Warning shots by off-duty cops?

Status
Not open for further replies.

FTF

member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
561
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14659732/

Another football player got himself in trouble... well, he was shot a few times by an off duty-cop for a suspected dui and other recklessness... but the circumstances reported intrigue me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14659732/

Foley then got in his car and drove to his home, where the officer followed him. Once there, Foley got out of his car and approached the office again, while a female passenger in Foley's car drove alongside him. According to the report,
the officer identified himself yet again and fired a warning shot into hte bushes
. Brugos told the Union-Tribune that the female revved the engine of the car and drove at the officer.

Since when do cops, even those off-duty fire warning shots? Is that even SOP off-duty or not? Even in California?:uhoh: Isn't the threat of a verbal warning in conjuction with that of a drawn handgun enough of a deterrant? I guess the 'warning shot' was just to make it more official... LOL.
 
I'm not aware of any department that still permits warning shots as a matter of use-of-force policy.

OTOH, if this guy was desperately trying to get control of a potentially deadly situation by firing a warning shot that did not endanger bystanders, I wouldn't say he was wrong for doing so.
 
More to this story.

Off the cuff, it is sounding like a screw-up from the aspect of an off-duty officer trying to execute a traffic stop (???), but if one judges the propriety of the final use of force independent of that, it could go either way.

I have no idea what is up with the "warning shots" thing. We're trained not to do so, for certain.

Mike
 
More to this story.

Lol... I'm sure there IS a lot more to this story.

Mainly, from the initial off-duty cop that felt he was stopping a felony in progress at 0330am to when the citizen was down and paramedics were called at 0347, where were the other on-duty police officers?

You would think that after the intial confrontation whereas the citizen replied to the police officer "That's a bb gun." and left, that other police officers would have been called to assist. Instead, the off-duty police officer took it upon himself to shoot a woman who "revved" her engine and drove towards him, and missed, and then... proceeded to shoot the man walking toward him with his hands in his pockets.

Paid administrative leave for our criminal... DING DING! Cops 4 teh win.
 
If some guy in civilian clothes in a civilian car with a gun tells me to pull over, I'm sure as hell not obeying no matter what he claims his day job is. I'm going to flee to the nearest real cop.

If he tries to block my car with his body and then shoots at me as I drive past, am I going to be convinced of his legitimacy or be futher convinced he is a carjacker?

Off duty and undercover cops dont do traffic stops because people could easily mistake them for criminals. A lot of cops have been shot by civilians and fellow police because they were mistaken for criminals committing a crime. At the very least, what he did is probably against department policy. Oh yeah, and I see the distincitive fins of the lawyers circling the police station.
 
To prove it, the officer said he fired one warning shot into bushes and two shots toward the sky.
Lol... perhaps the first warning shot in the bushes did not stroke his ego enough.
 
Gosh I hope that football player has a ton of alcohol in his blood cause if he doesn't then some LE is going to have to be looking for a new job. As that football player is going to bring a royal legal whoop ass on the Coronado PD.
 
A friend of mine on another board posted this up.. from the SD Sherriff


SUBJECT: Officer Involved Shooting Investigation

LOCATION: 12100 Travertine Court, Poway

DATE/TIME: 09/03/2006 3:41 AM

VICTIM: Off-Duty Coronado Police Officer

SUSPECT: See Below

The following information is fragmentary and has not been completely verified. It is based, in part, on hearsay and is intended for early information use rather than being a formal investigative report.

At about 3:26 A.M. this morning (September 3rd), an off-duty Coronado Police Officer reported that he was following a suspected drunk driver in the vicinity of northbound Highway 163 and Highway 52. The suspect vehicle was described as weaving in lanes, traveling at speeds of between 30 and 90 miles per hour and nearly colliding with several other vehicles on the highway.
The suspect vehicle exited Interstate 15 at Pomerado Road in the Scripps Ranch area of San Diego. When the suspect vehicle stopped for a red signal light the officer pulled his car next to him and after identifying himself as a police officer, ordered the driver to pull the car over. The driver acknowledged the officer, then drove away. After a short distance the suspect stopped again. The driver got out of his car and approached the officer, who had stopped behind him. The officer verbally identified himself and pulled out his handgun. He told the suspect several times to stop. However, he continued to walk toward the officer, while making the statement “That's a BB gunâ€. The suspect then walked back to his car. A female passenger got out of the vehicle and yelled an unintelligible comment to the officer. The suspect and his female passenger then drove away, with the officer following them.
The suspect then stopped his vehicle at the intersection of Treadwell Drive and Travertine Court in Poway, with the officer behind them. The suspect got out of his car and again approached the officer's car. The officer backed his car up, then drove around the suspect, up Travertine Court, which is a cul-de-sac.
At the end of the cul-de-sac the officer got out of his car. He saw the suspect approaching him on foot up Travertine Court, with his female companion driving the car next to him. As the suspect approached, the officer again identified himself as a police officer and that his gun was real. The officer fired a warning shot into some bushes. The female rapidly accelerated the car directly at the officer. In response, the officer fired two shots at the car. The officer was able to avoid being struck by the moving vehicle. The male suspect reached into his pants with his right hand as he approached the officer. The officer then fired at the suspect. The suspect acknowledged that he had been shot, but continued toward the officer, who then fired again at him. This time the suspect fell to the ground.
Shortly thereafter deputies arrived on scene. The uninjured female was taken into custody and the male suspect was transported to a local hospital.

Identification has been made on the male suspect as Steve Foley and the female as Lisa Maree Gaut.
It should be noted that during the course of this incident the officer established radio communications with allied law enforcement agencies.
This investigation is continuing and it is unknown at this time what charges may be filed in this matter.
Due to an established multi-agency protocol agreement this shooting is being investigated by the San Diego Sheriff's Department's Homicide Detail.

Anyone with information about this incident is asked to call the Homicide Detail at (858) 974-2321/after hours at (858) 565-5200 or Crime Stoppers at (888) 580-TIPS(8477).


Prepared by: Dennis Brugos, Lieutenant

Homicide Detail
(858) 974-2321
 
Well, that's a right mess, no matter how you cut it.

What is Kali's law on off-duty officers doing traffic enforcement?

Mike
 
Foley isn't a choirboy for sure. Here's the last paragraph from the Union-Tribune:
"Foley has had previous run-ins with law enforcement. Last week, the San Diego County District Attorney's office said it would not pursue charges against Foley for an incident in April. He was accused of resisting arrest, battery on a police officer and being drunk in public after an altercation on a University City street about 1:30 a.m. April 21."

As far as warning shots being authorized that would depend on the agency. Many agencies have policy statements authorizing warning shots any time deadly force is authorized. They aren't encouraged but could be authorized.
 
I can almost guarantee that there is no law against an off-duty LEO makiing a traffic stop on someone they suspect is a threat to the safety of other drivers. There is very likely a policy against it however for the reasons mentioned above.
As for the validity of the shoot? Ok, you're on a deserted street with your firearm out and pointed at a potential assailant. You have identified yourself as an off-duty LEO and you have loudly reminded your potential assailant that you're armed with a "real gun". Their compannion in a car drives at you menacingly so you shoot at the car. Then the original potential assailant (who is a flippin' gi-huge-ic NFL linebacker), after hearing and seeing you shoot their car, advances towards you while appearing to be reaching into his waistband.

Ok, the officer has retreated around the assailant but was followed. The officer warned the assailant that he was armed. The officer was "almost run over" (by the officer's reckoning) by the assailant's car which he shot at. The assailant, aka Gigantor, continues to advance while appearing to be reaching for a weapon.

Yes, I would definitely think that my life was in immediate danger at that point. Wouldn't you?
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
 
Assuming it went down like that, yes, I would think so. However, we're witnessing the evolution of a news story...what happened happened. We're still finding out what that is. Remember those caveats I always give on shooting threads? We know very very little about this event. We rarely learn what really happened until the case goes to trial, and by then it is Old News, and Old News gets no air time.

We went from two sets of warning shots to one warning shot into the ground and one set of shots fired at a vehicle intent on running the LEO over. This is probably not a case of someone spinning the events, it is overwhelmingly likely the result of the news media taking bits an pieces of info and trying to piece it together. What will we learn next? Will it be accurate?

No way to tell if this is a good shoot or not. No way.

Mike
 
crazed_ss said:
Hmm.. says here the cop who shot him was from the Coronado Police Dept. This shooting took place about 30 miles north of Coronado. Not suprising.. I work I Coronado Island.. the cops there are absolute Nazis. They probably carry their power-tripping attitudes wherever they go.

This coming from someone who has a name like crazed_SS. Hrmmm....

I see no correlation between law enforcement and the 3rd Reich of Germany.


Regarding the use of warning shots, yes, its a huge no no.
 
What is Kali's law on off-duty officers doing traffic enforcement?

It's legal. I know that Lee Adams, Sheriff of Sierra County, put some kind of flashing lights on his personal vehicle (a white Jeep Cherokee) just so it would be easier to pull people over while off duty. This is a rural area with virtually no real crime, so the Sheriff's Department spends all its time pulling people over for crossing over the double-yellow line on winding mountain roads. They do this despite the fact the CHP regularly and quite thoroughly patrols the highways.
 
I'm not aware of any department that still permits warning shots as a matter of use-of-force policy.

In Nebraska, Douglas County Sheriffs Department (Omaha), Lancaster County Sheriffs Department (Lincoln), and Omaha City PD, allow warning shots as policy at the discretion of the uniformed, and undercover officers.

Personally, I was trained (military, USN) to fire a warning shot (while on watch) if, in my opinion, I felt it was nesessary to gain control of the situation or display the "seriousness" of the situation, and that deadly force was imminent if actions were not immediately taken by the suspect / violator / tresspasser to follow orders / instructions.

I do believe more warning shots would save lives. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING gets someones attention more than when a shot is fired. If they are serious about not wanting to get shot they WILL comply. It seperates the good guys from the bad guys quickly, and it just may prevent someone from killing someone needlessly.
 
Last edited:
I tend to side with the cops first. If he thought the guy was a real hazard and might kill someone driving the way he was, I understand not waiting for a local marked unit. When the guy starts coming at him I give him credit for the warning shot, he probably wanted to show the guy he was serious. The alleged bad guy thought he could call the cops bluff despite the warning shot, and went into his pockets. It sounds like the cop may have done the best he could in the situation.
 
Off duty and undercover cops dont do traffic stops because people could easily mistake them for criminals.

After thinking about this some more, and putting myself into the other guys shoes, the situation might not have been handled all that well.
 
civil lawsuits/PD policy

Any LE agency manager or supervisor who'd allow "warning shots" to be fired is just asking for more problems. In this day and age with cell phones/text messages, email, nextel type systems it's hard for me to think a LEO(s) would need to fire their weapons at a subject for any reason other than deadly force.

To make threats or fire a weapon under any other conditions is reckless and irresponsible.

Rusty
;)
 
Shooting

I agree that Foley isn't the most well-behaved person, and that someone of his stature would be dangerous. However, I will add that "warning shots" go against my training. (I am a Licensed Armed Security Officer.) I was trained that any and all shots are to neutralize a threat.
 
Players Wary of Plain Clothes Cops

September 6, 2006

Steve Foley is the life of the party, and he's lucky he's not dead.

The Chargers' laugh-a-minute linebacker has been sidelined for the season by gunshot wounds sustained in a brush with the law that could easily have turned lethal.

Foley has a recurring problem with alcohol and, evidently, with authority. Coronado cop Aaron Mansker has some sticky procedural issues to answer and, apparently, a hyperactive trigger finger.

What began, purportedly, as an off-duty cop tailing a suspected drunken driver in the wee, small hours of Sunday morning is rapidly evolving into a litmus test about local law enforcement that is bound to end badly for all parties.

Foley's season is shot – both literally and figuratively – and the Chargers have elected to stop paying him because of the nature of his injuries. Mansker is on administrative leave pending an investigation and is likely looking at a future of lengthy depositions and lengthier lawsuits.


Advertisement
The real victim, though, may be the justice system itself. How many citizens can be expected to heed the instructions of an off-duty police officer after events escalate as they did on Poway's tony Travertine Court? When does deepening distrust create something more sinister?

“If somebody gets out of a car, and he tells me that he's a police officer in some street clothes, and he's got a gun, I'm going to try to run over that (guy), too,” Chargers cornerback Quentin Jammer said. “(Expletive) him. I mean, why wouldn't I try to run over him?”

When Jammer paused mid-vent in front of his cubicle yesterday afternoon, safety Marlon McCree promptly grabbed the rhetorical baton from an adjoining locker.

There was none of the normal restraint athletes typically demonstrate around reporters. This was righteous, seething anger.

“All I know is he's trying to rob me,” McCree said. “That's all I know. Where's your badge? Where's your uniform? Where's your car? You're even in an unmarked car. . . .

“I can go to Toys R Us and get my little 5-year-old son a toy cop badge and say, 'Hey, I'm so-and-so, put your hands up,' and (then) rob you, tie you up. You understand what I'm saying?”

What Jammer and McCree are saying, in essence, is what the O.J. Simpson trial told us: that justice is a moving target in America; that what one segment of society regards as “resisting arrest” is seen as appropriate wariness in another.

Though the national divide often breaks down along racial boundaries – reflecting stark contrasts in experience and attitudes among different cultures – the football class may be prone to confrontation regardless of color.

The athlete who earns his living through legalized violence and intimidation is a poor candidate for conformity. This is particularly true if he's been drinking.

Steve Foley's rap sheet tells a tale of booze and belligerence. In numerous encounters with the authorities – at least two of them alcohol-related – Foley has seldom gone along quietly.

The police report summarizing his shooting indicates he may have been driving while impaired and, therefore, posed a hazard to every other vehicle on his route. If that proves to have been the case, Foley will elicit little sympathy beyond the locker room.

Yet within the Chargers' Murphy Canyon compound, Foley's popularity is undiminished. He is as loved as he is loud. Though specific details pertaining to Foley's shooting continue to emerge, many Chargers have already concluded their teammate was more a victim than a perpetrator.

Their logic tells them there are huge holes in the police report. Their loyalty is a reflex.

“Foley's one of the most liked guys on this team,” Jammer said. “Whenever something like this happens, you're expected to say good things about that person. But Foley is just a guy who you couldn't say nothing bad about. . . . He's always running around, goofing off until it's Sunday.

One day, while waiting to interview Foley at the Chargers complex, I found him declaiming with high-volume vulgarity. When I returned to his locker a little later, his head was bowed in silent prayer over a foam-plastic box bearing his lunch.

“He's a big, tough, physical, mean, hit-'em-in-the-mouth type player that is an important part of our defense,” linebacker Donnie Edwards said. “He weighs the most out of all the linebackers and has the lowest body fat. He weighs like 270, and he eats whatever he wants. It's incredible.

“I say, 'Foley, how in the hell?' He says, 'I don't know, Dawg.' ”

Steve Foley has a prodigious appetite, but it's his thirst that gets him into trouble.

Tim Sullivan: (619) 293-1033; [email protected]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top