Officer cleared in fatal shooting during January traffic stop

[Anselmo 87]

Sorry if this has been posted before.

 

Article: http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_2dd02134-477f-11df-aba6-001cc4c002e0.html

 

Video: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/vmix_cdf93fba-47ca-11df-9f5c-001cc4c002e0.html

 

 

The officer is cool as a cucumber under this stress.

 

I'm shocked that some people think he used too much force. The perp got what he deserved.

[ChrisJM981 924]

Yea too much force when someone sticks a .41 magnum(?) out the window at you and fires at your face. That should have taken 3 minutes to decide and not 3 months. Why was it a jury of 6 women? Prosecutor loading the jury for a guilty verdict? I'll never understand the jury selection process...

[tommy3rd 132]

i don't know about you guys, but if someone had a gun and tried to shoot me and misses or misfires, it would have been game over if I was also armed. I would empty the magazine and probably reload. I'll deal with the consequences of my actions later on.

[tommy3rd 132]

 

The officer is cool as a cucumber under this stress.

except for that split second when you heard him say hol... $hit! I probably would have reacted worse, maybe even soil my underwear in the process. lol

[tony357 386]

WOW, that was frikin close.. never seen that coming, guess he did not like the drinking question.. I do not know how that officer did not see that gun..dam...

[vjf915 456]

Awesome for the officer. I also hope that he does NOT face civil prosecution, not sure if officers are immune in a justified shooting..... Im glad everything ended well for him though.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Yeah - glad that cop survied through it. .41 magnum blast near his ear... yikes.

[vietboy1st 1]

slow action. i think the dude is kinna drunk to pull the trigger i don't know but i bet that drunk dude got hit for good.. haha cool. Is cop used to be in the military ?

[vjf915 456]

Just to put this out there....many PDs have policies against shooting at moving cars, and many departments that DO allow it only allow attempting to shoot out the tires. Even that is not practiced much since there are road blocks, moving maneuvers, and road spikes that can be used. On top of that, the person was driving AWAY from the cop. These elements combined are most likely why he was put under investigation.

 

Dont get me wrong. I give the guy all the credit in the world for what he did. Someone who is going to fire a gun at a police officer for being pulled over is NOT somebody we need in society. That officer did everyone a favor. I am just stating why he was under investigation like that.

[Turbofire 2]

Just to put this out there....many PDs have policies against shooting at moving cars, and many departments that DO allow it only allow attempting to shoot out the tires. Even that is not practiced much since there are road blocks, moving maneuvers, and road spikes that can be used. On top of that, the person was driving AWAY from the cop. These elements combined are most likely why he was put under investigation.

 

Dont get me wrong. I give the guy all the credit in the world for what he did. Someone who is going to fire a gun at a police officer for being pulled over is NOT somebody we need in society. That officer did everyone a favor. I am just stating why he was under investigation like that.

 

I don't think there even has to be suspicion of wrongdoing on the officers part. There was a shooting, somebody died, they had a coroners inquest, officer was cleared. Just standard procedure.

[Anselmo 87]

I often wonder in these situations if society expects too much from a police officer in these types of "combat" situations. No matter how much training you have, it is very difficult to control your emotions in a situation like this. The officer drew his gun so quickly and got into shooting position and makes it look like a training film.

 

I see why the Glock is so popular.

[vjf915 456]

I don't think there even has to be suspicion of wrongdoing on the officers part. There was a shooting, somebody died, they had a coroners inquest, officer was cleared. Just standard procedure.

Like I said twice already, I agree. I dont think he did anything wrong either. Im not sure if it was IA or the prosecutors office who would investigate him.....but if I was given the task of "whether to investigate him or not", I would NOT have dont it. Yes, he may have fired at a moving car which is against policy, but it has been done before, and he was acting within his power to protect himself and the community. I feel sorry for the officer, he was doing what his instinct reaction was to protect himself and the community, and he was picked apart for it. I was simply trying to inform the members why he was investigated.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

Yea too much force when someone sticks a .41 magnum(?) out the window at you and fires at your face. That should have taken 3 minutes to decide and not 3 months. Why was it a jury of 6 women? Prosecutor loading the jury for a guilty verdict? I'll never understand the jury selection process...

 

 

3months?

Article says the Jury of 6 women took 1 hr to decide.

[NJ Warlord 1]

One thing the public doesn't realize (among many gun related issues) is the mental mindset that occurs in a life or death shooting.

 

The officers very often won't even remember the sound of his own gun going off or feel the recoil with all the adrenaline pumping. They know they shot their gun and that they had to but that decision was made in a split second they had before they very well may have found themselves perforated instead of the perp.

 

Officers are still just human beings. Training can only go so far to overcome natural instinct, adrenaline and shock.

 

I bet the prosecuter made reference that he could have wounded the gunman instead of killing him, I love that rhetoric.

[Malsua 1,422]

Here's a different scenario.

 

Guy side swipes you and stops.

 

You walk up to the car, you are a CCW License holder in good standing.

 

After a few moments speaking with this same dirtbag, you say "I'm going to call the cops" as you realize he's drunk.

 

The same situation occurs. Gun comes out, you say "Oh shiznit!" gun is fired at you. You pull and shoot into the vehicle, killing said shittum. From the time the gun is fired, the exact same scenario plays out, you may even have dropped your flashlight.

 

Here's the question:

 

How do you stay out of jail for the rest of your natural life?

 

Bonus: What's the difference between the two situations?

 

Two points. 1. I think the cop is perfectly justified in shooting. 2. I'm glad the POS is dead, he was a menace.

[vjf915 456]

The difference between the two situations, and I know I will get flamed for this. An officer is allowed to defend the COMMUNITY, this means he could actually justify shooting someone who is fleeing. However we, as citizens, are only allowed to protect ourselves or those living in our house (home defense) or ourselves in a CCW situation. Given your situation, the first shot or two may be justified during a civilian CCW situation, for however long the suspect had the gun out the window. However, after he was driving away and no longer firing, he is no longer a threat to you....therefore a civilian would not be able to empty the entire mag like the officer did. To answer your question, a civilian would NOT be able to legally justify the situation you just presented.

[Malsua 1,422]

An officer is allowed to defend the COMMUNITY

 

So we're in Judge Dredd territory then? We've empowered police to be Judge, Jury and executioner if it's for the amorphous "greater good"?

 

See, my issue is with the double standard. Either it's a clean shoot or it's not. If it's not for me, it's not for him unless he's got a license to kill and last I checked cops don't have that.

 

I believe it was a justified homicide. The courts have even spoken to this. Why does the status of the shooter matter? Right is right, wrong is wrong. Four legs good, two legs bad or insert whatever suitable Orwellian metaphor you choose.

[vjf915 456]

So we're in Judge Dredd territory then? We've empowered police to be Judge, Jury and executioner if it's for the amorphous "greater good"?

 

See, my issue is with the double standard. Either it's a clean shoot or it's not. If it's not for me, it's not for him unless he's got a license to kill and last I checked cops don't have that.

 

I believe it was a justified homicide. The courts have even spoken to this. Why does the status of the shooter matter? Right is right, wrong is wrong. Four legs good, two legs bad or insert whatever suitable Orwellian metaphor you choose.

I think that you and I are agreeing, yet not entirely understanding each others posts

 

If an officer feels that letting someone flee would pose a threat to society, then yes it is a justifiable homicide. I know it could be seen as a double standard, but police are trained to protect the community. Therefore, they have the ability to use their discretion as to whether the suspect will in fact be a danger to society if they let them escape. We do not have that ability. I think that its a GOOD THING that officers have the ability to do things like this. That guy who shot at the officer is NOT someone I want in my town, or even my country. Just because you and I, and many others on this board have the sound moral judgment to see that does not mean that every civilian does. Thats why we have officers who go through a rigorous selection process, psychiatric exam, and training to earn the privilege to use "discretion". They have shown that they are responsible and of a sound mind to make decisions like that.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

I think if the same scenario went down with a civilian and their was video tape of it, a jury would not convict.

You can easily raise a reasonable doubt to be acquitted me thinks.

Anyone remember a guy back in TX in the late 70s early 80's.

 

A karate instructor molested his kid.

 

When the guy was being extradited, the father waited on a pay phone at the airport and shot the guy point blank in the head when he was being led by the feds. Had it on video and everything and he was acquitted.

[vjf915 456]

A jury WOULD convict a civilian because the suspect was driving away and no longer firing before the next 10 shots came in. The suspect was NO LONGER a direct threat to the officers life. If that were a civilian, they would likely be convicted.

[bulpup 98]

I see the point Malusa, but I look at it this way;

 

There is a double standard for cops, period.

 

They can't take a free meal if you offer it. They can't pick a dollar up off a sidewalk without someone claiming it was theft of evidence or some kind of bribe.

 

They are also required to separate and arrest if called to a domestic dispute, stop those that appear to be drunk and confront those commiting violent crimes.

None of that is true for a citizen. A cop is empowered to exercise his judgement based on his training.

As citizens we are not, and as such we can not merely pick and choose what part of the job we would prefer.

 

I am a firm believer that the guy that pulls a gun on a cop is a great threat to society. The difference as a citizen would be that if I stuck my face in a car there is no way it could be said that the other guy hadn't perceived a threat as you normally don't have a tape of it.

 

I suppose that it could be said that letting a drunk driver drive is letting a threat loose, but I am not going to empty a mag on a guy for that. Maybe a tire. I am happy to help stop bad guys as I can, if ever, but that would stretch it a bit for me.

 

The one thing about that tape that I see recuuring in other tapes like that is from the back, with whatever he was shooting, he had no idea he had neutralized the threat and the car was just rolling off or if the driver was fleeing. I am pretty confident that the driver could have been hit fatally a few times after putting it in gear or even while putting it in gear. But how could he know for sure?

 

<edit> just a note to the web guys, on my iPhone version the edit button does not show up.

[vjf915 456]

Plus one for you, sir. That was a well educated post.

[KpdPipes 388]

Just to put this out there....many PDs have policies against shooting at moving cars, and many departments that DO allow it only allow attempting to shoot out the tires. Even that is not practiced much since there are road blocks, moving maneuvers, and road spikes that can be used. On top of that, the person was driving AWAY from the cop. These elements combined are most likely why he was put under investigation.

 

Dont get me wrong. I give the guy all the credit in the world for what he did. Someone who is going to fire a gun at a police officer for being pulled over is NOT somebody we need in society. That officer did everyone a favor. I am just stating why he was under investigation like that.

In NJ, the Attorney General's guidelines for Use of Force, Specifically Deadly force STRONGLY DISCOURAGE firing at or from a Moving Vehicle. If you attempt to "Shoot out the tires" here in NJ, YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH MALFEASANCE. The rule of thumb is Dont shoot at a car unless it is the only way to keep from getting run over, and if THAT is the case, then YOU screwed the pooch by allwoing yoruself to be in that position in the first place. Even if you are TAKING fire from a Moving Vehicle, they are going to crawl up into your colon for a LONG while before ruling whether or not it was justified because of the Various dangers involved (Uninvolved parties inside the car, disabling the driver, creating an unguided 2000+ missile, and the always possible Unintended Consequences of Misses or Ricochets). Road blocks are covered under the AG guidelines for Pursuits, and are ONLY to be authorized under circumstances where Deadly force would Normally be Authorized. In 23 years I dont know of ANY DEPARTMENT IN THE STATE that has had an Authorized Roadblock. Road Spikes have only been authorized for the last 5 years or so, and i'm unaware of anyone in my area at least who has actually USED them to stop or slow a Pursuit.

[tsafa 2]

That cop saved the lives of a lot of other people by killing that maniac. If that guy got away, after take two shots at a cop, I have no doubt he would have gone straight back to the bar, where his conflict started, and killed a bunch of people there. The risk that the cop took more then anything, though, is that there might have been someone tied up in the back seat or trunk that he did not see, and he could have shot them too. This is one case that I am very happy worked out in the cops favor.

[vjf915 456]

In NJ, the Attorney General's guidelines for Use of Force, Specifically Deadly force STRONGLY DISCOURAGE firing at or from a Moving Vehicle. If you attempt to "Shoot out the tires" here in NJ, YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH MALFEASANCE. The rule of thumb is Dont shoot at a car unless it is the only way to keep from getting run over, and if THAT is the case, then YOU screwed the pooch by allwoing yoruself to be in that position in the first place. Even if you are TAKING fire from a Moving Vehicle, they are going to crawl up into your colon for a LONG while before ruling whether or not it was justified because of the Various dangers involved (Uninvolved parties inside the car, disabling the driver, creating an unguided 2000+ missile, and the always possible Unintended Consequences of Misses or Ricochets). Road blocks are covered under the AG guidelines for Pursuits, and are ONLY to be authorized under circumstances where Deadly force would Normally be Authorized. In 23 years I dont know of ANY DEPARTMENT IN THE STATE that has had an Authorized Roadblock. Road Spikes have only been authorized for the last 5 years or so, and i'm unaware of anyone in my area at least who has actually USED them to stop or slow a Pursuit.

I have spoken to both a police chief and a lieutenant in the prosecutors office who have both stated what I posted. Im not saying you are wrong, just stating where I got my information from.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

A jury WOULD convict a civilian because the suspect was driving away and no longer firing before the next 10 shots came in. The suspect was NO LONGER a direct threat to the officers life. If that were a civilian, they would likely be convicted.

 

Not if I were on it or most people on this board I would think.

[jgofnj 5]

Mikeyboyee -

 

I remember seeing that video. That guy was acquitted? Wow, I am shocked.

[KpdPipes 388]

I have spoken to both a police chief and a lieutenant in the prosecutors office who have both stated what I posted. Im not saying you are wrong, just stating where I got my information from.

 

They should know better than to openly state they advocate violating the AG's guidelines..ESPECIALLY since we are required to review them twice yearly, nevermind that a good portion of every promotional Exam focuses on AG guidelines. While they may be called :Guidelines" Violate one and you'll find that they are pretty mcuh written in stone.

[KpdPipes 388]

That cop saved the lives of a lot of other people by killing that maniac. If that guy got away, after take two shots at a cop, I have no doubt he would have gone straight back to the bar, where his conflict started, and killed a bunch of people there. The risk that the cop took more then anything, though, is that there might have been someone tied up in the back seat or trunk that he did not see, and he could have shot them too. This is one case that I am very happy worked out in the cops favor.

The one thing in the officer's favor was that the actor was both Armed, and had ALREADY Demonstrated his Willingness to use that firearm. Even the AG guidelines acknowledge the fact that just because an actor is fleeing, he is not necessarly no longer a threat to others, if not the Officer himself. Guy Drops the gun turns and runs?? I cant shoot him. Guy has the gun in his hand and is running towards a school, or other place where he can take a hostage, or just murder innocents..if i have a shot i'm taking it.

[Turbofire 2]

Like I said twice already, I agree. I dont think he did anything wrong either. Im not sure if it was IA or the prosecutors office who would investigate him.....but if I was given the task of "whether to investigate him or not", I would NOT have dont it. Yes, he may have fired at a moving car which is against policy, but it has been done before, and he was acting within his power to protect himself and the community. I feel sorry for the officer, he was doing what his instinct reaction was to protect himself and the community, and he was picked apart for it. I was simply trying to inform the members why he was investigated.

 

I think I understood you and you misunderstood my understanding. My point was in many municipalities there is no choice "whether to investigate him or not" no matter the circumstances. This was not a criminal trial (6 jurors) it was a formality simply to determine whether the shoot was clean and be transparent about it. I think it's better for the officer and the public, no lingering whispers about it being swept under the rug.

I agree with everything you said otherwise.