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.

ChuckUFarley said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The officer got out of her patrol car. The driver reportedly got out of his truck and brandished a semi-automatic handgun, Troyer said.

Click to expand...

Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crim...-traffic-stop-on-key-peninsula/#ixzz1PNJnFXei

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.

gogodawgs said:

Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crim...-traffic-stop-on-key-peninsula/#ixzz1PNJnFXei

Click to expand...

Thanks, the story MNW has is so vauge

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.

Dain Bramage said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ChuckUFarley said:

Thanks, the story MNW has is so vauge

Click to expand...

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?

Beretta92FSLady said:

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.

Click to expand...

Having a gun in hand only covers Ability and Opportunity. Jeopardy/Intent is still missing.

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.

acmariner99 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

.

At the point where the safety of other people is warranted then this last phrase becomes true.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crim...ls-man-during-traffic-stop-on-key-peninsula/#

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.

Citizen said:

Having a gun in hand only covers Ability and Opportunity. Jeopardy/Intent is still missing.

Click to expand...

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.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040

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

Click to expand...

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.

Dain Bramage said:

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.

Click to expand...

Its the simple physics behind a hollow point, and I cannot understand why a reporter, or even someone reading would believe that ********.. /facepalm

acmariner99 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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!

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...)

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.