Tacoma officer fatally shoots driver near Purdy

[TechnoWeenie]

Quite often the license plate is a clue.

Not always.

That's definitely a big clue, but there are undercover and confidential plates that are issued.

When an undercover license plate is run, it comes back to a fictitious name and address...

The confidential plate comes back to the issuing agency, and will display as such.


I'm talking more about the antenna and lighting configuration, which is pretty standard across an agency.

 

[NovaCop]

I can see how one might view it that way. But, you have to read something into it that may not be there.

A pointed gun is intent. Saying, "I'm gonna shoot you", and saying it like he means it, is intent.

Carrying the gun in hand hanging down at the side just isn't intent to shoot someone. Day or night. Cop or citizen. Traffic stop or hunting camp. It still has other possible explanations--thoughtlessness, stupidity, a desire to show he's not going to be pushed around or capable of defending himself. If he stepped out of the car intending to shoot, he'd come out gun blazing. Until the actual intent forms and becomes manifest, Intent is still missing from the triad.

Oh citizen, it's entertaining following your anti police comments around the entire site. Are you kidding me with this one? The officer turned on the emergency lights, thus establishing a seizure. The driver acknowledged the seizure and stopped, and got out with a gun in hand. That would be intent to place someone in fear of their life, to think otherwise is illogical. At what point do YOU believe the officer would be justified in self defense? When the gun is pointed? Maybe make sure the officer waits til he is shot once (cause he won't be sure the perp isn't just intending to target practice on the side of the road til then).

There are many videos on the Internet where the guy held a gun, didn't respond the verbal commands, then shot an officer. I am not commenting on whether or not the details in this article is correct, just on the details citizen is assuming.

 

[HeesBonafide]

still don't know what happened...and maybe never know

Oh citizen, it's entertaining following your anti police comments around the entire site. Are you kidding me with this one? The officer turned on the emergency lights, thus establishing a seizure. The driver acknowledged the seizure and stopped, and got out with a gun in hand. That would be intent to place someone in fear of their life, to think otherwise is illogical. At what point do YOU believe the officer would be justified in self defense? When the gun is pointed? Maybe make sure the officer waits til he is shot once (cause he won't be sure the perp isn't just intending to target practice on the side of the road til then).

There are many videos on the Internet where the guy held a gun, didn't respond the verbal commands, then shot an officer. I am not commenting on whether or not the details in this article is correct, just on the details citizen is assuming.

There is an ongoing investigation; there is conflicting information as to whether Brooks had his weapon drawn or holstered, whether the officer was coming up on the vehicle or had already taken his driver's license and was writing information down. Until the investigation is complete, this is all speculation.

The whole situation is very sad for both Brooks and the officer involved; Brooks is no longer here and the officer has to live with this rest of her life.

 

[KBCraig]

I can see how one might view it that way. But, you have to read something into it that may not be there.

A pointed gun is intent. Saying, "I'm gonna shoot you", and saying it like he means it, is intent.

Carrying the gun in hand hanging down at the side just isn't intent to shoot someone. Day or night. Cop or citizen. Traffic stop or hunting camp. It still has other possible explanations--thoughtlessness, stupidity, a desire to show he's not going to be pushed around or capable of defending himself. If he stepped out of the car intending to shoot, he'd come out gun blazing. Until the actual intent forms and becomes manifest, Intent is still missing from the triad.

There's also "attempting to comply with police commands"; c.f. the late Erik B. Scott, Las Vegas.

 

[NovaCop]

There's also "attempting to comply with police commands"; c.f. the late Erik B. Scott, Las Vegas.

What if someone walked into your house with a gun down at their side? Does that mean there is no intent because the gun is pointed at the ground? Ridiculous thought process for you all who think the officer can't shoot someone who jumps out of the car with a gun in his hand because the gun was not pointed at the officer yet.

Citizen, I'm still waiting for your response of when you believe the officer would be justified to shoot?

(I know the exact details in this incident are still coming to light but my comments are directed at the possibility he stepped out with a gun held towards the ground).

 

[sudden valley gunner]

What if someone walked into your house with a gun down at their side? Does that mean there is no intent because the gun is pointed at the ground? Ridiculous thought process for you all who think the officer can't shoot someone who jumps out of the car with a gun in his hand because the gun was not pointed at the officer yet.

Citizen, I'm still waiting for your response of when you believe the officer would be justified to shoot?

(I know the exact details in this incident are still coming to light but my comments are directed at the possibility he stepped out with a gun held towards the ground).

Someone "walking" into my house with a gun is a different beast...just saying.

I am still waiting for a response that I should have shot the cop who pointed a gun at my head, who by the way didn't identify himself, and had no PC or RAS to do so.....because cops are constitutionally restricted as agents of the government...I should have been more justified....oh and there are SCOTUS cases that support that argument.

 

[HeesBonafide]

So,what would you say if he never had a gun in his hand?

Curious as to how people would respond to this situation if the person who died in this never had a gun in their hand (or any other weapon other weapon)?...............

 

[hermannr]

There is only one thing that really bothers me with this whole insident...juristiction. How does a Tacoma city LEO have Juristiction that far out of town if there was no "chase" and no contact with The county? As a matter of fact, she almost wasn't even in Pierce Co any more. From what I read she was less than a mile from Kitsap Co. She is a CITY LEO and she is 10 miles out of town...Where does she think she has juristiction for the initial stop? That is what bothers me....

 

[BigDave]

I know I have heard that Officers in Washington State are licensed at State Law Enforcement Officer (not sure on title) but in essence have the authority to enforce State Laws any where in the State.
I know that last year Yakima Police Department have ran emphasis patrols for drugs and or alcohol up and down I-82 and in Yakima County, while the Sheriff was not happy about it because he was not notified of this occurring but did not imply he could stop them either.


RCW 10.93.070
General authority peace officer — Powers of, circumstances.

In addition to any other powers vested by law, a general authority Washington peace officer who possesses a certificate of basic law enforcement training or a certificate of equivalency or has been exempted from the requirement therefor by the Washington state criminal justice training commission may enforce the traffic or criminal laws of this state throughout the territorial bounds of this state, under the following enumerated circumstances:

(1) Upon the prior written consent of the sheriff or chief of police in whose primary territorial jurisdiction the exercise of the powers occurs;

(2) In response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property;

(3) In response to a request for assistance pursuant to a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement with the agency of primary territorial jurisdiction or in response to the request of a peace officer with enforcement authority;

(4) When the officer is transporting a prisoner;

(5) When the officer is executing an arrest warrant or search warrant; or

(6) When the officer is in fresh pursuit, as defined in RCW 10.93.120.

[1985 c 89 § 7.]

 

[hermannr]

I am sure the gal will say #2 was the authority...but I do not agree.

I have no problem with her shooting someone that pulls a gun on her. That was just stupid on the other guys part, I just have a problem with the stop in the first place.

If she had not killed the guy, I would bet that any good lawyer could have had whatever charges (that may have ensued) dismissed for lack of juristiction.

As for the Yakama City action you stated, same, the police are really risking having whatever charges filed thrown out...no they will not always be thrown out, but the risk is always there.

 

[BigDave]

On the issue of number (2) In response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property;

I would tend to concur with the issue of DUI as an immediate threat to human life or property.

 

[hermannr]

But it was never proven that the guy was DUI?

Maybe it is just me, but I don't like the idea of town LE thinking they are the State Patrol. Maybe she just wanted to bill Tacoma some OT?

 

[HeesBonafide]

just stupid on the other guys part

I am sure the gal will say #2 was the authority...but I do not agree.

I have no problem with her shooting someone that pulls a gun on her. That was just stupid on the other guys part, I just have a problem with the stop in the first place.

If she had not killed the guy, I would bet that any good lawyer could have had whatever charges (that may have ensued) dismissed for lack of juristiction.

As for the Yakama City action you stated, same, the police are really risking having whatever charges filed thrown out...no they will not always be thrown out, but the risk is always there.

I would agree with you "if" he had a gun in his hand. But, what if it was his wallet and his gun was NEVER in his hand?......... Do you think the shooting would be justified then?

 

[BigDave]

I would agree with you "if" he had a gun in his hand. But, what if it was his wallet and his gun was NEVER in his hand?......... Do you think the shooting would be justified then?

Yes, still would have been justified. Even if you were rounding a corner someone yelling and screaming at you with something in their hand you feel is a threat, yes I would support you as well.

I know there are different stories and information so I will add from the TNT

The 54-year-old pickup driver had been driving erratically. The officer suspected the driver might be intoxicated and, as she started the traffic stop, she asked for a Washington State Patrol trooper to respond, Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.

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

The officer fired and hit the man, Fulghum said. The man was taken to St. Anthony Hospital in Gig Harbor and died of his injuries.

Both directions of SR 302 near 97th Avenue NW were initially closed this morning because of the investigation into what happened. Traffic is now getting around the scene.

Troyer said investigators recovered the man's handgun at the scene. They were investigating whether he fired the gun and how many shots the Tacoma officer fired.

The pickup driver lived in the area and was supposed to be at work at the time of the incident, Troyer said. He had a history of alcohol-related issues and DUIs, Troyer said.

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/06/15/1706950/tacoma-officer-shoots-kills-man.html#ixzz1SngUUYNV

 

[HeesBonafide]

So, if you "feel" Threatened???

Yes, still would have been justified. Even if you were rounding a corner someone yelling and screaming at you with something in their hand you feel is a threat, yes I would support you as well.

I know there are different stories and information so I will add from the TNT

The 54-year-old pickup driver had been driving erratically. The officer suspected the driver might be intoxicated and, as she started the traffic stop, she asked for a Washington State Patrol trooper to respond, Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.

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

The officer fired and hit the man, Fulghum said. The man was taken to St. Anthony Hospital in Gig Harbor and died of his injuries.

Both directions of SR 302 near 97th Avenue NW were initially closed this morning because of the investigation into what happened. Traffic is now getting around the scene.

Troyer said investigators recovered the man's handgun at the scene. They were investigating whether he fired the gun and how many shots the Tacoma officer fired.

The pickup driver lived in the area and was supposed to be at work at the time of the incident, Troyer said. He had a history of alcohol-related issues and DUIs, Troyer said.

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/06/15/1706950/tacoma-officer-shoots-kills-man.html#ixzz1SngUUYNV

So, If someone feels threatened, Lethal force is justifiable?

Isn't that what people say about people OC'ing...that they feel threatened? You can argue that if you are not referring to the weapon, that their concern is not justiable....but that is you. THEY still "FEEL" Threatened.

Also, as you have heard before, "you can't always believe what you see/hear in the news..."

 

[BigDave]

So, If someone feels threatened, Lethal force is justifiable?

Isn't that what people say about people OC'ing...that they feel threatened? You can argue that if you are not referring to the weapon, that their concern is not justiable....but that is you. THEY still "FEEL" Threatened.

Also, as you have heard before, "you can't always believe what you see/hear in the news..."

Really, compare an open carry incident to an actual threat being the same! Brandishing a handgun is not a handgun in a holster! And for those who like to jump on the use of the word Brandishing then insert waving about erratically in a menacing manner.

This has to do with more then just the sight of a weapon, it has to do with other factors that come together at that moment in time, such as time of day, actions, threats, a furtive movement, in the case of this officer was justified, or do you want to wait until you have bullet holes and blood dripping before you respond?

And lastly how many here when they are pulled over, decide to get out of the vehicle and address the officer with out being asked or directed? He if would have stayed put this would likely would have not advanced into waving a firearm about or what appeared to be a firearm for your benefit, to a shooting.

 

[HeesBonafide]

"actual [or not] threat being the same!"

Really, compare an open carry incident to an actual threat being the same! Brandishing a handgun is not a handgun in a holster! And for those who like to jump on the use of the word Brandishing then insert waving about erratically in a menacing manner.

This has to do with more then just the sight of a weapon, it has to do with other factors that come together at that moment in time, such as time of day, actions, threats, a furtive movement, in the case of this officer was justified, or do you want to wait until you have bullet holes and blood dripping before you respond?

And lastly how many here when they are pulled over, decide to get out of the vehicle and address the officer with out being asked or directed? He if would have stayed put this would likely would have not advanced into waving a firearm about or what appeared to be a firearm for your benefit, to a shooting.

Big Dave, I think you hit the nail on the head -- "Actual threat" - Does that mean that the threat has to be an "actual threat" or that the other person "FELT" threatened. I compare the two because that is EXACTLY what is heard when people are asked to cover up, "people 'FEEL' threatened."

I agree that there are more factors that effect it, but "if" someone was holding their wallet and was shot because someone "thought" it was a gun, I would have to question the person doing the shooting; did they react too quickly? Did they "know" it was a gun.....or just "thought" it was. I do not believe that an ordinary citizent would be provided the same level of leniancy if they "felt" threatened and "thought" it was a gun, when in fact it turned out to be a wallet.

 

[BigDave]

Since you or others have brought up the issue of what if it was his wallet or even another items and then we had a furtive movement to it and well take a look at the first half of this video and stop and make your choice, now play it the rest video.

[video=youtube;JUo4nsRvRp0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUo4nsRvRp0[/video]

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Since you or others have brought up the issue of what if it was his wallet or even another items and then we had a furtive movement to it and well take a look at the first half of this video and stop and make your choice, now play it the rest video.

[video=youtube;JUo4nsRvRp0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUo4nsRvRp0[/video]

Those officers were full of fail.

 

[HeesBonafide]

I agree with the police decision on this (unfortunate) situation

Since you or others have brought up the issue of what if it was his wallet or even another items and then we had a furtive movement to it and well take a look at the first half of this video and stop and make your choice, now play it the rest video.

[video=youtube;JUo4nsRvRp0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUo4nsRvRp0[/video]

If someone is using a "tool" in case and manner as a gun, and displaying in a manner as to make the police to believe it is a gun, then the police really have no choice BUT to believe that it IS a gun and have to appropriate action. Combine this with the fact that the perp did not comply with verbal commands either, only makes the situation worse.