Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Interesting Portland PD Video ~ You decide

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463

    Interesting Portland PD Video ~ You decide

    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine CWP Training View Post
    I think we don't have all the facts, but it doesn't look good. The vehicle was obviously driving past, not at the officers when he opened fire.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    I hope PPD releases all the video to clear the air. This is all the defense team released...
    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

  4. #4
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Seems like the family / defense team are trying to have the case decided in the court of public opinion.'

    Comments below the fold on the PPH article are priceless, as usual. Lots of **** talking by some ******* who probably never left the FOB.
    Last edited by ep0k; 07-25-2011 at 05:58 PM.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Really not enough detail to know what really happened. Clearly the guy was up to no good. Hard to know if the officer felt his life was in danger or not. I agree that the police should release the rest of the video in order to clear things up.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  6. #6
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Really not enough detail to know what really happened. Clearly the guy was up to no good. Hard to know if the officer felt his life was in danger or not. I agree that the police should release the rest of the video in order to clear things up.
    But, at present, PPD is not trying to prove that case to the general public. They're building a court case and details probably shouldn't be made public by the defense or prosecution as it risks contaminating the jury pool.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  7. #7
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    yanno.

    He was obviously running to hide something from the police.. I notice that on the website, they tout.. "This is a shooting of someone (a brother, a son, a friend) who posed no threat to anyone at the time he was shot, and was peacefully apprehended shortly afterwards."

    I disagree that he was not a threat to anyone. He posed no threat to the officers at that point in time, but tearing ass away in your car to run from the police makes him a danger to others. I don't give a rats behind that he was peacefully apprehended a short time later either. From what it looks like, he even let the officer step away from the vehicle a bit before tearing away.

    At any rate, I don't believe the LEO here had any reason to open fire on this person, not yet anyway. It's nearly a pretty clear car chase scenario, not any reason to be shooting from what we've been given here. Is the victim alive? Well, good.. Then the entire reason the police were stopping him to begin with (RO violation), can be taken care of in court, and hopefully he'll be locked away for being the criminal he is..

    IMHO, I'd chalk this one up to stupid criminal, but still no reason for the LEO to attempt to execute him right there on the spot.

  8. #8
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    In and of itself, running from the police certainly shouldn't constitute an automatic death sentence. As with a lot of things, we're looking at this from the outside as objective observers. The standard a jury would have to apply is reasonableness from the officer's perspective. Just based on the video, it's really difficult to say how threatened the LEO felt when he fired those shots. We can see that the car was unlikely to hit him, but it was certainly turning in the direction of the officers. Hard for anyone to say how they would have reacted in his shoes.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

  10. #10
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine CWP Training View Post
    Are you saying this would be a justified shooting under Section 2, Subsection B? There's no question the suspect knew they were police officers. He also had a history of violent offenses (an assault conviction, if I recall correctly).
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by ep0k View Post
    Are you saying this would be a justified shooting under Section 2, Subsection B? There's no question the suspect knew they were police officers. He also had a history of violent offenses (an assault conviction, if I recall correctly).
    My opinion on this would be that he was using that car as a deadly weapon the way he was driving and the officers could certainly have believed that an innocent would be killed if he was not immediately apprehended.

    What some people don't realize is that Police are sometimes authorized to use deadly force in a situation where a civilian would not be authorized to use deadly force. I believe this situation may fall into that category.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    My opinion on this would be that he was using that car as a deadly weapon the way he was driving and the officers could certainly have believed that an innocent would be killed if he was not immediately apprehended.

    What some people don't realize is that Police are sometimes authorized to use deadly force in a situation where a civilian would not be authorized to use deadly force. I believe this situation may fall into that category.
    Well the use of force model never allows you to shoot someone in the back. I don't see were he was driving at the officer and the fact they turned off the sound tells me they know they did something wrong and are trying to cover it up or at least spin it in the LEO's favor.

    That being said I usally side with LEO and give them a little wiggle room. He wasn't affraid the driver would hurt someone next month or a hour from then if anything he overreacted due to lack of experence. I'm curious to know how long he has been on patrol, he looked real young. If nothing else I hope he learned something from this and doesn't shoot anyone else in the back.

    I hate people that run and you can ask my wife I feel that anyone that puts people in danger from a high speed chase should get a 20 year min sentance with a tatoo of child molester on their forhead and put in general pop. I'm just saying this screams cover-up.

  13. #13
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    Well the use of force model never allows you to shoot someone in the back. I don't see were he was driving at the officer and the fact they turned off the sound tells me they know they did something wrong and are trying to cover it up or at least spin it in the LEO's favor.

    That being said I usally side with LEO and give them a little wiggle room. He wasn't affraid the driver would hurt someone next month or a hour from then if anything he overreacted due to lack of experence. I'm curious to know how long he has been on patrol, he looked real young. If nothing else I hope he learned something from this and doesn't shoot anyone else in the back.

    I hate people that run and you can ask my wife I feel that anyone that puts people in danger from a high speed chase should get a 20 year min sentance with a tatoo of child molester on their forhead and put in general pop. I'm just saying this screams cover-up.
    In a stringently technical sense, boyscout is probably correct (I think the officer could make a passable case that he felt that lives were in danger, possibly to include his own). The suspect vehicle does swerve in the direction of the officers, but not tightly enough to put them in the direct path of the vehicle. But remember that we're looking at this from the perspective of outside observers, not LEOs responding to a crime in progress with a known violent offender.

    I can also understand why he would fire even as the suspect is fleeing, especially if he was making that decision as the car was still approaching his position.

    Not saying I ever believe an officer should shoot someone in the back, but I can at least understand how this might have happened (and why he might be very paranoid about it immediately afterward, looking at his actions and realizing that it might be very hard to justify). That doesn't excuse any attempt at covering it up though. Full disclosure on this will probably not happen until after the trial, if ever...
    Last edited by ep0k; 07-26-2011 at 12:08 AM.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  14. #14
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by ep0k View Post
    In a stringently technical sense, boyscout is probably correct (I think the officer could make a passable case that he felt that lives were in danger, possibly to include his own). The suspect vehicle does swerve in the direction of the officers, but not tightly enough to put them in the direct path of the vehicle. But remember that we're looking at this from the perspective of outside observers, not LEOs responding to a crime in progress with a known violent offender.

    I can also understand why he would fire even as the suspect is fleeing, especially if he was making that decision as the car was still approaching his position.

    Not saying I ever believe an officer should shoot someone in the back, but I can at least understand how this might have happened (and why he might be very paranoid about it immediately afterward, looking at his actions and realizing that it might be very hard to justify). That doesn't excuse any attempt at covering it up though. Full disclosure on this will probably not happen until after the trial, if ever...
    They turned off the audio so full disclosure will never be put out there, it will get covered up. As for when his first shot was fired the front of the car was already past the officer that pulled the trigger....first shot was just as the drivers door passed him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    They turned off the audio so full disclosure will never be put out there, it will get covered up. As for when his first shot was fired the front of the car was already past the officer that pulled the trigger....first shot was just as the drivers door passed him.
    Not disputing that. But "split second decisions" rarely are. He probably decided to fire before that. Also not arguing that it was the right thing; just that it's probably less deliberate than intentionally choosing to shoot him in the back.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    Well the use of force model never allows you to shoot someone in the back. I don't see were he was driving at the officer and the fact they turned off the sound tells me they know they did something wrong and are trying to cover it up or at least spin it in the LEO's favor.

    That being said I usally side with LEO and give them a little wiggle room. He wasn't affraid the driver would hurt someone next month or a hour from then if anything he overreacted due to lack of experence. I'm curious to know how long he has been on patrol, he looked real young. If nothing else I hope he learned something from this and doesn't shoot anyone else in the back.

    I hate people that run and you can ask my wife I feel that anyone that puts people in danger from a high speed chase should get a 20 year min sentance with a tatoo of child molester on their forhead and put in general pop. I'm just saying this screams cover-up.
    You certainly can shoot someone in the back. If a bank robber is holding a gun to a teller's head and you are behind them, you are most definitely justified in shooting that robber in the back to save the teller's life. Remember, at least in Maine, you can shoot to defend someone else's life that you believe is in danger, not only your own. Also, in the case of an officer using deadly force, the officer is justified in using deadly force to affect an arrest if he believes the other person is using a deadly weapon (a car) to effect his escape.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    SNIP Also, in the case of an officer using deadly force, the officer is justified in using deadly force to affect an arrest if he believes the other person is using a deadly weapon (a car) to effect his escape.
    You understand you just made it legal for police to shoot anybody eluding/escaping/refusing to stop while driving a car? Probably a motorcycle, too, since if it hits someone it can kill or seriously injure.

    Those twelve year olds we occasionally read about joy-riding and too scared to stop? Bang!

    That guy who was speeding and didn't want to stop? Bang!

    That soccer mom who just wanted to drive to a well lit area because it was an unmarked police car? Bang!

    Do you have a cite for your position?
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-26-2011 at 02:41 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You understand you just made it legal for police to shoot anybody eluding/escaping/refusing to stop while driving a car? Probably a motorcycle, too, since if it hits someone it can kill or seriously injure.

    Those twelve year olds we occasionally read about joy-riding and too scared to stop? Bang!

    That guy who was speeding and didn't want to stop? Bang!

    That soccer mom who just wanted to drive to a well lit area because it was an unmarked police car? Bang!

    Do you have a cite for your position?
    Take the time to read the whole thread and look at the statute already posted by CWPTraining and the post that I quoted when I replied.

    Section 2 Part B

    http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec107.html

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

Posting Permissions

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