Police Officer Fatally Shot by another Officer...Many Lessons to be Learned Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where to start...

By Byron Quick:
Personally, in the place of the plainsclothes officer, immediately after firing my weapon, I would have been holding a badge aloft where uniformed officers could see it. As a private citizen, I would have reholstered my weapon after firing. I would have fired no warning shots at anyone.
Click to expand...


That sounds real good, but holding a badge above your head isn't realistic. For starters you are much more easily disarmed and are already off balance with your arm above your head. Holstering your firearm afterwards may be ok if it was just you and the shootee, but in a CROWD of people who were throwing beer cans at you? You can't be serious. As far as warning shots are concerned, there is no question about the lack of tactical judgement that took. As I stated before though, whether he actually shoots at someone three times into the air appears irrelevant to his subsequently being shot. The responding officer likely(and wisely) assumed he was shooting at people.



By CAS:
And, as for the second situation, we can hardly fault the responding officer for firing on a man with a gun. And, before many of you cast fault, think back to other threads where we've all talked about dropping the hammer to eliminate the perceived threat without hesitation. Think of the threads about finding an intruder in your home, and dropping the hammer on him because of the possible threat to you and yours. How can we fault an officer who is in the area, hears shots fired, and sees a man with a gun?
Click to expand...

That is complete BS. We can fault him because he is a murderer. You know CAS, I know you're a leo from your previous postings. For your sake you'd better hope you never find yourself in that situation with an officer who fails to make an attempt to apprehend you and just shoots you in the back.

In order to understand the tactical failure here, you have to first acknowledge what everyones role in the situation is. The police are not judge, jury, and executioner. They have a duty to apprehend suspects not kill them outright. In this case proper tactics clearly dictate that a verbal challenge be issued to the 'suspect' to cease activity and comply with the uniformed recognized authority. I see no indication such challenge was issued in any link posted here or in any other reading on this incident. That one simple and required step would have averted tragedy. The responding officer shot the other IN THE BACK! He is a murderer without question IMO.

You know, life in society is like one BIG team. Your tactics on everything from concealed carry to your trip to work rely upon your fellow teammates to do their part in the plan. I have had the unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your take) occasion of drawing my concealed handgun in self defense, or defense of another, one several occasions. In each case I did not have to fire because presentation of the weapon along with a verbal challenge de-escalated the situation and caused the scumbag to cease physical hostility. Some day I may not be so lucky.

At any rate, on the most recent occasion (detailed elsewhere on here), I had the scumbag at gunpoint when the police arrived. I was not shot when he arrived either. That's my point here. Your tactics for any situation involve relying upon assumptions, or direct knowledge as the case may be, about what other people on your team are susposed to do. In this instance the biggest tactical error goes to the responding officer for failing to assess the situation and failing to issue a verbal challenge before taking a shot. I see no reasonable tactical change the other officer could have made after the action started that would have prevented his death because his reasonable tactics included relying upon teammates to do their part. They failed him. Criminally so IMO.


I.C.
 
I.C.
We won't have the political comment here in Strategies and Tactics. You can go over to the thread in GGD and call people murders all day long if you want, but you can't do it here.

I'm sorry but there are no boilerplate or cookie cutter solutions to all tactical problems and there is no established case law that requires you to challenge someone before you shoot. No one, not the police nor a private citizen is held to that standard all the time. No one here at THR knows what the responding officer saw and how he perceived it. It is quite possible that he was positive that he had a crazed gunman shooting up the crowd and the only proper response was to shoot him. In this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=158123 we are discussing a case where an off duty Sheriff's deputy working as a security guard is being sued by the children of the convenience store clerk who died in a robbery while the security guard was working. BTW, the security guard shot and killed the robber, but they are trying to hold him civilly liable because apparently, he was too slow to shoot and commanded the robber to drop his gun. The clerk told the robber to leave the store, the robber shot the clerk and the security guard shot the robber. Would the clerk be alive today if the security guard had shot the robber without challenging him? Would the security guard be a murderer if he shot the robber without challenging him? By your standards he would be.

Every situation is different. Every set of circumstances is different. I've worked a few large events and things can get pretty confusing for the officers involved. A few years ago at a large parade, we recived a report of a local we knew flashing a gun and threatening some people in the crowd. It was just like I related in my earlier post, everyone in the immediate area with a cell phone was calling 911 to report what they saw. Both telecommunicators on duty were swamped and trying to put out updated information as it came in. We received reports of everything from the subject lifting his shirt to show the gun in his waistband to him waving it around and threatening people. We managed to steer him out of the crowd and took him down...and recovered an airsoft pistol from his waistband. I can only imaging what a mess the situation would have been had he had a real gun and had fired shots into the air. It's entirely possible that the officer thought the other officer was about to shoot someone else, we don't know, we weren't there and we didn't hear any of the radio traffic that told him what was going on.

So the question remains, how can we avoid being the victim in a blue on blue engagement should we have to use our weapon in a similar situation?

Yes, I have responded to calls where the citizen was holding a suspect at gunpoint, and no I didn't automatically shoot the citizen, but Iknew beforehand that the citizen was holding the person at gunpoint. So I had some idea who was who. It's much more difficult to figure out what's going going on in a crowd like that.

So do you always challenge and maybe sacrifice the life of an innocent person if the badguy shoots when you challenge him, or do you sometimes shoot to stop another person from being killed because there is no time to challege?

Jeff
 
So the question remains, how can we avoid being the victim in a blue on blue engagement should we have to use our weapon in a similar situation?
Click to expand...

I've been told by a couple people (one of whom is a LEO) that if I'm ever placed in a situation where the cops are expecting trouble, I should hold my wallet up in the air as though it were a badge. The idea being that the police will at least pause before opening up. The problem is, if I have the time to collect my wits enough to do that, I would probably also have the time to re-holster, leave the immediate area or do something else to improve my chances of survival.

The only other thing I can think of is to make sure you go to low ready any time you're not shooting. Maybe if you're clearly not aiming at anything, you'll look like less of a threat.

From what I've read so far, however, this sounds like one of those cases where you can do everything right, but still get yourself killed. If you're involved in an ongoing altercation and a LEO or CCW decides to shoot first and ask questions later, I don't see anything you could do... Practice screaming for help while you shoot?
 
Again, resonable assumptions can be made about this situation based on known or stated facts. We know for a fact that the under cover officer was shot in the back. It is logical to assume that no verbal challenge was made in this case because of that. In Kansas (Texas I know for sure as well) commissioned peace officers are essentially "always on duty". They have a duty to enforce the law even when off duty. In the other thread you mentioned I believe the officer had a duty to enforce the law. I also believe the palin clothes officer here had a duty to enforce the law.

The real question about tactics in this instance begins after the shots are fired. In the air or at someone it does not matter. Factually, we know he was surrounded by a hostile crowd (beer cans thrown from many people). Does anyone reading this honestly believe a reasonable and prudent person would holster their weapon after having fired shots in this instance? I don't. Would a reasonable and prudent person hold a badge above their head and take one hand off of their weapon to do so in this situation? Would you even be able to think to do so while surrounded by hostiles? Again, and again, I don't think so. It remains then do you think the responding officer had a right to shoot the armed suspect in the back without first determining why the subject is armed and issuing a challenge? Again, I don't believe he did. That goes to the root of the tactics here. Unless you can answer "no" to that last question nothing else matters. As a "man with a gun" you are essentially dead on sight. How do YOU propose to prevent that if the answer to that question is yes?

I see plenty of tactical changes that, made before the shooting started (hidden agenda, color of the day, carrrying a multi-band radio, notify uniformed of UC presence), would have prevented this tragedy. I see no realistic change after the shooting started, especially if the shooter was not in LE, that would have made any difference in the outcome. If you truly want to analyze this situation honestly and prevent this from happening to people who CCW, then you will have to accept the fact that the primary tactical failure resides with the responding officer. In order to judge someones tactics honestly you have to be able to admit when someone makes a mistake, even if they are on your side of wall.

Edit to address this from Jeff White also:
So do you always challenge and maybe sacrifice the life of an innocent person if the badguy shoots when you challenge him, or do you sometimes shoot to stop another person from being killed because there is no time to challege?
Click to expand...

Yes you do. To do anything less would be a failure of duty IMO. Even if it was my life that would have been saved. People willing to continue shooting in the presence of uniformed police, while sensationalized, are rare. If you witness a shooting thats different. If you come upon "a man with a gun" you must issue a challenge as a LEO. This situation is an example of exactly why. Not to mention the obvious others, like identify your target.



I.C.
 
insideous calm... I sincerely agree with your theoretical idea of a higher standard and self sacrifice for the ideal. Unfortunatly it is flawed in concept.

As a police firearms instructor for my agency I teach our policy to each officer on a twice annual basis. We highly reccommend the officers issue a challenge before shooting "IF" in their opinion it is safe to do so. We also teach them to shoot without a challange if in their judgement of the situation it is warranted.

To ask an officer to stand up and take the first shot because it is a "duty requirement" or "the right thing to do" or "Morally Superior" is just plain silly.

This case in Orlando has a lot going wrong at once. While the uniform officer was a reserve officer it was after a 25 year full time career with the Orlando Police. Retired officers in Orlando often stay on as a reserve. It may well be that the responding officer is at fault for poor tactics. It may well be that the responding officer with his over 25 years of experience had a brain fart and screwed up. If so there will be some sort of retribution for his actions. Even so you can not call him a murderer if he acted in good faith on the information presented.

I might also mention that we now have a student with a bullet hole as well. The early stories are confusing but it seems that "maybe" the UC was not firing in the air but was fighting for his gun. We are living in interesting times.
 
Foto,

It's not really about self sacrifice. The officer was shot in the back. If you can't get lead on someone before they shoot you while they are facing away from you you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun. A verbal challenge is just that. Like asking a driver for a license only with more serious implications.

Speaking of, consider the serious implications of what you and Jeff are suggesting. If I can't count on the police to ask questions first and shoot if it's warranted, then ANY officer approaching me in the above situation with his gun drawn is also a threat to my life and it becomes a no win situation for all involved. Surely you can see that. The one and only realistic solution IMO is to challenge first. Especially in a situation where a) you have "the drop" on the suspect and his immediate attention is elsewhere, and b) you have time to draw and aim before making said challenge. The risk to the responding officer is no greater in that instance, again IMO, than the risk of being in a gunfight to begin with. Think about it.


I.C.
 
If you come upon "a man with a gun" you must issue a challenge as a LEO.
Click to expand...

Just had Jeff tell you there was no case law calling for such.

And you're still at 'must.'

IC, evidence is staring you dead in the face that the above quote of yours is NOT FACTUAl. It might be your opinion and also a deeply held core value developed over decades of dedicated study but the law and the police are not marching to your drum.
 
IC,

Your posts had me doubting my reading comprehension. So I went back and read both of the articles on each of the threads. Neither gives details of the UC being shot in the back or being assaulted by a bevy of beer cans. Do you have a link to these articles?
 
I.C., In "this case" you may be right. We know so far that there was no official coordination between the Orlando Police, UCF police and the Alcohol enforcement officers the UCF cop was working with. The local paper is reporting about 60 days till the FDLE gets the investigation completed. That does not however make the "shoot first" policy wrong and I still support the option.

I was not there but feel comfortable in believing that this incident has much more wrong with it than a simple challenge. I will continue to teach officers to "shoot first" when they believe it is the right thing to do under the circumstances they alone are in. Even the Supreme Court supports the premise that an officers actions must be judged base on the circumstance encountered, not after the fact critique.

I will add however that there is a trend in the field where officers are not shooting when they should. They are allowing their humanity to guide their actions as well as fears of liability. Some officers are dead as a result of not taking immediate action to neutralize a threat. There comes a price for all decisions both good and bad.
 
The sole instigating factor here was the officer who fired warning shots into the air. If the responding officer received reports of a man shooting people it is entirely possible that he may have felt he had to engage the threat without warning... for example after firing his warning shots the firing officer likely was holding his weapon in a horizontal position, pointing at somebody.

It's possible that an opportunity might have existed for verbal warnings and the like, but IMO it was more probable that the responding officer believed he was in a situation where he had no time, and had to shoot without warning.

The responsability for this rests, IMO and unfortunately, with the slain officer. Even if the responding officer made a mistake the slain officer created the high-pressure split second decision situation where such a mistake was more likely.

The slain officer put himself in this position, AND endangered lives with his 3 rounds headed off to God knows where.

The tactical solution to preventing this problem is 3 fold: 1. Don't fire warning shots. 2. If undercover don't blow your cover. He was there to investigate underage drinking, not throw his weight around with fans that were getting a little rowdy. He should have backed off and called for uniformed backup if he felt the situation needed to be handled. Likewise if he needed to make an underage arrest he should have called for uniformed backup. 3. After firing your weapon (hopefully NOT as warning shots) immediately ID yourself as an officer loudly and obviously as possible.
 
hm.. tough call.

1. shoot only when deadly force is required. no warning shots.
2. immediately lower gun and retreat to safe zone (back to wall).
3. Flash CCW badge / Police Badge to everyone, yelling "Police"

- if you are not police, you can always explain that you are yelling for the police to come to your assistance afterwards.

perhaps someone can design a CCW badge made of brass? Then make it a membership of some NPO... so whent he cop looks he sees a guy with a badge and a gun.

explanations can ensue afterwards over coffee at the station.
 
Legal Tests

I am hearing the Orange County Grand Jury will get to review this case... which seems entirely appropriate... I sure don't have enough information to make a call at this point. From what I hear best guesses are about 50/50 that the officer doing the shoot will get charged by the DA. My guess is some legal tests have not been met to justify the use of deadly force... but more probably remains to be heard.

From a tactical point of view, I think the Campus Cop (CC) made serious tactical mistakes from the onset... got way too close to a crowd (crowds can be dangerous), did not recognize his limitations and as a result didn't disengage and yell for help. Of course the "warning" shots were incredibly stupid... probably felony stupid IMHO.

I suspect, had the Orlando PD reserve (OPDr) officer arrived to find the CC holding his sidearm on someone yelling in a more or less professional manner for the guy to "get on the ground" the reaction might have been different.

There is also the unanswered question of who shot the student and when. Again, probably going to be interesting legal issue, but it highlights the danger arising from the OPDr shooting into a crowd...

One thing sure... a major contribution to the lawyer's retirement funds is about to take place.

V/r

Chuck
 
There was a shooting at a nightclub in Columbus, Ohio several months ago, discussed on this board. An officer responded to a "shots fired" call and found people fleeing from the nightclub (Al Rosa, forgive the spelling). the officer took his Remington 870 shotgun, snuck in the back door, came up behind the bad guy, and took a single head shot that ended the situation. No challenge was issued. The officer was lauded on this board, and in the media, for being a hero.

Now, we have an officer in Florida responds to a shots fired situation, comes up behind the man with a gun, issues no challenge, and shoots the gunman.

What's the difference in these two situations? Well, after the fact, we know that the Columbus officer shot and killed a murderer. The Orlando officer shot and killed an undercover officer. In both situations, we have an officer rushing into an unknown situation, hearing shots fired, and seeing people flee in panic. The officers go in, see an individual with a gun, and assume that is the threat. IN both situations, the officer took action to end the threat, without a challenge.

Now, if we leave aside for this thread the issue of whether or not a challenge should or should not always be issued, we as armed individuals in plain clothes must consider the very real fact that , there but for the grace of God, go you and I. Imagine you fire shots to defend yourself, or your family, are covering the danger, and have an officer rush up on you while the smoke has yet to clear. The concern here is how to not get shot by the responding officer. The hard part is that I don't know a certain answer. I have a badge in my pocket. I would hope that holding it up above my head would help. BUt, I have never trained at drawing my badge immediately after firing shots. I have trained to assume a low-ready and watch for threats.

What I truly appreciate about this thread is that it has gotten me thinking about what to do immediately after shots are fired. Not in terms of what to say after the LEO's arrive, to ask for counsel, etc. No, more importantly how to make sure that I have not just survived the threat, but also to ensure that I survive the arrival of help.

To be honest, this has me reconsidering the fact that I often have carried a J frame to football games and such, out of my jurisdiction, where an officer would see me as just a man with a gun, and not a face known as an LEO. Perhaps pepper and a good sense of awareness would serve me better.

Thanks for the thread. Much thinking to do on this one.
 
I still think a challenge is the right thing to do. If you start saying as a general rule LEO's can shoot first and ask questions later any time they feel it is necessary, you are going to have a lot of innocent dead people. (I'll avoid the police state argument.) I don't think the reverse would be true. I don't have a problem with allowing officers to assess situations, but I think shooting first should be discouraged. Also, should the officer accept as truth wild eyed people screaming about shooting going on?

I am not an LEO, but I am a CHL holder so there is some self-interest here. If there is a policy allowing officers to shoot first, I want to know what I need to do to keep from being shot (I shouldn't have to worry about that). I may not always be able to walk away, reholster, or hold my hands in the air.

My question would be what was the deceased officer doing when the 2nd officer approached? Was he just standing there? Lots of additional details would be helpful in this particular case.
 
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...,3671318.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-orange


A Saturday afternoon tailgating party before the University of Central Florida's home opener: a brawl breaks out. An undercover officer shot in the back, killed by another policeman. A young man also shot, no one's sure by whom.

In less than 20 minutes, the staccato details about the police shooting rippled around the Florida Citrus Bowl -- murmured from the lips of parking attendants or shouted in slurred, drunken speech across the streets.

Tears mangled black-and-gold face paint on a trio of women, their school pride transformed into school sorrow. Like many who saw the shooting, they were too distraught to do more than nod. The crowd still poured into the stadium to watch the game.

Dozens of witnesses were corralled into police custody, but more had watched the scene unfold.

On the sidewalk, 23-year-old Jim Reidy repeated his version of the tale. "OK, I saw it all from beginning to end," Reidy said. "It started off with a brawl."

A scuffle broke out in the rows of cars, amid tailgaters and behind a row of six portable toilets, he said. A plainclothes officer, the University of Central Florida Police Department's Mario Jenkins, wrestled with another man.

"It went a little haywire," Reidy said. "He [the officer] had 20 to 30 people standing around, throwing beer at him. Things started to go bad. That's when he whipped out a gun, waving it around. And that's when the other officer started to shoot," Reidy said.

Nicole Jorgensen watched Jenkins confront the other man. She saw the beer fly. She heard the shots.

"He [Jenkins] was coughing up a lot of blood," she said. "It looked like his life was over."

Several people continued to tailgate inside the crime scene, cups brimming with beer and their gas grill a few feet from the black-and-yellow police line.
Click to expand...


...and

From post number 30 in this thread on here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=157928&page=2&pp=25
"The uniformed cop didn't know what was going on," McCormick said. "He just saw somebody holding a gun, and he shot the undercover cop three times in the back -- boom, boom, boom."
Click to expand...



So here we are, the facts as we know them from what's been posted so far, indicate as stated earlier that "a man with a gun" was shot in the back at least three times. No mention of a challenge has been made. For some reason some on this board would like to consider pie in the sky theories about what happened when things don't support their positions, and make libelous claims about things I've not said. Fine. I have asked for someone, anyone, to provide a realistic tactical action that would have prevented this from happening, none have been forthcoming.

I have stated that IMO, (that means in my opinion, in case some were confused by its liberal use in my earlier posts) the responding officer must provide a verbal challenge in order to prevent this tragedy from happening. It's certainly reasonable to expect such as someone who is armed regularly IMO, and it certainly seems to have been prudent in this instance based upon what we've seen.

I'll clarify this even more for those who seem to have difficulty understanding what I'm saying. I have not said, nor implied, that an officer could never "shoot first" as it were. What I have said and continue to say is that if an officer, or CHL holder for that matter, comes upon "a man with a gun" either before or after an actual shooting has occurred, AND he did not witness the shooting and the circumstances that led to it, he must issue a challenge before taking the shot. You, me, we are responsible for any lead that we send downrange, period. Possession of a firearm does not make someone a bad guy as many of you are implying here with your statements. If you shoot someone without knowing for certain that they are indeed a bad guy, especially in public, then you are liable for their death, criminally so IMO.

I have provided what I believe to be the most appropriate tactical solution to this problem. No one has offered a reasonable alternative. What I suggest should work everytime it's tried, including the case of armed citizens. Now, stop bashing me and provide an alternative if you can.



I.C.
 
So yelling a challenge is going to do the trick? Guess what? If you're yelling on my left, you could be using a foghorn. I won't hear you. So the cop shoots after I 'ignore' his challenge.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't possibly use a verbal challenge. I just don't think that it's the be all and end all of this situation as you seem to think. I wouldn't have shot at the point that the reserve officer did. But that is following my own doctrine, i.e, don't intervene in situations until your are sure exactly what situation you intervening in. Guy with a gun, shots fired, none being fired now: Continue to observe, seek cover, don't draw a gun so someone doesn't shoot me in the back. Guy with the gun might be the white hat.

I don't consider citizen's arrest to be part of my defensive skill set. I'm not going to point a gun at an alleged criminal to hold them for the police. So I'm not going to have that problem.

You are correct about one thing: there's not much that we can do to prove we're the good guy with a gun in our hand in a crowd.

Now, we've all been concentrating on assault by beer cans and shot in the back. We're getting sidetracked from the main issue: how can we avoid being shot by mistake by a police officer or even another person carrying concealed after having to use our weapon for self defense.

I'm not going to have to worry about the underage drinkers trying to get my gun away or assaulting me with beer cans or brick bats. I'm not going to be kicking over their little red wagon to begin with. Solution of that immediate scenario-the sets of our actions intersect at no point.

OK? So, you've just shot someone who was ten feet away and was holding a large butcher knife against his torso as he sidled towards you with explicit descriptions of his intentions. Therefore, you shot him. Either with or without warning-your choice. However, all the witnesses were behind him. They didn't see the knife for they couldn't see through his body. They didn't hear your warning due to distance just as they didn't hear his explicit description of your forthcoming dissection. All they heard was sound and a couple of shots.


I'm going to reholster my gun. Just in case someone there sees a threat and wants to remove it. I just removed it for them. Shout for 911. Shout for EMS. Shout for the police. A psycho murderer isn't going to be calling for the police.

I think that some in this thread are not giving themselves enough credit as far as retaining an ability to act soundly under extreme pressure. I've been in some stressful situations. More than once. I was able to keep my head and what tactical sense I have intact. That doesn't mean I wasn't scared but fear doesn't necessarily turn you into a gibbering idiot, either.

Another thought, are there that many murderers or psychos running loose who have good gun tactics? Safe as well? I think that if I saw someone scanning his surroundings at low ready after shooting that a light bulb would go off that said,"This might be a police officer or a lawfully armed citizen...maybe I should observe further before engaging." Maybe some of the LEO's could add more to this. Safe handling and good tactics...how often do you know of criminals employing such?
 
insidious calm

Let me say that, first of all, I agree that a challenge, in most circumstances, is a good idea. Especially as an atrorney who would be representing an officer in any post-shooting law suits. A challenge can be good. At the same time, I don't like absolutes. I don't like the idea of "must challenge before shooting" because of situations where the challenge would be useless or, worse, inspire additional violence.

But, what I'm curious about, and I think the purpose of this thread is, is what you might suggest as an armed citizen, to avoid being shot? I mean, if we get away from the specifics of this situation for a moment, because it is fraught with difficulties, let us consider any officer responding to a shots fired call. Officer arrives to find you with gun in hand, or hand on gun in holster. In that initial instant, you need to communicate to the officers that you are the good guy so that you don't get shot. Screaming "Don't shoot" might be a good idea. For me, I would hope to have badge in hand and visible, but if not I need to be sure no to make a quick reach for it.

I think one thing we need to all remember is that the first order of the officer is going to be "drop the gun" if the gun is drawn, or "hands up" if holstered. We need to be prepared to do so, to drop or set the gun down quickly, forget your concerns about the finish, what's on the ground, etc. Put your hands up, and be ready for them to take your gun. This ain't "cold, dead fingers" time.

Any other thoughts? By the way, I've found this to be one of the most thought provoking threads I've come across in quite some time. Thanks to all who are participating. It's a deadly important topic.
 
Well, FWIW, I can tell you what I think made the difference in my case. When the police arrived to find me and scumbag at a standoff with my glock at the low ready I made eye contact with the officer and holstered my weapon after I acknowledged his presence. No way I could have done it before then because the threat was still there threatening to kill everyone he was mad at. The officer appeared visibly relieved by my actions. It is also worth noting, that after seeing me do this the officer did not draw his weapon upon exiting the vehicle, he did have his hand on his gun but did not draw, and did not disarm me. He proceeded to ask me for an explanation of what the heck was going on.

Now, I dialed 911 after the initial wrestling match and simply threw the phone down on the counter and proceeded out the door after everyone. I know that the business next door called 911 also, and reported "a man with a gun in the parking lot next door yelling and screaming and pointing the gun at someone". Of course they didn't call 911 for the girl beating on their backdoor screaming for help and running from the scumbag or even open the door to help her :rolleyes: , but apparently the "man with a gun" warranted their attention. The first officer to respond had been told by dispatch that my business had placed an offhook 911 call, and the business next door had reported an altercation in the parking lot involving a man with a gun.

The main difference that I see is the fact that I saw the officer approaching and acknowledged him before he even got out of his vehicle. In the above case I don't believe the UC officer ever knew that other officers had arrived on the scene. This is the main crux of my point, and my anger at the outcome. I believe that he was shot without being given a chance to identify himself and without having actually witnessed him harm another individual without justification. What makes a gun any different than say a bat, or a crowbar? I simply don't believe there is any other than the stigmatism propagated by the anti's and bought into by those who fall for it.

As far as keeping yourself alive when officers approach, I believe the key is two-fold. First, see them coming, and second make yourself appear "visibly disarming". What I mean is that there was a visible difference between me and the scumbag. When the officer came up I relaxed and holstered my firearm, the scumbag got more mouthy and agitated and begin saying all manner of things about me as fast as he could as if he was the victim. Do not project your anger and tension toward the officer. Cooperate immediately so they know you are not a threat.


I.C.
 
FotoTomas,

If Officer Smith saw Officer Jenkins actiing as photo #1 shows in the article then I am at a lost to understand why he shot. Officer Jenkins' entire demeanor shouts,"COP!" to me in that picture. I've seen assaults. The only people that I've ever seen act in the manner of the guy in the green shirt were cops.
 
If Officer Smith saw Officer Jenkins actiing as photo #1 shows in the article then I am at a lost to understand why he shot. Officer Jenkins' entire demeanor shouts,"COP!" to me in that picture. I've seen assaults. The only people that I've ever seen act in the manner of the guy in the green shirt were cops.
Click to expand...

Keep looking through the pictures and things get less clear. As time passes, a third man enters the situation (Michael Young, in the jersey) who, according to some witness statements struggled with Jenkins (green shirt) and according to other statements was helping him. Somehow it seems that he also wound up getting shot(maybe). If the officers walked up to see two men struggling, and one of them shooting the other, things get less obvious. Its hard to tell how much time has passed between the pictures and it seems that noone really has a clear idea of what happened immediatly before (or even during) the shooting.
 
Well, looky thar! Problem #2 in one of its forms,i.e. shot by your own team. Guess Problem #2 is real and not just created by El Tejon who wants to derail gun shoppe fantasies and fun.

As a legally armed citizen (DNH=decent normal human), what I take around from this tragedy is the reinforcment of Hackathorn's First Law: don't go where you don't belong.

Humans, like all other animals, are dangerous in packs. Avoid them. Absolutely no good can come of getting in a fight with drunken frat boys. The frat boys are otherwise "good kids" and have mommies and daddies and are probably doing the same stuff I did in undergrad (with the exception of throwing beer at people, let alone cops--we made cops get their own beer).

As the wise man in Oreygun sez, "any fool can get in a fight, the best indicia of good training is avoidance." For me this horrific event reinforces my primary tactic of running like a little girl.
 
So are some of those "kids" going to be charged with assaulting an officer? Seems prudent since they escalated the whole thing in the first place. They are not blameless.

Maybe they should completely shut down tailgaiting and alcohol consumption in the parking lots and stadium altogether for a few games or the year to remind everyone they have to behave.

My only suggestion on what that undercover guy could have done would be to leave the area and get more uniformed officers involved before pulling a gun.

Failing that, I still think the bike cop was wrong to shoot in this case considering he had no idea what was going on. I don't care what other fictional scenarios you want to talk about, in the case, I don't think it was a good shooting at all.

Also, IMHO, if you are deaf, that is a personal problem and you need to conduct yourself accordingly. You can't depend on others to account for it. :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Fla. College Police Officer Fatally Shot by Another Officer
Replies
4
Views
505
Don Gwinn
D
K
  • Locked
(FL) Officer Killed At Football Game
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
Nimitz
N
B
  • Locked
Florida - "Orlando Officer Shoots Teen In Face During Traffic Stop"
Replies
16
Views
877
Coronach
C
T
  • Locked
Police Rethink 'Always Armed' Policy
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Janitor
J
W
  • Locked
Two Teens Wounded in Brawl at Florida Water Park
Replies
4
Views
465
yhtomit
Y
Back
Top