Ga. shooting suspect 'thought cop was criminal' - cop resonded off duty to shot fired full uniform - Page 4

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ga. shooting suspect 'thought cop was criminal' - cop resonded off duty to shot fired full uniform (Page 4 of 10)

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:04:23 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Add to that, was it all blinged up or just a standard Tahoe? Our local cops have marked and unmarked hoes but they are quite different looking than say a 22" rimmed blinged up chromed up vehicle...which this officer may very well have as his POV.

Perpetuate stereotypes much?
Brian

No, just stating what I see everyday.

ETA: I should also mention I own a Tahoe with tinted windows...

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'm guessing the Tahoe was somewhere inbetween steel wheels with
spotlights on the A posts and gold 30" rims. So neither end of the
broad brush continum is appropriate.

I know some places that run the civie Tahoe versions with stock aluminum rims.

It was a stock Tahoe with standard wheels, it's in one of the media
videos parked in the middle of the street still at the light.

Thank you.

Unable to watch video at this time.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:04:28 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Police do keep a catalog of gang related tats, because to them, tats do mean something.

Why is it hard to believe this guy came to the same conclusion?

I don't think anyone here feels he shot the cop even though he actually thought he was a cop.

Just gross negligence is what they are saying IMHO.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:07:10 AM EDT

[#3]

Bad guys that set up the robbery were in car(s) and were waiting for him.

I could see how he could believe that the cop in a POV could be connected with the robbers if he didn't get a good look.

I personally would have reasonable doubt if I was on the jury.

Quoted:

Thomas got a good enough look to believe he was a cop and get on the ground, wait for the cop to walk up to him.

Maybe the cop got the drop on him and he believed if he turned around he would get shot. If somebody comes up behind you during a robbery and you don't see them, you might comply with their order to get on the ground with out looking very closely.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:14:53 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'm guessing the Tahoe was somewhere inbetween steel wheels with spotlights on the A posts and gold 30" rims. So neither end of the broad brush continum is appropriate.

I know some places that run the civie Tahoe versions with stock aluminum rims.

It was a stock Tahoe with standard wheels, it's in one of the media videos parked in the middle of the street still at the light.

ETA, http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=144663 :55 second mark.

No bling. Looks like any other Tahoe.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:15:13 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'm guessing the Tahoe was somewhere inbetween steel wheels with spotlights on the A posts and gold 30" rims. So neither end of the broad brush continum is appropriate.

I know some places that run the civie Tahoe versions with stock aluminum rims.

It was a stock Tahoe with standard wheels, it's in one of the media videos parked in the middle of the street still at the light.

ETA, http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=144663 :55 second mark.

Notice how the news report says the initial victim was a suspect and never mention he was the victim in the first place?

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:15:44 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'm guessing the Tahoe was somewhere inbetween steel wheels with spotlights on the A posts and gold 30" rims. So neither end of the broad brush continum is appropriate.

I know some places that run the civie Tahoe versions with stock aluminum rims.

It was a stock Tahoe with standard wheels, it's in one of the media videos parked in the middle of the street still at the light.

ETA, http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=144663 :55 second mark.

Is that silver reflective tint? At least around here, only thugs and wannabes have that.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:15:53 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'm guessing the Tahoe was somewhere inbetween steel wheels with spotlights on the A posts and gold 30" rims. So neither end of the broad brush continum is appropriate.

I know some places that run the civie Tahoe versions with stock aluminum rims.

It was a stock Tahoe with standard wheels, it's in one of the media videos parked in the middle of the street still at the light.

ETA, http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=144663 :55 second mark.

No bling. Looks like any other Tahoe.

Then we shouldn't see any more posts about blinged out Tahoes.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:18:01 AM EDT

[#8]

...

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:20:53 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
unless the rest of the robbery crew were dressed as cops, I don't think the storeowner's argument has much merit.
However, it seems that the storeowner did manage to convince himself the cop was a bad guy. people do weird things under pressure; cops shoot other cops sometimes, too.

Actually that would probably be a good ruse if you think about it.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:23:51 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

So it doesn't matter what you perceive, it's only the reality that matters? You then of course for consistancy think that the officer that shot and killed the guy who was holding a PS3 controller should have been convicted?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/breaking_news_no_indictment_in_strickland_shooting/07/2007

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:24:45 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

Ah so the guy who just got robbed actually called the police so he could shoot a few cops?

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:25:34 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

Ah so the guy who just got robbed actually called the police so he could shoot a few cops?

Yes.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:26:49 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

The only standard they should use is the "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person in that situation who had just been robbed at gun point by three men and got into a running shoot-out have made the same conclusion. A photo of the cop in his clothes that day would go a long way to answering that.

ETA - Maybe he needed a better lawyer.

Man o man, I can only say, I hope I could even see, let alone think half straight under those circumstances... Pure adrenaline survival mode where everything is a threat and your mind changes what it perceives to convince you that you have a chance to fight and survive.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:29:20 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

Ah so the guy who just got robbed actually called the police so he could shoot a few cops?

Well, obviously yes!

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:33:54 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
not sure I would convict this guy and sentence him to 25 years in jail...

I wouldn't, I feel bad for the cop but if I'm mid shootout and someone dressed as a cop pops outa nowhere in a regular car I'm not coming out of cover to shake his hand. Sounds like a bad situation that ended as good as it could, but is now going badly because some animals are more equal to others. If the cop shot the guy thinking he was a robber would he get 25 years in jail for killing him? You bet your ass he wouldn't.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:35:51 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
It was a stock Tahoe with standard wheels, it's in one of the media videos parked in the middle of the street still at the light.

ETA, http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=144663 :55 second mark.

The SUV at 0:55 is a marked Ford Explorer unit. The only Tahoe in the video is the black one at 0:16. A regular looking, black mid 90s Tahoe with stock wheels. Sooooo thugged out right?

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:38:18 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It was a stock Tahoe with standard wheels, it's in one of the media videos parked in the middle of the street still at the light.

ETA, http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=144663 :55 second mark.

The SUV at 0:55 is a marked Ford Explorer unit. The only Tahoe in the video is the black one at 0:16. A regular looking, black mid 90s Tahoe with stock wheels. Sooooo thugged out right?

I stand corrected.

ETA, to be honest.. the Tahoe at :15 looks worse than the Explorer at :55.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:40:49 AM EDT

[#18]

Had the officer died here I would say manslaughter is appropriate as you can not simply dismiss the consequences of a fatal mistake. In this case the officer is not dead and facts surrounding the case do not in any way lead one to believe that the defendant acted out of malice. I'm sorry, the DA's contention that he just decided to kill a cop cause he was pissed at the moment..... well, that's fairly laughable given what his excited utterances were as the struggle was taking place.

This really is not an easy one. What the folks at Popeyes perceived was clearly an officer making an arrest and yet it is also understandable that a man that just got ambushed and thrust into a gun-battle moments ago perceived it very differently. I'm not sure I could send the man to prison for 25yrs for a lack of perfection in his response to this situation. I don't believe it's clear that he ever got a great look at who he was fighting with and I've been in some force on force stuff now and it is fantastically amazing to me how little you see beyond the gun when guns are involved. I don't believe he is without any liability at all. Not sure how the hell to resolve that.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:43:19 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The only standard they should use is the "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person in that situation [blue]who had just been robbed at gun point by three men and got into a running shoot-out[/blue] have made the same conclusion. A photo of the cop in his clothes that day would go a long way to answering that.

ETA - Maybe he needed a better lawyer.

Man o man, I can only say, I hope I could even see, let alone think half straight under those circumstances... Pure adrenaline survival mode where everything is a threat and your mind changes what it perceives to convince you that you have a chance to fight and survive.

My line of "reasonable person in that situation" means exactly what you inserted. The court does not mean "a guy in his recliner" when they say reasonable person they mean an average person in that environment.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:44:00 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.

It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

Thats fair.

And this was in broad daylight. I was thinking the incident occurred at night.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:50:35 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

So it doesn't matter what you perceive, it's only the reality that matters? You then of course for consistancy think that the officer that shot and killed the guy who was holding a PS3 controller should have been convicted?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/breaking_news_no_indictment_in_strickland_shooting/07/2007

Strickland's family issued a statement saying the refusal by the grand jury to indict Long compounds their tragedy: "Our unarmed 18-year-old son, Peyton, was killed when Chris Long, a deputy sheriff, fired three bullets from a submachine gun through the front door of Peyton’s house while he was answering the unlocked door. The failure of the grand jury to indict Long on any charge compounds our family’s tragedy."

Is that what happened?

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:56:25 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.

It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

So it doesn't matter what you perceive, it's only the reality that matters? You then of course for consistancy think that the officer that shot and killed the guy who was holding a PS3 controller should have been convicted?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/breaking_news_no_indictment_in_strickland_shooting/07/2007

Strickland's family issued a statement saying the refusal by the grand jury to indict Long compounds their tragedy: "Our unarmed 18-year-old son, Peyton, was killed when Chris Long, a deputy sheriff, fired three bullets from a submachine gun through the front door of Peyton’s house while he was answering the unlocked door. The failure of the grand jury to indict Long on any charge compounds our family’s tragedy."

Is that what happened?

I just read that story too, apparently Officer Long mistook the sound of the battering ram from his buddy's trying to knock down the door as gun shots and fired "in self defense".

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:59:33 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

So it doesn't matter what you perceive, it's only the reality that matters? You then of course for consistancy think that the officer that shot and killed the guy who was holding a PS3 controller should have been convicted?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/breaking_news_no_indictment_in_strickland_shooting/07/2007

Strickland's family issued a statement saying the refusal by the grand jury to indict Long compounds their tragedy: "Our unarmed 18-year-old son, Peyton, was killed when Chris Long, a deputy sheriff, fired three bullets from a submachine gun through the front door of Peyton’s house while he was answering the unlocked door. The failure of the grand jury to indict Long on any charge compounds our family’s tragedy."

Is that what happened?

Yeah the guy had just put someone in the hospital, beat them in the head with blunt object to steal game system, known to have weapons.

Two grand juries one local and one state level no billed.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:59:39 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

Ah so the guy who just got robbed actually called the police so he could shoot a few cops?

That's funny, I don't remember this guy calling the police...

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:02:05 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The store owner's story is completely plausible.

Odd vehicle, Tattoo's on arms, strange circumstances of supposed officer's arrival.

Were I on the jury I would say reasonable doubt was met, unless there is some serious flaws in his testimony.

+1 Not guilty.

It's worth noting that if the cop hadn't hit his mag release, Thomas would probably be dead. The cop made a mistake in identification just as much as Thomas did.

The difference being that the cop's mistake is automatically considered to be in good faith and no bill. Thomas's mistake is automatically assumed to be with malignant intention and he is facing a best case scenario of financial ruin. The situation was a bad one to begin with, but the inequity of the prolitariat and the praetorian guard is starting to really piss me off. Glad everyone is okay, though.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:05:22 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Had the officer died here I would say manslaughter is appropriate as you can not simply dismiss the consequences of a fatal mistake. ...

Ummm, yeah you can.

LE agencies have been known to do so.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:06:46 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

So it doesn't matter what you perceive, it's only the reality that matters? You then of course for consistancy think that the officer that shot and killed the guy who was holding a PS3 controller should have been convicted?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/breaking_news_no_indictment_in_strickland_shooting/07/2007

Strickland's family issued a statement saying the refusal by the grand jury to indict Long compounds their tragedy: "Our unarmed 18-year-old son, Peyton, was killed when Chris Long, a deputy sheriff, fired three bullets from a submachine gun through the front door of Peyton’s house while he was answering the unlocked door. The failure of the grand jury to indict Long on any charge compounds our family’s tragedy."

Is that what happened?

Yeah the guy had just put someone in the hospital, beat them in the head with blunt object to steal game system, known to have weapons.

Two grand juries one local and one state level no billed.

Usually when something is "no billed" (grand jury decided not to indict) it is because that was the intention of the prosecutor. Federal court is generally different. A no true bill is typically a device whereby police departments criminally absolve their officers. Of course that wouldn't stop the feds if they wanted to go after the officer. Neither would it stop a civil lawsuit.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:08:30 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

So it doesn't matter what you perceive, it's only the reality that matters? You then of course for consistancy think that the officer that shot and killed the guy who was holding a PS3 controller should have been convicted?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/breaking_news_no_indictment_in_strickland_shooting/07/2007

Strickland's family issued a statement saying the refusal by the grand jury to indict Long compounds their tragedy: "Our unarmed 18-year-old son, Peyton, was killed when Chris Long, a deputy sheriff, fired three bullets from a submachine gun through the front door of Peyton’s house while he was answering the unlocked door. The failure of the grand jury to indict Long on any charge compounds our family’s tragedy."

Is that what happened?

Yeah the guy had just put someone in the hospital, beat them in the head with blunt object to steal game system, known to have weapons.

Two grand juries one local and one state level no billed.

Usually when something is "no billed" (grand jury decided not to indict) it is because that was the intention of the prosecutor. Federal court is generally different. A no true bill is typically a device whereby police departments criminally absolve their officers. Of course that wouldn't stop the feds if they wanted to go after the officer. Neither would it stop a civil lawsuit.

It certianly didn't stop the department from coming to a $2.45 million settlement.

http://www.wwaytv3.com/sheriffs_department_settles_with_strickland_family/02/2008

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:08:37 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Just to be clear, Tattoo's being visible automatically means not a Police Officer?

What about these fellows?
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000WfROEtEuZns/s/650/650/NYPD-Tattoos-GOR-75288-91-10.jpg
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000J3A0YoRKsCI/s/650/650/NYPD-Tattoos-GOR-75288-82676-11.jpg
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000q75o8glG3Fw/s/650/650/NYPD-Tattoo-GOR-67007-09.jpg
Just saying..

When I went to NY, one of the things I noticed was a whole lot of very unprofessional looking uniformed officers.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:10:18 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

Ah so the guy who just got robbed actually called the police so he could shoot a few cops?

That's funny, I don't remember this guy calling the police...

Thomas said he heard Roach tell him to halt, but despite the officer's uniform and pointed gun, he ignored the command and ran up to the clerk at the restaurant's window.

"I said, 'Ma'am, I've been robbed. Call the police,' " Thomas said.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:14:18 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

So it doesn't matter what you perceive, it's only the reality that matters? You then of course for consistancy think that the officer that shot and killed the guy who was holding a PS3 controller should have been convicted?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/breaking_news_no_indictment_in_strickland_shooting/07/2007

Was the guy holding the controller wearing a full police uniform?

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:15:02 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

So it doesn't matter what you perceive, it's only the reality that matters? You then of course for consistancy think that the officer that shot and killed the guy who was holding a PS3 controller should have been convicted?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/breaking_news_no_indictment_in_strickland_shooting/07/2007

Strickland's family issued a statement saying the refusal by the grand jury to indict Long compounds their tragedy: "Our unarmed 18-year-old son, Peyton, was killed when Chris Long, a deputy sheriff, fired three bullets from a submachine gun through the front door of Peyton’s house while he was answering the unlocked door. The failure of the grand jury to indict Long on any charge compounds our family’s tragedy."

Is that what happened?

Yeah the guy had just put someone in the hospital, beat them in the head with blunt object to steal game system, known to have weapons.

Two grand juries one local and one state level no billed.

Usually when something is "no billed" (grand jury decided not to indict) it is because that was the intention of the prosecutor. Federal court is generally different. A no true bill is typically a device whereby police departments criminally absolve their officers. Of course that wouldn't stop the feds if they wanted to go after the officer. Neither would it stop a civil lawsuit.

It certianly didn't stop the department from coming to a $2.45 million settlement.

http://www.wwaytv3.com/sheriffs_department_settles_with_strickland_family/02/2008

As it should be. I don't believe in criminalizing mistakes. That is what civil lawsuits are for. And of course disciplinary measures.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:15:43 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Had the officer died here I would say manslaughter is appropriate as you can not simply dismiss the consequences of a fatal mistake. ...

Ummm, yeah you can.

LE agencies have been known to do so.

More often than they should I think. Doesn't change my view of it any nor do I think because they do, we should to.

On another note:
I find it odd to see that the officer that shot through the closed door is clearly defended on the basis of being amped up to far to get it right over just what there was a potential for. Yet the guy that just got ACTUALLY FUCKING SHOT AT does not seem to be getting nearly that level of consideration. Come on.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:18:06 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Usually when something is "no billed" (grand jury decided not to indict) it is because that was the intention of the prosecutor. Federal court is generally different. A no true bill is typically a device whereby police departments criminally absolve their officers. Of course that wouldn't stop the feds if they wanted to go after the officer. Neither would it stop a civil lawsuit.

I don't think so. After the locals said no, the politically connected parents of the dead thug got the state to go after the deputy and once again no billed. Feds declined.

Personally I like the grand jury system for all shootings.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:18:36 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Had the officer died here I would say manslaughter is appropriate as you can not simply dismiss the consequences of a fatal mistake. ...

Ummm, yeah you can.

LE agencies have been known to do so.

More often than they should I think. Doesn't change my view of it any nor do I think because they do, we should to.

On another note:

I find it odd to see that the officer that shot through the closed door is clearly defended on the basis of being amped up to far to get it right over just what there was a potential for. Yet the guy that just got ACTUALLY FUCKING SHOT AT does not seem to be getting nearly that level of consideration. Come on.

Agreed.

It's seems incredulous that this is happening...

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:18:47 AM EDT

[#36]

Maybe the victims presumption was right to begin with.

This was in Atlanta after all.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:20:23 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Had the officer died here I would say manslaughter is appropriate as you can not simply dismiss the consequences of a fatal mistake. ...

Ummm, yeah you can.

LE agencies have been known to do so.

More often than they should I think. Doesn't change my view of it any nor do I think because they do, we should to.

On another note:
I find it odd to see that the officer that shot through the closed door is clearly defended on the basis of being amped up to far to get it right over just what there was a potential for. Yet the guy that just got ACTUALLY FUCKING SHOT AT does not seem to be getting nearly that level of consideration. Come on.

Middle of the afternoon, broad daylight, full view, officer in full uniform, is apples vs oranges.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:26:06 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Usually when something is "no billed" (grand jury decided not to indict) it is because that was the intention of the prosecutor. Federal court is generally different. A no true bill is typically a device whereby police departments criminally absolve their officers. Of course that wouldn't stop the feds if they wanted to go after the officer. Neither would it stop a civil lawsuit.

I don't think so. After the locals said no, the politically connected parents of the dead thug got the state to go after the deputy and once again no billed. Feds declined.

Personally I like the grand jury system for all shootings.

Correct me if it's different in Alabama, but in most states it usually goes like this: prosecutor runs the grand jury, which occurs in secret, he makes whatever comments he wants to them regarding the case they are about to hear, then he calls whatever witnesses he wants to call. There are no rules of evidence, there is no judge. He tells them his final thoughts about the matter and asks them to make a decision. The defendant never appears and is not allowed to be present. The defendant's lawyer is not allowed to be there. The transcript is sealed and only the decision is released.

Any prosecutor who gets a result different than the one intended is probably incompetent.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:27:46 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Wouldn't it just be better all around if there was a departmental policy that forbade using unmarked cars when responding to crimes in progress? Honestly, this trend towards unmarked, or harder to notice police cars is starting to really become worrisome.

So a detective in an unmarked crown vic/impala/expedition/tahoe shouldn't respond to a robbery in progress call when he is right there vs a marked unit two minutes out?

Nope. Let 'em die because a stupid policy prevents you from helping. This was a bad situation but both parties seem to have been acting in good faith, yet made some mistakes. To start with, responding officer should have been in contact with dispatch so that the victim could have been informed via telephone of the cop's presence. I would be unlikely to surrender immediately unless I was 100% sure that the guys I'm seeing are really the good guys and having a 911 operator tell me "There are X number of officers arriving on scene now," goes a long way towards taking my OHSHIT down a notch. Of course, that would only help if the vic were, himself, on the phone with 911. Vic also probably shouldn't have pursued the crooks, though it was likely legal and understandable.

Biggest issue is lack of communication between the good guys.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:28:05 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every asshole who shoots a police officer (plainclothes or uniformed) claims they didn't know it was the police.
It doesn't matter what the suspect believed or claims he believed - the officer was in full uniform.

So it doesn't matter what you perceive, it's only the reality that matters? You then of course for consistancy think that the officer that shot and killed the guy who was holding a PS3 controller should have been convicted?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/breaking_news_no_indictment_in_strickland_shooting/07/2007

Was the guy holding the controller wearing a full police uniform?

So because the PS3 guy wasn't wearing a uniform the need to identify what the full scope of the threat is less?

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:33:17 AM EDT

[#41]

From what I read here, I'd vote not guilty. It seems pretty obvious he didn't intend to shoot a police officer or anyone other than a robber.

If it had been reversed there would probably be no question of not guilty. Cops are allowed mistakes like this often, but a citizen is not.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:35:20 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Wouldn't it just be better all around if there was a departmental policy that forbade using unmarked cars when responding to crimes in progress? Honestly, this trend towards unmarked, or harder to notice police cars is starting to really become worrisome.

So a detective in an unmarked crown vic/impala/expedition/tahoe shouldn't respond to a robbery in progress call when he is right there vs a marked unit two minutes out?

Nope. Let 'em die because a stupid policy prevents you from helping. This was a bad situation but both parties seem to have been acting in good faith, yet made some mistakes. To start with, responding officer should have been in contact with dispatch so that the victim could have been informed via telephone of the cop's presence. I would be unlikely to surrender immediately unless I was 100% sure that the guys I'm seeing are really the good guys and having a 911 operator tell me "There are X number of officers arriving on scene now," goes a long way towards taking my OHSHIT down a notch. Of course, that would only help if the vic were, himself, on the phone with 911. Vic also probably shouldn't have pursued the crooks, though it was likely legal and understandable.

Biggest issue is lack of communication between the good guys.

According to the article he wasn't.

He then fled toward a Popeye's restaurant across Oak Street, firing back at the men he feared were pursuing him.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:36:03 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
And this is why they build courthouses.

That's the problem. Based on just the info we have, charges shouldn't have been filed. When shit like this happens, the only parties that benefit are shysters and the courts.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:37:09 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Usually when something is "no billed" (grand jury decided not to indict) it is because that was the intention of the prosecutor. Federal court is generally different. A no true bill is typically a device whereby police departments criminally absolve their officers. Of course that wouldn't stop the feds if they wanted to go after the officer. Neither would it stop a civil lawsuit.

I don't think so. After the locals said no, the politically connected parents of the dead thug got the state to go after the deputy and once again no billed. Feds declined.

Personally I like the grand jury system for all shootings.

Correct me if it's different in Alabama, but in most states it usually goes like this: prosecutor runs the grand jury, which occurs in secret, he makes whatever comments he wants to them regarding the case they are about to hear, then he calls whatever witnesses he wants to call. There are no rules of evidence, there is no judge. He tells them his final thoughts about the matter and asks them to make a decision. The defendant never appears and is not allowed to be present. The defendant's lawyer is not allowed to be there. The transcript is sealed and only the decision is released.

Any prosecutor who gets a result different than the one intended is probably incompetent.

Pretty much the same except every now and then the defendant is allowed to be interviewed by the grand jury. The paper will say 180 cases presented to grand jury 157 True Bills.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:37:53 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Wouldn't it just be better all around if there was a departmental policy that forbade using unmarked cars when responding to crimes in progress? Honestly, this trend towards unmarked, or harder to notice police cars is starting to really become worrisome.

So a detective in an unmarked crown vic/impala/expedition/tahoe shouldn't respond to a robbery in progress call when he is right there vs a marked unit two minutes out?

Nope. Let 'em die because a stupid policy prevents you from helping. This was a bad situation but both parties seem to have been acting in good faith, yet made some mistakes. To start with, responding officer should have been in contact with dispatch so that the victim could have been informed via telephone of the cop's presence. I would be unlikely to surrender immediately unless I was 100% sure that the guys I'm seeing are really the good guys and having a 911 operator tell me "There are X number of officers arriving on scene now," goes a long way towards taking my OHSHIT down a notch. Of course, that would only help if the vic were, himself, on the phone with 911. Vic also probably shouldn't have pursued the crooks, though it was likely legal and understandable.

Biggest issue is lack of communication between the good guys.

I bet the whole thing went down in a matter of seconds.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:39:45 AM EDT

[#46]

Well, it sure would make for an interesting time on jury duty.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:40:54 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
ok, this want, Thomas is in a shoot out with BG's and cop pops around the corner and Thomas puts one into him before
he notices hes a cop.
Thomas saw a fully uniformed police officer get out of a truck that is a make and model of a standard issue police vehicle.
(he was clear minded enough to identify the truck the cop got out of, no fog of war)
Thomas is in the process of being handcuffed by a uniformed police officer when he decided to put three rounds into the cops chest.

reasonable doubt? really? everyone else in the area could tell it was a cop, even the guy across the street could tell it was a cop!
Thomas was nearly run over and shot by civilians because his line of thinking did not meet the standard of what a resonable
person would do.

prison, and lots of it.

Okay, let's accept that premise for a moment. Why in holy fuck would he want to shoot the cop? What possible reason could he have? Seriously. I know motive isn't typically required to convict but you've got to have some kind of reason to intentionally shoot someone. This wasn't a negligent discharge. It wasn't a career criminal attempting to avoid arrest. This was a legitimate hard working man with no criminal record. Please tell me what POSSIBLE reason he could have for shooting OTHER than thinking that the officer was not a real cop.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:48:51 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Had the officer died here I would say manslaughter is appropriate as you can not simply dismiss the consequences of a fatal mistake. ...

Ummm, yeah you can.

LE agencies have been known to do so.

More often than they should I think. Doesn't change my view of it any nor do I think because they do, we should to.

On another note:
I find it odd to see that the officer that shot through the closed door is clearly defended on the basis of being amped up to far to get it right over just what there was a potential for. Yet the guy that just got ACTUALLY FUCKING SHOT AT does not seem to be getting nearly that level of consideration. Come on.

Middle of the afternoon, broad daylight, full view, officer in full uniform, is apples vs oranges.

What did he actually see the article doesn't make it clear beyond the fact that he heard him, and the officer had a weapon drawn? Why was he 'wiggling around' to get a better look if he already had a full view does anyone other than the defendant remember seeing that? Why if he was just mad as the DA contends did he both ask for police to be called, and then wait till he was nearly in custody to try and kill one? Why was he, according to witnesses, claiming the person he's wrestling with is not a cop? The DA's 'he mad' case doesn't add up at all. But I should not ascribe any of the mitigation afforded to other mistaken shootings to this guy and instead just roll with he was mad and decided to kill a cop after running from a shootout and ambush robbery.

The officer involved in this other incident was presumably aware a ram was going to be used on the door yet in an excited state forgot that said ram would make noise and proceeded to actually kill a person behind a door through which he could not see. An offense that I have seen repeatedly scolded here as something that should never happen, ever, as you simply can not begin to see what is behind the door.

I don't believe for one second that the defendant here engaged in combat with the officer knowing it was an officer in his state of mind any more than I believed the door shooting officer set out that day to rub-out a Play Station thief. Neither one deserves 25 years for what happened. Neither one is without liability either... in my opinion.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:49:11 AM EDT

[#49]

Edited to add: nevermind.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:53:50 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
BGs wear police uniforms.

A California cop killed a man because he thought his Glock was a Taser.

A NY cop shot another NY cop because one of them was not up to speed on the UC recognition signal of the day.

Search warrants are executed with dynamic entry on houses that for one reason or another (wrong address, unreliable informant, et c.) shouldn't be searched at all.

People make mistakes.

it's unfortunate when it happens with firearms but he's right

we are human, prone to error on occasion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ga. shooting suspect 'thought cop was criminal' - cop resonded off duty to shot fired full uniform (Page 4 of 10)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us