Can you say, "overkill?"

[Stickjockey]

From News24.com:

'Cop killer' shot 68 times
01/10/2006 17:18 - (SA)














Miami - A fugitive gunman accused of killing a Florida sheriff's deputy was shot 68 times by SWAT team officers who found him hiding in the woods, according to post mortem results.

Police fired 110 shots at Angilo Freeland, 27, the target of a massive manhunt in central Florida following the shooting death of Polk County sheriff's deputy Matt Williams on Thursday.

"That's all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more," Polk County sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel newspaper.

Judd said Williams was "executed" after Freeland was pulled over in a routine traffic stop on Thursday. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.

Williams, 39, was shot eight times - one bullet fired at close range behind the deputy's right ear and another in his right temple, according to post mortem results released on Saturday by the sheriff's office.

Sheriff's officials said SWAT team members found Freeland on Friday hiding under a fallen oak tree in a wooded area near where the deputies were shot and began firing when they saw a gun in his hand.

Yikes.

 

[armoredman]

"Needed killin'".

 

[the 22 junkie]

Still a valid defense down here.^

 

[Cybert]

No, not overkill at all. A nuke might have been overkill.

 

[trainwreck100]

Sounds good to me...much better to overkill than underkill when the other guy's got a gun and a history of shooting officers.

Greg

 

[Arc-Lite]

cool...recycle that old ammo supply!!!

 

[saltforkgunman]

Lets do the math, if theres 4 people in a SWAT team 68 holes in the perp equals just over 1/2 magazine apiece. Sounds like a kill to me.

 

[Arc-Lite]

salt...your math sounds good, but I think the onsite officer, said "we ran out of ammo"

 

[Green Lantern]

Sure, I can say overkill...I just choose NOT to in this case!

One more murdering POS taken off the streets!

 

[zoom6zoom]

Math also shows they missed 40% off the time. Still, ammo's cheaper than a trial and incarceration.

 

[nico]

:shrug: does "overkill" mean they made him too dead?

 

[Cybert]

I'm against the death penalty. However, this is completely justified to neutralize the threat.

 

[45Guy]

I'll gladly pay for all that ammo, it's one more piece of murdering scum off the street.

Who wants to start a ammo fund for the sheriff's dept?

 

[Arc-Lite]

60% hits, under pressure.... and run till slide lock... good training.

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

even if we brought that scumbag back and killed him 10x over, it still wouldnt be overkill.

 

[Cybert]

Should have tossed a grenade in there for good measure. Assuming no others were around.

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

I'm glad you guys think that this guy deserved to be cut apart by bullets because the police had *Accused* him of a crime.

How many times have the police "been totally sure" that a man was "totally guilty" and the man had done nothing but pissed off the wrong people.

How many times has a man been pre-judged because he was a gun owner?


So many of you are ready to jump behind causes of people who have been falsely accused, but are ready to execute a man because the police decide he deserved to be.

 

[bluecowdawg]

68 times

GOOD

 

[Cybert]

This was not an execution! This was to prevent them from being killed. Simple as that. This guy had a history of deadly force. That information means that an extreme response is necessary. I'm against capital punishment, ok? I also think they should have used a grenade and more bullets.

 

[Gunsmoker]

It depends how they killed him. If 5 or 6 officers unloaded their clip then, no.

But if 2 or 3 cops unloaded their clips and then reloaded to shoot some more then that might be a little overkill.

 

[Cybert]

Reloading to fire some more is fine. Ain't you heard of zombies??? .

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

110 rounds from 10 SWAT officers probably firing full auto.....about 11 rounds fired per officer. i wouldn't call that extreme.


The Grand Inquisitor wrote:

I'm glad you guys think that this guy deserved to be cut apart by bullets because the police had *Accused* him of a crime.

no, he deserved to be shot because the police had a valid arrest warrant on him for the murder of a police officer, and he was surrounded by 10 SWAT officers, and then he raised his gun at the SWAT officers (yes after killing 1 cop already)......i wouldn't call that an *ACCUSATION*. that action is independent of being accused of shooting one cop, killing another cop, and killing a police K9.

the fact that he died, well, that happens when you use unlawful deadly force against superior firepower and LOSE.

dont act like that the bad guy had an opportunity to surrender, four times, and didn't each time.

somehow i don't think your argument is holding much water.

How many times have the police "been totally sure" that a man was "totally guilty" and the man had done nothing but pissed off the wrong people.

when the police is telling someone he is under arrest he does NOT have the right to raise a gun at them. period. im sure they were "totally sure" that the guy pointed a gun at them when they fired. that would make him "totally guilty" of trying to use deadly force to kill cops.

How many times has a man been pre-judged because he was a gun owner?

this isn't the case here. he was a gun owner pointing his gun at 10 SWAT officers. the police, just like the public, have a right to defend themselves.

are you done defending this scum?

 

[Arc-Lite]

personally I think questions such as "The Grand Inquistor" asked...is healthy, but with this, comes the responsibility to be strong enough to handle the answers.

 

[Cybert]

We live in reality. Not fantasy-land. In fantasy-land, we treat all threats as equal. We don't regard race, or other nasty things. In reality, this is a punk who has been known to do some bad things. Like I said, they should have tossed in a grenade to go with the ammo.

 

[beerslurpy]

Bad: using SWAT to serve a search warrant on a homeowner because he has a CCW (Broward County, also in FL)

Good: using SWAT when looking for someone who has just killed a police officer and shot another one

The distinction is that
a) the homeowner with the CCW isnt necessarily a threat to anyone. Using SWAT at 5 in the morning will escalate the situation to deadly force 99 percent of the time.
b) the guy hiding in the woods after shooting two cops is a deadly danger to any cop that comes across him. Using SWAT is a reasonable thing to do, since we already know he intends to shoot at any cops that find him. There is no longer any presumption of peacefulness or innocence.