[ATLDave]

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/shooting-suspect-thought-cop-1339626.html

Interesting and unfortunate story.

[Cosmoline]

The whole thing sounds odd. I do not approve of the prosecution's insistence on that kind of punishment, regadless. If it was a screwup there should be lesser charges involved. I'm sure the police are demanding the DA push hard for the maximum. They've closed ranks with the mantra that anyone who shoots a cop for any reason must be made an example of. I'm hoping it backfires.

This particular department has a very bad rep, and tried to frame an old woman they murdered some years back.

[avs11054]

It is interesting and unfortunate. A great reason why laws permiting people to resist arrest they feel are invalid are a bad idea. This officer suffered potentially life threatening gun shot wounds, and the "suspect" is now facing 25 years in prison (and it sounds like he almost lost his life a couple times during the struggle). It's a lose-lose for both parties.

[avs11054]

If it was a screwup there should be lesser charges involved



Why? He shot a cop. Giving him lesser charges/punishment just because he "thought" the cop was a bad guy opens up a whole bag of worms that defense attorneys would be able to use to get legitimate bad guys lesser sentences. The guy seems to be clearly identified as a police officer. Even other witnesses had no question this guy was a cop.

If I speed when I think I am going the speed limit there should be lesser charges? If I am drunk, but I think I am under the legal limit should there be lesser charges/punishment for DUI? If I kill someone, but it is the wrong person, should I not get first degree murder since I killed the wrong person?

[Owen Sparks]

So what would have happened if the situation were reversed and the cop shot the robbery victim thinking that he was the criminal?

[snakeman]

That is d.a. is undoubtedly trying to turn this into something it wasn't (something da's seem to love doing). I can see where the poor guy is coming from. It's unfortunate and shouldn't have happened at all. The robbers should be prosecuted and thomas' life is ruined because of this. How did he know the cop wasn't someone wearing a costume after what he had just been through?

[Rob G]

At some point you need to decide if Officer Roach had adequately identified himself as law enforcement to the defendant.

Thomas said he heard Roach tell him to halt, but despite the officer’s uniform and pointed gun, he ignored the command and ran up to the clerk at the restaurant’s window.

Seems to me that Mr. Thomas saw the uniform, knew what it was, understood the verbal commands he was being given, and still decided a minute later to resist and ultimately shoot the officer.

I guess the question is then, how far is an officer required to go, in terms of identifying himself, before it's illegal for a suspect to resist him. IMO once an officer had identified himself verbally, backed up by a visual reference (in this case his readily identifiable uniform) then a person has reached that point where further resistance, much less aggravated assault, is now illegal. Especially in this case where Mr. Thomas has stated that he both saw the uniform, heard whatever it was that Officer Roach was saying, and made the decision that officer Roach appeared to be a cop. I don't know what kind of sentence they're looking at for him but I really do think that he needs to do some time for what he did. That's just my opinion though and I have a feeling we'll have some lively debate on this one.

So what would have happened if the situation were reversed and the cop shot the robbery victim thinking that he was the criminal?

Why ask this question? Officer Roach made no attempt to shoot the defendant until the man tried to kill him. So why speculate on what would happen if he'd done something that he clearly decided wasn't necessary?

[316SS]

I'm sure the police are demanding the DA push hard for the maximum.
That is d.a. is undoubtedly trying to turn this into something it wasn't (something da's seem to love doing).
The story mentions that Thomas has declined plea deals.

A great reason why laws permiting people to resist arrest they feel are invalid are a bad idea.
How do you get there from here? I think it is a tactical and strategic error to resist arrest by someone you believe is a police officer, even if you think the arrest is invalid. But to submit to arrest (kidnapping?) by someone you doubt is an officer might be the last decision you ever make.

At some point you need to decide if Officer Roach had adequately identified himself as law enforcement to the defendant ... IMO once an officer had identified himself verbally, backed up by a visual reference (in this case his readily identifiable uniform) then a person has reached that point where further resistance, much less aggravated assault, is now illegal.

The officer was off duty, so he may or may not have been wearing a badge or duty belt. Many private security uniforms intentionally imitate a peace officer's uniform. The story doesn't say that he identified himself as a police officer, only that he ordered Thomas to halt. Thomas states that he saw the officer exit an SUV with tinted windows rather than an official vehicle. Taken together, they could plant a seed of doubt that this was a legitimate arrest.

I'm glad they both survived, because it couldn't have ended badly for either one or both of them.

[Owen Sparks]

A great reason why laws permiting people to resist arrest they feel are invalid are a bad idea.

This really scares me.
You think that the police should be able to do whatever they want and the citizens only recourse should be the court system? Tell that to this young woman who was raped by a uniformed officer when she called 911 for help. http://www.policebrutality.info/2012/02/woman-raped-by-the-cop-who-came-after-her-911-call.html After she complained she was charged with assault and thrown in jail. DNA evidence later proved her story was true.

[Salmoneye]

What a mess...

[SigMic]

Hard call.

He just got taken on a ride by some thugs. Exit the man from black SUV with tinted windows. Seeds of doubt, but he's got the uniform. The you see some tats on his arm. I could imagine thinking "Holy cow" I'm about to have some thug dressed as a cop handcuff me.

He could have allowed i to move forward and waited to see if the "thug/police fella" tried to walk him out and throw him into the SUV. At that point, I think most would be thinking resist. Of course it would be too late by then.

But the most important thing is, he wasn't sitting at a keyboard thinking about this. He'd just had some punks gun pointed at him and now the fishy cop in the SUV with tats. Much different scenario than either we or the prosecutor will hopefully ever be in.

[Sam1911]

Wow, what a terrible situation for both parties.

Unfortunately, both are probably "right."

Roach probably did about all he could do identify himself, and seems to have responded exactly as officers are trained to act when confronted with a shots-fired, man-with-a-gun situation.

Thomas also appears to have had very good reasons -- if incorrect ones -- for believing what he believed at the time. We know (and folks closer to these kinds of social elements also know) that LEO impersonation is a not unheard of tactic, and this guy was already at DEFCON 1, being actively engaged in a fight for his life with multiple hostiles. Seeing someone else running at him yelling and pointing a firearm -- especially exiting a POV and not a cruiser with lights flashing -- would not necessarily instill an immediate feeling of relief.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much that could be done to prevent this sort of mistake from happening. Can't really tell off-duty officers, plainclothes officers, and/or officers in POVs that they can't respond to emergencies because they aren't official looking enough. And we really can't tell folks "fall down on the ground in surrender if anyone looks AT ALL like they might be a cop."

So he assaulted an officer. Unfortunately there's no way of getting around that. Perhaps leniency can be found in recognition of the terrible misunderstanding that occurred. But this does seem to be one of those cases where life sometimes just plain sucks and bad things happen to good people.

I really don't buy this at all:
Howard, the district attorney, said he believes that Thomas shot Roach out of anger, not error. “For whatever reason, his emotions got the best of him and he almost killed a good man,”
"For whatever reason" is like admitting that there is no possible motive here except the one given -- mistaken (or disbelieved) identity. Thomas was not in any way angry at the police or feeling homicidal toward this officer. That just doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Double Naught Spy]

“This guy was shooting in broad daylight, and all I could do was react,” Roach said. “I was in full uniform. There is no way he could look at me and not believe I was a police officer.”

I believe Thomas's story of failure of recognition. He was probably not processing a lot of information at that point in the day as a result of what was going on. Had the situation been reversed, some shrink would claim fog of war and tunnel vision resulting in the cop shooting an innocent person and there would be a civil settlement that resulted and not a criminal settlement. Thomas should be liable to the city for Roach's injuries, property damage, and wages for the time he was out of work. An apology does not cut it.

[avs11054]

Owen,

While the man in the article was originally the victim, the officer was completely justified in detaining him. Because the man resisted, now two lives are forever changed. Do you think this outcome is better than if the man would have obeyed the officer?

[Sam1911]

Because the man resisted, now two lives are forever changed. Do you think this outcome is better than if the man would have obeyed the officer?
I'm not Owen, but I think that is getting off track. No one here is saying this is a GOOD outcome. In perfect hindsight we all know who the good guy(s) were and of course we know that Thomas should have stopped immediately, laid his gun on the pavement, and placed his hands on his head -- thankful that an officer had arrived.

The point of his defense is that he didn't know -- or at least didn't believe, and it seems with some good cause.

Had the situation been different -- had he been right in his fear -- he may be dead, or he may have successfully fought off another attacker.

[ATLDave]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

One other thing to add. Almost all criminal charges come with an intent component. The precise intent required for a conviction varies, but the final outcome is very rarely the only thing that matters in court.

[avs11054]

But many people on this forum have supported the use of force, even deadly force against cops who might be acting outside their lawful capacity, or the use of force against those who one suspects are impersonating police officers. This story is the tragic result of such thinking.

[Sam1911]

This story is the tragic result of such thinking.Yes. But it doesn't devalue or invalidate that thinking.

You have a right to defend your life against ANYONE who would try and take it.

Sometimes that sucks for all involved, but dying at the hands of a police officer who has broken his oath, or at the hands of someone impersonating a police officer in order to victimize you sucks even worse.

[avs11054]

I believe it does. Is it worth it to ruin two lives? That is what courts are for. If, god forbid, an officer kills somebody outside his or her oath, there are legal reprucussions as for anyone who is convicted of murder. Like you said Sam1911, bad things happen to good people. Because of this scenario, bad things happened to two good people. Is it worth it to believe that this kind of resistance should be allowed with this being the outcome?

[Sam1911]

I cannot see any value or merit in asking people to submit to being murdered -- by anyone -- on the off chance that they might be mistaken in believing that's what's about to happen.

Are you honestly suggesting that submitting to what you see as a clearly unlawful assault should be somehow mandatory if the assaulter is wearing what appears to be an official uniform? And do you thing that any law anywhere has the power to make people actually behave that way under the fear of death?

I know you probably didn't intend to say such a thing, but your second line really reads as though you're instructing the potential victim, "Go ahead and die. The courts will probably convict him of murder eventually, and then it will be ok."

:scrutiny:

[HOOfan_1]

I believe it does.

Cops are absolutely no different than anyone else when you are trying to protect your life.

Seems like you and SAM are arguing two different points though.

You are arguing against resisting what someone percieves as false arrest
Sam is arguing that a person has a right to defend their life no matter who they are defending it from...including a police officer.

Resisting arrest is not defending your life, so it really has no bearing here.

If you think people don't have a right to protect their life against police officers, just as they do against any other random citizen.....well there is just no need to even finish that thought.

[zxcvbob]

Didn't the USSC already answer these questions in John Bad Elk v. U.S.? I don't recall it ever being overturned or reversed or whatever the legal-word is.

[avs11054]

I'll put it another way. Say this guy was fearing that this officer was impersonating a police officer, so he felt he needed to use lethal force to defend himself or he was going to die. He is now About to lose 25 years of his life to prison. If he would have submitted to the officers lawful actions, he would have been dusted off and sent on his way. Because of the way he handled it, an officer was shot three times and this man's life as he knows it is over.

I'm not suggesting people submit to being murdered, but how many police shootings result in the officer being sent to prison for murder? A very, very small percentage I would guess. And of those, how many officer flat out went into the situation with the intent to murder the person?

Again, allowing this type of resistance opens the door to way more people being injured or killed, as well as easier outs for people that really do deserve to go to prison.

[avs11054]

Hoofan,

There has been more than one person on this forum who has suggested that people be allowed to resist police authority if they believe it is unjust. Whether that was this man's intention or not, I'm trying to say this is the result of that thinking.

[Sam1911]

Resisting arrest is not defending your life, so it really has no bearing here.

Well...maybe, sort of, but in Mr. Thomas' case, he doesn't seem to have realized he was simply resisting an arrest. He was fleeing a strong-arm robbery and saw another man exit a private citizen's type vehicle (albeit in a 'costume' of some sort) and start chasing him with a drawn gun.

If the prosecution can bring to bear evidence that he knew he was being arrested and he was resisting that, I completely agree with them.

If the defense can successfully convince the jury that he was resisting what he clearly believed to be a continuation of the assault and possible murder, then the story is very different.

[Sam1911]

If he would have submitted to the officers lawful actions, he would have been dusted off and sent on his way. Because of the way he handled it, an officer was shot three times and this man's life as he knows it is over.


And you're skipping over the biggest point: If he had been right, he would be dead. Submitting to what he THOUGH was happening was an inconceivable thing.

[Sam1911]

There has been more than one person on this forum who has suggested that people be allowed to resist police authority if they believe it is unjust.And usually -- for the great majority of situations -- we advise folks to fight that battle in court, later. The only time none of us would ever say that is when it appears that what is going on will mean there IS NO "later." The police do not have the right to murder you, and you have every right to resist being murdered -- by anyone.

I'm trying to say this is the result of that thinking. Yes, and an unfortunate result, this time. For those folks who have been carjacked, raped, kidnapped, or murdered by folks impersonating law-enforcement officers, the results migth have been different.

The world is not a safe place, there is no guarantee you'll live a long peaceful life, and sometimes these things happen. You will have to take your chances as you see them in the moment.

[avs11054]

Sam,

So now every bad gut who kills a cop can use the 'I thought it was a guy wearing a 'costume' defense? I was acting in self defense. I have the right to defend myself from being murdered.'

[ATLDave]

avs, anybody advancing that defense will have to do more than just say it. They will have to convince a jury that it is the truth.

[Sam1911]

They can try. They could always try before. This doesn't change that. But remember, Mr. Thomas has to present his case to a jury and try to convince them of what he believed in his heart at that moment. So would anyone else trying this as a defense.

Mr. Thomas was the victim of a crime being persued by armed men -- an innocent already in serious jeopardy, not a known felon resisting an arrest in a crack house or some such thing. The very most important factor in any prosecution like this is whether the jury finds the testimony believable. In the end, it's fairly subjective.

[benEzra]

But many people on this forum have supported the use of force, even deadly force against cops who might be acting outside their lawful capacity, or the use of force against those who one suspects are impersonating police officers. This story is the tragic result of such thinking.
Most such discussions occur in the context of unlawful home invasions by police impersonators, I think.

Wrong-address SWAT raids do happen, but they are extremely rare (thankfully). As a result, if you are not a criminal or otherwise at elevated risk of a police raid, the odds are that whoever is kicking your door down at 3am are criminals, not the police. In that scenario, counseling homeowners to submit to whoever kicks in the door on the off chance they might be police officers raiding the wrong house is probably a bad idea. That is one reason why I think that true knock-and-talk warrants are safer for all concerned than no-knocks or "knock and yell as the door goes down" approaches, in the overwhelming majority of cases.

This case, of course, is neither a home invasion nor a case of an undercover officer dressed as a gang member accosting a citizen.

Having said that, I am aware of a lot of uniformed officers who have shot other officers in mistaken-identity shootings, and they are usually not charged with murder (or attempted murder) because the intent was not murder. I don't know how those precedents will play out in this case, though.

[cassandrasdaddy]

cop in uniform? this guy is screwed. if they offer a decent deal he should grab it

[avs11054]

So if you have two robbers and a guy who might or might not be a cop, and whose gun is drawn, chasing you down, you have three bullets left, and you decide your best course of action is to shoot it out, what do you guys think are the odds that the end result will be in your favor?

[avs11054]

Benerza,

Many of those are uniformed officers shooting off duty officers in street clothes because the off duty cop was pointing his gun at someone else. In which case, the uniformed officers could be in fear for another persons life. This officer seems to have been in full uniform according to the article.

[JEB]

So if you have two robbers and a guy who might or might not be a cop, and whose gun is drawn, chasing you down, you have three bullets left, and you decide your best course of action is to shoot it out, what do you guys think are the odds that the end result will be in your favor?

just a guess, but given the incredible amount of stress, fear, and the huge dump of adrenaline, i dont think he was quite up to snuff on his round count. he was just moments before firing his weapon while involved in a fight for his LIFE, not a laid back course of fire at his local IDPA match. if i am low on ammo, and i think that i need to use what i have left right NOW to save my life, i will do so without hesitation; not try to save them for a rainy day, because that day may neverr come if i do.

[Lucifer_Sam]

Nothing that Thomas did really seems that unreasonable given his situation. He was panicked, had just had guns drawn on him and was in fear of his life. He talks about some of the things that went through his head in the article, and while its easy to armchair quarterback it and draw arbitrary lines about what he should and should not have done, Thomas didnt really have time to reflect on the logic of what he was thinking. Basically the proscription and the cop (who seems more upset that Thomas didnt bow immediately to his "AUTHORITI!") seem to want people to believe that an educated, previously law abiding citizen suddenly turned into a crazed (but not legally insane) cop killer.

From TFA--

“It is a hard case for that young man, and I hate to see it be that way,” Melvin said. “You can’t say how scared he was or why he couldn’t understand the guy was a police officer. But if he doesn’t go to jail, it will look like he can shoot a police officer and get away with it.”

This is why hes being prosecuted so severely. It doesn't have anything to do with justice, its to send a message.

[nofishbob]

I think a major factor is what the "full uniform" looked like.

I have seen "uniforms" that range from very traditional unmistakably police gear to something that looks like business casual civilian wear. Some of our police wear shorts.

The professionalism of the officer would also make a difference. Some of the profanity-laced tirades I have heard from officers on the various police brutality videos are totally unprofessional. If this officer was shouting obscenities and threatening the citizen, it may have added to his doubt that this was really an officer.

I feel bad for both parties, but hopefully some lessons can come from this.

Bob

[HOOfan_1]

Sam,

So now every bad gut who kills a cop can use the 'I thought it was a guy wearing a 'costume' defense? I was acting in self defense. I have the right to defend myself from being murdered.'

So then, it is the job of the prosecutor to convince the jury otherwise.

People who do not want to commit crimes are not going to shoot anyone, especially police officers without very good reasons.

Murdering criminals are going to shoot police officers whether they think they have a good defense or not.

[crazy4milsurps]

Cops alpha male attitude clearly got him in the poop pile.

that is the problem with law enforcement, they think they are above the people that pay them. unless the guy who was a victim was committing a crime the officer had no reason to intervene the way he did.

police have that everyone is wrong and everyone is a liar outlook which when acted on they should no be surprised when things go wrong for themselves.

they should stick to solving crimes rather than imagining them.

[Owen Sparks]

When someone points a gun at you in a stressful situation like a gun fight you tend to focus on the gun. I think that is what happened here. It was not about "disobeying a police officer" it was a starteled reaction to seeing another man with a gun pointed at him and the decision was made to shoot when he saw the gun. We have all seen shoot / no-shoot targets that are pictures are identical only one is holding a pistol and one is holding a badge. Even with training this sort of "friendly fire" incident happens all the time in military combat and police have been known to shoot each other in the confusion of a gun fight.

If the situation were reversed and the officer had shot the crime victim when he saw him round a corner with a gun in his hand who do you think would get the blame?

[avs11054]

Crazy4milsurps proves the point I have made on several other threads. He obviously does not know when cops can and can't stop somebody. The cop had every right to stop this guy. Just because he might have acted in self defense doesn't mean the cop cant stop him. His self defense wouldve come out during the investigation. It's this attitude coupled with 'since I am innocent and now the cop is pointing a gun at me so I should shoot the cop' that makes me feel the way I do about these situations.

[tnxdshooter]

So what would have happened if the situation were reversed and the cop shot the robbery victim thinking that he was the criminal?

Absolutely nothing. The cop would get paid vacation ia would find no wrong doing and he would be back to work within a week. Cops in chattanooga shot a dude 49 times. All he had was a 40 bottle in his hand and was on his porch cussing them. They got one weeks paid holiday and returned to work.

[shootniron]

I hope that this fellow has Massad testifying as an expert witness...but I highly doubt it. Massad would have some serious psychological testimony brought forward by professions to explain how this tragic event happened.

[cassandrasdaddy]

I think that is what happened here. It was not about "disobeying a police officer" it was a starteled reaction to seeing another man with a gun pointed at him and the decision was made to shoot when he saw the gun.

i only hope you wrote that without reading the op and link. it would be hard to be so far from fact otherwise. heck even the guy facing charges version doesn't remotely support your guess

[Sam1911]

that is the problem with law enforcement, they think they are above the people that pay them.I suggest we abandon this painting of law enforcement with such a broad, negative brush. The great majority of police officers are terrific people who care deeply about their oath and understand that they do "serve and protect."

We do not tolerate "cop bashing" here, any more than we do gross apologetics for inapproriate and unlawful behavior.

In this case I do not read anything in the article that indicates that Officer Roach behaved in any sort of questionable manner.


unless the guy who was a victim was committing a crime the officer had no reason to intervene the way he did.Perhaps you didn't actually READ the article? Otherwise I can't quite imagine what would cause you to make this statement. The officer heard shots fired (with his own ears) and witnessed a man running down the street with a drawn firearm. Do you know what a police officer is supposed to do when he witnesses multiple crimes (as both of those things would be) taking place right in front of him? Especially when those observed acts strongly indicate the likely fact that other even more serious crimes have just taken place or are STILL taking place? He does not shoot anyone (hopefully) but he sure as heck DOES stop the armed person and detain them until he can determine what is afoot. That's what WE pay the police to do.

they should stick to solving crimes rather than imagining them. This is simply a bizzare statement to make. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have no clue what's actually being discussed and encourage you to read the article, and understand the events in question, before you make any further statements.

[And yes, I removed you other post as it had nothing even less to do with the discussion at hand than your other statements.]

[Bobson]

This really scares me.
You think that the police should be able to do whatever they want and the citizens only recourse should be the court system?
I wouldn't say "whatever they want," but the current system sure works well for the most part.

Are you actually implying that the system would work more smoothly if citizens were allowed to ignore orders from LEOs just because the citizen feels his actions are justified? Sounds like an excellent recipe for disaster, and it would all but defeat the purpose of law enforcement to begin with.

[mallard044]

Just read the story. Thats why,,,all discussion aside,with a ccw or not, you pull your weapon,, you better make sure you are going to be in the right, 1000% sure. In the heat of the moment ,things can get blurry,,or you will end up being prosecuted!!! That guy last week in wisc., could have been ugly if he would have hit a bystander.He did the right thing, but!!!! thats what I am saying??

[crazy4milsurps]

@Sam1911

I wasn't cop bashing at all just stating the facts, they have too much power to use it correctly.

and there was no reason to cuff or arrest the victim, all the officer had to do was properly approach the man and ask what happened and thn serve and protect him not jump the gun and ruin the victims life.

If i run up and aim a gun at a cop that is fleeing from a shoot out, i'll have more than a few mags worth of FMJ in my chest but its ok for a cop to do it AND arrest the victim???????????????????

I never seen so many male cop groupies in one place geez

[BullfrogKen]

</Grey Poupon announcer> Pardon me, sir. Might I have a word. What manner of business might you have with that iron unsheathed? And how might I help you?</Announcer off>

Really?


:scrutiny:


You're embarassing Pennsylvania.

[jerkface11]

He should be punished the exact same way a cop who shot the wrong person is. A months suspension with pay.

[shootniron]

He should be punished the exact same way a cop who shot the wrong person is. A months suspension with pay.
__________________

x 2

And, the Atlanta police have had their share of officers killing the wrong folks over the years.

[316SS]

avs11054 wrote:
Say this guy was fearing that this officer was impersonating a police officer, so he felt he needed to use lethal force to defend himself or he was going to die. He is now About to lose 25 years of his life to prison. If he would have submitted to the officers lawful actions, he would have been dusted off and sent on his way. Because of the way he handled it, an officer was shot three times and this man's life as he knows it is over.

You recognize that Thomas may have had doubts as to whether Roach was a police officer. Yet you think that because you now know that Roach was in fact a police officer, that Thomas should have known and responded accordingly? Even though if his suspicions were correct he might be killed?

If, god forbid, an officer kills somebody outside his or her oath, there are legal reprucussions as for anyone who is convicted of murder.

Errrrr ... so a murdered victim of a police officer (or someone who plays one on TV) should rest (in peace) easy in the knowledge that their killer may (or may not) face legal repercussions? Do you object to all armed resistance against someone who poses an imminent mortal threat? Your reasoning suggests that you would.

crazy4milsurps wrote:
and there was no reason to cuff or arrest the victim, all the officer had to do was properly approach the man and ask what happened and thn serve and protect him not jump the gun and ruin the victims life.

I never seen so many male cop groupies in one place geez

I make a point of never apologizing for questionable cop behavior of any kind, but this statement is ridiculous on its face. The cop heard shots fired and saw a man with an unholstered weapon running across the parking lot. If he didn't verbally identify himself as police, he should have. But if cops responded as you suggest, a lot more of them would be shot in the line of duty.

[superscribe]

I like how Thomas, the "victim" and shooter, decided that someone coming out of a Tahoe with tinted windows with tattooed arms had to be a bad guy. That's stereotyping, and from what I'm told, it's bad.

[Rob G]

I wasn't cop bashing at all just stating the facts, they have too much power to use it correctly.

Could you please cite this fact? In what study was this proven?

and there was no reason to cuff or arrest the victim,

#1 How was the officer to know the man was a victim until a full investigation was done?
#2 I think it's pretty reasonable for an officer to detain a man seen running with a gun in his hand from an area where gun shots were just fired. Please note that he didn't attempt to hurt the guy, he just tried to disarm him and take him in to custody.

all the officer had to do was properly approach the man and ask what happened and thn serve and protect him

I'm guessing you're not an LEO. Ordering a man to put down the weapon and get on the ground IS the proper way to approach an armed suspect. As for the serve and protect part, I'm sure the officer would have gotten to that part if Mr. Thomas hadn't put three bullets in him.

If i run up and aim a gun at a cop that is fleeing from a shoot out

Except you wouldn't because that would be stupid and I'm sure you know that.

, i'll have more than a few mags worth of Hollowpoints in my chest

This is usually the end result of pointing a gun at a cop.

but its ok for a cop to do it AND arrest the victim???????????????????


#1 Yes, that's actually in their job description, which is why it's okay for them to do it. It's funny how often people on here justify gun ownership by implying that police don't do their jobs, then criticize the police when they step up and handle things.
#2 Again, the officer didn't know that Mr. Thomas was the victim and not the perp. If we can believe that the defendant could think that a man in full police uniform was actually a gang member out to kill him and not a cop, then I think it's not too much of a stretch to believe that Officer Roach thought a man fleeing the scene of a shooting with a gun in his hand might be a criminal who'd just shot someone.

I never seen so many male cop groupies in one place geez

I'm not sure how showing respect for a bunch of guys who have a really rough job that could get them killed, and doesn't exactly pay a fortune, is inherently bad.

[leadcounsel]

Keeping in mind this article is certainly not the whole story, I don't think that Thomas could have an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - Roach was wearing a uniform and yelled halt, and then was proceeding to handcuff Thomas. Three facts that don't seem to favor any mistake of fact. I'm also guessing that Roach "looks" like a cop and that the other thugs didn't.

As an aside, it's interesting that several times Thomas 'survived' being shot and probably killed due to the Smith and Wesson design feature that prohibits shooting if the magazine is ejected. I'd call that a design flaw personally - and it nearly cost this cop his life!!! Had things been a little different (Thomas aimed for Roach's head, or Roach failed to wear his vest), Roach could have died because of this S&W "safety" feature...

[crazy4milsurps]

I'm wrong then, it is ok for a cop to make a deadly mistake but it is not ok for a civilian to make a deadly mistake. cops are god and civies are roaches. point taken!

[mgmorden]

I'm wrong then, it is ok for a cop to make a deadly mistake but it is not ok for a civilian to make a deadly mistake. cops are god and civies are roaches. point taken!

The thing is in this case the cop DIDN'T make a mistake. As far as I can tell this was 100% textbook what he was supposed to do. Hear shots? Check on it. See suspect? Detain. (and YES - any person fleeing from fired shots with a gun is a suspect - doesn't mean they're guilty - but they most certainly are a suspect). Suspect resists and *POINTS GUN AT THE OFFICER*? Return fire.

I understand that the shooter had a lot of adrenaline pumping at this moment and it was likely hard to make sound judgement calls, but realistically he saw tinted windows and tattoos and let his stereotypes get the best of him. No matter how much stress you may be under, you are ALWAYS responsible for your actions. I hate that this guy had to make a choice under these circumstance, but regardless, he chose poorly. He now has to live with the consequences. In all honesty he should be thanking his lucky stars that the officer's gun malfunctioned. Otherwise, he'd be having a funeral rather than a trial, and I can't say that I could fault the officer one bit had it gone down that way.

[Rob G]

I'm wrong then, it is ok for a cop to make a deadly mistake but it is not ok for a civilian to make a deadly mistake.

I don't think I've seen anybody argue this point in any post so far about this particular topic. In fact we've pretty much all said it's not okay for either a cop or a civilian to make a deadly mistake. Fortunately, in this specific case, eveyone lived.

cops are god and civies are roaches. point taken!

I don't think anyone has said this either.

[Shadow 7D]

Hey, why give cops a break when the shoot EACH OTHER
it happens, hopefully he has a competent attorney

[ClickClickD'oh]

Throw the book at Thomas.

I'm sorry, but when you strap on a lethal weapon you can't go around shooting people that you think might be part of a robbery crew. You have to be better than that. Yeah yeah, adrenaline, stress, just been robbed, yatta yatta. No excuse. You don't get do overs with a lethal weapon. Every single shot that comes out of the barrel must be 100% justified.

[Zach S]

It sucks for all involved. I'm on the fence with this one.

there was no reason to cuff or arrest the victim,
I learned a long time ago that when the police show up, they don't know the suspects from the victims. Everyone gets secured first, then they try to sort it out.

When someone points a gun at you in a stressful situation like a gun fight you tend to focus on the gun. I think that is what happened here.
I agree. I happen to know, that even though its only .40" in diameter, the muzzle of a Glock 23 pointed at you looks big enough to crawl in.

If the officer assumed that the uniform IDed him as a LEO, he may not have verbally IDed himself. I'd also like to know what they're calling a "uniform." Was it the typical pressed and creased uniform, or a polo shirt with 5.11 pants? And he was off duty, in his personal vehicle, so was he on his way home, did he take his duty belt off?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to point the finger at the officer, but I know its possible to not notice a uniform.

I got in a fight years ago and a uniformed officer (typical uniform, not 5.11 pants and a polo shirt) grabbed me from behind in an effort to break up the fight. Thinking I was outnumbered two to one, I manged to break his hold, and started to punch him in the face, until I heard the unmistakable sound of a collapsible baton opening up... At which point my hands were open and up.

[Sam1911]

I like how Thomas, the "victim" and shooter, decided that someone coming out of a Tahoe with tinted windows with tattooed arms had to be a bad guy. That's stereotyping, and from what I'm told, it's bad. It may be legally questionable for agents of the government to proceed with certain actions against or investigations of citizens based solely on their appearance, but it is an innate part of the survival instincts of a human being to evaluate others based on the subtle cues those other people give off about their social identity, allegiances, alignments, intents, etc. While those cues very often may mislead us -- hopefully generally into "false-positive" danger readings, rather than tricking us into letting our guards down at the wrong moment -- they more often serve to protect us.

While we may all bemoan the damage to "freedom of expression" and the right of "individuality" represented by the fact that what we drive, how we dress, what "ink" we wear, how we cut our hair, what jewelry we display, how we speak, etc., etc., may prejudice others against us, the fact remains that this is exactly how human beings -- and other animals too! -- work.

Mr. Thomas noticed a very few details about Officer Roach as he approached and interacted. Two that stood out were that he was driving a vehicle at least ambiguously identifiable with a certain category of society which was not unlikely to be involved with the type of violent encounter he was in the midst of suffering, and that he was wearing body art which indicated that same social identity.

IF Officer Roach had turned out to be what Mr. Thomas thought he was -- we'd all be congratulating him on his well-tuned powers of perception and "Situational Awareness."

(Actually, from reading the account, it looks like Mr. Thomas was a pretty sharp guy in that regard anyway, having seen early warning signs and attempting to position himself out of an ambush position before the event really started to "go down." Unfortunately, he didn't simply break off contact at his first warning.)

[Sam1911]

crazy4milsurps, I really don't know how to say this more politely, but you're sounding foolish here.

I wasn't cop bashing at all just stating the facts, they have too much power to use it correctly.
NOTHING about what Officer Roach did indicated ANYTHING inappropriate or any -- even REMOTE -- abuse of power. He appears to have behaved exactly as every police officer in the country is, and SHOULD BE, instructed to handle a "shots-fired, armed suspect" interaction.

and there was no reason to cuff or arrest the victim, all the officer had to do was properly approach the man and ask what happened and thn serve and protect him not jump the gun and ruin the victims life.
At this point I have to wonder if you really simply don't understand anything about police work and proper arrest procedures or if you're just doing a bad job of trolling for reaction.

No officer who wants to live to see the end of his shift approaches an armed man on a public street, leaving the scene of shots being fired and makes a casual inquiry into the matter.

The officer WITNESSED, HIMSELF, at least two crimes. Discharging a firearm on a city street is a crime. Running down a public street brandishing a weapon is a crime as well. So there are two laws he saw (or it was reasonable to infer) that Mr. Thomas had broken. That, right there, requires him to arrest Mr. Thomas, pursuant to an investigation into the matter. (Maybe charges will be filed, maybe he had a justification that would encourage no charges to be filed, but an arrest needs to happen to halt the present danger to the public and to begin that investigation.)

Second, the absolutely obvious conclusion to be drawn by Officer Roach's observations is that at least one other, much more serious crime has just taken place and this man is almost undoubtedly involved. Shots fired and a man fleeing with a weapon mean that someone has almost certainly been assaulted with a deadly weapon, and quite possibly a murder has been committed. Maybe the man he sees fleeing was just the victim of an assault. Maybe he was the assaulter or the murderer. It is the absolute DUTY of that officer to investigate that probable felony and detain any and all suspects. One does not approach a likely murder suspect and ask, "Sir, if you don't mind, would you please relieve yourself of your weapon and, if it isn't too much trouble, stop for a moment and tell me if you are the guilty party?"

This should be self-evident -- really, really self-evident -- to anyone.

If i run up and aim a gun at a cop that is fleeing from a shoot out, i'll have more than a few mags worth of FMJ in my chest but its ok for a cop to do it AND arrest the victim???????????????????
Are you actually reading the things you are writing? Yes. Yes, that is exactly how it is. And surely you understand WHY that is. If you are firing a weapon in public, you are breaking the law. The duty of that officer is to arrest you and investigate. You may have an affirmative defense for that act, and you may be freed and exonerated of wrong-doing, but he has witnessed you breaking a law and MUST react.

I never seen so many male cop groupies in one place geezYou have a distressingly poor understanding of the law, and of law enforcement. I hope we're shedding light into the darkness, here.

[Sam1911]

Keeping in mind this article is certainly not the whole story,
Absolutely a good point. It would be most interesting to get to observe the facts which come to light during the trial. He was either resisting arrest, or he made a reasonable mis-identification and believed this fourth man was continuing the assault on him. The jury will have to believe one story or the other.

I don't think that Thomas could have an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - Roach was wearing a uniform and yelled halt, and then was proceeding to handcuff Thomas. Three facts that don't seem to favor any mistake of fact.It very much depends on what exactly Officer Roach did look like right at that moment. As others pointed out, what was he really wearing? A full uniform complete with duty belt, badge, hat, baton, taser, etc., etc? His uniform shirt and slacks, and a ball cap? A "casual duty" outfit of some sort? We already know he was somewhat "out of uniform" in that he was stepping out of a non-official vehicle. That sent up warning flags. What else was "amiss" about the way he looked at that moment, we just don't know. (We know Mr. Thomas saw tattoos on his arms -- was this a short-sleeved uniform shirt? A PD-marked casual polo shirt? His exercise tee? We don't know yet.) And what, exactly, did he say... and what did Mr. Thomas HEAR? We don't know.

I'm also guessing that Roach "looks" like a cop and that the other thugs didn't.That's a pretty heapin' helping of "guessing!" Not every cop is an athletic looking white ex-Marine with a high-and-tight haircut and mirror shades. Not every strong-arm robber is a "black male between the ages of 18-24 wearing dreadlocks and sagged pants" -- or whatever our common perception of them might be.

All of that will come out in trial and the jury will have to decide whether Mr. Thomas made the decisions of a "reasonable and prudent" man given the information he had, or not.

[crazy4milsurps]

I'll make this my last post in this thread due to it starting to go south.

I was talking to by buddy about this and he brought it to my attention that living in Pittsburgh, PA for 27 years I am naturally biased against law enforcement. I have no idea what a good cop is honestly. Down there the general rule is if a cop is around someone is going to jail. In Allegheny county, the police are a gang rather than public servants. they are just all young, crooked and seems they all have something to prove. because of living under their oppression for so long, I naturally see them as someone to fear and as bullies.

I wouldn't know what an honorable police officer is and like an abused dog flinches at every movement of its master, I see LE as a negative power. Maybe one day I'll meet a police officer that I can respect.

[BullfrogKen]

. . . living in Pittsburgh, PA for 27 years . . .

Wow, with gangs operating under the pretense as cops running around town, one must wonder why you stayed in there that long.


But thanks for sharing, milsurp.

[M-Cameron]

I don't think that Thomas could have an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - Roach was wearing a uniform and yelled halt, and then was proceeding to handcuff Thomas. Three facts that don't seem to favor any mistake of fact.
It very much depends on what exactly Officer Roach did look like right at that moment. As others pointed out, what was he really wearing? A full uniform complete with duty belt, badge, hat, baton, taser, etc., etc? His uniform shirt and slacks, and a ball cap? A "casual duty" outfit of some sort? We already know he was somewhat "out of uniform" in that he was stepping out of a non-official vehicle. That sent up warning flags. What else was "amiss" about the way he looked at that moment, we just don't know. (We know Mr. Thomas saw tattoos on his arms -- was this a short-sleeved uniform shirt? A PD-marked casual polo shirt? His exercise tee? We don't know yet.) And what, exactly, did he say... and what did Mr. Thomas HEAR? We don't know.

another thing to point out.....

say you were just involved in a gun fight......and then you see someone else running at you with a gun.......are you really going to take the time to notice what clothes they have on?

im willing to bet( assuming the officer was wearing a 'standard' black uniform) that all the guy saw was a black figure pointing a gun at him........

and im sure under stress, he didnt hear any of his verbal commands......



now should the guy face some sort of punishment.......well yes, mistake as it may have been, he is still responsible for his actions...


but do i think he is a cop killing madman who needs to be made an example of.....not a chance.

[jerkface11]

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/04/cop-who-shot-seven-year-old-de

Cop sets little girl on fire and shoots her in the head = involuntary manslaughter. Citizen mistakenly shoots a cop in the leg = 25 years. Sounds fair to me.

[AKElroy]

I can see this type of situation happening more often due to the recent move of LEO's to become more stealth in their presense. I live in San Antonio, and the well-marked police cruiser is becoming a thing of the past. Now "lightly" marked Tahoes, Chargers and Camaros are the cruisers of choice.

Secondly, most departments would not allow visable tattoos 20 years ago, and they certainly would not allow a simple navy T-shirt with "Police" on the back, jeans and a sidearm. I see that often, particularly with the recent explosion of JP courts hiring poorly trained constables to generate traffic citation revenue. I've been pulled over by one of these, and I was extremely nervous not being sure he was the real deal.

Let's go back to the days when LEO's were instantly identifiable as the good guys before this happens again.

Let's hope the courts come through with reason on this one, get to the truth.

[mgmorden]

say you were just involved in a gun fight......and then you see someone else running at you with a gun.......are you really going to take the time to notice what clothes they have on?

If you read the article that's not the case here. Through the guy's own testimony he got down on the ground for the officer to detain him, but then whipped around and opened fire when he saw tattoo's on the officer's arms, which apparently was enough to convince him that the uniform was invalid.

Even after citizens are coming to the aid of the officer clearly shouting that he's a cop the guy is running around screaming that the guy isn't a cop.

I know he was under a lot of stress, and having never been in that situation I can't say for sure how I would have acted myself, but in this case he made a stupid judgement call (assuming that because he saw tattoo's on the guys arms that he couldn't be a cop) and acted rashly.

It was a bad call, based on bad assumptions, that resulted in a bad (nearly tragic) outcome. If the officer hadn't still been wearing his vest he'd be dead. If the officer's gun hadn't malfunctioned the other guy would be dead.

IMHO he should thank Lady Luck that he's still breathing, and then accept the judgement of Lady Justice. Personally, depending on how good the previously offered plea deals were I'd have jumped at them. He's not going to get out of this with just an apology.

[crazy4milsurps]

Wow, with gangs operating under the pretense as cops running around town, one must wonder why you stayed in there that long.

My first 27 years on earth to boot..... and what a great first impression they gave!

Cop sets little girl on fire and shoots her in the head = involuntary manslaughter. Citizen mistakenly shoots a cop in the leg = 25 years. Sounds fair to me. as I always said if you ever want to commit a crime and have a much higher chance of getting away with it, do it drunk or be an LEO. sad

[ATLDave]

Keeping in mind this article is certainly not the whole story, I don't think that Thomas could have an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - Roach was wearing a uniform and yelled halt, and then was proceeding to handcuff Thomas. Three facts that don't seem to favor any mistake of fact. I'm also guessing that Roach "looks" like a cop and that the other thugs didn't.

Then how do we explain an otherwise exemplary citizen suddenly becoming a cop-killer? You think this guy suddenly said, "<deleted> it, I'm turning supervillian?" Mistake of fact seems beyond clear to me. The harder question is whether that mistake was reasonable.

[crazy4milsurps]

well, in four years when we have drones floating freely, we'll see and hear everything they let us.

[dayhiker]

I see LE as a negative power.

I can sort of see your point. Sort of... there are good cops and bad cops. But they are not all power-full.

If you read your laws, and case laws you will see that.

For instance in my state I can not resist arrest. Whether law-full or unlaw-full.

Sec. 53a-23. Use of physical force to resist arrest not justified. A person is not justified in using physical force to resist an arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b or motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, whether such arrest is legal or illegal.


However case law establishes that I am not required under this statute to submit to a beat down by a rouge cop.


Cited. 45 CA 390. Under this section, illegality of an arrest is not a defense to charges under. Sec. 53a-167c. Statute was intended to require an arrestee to submit to an arrest, even though he believes, and may ultimately establish, that the arrest was without probable cause or was otherwise unlawful. It was not intended to require an arrestee to submit to egregiously unlawful conduct-such as an unprovoked assault-by the police in the course of an arrest, whether the arrest was legal or illegal. 79 CA 667.


If you look real hard I am sure you will find protections in your State's case law that protects you from rouge cops.

[crazy4milsurps]

However case law establishes that I am not required under this statute to submit to a beat down by a rouge cop.
their defense will stomp yours though





If you look real hard I am sure you will find protections in your State's case law that protects you from rouge cops.
means nothing if it already happened, the damage has been done.

[Fishbed77]

I'm surprised no one has picked up yet on the nugget about the cop's pistol supposedly "misfiring." This sounds like an indication he was in the process of firing his weapon at an innocent man.

It sounds like the cop accidentally dropped his mag, instead of a true misfire, though.

What do they carry in Atlanta? M&Ps?

[mgmorden]

I'm surprised no one has picked up yet on the nugget about the cop's pistol supposedly "misfiring." This sounds like an indication he was in the process of firing his weapon at an innocent man.

It sounds like the cop accidentally dropped his mag, instead of atrue misfire, though.

What do they carry in Atlanta? M&Ps?

The gun didn't misfire. As stated in the article, who fired the first shot is still in contention, but what doesn't seem to be is that the suspect was already on the ground and being cuffed before he whipped around and a struggle ensued. If a suspect who is resisting arrest goes for a gun then the cop needn't wait for the actual shot, so even if he did fire first in this case I don't see any issue. In any event, after the first shot the magazine dropped free.

As to the make of gun - I can't find in any of the news articles which particularly LEA Keith Roach is associated with.

So far, from browsing the net, depending on which PD he's from it would be one of the following:

Atlanta PD- M&P 40
Cobb PD- Glock 22 & 27
Dekalb PD- M&P 40
Marietta PD- Glock 22
Gwinnett PD- Glock 17
Smyrna PD- Glock 22

It could have either been an M&P with a mag safety or if one the the Glocks he could have dropped the mag on the draw and the single shot left the gun empty.

[dayhiker]

their defense will stomp yours though

Huh????

Do you understand what case law is? It means that a Judge actually ruled this part is the "law of the land"

It was not intended to require an arrestee to submit to egregiously unlawful conduct-such as an unprovoked assault-by the police in the course of an arrest, whether the arrest was legal or illegal.

So that means a Judge decided a cop overstepped his bounds ,and a citizen could not be charged with resisting.

That is why it is a case cite regarding a claim of self defense in my state.

[ClickClickD'oh]

say you were just involved in a gun fight......and then you see someone else running at you with a gun.......are you really going to take the time to notice what clothes they have on?

You better, or you don't deserve to be carrying a gun.

[MyGreenGuns]

Both parties were lucky that no-one died. Thats a win-win. This was an awful event. We can sit here and analize the event, but its much different to live it with adrenaline coursing through your veins.

-=-=-=-

I would have had my suspicions too if I were Mr. Thomas.

He was on his way to a public place to summon the police when someone dressed as an officer shows up immediately. In my experience, police never arrive THAT fast.

This person stepped out of an unoffical vehicle and already had a gun in hand. If I had just been shot at, this would seem very sketchy.

This person had the uniform but not the duty belt, which might not be sold at a costume store.

This person had visible tattoos, which used to be a no-no for police. I thought it was STILL a no-no until I read this.

He had just been attacked. He escaped, but was a "witness" to a crime. It wouldnt be too unreasonable to think the criminals had a "safety net" to catch a witness to their crimes.

If Thomas would have shouted, "I DONT BELIEVE YOU ARE A COP! I WILL NOT SURRENDER UNTIL A PATROL CAR GETS HERE!" The event may have ended differently.

-=-=-=-

Roach might have assumed his uniform was enough of an identifier and may not have verbally identified himself. Someone mentioned he may have used profanity, which would indicate to me someone pretending to be an officer.

I think Roach responded as he should have, but the verbal identifier may have been forgotten.

-=-=-=-

Thomas will have to be made an example of. Its not fair, I do believe he was in fear of his life. I do not think he would have fired on the officer if Roach had stepped out of a patrol car.

-=-=-=-

I was with a friend when an older pickup pulled in behind us and a single blue light flashed at us from the dashboard. We were sure it was someone posing as the police. We called 911 and reported it and continued to drive. We were told that sometimes they use undercover cars. We told the dispatcher we would be glad to pull over for a cruiser, would they please send one to pull over BOTH vehicles. We continued to drive until that happened.

We got a lecture about "running from the police". Ironicly from a guy dressed very casually (from the pickup).
"Didnt you see my light?!"
"Yeah, I have one too!" I opened my butane lighter and a red and blue light flashed, very similar to his. I resisted the urge to tell him I've accidently had someone pull over when I was lighting a cigarette.

I'm glad to say that the local police has reverted to driving black and white patrol cars. I'll pull over for a patrol car, but I dont think I'll EVER pull over for an unmarked '89 Ford pickup.

[ClickClickD'oh]

This person had the uniform but not the duty belt, which might not be sold at a costume store.

Can you source that?

[Dr_B]

I've read the news article at the beginning of the thread. Sounds clear-cut but I'll bet there is way more to this. There is always a difference between news and facts, and I doubt any of us have enough info.

[Elessar]

I picture myself in this Jury and two things that would be running in my mind (depending on how the full facts pan out) would be:

-In stressful situations, judgement errors are made. It does happen from time to time. Cops do shoot other cops and innocents. Is the charge in this case equitable with those other incidents?

-Do the facts support that a reasonable person in this situation, knowing it was a police officer, would open fire? What are reasons people shoot at police? To escape capture would be my guess. If this person was a law abiding victim before, as a jury I would have to find some reasonable explanation that would have led him to want to shoot at the police. Otherwise, I think there could be a case made for plenty of reasonable doubt that he was trying to shoot a police officer. (Mens Rea and all that stuff).

[MyGreenGuns]

Can you source that?

Thought I read it in the OP link, but have read a lot of other posts since then. Just re-read the article and dunno where I got that from. My bad.

[henschman]

To me, this looks like one of those crazy situations that happen once in a blue moon in free societies, in which both sides can be mistaken, and both can be acting reasonably as the situation appears to them.

The officer was mistaken in thinking he was pursuing a perpetrator, rather than a victim. The robbery victim was mistaken in thinking the officer was a threat to his life, rather than a cop trying to make a lawful arrest.

I think they were both right in acting as they did. As for the cop, he just saw a man running across a street shooting a gun. He had no idea who or what the guy was shooting at, and without any further knowledge, it would appear very likely that the shooter was breaking the law, and was a threat to the lives of others. With this limited amount of knowledge, it would certainly be proper for a person who is paid to enforce the law to try to end the threat, and to investigate whether a crime occurred.

As for the robbery victim, after being accosted by a group of armed robbers who he thought were probably chasing him, he saw another vehicle pull up and a guy jump out with a gun, wearing what looked like a police uniform, but who looked a little fishy with tats and whatnot, and it appeared that this man was trying to kidnap him. He certainly could have been reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury under these facts, and therefore would be right in acting to end the threat.

Close cases make for bad law. I think this is one of those exceptional cases in which it makes sense to say that both men acted reasonably, though mistakenly, and that neither one should be punished. Unfortunately, in a free society in which everyone has the right to be armed and to protect his own rights, sometimes "stuff" happens. Cases like this are very rare, but they do happen.

However, I do think there is a good chance that this situation could have ended differently if the officer were better trained and prepared. Apparently he had the shooter splayed out on the ground, and had his foot on his back. In this kind of position, if he knew what he was doing, he should have been able to keep the shooter from getting a gun on him. Also, it definitely sounds like he screwed up when trying to fire his gun. It sounds to me like he accidentally ejected his mag, and then in panic, maybe tried to do some sort of tap rack bang thing (though it wouldn't make sense here) and ejected the round he had in the chamber.

As a final thought, I will add that it would be incredibly evil to fail to act when you are under the belief that you will die if you do not act, because you think that following society's rules is more important than preserving your own life.

[Sam1911]

The officer was mistaken in thinking he was pursuing a perpetrator, rather than a victim. I think it better here to say, the officer was investigating a violent and unlawful situation and was detaining an investigation suspect. He may or may not have believed this man was the perpetrator of the original crime or a victim of it, but he could see definite things that were against the law and needed to act. He appears to have acted -- in light of the minor bit of knowledge we do have -- appropriately. I don't believe he made a mistake in attempting to apprehend Mr. Thomas.

As for the cop, he just saw a man running across a street shooting a gun. He had no idea who or what the guy was shooting at, and without any further knowledge, it would appear very likely that the shooter was breaking the lawActually, as I said before, the things he DID see with his own eyes would be arrestable offenses regardless. He DID see Mr. Thomas breaking the law -- if only in running down the street brandishing a firearm. He may or may not have seen Mr. Thomas fire shots, but he certainly had heard them and it was reasonable for him to arrest Mr. Thomas for that reasonably suspected act as well -- which is also against the law.

The actual assault or murder or whatever had taken place moments before were MORE significant, and could certainly have justified Mr. Thomas' actions -- later, when deciding to press charges or not, or at a trial -- but the things Officer Roach witnessed himself were grounds enough to arrest Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas had broken two laws, and Officer Roach witnessed those acts.

...it would certainly be proper for a person who is paid to enforce the law to try to end the threat, and to investigate whether a crime occurred.Indeed. To investigate whether FURTHER crimes had occurred. He had personal eye-witness evidence of two already.

Those two likely would have been later proved justified under an affirmative defense of "self-defense." But it isn't the job of the responding officer to make a snap decision about whether that is the case or not. His job is to stop the crime, detain suspects, and begin the process of investigation into what happened and who was to blame.

[cassandrasdaddy]

im willing to bet( assuming the officer was wearing a 'standard' black uniform) that all the guy saw was a black figure pointing a gun at him........

and im sure under stress, he didnt hear any of his verbal commands......


another person who either didn't read or can't understand the op. even the guy on trial doesn't claim that

[cassandrasdaddy]

Cop sets little girl on fire and shoots her in the head = involuntary manslaughter. Citizen mistakenly shoots a cop in the leg = 25 years. Sounds fair to me.
was someone set on fire or is it something in the water?
i take it you are confused about involuntary manslaughter? at the very least?

[Owen Sparks]

You would think that someone would recognize a police officer instantly but then you would think that someone would recognize his own wife. I almost punched mine the other night. I was up late reading long after I thought my wife had gone to bed. I walked into the kitchen for something and as I rounded the corner I came face to face with the woman whom I have been married to for seven years. I was not expecting anyone to be there and yelled out loud and both hands came up into a defensive position fists clinched. Within half a second I recognized it was not a threat and relaxed. Then it was funny. We have all been startled by loved ones like this and I can see how a person in a stressful fight or flight moment could pull a trigger reflexively on a strange man holding a gun before recognizing the details of his clothing, especially in dim light.

[Rob G]

You would think that someone would recognize a police officer instantly but then you would think that someone would recognize his own wife. I almost punched mine the other night. I was up late reading long after I thought my wife had gone to bed. I walked into the kitchen for something and as I rounded the corner I came face to face with the woman whom I have been married to for seven years. I was not expecting anyone to be there and yelled out loud and both hands came up into a defensive position fists clinched. Within half a second I recognized it was not a threat and relaxed. Then it was funny. We have all been startled by loved ones like this and I can see how a person in a stressful fight or flight moment could pull a trigger reflexively on a strange man holding a gun before recognizing the details of his clothing, especially in dim light.

This is a great point but the defendant did indicate that he initially thought officer Roach was a cop and even surrendered to him. So the problem wasn't that he didn't recognize an officer when he saw one, the problem is that he later doubted whether or not the officer was a real cop. At which point he decided not to surrender and proceeded to assault the officer.

In the context of your story it would be sort of like if after you almost punched your wife you stood there for a moment, thought about it, decided that maybe she wasn't your wife after all because something didn't look 100% right, and then punched her.

[Sam1911]

This is a great point but the defendant did indicate that he initially thought officer Roach was a cop and even surrendered to him. So the problem wasn't that he didn't recognize an officer when he saw one, the problem is that he later doubted whether or not the officer was a real cop. At which point he decided not to surrender and proceeded to assault the officer.


It really just about makes more sense that way. See someone who looks like an officer from a distance, allow him to get close, begin to surrender, and then get the extremely strong feeling that something is terribly wrong.

"He just called me a (something harsh, profane, maybe even ethnic?)!, ... and he's not wearing a real cop uniform!...And look at those tattoos! HE'S WITH THEM! I'M GOING TO DIE!"

A terrible trick of circumstance, but I can see it happening, and I really still don't see any very legitimate "armchair quarterback advice" to give them. There's a lot of "maybe" and "you could have..." to propose, but not a lot of concrete condemnation on either of them.

[BullfrogKen]

If we were discussing things officers might consider to help them - professional appearance, language, and demeanor - that might be productive. So would discussing things we could do that might help us be identified as victims, or at least not part of the officer's problem.


But we're all conjecturing about things with no established facts here.


Hasn't this about run its course?

[Dr_B]

Yes, it has.

[gripper]

If I have a reasonble belief that I am in danger,I am going to resist.If the aggressor is a cop,while he'd better be right.Otherwise,it sicks to be him.
OTOH,if the subject of this discussion knew1)that the guy he shot was NOT the tjreat,then its a bad shoot.I obviously am dubious of the trust given to "public trust positions"-but I would NOT advocate the wrongful use of force vs anyone-cop or not.2)All O cafe about is wheyher or not the shooter was rigjt-not whether it provides precedent for an " escape clause"by a criminal.....nl special rights or priviliges is a standard I truly believe in.

[harrygunner]

Our public servants should be capable of wisely handling complex situations. I know that rarely happens.

This reminds me of "zero tolerance" thinking. The overall situation deserves to be considered. The merchant was in a gun battle with people who had a prearranged plan. Bad guys do dress in uniform, no police car in sight. The officer had survivable injuries.

Having a productive citizen sacrifice twenty-five years of his life only for the sanctity of "Blue" is wrong. Admit crap happens and call a draw.

Just like most gun related situations, calling a draw will not encourage the law abiding to shoot cops. Bad guys who are willing to shoot a cop will not have their thinking affected by this case.

[Cap'n Jack Burntbeard]

This whole situation is yet another example of why plainclothes officers and unmarked vehicles are a bad idea.

The way I see it, they should be required to have day glow uniforms and paintjobs on their vehicles.
Nor should they have any official authority while off duty.

[cassandrasdaddy]

except it was a cop in uniform

[Double Naught Spy]

He was in a uniform. Nobody seems to know exactly what form of uniform he was in, but he was in uniform, the type that any of us can buy.

It is interesting that Thomas didn't recognize the uniform, but claimed he saw the officer's tattoos and thought the officer was therefore a bad guy. Keith Roach is a dark skinned African American. If Thomas could see Roach's tats that well, then sure enough, he should have seen the uniform quite well.

The following link shows Roach and Thomas...
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/no-bond-for-man-538250.html

[Art Eatman]

Not much about law, and a lot of conjecture about the participants' beliefs and impressions during a high-stress situation...