'We ran out of ammo'


PDA






SomeKid
October 6, 2006, 06:46 PM
Remember that killer in FL the cops shot 69 times, but only had 110 rounds on them? I was reading a local paper, when I read this dimwit's opinion. (He is a lawyer, big shock.) I am posting this so anyone who wants to can write a rebuttal, or join me in laughing at the effete slob.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_94217.asp

Disappointed In The Sheriff In Florida
posted October 6, 2006

I read the accounts of the killing of the suspected cop killer in Florida and I was very disappointed. According to what I read, the sheriff said they shot 110 bullets at the suspect and he was hit with 69. His only regret was that they ran out of bullets.

Coming from the leading law enforcement officer of that county that is truly sad and disappointing. His job is to apprehend criminals and defend the public and the officers while they are in the process of apprehending suspected criminals. It is not to execute them.

I am not in anyway condoning the acts of the man who died, assuming he is the one who shot two law enforcement officers, one of whom died. That is despicable. Our system is to try people in a court of law and mete out the punishment the judge or jury determines is appropriate for their crimes.

About five years ago we suffered a similar tragedy in our own county. I am sure our officers were just as angry when they corralled the suspected killer of Deputy Bond and probably wished him dead as well. But they did their jobs and let the court process determine his guilt or innocence and his punishment. He was sentenced to death.

That is the way our system is designed to work and when we depart from it we do it an injustice. I can only imagine how an officer of the law feels when a fellow officer is killed and I am sure it takes a lot of restraint when apprehending a suspected killer, but that is their job. Our job in the court is to see that a suspect is afforded his constitutional rights and once convicted that he/she is appropriately punished. Once that is accomplished, the suspect is often returned to the sheriff and the department of corrections for safekeeping until the sentence is carried out.

I am proud of our handling of a similar case but disappointed in the Florida sheriff. Even if the man was killed because he did not surrender, why would a law enforcement officer say that they wished they had shot him more? It bothered me and I felt like I should say something.

Kevin B. Wilson
Attorney at Law
Chattanooga
kbwilson@kbwilsonlaw.com

If you enjoyed reading about "'We ran out of ammo'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
armoredman
October 6, 2006, 07:00 PM
Some lawyers remind me of slimy garbage. Others are worse.

DCR
October 6, 2006, 07:26 PM
Fellas -

you certainly aren't taking the high road here. Criticize his thoughts - not his profession.

Opinions are like @$$holes - and the strongest ones are usually held by the biggest ones.

Where do you two fall?

(By the way, I am a lawyer, and am proud of what I do: clean up the messes that fine, "right-thinking" folks like you create. So :neener: )

DKSuddeth
October 6, 2006, 07:42 PM
color me confused here, but what is it about this guys opinion that you find laughable or dimwitted? :confused:

highlander 5
October 6, 2006, 07:53 PM
the gentleman is right it is the police/sheriff's job to apprehend the suspect not execute him also I not sure I'd want to live in that sheriff's jurisdiction:eek: :eek: :eek:

Telperion
October 6, 2006, 08:06 PM
Whatever the officers' reasons, saying what they did was not too bright. If you were involved in a self-defense shooting, would you say to the police, "I would have shot him some more, if I had more ammo" ?

SomeKid
October 6, 2006, 08:07 PM
DK,

This:


Coming from the leading law enforcement officer of that county that is truly sad and disappointing.

In relation to this:

His only regret was that they ran out of bullets.

Is laughable. There is nothing sad about such a thing, nor am I disappointed to see government agents use a 'shoot to slide lock' method of self-defense.

The entire premise of this lawyers piece was that cops executed some poor misunderstood clod. When a lawyer says things like that, he is thinking lawsuit. Correct me if I am wrong, but the guy killed was fighting wasn't he?

knuckles
October 6, 2006, 08:15 PM
His only regret was that they ran out of bullets.

I am also not sure that this statement is accurate. Of all the articles I read, he made the statement that they may have shot more, but they were out of ammo. That doesn't imply any amount regret in the matter, it's simply an assertion of what he considered probable. I dunno, does anyone have a news link quoting the sheriff as having said such a thing?

I think it's just being sensationalized by a defense attorney who has grown so close with his clients he has started to have a great deal of misplaced empathy for them....

marshall3
October 6, 2006, 08:16 PM
It is a form of negligence for LEOs to have too few cartridges. They should not have run out.

See you around, Somekid!

redneck2
October 6, 2006, 08:31 PM
he was hit with 69. Sounds like a pretty good percentage to me. Should be adequate.

I know this is The High Road and all that, but if someone whacked my friend(s) and then opened up on me, he'd better have his insurance policy paid up.

Oh wait...he had a bad childhood and was misunderstood. Guess that means you're not as dead when he shoots you.

Liberal Gun Nut
October 6, 2006, 08:36 PM
What these guys did makes perfect emotional sense. Who can blame them for that? But that doesn't make it legal or right. They summarily executed the guy. He was a bad guy. We all know he was guilty. But our system does not allow summary executions, even for the worst of the worst, and LEOs don't get a special dispensation for it either.

44AMP
October 6, 2006, 09:09 PM
Without any of the details of the shooing (shootout?), I can't say, but, if the guy was shot rresisting arrest, threatening the lives of the officers and the public at large, how can this be called an execution. I would just call it poor marksmanship. And perhaps poor judgement, but without the details, I won't say poor judgement.

Now, if they had him cuffed on the ground, and then shot 110 times, it would certainly look like an execution. And if they only hit him 69 times, it would certainly look like poor marksmanship!

ceetee
October 6, 2006, 09:30 PM
Geez... not this crap again.

This criminal shot and killed a deputy, in cold blood. He stole the deputy's weapon, and used it to shoot and wound another deputy and killed that deputy's dog. The police had set up a perimeter so he couldn't escape. He had over 24 hours to surrender... instead, when he was found, and a ten-man SWAT team was closing in, he pointed the deputy's gun at them. They shot him. What difference does it make how many times he was shot? He earned it. He couldn't ever be made any more dead...

Non issue. Lawyer getting some free advertising. :barf:


Edited to add... I live a few counties away from where that happened, and even though that Sheriff might not have the most politically correct way of speaking, I'd be quite happy if he was Sheriff over here...

Vitamin G
October 6, 2006, 10:07 PM
Maybe I watched one too many movies...

But I would have thought that he'd have fallen down after the first 30 or 40. Were any of the shots fired as he was prone?

knuckles
October 6, 2006, 10:51 PM
But I would have thought that he'd have fallen down after the first 30 or 40. Were any of the shots fired as he was prone?

Well a quick search of the Internet shows that an MP5 fires at 800 rds per min (no, I don't know if they were using MP5s, but let's say they were). 9 guns firing at the same time is the equivalent of 7200 rds per min. That's 120 rds per second. See where I am going with this?

kengrubb
October 7, 2006, 02:50 AM
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=41086

An autopsy on Angilo Freeland, the man accused of killing Polk County Deputy Matt Williams and his K-9 partner, showed 68 bullets hit his body. The Polk County Sheriff's Office says 110 were fired by nine SWAT members from five different agencies. Retired FBI SWAT leader Brian Kensel says there is no magic number of bullets appropriate in a shootout, law enforcement officers are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped.
...
It takes only a split second to fire ten rounds from a MP-5 Automatic gun.

When the nine SWAT members who shot Angilo Freeland entered the woods last Friday, at least two were carrying similar weapons.

I would note that 110 9 = 12.2

Between MP-5s and high cap semi auto pistols, it would seem this was NOT a case of everyone dumping every round they were carrying into Freeland.

Although a police spokesman foolishly claims they ran outta ammo, logic seems to dictate that did NOT happen.

gak
October 7, 2006, 03:41 AM
If people take the law into their own hands and execute killers rather then let the killers maim at will 'til they turn themselves in, how will the lawyers survive without their million dollar fees for court preperation, trial, appeals, more appeals, etc. ?

How will they get their faces on tv to scream that the system caused little Jonnie to kill 30 people, not his lack of discipline, respect for others, and lack of proper parenting ?

The one time a buddy of mine got involved with lawyers, they charged him outrageous fees for 4 years, then when he demanded results they claimed the case was un-winable.:fire:

Fn-P9
October 7, 2006, 05:11 AM
I find the sheriff's comment on "I wish we could have shot him more" was totally unprofessional but I can easily get past it. ;) I believe (with only the news articles to believe) that the police did their job and did it well and I am happy they got him. AND yes, if they could have apprehanded him they should have. Moral of story DONT POINT GUNS AT SWAT TEAMS!!!! :neener:

DKSuddeth
October 7, 2006, 08:19 AM
Wow Medula, just.....wow.

Should we go ahead and make YOU the arbitor of when the 5th amendment applies and when it doesn't?

Thin Black Line
October 7, 2006, 08:31 AM
I read the accounts of the killing of the suspected cop killer in Florida and I was very disappointed. According to what I read, the sheriff said they shot 110 bullets at the suspect and he was hit with 69. His only regret was that they ran out of bullets.


I guess he wouldn't like my opinion that what was really needed was a
shotgun with 00 Buck.

Delta608
October 7, 2006, 08:51 AM
Why does this subject always revert back to cop bashing...:confused: Unless you have actually been in a life and death situation yourself, where others have DIED while in the same situation, such as our vets and cops...Your opinions, ah never mind....

As far as the Sheriffs statement..It was a 24 Hour release of emotion, his SWAT team just neutralized a REAL threat. He was sad and elated at the same time..Cut him some slack..

runcible
October 7, 2006, 10:59 AM
One thing I keep seeing in regard to this incident is the Sheriffs' statement constantly misquoted.

"I suspect the reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had. We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back."

The Sheriff never states that he "regrets" the officers ran out of ammo.
The Sheriff never states that he "regrets" the officers didn't shoot the suspect more.
The Sheriff DOES give a brief explanation as to why so many rounds were fired.

All of these facts make the original "letter-to-the-editor" that sparked this thread ridiculous, as the entire letter is based on misquotes and distortion.

Sorry if I sound a bit callous, but I'm not going to be wringing my hands or shedding any tears over a cop-killer.

GTSteve03
October 7, 2006, 11:08 AM
Let's see if I have the facts straight:

-Suspect was surrounded, no chance of escaping
-Swat team with 10+ members was moving in on him
-Swat team more than likely wearing ballistic armor capable of defeating even rifle rounds plus carrying ballistic shields
-Badguy with no body armor and only a handgun
-Swat armed with rifles

Seems to me like the badguy had no chance and the Swat team was going just a little over the top when they more than likely could have apprehended him without harm to themselves without pumping his guts full of lead and taking out "street justice." :rolleyes:

Firethorn
October 7, 2006, 11:08 AM
runcible, well said. I have no idea what the officers were carrying, but 12.2 rounds is pretty much smack in the middle of 'emptied a magazine'.

Especially if if you have a mix of weapons, and a few who carried a full mag+one in the chamber, a few who didn't 'top off', as well as some different pistol types. After all, this is SWAT, from what I understand most SWAT members can carry what they want as long as it meets certain guidelines.

hankdatank1362
October 7, 2006, 11:22 AM
12.2 Rounds avg. per swat member is less than half of a 30 round magazine, which is what was more than likely what they were carrying in their MP5's or M4's.

The logic is simple. I don't care if he was armed with a freakin 2" swiss mini gun, if you point a gun at a cop, you deserve to be shot by that cop in self defense. If you point a gun at several cops, you deserve tou be shot by several cops. And if you point a gun at 9 SWAT cops carrying fully-automatic weapons with high cyclic rates, you deserve to become swiss cheese.

progunner1957
October 7, 2006, 11:30 AM
Opinions are like @$$holes Hmmm, the words "opinions" and "lawyers" must be interchangable...:D

Art Eatman
October 7, 2006, 12:15 PM
:barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "'We ran out of ammo'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!