San Diego Sheriff's deputy shoots drunk driver

[sdchuck1]

Deputy Kills Motorcyclist In East County
Officials Say Man Grabbed Officer's Baton During Traffic Stop

POSTED: 4:30 pm PST January 26, 2006
UPDATED: 7:48 am PST January 27, 2006

SAN DIEGO -- A sheriff's deputy shot an East County man to death Thursday while trying to detain him on suspicion of drunken driving, officials said.
The shooting happened at about 4 p.m. in the 18500 block of Deerhorn Valley Road near Dulzura. According to authorities, a deputy pulled over a motorcyclist for a routine traffic stop. The deputy smelled alcohol on the driver's breath. While the officer was calling for backup from the California Highway Patrol, the man began yelling and attempted to run away, officials said.

The deputy gave chase, and when he caught up, the driver grabbed his baton and attacked the deputy, sheriff's investigators said. The deputy shot the man more than once, killing him, officials said.

The motorcyclist was identified as Kenneth Drinkard, 42, of Jamul. Several distraught family members arrived at the shooting scene later and one woman was heard yelling, "Why, why?"

The deputy was not injured. The sheriff's department is investigating the incident.
{END}

This was about 15 miles from my house and I gotta say that the sherriff's have a right to be scared because of the high amount of meth use in the area a lone officer has no idea what can end up happening. Now to shoot the guy multiple times is excessive in my opinion. Again that is the opinion of someone not behind the gun dealing with a dangerous perp.

 

[Father Knows Best]

This was about 15 miles from my house and I gotta say that the sherriff's have a right to be scared because of the high amount of meth use in the area a lone officer has no idea what can end up happening. Now to shoot the guy multiple times is excessive in my opinion. Again that is the opinion of someone not behind the gun dealing with a dangerous perp.

If it's o.k. to shoot him once, it's generally o.k. to shoot him multiple times. The rule is that you keep shooting until the threat has clearly ended. In reality, once you start pulling the trigger, adrenaline will probably keep you going until the gun is empty. Since you can easily fire many rounds a second out of an autoloading pistol, the odds are that you will fire at least three or four shots before you see the target react and your mind can evaluate the effect of those shots and whether the threat has ended. It's the rare person who, under assault, has the presence of mind to stop shooting before the gun is empty.

 

[Henry Bowman]

one woman was heard yelling, "Why, why?"

Must have been that whiny ice skater, Nancy Kerrigan.

 

[HRLRDR22]

sdchuck1
"This was about 15 miles from my house and I gotta say that the sherriff's have a right to be scared because of the high amount of meth use in the area a lone officer has no idea what can end up happening. Now to shoot the guy multiple times is excessive in my opinion. Again that is the opinion of someone not behind the gun dealing with a dangerous perp"

The depetuies may have a right to be scared but that is not the way to deal with a situation shooting someone...come on now we all know he had pepper spray on him, and probably also a tazer...so shooting him doesn not justify his actions...I hope he gets tried in court

 

[Rockrivr1]

"The motorcyclist was identified as Kenneth Drinkard"

Hummmm, last name is Drinkard and he had alcohol on his breath. Coincidence?????

 

[pax]

Now to shoot the guy multiple times is excessive in my opinion.

No, probably not. If the deputy was justified in shooting at all, he was justified in shooting until the attacker stopped -- no matter how many shots that took.

As for whether the shooting was justified, it certainly sounds like it to me. A police baton is a deadly weapon, when wielded with intent. That's why cops have to be trained in baton use, because any fool can pick up a baton and kill someone with it and it takes real skill and knowledge to use striking techniques without doing permanent damage or killing the person. So the deputy's life was definitely in danger, if indeed the motorcyclist had gotten the baton and was coming after him with it.

pax

 

[MrChicken]

Agree that if it's ok to shoot him once, it's ok to shoot him more than once.

It seems that people often forget that drunks, bipolar, depressed, distraught, or otherwise impaired people can kill you just as dead as a perfectly sober rational cold blooded killer.

A drunken individual with a baton can easily beat you to death if you do nothing to stop them. If he is in range to beat you down, and he was since he took the baton from the officer, it's too late for PS. You'd end up spraying yourself as well as him, and he likely wont be affected by it as much as you will since he has been drinkng. It's CQB at that point.

 

[riverdog]

Union Trib article

The deputy got out of his car and the motorcyclist ran up a dirt lane. The deputy ran after him, caught him, and the two men struggled.

“The deputy pepper-sprayed him to little effect, if any,” Brugos said. “At some point the suspect got ahold of the deputy's baton and advanced on the deputy with it.

“The deputy ordered him to stop and the deputy shot him. More than one shot was fired.”

 

[Herself]

Possibly the SDSD could use a little more drill on weapons retention, hand-to-hand and general arrest procedure?

It does appear to be a justified shoot, but the struggle appears to me to be the result of an officer hesitating to use sufficient force soon enough. A DUI and a busted knee would still beat being dead.

...And (trust me on this, I have actual experience) if ever you must deal with police as a suspect, don't run. It rarely ends well for you. Not only will you not get away, human beings are wired up to dump a lot of adrenaline when in pursuit; that means they're all jacked up when they do catch you. Sure, LEOs are trained to deal with this, but they're not robots. Unless it's TEOTWAWKI, smile and make nice.

--Herself

 

[Matt G]

Understand that a baton, when swung at any point above the shoulders, is deadly force. Life is NOT a John Wayne movie, where you can poleaxe a man in the head and have him wake up in 10 minutes, feeling a little dizzy but otherwise fine.

The deputy clearly took advantage of his intermediate force options (thanks, riverdog)! Keep in mind that, when the deputy is fighting with the (most likely drunken) subject alone out on the side of the road, there is at least one gun present (the officer's). He has a duty to protect the community from drunk drivers, yahoos who fight with cops, and yahoos who would fight with cops with deadly weapons possibly become cop-killers. We have no idea about the relative size, training, of physical condition of either Mr. Drinkard or the deputy.

While I'm pretty critical of grey-area shoots, I will say right now that, on the basis of the limited information provided in these two newspaper articles, I've read nothing to indicate that this was anything but a good shoot.

 

[hso]

Now to shoot the guy multiple times is excessive in my opinion. Again that is the opinion of someone not behind the gun dealing with a dangerous perp.

Think about that for a minute, ok? Someone attacks you with a club. The club is capable of breaking your arms rendering you defenseless and then it can be used to cave in your skull (if it hasn't already happened). How many times is enough to shoot someone. A warning? A single shot? Or until the guy quits whailing on your mellon?

If the officer had shot him after the driver was down it would be excessive.

 

[Matt G]

A DUI and a busted knee would still beat being dead.

Hard to say. The baton got taken while the deputy was grappling with the man with empty hands. If he could effectively use empty handed force without busting the guy's knee, he had a duty to do so. Trust me-- you pop a guy on the leg with a baton, you're more than likely going to civil court. It's for this reason that I know very few cops who have ever used their batons on people (they're great on windows, doors, and dogs, though).

Sure, it'd be great if the deputy could have executed a textbook takedown on the suspect without losing his weapon. Unfortunately, life is imperfect, training is pretty rare, and drunken suspects in the dark after a footchase sometimes don't act or react exactly like your sparring partner did in the dojo.

 

[MechAg94]

Given the guy was close enough to get his baton, it looks like he tried to use non-lethal methods and they didn't work.

 

[Herself]

Didn't say it was bad, just that there appeared to be room for improvement.

It's not clear in the story if the baton was in the deputy's hands or in the belt-ring when it was grabbed; I assumed the former, you assumed the latter but neither is supported by the text.

Yes, the telepathic Brazilian jujitsu ninja is a rare breed and this looks like a real no-win situation even for one of them, but losing any personal weapon is a serious error and one that merits additional work to reduce the probability of it happening again. Weapons retention is a vital skill.

--H

 

[NineseveN]

From what we see here, I think the officer done just fine.

 

[Pilgrim]

Possibly the SDSD could use a little more drill on weapons retention, hand-to-hand and general arrest procedure?

No plan survives the first thirty seconds of combat.

If I recall correctly, CA POST only requires 24 hours of POST approved training per officer per every two years. It is a rare department that uses that training to bone up on weapons retention and weaponless defense training.

Pilgrim

 

[El Tejon]

An angry drunk got tired of living. Suicide by cop.

Too bad he did not get help and turned to booze.

 

[TexasRifleman]

While I'm pretty critical of grey-area shoots, I will say right now that, on the basis of the limited information provided in these two newspaper articles, I've read nothing to indicate that this was anything but a good shoot.

Agreed. Hit me with that stick and I'm going for slide lock........

Deadly force used to stop deadly force. When did this become a problem?

Oh wait, I see where it happened and who is complaining about it.
I thought this happened in the United States. Sorry, my mistake.

 

[armoredman]

No plan survives the first thirty seconds of combat.

If I recall correctly, CA POST only requires 24 hours of POST approved training per officer per every two years. It is a rare department that uses that training to bone up on weapons retention and weaponless defense training.

Pilgrim

Serious? I work in AZ corrections, and I am required to attend a minimum of40 hours POST training every year. How weird for CA LE.
BTW, justifiable shoot. Deadly force met with deadly force. Well done.

 

[The-Fly]

the deputy did just fine. None of this shoot once and everything is fine crap. You keep shooting until the scumbag goes horizontal. And if you dont want to be shot by a cop, dont be grabbing his baton. Sounds like common sense to me.

 

[Herself]

All the comments on it being a good shoot make sense to me; but it was a good shoot after control of the situation had been lost (which is pretty much the definition of a good shoot).

My only point is that not losing control of the situation was the actual desired end.

I don't for one minute think every situation pitting a lone cop, no matter how well armed and trained, against a belligerent drunk (or whatever) is going to end with all concerned warm, safe and singing folks songs together back at the county jail.

However, not having to shoot the idiots is among the goals of police officers and is one of the many reasons they are trained in far more than marksmanship. And in my opinion, this is as it should be.

What was that old punchline? "One riot, one Ranger."

--H

 

[TechBrute]

Agreed. Hit me with that stick and I'm going for slide lock........

Deadly force used to stop deadly force. When did this become a problem?

Oh wait, I see where it happened and who is complaining about it.
I thought this happened in the United States. Sorry, my mistake.

hehehehehehehehehahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Chris Rock said it best.

 

[lucky_fool]

come on now we all know he had pepper spray on him, and probably also a tazer...so shooting him doesn not justify his actions...I hope he gets tried in court

Have you ever been pepper sprayed? I'll bet that you'd be able to fight through it if you were drunk and/or determined enough. The thing about pain compliance is that it only makes someone choose to stop fighting, it doesn't actually guarantee that they'll stop.

As for the Taser, the motorcyclist was probably wearing a heavy jacket that would almost gurantee that the Taser would be useless.

In any case, this isn't some video game where you get to try one weapon on the bad guy, switch to another one if that doesn't work, and so on.

This is exactly the kind of comment that I hear from antis all the time, "why do you need a gun, you could just use pepper spray."

 

[gunsmith]

I've used tons of pepper spray

and have a CA baton certification as well (in CA a nightstick is a felony without one)

it appears to be a good shoot.

My baton instructor said to shoot if the bad guy got the baton, he can maim you in seconds (or kill you)

 

[Standing Wolf]

Several distraught family members arrived at the shooting scene later and one woman was heard yelling, "Why, why?"

Dumb and equally dumb, I guess.