunshot wound to the abdomen, the Pierce County Medical Examiner's Office reported.

    Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said Papineau went to work at 6 p.m. Tuesday night, then left two hours later after he said he felt sick. Investigators were researching where he was between 8 p.m. and 2 a.m.

    Papineau had a Chinese-made handgun with hollow-point bullets, which can pierce body armor.
    Mainsail says:
    JUNE 15, 2011 AT 4:09 PM
    "Papineau had a Chinese-made handgun with hollow-point bullets, which can pierce body armor."

    Stacy, did you write this because you believe it to be true or because the police told you? Hollow points are the least likely to penetrate body armor, so if the police made this statement to you then they are being untruthful.
    gogoDawgs says:
    JUNE 15, 2011 AT 4:32 PM
    Ugh! Hallow point bullets can not pierce body armor! Hallow point bullets absorb material and mushroom in shape upon contact and thus are safer bullets. Please retract that ridiculous statement. Do a simple google search or call an expert!

    Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime...ey-peninsula/#
    Live Free or Die!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    81
    It's not that hollow points can't penetrate a vest, it's that they're definitely not optimal for the job. The best vest penetrators use a hardened post that cuts the fewest number of fibers and spreads the rest, like some of the purpose-built Russian ammunition. It's definitely illegal for common civilian ownwership.

    Hollow points have such a nasty reputation, that people will believe anything about them. It would be better if they had the moniker "safety bullets"; less overpenetraion and more effective. HP, you need a PR campaign.

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Having a gun in hand only covers Ability and Opportunity. Jeopardy/Intent is still missing.
    I and I feel any reasonable prudent person being pulled over by law enforcement and coming out of the vehicle with a gun in hand waving it above his head, would be threatening.
    This is not normal behavior for a person legally armed to address anyone not only law enforcement.
    If I had pulled up behind him to see if he needed help and seen his actions as described, he would likely be in the same place he is now.

    RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
    (2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

    (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
    As for Joe Citizen when it comes to Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy (note I have never seen this version taught ie Intent, this is what the State must prove).
    There does not need to be an actually danger as seen in Jury Instructions
    WPIC 16.07 Justifiable Homicide—Actual Danger Not Necessary and RCW 9A.16.030 Homicide -- When excusable.
    Last edited by BigDave; 06-15-2011 at 08:44 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  15. #15
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Dain Bramage View Post
    It's not that hollow points can't penetrate a vest, it's that they're definitely not optimal for the job. The best vest penetrators use a hardened post that cuts the fewest number of fibers and spreads the rest, like some of the purpose-built Russian ammunition. It's definitely illegal for common civilian ownwership.

    Hollow points have such a nasty reputation, that people will believe anything about them. It would be better if they had the moniker "safety bullets"; less overpenetraion and more effective. HP, you need a PR campaign.
    Its the simple physics behind a hollow point, and I cannot understand why a reporter, or even someone reading would believe that ********.. /facepalm

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    Since brandishing is not well defined by the article I am going to go with RCW 9.41.270 as a basis until more information becomes available. Having a weapon in hand alone would be brandishing because it "warrants alarm". An officer arriving on seen observing a man getting out of his car with a handgun in hand (if that indeed was what happened) would be a major problem. If that happened to any one of us, how much time would we effectively have to determine if the person was endangering us to the point of needing to return fire. A moments hesitation could cost you your life if you are wrong.
    The amount of time available is not the definition of Jeopardy/Intent. Neither is hesitation. Yes, you may well find yourself one day in a situation where you are only a lunge or muzzle-raise from stabbed or shot. But, how easily the guy could do it is Opportunity, not Jeopardy/Intent.

    You want to distinguish between legal manipulations of the word brandishing and the actual meaning of the word--flourishing or waving around.

    Merely carrying in the hand is not the classic definition of brandish. If one carries a handgun in the hand, muzzle down, but with demonstable intent to threaten or intimidate, then the law seems to allow stretching the definition of brandishing to criminalize the action. However, mere hand carry cannot possibly be brandishing in and of itself.

    For all we know, the trucker hand his gun in his hand in preparation for defensive use. Perhaps the trucker was concerned for his life based on the history of his regional police departments.

    Police already have quite a bit of power and latitude. The system is rigged in their favor, too, when it comes to shootings.* I recommend being very careful about the elements of justified lethal force whenever a police officer is involved. What we seem to know for sure at the moment is that government killed one of its citizens.


    *The California cop that shot that young man on the train platform a couple years ago was released from prison last weekend. Two years. That's all.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-15-2011 at 08:47 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Question #1: Since when have any hollow point bullets had the ability to even penetrate light body armor? That is pure BS.

    Question #2: since when did the US allow the import (implied by the Chinese manufactured weapon) of armor piercing ammo?

    Let's assume that the "Chinese manufactured semi-automatic" handgun is a copy of Russian tt33 (7.62X25mm)....there are armor piercing bullets available for these, but they are not hollowpoints (they are FMJ) and they are not imported into the US.

    If this was in fact an incidence of attempted suicide by cop, well it looks like it was successful. However, that is no reason to falsly embellish the ammo type the dead man had in his weapon.

  18. #18
    Regular Member HeesBonafide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    152

    Many great questions and insights....

    I know some intinmate details on this story, and these are all questions that are being asked and why he even exited the vehicle, IF/WHY he had a gun in his hand. I do know that he has been stopped many times before, and he knows the law and what NOT to do with cops and also he had a great heart for others.

    ....and the whole "armor" piercing bullets on a makarov 9mm...well, something tells me that you all know that is the media gone wild.

    We are waiting for more details on this. But needless to say, the results will still be the same, Brooks will not be coming back and we may never know what really happened.

    He is already missed!

  19. #19
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705

    Angry

    Just off the top of my head, I suspect the quote about "armor piercing bullets" probably came directly from the Tacoma Police spokesperson, Mark Fulghum, since we already know he lies easily (as covered in other recent news.)

    One of the reasons I say that is that nearly ALL the news sources are using the exact same terminology, as if it came from some "official source."

    Fulghum should no longer be he official spokesperson for the department since his verity is already disproved (along with the chief's) due to the Amber Alert incident...

    (I'm still befuddled by trying to even imagine armor piercing hollow point bullets for a handgun...)
    Last edited by Tomas; 06-16-2011 at 02:50 AM.
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Don't read the comments... don't read the comments.... don't read the comments....

    Wow. From an allegedly "had something in his right hand", to "fired at the officer, got what he deserved", in less than a dozen comments.

  21. #21
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    It appears that someone informed Stacey of the incorrect information about hollow points... Hmm

  22. #22
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    As more news reports come in it is becoming apparent that this individual was far from just an average individual. Not only additional ammo but also a Koran and information on how to convert to Islam. Who knows what was going through his head at the time of this stop.

    Just a "footnote", he was a Postal Service employee.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    It appears that someone informed Stacey of the incorrect information about hollow points... Hmm
    Yes, the line was retracted from the story.
    Live Free or Die!

  24. #24
    Regular Member HeesBonafide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    152

    Koran in truck

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    As more news reports come in it is becoming apparent that this individual was far from just an average individual. Not only additional ammo but also a Koran and information on how to convert to Islam. Who knows what was going through his head at the time of this stop.

    Just a "footnote", he was a Postal Service employee.
    Brooks worked with people of many faiths and someone provided him a copy as a gift. Having a copy of the Koran does not make someone a terrorist anymore than having a copy of the bible would make someone a member of the KKK or any other white supremacist group.

  25. #25
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by HeesBonafide
    Having a copy of the Koran does not make someone a terrorist anymore than having a copy of the Bible would make someone a member of the KKK or any other white supremacist group.
    +1000
    Thank you... you got to it first.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •