Officer shot in chest later admits shooting himself (San Antonio, TX)


PDA






Spreadfire Arms
September 12, 2007, 09:50 PM
as seen here:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Police_Shooting_Hoax.html

Officer shot in chest later admits shooting himself
SAN ANTONIO A massive overnight search for suspects in the shooting of a San Antonio-area school police officer ended abruptly when the officer finally admitted that he shot himself.

The episode began just before midnight last night when San Antonio police received a call from Northside school district police Officer Patrick Ritchey. The white officer said he was attacked by two Hispanic men who grabbed his service handgun and shot him twice in the chest. Only his bullet-resistant vest kept him from serious injury.

An intensive air and ground, door-to-door search failed to turn up any suspects. San Antonio police detectives say that after two hours, Ritchey admitted that he shot himself.

San Antonio police are considering charges, and Northside school district officials are considering disciplinary action.

not looking to make this an anti-cop thread, but it was a complete waste of time for responding officers! :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Officer shot in chest later admits shooting himself (San Antonio, TX)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bazooka Joe71
September 12, 2007, 09:53 PM
At first I thought "LOL, dummy" but then I saw that he got shot twice...Why would he do this on purpose?

At least no innocent people were harassed/harmed in the process of the witch hunt.

pdowg881
September 12, 2007, 09:53 PM
Twice in the chest?

F4GIB
September 12, 2007, 09:56 PM
How did he get through the Academy?

Didn't anyone on his shift notice that he was "strange."

This sort of conduct doesn't just happen one day.

Luckily no Hispanic man was shot during the hunt for the perpetrators.

Sorry, if anyone feels this is "bashing."

Rugerman99
September 12, 2007, 09:57 PM
why??? what was the point of shooting himself? :confused:

TallPine
September 12, 2007, 10:00 PM
testing the vest, maybe ???

you really can't make this stuff up :rolleyes:

Spreadfire Arms
September 12, 2007, 10:01 PM
who knows, but i suspect that it may be because he is a few sandwiches short of a picnic and/or was looking for attention.

but if he wants attention he should buy a dog, not shoot himself. twice.

and he could test the vest by leaning it up against a tree, not wearing it!

Geronimo45
September 12, 2007, 10:04 PM
Only poetry is proper for this situation:

Finally, Irving got three slugs in the belly.
It was right outside the frontier deli.
He was sittin' there, twirlin' his gun around,
And butterfingers Irving gunned himself down.

Bazooka Joe71
September 12, 2007, 10:05 PM
He should have shot himself about ~2 feet lower.

VA27
September 12, 2007, 10:43 PM
About 30 years ago this same thing happend with a local PD. The guy was having trouble at home, so he shot himself, to get a little sympathy from his wife, (this was before body armor became common) and called for help. Every cop in 3 counties was out all night looking for a suspect. Dallas PD even sent their chopper with the brightest spotlight I've ever seen. About daylight the story finally came out.

They fired him and filed false report charges on him. Dallas PD shoulda made him at least pay for the fuel, it's over a hundred miles away. I don't know what ever became of the guy and I don't care.

fireflyfather
September 13, 2007, 12:05 AM
Wanna be careful testing a vest by leaning it against a tree. Vests only work properly when there is something (soft and rubbery/watery...like you!) behind it. Otherwise, might as well use a paper target (in absence of a vest plate).

Officers'Wife
September 13, 2007, 12:13 AM
Hi Spreadfire,

Not only a waste of time but think of the unnecessary expense to the city, county and state from that "intensive manhunt." The taxpayers are the real losers in this incident.

Selena

silverlance
September 13, 2007, 12:15 AM
what an idiot. i could see the rationale if he had had an ND and needed to come up with an unembarassing explanation in the ER, but he was wearing a vest... shot himself twice... picked himself off the ground... then filed a false report.

what a moron. did he really need the attention that bad?

Wheeler44
September 13, 2007, 12:17 AM
The truth is stranger than fiction. For sure.

Sharps-shooter
September 13, 2007, 12:19 AM
Seems like he could have made a headshot at that range.

I honestly don't get what motivates someone to shoot himself twice in the chest. He should really be in a mental hospital, being as how he's obviously a danger to himself, if not to others as well. I mean, what if there had been a real emergency while the police were out on this wild hispanic goose chase?

JLStorm
September 13, 2007, 12:19 AM
Listen plenty of people do plenty of strange and often stupid things, LEO or not. I have to admit, I am a bit astonished with his conviction, twice in the chest takes some will power. I wonder what the point of all of this was, what intended outcome he had hoped for. One thing is for sure, he has some serious bruising to deal with...

justashooter
September 13, 2007, 02:41 AM
Seems like he could have made a headshot at that range.

+100

Beachmaster
September 13, 2007, 03:09 AM
I have not heard the "Ballad of Irving" song in many years. Its really funny


The James Boys was coming on a train at first sun
And the town said, "Irving, we need your gun."
When that train pulled in at the break of dawn
Irving's gun was there, but Irving was gone!

Knotthead
September 13, 2007, 06:53 AM
Sorry. No Darwin Award for you. Try harder.

sacp81170a
September 13, 2007, 07:14 AM
How did he get through the Academy?

Didn't anyone on his shift notice that he was "strange."

This sort of conduct doesn't just happen one day.

Luckily no Hispanic man was shot during the hunt for the perpetrators.

Sorry, if anyone feels this is "bashing."

Yes, it is bashing. By your logic, everyone associated with this moron is responsible for his behavior, not the moron himself. Any criminals or unsavory characters in your family? Why didn't you stop them? You grew up with them and knew they were "strange". Your whole family must be corrupt, therefore I can trust nothing that you have to say.

See how it works?

Back on topic, the guy obviously has problems and should be held responsible for his actions. Civil as well as criminal liability are in order.

1911 guy
September 13, 2007, 07:55 AM
I mean, just "wow".

I agree with everyone previous to me, this guy deserves criminal charges, misuse of department equipment (vest, handgun and ammo) as well as filing a false report resulting in wasted man hours and resources. Luckily, everyone else seemed to behave far more level-headed than this individual and nobody got hurt in what was undoubtedly an intensive and probably emotionally charged search.

Quote:
Yes, it is bashing. By your logic, everyone associated with this moron is responsible for his behavior, not the moron himself. Any criminals or unsavory characters in your family? Why didn't you stop them? You grew up with them and knew they were "strange". Your whole family must be corrupt, therefore I can trust nothing that you have to say.
End Quote.

Wrong. I'm not responsible for what others do, except my son, as he is a minor and under my control. There are chains of command in both the military and police forces that set responsibility for one's actions directly upon their superiors' shoulders. I've never been a cop, but I've been in leadership positions in the military and knew that my people were my responsibility. Failure to properly lead, train and control them when necessary was punishable, severity depending on the infraction.

F4GIB
September 13, 2007, 07:56 AM
By your logic, everyone associated with this moron is responsible for his behavior, not the moron himself.

Two actors, two acts. Each is responsible for his own.

My point is that only other police officers know about these disturbed thugs and only police officers can "clean up" their own. The responsibility cannot be placed on the civilians to do the cleaning.

El Tejon
September 13, 2007, 07:57 AM
As to "why?", cops are human beings are there are dozens of stupid answers.:scrutiny:

ilbob
September 13, 2007, 08:44 AM
Two facts.

Human beings do many strange things.

Cops are human beings.

You can probably figure out the rest yourself. This guy should be treated exactly like anyone else who shot himself twice.

Hillsideblue
September 13, 2007, 08:50 AM
A guy on my job (Nassau County, NY) did the same thing back in the 70's.....He was trying to kill himself, but didn't want his kids to know the real story..........
He got on the radio and said he was just shot by two male hispanics.........Then, he shot himself in the chest........

I grabbed two hispanic males about three hundred yards from the scene.......
The Homicide Squad held them until the Cop came out of surgery and when he realized he was going to live, he told the real story and my two "Suspects" were finally released........

I think if he really wanted to die, he would have put the gun to his head..........This Cop was a really nice guy and never seemed to have any mental problems until he pulled this stunt..........Sad.........

They fired him right away...........

Cannonball888
September 13, 2007, 09:08 AM
"I'll get my 1 minute of media attention somehow!" **bang bang** "ouch, ouch".

cpttango30
September 13, 2007, 09:13 AM
How in the world do you shoot yourself twice. I have never shot myself but I am assuming that the first one is going to really freekin hurt. I hate to do it but you have to give the man cudos for shooting himself twice that takes some intestinal fortitude.

rkh
September 13, 2007, 09:16 AM
I'm the only one in this room professional enough *BAM*... that I know of *BAM*... to carry this Glock fohtay!

sacp81170a
September 13, 2007, 10:35 AM
Wrong. I'm not responsible for what others do, except my son, as he is a minor and under my control. There are chains of command in both the military and police forces that set responsibility for one's actions directly upon their superiors' shoulders. I've never been a cop, but I've been in leadership positions in the military and knew that my people were my responsibility. Failure to properly lead, train and control them when necessary was punishable, severity depending on the infraction.

I am ex-military also. I know about chains of command. The problem comes when you paint the whole group with a broad brush. Is the whole military corrupt because of what happened at Abu Ghraib? That line of reasoning leads to the "nanny state" we all love to hate. Are all gun owners bad because one person does something stupid with a gun? We argue that the anti-gunners are painting us with a broad brush and then folks here turn around and do the same thing to others.

Pot to kettle, pot to kettle, come in, kettle....

sacp81170a
September 13, 2007, 10:43 AM
My point is that only other police officers know about these disturbed thugs and only police officers can "clean up" their own. The responsibility cannot be placed on the civilians to do the cleaning.

Same fallacy, along with a couple of specious assertions.

only other police officers know about these disturbed thugs

What about their families, friends and the psychologist who examined them for mental fitness for the job? Just what sort of selection process would you put in place of the obviously defective one now in effect? What error rate would you deem acceptable? (Hint: you ain't gonna get perfection...)

only police officers can "clean up" their own

Patently false. We just had a case in my area of the whole police force of a small town fired by the mayor and city council because of numerous citizen complaints. They were corrupt and they deserved to be fired, and I'm glad they were. Who cleaned up? The outraged citizens, that's who.

Corrupt police forces flourish because of corrupt politicians who don't listen to the citizens. Who puts the corrupt politicians in power?

Pilgrim
September 13, 2007, 11:15 AM
About ten years ago an officer in central CA shot himself with his .380 backup gun, then told responding officers he was shot by someone he had detained. After a furious manhunt, some questions were raised about the inconsistencies in his story. He confessed he did it to himself to gain sympathy/respect/hero adulation.

He was fired and charged with filing a false crime report.

Pilgrim

kd7nqb
September 13, 2007, 11:18 AM
assuming this is on purpose why didn't he drop the vest?

F4GIB
September 13, 2007, 11:36 AM
posted by sacp81170a:
Corrupt police forces flourish because of corrupt politicians who don't listen to the citizens. Who puts the corrupt politicians in power?

OK. OK. I absolve all "good" cops of any responsibility.

Bad cops are entirely a problem for us civilians alone (that's for sure!). Police officers have no moral obligation to do anything to clean up their profession. It's OK to stand by (as the second officer did in Missouri) and let an unsuitable thug (pardon, "officer") abuse citizens verbally and physically. A police officer's duty to support the blue line completely surpasses all else.

Rokyudai
September 13, 2007, 11:53 AM
The officer is obviously in crisis, made and EXTRAORDINARILY bad choice and compounded all his troubles by hiding the truth. A desperate act from a desperate person. Thank God he didn't carry out any murder suicide scenarios and no other person was physically harmed...this could have proven a much more grave situation. I won't jump on the wagon and start carpeting LEO's or the profession of which that he was a part. Certainly the 'person' must stand accountable first. The same could be said of firefighters who have had fellow members start fires for much more selfish or absurd gains. There are more people in these careers who can carry out their duties with professionalism and heroism than what the carrion-eating media report.

Officers'Wife
September 13, 2007, 12:18 PM
Hi F4,

That much sarcasm even offends MY sensitivities! But he does have a good point. The "thin blue line" makes it impossible for the police to police themselves. It's too much in the order of the wolves guarding the henhouse.

Personnally, I strongly believe in civilian reveiw boards elected by the voters and completely separate from the executive branch. I started a petition for such when I lived in Indiana... the results were at the least interesting.

Selena

Roccobro
September 13, 2007, 12:21 PM
This guy knew the consequences to his lies and actions. He deserves what he will get (termination and psych evals for a while).


However, F4GIB- In your last cop thread I told you the requirements of LE in CA and how they can be prosecuted for failing to act and/or report abuse of power. Did you already forget that? Police officers have no moral obligation to do anything to clean up their profession. It's OK to stand by (as the second officer did in Missouri) and let an unsuitable thug (pardon, "officer") abuse citizens verbally and physically. A police officer's duty to support the blue line completely surpasses all else. Your claims keep getting wilder and wilder my friend. Please don't double tap yourself in the chest for attention. Please.

Justin

ScottS
September 13, 2007, 12:30 PM
San Antonio police are considering charges, and Northside school district officials are considering disciplinary action. What? The guy's going to get detention?

MD_Willington
September 13, 2007, 12:31 PM
Was the phrase "Here hold my beer".. involved in this scenario...?

sacp81170a
September 13, 2007, 12:35 PM
OK. OK. I absolve all "good" cops of any responsibility.

Bad cops are entirely a problem for us civilians alone (that's for sure!). Police officers have no moral obligation to do anything to clean up their profession. It's OK to stand by (as the second officer did in Missouri) and let an unsuitable thug (pardon, "officer") abuse citizens verbally and physically. A police officer's duty to support the blue line completely surpasses all else.

The problem here is that you lump all "cops" together as if every single one of us knows what all the others are doing wrong and willfully turn a blind eye to it. The hodgepodge of jurisdictions in my little corner of the world prevents me from working regularly with more than a few people. Your assertion that "we" should clean up "our" profession rests on the false assumption that there is a single controlling entity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unlike the military, there is no unified command structure. We have state, local, county and federal agencies that have arrest powers in my jurisdiction. Some of our officers don't even know that the Railroad Police have exclusive jurisdiction over the railroad right-of-ways that run through our town.

It's our job to clean up the problems that we know about. To cast suspicion on everyone who wears a badge because somewhere someone of us is doing something stupid or wrong is a sweeping generalization. Your statement above is called "argumentum ad absurdum" since you won't admit there is a middle ground to the argument. You assert that only police can clean up their own house and I provided evidence to the contrary. You then state that "only" civilians are responsible, which is also false. I've stated again and again that I'm glad to see corrupt and incompetent police leave the job, so I am one example that your "thin blue line" theory is a faulty generalization .

Back on topic, what a dufus. If I were one of the other officers involved in the search, I'd be plenty mad.

frankcostanza
September 13, 2007, 01:32 PM
he almoooooost had himself a darwin award. so close

Old Dog
September 13, 2007, 01:50 PM
F4GIB statedPolice officers have no moral obligation to do anything to clean up their profession. It's OK to stand by (as the second officer did in Missouri) and let an unsuitable thug (pardon, "officer") abuse citizens verbally and physically. A police officer's duty to support the blue line completely surpasses all else.Now, I could be wrong here, but this, to me, does seem to enter the realm of "cop-bashing" (just a bit). I'd also have to ask Mr. F4GIB just how he knows this, as his statements totally contradict my personal experience.

Additionally, in my limited life experience with but a mere half-century on this earth, I have known a few people who committed entirely unexpected, unpredictable, bizarre and randomly shocking acts -- and even those closest to them had no idea that these folks suffered from any sort of mental disorder.

F4GIB
September 13, 2007, 01:58 PM
However, F4GIB- In your last cop thread I told you the requirements of LE in CA and how they can be prosecuted for failing to act and/or report abuse of power. Did you already forget that?

No. I read it as a single jurisdiction's requirement to report "criminal" conduct. Most states don't even have that. The vast majority of the conduct that indicates an officer is "unsuitable" is not criminal but thuggish. At least that was my experience in 9 years on a police civil service appeal board. It's stuff that only the victim (often not a #1 citizen) and the other cops see or hear. Without videotape, the victim has a real uphill battle even getting heard by the Chief.

ilbob
September 13, 2007, 02:03 PM
Additionally, in my limited life experience with but a mere half-century on this earth, I have known a few people who committed entirely unexpected, unpredictable, bizarre and randomly shocking acts -- and even those closest to them had no idea that these folks suffered from any sort of mental disorder.

I have known no one real close who has gone off the deep end, but one casual acquaintance committed suicide 15 or 20 years. Everyone who knew her was just stunned. Even more so that she used a firearm to do it.

You just can't tell what is going on in deep, dark recesses of someone's mind.

Bazooka Joe71
September 13, 2007, 03:20 PM
I hate to do it but you have to give the man cudos for shooting himself twice


Uh, no you don't.

F4GIB
September 13, 2007, 05:05 PM
sacp81170a posted:
You then state that "only" civilians are responsible, which is also false.

Of course, it is hyperbole. The entire paragraph is written "tongue in cheek."

Everyone should be interested in working to keep unsuitable persons out of positions of physical and legal power. But, when it comes to identifying and removing unsuitable police officers, it is primarily a job for the good police. Always has been, always will be.

Officers'Wife posted:
The "thin blue line" makes it impossible for the police to police themselves. It's too much in the order of the wolves guarding the henhouse.

That makes it difficult.

Dorryn
September 13, 2007, 06:25 PM
Poor guy. :(

beaucoup ammo
September 13, 2007, 06:38 PM
The guy cost the city's tax payers thousands! Officers went house to house, waking residents and alarming them with word of a cop shooter on the loose.

sacp81170a
September 13, 2007, 07:27 PM
Everyone should be interested in working to keep unsuitable persons out of positions of physical and legal power. But, when it comes to identifying and removing unsuitable police officers, it is primarily a job for the good police. Always has been, always will be.

Ah, now we're getting to the middle ground we can both agree on.

The vast majority of the conduct that indicates an officer is "unsuitable" is not criminal but thuggish. At least that was my experience in 9 years on a police civil service appeal board. It's stuff that only the victim (often not a #1 citizen) and the other cops see or hear. Without videotape, the victim has a real uphill battle even getting heard by the Chief.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that since you were on an appeal board, you normally saw the "bad" or sub standard officers (else why would they be appearing before an appeal board?) We share the feeling that the bad ones need to be weeded out and that the good ones should help this along as much as possible. From your previous statements I was getting the implication that you were accusing all police of being corrupt because a few were actually corrupt, guilt by association, as it were. I apologize if I was misreading your intent.

Where a police department is responsive to the citizens, the few corrupt officers have a much harder time getting away with it. I have observed this in action. Where the political structure of a city is populated by corrupt individuals, the police department is far more likely to have that spirit of corruption that makes it easy for groups like the Rampart CRASH Unit and the Chicago PD to survive and flourish(there's still controversy as to whether the allegations in the Rampart scandal are true).

Cops are human beings, subject to all the follies and foibles of that species. They don't deserve to be treated any differently in the eyes of the law and I was always taught that they derived their authority from the authority of the common citizen. Sadly, the nanny staters have encouraged many to rely on the police for protection while at the same time making it nearly impossible for the police to perform that function in a free society. It's a catch 22 and everybody but the practitioners of the Hegelian dialectic for obtaining power is caught in the middle. Righteous indignation against the ones who step over the line, especially in light of the authority entrusted to them, is correct. We just shouldn't let it bleed over to the majority who want to make the world a safer place and yet want to live to go home and spend that huge paycheck that they're earning. ;)

macadore
September 13, 2007, 10:29 PM
Many of you miss one important point. This was a campus cop and not a member of the San Antonio Police Department. I have lived in places with incompetent corrupt police and I have lived in San Antonio for the past four years. That is not the case here. The SAPD is a class act. :cuss::fire:

Roccobro
September 14, 2007, 12:36 AM
At least that was my experience in 9 years on a police civil service appeal board.

I see where your coming from now and can sympathize. I liken that prejudice to the 10/15/20 year veteran cop that treats EVERY person he contacts as criminals. The 3% of the population, taking up 90% of his uniformed life- day-in, day-out for hundreds of months. Now THAT attitude by cops are the more common anger inducing law abiding citizen complaint I hear about in real life, and here on the forum boards.

This Campus cop will get his. Hope he gets the help he needs.

Justin

F4GIB
September 14, 2007, 06:04 PM
Another isolated incident.

A 50:50 chance of choosing correctly is good enough. Right?

http://reason.com/blog/show/122493.html

And this. Three incidents in one week within a 30 mile circle.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/11F9B8C6D05DC95B8625735600120321?OpenDocument

Spreadfire Arms
September 18, 2007, 12:18 AM
F4GIB wrote:

Police officers have no moral obligation to do anything to clean up their profession. It's OK to stand by (as the second officer did in Missouri) and let an unsuitable thug (pardon, "officer") abuse citizens verbally and physically. A police officer's duty to support the blue line completely surpasses all else.

that's actually not true. there exists many an internal affairs department whose sole job is to police the police and weed out "dirty cops." i dont think most cops are inherently JBT's (jack booted thugs) and out to do anything wrong to anyone. i think offiers by and large do have a moral obligation to filter the dirty cops out of their ranks because who'd want to work alongside anyone who had questionable moral character, regardless of what job you did?

i disagree that your average officer will blindly support "the thin blue line" above all else. while that may have been very true in the 70's, nowadays, with in-car video/audio, GPS, and other technology, there's alot of evidence out there that would clearly show someone isn't telling the truth and covering up for another officer.

it's bad enough an officer does something bad. it is even worse if another officer has to lie for that officer and is subsequently proven to be lying through audio, video, etc. i know it still happens on occasion, but due to the fact that officers know there's alot of other evidence out there, they are nowadays less inclined to lie.

you can maybe get away with turning off your in-car video in your patrol car, but can you control the surveillance cameras in say, the hotel parking lot or wherever you stopped this citizen? video cameras are out there everywhere because they are inexpensive nowadays. most cops and citizens have no idea where these cameras are, and they have virtually no way of seeing what footage is on them, or not.

beaucoup ammo
September 18, 2007, 08:09 AM
As mentioned, and I'll repeat for the record, this was not a member of the SAPD. Law officer yes..city cop no.

If you enjoyed reading about "Officer shot in chest later admits shooting himself (San Antonio, TX)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!