Officer cleared by Phoenix police board in homeowner shooting

[sniper5]

And depending on the situation, it MIGHT be a bad idea to leave the house. Every situation is going to be different. And, people being what they are, they will do what they want. But standing over the perp because he was viewed as a threat and holding him at gunpoint until the police arrived to take him into custody seemed not to work out well for the subject of this story. And I'm willing to bet in the same situation, the same thing will happen. Should it? No. But it will.

But to address those points and counter:

1. If I believe a perp to be an immediate and credible threat to my life, I will continue firing until he stops being a threat. Then back away from him and leave that immediate area. I don't care what he does after I leave with my family. I don't see any benefit in standing over a limp body while his potential accomplices are unaddressed in unknown locations and are also a threat.

2. I don't know that I would feel all that safe in my house after a gunfight following a forceable entry. I'm not going to try to clear a house by myself, and not a lot of things in a standard residential house will stop a bullet. Cover and concealment is a two way street and works for or against me. I'd rather have some room to move. And I have cover and concealment outside my house as well. I can't speak for how others landscape.

3. It will make it easier for PD if you are not standing over a body holding a gun pointed at them. If you are standing with arms out and your gun on the ground in the open you're a lot less threatening.

But do as you will. I won't change any minds. And frankly, I look at it as job security.

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

What if the home-owner had shot the cop?

Would he be walking free?

 

[Bula]

But standing over the perp because he was viewed as a threat and holding him at gunpoint until the police arrived to take him into custody seemed not to work out well for the subject of this story.

This never happened. Police saw only the homeowner, as stated earlier. After being shot, homeowner had to tell officers where the bad guy was. Also, the officer stated that he never saw a gun-- after the shooting. Only during an IA interview,after, did he 'recall' that that the gun was pointed "away" from him, but at the "ready".

 

[Kleanbore]

What if the home-owner had shot the cop?

Would he be walking free?

Who knows? Calls for conjecture.

Had the policeman been in plain clothes, that would seem quite possible, if not likely, depending, of course, on just what happened.

But don't you think the fact that the officer was in uniform just might enter into the determination? The homeowner could not have mistaken the officer for another intruder!

So--the question, I should think, would come down to whether the shooting was entirely accidental, or whether, or the extent to which, the shooting of the officer had resulted from negligence.

I think the uniform would probably be the most important factor here.

 

[Deanimator]

1. If I believe a perp to be an immediate and credible threat to my life, I will continue firing until he stops being a threat. Then back away from him and leave that immediate area. I don't care what he does after I leave with my family. I don't see any benefit in standing over a limp body while his potential accomplices are unaddressed in unknown locations and are also a threat.

I don't see any benefit in leaving an armed assailant unobserved in my home. You're supposed to stop shooting once the IMMEDIATE threat has ended. That doesn't mean that the threat can't renew itself. Why should I give that potential threat the element of surprise?

2. I don't know that I would feel all that safe in my house after a gunfight following a forceable entry. I'm not going to try to clear a house by myself, and not a lot of things in a standard residential house will stop a bullet. Cover and concealment is a two way street and works for or against me. I'd rather have some room to move. And I have cover and concealment outside my house as well. I can't speak for how others landscape.

There's NOTHING in my home that doesn't perform the function of cover or concealment better than thin air outside. There's NO cover and concealment outside my home that's better than what's inside, not to mention that I KNOW every inch of my home.

3. It will make it easier for PD if you are not standing over a body holding a gun pointed at them. If you are standing with arms out and your gun on the ground in the open you're a lot less threatening.

If they're not with the program inside, they won't be outside. Why should I be LESS concerned about armed accomplices OUTSIDE with total freedom of movement than I would be of them inside? The TYPICAL home invader can't walk through walls. Nor can he shoot around corners without exposing himself to me. Going outside gives them an infinity of vantage points, and ones which allow them to attack me SEPARATELY, from SEPARATE angles. You claim not to want to "clear" a house, but will go outside in the open space that CAN'T be cleared? AND you want me to disarm myself in the bargain?

The concept of INCREASING my risk from those who EXPLICITLY wish me harm in order to decrease the risk from somebody who's SUPPOSED not to harm me is puzzling at best.

 

[Kleanbore]

Prediction:

We aren't going to find out what happened.

Right now most of what we are hearing comes to us from an attorney whose sole objective is to maximize his contingency fee at the expense of the taxpayers of Phoenix, Arizona. If that sounds accusatory, it isn't. It's just the way the world works.

All of the facts evaluated in the after action review, including forensic evidence, statements, wound data, photographs, room layouts, recordings, etc. are not available to the public. That is right and proper.

The only way the public will find out what happened would be through a jury trial, in which all of the relevant facts would be discoverable. If the trial occurs and it is convenient for you, you can sit through it.

I predict that it won't go that far. Few such suits do. Considering the public sympathy factor, the "deep pockets" syndrome, and the expense of going through a trial that could drag on for years, I predict that the city will settle out of court. We won't even know the terms of the settlement--just that it happened.

But maybe, just maybe, some people have learned something from this about risk reduction. I know I have, starting last year when the incident happened.

And perhaps the discussion will motivate others to get some qualified training. There's plenty of it available.

 

[rino451]

Couple of thoughts.

1. In how many cases where a LEO is accidently shot due to mistaken identity is there no jail time? I've heard of only one.
2. In how many cases where a civillian is accidently shot due to mistaken identity is there no jail time (or termination)? I seem to recall bunches.

There is evidence of extreme disparity even when the intent (lack there of, actually) is exactly the same.

That said, no one has actually said what they'd do with their gun if in this situation. Even ColoradoKevin only alludes to the idea that he'd still have it ready.

And in response to

In what way does this situation show that a person does not have the right to defend themselves or their property?

I believe that when we're told, and many actually believe, that one should expect to get shot in a situation like this as the good guy, going the right thing (in principle), well w/i the law, then yes, our ability to defend ourselves has been harmed in some fashion.

I'm very conflicted at the moment and would love to be able to answer for myself the question, "What would I do in this situation?"

 

[Kleanbore]

1. In how many cases where a LEO is accidently shot due to mistaken identity is there no jail time? I've heard of only one.
2. In how many cases where a civillian is accidently shot due to mistaken identity is there no jail time (or termination)? I seem to recall bunches.

I hope you have heard of none in either case.

In civilized countries, citizens are not jailed for accidents.

Now, if the state can prove criminal negligence, that's a different story. In general, that requires evidence of reckless behavior, or acting without reasonable caution.

If you shoot downrange when the shooting light is on and happen to hit someone you could not see, who was not supposed to be there, behind your target, that's likely to be considered an accident.

If your gun goes off and hits someone in your living room when you were playing with a loaded gun and not exercising prudent muzzle control, the state may charge you with criminal negligence and may well prevail.

Do not rely on these hypothetical examples.

If you shoot at a home invader and hit the child next door, I believe that any criminal blame would normally accrue to the intruder, but you would be exposed to civil liability. And as you may have learned from experience with your car, you can be judged civilly liable for an accident, even when you have exercised extreme caution.

I believe that when we're told, and many actually believe, that one should expect to get shot in a situation like this as the good guy, going the right thing (in principle), well w/i the law, then yes, our ability to defend ourselves has been harmed in some fashion.

Expect to get shot? No, but have a gun in your hand when a policeman has been sent in to stop a man with a gun, and you are at some risk.

That's common sense; that risk has been a fact of life since James Butler Hickock mistakenly shot Abilene Special Deputy Marshal Mike Williams in the heat of a gun battle and long before. Telling someone that does not change anything or abridge his rights.

I'm sure you would agree that it would be completely unreasonable for a person (either a civilian or a sworn officer) defending a third person, or a sworn officer doing his duty, to be required to gather and process sufficient information upon encountering an armed person in an emergency so as ensure that he could not avoid being shot first.

The policeman, the reporter, and the witness on which either side may depend does not see anyone at the outset as the "good guy" with a virtual white hat and a halo, radiating an aura of good citizenship. Anyone with gun in hand and without a uniform and a badge constitutes an equal apparent and potential threat, things happen in fractions of a second, and there is the potential for tragedy. Any kind of tragedy.

I'm very conflicted at the moment and would love to be able to answer for myself the question, "What would I do in this situation?"

Try one of these:

http://www.nrastore.com/nra/Product.aspx?productid=PB%2001781

http://www.shop.armedresponsetraining.com/product.sc?productId=17

And get some training. You cannot afford not to.

I'm going to get both of the above.

For me, for right now? I will probably do as I have more than once in the past and tell the perp to get going; I'll shoot if I have to; I'll be the first to dial 911, describe myself and location and stay on the line; and I'll make darn sure I am not holding a gun when help arrives.

Also, I agree with Deanimator on this : I'm not too interested in going outside, either armed or unarmed, not knowing whether there are accomplices out there.

But if the officers say "out of the house" or "get on the ground" I'll break a speed record and let gravity help.

 

[ohwell]

We are all taught in gun training and most gun manuals state "know your target and whats beyond" This officer was obviously overexcited and quick to pull the trigger as he did not know his target . What if there were kids present in the house would he have shot them at first sight to? He obviously has had very little real life training or is not mentaly fit for the extreme circumstances of that job.

 

[Kleanbore]

We are all taught in gun training and most gun manuals state "know your target and whats beyond" This officer was obviously overexcited and quick to pull the trigger as he did not know his target . What if there were kids present in the house would he have shot them at first sight to? He obviously has had very little real life training or is not mentaly fit for the extreme circumstances of that job.

A lot of assumptions there, no facts, and some unjustified conclusions. The only facts that we know are that the officer responded to a shots fired call, was told that there was a man in the house with a gun, and went in and shot the wrong person. Oh--and that after an investigation that took about a year, it was determined that the officer had followed police policy. I think that one of the things that that means is that it has been responsibly determined that there is no reason to believe that another reasonable person, knowing what the officer knew at the time, would not necessarily have done the same thing.

The details of the report and the evidence gathered and evaluated in the investigation are not public information, nor will they be unless there is a jury trial resulting from the civil suit. Should there be one, people who have the time will be able to sit through it and learn the facts. That could take months if not years. However, it would be educational.

I doubt it will ever happen, though.

I wonder how many of the people who have been so quick to judge this event in the absence of any knowledge of what actually transpired have ever taken realistic timed shoot/don't shoot training or participated in realistic force-on-force tactical training that has been developed to replicate, to the greatest extent possible, real world experience that would take hundreds of lifetime to learn in the field?

What "we are all taught in gun training" and what is contained in "most gun manuals" does not address fast-unfolding encounters in dangerous circumstances with targets that shoot back--or that shoot first, if you let them, and that's the key.

Police training has to prepare officers for those situations and for a whole lot of others that most people could likely not handle. And if the cadets do not pass the training, you will not see them on the beat.

Trained officers would be qualified to make a judgment--if they had the facts. The rest of us are not.

Pardon my responding to this off-topic tangent, but maybe, just maybe, some people will learn something that is germane to the forum on the subject of how armed confrontations differ from shooting at the range or in the field.

 

[ohwell]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=440294&highlight=Arambula

I would guess kleenbore you havent read this thread.

 

[Kleanbore]

I would guess kleenbore you havent read this thread.

Wrong.

Much of it is from an attorney whose primary objective is to maximize his contingency fee at the expense of the taxpayers of the city of Phoenix, Arizona--whatever it takes. Looks like you've bought it.

Ever been sued?

I have. Wait until they start trying to value the "loss of cohabitation." Sweet guys.

Ever defended a policeman who has been sued for actions in a gunfight? I haven't, but I have friends who have. Pretty nasty story about what the plaintiffs try to portray.

 

[billdeserthills]

Just wondering, but can a person be "accidentally shot" 6 times by the same officer? I'm sure, if the cop in question was wielding a machine gun, the answer could be "maybe' How about with a handgun that requires the trigger be pulled for each seperate shot fired, my answer is $5 million. See that is the magical deductable in Arizona. After you cross the 5 Mil line then you get the liability insurance companies lawyers involved...

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

6 shots from a pistol?

In a crazy situation?


Those six shots will come out faster than you can blink your eye.

 

[C-grunt]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=440294&highlight=Arambula

I would guess kleenbore you havent read this thread.

In that link the victim states the suspect shot out his window to get in. So the suspect was armed in the incident prior to the shooting.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/...ght_Cops_Planning_Cover-Up_After_Shooting.htm
She even admits in the lawyers writing here that she didnt tell Lilly but the Sgt that her husband was the one with the gun. It also states they announced "POLICE" when they entered and the shooting was soon after.

So it seems from here officer Lilly is responding to a guy who just shot his way through a window, goes inside and sees a man holding a gun on another man who is on the ground. He thinks the gunman is the suspect and fires. It turns out the gunman isnt the suspect but the homeowner. Its tragic but I fail to see the criminal intent or negligence in the situation.

 

[coloradokevin]

That said, no one has actually said what they'd do with their gun if in this situation. Even ColoradoKevin only alludes to the idea that he'd still have it ready.

And in response to

In what way does this situation show that a person does not have the right to defend themselves or their property?

I believe that when we're told, and many actually believe, that one should expect to get shot in a situation like this as the good guy, going the right thing (in principle), well w/i the law, then yes, our ability to defend ourselves has been harmed in some fashion.

I'm very conflicted at the moment and would love to be able to answer for myself the question, "What would I do in this situation?"

Well, in my initial reply I specifically avoided the issue of what I'd do with my gun, just because it opens up a whole new set of questions. Personally, if possible I'd try to have the gun out of my hands when the officers arrived. Obviously this may or may not be possible depending on the situation, and there are so many variables that would control the viability of such a decision that it will ultimately have to come down to the choice of the individual in the situation (ex: did you shoot the suspect? If yes, does it appear that he is completely incapacitated? If yes, do you need to keep the gun pointed at him, or are you confident enough that he is out of the fight that you can comfortably reholster the weapon? Again, there are an infinite number of possible variations).

Alternatively, if I chose to keep my gun ready, I might be able to somehow try to visually indicate that I'm not a criminal! By way of example on that part, I once responded to a situation where someone was said to be armed with a gun and causing problems. When I arrived on the scene I found an older male pointing a gun at a person who was proned out in front of him. Obviously my attention was drawn to both of these individuals, though I noticed that the person with the gun didn't very closely match the description I was given of the suspect.

I also immediately noticed that this party was holding the gun with his right hand, and was holding an article of identification in the air with his left hand. As we exited our vehicles and approached, this subject almost immediately communicated to us in a loud, clear, and calm voice, stating: "Officers, tell me how and when you'd like me to put my gun down... the guy on the ground is still armed". This subject also didn't make any sudden movements, and did not attempt to turn in our direction.

We would later learn that the subject who was holding the other party at gunpoint was a retired police officer from a nearby department. In my mind, this former officer's actions helped to prevent a needless tragedy in this situation. His demeanor in this quickly evolving situation certainly gave all of us enough pause to consider that he was very likely not the criminal in this instance, even though we still carefully approached the situation and contained the scene.


To your second point, I don't believe that someone should expect to be shot in a situation like the one described in this thread. If I made it sound like that was my opinion, then I apologize for failing to explain my point more clearly. I do believe that people should recognize that there is a possibility that their actions could potentially result in them being shot in a situation like this, due to the fact that these situations happen quickly, involve guns, involve adrenaline, and the possibility of a misidentification by another stranger (good guy) who is also armed.

 

[Dwrice]

So the officer fired 6 shots at the homeowner before realizing 'oops'? And of course he was cleared....un-freaking-believable. If a civilian saw a silhouette of a man with a gun drawn on his property, sneaking around his house, and opened fire, only to have it be an officer, you know for sure it would be a completely different outcome. :banghead:

That happend out here a homeowner shot an officer on a department east of where I live when the officer was responding to an alarm call in the guy's house. The guy came up behind the officer who was in full uniform. The officer had vest on which stopped the round but talk about not knowing your target.

 

[rino451]

Kleanbore, your common sense comment would lend validity to the statement that "our ability to defend ourselves has been harmed in some fashion" because it shows that we're now very comfortable assuming that a person with a gun is a bg and we're willing to disregard the consequences of a bad shoot just because it's now common sense.

Regarding the specifics of this shoot, about the only thing that I can see based on this thread that would exonerate the LEO is that it appears that the wife came out a little crazed. I can understand where someone going into that house might be a little on edge and would assume that all previous info was now invalid. Also, w/o hearing the 911 tape and radio traffic, I am assuming that the LEO entering the house was aware that the bg was being detained and that the gg was armed and in control of the situation. Big assumtions, but I do not think it unreasonable to assume that they were aware of the situation. Maybe in the end, it was the wife's actions that led to the unfortunate accident.

IMO, coloradokevin's situation is exactly how it should go down and how civilians should expect it to go down, vs. the now "common sense" idea that I would put myself in a more dangerous situation than that of having an armed intruder roaming around in my house while I'm asleep or even trying to singlehandedly put restraints on him so I can be gun free when the LEO arrives. More clearly, the arrival of the LEO should be less dangerous/deadly to the GG's. We should expect that. One should feel glad that the LEO's have arrived and one should reasonably assume that their presence will make the situation less dangerous rather than more.

Kelanbore, Are you saying that you'd toss your gun once the LEO's arrive or roll the dice? I'm not taking sides on what to do, I just believe that civillians should be able to expect more from the LEO's when it comes to gg safety what what you've indicated in this thread.

I think that at this point, if I'm not alone, I'm inclined to have the other person (my spouse for instance) decline entry to LEO's and make the bg leave the residence first. Again, I"m conflicted. It makes no sense...the bg's should be the ones expecting to get shot. Incident's like the one that went bad should and might do more to increase the likelihood of that. That's about as clear as I"ll be on that issue.

I work in a highrise and almost had the opportunity to talk to the LEO's about what to expect in an active shooter situation. I really wanted to discuss in private with one of them the nuances that a CCW'er would run into in that type of situation and see whether there was some sort of policy that takes into account that there might be someone other than the bg who is armed and what they'd want us to do.

Maybe that's a large part of the problem - agencies are designed and trained to work w/o regard to having and working with (as in the Arambula case) an armed populace.

Sorry, I got to rambling. Hopefully it made some sense.

 

[rino451]

Kleanbore, I followed your training links and the irony of this http://www.shop.armedresponsetraining.com/product.sc?productId=17 is epic!

 

[Kleanbore]

...we're now very comfortable assuming that a person with a gun is a bg and we're willing to disregard the consequences of a bad shoot just because it's now common sense.

No to both! Regarding the first, one has to assume that a person with a gun in a house where shooting has been reported may be a threat, and the decision process must take that into account. The problem is, you may have the space of a heartbeat in which to decide.

To the latter--we do not disregard the consequences, but there is a very fundamental difference between an accident and the result of a failure to exercise reasonable caution.

..about the only thing that I can see based on this thread that would exonerate the LEO is...

You have the facts, the forensic evidence, the photographs, the layouts, and the report?

And one more time: trained officers would be qualified to make a judgment--if they had the facts. The rest of us are not, and none of us have the facts.

More clearly, the arrival of the LEO should be less dangerous/deadly to the GG's.

Yep.

Are you saying that you'd toss your gun once the LEO's arrive or roll the dice?

I use a pocket holster, but if I didn't have it I'd put the gun down. Simple, common sense risk reduction.

That's assuming I didn't have a perp at gunpoint, which I think is a bone-headed thing to try to do for several cogent reasons.

If by chance I were holding someone, there is advice on what to do earlier in the thread.

I think that at this point, if I'm not alone, I'm inclined to have the other person (my spouse for instance) decline entry to LEO's and make the bg leave the residence first.

NO!

...see whether there was some sort of policy that takes into account that there might be someone other than the bg who is armed and what they'd want us to do.

I think you are missing the point. The police in Phoenix undoubtedly know full well that there are many, many lawful armed citizens throughout Arizona. They do not assume otherwise. But in a situation involving the pursuit of an armed VCA indoors, events unfold in less than tenths of seconds, and there is always the possibility of an unfortunate result.

Let's see---

Shots have been fired, bad guy is said to be in there, armed and dangerous, your job is to get him. ........Man with a gun!

Hesitate and get shot, let the bad guy shoot the good guy, or maybe, go on down the hall. or

Shoot now and stop the bad guy or hit the wrong person.​

One good possible outcome with each decision.

And at least one bad possible outcome with each.

You have to decide and act in less time than it takes to say "bad gu....".​

Just what policy would you want to adopt?

 

[rino451]

You have the facts, the forensic evidence, the photographs, the layouts, and the report?

Guess you missed the part where I said

I can understand where someone going into that house might be a little on edge and would assume that all previous info was now invalid. Also, w/o hearing the 911 tape and radio traffic, I am assuming that the LEO entering the house was aware that the bg was being detained and that the gg was armed and in control of the situation. Big assumtions, but I do not think it unreasonable to assume that they were aware of the situation.

Reading, it's fundamental. And, I knew someone would read WAY more into the word exonerated, but I used it out of convenience.

From what I've heard in this case, there was more than tenths of a second to ascertain what was going on (which apparently/obviously/admittedly? never occurred) particularly if no one saw a gun (again, I'm going on what was said).

I also admittedly forgot to add the previous shootout as another "exonerating" circumstance (lol - don't take the word out of context, I'm using it out of convenience).

Just what policy would you want to adopt?

Dunno, but my job. Just saying that this case might be evidence that policy doesn't consider the armed citizen enough to eliminate potential bad outcomes. May be it's possible, maybe not. just a point to consider.

At then end of the day, I inclined to think that it's more dangerous to me to have LEO's come "help" with a bg that's still capable of harm. That's now common sense.

 

[Spirit 1]

"Arambula, 36, was armed and holding a suspect at bay when he suffered gunshot wounds to his back and arm, according to the complaint.

Arambula claimed Lilly shot him twice as he lay bleeding on the floor of his living room, his wife and two young sons nearby.

The suspect, Angel Anastacio Canales, had broken into Arambula's home near 32nd Street and Thomas Road as officers tracked him from a "shots-fired" call in the area.

Arambula had the gunman cornered in his 12-year-old son's room when the officer opened fire."

There seems to be more than a little question as to who was where & when.

First it was said the homeowner was shot in his son's room, then I see him shot as he lay on the living room floor bleeding?

Some of the statements I see here show his wife was outside, but the above also says she was inside and witnessed the shooting, as he lay on the floor bleeding?

I don't see any indication of why homeowner was on the floor, bleeding. Was it from the 4 other shots fired by police officer, or from the perp's attack, or what?

Was he first shot in his son's room, with one of the officer's 4 initial shots, then ran out of the room to avoid being killed, and the officer pursued, and homeowner fell to the floor in the living room, and officer put 2 more in him there?

Is the normal rule for police answering calls to shoot first, ask questions later? That's just a question, straight up, no insinuation.

Isn't there any training or policy that has the officer state a command or warning before firing, like "Drop the gun!", "Put the gun DOWN!", "FREEZE!" or anything else, allowing whomever to first obey the command before being shot?

Sure would be nice to see more precise info on the exact details of this but of course everything is sealed because of civil suit. We do know from experience that most media specializes in the sensational aspects of a story for their bread & butter. Then 'Official Sources' invariably give as little info as possible, or none, "No official comment at this time." Witness stories may change.

Someone once said to me that you are in a much better situation overall if the bad guy is never able to make an official statement following an 'event'. Makes sense I guess. So, practice, practice, practice....

 

[rbernie]

Are we back to discussing LE policy (which does us no good) instead of how to avoid this situation (which might be useful)?

Pretty much.

Guys - I've come this close <holding thumb and index finger together> to closing this thread at least three times now. Each time, I've relented out of a sense that maybe, just MAYBE we can keep this turning into a pointless rant against police procedure and speculation about events of which we have ZERO first-hand knowledge.

I'm done hoping. Thanks to those that kept it on track and tried to actually inject useful content.