• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Police fatally shoot armed man in Centreville

DontTreadOnMeVa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
132
Location
, ,
Posted at 06:28 AM ET, 07/21/2011
Police fatally shoot armed man in Centreville
By Justin Jouvenal
The Fairfax County police fatally shot an armed man in Centreville overnight after he refused orders to drop his weapon and began approaching officers, authorities said.

Officers were called to a townhouse in the 6100 block of Kendra Way around 1:30 a.m. for a report of a disturbance, said Mary Ann Jennings, a Fairfax County police spokeswoman. As officers arrived, they saw the man through the open door of a ground level garage, Jennings said.

The officers got out of their police cruiser and ordered the man to drop his weapon multiple times, but the man did not comply and began walking toward them, Jennings said. At that point, one or more of the officers opened fire on the man, Jennings said.

(Link to read rest of the 'story' at the Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...?fb_ref=NetworkNews&fb_source=profile_oneline






I love how details like "refused orders to drop his weapon and began approaching" are taken as fact... So much much for..... allegedly, reported to have, is said to have! Seams like a lot if assumptions in this 'report'. I do hope it does not turn out an innocent citizen was executed.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
Based solely on the article it appears the officers were alright on this one. If someone had been approaching me with a weapon I may have taken the same action. My only concern is they don't say what the weapon was. If it was a gun, probably justified. Anything else, maybe not. We'll have to wait for more details.
 
Last edited:

DontTreadOnMeVa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
132
Location
, ,
Based solely on the article it appears the officers were alright on this one. If someone had been approaching me with a weapon I may have taken the same action. My only concern is they don't say what the weapon was. If it was a gun, probably justified. Anything else, maybe not. We'll have to wait for more details.

Agreed, not enough information...
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Posted at 06:28 AM ET, 07/21/2011
I love how details like "refused orders to drop his weapon and began approaching" are taken as fact... So much much for..... allegedly, reported to have, is said to have! Seams like a lot if assumptions in this 'report'. I do hope it does not turn out an innocent citizen was executed.

Only survivors are alleged to have ____ . It's pretty difficult to defame the reputation and character of the deceased.

stay safe.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
Other things to consider....

I would also point out the paper the story is written in. Not saying what weapon he had makes people assume it was a gun; I also suspect this paper to be anti-gun. By writing the artical with the vague details it lets people know that guns are bad and that the police will always protect you. They are good and people with guns are bad. It is another way of looking at it. I'm not saying that is what is happening but it is also an added thought.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I would also point out the paper the story is written in. Not saying what weapon he had makes people assume it was a gun; I also suspect this paper to be anti-gun. By writing the artical with the vague details it lets people know that guns are bad and that the police will always protect you. They are good and people with guns are bad. It is another way of looking at it. I'm not saying that is what is happening but it is also an added thought.

Depends on what he was doing with the "weapon", and where the incident took place. Unless the police had probable cause to believe that this particular guy was a danger to others, shooting him was a violation of his right to due process of law, and makes them civilly liable to the estate of the deceased for a wrongful death action. A Tennessee case in the U.S. Sup. Ct. established that fairly decisively not too long ago.
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
Details are scant. And judgments are too easy to make without all the facts.

Officers can also shoot in self defense, not in defense of others.
 

epilogue

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
147
Location
Centreville
That neighborhood across from the multiplex has been quiet for too long I guess.

The Sully District in particular, shows incredibly defensive responses when any sort of weapon is hinted at. Hell, a spoofed call leading back to my home number resulted in being woken up to a surrounded home with riot shields and shotguns, when the dust settled and I asked them why the spectacle, the answer I got was because I had a CHP on file. It was an interesting morning to say the least. I never did find out what the caller said to prompt the response originally.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
That neighborhood across from the multiplex has been quiet for too long I guess.

The Sully District in particular, shows incredibly defensive responses when any sort of weapon is hinted at. Hell, a spoofed call leading back to my home number resulted in being woken up to a surrounded home with riot shields and shotguns, when the dust settled and I asked them why the spectacle, the answer I got was because I had a CHP on file. It was an interesting morning to say the least. I never did find out what the caller said to prompt the response originally.

One would think that LE would see you had a CHP they would have been a little more relaxed and less threated. I don't know of to many criminals that go and spend the time and money to apply for a CHP...after all if they are a criminal shouldn't they be denied being issued one.

Either the cops are paroniod, stupid, or just picked you as the newest menber of the harrassment of the month club. None the less who ever made the decision to call swat out needs to be flipping burgers and not in a position of authority.
 

epilogue

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
147
Location
Centreville
One would think that LE would see you had a CHP they would have been a little more relaxed and less threated. I don't know of to many criminals that go and spend the time and money to apply for a CHP...after all if they are a criminal shouldn't they be denied being issued one.

Either the cops are paroniod, stupid, or just picked you as the newest menber of the harrassment of the month club. None the less who ever made the decision to call swat out needs to be flipping burgers and not in a position of authority.

I doubt it's looked at as a clue to how responsible or law abiding someone is, rather that they have a high probability of being armed.

I think FCPD just drills officer safety into officers from the time they are cadets onward. I don't believe it was SWAT, just heavily armed officers. FCPD showed up to an OCDO picnic with a helicopter and riot shields once a few years ago, but never advanced on the gathering and tried to smooth things over with a pair of PR officers.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
I doubt it's looked at as a clue to how responsible or law abiding someone is, rather that they have a high probability of being armed.

I think FCPD just drills officer safety into officers from the time they are cadets onward. I don't believe it was SWAT, just heavily armed officers. FCPD showed up to an OCDO picnic with a helicopter and riot shields once a few years ago, but never advanced on the gathering and tried to smooth things over with a pair of PR officers.

I must have missed the class on PARONIOA when I went to the academy. I remember the vigilance and officer safety part but for the life of me can't remember them talking about how to OVER REACT and escalate a situation.

Just think they could call the National Guard to bring tanks out if someone that is armed Jay-Walks (I'm referring to the Tonight Show...It is Sarcasm)
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
From WJLA:

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/07/police-shoot-armed-suspect-in-centreville-63977.html
Ricardo Leon was a police officer himself. The 34-year-old man was a lieutenant with the Naval Observatory police, the force that patrols the grounds where the vice president lives.

Police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings says officers were called to a townhome in the 6100 block on Kendra Way for report of a disturbance. Upon arrival, the home was surrounded. Officers in the front saw a man in the garage with a gun. They ordered the man to drop his weapon, but he ignored them. He then pointed the gun at officers, who shot him


I do wonder... if anyone other then a FCPD officer saw the man 'point the gun at officers'?
:uhoh:
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
...Officers can also shoot in self defense, not in defense of others.

Actually, it is legally permissible for them to shoot in defense of others. Department policy may say not to, and they have no legal duty to defend citizens. Their job is to defend the interests of the state. That phrase, "To protect and to serve..." never finishes the sentence, "...the interests of the State." Legal systems exist to protect the status quo - those who presently have wealth and power want to keep what they've got. The genius of the American system is the implementation of the rule stated in Leviticus, "neither shalt thou muzzle the ox that treads the grain." If anyone can be free to acquire wealth and power, and be free to protect himself, his home, and his family, that goes a long way towards protecting the status quo. Destroy personal liberty and the right of self defense, and there is no reason to let those who have wealth and power keep what they've got. I strongly suggest that the Socialist policies of Our Glorious Leader are designed to accomplish precisely a result along those lines.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Actually, it is legally permissible for them to shoot in defense of others. Department policy may say not to, and they have no legal duty to defend citizens. Their job is to defend the interests of the state. That phrase, "To protect and to serve..." never finishes the sentence, "...the interests of the State." Legal systems exist to protect the status quo - those who presently have wealth and power want to keep what they've got. The genius of the American system is the implementation of the rule stated in Leviticus, "neither shalt thou muzzle the ox that treads the grain." If anyone can be free to acquire wealth and power, and be free to protect himself, his home, and his family, that goes a long way towards protecting the status quo. Destroy personal liberty and the right of self defense, and there is no reason to let those who have wealth and power keep what they've got. I strongly suggest that the Socialist policies of Our Glorious Leader are designed to accomplish precisely a result along those lines.
Thus the establishment of the Thin Blue Line, backed by the "Haves", to separate and protect them from the "Have Nots". A secondary benefit of this "Social Divide" is that it allows the "Haves" to further their ambitions to move (claw their way?) up the food/social chain with less worry that they will be prey for the "Have Nots". The "Have Nots" are left to fend for themselves.
 
Top