I don't drive a "Marked" car...ever and I am a LEO.  The car or lack thereof doesn't make it OK to shoot me or any other LEO.  

ID your target.  Simple stuff...  This guy shot a cop 3 times.  He had to be physically restrained to get him to stop trying to kill a Police Officer.  This wan't a startle response...he kept on fighting after it was plainly obvious that the person was a cop in full uniform.

He needs to be in jail.

He is a thug and the robbery was likely rival dealers stealing his stash.  He has about as much to fear from the cops locking him up as he does from the robbers stealing his dope.

It is as plausible as any of the other theories in this thread.

You forgot the space aliens. The officer got out of a POV, not a marked cruiser with lights and sirens, and although the details of the story make it hard to tell, it appears that the victim never really got a good look at him. This is supported by his attempts to squirm around to get a view of the officer and his yelled requests for someone to call police. A reasonable person who was just robbed and shot at might reasonably believe that there were still threats in the area. Whether the victim saw the uniform or not is unclear but even if he did, it is not beyond question that he might still have believed it to be fake.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1287796_NYPD_Must_Pay__15_Million_for_Illegally_Arresting_22_000.html





 

We talking about Texas or NYC here?

I can only speak for my personal experience, but I've lived in Texas for 36 years, and in that time, I've run across maybe one cop that didn't look professional in dress or bearing.  I've spent less than 2 weeks total in New York, and I saw a bunch of them.  Same thing goes with CO's watching Lockup.  A lot of the COs running Riker's looked like they were on the wrong side of the bars.  

Now, I'm not saying they *aren't* professional, simply that they didn't look professional.  Not clean shaven, poor uniform standards, pony tails, tats, ear-rings, etc.

Okay, WHY? Why would the VICTIM of the crime, who was begging for people to call police, who has NO CRIMINAL RECORD, intentionally shoot a cop? Why? If you believe that to be the case, you are unworthy of the public trust.

I see no pictures.

Your response is... lacking.

As thin as that bullshit is, at least you ATTEMPTED to answer my question, which is more than anyone else in this thread has done. Seeing as how there is no claim of this being the case, by anyone involved and the victim yelled for police to be called, and has no criminal history, it seems rather unlikely.

Both.

Just like Newark, NJ cops.  You go outside of the city, its a different breed of guys.

That story is profoundly fucked up..  Duy Ngo, the undercover cop who was shot by responding officers, committed suicide afterwards.

Why do you assume people need a reason?  Do you believe the gehtto and its residents works off reason or logic?

 

Generally, yes. Still, the victim was not a crook. No record. Without a credible reason for such behavior, then it is ridiculous to accept the premise that the victim believed the officer to be a real cop. Occam's razor and all that. Of the two available hypothesis, it is FAR more reasonable to conclude the victim believed that he was still under attack. We can argue about how reasonable that belief is or about how culpable he is despite what he believed but to argue that the man intentionally shot a cop is absolutely insane.

+1
I'd have been very suspicious myself even without the situation that preceded it. I would NOT have gotten on the ground in that situation without seeing some ID and preferably making a phone call to the police to verify and have on duty officers arrive. On the other hand, I would have stopped, not pointed my firearm at him and let the situation get sorted out since doubt is not the same thing as KNOWING it's not a cop. Without having been there, without knowing exactly what was said and how, seeing the body language... even then, it's tough to get inside both their heads. Luckily the officer is alive, his vest saved his life like it is meant to. From what I've read it's a clear case of both parties intending to do the right thing.

Don't get me wrong, Thomas screwed up, but it's a situation where he had every right to suspect something wasn't right and defend himself. The cop wasn't thinking about how things looked from Thomas's point of view and probably never even considered the fact that he's getting out of a personal vehicle that doesn't scream POLICE. Likewise the tattoos are just not on his mental radar as an issue, but in this context they were a possible red flag for Thomas.

To make it worse, this isn't a situation where the officer is particularly inclined to take it easy, there's been shooting, there's a visible firearm... He's got legitimate concerns for his safety and the public's safety. Even doing everything right on Thomas's end the officer might not have taken a step back to let his authority be verified and we wind up with the same situation. in fact, if it was me in Thomas's position that would have put me over the edge from unsure to confident he's not legit. That's not fair to the officer, but is an understandable point of view given the whole situation.

Sadly I think this is really true

Holy Blue Fuck and that idiot got off scot free.  Seriously, who else in the entire world can shoot through a door and kill an unarmed person on the other side and walk?

WHO???

Certainly the circumstances conspired to make it a hell of a mess.  Whatever happened was not intentional on anyone's part.  People make mistakes, no one was killed thank God and hopefully there are some lessons learned.  Giving a guy 25 years is injustice and I'd have to vote against a conviction, based on  the facts we have presently.  Had the cop smoked the guy, I wouldn't be in favor of him doing 25 years.  Fair is fair and right is right.

Interestingly, the only LEO I can think of off-hand who I know that's talked about non-LEO citizens as "the masses" was all tatted up, and constantly complaining that there were standards that prevented him from displaying them all the time.  It was as though he couldn't tell that many of our repeat customers were into a similar subculture - and that the identifiers used to mark repeat customers were often the same.  And he felt his ability to flaunt his tats was being infringed upon by policy to make grandma and grandpa in Des Moines happy.  A very "we're here, we're inked, get used to it" kind of attitude, totally ignoring that bad guys are frequently heavily tatted up.  For whatever reason he couldn't make the connection or understand the importance of first impressions.

-
The OP story here sounds like a giant clusterfuck.  The victim runs from a robbery to get help - reptile brain yelling "RUN AWAY!", tells somebody to call for police.  Uniformed "police" arrive in seconds, in a non-police car, and put him on the ground.  Doesn't seem right to the storeowner/victim - undercover cops drive unmarked cars, uniformed cops drive marked cars, but he starts to comply.  "Something not right here," says reptile brain.  Still doesn't make sense in his mind - he just got robbed.  "Why am I on the ground if I'm the victim?" his reptile brain starts to ask.  The "cop" puts him on the ground, he sees the cop's all tatted up.  Brain suddenly says "OH FUCK I'M STILL BEING ROBBED!"  Storeowner reacts, cop and storeowner fight - cop drops the mag by accident, preventing further shooting.  Storeowner finally pinned.

End result is cop says "throw the book at him for not respecting my authoritah!", storeowner says "I did' do nuffin'!".

Clearly both parties are at fault to some degree.


Sure there is.  Did you identify yourself, Officer Roach?  Y'know, that first thing they teach you in DT/PT classes, right before you start yelling "get back!" or "get down!"


So the cop didn't identify himself?  He relied on the uniform?  He just started yelling at the Thomas, who's busy yelling to the Popeye's clerk that he's been robbed?  He can hear him saying "I've been robbed, call the police" and doesn't say "I am the police, set the weapon down?"

This seems like a small thing, but that identifier may have helped out both parties a huge amount.  Sounds like officer missed some precautions that would've defused situation, and storeowner was still running scared.  Sucks all around.


This totally does not jive with the "he wanted to shoot a cop" line of reasoning going on for the last couple pages.

He'll never admit that, but if he wants the store owner to get 25 years, would he support a 25 year bit for the LEO if he smoked the store owner?  I think we all know the answer to that question

Do you really expect him to say he wanted to shoot a cop?  If that is the standard for prosecution, you would never lock up a single badguy...ever.  

So was it a tahoe with SPINNERS? Heck I see a Tahoe with spinners and I think bad driver. You gang related people may have a differant opinon of a man of color getting out of a tahoe with spinners wearing a uniform.

*sigh*

1.  He was just robbed.
2.  He ran from an armed robbery where he had to defend himself
3.  He ran to a public place and asked the nearest person to call the cops

Yes, clearly he wanted to shoot a cop.

Ability, opportunity, intent.  Where was the intent?  Mens rea, and all that?

Good shoot to me

you are correct I misread the son part

but if a uniformed cop getting out of a non-squad car is insignificant, why do police departments suggest you take the additional precaution of not getting out and summoning a patrol car?

I'd no bill the shooter. He most certainly doesn't deserve jail time and most people who are the victims of robbery tend to be a bit suspicious of someone who presents themselves as an officer under less then normal circumstances who put them on the ground at gunpoint. I'd be leery of someone claiming to be a cop who popped out of a tinted tahoe and drew down on me also. While it absolutely sucks, that is the world we live in. I'd be even more leery if I had not even called and they were already on site in their POV. Lots of Tats, sorry, professional it ain't when you are a cop.

It's tragic, I'm glad no one was killed, but the circumstances were less then ideal.

They looked like the fucking jail house tats.

I used to live in Dekalb County and having seen some of the mode of attire by some DCPD, I can see the shop owner thinking what he did.

they dont say, "if you are ever pulled over by an unmarked car call 911" they say if you have reason to believe its not a real cop, then call 911.
not being in a marked squad car does not scream "not a real cop"
what if the responding cop had been on foot? what if it was a bike cop? how about a mounted patrol?
that doesnt make them any less of a cop.

even still it was a make and model of standard squad car. maybe it would be significant if it was a uniformed cop getting out of
a civic, or a geo metro, but not a tahoe.

you seem to be having trouble with the english language. the part you have highlighted in red is a statment of fact.
Thomas shot a uniformed police officer. he intentinaly pulled the trigger and shot a man who was a police officer in the chest 3 times.

that he may have believed it was not a police officer does not pass the reasonable person test. as evidanced by the fact that
EVERYONE else could tell it was a cop. so much so that people several times tryed to kill Thomas.
seeing a tatoo on a uniformed cop is not reason enough to beleive he is not a cop and shoot him.

When was the last time you could actually see the driver of a car trying to pull you over?  The sitution you are describing has everything to do with it being an unmarked car and nothing to do with what the driver of said unmarked car might be wearing.

I've driven an unmarked detective's car on regular patrol a few nights - while wearing my regular evil BDU pants/uniform.  I did not attempt to make traffic stops because it's an unmarked car - even though it was a Crown Vic.

Brian

Given our laws you're comparing apples and space shuttles.

Brian

Part in red is based on what data?

Haven't looked at any other pics of the officer but he's black and didn't look like a thug in the pic that was posted - how well can you see tats on his arms from any distance?  How do you get around the whole "uniform" issue?

Brian

I don't know where you live, but where I live, they say "you will not get pulled over by an unmarked cop car".  Too many things can go dangerously wrong with the scenario on both sides.

If I see someone getting out of an unmarked car and drawing on me, I'm probably going to go tunnel vision and fight/flight, too, whether the guy is wearing black or not.

How are you going to tell its an unmarked at night?

It is the height of irony to accuse me of having difficulty with the English language while yourself neglecting capitalization and misspelling words. I'm sure you're on a mobile or something but it's still funny.

I don't believe that separate, unrelated people with different vantage points and without the stress of being involved in a gunfight can be used as an indicator of what the victim reasonably believed at the time. Would I have reacted the same way? I can't say. Should the victim have reacted differently? Most definitely. Nevertheless, I think it is a gross miscarriage of justice to sentence the man to 25 years.


(edited to trim some of the quote tree)

If it was a personal vehicle, who knows what it looked like. But having been to Altanta several times, I am more than safe in presuming it was ghetto fabulous in some way, shape, or form.



But even if it was a duty vehicle:







The only people that drive stuff like that around here are hood rats who can afford more than the usual surplused Crown Vic, and cops themselves.



The entire notion of 'low visibility' duty vehicles is painfully retarded, with many downsides and no upside, but thats another thread.



And speaking of retarded, the notion that a businessman who just defended himself against robbers would knowingly and intentionally try to kill a cop is droolingly stupid. I hope the more ardent TBL types around here at least have the decency to blush when trying to paint the defendant in this case as a wannabe cop killer.

You don't have any room to talk about that shit with your ludicrous fantasies about letting criminals murder our families because you don't like being videoed.





 

Lon Horiuchi



 

I would not convict. If officers can raid a man's house and shoot him due to him holding a golf club, an officer equally places himself at risk by going in off duty with tats and no squad car. He signed up for that shit and it's unfortunate but the other guy shouldn't pay for it.

Where I live that is the vehicle of choice for the "Feds" that and blacked out Ford F-150's.

 

Yeah, but he didn't shoot THROUGH a door. He had the benefit of having his "target" in plain sight and intentionally making the shot.

Not having a prior conviction doesn't mean he was an angel as you assume.

He shot a fully uniformed police officer that he plainly saw in uniform after the officer gave verbal commands that he admits he heard and understood.  That is flat out intent.  On top of that, he shot 3 times and continued to try and kill the officer well after any normal person would have clearly realized it was a LEO.   This guy flat out tried to murder a cop.  I could care less what he was daydreaming about at the time.

From what I got from the story the cop was behind him when he saw the tats and panicked, so, at that point he is not seeing the uniform.

The military also has requirements in dress uniform that your tats not be visible. I imagine that they have long sleeve shirts in Georgia.

Yeah, I wouldn't convict anybody who shot them either.  Especially the freak with the skulls all over.



Tattoos have long been associated with criminals.  Japanese Mafia, prison tat's, etc.
 

His reaction when "Melvin" interceded was to say the guy is not a cop. This to me shows he truly believed that Roach was not a cop. I doubt he would have had enough time to concoct that as his alibi.

They can wear long sleeves.