CVS manager terminated for firing at robber [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

IPDBrad

04-14-2003, 10:35 AM

<a href="http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/5/035923-9105-103.html" target="_blank">http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/5/035923-9105-103.html</a>

CVS manager terminated for firing at robber

Associated Press
April 14, 2003

KOKOMO, Ind. -- A drug store manager who fired two shots at an armed robber has been terminated by CVS Pharmacy officials, who said his actions put his co-worker's life in danger.

Mike DeAngelis, spokesman for CVS Pharmacy in Rhode Island, said Mike Hart was fired for exercising poor judgment.

"We certainly understand the difficult situation he's going through, but we investigated it and decided he exercised poor judgment in discharging a firearm at a fleeing suspect, needlessly putting people's lives at risk," DeAngelis said.

Hart, 46, had been the store's manager for three years. He said he feels he was terminated "because I fought back."

According to Howard County Sheriff Department reports, Hart and a female co-worker were getting ready to close the store at U.S. 31 and Ind. 26 on March 29 when a man walked in and asked about purchasing baby items.

The man pulled out a handgun and demanded money and forced Hart and his co-worker into an upstairs office, where the store's safe was located.

Hart obeyed the man's orders and gave him cash. But instead of leaving the store with the money, the intruder then started to put on gloves.

Hart, who said he feared that he and his co-worker would be shot, went for the man's gun.

"When I saw the guy put on the gloves, I thought he was going to shoot us," said Hart. "... The thing I thought about was I would never see my wife again."

After grabbing the gun, Hart fired one round, but missed the man, who struggled with him for the weapon.

His co-worker, who was lying on the floor during the struggle, escaped and called police.

Inside the store, the struggle continued until the man pushed Hart and ran down the stairwell.

At that point, Hart said he fired a second shot in the fleeing man's direction "to scare him."

He watched the man get into his vehicle and drive off, then called 911 to report the incident.

No arrests have been made in the case.

"I feel I did nothing wrong, and that I was protecting us by my actions," he said.

Hart said he spoke to an attorney, but doesn't believe he has any legal avenues to pursue. He also made calls to a labor issues attorney for advice and is awaiting a reply.

Sheriff Marty Talbert said he does not advocate vigilante-type actions by victims, but said Hart had every right legally to protect himself if he feared his life was in danger.

CinaC

04-14-2003, 10:39 AM

I think the first shot was more than justified ... he WAS in fear for his life! But I think the second shot wasn't ... I don't know what kind of area the CVS store is in, or what time this CVS closed, but the ones up here are usually in stip-malls bordering neighborhoods, and a stray bullet could do a lot of damage. One thing I learned from my recent foray into shooting, is that you should only fire if you're sure of the "backstop" ... from what I got of the article, the manager wasn't aware of what the second bullet might hit.

[ 04-14-2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: ciaj ]

Lictalon

04-14-2003, 02:23 PM

He's lucky he's not up for attempted murder.

Granted, you would need a jerk of a prosecutor, but they're out there. Firing a shot at a fleeing man is never justifiable for Joe Citizen (can NY City police still fire at fleeing felons BTW?) and would wind him up in jail.

Lucky being fired is all that happened...though I do believe CVS is being a bit extreme. They shouldn't care about that...

My .02

Jim Burnes

04-14-2003, 04:20 PM

The man had every right to do as he did.

Jim Burnes

Bill R

04-14-2003, 04:56 PM

From the Article:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />At that point, Hart said he fired a second shot in the fleeing man's direction "to scare him."
<hr /></blockquote>I take issue with this tactic.

Watchman

04-14-2003, 07:01 PM

You are right Bill.

I take issue with this too.

I take issue with the fact that he fired at an armed robber and missed.

CinaC

04-14-2003, 07:28 PM

Watchman -

By the time he fired at the robber, he was no longer armed, so it's not exactly true that he "fired at an armed robber."

And he didn't fire AT the robber. He fired in the robber's general direction to "scare him."

[ 04-14-2003, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: ciaj ]

CinaC

04-14-2003, 08:21 PM

I think the point that BillR and I are disturbed about is that the manager apparently fired off what seems to be a stray round to "scare him." Now, maybe the article is missing something, but it doesn't sound like the manager was trying to even hit the robber. So he fired off a random shot.

I've only been shooting for a little over a year, but one of the first things I learned was -- KNOW YOUR BACKSTOP. This guy didn't care what the bullet would hit -- what if this CVS is located in a neighborhood? Or across from a busy street? The manager exercised poor judgement, in my very humble opinion, in firing the second round. It doesn't matter if you can make the case for shooting a fleeing robber in the back -- the manager, by his own admission, was only trying to scare him. So he fired a round that could've hit who knows what! How do you justify that if it strikes some jogger half-way down the block?

In his defense, I'm sure the manager was pretty excited -- he'd just been robbed, just fought a man with a gun, and had possibly for the first time in his life fired a weapon at another human being. It's bound to be a lot different from the rules of shooting on the range, when you're in his shoes, in the heat of the moment. Even so, I still think the second shot was reckless and placed innocent lives unrelated to the attempted robbery, in danger.

My uncle has a little shooting range on his property -- it's not much, just some wood against a pile of dirt about seven feet tall and twenty wide. But he can only use the range during the fall and winter, because his house borders my grandfather's farm, and for a good portion of the warm months, the corn crop obscures the view of the fields around him. Someone could be working in the field, and my uncle wouldn't see them, and the risk of a stray bullet outweighs the convenience of the range.

[ 04-14-2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: ciaj ]

retired

04-14-2003, 08:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Samuel:
Details are sketchy but I think I could articulate the reasonableness of shooting that particular suspect in the back (even if he was unarmed). Tennessee vs Garner.<hr /></blockquote>Tennesse Vs Garner was a case applicable to LE officers, not civilians. But in any event, the court held that deadly force used against a fleeing felon weas not justified if there was not a clear and present threat or danger.

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Watchman

04-14-2003, 11:31 PM

Dang it...He missed.

Another thug escapes to prey once more on society.

The next time the poor victim (you know,that was shot at while just trying to "escape") might not be so easily disarmed.

Or he might have his gangbanger buddies come back and do the dastardly deed for him, this time killing the shopowner and making an "example" out of the incident. :mad:

Oh well...no big deal.

At least the ex-manager will be able to read about it in the paper... :rolleyes:

CinaC

04-14-2003, 11:33 PM

Watchman,

Do you think it's okay to fire blindly into the night to "scare away" a bad guy, regardless of what might happen to the bullet? The bullet isn't going to care if it hits a bad guy, a little girl, or a brick wall.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Dang it...He missed.<hr /></blockquote>No, he would have missed if he was aiming at the robber. His own words (and, yes, the story might be misleading) were that he wanted to "scare him." It sounds to me like he wasn't even trying to hit the guy, just wanted to make sure the guy didn't come back any time soon.

Do you even read this article? Why are you turning this into something it's not?

[ 04-14-2003, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: ciaj ]

retired

04-14-2003, 11:52 PM

Samuel,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Samuel:
CJ, yes, I was speaking more regarding shooting AT a fleeing felon. We don't know if it was or wasn't safe to fire a warning shot and we don't know if the shooter made any accomodations in that area (e.g. checking background, aiming the warning shot in a safer direction, etc). If the suspect is already running away, then a "warning shot" does seem unnecessary.

Retired, you're right. I was envisioning me being the victim.<hr /></blockquote>I doubt that even the civil courts would concur with a citizen using deadly force against a fleeing felon without the same knowledge. I am also confident that in California, and in yours and my old county, the D.A. in all likehood would seriously consider filing charges against the citizen. That is of course if the suspect were later apprehended and would be willing to testify against the citizen.

Watchman

04-15-2003, 07:31 AM

He let a thug escape when he could have ended it once and for all. He is guilty of poor judgement.
While Im sure that he did not want to kill the guy, how do we know that the guy wont be back to kill him ? We dont.

Until we quit playing fair with these thugs they will continue to prey upon people.

While I have no doubt that any prosecutor in California would spend millions of dollars trying to convict the manager of doing something stupid,its not really addressing the real problem is it ?

While some will say that "we cant have citizens talking the law into their own hands" remember that when we were a politer,more responsible society that is exactly what happended. It worked. We held people accountable for their actions. Now we spend more time on people that try to defend themselves than we do the real problem at hand.

Is it any wonder that a robber can come into a store with a gun and attempt to rob it without fear ?

While I dont agree with anyone "blindly" letting one off, it wouldnt have been an issue if the guy had used the perp for a backstop.

[ 04-15-2003, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Sig220Man

04-15-2003, 08:24 AM

I have no problems with the way that manager handled the situation...up until he shot at the fleeing felon in order "to scare him." At that point he could have put more persons (including himself) in danger with that stunt.

While TN v. Garner doesn't apply to civilians, I'm sure a court won't have a problem applying a similar ruling to this case. If a cop (who is empowered with taking a human life in order to protect others) can't shoot a fleeing felon who no longer poses an immediate threat, what makes one think the courts will allow a civilian to do so?

And since the co-worker had managed to call police during the struggle with the weapon, had police responded just as the second set of shots had gone off, that manager could himself been shot by police who might reasonably mistake him for the robber.

JRT6

04-15-2003, 10:05 AM

As a general note it's very hard to stop shooting at a fleeing person once you've started shooting at someone while in a fight or flight or response. This was proven by Dr. Dave Grossman(one of the few things Dr. Flip Flop got right :rolleyes: ) I also see this time and time again in force on force training.

Lictalon

04-15-2003, 10:18 AM

Watchman;

I agree with you. In a perfect world, I think that a citizen should be allowed to do whatever is required during a violent confrontation to defend himself...even if it means shooting a criminal in the back. As far as I'm concerned, a man or woman who commits a violent crime relinquishes all rights under the law, at least during the duration of the crime.

However, this isn't a perfect world. Under the law, the manager was no longer acting in self-defense. He could be charged, as immoral as that would be. I wish it wasn't so, but...

PS: You don't need the comma after the "was" in your signature. That's gonna drive me nuts. :D

Deputy757

04-15-2003, 02:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
<hr /></blockquote>Until we quit playing fair with these thugs they will continue to prey upon people.

When we do quit playing fair with these thugs we will be just as bad as they are!

While some will say that "we cant have citizens talking the law into their own hands" remember that when we were a politer,more responsible society that is exactly what happended. It worked. We held people accountable for their actions. 

Yes, and more than one innocent person ended up swinging at the end of a vigilante posse's rope! I don't think anyone could ever accuse me of being a bleeding heart. I think that criminals deserve whatever they get...but if we commit criminal acts in the process of catching them..then we fall into the same category.

retired

04-15-2003, 05:38 PM

Dweputy757,
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Deputy757:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
<hr /></blockquote>Until we quit playing fair with these thugs they will continue to prey upon people.

When we do quit playing fair with these thugs we will be just as bad as they are!

While some will say that "we cant have citizens talking the law into their own hands" remember that when we were a politer,more responsible society that is exactly what happended. It worked. We held people accountable for their actions. 

Yes, and more than one innocent person ended up swinging at the end of a vigilante posse's rope! I don't think anyone could ever accuse me of being a bleeding heart. I think that criminals deserve whatever they get...but if we commit criminal acts in the process of catching them..then we fall into the same category.<hr /></blockquote>I agree with everything you have said. Criminals certainly deserve what they get, but I don't think that society can condone, or support vigilante action. The BOR's was written for everyone, not just criminals. And not all citizens are trained to determine what a crime is let alone enforce the law.

Watchman

04-15-2003, 07:04 PM

Well...one thing is for sure.

The guys life is forever changed. He's liable to be prosecuted because in the heat of the moment he shot at a guy that was lucky not to kill him first.

His life will never be the same...and he is the real loser in this situation, while the robber continues to rob and thumb his nose at the "law" that protects him. The same law that says a victim cant shoot him because his back is turned and he is no longer a "threat" at that very minute. What about tommorrow or the next day ? Will he be a threat then ? Has he ceased to be a threat because his back is turned ?

Makes a lot of sense dosent it? It all comes down to the only question that really matters, the ones that lawyers have been succesfull in nullifing for the most part...

Has justice been served ?

jarhead6073

04-15-2003, 08:29 PM

I don't have such a problem with "vigalante justice" in a case like this. Not that I would call the clerk a vigilante. If the clerk could have killed the brugler he should have. I think it shows how screwed up our society is that people automaticaly think that the clerk was wrong to defend himself. Many of you who are judging the actions of this untrained clerk in the heat of a life and death situation are the same ones who said that no one could judge what John Kerry did in combat because we weren't there. Now because it's a clerk and a robber it's suddenly ok to judge what the guy did as wrong? What training did the clerk have to tell him that he wasn't supposed to shoot at fleeing felon? And don't forget that it wasn't the clerk who pulled the gun, he wrestled it from the robber!

And yes I am familiar with the gangs of vigilantes who roamed parts of America and I'm not condoning that. Agents of the law must be held accountable for their actions. Individual citizens do not have the training leo's do. They probably couldn't even name two Supreme Court rulings. To try and hold citizens to the same standards as a police officer is ridiculous. To say that a clerk defending himself and co-worker was wrong to do so is equally ridiculous.

retired

04-15-2003, 08:56 PM

Jarhead,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jarhead6073:
I don't have such a problem with "vigalante justice" in a case like this. Not that I would call the clerk a vigilante. If the clerk could have killed the brugler he should have. I think it shows how screwed up our society is that people automaticaly think that the clerk was wrong to defend himself. Many of you who are judging the actions of this untrained clerk in the heat of a life and death situation are the same ones who said that no one could judge what John Kerry did in combat because we weren't there. Now because it's a clerk and a robber it's suddenly ok to judge what the guy did as wrong? What training did the clerk have to tell him that he wasn't supposed to shoot at fleeing felon? And don't forget that it wasn't the clerk who pulled the gun, he wrestled it from the robber!

And yes I am familiar with the gangs of vigilantes who roamed parts of America and I'm not condoning that. Agents of the law must be held accountable for their actions. Individual citizens do not have the training leo's do. They probably couldn't even name two Supreme Court rulings. To try and hold citizens to the same standards as a police officer is ridiculous. To say that a clerk defending himself and co-worker was wrong to do so is equally ridiculous.<hr /></blockquote>Actually the clerk was the victim of a robbery, not a burglary. And the issue in this case, with the information available, is that at a certain point the clerk was no longer defending himself or his assistent. When the felon lost his gun to the clerk and fled from the location, as much as most don't like it or agree with it, the robber was no longer a clear and present danger to the clerk or his assistent. Firng a warning shot to scare someone is extremely dangerous to other innocent people in the area, not to mention if the cops had just arrived and saw the clerk firing at someone, they wouldn't know if he was the suspect or victim.

jarhead6073

04-15-2003, 09:39 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by retired:
Jarhead,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jarhead6073:
I don't have such a problem with "vigalante justice" in a case like this. Not that I would call the clerk a vigilante. If the clerk could have killed the brugler he should have. I think it shows how screwed up our society is that people automaticaly think that the clerk was wrong to defend himself. Many of you who are judging the actions of this untrained clerk in the heat of a life and death situation are the same ones who said that no one could judge what John Kerry did in combat because we weren't there. Now because it's a clerk and a robber it's suddenly ok to judge what the guy did as wrong? What training did the clerk have to tell him that he wasn't supposed to shoot at fleeing felon? And don't forget that it wasn't the clerk who pulled the gun, he wrestled it from the robber!

And yes I am familiar with the gangs of vigilantes who roamed parts of America and I'm not condoning that. Agents of the law must be held accountable for their actions. Individual citizens do not have the training leo's do. They probably couldn't even name two Supreme Court rulings. To try and hold citizens to the same standards as a police officer is ridiculous. To say that a clerk defending himself and co-worker was wrong to do so is equally ridiculous.<hr /></blockquote>Actually the clerk was the victim of a robbery, not a burglary. And the issue in this case, with the information available, is that at a certain point the clerk was no longer defending himself or his assistent. When the felon lost his gun to the clerk and fled from the location, as much as most don't like it or agree with it, the robber was no longer a clear and present danger to the clerk or his assistent. Firng a warning shot to scare someone is extremely dangerous to other innocent people in the area, not to mention if the cops had just arrived and saw the clerk firing at someone, they wouldn't know if he was the suspect or victim.<hr /></blockquote>Yes. And my question remains that if you and others are unwilling to judge what a trained soldier did in combat, why are you so eager to judge what an untrained pharmacy manager did in a fight for his life?

retired

04-15-2003, 10:34 PM

Jarhead,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jarhead6073:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by retired:
Jarhead,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jarhead6073:
I don't have such a problem with "vigalante justice" in a case like this. Not that I would call the clerk a vigilante. If the clerk could have killed the brugler he should have. I think it shows how screwed up our society is that people automaticaly think that the clerk was wrong to defend himself. Many of you who are judging the actions of this untrained clerk in the heat of a life and death situation are the same ones who said that no one could judge what John Kerry did in combat because we weren't there. Now because it's a clerk and a robber it's suddenly ok to judge what the guy did as wrong? What training did the clerk have to tell him that he wasn't supposed to shoot at fleeing felon? And don't forget that it wasn't the clerk who pulled the gun, he wrestled it from the robber!

And yes I am familiar with the gangs of vigilantes who roamed parts of America and I'm not condoning that. Agents of the law must be held accountable for their actions. Individual citizens do not have the training leo's do. They probably couldn't even name two Supreme Court rulings. To try and hold citizens to the same standards as a police officer is ridiculous. To say that a clerk defending himself and co-worker was wrong to do so is equally ridiculous.<hr /></blockquote>Actually the clerk was the victim of a robbery, not a burglary. And the issue in this case, with the information available, is that at a certain point the clerk was no longer defending himself or his assistent. When the felon lost his gun to the clerk and fled from the location, as much as most don't like it or agree with it, the robber was no longer a clear and present danger to the clerk or his assistent. Firng a warning shot to scare someone is extremely dangerous to other innocent people in the area, not to mention if the cops had just arrived and saw the clerk firing at someone, they wouldn't know if he was the suspect or victim.<hr /></blockquote>Yes. And my question remains that if you and others are unwilling to judge what a trained soldier did in combat, why are you so eager to judge what an untrained pharmacy manager did in a fight for his life?<hr /></blockquote>I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to judging a trained soldier in combat, as opposed to judging an untrained pahrmacist in a fight for his life. I don't recall I mentioned judging a soldier in combat.

And I wasn't judging what the pharmacist did, but merely pointing out the consequences of his actions, and what the law says in regards to what point he was no longer defending himself.

jarhead6073

04-16-2003, 11:29 PM

Retired,

I was referring to the WMD thread where John Kerry was being discussed. In that thread people were unwilling to judge his actions because they weren't there.

My point in this thread is more to ask why people are more willing to pass judgement on an untrained civilian pharmacy manager who was fighting for his life. Yet these same people are unwilling to judge a combat soldier, Marine, or street cop involved in a shooting because, they weren't there.

I find it odd that a civilian is supposed to be versed in matters of law and know when to stop shooting because as a point of law he was no longer being threatend. Meanwhile, people who are trained and do something questionable are not judged nearly as harshly.

xrezrunner

04-16-2003, 11:34 PM

This guys only mistake was telling the truth (and not killing the ****).

If he had just worded his statement slightly diferent....

I can't believe that some of you are inferring that it is criminal what this mangager did.

And thank you Jarhead for making that analogy between this and the Kerry thing.

Retired-In washington state a few years back an old man shot and killed a 16 or 18yr old scumbag/career criminal who he caught burglarizing his house......shot him in the back as the guy ran outside and out through the gate. The burglar was unarmed. No charges filed against grandpa. Likely reason why? People thought the career scumbag got what he deserved.

CinaC

04-16-2003, 11:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I can't believe that some of you are inferring that it is criminal what this mangager did.<hr /></blockquote>Criminal? No. Irresponsible? Hell yes.

What if that bullet had gone on its merry way, until it crashed through your living room window and blown up your TV? Or worse, hit you or one of your family members?

What if you were a responding police officer, pulling up in front of the store, seeing someone firing down the street. Let's say you got out of your car, and as you yelled "drop it!" the manager turned to you, his addrenaline probably still pumping -- heck, he might not even recognize you. But you would probably have no way of knowing he was the manager, or what had just happened -- after all, the call you'd just gotten was "armed robbery!" For all you know, you're facing the armed robber, and now he's turning in YOUR direction, holding a gun. Well, sheeeeet. Somebody's gonna get shot, and I'm betting it won't be the police.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />No charges filed against grandpa. <hr /></blockquote>Have charges been filed against the Manager? Unless you have new information, the article says "no."

Jarhead,

I believe my post on 4/14 is probably what you're talking about. You will notice, however, that I did take care to mention that being in a situation like that is "bound to be a lot different from the rules of shooting on the range." The manager put himself in harm's way with the second shot because he could have hit an innocent person, or been shot by responding police officers. I think if he'd've been calm enough to make an informed decision, he either would have not fired, or taken careful aim. However, the risk he put himself and others in remains the same.

Regarding Kerry. Y'know what? I'm sick of it. For eight years, all the right could do was moan and groan about Clinton's lack of service and draft-dodging. And then as soon as they get a guy in the White House who skipped out on half of his National Guard training, they suddenly start skewering one of his greatest political dangers, who just happens to be a former Navy SEAL. Nothing ever pleases you guys. Somehow I get the feeling that if God Himself came to America and ran as a Democratic candidate, he'd be blasted by the right for drowning all those poor innocent Egyptians who just wanted to follow the duck across the Red Sea.

[ 04-16-2003, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: ciaj ]

jarhead6073

04-17-2003, 12:02 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ciaj:
What if that bullet had gone on its merry way, until it crashed through your living room window and blown up your TV? Or worse, hit you or one of your family members?

What if you were a responding police officer, pulling up in front of the store, seeing someone firing down the street. Let's say you got out of your car, and as you yelled "drop it!" the manager turned to you, his addrenaline probably still pumping -- heck, he might not even recognize you. But you would probably have no way of knowing he was the manager, or what had just happened -- after all, the call you'd just gotten was "armed robbery!" For all you know, you're facing the armed robber, and now he's turning in YOUR direction, holding a gun. Well, sheeeeet. Somebody's gonna get shot, and I'm betting it won't be the police.<hr /></blockquote>But the cop in that situation would not likely be getting judged as harshly as this civilian is, and the cop is trained to deal with critical situations.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Jarhead,

I believe my post on 4/14 is probably what you're talking about.<hr /></blockquote>You're not the only one.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Regarding Kerry. Y'know what? I'm sick of it. For eight years, all the right could do was moan and groan about Clinton's lack of service and draft-dodging. And then as soon as they get a guy in the White House who skipped out on half of his National Guard training, they suddenly start skewering one of his greatest political dangers, who just happens to be a former Navy SEAL. Nothing ever pleases you guys. Somehow I get the feeling that if God Himself came to America and ran as a Democratic candidate, he'd be blasted by the right for drowning all those poor innocent Egyptians who just wanted to follow the duck across the Red Sea.<hr /></blockquote>Did you read the other thread? Because the conversation I'm refering to is where many people are defending or refusing to pass judgment on Kerry's combat actions because they "weren't there".

I wasn't refering to politics at all but if you want to go there... Why is it that for many libs, Daschole included; bombs(D) are good while bombs(R) are bad? Explain the hypocracy of Democrats when it comes to military action and I'll listen to your complaints about Kerry.

[ 04-17-2003, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: jarhead6073 ]

CinaC

04-17-2003, 12:15 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />But the cop in that situation would not likely be getting judged as harshly as this civilian is, and the cop is trained to deal with critical situations. <hr /></blockquote>If, in this scenario, the manager had been an off-duty police officer working a second job, and had did the same things (including firing the second shot, "as a warning"), I believe he would have been judged MUCH MORE harshly.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Did you read the other thread? Because the conversation I'm refering to is where many people are defending or refusing to pass judgment on Kerry's combat actions because they "weren't there".

[quote]I wasn't refering to politics at all but if you want to go there... Why is it that for many libs, Daschole included; bombs(D) are good while bombs(R) are bad? Explain the hypocracy of Democrats when it comes to military action and I'll listen to your complaints about Kerry.<hr /></blockquote>Jarhead,

I can remember quite clearly an example of hipocracy by liberals (but they were quite possibly Greens, and not Democrats). On Monday, 9/10/01, I walk to the Student Union, and a bunch of kids are holding signs "Down with the Taliban" and such. On 9/12/01, they're suddenly supporting the Taliban. :rolleyes:

I'm quite certain that much of the organized Democratic opposition to the war in Iraq is because Bush is our president. However, this is not to say that all protestors do not do so honestly, for a variety of reasons -- I posted a site a few weeks back of conservatives and libertarians in favor of American isolation, and dismissing all liberal opposition to the war on Democratic lines doesn't work -- most Greens view Gore as being just as bad, and don't have the same motivated animosity.

PS - regaring your allegations of people saying "you can't citicize John Kerry, you weren't there", that was Mad Max, and, uh ... he hasn't posted in this thread.

[ 04-17-2003, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: ciaj ]

Mike Tx

04-17-2003, 09:47 AM

I don't think the guy should have been fired. When you are in a life or death struggle, there are no rules. I'm only sorry the guy missed the scumbag. The CVS store should be barraged by complaints over his firing. Apparently they'd rather have dead employees.

The lesson? Never admit to firing a warning shot. Never admit the guy ran off and you shot at him. Only say that you were in fear of your life and you fired and kept firing until you felt the threat was no more.

If the investigators try to change your story to confuse you, or get you to incriminate yourself, stick with your story. You were defending yourself and fired because you were in fear of your life. You stopped firing when the guy ran off. Say nothing else. Sue your workplace for firing you.

[ 04-17-2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

Bill R

04-17-2003, 10:54 AM

Mike, I agree with most of your post. I would however add, NEVER FIRE A WARNING SHOT. Shoot to STOP and keep shooting until the threat is gone.

Mike Tx

04-17-2003, 11:02 AM

I would never fire a warning shot either. I think the sight of the gun would be warning enough. Plus the possible verbage that you may use, Like, "I'll blow you ******* head off if you blink an eye!" :D

retired

04-17-2003, 11:17 AM

Jarhead,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jarhead6073:
Retired,

I was referring to the WMD thread where John Kerry was being discussed. In that thread people were unwilling to judge his actions because they weren't there.

My point in this thread is more to ask why people are more willing to pass judgement on an untrained civilian pharmacy manager who was fighting for his life. Yet these same people are unwilling to judge a combat soldier, Marine, or street cop involved in a shooting because, they weren't there.

I find it odd that a civilian is supposed to be versed in matters of law and know when to stop shooting because as a point of law he was no longer being threatend. Meanwhile, people who are trained and do something questionable are not judged nearly as harshly.<hr /></blockquote>The courts have held repeatedly that ignorance of the law is not a defense or excuse. I wasn't condemning the CVC guy, I'm sure he was excited and scared like he should have been. But a DA will usually say that once the aggressor was fleeing, it should have been obvious to any resonable and prudent person, that the threat was no longer present. The DA can say that once the pharacist used deadly force against the fleeing felon, he became the aggressor or assailant. We don't have to like it or agree with it, but it is a matter of law. It isn't about judging someone for their actions, but critiqueing their actions since this is a board for discussing issues.

It is hard to condemn the guy for what he did, because he was probably scared and did what he thought was right.

retired

04-17-2003, 11:25 AM

Xrez,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by xrezrunner:
This guys only mistake was telling the truth (and not killing the ****).

If he had just worded his statement slightly diferent....

I can't believe that some of you are inferring that it is criminal what this mangager did.

And thank you Jarhead for making that analogy between this and the Kerry thing.

Retired-In washington state a few years back an old man shot and killed a 16 or 18yr old scumbag/career criminal who he caught burglarizing his house......shot him in the back as the guy ran outside and out through the gate. The burglar was unarmed. No charges filed against grandpa. Likely reason why? People thought the career scumbag got what he deserved.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sure the old man wasn't filed on, not because people felt the scumbag got what he deserved, but because the D.A. didn't feel he had sufficiant evidence to file charges. Each state and each locality handles things differently. In california, the possibility of charges filed against the grandpa you mentioned would have seriously been considered. However, much more info would be needed than what you posted.

I don't agree with you that the CVC guy should have lied. Condoning or encouraging lying by the public usually leads to other and sometimes more serious acts.

xrezrunner

04-17-2003, 01:47 PM

Retired-All I was saying was that with a little creative articulation, this problem could have been avoided.

Ciaj-I really don't know you, and apparently the board here tolerates you. Here is my take on you, feel free to disagree. You talk a lot of crap to people, and you have a lot of different opinions. From your profile and your posts however, it appears that you have zero life experience, other then being a student. If I am mistaken, please enlighten us.

Criminal? No. Irresponsible? Hell yes. What if that bullet had gone on its merry way, until it crashed through your living room window and blown up your TV? Or worse, hit you or one of your family members?

What if you were a responding police officer,

So do me a favor, and don't talk down to me or anyone else here who has actually been a police officer, or been in the military. You come off like you think you know what you are talking about, when you don't. You are entitled to your own opinion, just tone down the mightier than thou attitude.

Bullets are not magic. I imagine this was a .45, or a 9mm, or even a .380. It's late at night, (closing time) so there aren't going to be a lot of people around. Second, safes in stores are generally designed to be pretty far away from the public. (How do I know? I worked as an Armored Car Guard for a year.) In this case, it sounds like it was upstairs. So I'm guessing that the errant bullets would have to go through at least 3 or more walls of an empty store before they could even get outside, go down the street, hang a left and crash into my living room and blow up my tv.

Hey guess what, if I'm the responding police officer, it's going to be pretty easy to figure out who the badguy is-he's the one NOT wearing the CVS manager's uniform.

This poor guy was robbed, thought he was going to be executed, fought the robber, and got control of the firearm. He then fires a round while the two of them are in physical contact with each other. He misses,(u didn't have a problem with this round, but it too could have flown 80 miles and taken out a tv) the guy pushes him down and starts to run down a flight of stairs. How do you know that the second shot wasn't fired immediately after the first???? And then AFTER the fact, when the manager is giving his statement, he realizes that the guy was fleeing when he fired? There's a lot of variables that we don't know about.

I think this guy did a hell of a job. For you cops that disagree, think how you would like to be judged if you were no longer a cop, and someone tried to rob you??????

CinaC

04-17-2003, 02:37 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Ciaj-I really don't know you, and apparently the board here tolerates you. Here is my take on you, feel free to disagree. You talk a lot of crap to people, and you have a lot of different opinions. From your profile and your posts however, it appears that you have zero life experience, other then being a student. If I am mistaken, please enlighten us.<hr /></blockquote>I talk a lot of crap to people? How, by disagreeing with them? Y'know, I'm sick and tired of people who think that just because a person is a student, they have zero life experience. Y'know, for me at least, school has no more been a "shield" from the real-world than anything else is. Yes, I'm a student. But I also work sixty hours a week trying to pay off my assorted debts. I may be in a classroom two days a week while others are in a patrol car, but I do think that there's a bit more balance to my life and to my outlook on life than a textbook. Honestly, I fail to see what any of this has to do with these topics. Retired and Bill R brought up the same concerns about the warning shot.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So do me a favor, and don't talk down to me or anyone else here who has actually been a police officer, or been in the military. You come off like you think you know what you are talking about, when you don't. You are entitled to your own opinion, just tone down the mightier than thou attitude.<hr /></blockquote>I don't believe I've spoken down to you. I made an assertion -- that firing a stray round is bad. I backed it up by pointing out that when I began shooting, I was instructed by many people to always know what my bullet would hit (and if it penetrated something, what it would hit after).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />This poor guy was robbed, thought he was going to be executed, fought the robber, and got control of the firearm. He then fires a round while the two of them are in physical contact with each other. He misses,(u didn't have a problem with this round, but it too could have flown 80 miles and taken out a tv) the guy pushes him down and starts to run down a flight of stairs.<hr /></blockquote>The first round was fired in the heat of combat. There was an immediate threat to both the manager's life and that of the other employee.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />How do you know that the second shot wasn't fired immediately after the first???? And then AFTER the fact, when the manager is giving his statement, he realizes that the guy was fleeing when he fired? There's a lot of variables that we don't know about.<hr /></blockquote>My only concern about this situation (as I elaborated in detail), was when the manager fired a shot, without a target in mind, to "warn" the now fleeing suspect. As I and others pointed out, this has several potentially negative consequences: the first is that he may have hit an innocent person, the second is that responding police officers may have mistaken the manager for the robber and shot him, and the third is that by firing this shot, he may have placed himself in legal jeopardy.

Also, I am basing my responses on the article. It doesn't give a lot of detail, so you're right that there may have been circumstances that neither of us are aware of. However, judging from the manager's line that he fired a shot to scare the man off, I feel that while he most certainly was reacting to the horrifying events he'd just found himself, he didn't exercise the best judgement.

As much as you may wish it so, I am not the only person to bring up these consequences of the manager's actions, so your attack on me, my education, and my political ideology is quite pointless. If you feel I'm talking "crap" to you, you may feel quite free to ignore my posts.

Have a nice day.

[ 04-17-2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: ciaj ]

retired

04-17-2003, 04:32 PM

Xrez,

"This guys only mistake was telling the truth (and not killing the ****)."

This is creative articulation? He made a mistake by not lying? Come on, you can't be serious?

Mike Tx

04-17-2003, 04:57 PM

It sure was a mistake! With all the treasonous liberals just waiting to ruin someones life for using a gun to fight back against crime, you dare not face them on even ground. Your life is at greater risk from liberals it seems then from some criminals.

retired

04-17-2003, 06:01 PM

Mike,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
It sure was a mistake! With all the treasonous liberals just waiting to ruin someones life for using a gun to fight back against crime, you dare not face them on even ground. Your life is at greater risk from liberals it seems then from some criminals.<hr /></blockquote>Now that you are unsupervised for awhile, how many D.A.s are conservative that prosecute people for this? Don't blame everything on a liberal, although I'm not sure what your definition of a liberal is. According to you I'm a liberal. :D :D

Mike Tx

04-17-2003, 06:07 PM

Unfortunatly, we can't pick and choose when and if some criminal scum will try and take our life, nor can we control the fact that that some DA's will try to ruin you to improve
their "electability".

You are correct about you being a liberal though.

retired

04-17-2003, 07:24 PM

Mike,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
Unfortunatly, we can't pick and choose when and if some criminal scum will try and take our life, nor can we control the fact that that some DA's will try to ruin you to improve
their "electability".

You are correct about you being a liberal though.<hr /></blockquote>I'm thankful you have clarified my political leanings. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> I'll have to tell all the guys I worked with for all those years that they were wrong, and I am not really a right-wing conservative like they thought. Boy will they be surprised! :D

xrezrunner

04-17-2003, 07:31 PM

retired-

I think the guy would have been better off just saying that he fired two shots at the guy after wrestling the gun away from him. Me personally, I don't have a problem with that. You might.

CIAJ-Reply in the works.

retired

04-17-2003, 08:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by xrezrunner:
retired-

I think the guy would have been better off just saying that he fired two shots at the guy after wrestling the gun away from him. Me personally, I don't have a problem with that. You might.

CIAJ-Reply in the works.<hr /></blockquote>I have a problem when a victim doesn't tell the truth about an incident. Would you prefer a victim be less than forthright when relating the circumstances of an attempt robbery?

I'm sure that one of the questions posed by the investigator was, why did you fire at him as he was fleeing? This is an appropriate question for a complete inquiry into the circumstances of the event.

Obviously the victim didn't have a continuing fear, or he didn't articulate that he did.

I personally don't have a problem with him shooting at the suspect as you allude. But as a professional LEO, you should know the law, and at least in my former state, there remains the possibilty he could be filed on. However, I doubt it, but from his statements and the evidence presented, it is a possibility he could be considered an agressor. I don't agree with that either as you might suggest.

But it the responsibility of all professional LEO's to question a victim and gather all the facts in any investigation. If the victim lies, it only taints the investigation, and makes the job more difficult.

[ 04-17-2003, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: retired ]

xrezrunner

04-17-2003, 08:56 PM

Retired-way to twist things around...and just when I thought I would have time to reply to ciaj..... :D

The world isn't black and white....It's not as simple as telling the truth or lying....there IS a grey area. There is a big problem (IMHO) of cops interpreting things B/W. So much of a cop's job requires discretion.....anyhoo I am getting off on a tangent.

The manager is CLEARLY the good guy in this case. We don't have all the facts, so it is a little hard to quarterback it.

Of course we all want people to tell us the truth...however, are you telling me that you have never told a fellow officer or a victim (an honest victim) that maybe they should rephrase something????????

example:

As I attempted to arrest the suspect, he fought with me and I smacked him in the head with my maglite. I was then able to take him into custody. Suspect had no visual injuries and refused aid. Suspect was later booked into the county jail.

OR

As I attempted to place the suspect into custody, he started swinging at me and attempted to run away. I was able to take him into custody and book him into jail w/out further incident.

BIG difference there. Those are examples only, so don't read too much into them. I'll assume that you get my point.

Do you have a problem with his second shot?

[ 04-17-2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: xrezrunner ]

xrezrunner

04-17-2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by ciaj:

I talk a lot of crap to people? How, by disagreeing with them? Y'know, I'm sick and tired of people who think that just because a person is a student, they have zero life experience. Y'know, for me at least, school has no more been a "shield" from the real-world than anything else is. Yes, I'm a student. But I also work sixty hours a week trying to pay off my assorted debts. I may be in a classroom two days a week while others are in a patrol car, but I do think that there's a bit more balance to my life and to my outlook on life than a textbook. Honestly, I fail to see what any of this has to do with these topics. Retired and Bill R brought up the same concerns about the warning shot.

Ciaj, I've seen you talk smack to watchman and others, and there was the other thread where you told me to"STFU you tree-hugging peace-nik.". I haven't seen you post anything that would lead me to believe that you have some other life experience other then college. You neglected to mention what your 3 jobs were. You obviously disagree, but I believe that your opinion as someone who is a student, has only been shooting for a year and has probably never worked a job where you have to deal with life and death on a daily basis carries very little weight when you are debating people who carry guns as a matter of course, and who are involved in life and death situations almost daily. That is what being a student has to do with this topic. That is also what I was referring to about your attitude. That is why I singled you out.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So do me a favor, and don't talk down to me or anyone else here who has actually been a police officer, or been in the military. You come off like you think you know what you are talking about, when you don't. You are entitled to your own opinion, just tone down the mightier than thou attitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe I've spoken down to you. I made an assertion -- that firing a stray round is bad. I backed it up by pointing out that when I began shooting, I was instructed by many people to always know what my bullet would hit (and if it penetrated something, what it would hit after).

See above. You mentioned rules of shooting and knowing your backstop.....well as far as I am concerned, the most important rule in a life and death situation is to win!! Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This poor guy was robbed, thought he was going to be executed, fought the robber, and got control of the firearm. He then fires a round while the two of them are in physical contact with each other. He misses,(u didn't have a problem with this round, but it too could have flown 80 miles and taken out a tv) the guy pushes him down and starts to run down a flight of stairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first round was fired in the heat of combat. There was an immediate threat to both the manager's life and that of the other employee.

Again, I don't think it's appropriate for someone of your limited life experience to quarterback this guys actions. And that's why I give more credit to the other guys on the board who disagree with me such as retired

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know that the second shot wasn't fired immediately after the first???? And then AFTER the fact, when the manager is giving his statement, he realizes that the guy was fleeing when he fired? There's a lot of variables that we don't know about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My only concern about this situation (as I elaborated in detail), was when the manager fired a shot, without a target in mind, to "warn" the now fleeing suspect. As I and others pointed out, this has several potentially negative consequences: the first is that he may have hit an innocent person, the second is that responding police officers may have mistaken the manager for the robber and shot him, and the third is that by firing this shot, he may have placed himself in legal jeopardy.

Also, I am basing my responses on the article. It doesn't give a lot of detail, so you're right that there may have been circumstances that neither of us are aware of. However, judging from the manager's line that he fired a shot to scare the man off, I feel that while he most certainly was reacting to the horrifying events he'd just found himself, he didn't exercise the best judgement.

ciaj- you are a very good writer and debater...I really don't take issue with your above statement. I took issue with your other shorter, know-it-all answers.

As much as you may wish it so, I am not the only person to bring up these consequences of the manager's actions, so your attack on me, my education, and my political ideology is quite pointless. If you feel I'm talking "crap" to you, you may feel quite free to ignore my posts.

Have a nice day.

Spoken like a true college student with no life experience. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Bill R was very short and to the point-that's why I didn't debate him....as for retired, I think me and him will always be on opposite sides :p <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

The reason why I hopped on you here has more to do with reading all your posts on this board then it does with this specific thread. Just seemed like as good a place as any to bring it up. In hindsight, maybe I should have done this through a PM. My apologies to anyone that I have upset by doing it here.

[ 04-17-2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: xrezrunner ]

retired

04-17-2003, 10:53 PM

xrez,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by xrezrunner:
Retired-way to twist things around...and just when I thought I would have time to reply to ciaj..... :D

The world isn't black and white....It's not as simple as telling the truth or lying....there IS a grey area. There is a big problem (IMHO) of cops interpreting things B/W. So much of a cop's job requires discretion.....anyhoo I am getting off on a tangent.

The manager is CLEARLY the good guy in this case. We don't have all the facts, so it is a little hard to quarterback it.

Of course we all want people to tell us the truth...however, are you telling me that you have never told a fellow officer or a victim (an honest victim) that maybe they should rephrase something????????

example:

As I attempted to arrest the suspect, he fought with me and I smacked him in the head with my maglite. I was then able to take him into custody. Suspect had no visual injuries and refused aid. Suspect was later booked into the county jail.

OR

As I attempted to place the suspect into custody, he started swinging at me and attempted to run away. I was able to take him into custody and book him into jail w/out further incident.

BIG difference there. Those are examples only, so don't read too much into them. I'll assume that you get my point.

Do you have a problem with his second shot?<hr /></blockquote>I wasn't twisting anything, you inferred somthing I didn't imply. I never suggested or implied that the CVC pharmaist wasn't the good guy, of course he was the good guy. What did I say to suggest otherwise?

You're correct, I never told an officer, or a citizen victim to rephrase anything they told me that would change what actually happened. I might very well paraphrase what they said in my report, but it was written to reflect exactly what they said. LEO's often paraphrase victims statements in reports, it's quite common, at least in California.

Of the two examples you posted, my department always used the first one. If the force used was reasonable and proper, and required smacking him in the head with the Maglite, it should always be articulated in the report. To do otherwise would have been deceptive, and could be construed as an attempt to cover what actually happened. If you had cause to smack him with the Maglite, why would you not report it? The difference between the two was your second example wasn't forthright, assuming the force was reasonable.

I already said I didn't have a problem with his second shot, because I assume he was terrified, as he should have been. However, he did say he fired at the suspect to scare him. Not a good sign, but at least honest!

Watchman

04-17-2003, 10:53 PM

Ya know, Ive been thinking about this scenario, and I've wondered how I might have responded if it would have been me.

A guy walks in a holds me up with a gun. Immediatley he has my total concentration. Im gonna do whatever it takes to live through the situation. I am literaly in fear for my life.

The man pulled out a handgun and demanded money and forced Hart and his co-worker into an upstairs office, where the store's safe was located.

Ok, we are going upstairs to the safe. Maybe I can just give him the money and he will go away.

Hart obeyed the man's orders and gave him cash. But instead of leaving the store with the money, the intruder then started to put on gloves.

The guys is putting on gloves. Perhaps he intends to shoot me and my partner, he dosent want witnesses.

"When I saw the guy put on the gloves, I thought he was going to shoot us," said Hart. "... The thing I thought about was I would never see my wife again."

First, its fear. Then anger. Then despair. Now, I'm thinking that the ONLY chance I have is to fight back. Better to die trying than to not try at all.

After grabbing the gun, Hart fired one round, but missed the man, who struggled with him for the weapon.

Here we are in a life and death struggle. Due to fear and adrenaline flow, I manage to grab the gun. The fight continues.

After grabbing the gun, Hart fired one round, but missed the man, who struggled with him for the weapon.

The perp realizes that the struggle has already gone further than he wanted it to and after feeling the muzzleblast and realizing that he has narrowley escaped death,he gives it up and decides that its time to skedaddle...while he can.

Inside the store, the struggle continued until the man pushed Hart and ran down the stairwell.

Hmmm...the heart rate is around 160, I am sweating like a pig, in the last 3 minutes I have experienced most emotions known to mankind. Absolute fear,worry,anger,disgust,sorrow,and the elation of winning a life and death struggle.

At that point, Hart said he fired a second shot in the fleeing man's direction "to scare him."

So he fired a second shot. Big Deal.Is it worth ruining a mans life over. Is it worth ruining his family and his career over ?

"I feel I did nothing wrong, and that I was protecting us by my actions," he said.

We shall never know what may have transpired. Its very possible that if he wouldnt have fought, he would have ended up as just another statistic on a chart posted annually by the FBI. Another wife without a husband, another kid without a father.Another useless death by some jerkoff that probably needed money for another snort of crank and stood an exellent chance of getting away with it.

Yet many here take issue with the fact that he fired a second round to "scare him off" while not taking into account what actually happens in a life and death situation. Perhaps the people that find fault with this guy would control themselves better in the same situation. Others here may have never even fought and simply ended up as a corpse.

Of course we are all fortunate to be able to nitpick this scene to death from the relative comfort of our fancy chairs while sitting at our computers.

Perhaps the situation could have been handled differently,but I can hardly fault the guy for launching a second shot. For those that say it shouldnt have been so,they need to try to understand life from the vicitim's point of view instead of taking exception to what he did,which in this case, was of minor consequence.

Ideally, he hould put this behind him, continue on with his life and if nothing else, realize just how fragile life can be.

[ 04-17-2003, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

retired

04-17-2003, 11:19 PM

WM,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
Ya know, Ive been thinking about this scenario, and I've wondered how I might have responded if it would have been me.

A guy walks in a holds me up with a gun. Immediatley he has my total concentration. Im gonna do whatever it takes to live through the situation. I am literaly in fear for my life.

The man pulled out a handgun and demanded money and forced Hart and his co-worker into an upstairs office, where the store's safe was located.

Ok, we are going upstairs to the safe. Maybe I can just give him the money and he will go away.

Hart obeyed the man's orders and gave him cash. But instead of leaving the store with the money, the intruder then started to put on gloves.

The guys is putting on gloves. Perhaps he intends to shoot me and my partner, he dosent want witnesses.

"When I saw the guy put on the gloves, I thought he was going to shoot us," said Hart. "... The thing I thought about was I would never see my wife again."

First, its fear. Then anger. Then despair. Now, I'm thinking that the ONLY chance I have is to fight back. Better to die trying than to not try at all.

After grabbing the gun, Hart fired one round, but missed the man, who struggled with him for the weapon.

Here we are in a life and death struggle. Due to fear and adrenaline flow, I manage to grab the gun. The fight continues.

After grabbing the gun, Hart fired one round, but missed the man, who struggled with him for the weapon.

The perp realizes that the struggle has already gone further than he wanted it to and after feeling the muzzleblast and realizing that he has narrowley escaped death,he gives it up and decides that its time to skedaddle...while he can.

Inside the store, the struggle continued until the man pushed Hart and ran down the stairwell.

Hmmm...the heart rate is around 160, I am sweating like a pig, in the last 3 minutes I have experienced most emotions known to mankind. Absolute fear,worry,anger,disgust,sorrow,and the elation of winning a life and death struggle.

At that point, Hart said he fired a second shot in the fleeing man's direction "to scare him."

So he fired a second shot. Big Deal.Is it worth ruining a mans life over. Is it worth ruining his family and his career over ?

"I feel I did nothing wrong, and that I was protecting us by my actions," he said.

We shall never know what may have transpired. Its very possible that if he wouldnt have fought, he would have ended up as just another statistic on a chart posted annually by the FBI. Another wife without a husband, another kid without a father.Another useless death by some jerkoff that probably needed money for another snort of crank and stood an exellent chance of getting away with it.

Yet many here take issue with the fact that he fired a second round to "scare him off" while not taking into account what actually happens in a life and death situation. Perhaps the people that find fault with this guy would control tnemselves better in the same situation. Others here may have never even fought and simply ended up as a corpse.

Of course we are all fortunate to be able to nitpick this scene to death from the relative comfort of our fancy chairs while sitting at our computers.

Perhaps the situation could have been handled differently,but I can hardly fault the guy for launching a second shot. For those that say it shouldnt have been so,they need to try to understand life from the vicitim's point of view instead of taking exception to what he did,which in this case, was of minor consequence.

Ideally, he hould put this behind him, continue on with his life and if nothing else, realize just how fragile life can be.<hr /></blockquote>My cunning adversery!

Most if not all of us in LE, you included, know what it's like to be terrifed. I don't see any of us nitpicking the situation, just discussing and critiqueing. Certainly considering the outcome of this situation, he did the right thing. But there are many incidents like this where the victim/s ended up dead. And who knows, maybe they would have been dead had they not fought back. Personally, if the situation should arise and I am in the same situation, I would like to think that if I have a suspicion that the suspect is going to waste me, I'll fight back with everything I have. But there are many incidents like this where the victim ended up dead, and in all probablity would be alive if they had complied. Every situation is different.

xrezrunner

04-17-2003, 11:27 PM

Well said watchman.

Retired-
In washington state, hitting someone in the head with a maglite is akin to deadly force. I'm not saying to rephrase something that actually happened. I'm just saying that sometimes certain info is better left out. If you **** yourself during a gunbattle, would ya put it in your report? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

I know I'm spilling secrets, but I've gone on ridealongs with my neighbor where suspects were cuffed and given "flashlight taps" to the body after foot pursuits. When I inquired, I was told it was pretty standard "unofficial" graveyard sop. Yet that never gets put in a report. I'm sure you saw plenty of similiar things down in la.

jarhead6073

04-17-2003, 11:32 PM

People are talking about this like the manager chased the perp out into the parking lot and fired the second round down the street. I don't see where anything like that happend. For all we know the "backstop" could have been a brick wall. There is nothing to suggest that the perp was in front of a window or outside when the second shot was fired.

retired

04-17-2003, 11:56 PM

zrez,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by xrezrunner:
Well said watchman.

Retired-
In washington state, hitting someone in the head with a maglite is akin to deadly force. I'm not saying to rephrase something that actually happened. I'm just saying that sometimes certain info is better left out. If you **** yourself during a gunbattle, would ya put it in your report? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

I know I'm spilling secrets, but I've gone on ridealongs with my neighbor where suspects were cuffed and given "flashlight taps" to the body after foot pursuits. When I inquired, I was told it was pretty standard "unofficial" graveyard sop. Yet that never gets put in a report. I'm sure you saw plenty of similiar things down in la.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, you're correct, I saw plenty in Los Angeles, and considering all the years I worked in South Central Los Angeles, I probably saw more than most cops. But "flashlight taps" as you put it, to a cuffed suspect were not condoned, nor supported by any of the street cops I worked with, or supervised. Our policy was once a suspect was cuffed, the fight was over. This was the attitude amongst all the street guys I knew. maybe it is different in Washington.

I am surprised that Washington state is legally able to place a limit on the amount of reasonable and necessary force a cop can use to subdue, or render a suspect innocuous. If that criteria is procedure in Washington, and you say a LEO can't hit a suspect with his Maglite in the head, and then show it was reasonable and proper, how in the world can they use lethal force, which obviously has far more serious consequences than a Maglite? I am a somewhat confused. Just where on the body is a LEO able to strike a suspect with a Maglite and not violate Washington procedure? Does the state refer specifically to Maglites when using force?

CinaC

04-18-2003, 12:12 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You obviously disagree, but I believe that your opinion as someone who is a student, has only been shooting for a year and has probably never worked a job where you have to deal with life and death on a daily basis carries very little weight when you are debating people who carry guns as a matter of course<hr /></blockquote>Two of my jobs are pizza-delivery (one for an independently owned place, the other for a Papa John's franchise). I have been told, but never verified myself, that food delivery jobs ranks in the top five of the government's list of most dangerous professions. Although I'm not required to confront violent murderers as LEOs are, I am at great risk of ambush, robbery, car-jacking, and the like. I've been fortunate for the past few years to work in relatively safe areas, and I've been very fortunate not to have had any of the above possibilities happen to me, but they have happened to co-workers (the most recently last August, at a location I no-longer work). When I first started delivering in winter '98, a driver from another company was robbed and shot at close range in the head within our delivery area (she was lucky enough to survive). Needless to say, there are many times when I would very much enjoy being legally able to carry a handgun (even though I do believe my MagLite can serve as an able club), even though my most consistent danger comes from the big dogs everyone up here seems to have :D

<blockquote>quote:<hr />People are talking about this like the manager chased the perp out into the parking lot and fired the second round down the street. <hr /></blockquote>Actually, that is how I had pictured it.

[ 04-18-2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: ciaj ]

jarhead6073

04-18-2003, 12:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ciaj:

[QUOTE]Actually, that is how I had pictured it.<hr /></blockquote>"Inside the store, the struggle continued until the man pushed Hart and ran down the stairwell.

At that point, Hart said he fired a second shot in the fleeing man's direction "to scare him."

This gave me the picture that the manager was still on the stairs shooting down at the perp who was still in the store. There is not enough information to say for sure which is the case but for all we know there was an adequate backstop and the manager was not putting anyone else in danger with the second shot. Maybe he didn't, but I don't think it's fair to assume that given the info at hand.

retired

04-18-2003, 12:51 AM

xrezrunner

04-18-2003, 02:02 PM

Retired-

Let me see if I can clear this up.

I never hit a suspect after he/she was cuffed. But I know that it goes on in WA state and Socal.

Now for the maglite.

The WA state force continuum classifies maglites/asps/batons as impact weapons. We were taught at the academy (and later reinforced by our departments) to never hit a suspect in the head with a blunt object unless you were in fear for your life. Headshots with impact weapons were thought of on the same level as deadly force.

I'm curious where a maglite blow to the head fit on the force continuum of your old department? (Or was that back in the days of Model A ford radio cars? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )

[ 04-18-2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: xrezrunner ]

Sig220Man

04-18-2003, 06:35 PM

I find it odd that a civilian is supposed to be versed in matters of law and know when to stop shooting because as a point of law he was no longer being threatend. Meanwhile, people who are trained and do something questionable are not judged nearly as harshly.

I don't know about your state, but out here in "9th Circuit Court-land" (which includes BOTH CA and WA) you'd better believe we as cops will be judged harshly...MUCH more harshly than civilians.

Of course we all want people to tell us the truth...however, are you telling me that you have never told a fellow officer or a victim (an honest victim) that maybe they should rephrase something????????

I don't know what they're teaching folks at the WA police academies, but I certainly hope their curriculum doesn't encourage this sort of behavior.

The ONLY time I tell someone to rephrase their statement is when I know they're lying...and they know that I know they're lying.

I know I'm spilling secrets, but I've gone on ridealongs with my neighbor where suspects were cuffed and given "flashlight taps" to the body after foot pursuits. When I inquired, I was told it was pretty standard "unofficial" graveyard sop. Yet that never gets put in a report. I'm sure you saw plenty of similiar things down in la.

In this post-Rodney King world, full of video cameras, juries distrustful of cops, and attorneys who equate "Civil Rights Violations by Cops" with overflowing bank accounts, anybody who fails to fully document use-of-force incidents, much less those who intentionally cover up illegal acts, are just asking for trouble.

Let me see if I can clear this up. I never hit a suspect after he/she was cuffed. But I know that it goes on in WA state and Socal.

I certainly hope that you weren't yet a cop when you witnessed these acts. Any cop who witnesses a civil rights violation by a fellow cop, and does nothing to stop it and doesn't report it, WILL be held just as liable as the guy doing the beating.

xrezrunner

04-18-2003, 06:50 PM

Sig220-

I'm simply commenting on reality, not making a judgement statement.

I hear from my friends what goes on in their departments. I don't know about where your from, but getting smacked around by the police after running is fairly common in a lot of places. Again, I'm not passing judgement, just saying how it is.

The first couple of times i heard about this, I told my friends to watch out, but apparently it is so commonplace that they are really not concerned.

Are you saying that suspects that take you on a car pursuit/foot pursuit don't get thumped on at all before being taken into custody?

[ 04-18-2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: xrezrunner ]

Mike Tx

04-18-2003, 07:01 PM

It was suggested to me to rephrase something when I was accussed of assault several years back. It was a bogus claim, but the guy kept pushing the cops to "get me", and finally one of the cops called me and told me that unless I can say that this guy provoked me by calling me a m/f, then he would have to give us both tickets. I quickly realized a favor when I saw it and told the officer that this guy did indeed call me that.

retired

04-18-2003, 08:11 PM

xrez,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by xrezrunner:
Retired-

Let me see if I can clear this up.

I never hit a suspect after he/she was cuffed. But I know that it goes on in WA state and Socal.

Now for the maglite.

The WA state force continuum classifies maglites/asps/batons as impact weapons. We were taught at the academy (and later reinforced by our departments) to never hit a suspect in the head with a blunt object unless you were in fear for your life. Headshots with impact weapons were thought of on the same level as deadly force.

I'm curious where a maglite blow to the head fit on the force continuum of your old department? (Or was that back in the days of Model A ford radio cars? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )<hr /></blockquote>Yup, I spent four years in Firestone Patrol in a Model A, three in Lennox Patrol in a Model A, and three in Lynwood patrol in a Model A. Lakewood patrol was a 1946 Ford.

Our use of force policy was quite short and simple. We could use the amount of force that was reasonable and necessary for the situation. If that meant we had to hit a suspect in the head with a Kelite, that's what we did. However, whenever we used force of any degree, we had to articulate the reason for the force and justify it.

xrezrunner

04-18-2003, 09:10 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> If that meant we had to hit a suspect in the head with a Kelite <hr /></blockquote>kelite? A wuh????? Oh wait, I remember that from my trip to the police museum!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Seriously tho, the reason we were told not to hit someone in the head with a maglite was for liability reasons...brain damage/SBInjury or death.

jarhead6073

04-18-2003, 11:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sig220Man:
I don't know about your state, but out here in "9th Circuit Court-land" (which includes BOTH CA and WA) you'd better believe we as cops will be judged harshly...MUCH more harshly than civilians.<hr /></blockquote>I don't mean "judged" as in judged in a court of law. I mean the court of public opinion. Usually when there is an officer involved shooting, or similar incident, opinion on this board is something to the effect of 'I wasn't there so I can't judge'. This does not seem to be the case when a civilian is doing the shooting.

Deputy757

04-19-2003, 09:01 AM

xrez,
It's very, very rare that I come down on the side of CiaJ, but in this instance...that's exactly where I find myself.
As for the issue at hand...I'm glad the manager is alive and find what he did to be pretty much justified. The reason I say "pretty much" is that I feel that his "warning shot" went beyond what was reasonable. Now, I agree with Watchman that it may have been something that just happened in the heat of the moment. LEO's are trained to react in these sort of situations and therefore should be better able to handle their emotions that occur throughout. This manager, during what could quite possibly have been his first (and maybe last..if things had turned out differently) fight for his life, should be given a bit more room for error.
Now, back to CiaJ. In your postings you have berated CiaJ for his lack of experience in LE. However, I find his postings regarding the force continuum issues to be more in line with my way of thinking than yours are.
1. You think it's ok to lie...or at least to distort the truth..during a criminal investigation. You say that things are not always black or white and that we should use discretion. Well, we are not talking about whether to give someone a speeding ticket or a cite for alcohol intoxication. This is armed robbery! It could have been murder if the suspect had succeeded in getting the gun. There shouldn't be any shades of gray in this situation.
Sure...the manager should watch what he says...but all he has to do is ask for a lawyer. Then his statement will be whatever the lawyer thinks it should be.
2. Your example about using a Mag-Lite to subdue a resistive subject. If you had written it uplike example #2 when it happened like #1, you'd be in a world of trouble. A smack in the head with a Mag-Lite is going to leave a mark and you had better document WHY you did it. You are right that using a Mag-Lite in such a manner is akin to deadly force. You say..I'm not saying to rephrase something that actually happened. I'm just saying that sometimes certain info is better left out. If you **** yourself during a gunbattle, would ya put it in your report?.
So...you are not advocating rephrasing...but just leaving things totally out of the report? Retired said it best. Leaving something out, like your use of deadly force, is only going to bring suspicion upon you and your actions. Document everything...especially the things that the suspect did that led you to use force. That includes things like height/weight proportions, time of day (or night), location, availability of backup, previous dealings with suspect, etc. It's usually a problem that officers don't document enough of what brought on the force.
Your attitude suggests to me that you find the end justifies ANY means. Now, I'm all about going home safe at the end of shift...but..I don't condone excessive force and I don't condone lying!

Sig220Man

04-19-2003, 11:05 AM

Jarhead: I don't recall any thread on this board where a majority of members excused an officer's questionable actions with the old line "If you were there, you would understand." One or two, maybe, but certainly not the whole group. Particularly in the Squad Room forum, poor judgment calls on the part of officers, and their superiors, are criticized.

XRez: If what you say is indeed true, the cops in your part of the country are not dealing with reality. They are operating like they THINK it was "in the old days."

The reality is that even if you do your job properly, within the law, you'll still get sued, and if you aren't properly defended by your department, you could even end up in jail if something like a shooting happens. And that's for doing the job right. Imagine what will happen if you do it wrong. Imagine still when you do the job with the INTENT of violating another's civil rights.

If your friends are so "unconcerned" about their behavior, and that you are of the opinion that a bit of "street justice" is still fairly common in today's litigous, cop-distrusting society, frankly that doesn't speak well for law enforcement in your part of the state. Perhaps your whole state.

As far as me, I work for a medium-sized agency in suburban Los Angeles County. One that was trained by, and has frequent contacts with, retired's former agency, so I know where he's coming from. I have academy-mates that are, or at one time were, assigned to the very areas he mentions. While my department may not have the size of an LAPD, I certainly don't work for Podunk PD either. Unless you work for Seattle PD, or King County SO, or WSP, I'll bet that my agency has more sworn officers than yours.

In my 10 years of wearing a badge and a gun, I've NEVER smacked a suspect who was not deserving of such under my department's Use of Force guidelines. Nor have I witnessed such by other officers. Nor have such Civil Rights Violations been bragged about by my fellow officers in my presence. My department would simply not tolerate it, nor would the citizens of my city.

My version of reality is that I'd like to stay out of jail, and that I'd like to keep my house, my car, and my savings in my name, and not give it to some dirtbag who exploited a momentary weakness in me.

Mike Tx

04-19-2003, 01:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't mean "judged" as in judged in a court of law. I mean the court of public opinion. Usually when there is an officer involved shooting, or similar incident, opinion on this board is something to the effect of 'I wasn't there so I can't judge'. This does not seem to be the case when a civilian is doing the shooting.<hr /></blockquote>I think in many cases, some cops will say that to avoid having to second guess another officer. If the cops all start being judgemental when another cop has their actions questioned, it will mostly be bad for morale, I would think. They have to keep tight like that so that they can depend on each other regardless of what the need is.

Personally, I think it makes cops who use that phrase a lot look bad in the eyes of some of the public. Of course the statement that they weren't there is true, but it would be nice to offer the same discretion to non leo's as well. I am not saying they don't, just that, as has been pointed out, police are trained for situations like this, and we mostly are not, so we should get a little more leeway if we ever get forced to keep from getting murdered.

xrezrunner

04-19-2003, 02:52 PM

sig220-

Without getting into it too much, I am speaking of the largest department in Orange County CA...that should be easy to figure out.

So for all your blasting washington state and "my department is bigger then yours"-your completely off target.

I am not speaking of things I have done myself....I am speaking of things that friends of mine have told me that have occurred in King County WA, Pierce County WA but MOSTLY Orange County CA.

I've been on ridealongs/visits where I've seen enough to know that what they are saying is true.

Do I think it's okay to hit a suspect after they have been cuffed? No. Does it happen? Yes. Do guys get thumped on after foot pursuits in some places? Yes.

Apparently you think it never happens....what was that case awhile back in California where the cop punched the guy at the gas station? Yeah, he got fired, but do you think that was the first time that happened?

You act as if I am making this stuff up...

I've also heard about certain socal agencies SHOOTING at fleeing felons and not filing reports....do I think it's right? No. Doesn't mean that it didn't happen. When you have officers from 4 different agencies and 3 of them can corroborate something, I tend to believe it's true.

I'm not saying or implying that this is standard police procedures. And yes, where I worked before, I NEVER saw any illegal/unethical acts either. But in certain jurisdictions, **** goes on that is a lot different from a lot of places.

I don't have access to any of the restricted areas of this board, so I cannot discuss this in a closed forum. Otherwise I would. My intent is not to cast a bad light on all officers. I'm just pointing out the reality that there are certain places in this country where it's a good idea not to **** off the cops.

Deputy 757-

I have made my peace with ciaj through PM.

I never said it was okay to lie. Ever. So you can misconstrue all you want.

Things can be paraphrased in a way that does not change portraying the event as it happened. I was using an extreme example with the maglite to make my point.

Do you cut regular joe's a break on tickets?? And do you stack them on scumbags??? I hope you do. I certainly did. Nothing illegal about it, just using my powers of discretion, like a GOOD COP would. When you treat citizens and scum the same, it gives the public a bad impression of all cops. Save your jumping on a high horse of "I treat everyone equally." Maybe in your demeanor, but not when it comes to arresting or citing. I certainly don't arrest "Grandpa" for stuff that I definitely book ******* meth-head felons....(fishing w/out a license warrants comes to mind).

How people word things makes a big difference in this world....everyone knows that.

Ex:

1. I hate retired.

or

2. A lot of the time I disagree with retired's viewpoint.

(Don't worry retired, I don't hate ya! :D )

When I was on duty I did everything in my legal power to help regular citizens out.....I also did everything in my legal power to screw over the career criminals.

All that I am saying is that the demeanor of an arresting/investigating officer can make or break you.

While on duty, I would never knowingly do something to put my career at risk. We don't know all the facts in this particular situation. The investigator could have strongly advised the man to seek legal counsel after such a traumatic experience before given a statement. Is that so bad? Yeah, my original statements were off the cuff. But I hope you now understand my intent.

Heaven forbid, if after 20 years of marriage (with no similiar incidents EVER), if your wife slapped you and you threw a cereal bowl at her, would you want a "by the book" officer who was going to arrest someone, or would you want an officer with a little common sense?

think I'm done here.

Sig220Man

04-19-2003, 06:16 PM

So for all your blasting washington state and "my department is bigger then yours"-your completely off target.

I wasn't blasting WA. I do have concerns however if what you say is the norm, because it isn't. Not in today's society. There are too many checks and balances, and too many lawyers, to simply get away with that on a regular basis.

I'm not saying it NEVER happens...what I'm disputing is that it's a commonplace procedure like you claim.

I am speaking of the largest department in Orange County CA

I have contacts at 3 of the 4 biggest agencies in OC. I've never heard any of this stuff.

Since there's a member of this board who was once a member of that 4th agency, I'd like to hear from him if this is the "norm" where he used to work.

I've also heard about certain socal agencies SHOOTING at fleeing felons and not filing reports

That I know you're making up. Unless you're talking about the LAPD Rampart scandal. Any discharge of your firearm, outside of the range, is going to result in an investigation.

Deputy757

04-19-2003, 07:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by xrezrunner:
<hr /></blockquote>I never said it was okay to lie. Ever. So you can misconstrue all you want.
Hmmm..well let's see.....

this guys only mistake was telling the truth (and not killing the ****).

I think the guy would have been better off just saying that he fired two shots at the guy after wrestling the gun away from him.

It's not as simple as telling the truth or lying.

I'm just saying that sometimes certain info is better left out.

Now where would I get the idea that you think lying, by commission or ommission, is ok?????

Save your jumping on a high horse of "I treat everyone equally."

Though you've put this statement in quotation marks...please show me where I said this!!
What I said was that this was not a case of giving someone a speeding ticket...or another minor infraction. This is a felony investigation and there should be NO gray areas.

I like to debate issues...but don't put words in my mouth...and don't misquote me. It's very apparent that you don't mind skirting around the boundaries of what gets many police officers into lots of trouble...but I don't. I'm fortunate...in 13 years of local and international law enforcement...I've never been sued. That's not to say that someone who is sued did anything wrong. But when you feel that "that sometimes certain info is better left out"...you are just asking for trouble.

[ 04-19-2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Deputy757 ]

retired

04-19-2003, 07:49 PM

Deputy757,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Deputy757:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by xrezrunner:
<hr /></blockquote>I never said it was okay to lie. Ever. So you can misconstrue all you want.
Hmmm..well let's see.....

this guys only mistake was telling the truth (and not killing the ****).

I think the guy would have been better off just saying that he fired two shots at the guy after wrestling the gun away from him.

It's not as simple as telling the truth or lying.

I'm just saying that sometimes certain info is better left out.

Now where would I get the idea that you think lying, by commission or ommission, is ok?????

Save your jumping on a high horse of "I treat everyone equally."

Though you've put this statement in quotation marks...please show me where I said this!!
What I said was that this was not a case of giving someone a speeding ticket...or another minor infraction. This is a felony investigation and there should be NO gray areas.

I like to debate issues...but don't put words in my mouth...and don't misquote me. It's very apparent that you don't mind skirting around the boundaries of what gets many police officers into lots of trouble...but I don't. I'm fortunate...in 13 years of local and international law enforcement...I've never been sued. That's not to say that someone who is sued did anything wrong. But when you feel that "that sometimes certain info is better left out"...you are just asking for trouble.<hr /></blockquote>I have to agree with what you said. As far as I'm concerned, the facts as they happened must be articulated in the report, even if that means the bad guy gets off. We in LE cannot compromise our ethics or principles to convict someone or change the circumstances of an event to fit our desired outcome.

xrezrunner

04-19-2003, 07:54 PM

Me-So for all your blasting washington state and "my department is bigger then yours"-your completely off target.

You-I wasn't blasting WA. I do have concerns however if what you say is the norm, because it isn't. Not in today's society. There are too many checks and balances, and too many lawyers, to simply get away with that on a regular basis.

you- the cops in your part of the country are not dealing with reality.
frankly that doesn't speak well for law enforcement in your part of the state. Perhaps your whole state.
I'll bet that my agency has more sworn officers than yours.

Sure looks like you were blasting was state...maybe it's just me. Where did I say it was the norm????????

You-I'm not saying it NEVER happens...what I'm disputing is that it's a commonplace procedure like you claim.

What specifically are you referring to? That in certain agencies people who run get thumped a little? Or that certain agencies on graveyard throw a few extra blows after someone is cuffed??

Me-I am speaking of the largest department in Orange County CA

You-I have contacts at 3 of the 4 biggest agencies in OC. I've never heard any of this stuff.

Since there's a member of this board who was once a member of that 4th agency, I'd like to hear from him if this is the "norm" where he used to work.

Did I say it was the norm? I don't want to get any of my buddies in trouble, so I'm not going to be specific, even though you are basically calling me a liar. Ask them if certain jail facilities have a reputation for what happens to people that "fail" booking??? Ask if some are country clubish compared to the IRC. Do your friends no everything that goes on in Orange County with all the different specialized units? I don't think so.

Me-I've also heard about certain socal agencies SHOOTING at fleeing felons and not filing reports

You-That I know you're making up. Unless you're talking about the LAPD Rampart scandal. Any discharge of your firearm, outside of the range, is going to result in an investigation.

Your right. You never heard about it so I MUST be lying. I don't know how many times this has occurred, I heard about at least two incidents. The agency was compton. When it was brought up, two deputies from OC and an ex-officer from Long Beach had heard about it. Guess what? No report, because no one ever reported shots fired. No one was hit. Do I think that whole incident is screwed up? Hell yeah. Doesn't mean it didn't occur.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that certain agencies are more heavy-handed then others? Why do you think the city of Bell's officers have a bad rap??

I'm not saying this is the norm anywhere. But for you to contend that I'm lying and that these things don't happen is ridiculous.

xrezrunner

04-19-2003, 08:08 PM

757-

I'm not going to waste my time debating you. Apparently to you, everything in the world is black and white.

If you look at the psychology of police aptitude tests, people like you historically do not make good police officers. Not to say that you can't do the job, they are just not the most qualified applicants.

Let me get this straight...you think that omission is lying..... You think any rephrasing of an incident is lying....
In this instance, if the guy had simply stated that he shot at the robber and missed (which he did, didn't he??????) he would of saved himself a lot of trouble instead of saying that he fired a warning shot. I don't have a problem with that. To me that is not a big deal.

When you write a report, do you put that you knock on the door, hardwood, brown in color, 7 feet by 2 feet......why not? Liar!!

Don't get all upset and devote a paragraph to my use of quotes...

quote: Save your jumping on a high horse of "I treat everyone equally."

Though you've put this statement in quotation marks...please show me where I said this!!
What I said was that this was not a case of giving someone a speeding ticket...or another minor infraction. This is a felony investigation and there should be NO gray areas.

I like to debate issues...but don't put words in my mouth...and don't misquote me. It's very apparent that you don't mind skirting around the boundaries of what gets many police officers into lots of trouble...but I don't. I'm fortunate...in 13 years of local and international law enforcement...I've never been sued. That's not to say that someone who is sued did anything wrong. But when you feel that "that sometimes certain info is better left out"...you are just asking for trouble.

I was using quotes as was was countering your likely response.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It's very apparent that you don't mind skirting around the boundaries of what gets many police officers into lots of trouble...but I don't. <hr /></blockquote>Is it apparent????? I guess I got the "high horse" part right.....

Did I EVER say that I had personally violated a suspects rights? No.

I'm simply commenting on things AS A CIVILIAN, giving my OPINION.

Yes, I believe the criminal justice system should work in favor of the good guys and full tilt against the bad. And anyone who has worked the streets knows just who the bad guys are....hmmm the methhead, suspended driver's license kleptomaniac, who also assaults everyone...oh, wait, he's "misunderstood".

If guys like that get smacked around and the officers doing it don't lose their jobs, I don't lose any sleep.

Oh, I know, I'm the bad guy. I'm just saying out loud what a lot of people are thinking.

Thanks for waiting until sig220 jumped on me before you chimed in. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[ 04-19-2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: xrezrunner ]

Sig220Man

04-19-2003, 08:41 PM

Well, let see here (putting on my Niteshift cap):

Sure looks like you were blasting was state

I don't see where I was blasting WA cops. All I said was that IF things are the way you say they are, then it simply doesn't look good for the agencies in your area, if not your state.

You said you heard these stories from your neighbor, with whom you did ridealongs. So unless you no longer live in the Evergreen State, one has to conclude that you're talking about an agency, or agencies, in WA State.

What specifically are you referring to? That in certain agencies people who run get thumped a little? Or that certain agencies on graveyard throw a few extra blows after someone is cuffed??

That is EXACTLY what I take issue with. While I'm not denying that there are a FEW (VERY FEW) officers who might think this is an appropriate tactic, I seriously doubt that today there is a Chief or Sheriff out there who would condone such tactics, either implicitly or especially explicitly. Too much is at stake for him or her to allow such conduct in his/her agency.

Ask them if certain jail facilities have a reputation for what happens to people that "fail" booking??? Ask if some are country clubish compared to the IRC.

With all the spotlight that has been focused on So Cal LE agencies in recent years (thanks to the Rampart Scandal), any agency that still engages in such behavior, and/or fails to discourage it, is asking for trouble.

An officer I work with once got 30 days off for allegedly kicking a handcuffed suspect in the head while in a booking facility. Where did this happen? Not in my agency's so-called "Country Club-ish" jail, but no less than LASD's Inmate Reception Center at Mens Central Jail, arguably the toughest jail in the state not including state correctional facilities. And guess who turned him in? An LASD deputy who worked there. So don't tell me about how it's acceptable at some agencies. It's not.

Do your friends no everything that goes on in Orange County with all the different specialized units?

An agency's reputation spreads far and fast; as an ex cop you should know that. While I was not aware of what Rafael Perez was doing at Rampart (and apparently neither did most of the LAPD), the gang unit formerly known as CRASH had a reputation for being tough. They had to...they patrol the meanest streets in the western US. I don't need ears in every department, and every unit, to know about it.

I don't know how many times this has occurred, I heard about at least two incidents. The agency was compton. When it was brought up, two deputies from OC and an ex-officer from Long Beach had heard about it. Guess what? No report, because no one ever reported shots fired. No one was hit.

You said you heard of certain So Cal agencies shooting at fleeing felons, and not generating any paper. That implies to me that at certain agencies, you can shoot at someone, and as long as you hit nobody, you didn't have to write a report, which we all know isn't the case.

Are the officers who've discharged their weapons, and for whatever reason failed to report the incident? Of course there are. But it's not commonplace.

And as far as Compton PD...they no longer exist.

Sig220Man

04-19-2003, 08:41 PM

Deputy757

04-20-2003, 08:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by xrezrunner:
<hr /></blockquote>757-

I'm not going to waste my time debating you. Apparently to you, everything in the world is black and white.

I don't blame you...you are failing miserably with everyone!! And again...I never said that everything is black and white...just that there are certain situations when you can't take liberties with the truth.

If you look at the psychology of police aptitude tests, people like you historically do not make good police officers. Not to say that you can't do the job, they are just not the most qualified applicants.

Yet, here I am..still the cop. And there you are...well, not! Of course, I have no knowledge of why you are not still the police, nor do I wish to have. But since your premise that I see everything as black and white is patently false, it comes as no surprise that this is as well!

Let me get this straight...you think that omission is lying.....
Yes. If the ommission happens to be an element of fact that leads one to believe that one thing happened when it was something else....you bet I do.

You think any rephrasing of an incident is lying....
In this instance, if the guy had simply stated that he shot at the robber and missed (which he did, didn't he??????) he would of saved himself a lot of trouble instead of saying that he fired a warning shot. I don't have a problem with that. To me that is not a big deal.

Though this sounds like a good idea...until the investigator asks how far away the subject was when he fired, which leads to the question what was the subject doing at that point...and then the magic question....WHY shoot at that point. The problem isn't that he called it a warning shot...the problem is that there was no longer a threat which would allow him to use deadly force. I'm all for giving the guy the benefit of the doubt...as I said in my earlier post. Nothing I've said should suggest that I think the manager should be prosecuted and/or terminated from his job. I'm just arguing that his position, legally...is less than sound.

When you write a report, do you put that you knock on the door, hardwood, brown in color, 7 feet by 2 feet......why not? Liar!!

You are now making the leap to absurdity. You're not even good at it! How about..." I knocked on the door and entered when I heard someone say come in" when was really happened was I knocked on the door and though no one answered, I went on in since I was sure the sh**head I was looking for was inside.

Did I EVER say that I had personally violated a suspects rights? No.
This was never said, much less suggested.

Yes, I believe the criminal justice system should work in favor of the good guys and full tilt against the bad. And anyone who has worked the streets knows just who the bad guys are....hmmm the methhead, suspended driver's license kleptomaniac, who also assaults everyone...oh, wait, he's "misunderstood".
I agree with the first part. And I will deal with each group differently until it comes to arrest and use of force. I don't care if it's a meth head or a CEO, if they fight me...they will get whatever it takes to put them in the cuffs. Once they are IN the cuffs though...it's over. No catch up shots, no "flashlight taps", no street justice.

If guys like that get smacked around and the officers doing it don't lose their jobs, I don't lose any sleep.
As long as they are getting smacked around while they are resisting arrest...ok. Otherwise, this is another one of your dangerous points of view.

Thanks for waiting until sig220 jumped on me before you chimed in. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> 
If you care to look back, it was pretty clear that I mentioned CiaJ in my first post to you...not Sig220. Normally I like to watch him get "beat up" on the boards...but not when he's right..and not when the person who's berating him does so as if he speaks for LE and his views are actually anti-typical of LE.

Deputy757

04-20-2003, 08:49 AM

retired,
I agree. I mean...if the manager had killed the guy and during the interview never once mentioned that he had done so because he was in fear for his life...I'm surely going to ask him if this was the case. But if he says no..or says that he shot him as he was going out the door because he was ****ed off and wanted the punk to bleed...well, while I may agree...I can't just exclude that from my report.

xrezrunner

04-20-2003, 01:42 PM

"I don't see where I was blasting WA cops."
the cops in your part of the country are not dealing with reality.
frankly that doesn't speak well for law enforcement in your part of the state. Perhaps your whole state.

Yeah, I guess not. where did I get that idea from?

What specifically are you referring to? That in certain agencies people who run get thumped a little? Or that certain agencies on graveyard throw a few extra blows after someone is cuffed??

That is EXACTLY what I take issue with. While I'm not denying that there are a FEW (VERY FEW) officers who might think this is an appropriate tactic, I seriously doubt that today there is a Chief or Sheriff out there who would condone such tactics, either implicitly or especially explicitly. Too much is at stake for him or her to allow such conduct in his/her agency.

Did I say it was the norm? No. So thanks for agreeing with me. If it was the norm it would be sop now, wouldn't it?

Ask them if certain jail facilities have a reputation for what happens to people that "fail" booking??? Ask if some are country clubish compared to the IRC.

With all the spotlight that has been focused on So Cal LE agencies in recent years (thanks to the Rampart Scandal), any agency that still engages in such behavior, and/or fails to discourage it, is asking for trouble.

An officer I work with once got 30 days off for allegedly kicking a handcuffed suspect in the head while in a booking facility. Where did this happen? Not in my agency's so-called "Country Club-ish" jail, but no less than LASD's Inmate Reception Center at Mens Central Jail, arguably the toughest jail in the state not including state correctional facilities. And guess who turned him in? An LASD deputy who worked there. So don't tell me about how it's acceptable at some agencies. It's not.

I know, you know everything. I know about the LASD's men's jail. So when did I call your department's jail country-clubish? You have some serious reading comprehension problems!
I was referring to jails in OC. Some nobody gets beat on, others a lot of people do.
Hey, how many people associate with the lasd deputy that ratted out his partner? I'm just curious. You must be an admin guy or some kind of brass.....

Do your friends know everything that goes on in Orange County with all the different specialized units?

An agency's reputation spreads far and fast; as an ex cop you should know that. While I was not aware of what Rafael Perez was doing at Rampart (and apparently neither did most of the LAPD), the gang unit formerly known as CRASH had a reputation for being tough. They had to...they patrol the meanest streets in the western US. I don't need ears in every department, and every unit, to know about it.

There again, you know everything....how dare I question your extensive knowledge.....

I don't know how many times this has occurred, I heard about at least two incidents. The agency was compton. When it was brought up, two deputies from OC and an ex-officer from Long Beach had heard about it. Guess what? No report, because no one ever reported shots fired. No one was hit.

You said you heard of certain So Cal agencies shooting at fleeing felons, and not generating any paper. That implies to me that at certain agencies, you can shoot at someone, and as long as you hit nobody, you didn't have to write a report, which we all know isn't the case.

Are the officers who've discharged their weapons, and for whatever reason failed to report the incident? Of course there are. But it's not commonplace.

Really? Did I say it was commonplace? No. But you acknowledge that it occurs, thanks again for reversing yourself....Oh wait, last time you called me a liar, and now you say that it occurs....hmmmmm...make up your mind...does it happen every once in awhile, or "do we all know that's not the case".....you know what they say about things " we all know"....

And as far as Compton PD...they no longer exist.

Which has what to do with their officer's actions? Are they an "illusion"? You act as if everything else I say is.

Make up your mind...one one hand you call me a liar, and that these things don't happen, and on the other you admit they do happen, but counter with it's not the norm.....

You must be brass...."I didn't say that"....yes it happens/no it doesn't happen. Which one is it? Make up your mind!

SOOOOO

Do people get smacked when they probably legally shouldn't?

I know my answer.......

Have officers fired at or shot people and covered it up in SOCAL?

I'm not saying it's a daily occurrence.....but for you to call me a liar and say it never happens is ridiculous. And yeah, it makes all cops look bad. You can wish all you want that things like this don't happen, but in certain agencies they do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 04-20-2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: xrezrunner ]

xrezrunner

04-20-2003, 01:53 PM

If you look at the psychology of police aptitude tests, people like you historically do not make good police officers. Not to say that you can't do the job, they are just not the most qualified applicants.

Yet, here I am..still the cop. And there you are...well, not! Of course, I have no knowledge of why you are not still the police, nor do I wish to have. But since your premise that I see everything as black and white is patently false, it comes as no surprise that this is as well!

I bet your the guy that nobody on your department likes...the one noone talks to at rollcall....the one that people don't go to your calls unless they HAVE to. So you can gloat that you are still a cop and I'm not...In a little while, I'll have a job with an agency making at least 8 times what you make in your bumpkin state.

You think any rephrasing of an incident is lying....
In this instance, if the guy had simply stated that he shot at the robber and missed (which he did, didn't he??????) he would of saved himself a lot of trouble instead of saying that he fired a warning shot. I don't have a problem with that. To me that is not a big deal.

When you write a report, do you put that you knock on the door, hardwood, brown in color, 7 feet by 2 feet......why not? Liar!!

You are now making the leap to absurdity. You're not even good at it! How about..." I knocked on the door and entered when I heard someone say come in" when was really happened was I knocked on the door and though no one answered, I went on in since I was sure the sh**head I was looking for was inside.

Oh, but that's not lying??????? Double standard hypocrite.

Did I EVER say that I had personally violated a suspects rights? No.
This was never said, much less suggested.

No, but you did call me a liar and allude all sorts of things to my charachter.

Yes, I believe the criminal justice system should work in favor of the good guys and full tilt against the bad. And anyone who has worked the streets knows just who the bad guys are....hmmm the methhead, suspended driver's license kleptomaniac, who also assaults everyone...oh, wait, he's "misunderstood".
I agree with the first part. And I will deal with each group differently until it comes to arrest and use of force. I don't care if it's a meth head or a CEO, if they fight me...they will get whatever it takes to put them in the cuffs. Once they are IN the cuffs though...it's over. No catch up shots, no "flashlight taps", no street justice.

I feel the same as I have stated. I have never given any "street justice". I also fought a lot more methheads then ceos....You look at everyone the same-I don't. As a matter of fact, I've never fought a ceo. I can name on one hand the number of "normal" people I have fought.

If guys like that get smacked around and the officers doing it don't lose their jobs, I don't lose any sleep.
As long as they are getting smacked around while they are resisting arrest...ok. Otherwise, this is another one of your dangerous points of view.

You'd prolly rat out your best friend if just once you saw him give what you thought to be an excessive blow, w/out even giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for waiting until sig220 jumped on me before you chimed in.
If you care to look back, it was pretty clear that I mentioned CiaJ in my first post to you...not Sig220. Normally I like to watch him get "beat up" on the boards...but not when he's right..and not when the person who's berating him does so as if he speaks for LE and his views are actually anti-typical of LE.

I never said I spoke for anything other then my own experiences/experiences shared to me by good friends.

Sig220Man

04-20-2003, 06:03 PM

Xrez:

If you're going to quote me, quote the entire thing. Don't edit things out and then try to twist the meaning of my words around.

I said "If what you say is indeed true, the cops in your part of the country are not dealing with reality. They are operating like they THINK it was "in the old days." Notice how the inclusion of the original part of my sentence, changes the whole meaning of the sentence? Notice how the sentence changes from a wholesale blasting of WA state cops, to one of concern about the state of affairs there if one is to believe you?

Did I say it was the norm?

Rather than debate semantics here over whether or not you implied something was the norm (something we obviously will never see eye-to-eye on), why don't we go back to discussing what started this controversy, one where you encouraged a little "creative articulation" to use your own words? The one where you said This guys only mistake was telling the truth (and not killing the ****).

Though if you really want me to point out where you implied this was the norm, shall I quote: I know I'm spilling secrets, but I've gone on ridealongs with my neighbor where suspects were cuffed and given "flashlight taps" to the body after foot pursuits. When I inquired, I was told it was pretty standard "unofficial" graveyard sop.

how dare I question your extensive knowledge

You're getting dangerously close...

Did I say it was commonplace? No. But you acknowledge that it occurs, thanks again for reversing yourself....Oh wait, last time you called me a liar, and now you say that it occurs

Again, like with retired, you're twisting my words around. Please show me where I said it NEVER occurs. All I'm saying is it doesn't occur as routinely as you imply (not say, IMPLY).

Which has what to do with their officer's actions? Are they an "illusion"?

It says a lot when you're talking about an agency that hasn't been in existence for a few years. For all I know you could've been talking about an incident that occurred 20 years prior.

You can wish all you want that things like this don't happen, but in certain agencies they do.

Again, I take issue with that statement. I don't agree that in today's society, it's still okay at "certain agencies" to engage in the sort of behavior you speak of.

If you look at the psychology of police aptitude tests, people like you historically do not make good police officers. Not to say that you can't do the job, they are just not the most qualified applicants.

I wouldn't talk if I were you. At least Deputy757 is STILL a cop...

You think any rephrasing of an incident is lying...In this instance, if the guy had simply stated that he shot at the robber and missed (which he did, didn't he??????) he would of saved himself a lot of trouble instead of saying that he fired a warning shot. I don't have a problem with that. To me that is not a big deal.

We're used to citizens lying to us. It's the part about the officer encouraging someone to "rephrase" their statement that I, retired, and Deputy757 have a problem with.

[ 04-20-2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Sig220Man ]

xrezrunner

04-21-2003, 03:16 AM

sig220-

You have some serious reading comprehension problems.

I'm not twisting your words around, you are.

When I said that there was an incident with an officer shooting at a suspect and not reporting it, you called me a liar and said that doesn't happen. Later you acknowledged that it has happened.

I don't need to go back and debate anything with you. It's pretty obvious that you can't give a straight answer, and when you feel the pressure of being called on that, you play your MODERATOR card...."dangerously close"...Oh wait, did I quote you out of context again?

I'm not going to play your little games.

Go back, answer my questions, then I'll answer yours.

For the record is it "Niteshift" or "sig220man"? Or is it whichever one is convenient at the time?

dkiefner

04-21-2003, 07:00 AM

Actually xrez, for the record, they are two seperate entities.

I went back and re-read the posts in question. IMO, the manager escalated the situation by firing the second shot when the fleeing criminal no longer presented an immediate threat. He was wrong, and he's lucky he didn't hit anyone.

Further, you advocated murder, and then lying to 'avoid the problem'. Call it creative articulation or whatever you wish, it still equals lying. Any investigator worth their salt would have quickly seen through any 'creative articulation'.

You then attacked those disagreeing with you.

In your view, reading comprehension problems may exist. In my view, you have a common sense problem that says you don't know how to quit while you are ahead. Perhaps this is a pattern in your life.

You are getting dangerously close, and before you whine again about the moderator card, remember that if the Staff were playing that, they would have simply shut you down long ago.

Oh, and we tolerate CiaJ here although he has no LE experience and we frequently disagree with him, because he at least is articulate and typically presents genuine arguments.

OTOH, our tolerance is extremely low for trolls.

Deputy757

04-21-2003, 10:49 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by xrezrunner:
<hr /></blockquote>I bet your the guy that nobody on your department likes...the one noone talks to at rollcall....the one that people don't go to your calls unless they HAVE to. So you can gloat that you are still a cop and I'm not...In a little while, I'll have a job with an agency making at least 8 times what you make in your bumpkin state.

So now you have a problem with Kentucky??? Come on...at least stay on topic. And how could you possibly know what I make. If you had made the comment a year ago you would have to be making 0ver 500K a year for that to be true!

Oh, but that's not lying??????? Double standard hypocrite.

If you had read carefully...you would have seen that I was offering a better example of what would be a misrepresentation of facts than you did!

No, but you did call me a liar and allude all sorts of things to my charachter.
Never called you a liar...I simply pointed out that you had said what you claimed not to have said. I did that using your words...not mine!

Sig220Man

04-21-2003, 10:57 AM

For the record is it "Niteshift" or "sig220man"? Or is it whichever one is convenient at the time?

If you had been paying attention for the 4 or 5 months that you've been a member of this board, you'll notice that it's impossible for us to be one in the same.

For one thing we're on opposite ends of this vast country. For another, we've disagreed on some issues in the past. But our disagreements have been civil, and have not degenerated into the personal attacks that you seem to relish.

My comment about "Putting on my Niteshift cap" refers to having to my having to deal with a poster who's pushed a debate into overdrive. I use him because IMHO he deals with such persons the best. How you could misunderstand that to mean that I'm simply Niteshift's alter ego is beyond me :rolleyes:

If you wish to debate whether or not that CVS manager had a right to fire at a fleeing, now-unarmed felon, or whether or not officers should encourage good-guy victims and witnesses to "rephrase" statements in order to stay out of jail, or whether or not "getting smacked around by the police after running is fairly common in a lot of places" to quote you again, that's fine.

But the admins/moderators will no longer tolerate any further personal attacks from you.