Ga. shooting suspect 'thought cop was criminal' - cop resonded off duty to shot fired full uniform - Page 5

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ga. shooting suspect 'thought cop was criminal' - cop resonded off duty to shot fired full uniform (Page 5 of 10)

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:54:07 AM EDT

[#1]

Amazing story. Truth is stranger than fiction. What an epic cluster fuck. The fact that the victim didn't kill the cop when he had the chance, is a big factor. He sounds like an honorable man. I hope he walks.

The focus should be on identifying the procedural errors and retraining that cop. He almost got three good men killed that day.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:56:56 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

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.

thats not a premise, those are the facts of what happened...
the reason isnt important. its no differant then any other ccw member. YOU are responsable for your rounds, YOU are responsable for correctly IDing your target.
what if instead of a cop some innocent black teen had walked out of that popeyes and Thomas saw tats and pumped 3 rounds into him?
what if he missed the guy in the door way and hit a 5 year old girl inside the store? you are still liable for your actions.
this man shot a fully uniformed peace officer 3 times in the chest then tried to shoot him in the face. all because he thinks that cops dont have tatoos.
being stupid is not an excuse.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:56:57 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

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.

I don't know why he would shoot the officer.

Maybe he was in a panic to shoot everybody.

Posted: 2/10/2012 10:02:07 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Amazing story. Truth is stranger than fiction. What an epic cluster fuck. The fact that the victim didn't kill the cop when he had the chance, is a big factor. He sounds like an honorable man. I hope he walks.

The focus should be on identifying the procedural errors and retraining that cop. He almost got three good men killed that day.

Thomas didnt stop attacking the cop by his own will. he was trying to shoot the cop in the face when a bystander hit him with his car.
then another bystander pointed the cops gun at Thomas and a bunch more civies jumped Thomas and took him down.

"Melvin stepped on the gas and drove his Pathfinder's bumper into Thomas' back. But not even that could stop the struggle. Melvin said he next tried to pull Thomas off the officer"
" it was Melvin who reacted. He recovered Roach's pistol, pointed it at Thomas and pulled the trigger. Misfire. He cocked the gun and pulled the trigger again.
Again nothing. He then began pistol-whipping Thomas. As more people joined in to help, Melvin saw the pistol's magazine was ejected. He slammed it in tight and chambered a round.
"I told [Thomas] you need to get down this time because I will kill you," Melvin said."

Posted: 2/10/2012 10:03:06 AM EDT

[#5]

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..

One of the local PDs here in WV has an employee who has tatooes that make him look like a Lifer who escaped from jail in a stolen uniform. STUPID.

Posted: 2/10/2012 10:03:32 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

I don't know why he would shoot the officer.

Maybe he was in a panic to shoot everybody.

That explains why he was shooting at everybody....oh no it doesn't, because he wasn't.

Posted: 2/10/2012 10:06:25 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

I don't know why he would shoot the officer.

Maybe he was in a panic to shoot everybody.

i blame the rims

honestly

Posted: 2/10/2012 10:11:44 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

I don't know why he would shoot the officer.

Maybe he was in a panic to shoot everybody.

i blame the rims

honestly

spinners make me want to shoot people.

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

[#9]

Quoted:

So an unmarked tinted window Tahoe is an unusual vehicle?

Not so sure about that.

IDK but the getto is full of them up here ....

Quoted:

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

Nope cant say as I would either....
I always wonder how all these the arm chair quarterbacks will act the first time they have to fight for their life....will it all be crystal clear to them then ?

Posted: 2/10/2012 10:26:02 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

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..

One of the local PDs here in WV has an employee who has tatooes that make him look like a Lifer who escaped from jail in a stolen uniform. STUPID.

The ironic thing is that they are often the best cops and picked up their tattoos in the military. The state police here will not hire anyone with visible tattoos. I think that narrows the gene pool a little too much.

Posted: 2/10/2012 10:49:55 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.

In shootings it should always matter what the actor was thinking. Sending everyone to prison who shoots a uniformed officer is a bad idea because the demographic most likely to be imprisoned, after shitheads, is officers.

Posted: 2/10/2012 10:50:02 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

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

Yeah, but it's only ok to make mistakes if you wear a uniform. Law enforcement officers are the only one's professional enough to be afforded the benefit of a doubt. Fuck up as a civilian and you're indeed fucked.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:00:27 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
he was trying to shoot the cop in the face when a bystander hit him with his car.

Where do you get that? Thomas emptied his gun into the police officer. After that, it was just wrasslin'.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:10:56 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

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

Yeah, but it's only ok to make mistakes if you wear a uniform. Law enforcement officers are the only one's professional enough to be afforded the benefit of a doubt. Fuck up as a civilian and you're indeed fucked.

Why lie?

I can't think of a good reason.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:13:53 AM EDT

[#15]

I forget. Is this GD wet dream #63 or #112?

I always get this one confused with the SHTF warlord thing.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:19:06 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Good Shoot, Bad prosecution.

Not quite sure why its a good shoot, the guy did fuck up.

I wouldn't say I would go for a guilty conviction however.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:19:58 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

I don't know why he would shoot the officer.

Maybe he was in a panic to shoot everybody.

Oh, I see. Sounds like a solid theory.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:20:46 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

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.

Cause Texas is so much better.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:20:52 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
he was trying to shoot the cop in the face when a bystander hit him with his car.

Where do you get that? Thomas emptied his gun into the police officer. After that, it was just wrasslin'.

from the artical posted in the OP.
"The larger Thomas soon was atop Roach, who was trying to turn the muzzle of Thomas' gun away from his face"
this is after Thomas had shot Roach in the chest. both of them believed at the time that the gun had one in the chamber.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:26:10 AM EDT

[#20]

...

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:35:40 AM EDT

[#21]

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

I am definitely sure I WOULD NOT convict

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:36:45 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

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

Yeah, but it's only ok to make mistakes if you wear a uniform. Law enforcement officers are the only one's professional enough to be afforded the benefit of a doubt. Fuck up as a civilian and you're indeed fucked.

Why lie?

I can't think of a good reason.

Me lieing? I don't think so.

Me being a facetious asshole? Always.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:38:29 AM EDT

[#23]

Not guilty.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:39:36 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

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

Yeah, but it's only ok to make mistakes if you wear a uniform. Law enforcement officers are the only one's professional enough to be afforded the benefit of a doubt. Fuck up as a civilian and you're indeed fucked.

Why lie?

I can't think of a good reason.

Me lieing? I don't think so.

Me being a facetious asshole? Always.

Your statement in red is false.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:41:34 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If frogs have wings they wouldn't have a sore ass.

Officer DID misidentify robbers, store owner DID doubt the identity of the officer. Both are reasonable mistakes, only one of them is facing jail though.

Officer identified a guy with a gun after hearing shots fired - he had no way of knowing if the guy with the gun was the suspect or victim. Store owner/employee misidentified a guy in a police uniform. Just a slight difference.

FTR - I agree with Bama that the problem for the store owner is that he starting fighting back AFTER he submitted and then saw tattoos. Not sure I'd convict on charges that could result in 25 years based on the story as presented.

Brian

It sounds like the store owner never got a good look at the approaching officer, ie never got a full view of the uniform. The officer approached the store owner from behind, and went to cuff him, so all the store owner could see was a black tattooed arm.

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.

And then what? Explain why the fuck he would decide to shoot if he believed it was a cop. That's what you're claiming so explain to us what possible reason he would have, other than he did not believe the man to be a real cop.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:44:47 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

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.

Why?

Cause some guy came up with a cockamamie story about thinking a uniformed police officer was a stick up boy?

Usually GD states they would have no choice but to shoot plainclothes police because they can't *really* be identified as police *wink wink*

Now GD states they have no choice but to shoot uniformed police officers because they can't *really* be identified as police *nudge nudge*

Very interesting

Hut Hut Hut

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:44:52 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That's what happens when officers don't have standards and get all tatted up like the thugs they arrest.

patiently waiting rustedace's response

Yeah we shouldn't hire all those military vets because they have tat's.

They should be living out in the woods away from society anyway.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Lord knows they're all terrorists.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:45:36 AM EDT

[#28]

Another reason Im glad I don't have tats

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:47:00 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

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.

Except that several members have said exactly that. They've said, in plain English, they believe the victim HAD to know it was a cop.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:47:01 AM EDT

[#30]

This never should have made it to court.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:48:47 AM EDT

[#31]

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 you won't have any problem if every cop that shoots another cop gets the needle from here on out, right?

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:49:41 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

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

Yeah, but it's only ok to make mistakes if you wear a uniform. Law enforcement officers are the only one's professional enough to be afforded the benefit of a doubt. Fuck up as a civilian and you're indeed fucked.

Why lie?

I can't think of a good reason.

Me lieing? I don't think so.

Me being a facetious asshole? Always.

Your statement in red is false.

Reread the part in blue. If sarcasm is trolling, then lock me up.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:49:43 AM EDT

[#33]

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

Exactly. Somebody needs to re-read Graham v. Connor.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:50:11 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think it's just as important to note that the cop mistook the store worker for a robber in the first place. Understandable, but so is what the store owner thought. The cop should have clearly identified himself and probably even waited for marked backup.

I would not convict.

And if the storeowner was one of the robbery suspects and killed a bystander while the uniformed officer waited for back-up arfcom GD would be saying the officer should be charged with dereliction of duty................

Cops job is to secure the situation and then sort out the details of who's who - law allows cops to point guns at people and handcuff them even if the person isn't the actual suspect.

Brian

And if the cop smoked the store owner the cop would get a couple weeks paid vacation.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:54:12 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

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.

And then what? Explain why the fuck he would decide to shoot if he believed it was a cop. That's what you're claiming so explain to us what possible reason he would have, other than he did not believe the man to be a real cop.

dosnt matter that he did not believe it. fails the resonable person test.
i'm sitting on the sidewalk, and a marked police cruiser pulls up, lights and sirens, a unifromed cop gets out and draws down on me, "on the ground now!!!"
then i notice that there is no plate on the car!!! we all know that police cars have plates that say "POLICE" right?
that means he must not be a real cop! that means i get to gun him down!
if that does not sound moronic to you, you should not be carrying a firearm.

having a tatoo is not grounds to belive a fully uniformed police officer is not real.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:57:13 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

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.

Cause Texas is so much better.

In my experience, yeah they are. Half of the NY City cops I saw looked like gangsta slobs in uniform.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:58:33 AM EDT

[#37]

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?

Yup. That makes it better. Shooting at a blank door like a helmet wearing retard is so much more understandable than mistaking a black, handgun sized object to be a weapon.

Posted: 2/10/2012 11:58:54 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

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.

Cause Texas is so much better.

In my experience, yeah they are. Half of the NY City cops I saw looked like gangsta slobs in uniform.

I have seen 'COPS' episodes where the officers look like the guys they are arresting.

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:02:08 PM 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.

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.

I'm a dumbass. I read that backwards. Can't blame him for trying to retreat.

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:04:51 PM EDT

[#40]

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.

I believe you're probably right. What I'm saying is that if things went "right," the situation could have been avoided. As it was, it was a huge Charlie Fox and it's unlikely that anyone involved could reasonably have been expected to act differently all the way up to the moment the victim pulled the trigger. Even that is understandable from my POV.

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:06:06 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
he was trying to shoot the cop in the face when a bystander hit him with his car.

Where do you get that? Thomas emptied his gun into the police officer. After that, it was just wrasslin'.

from the artical posted in the OP.
"The larger Thomas soon was atop Roach, who was trying to turn the muzzle of Thomas' gun away from his face"
this is after Thomas had shot Roach in the chest. both of them believed at the time that the gun had one in the chamber.

Oh. I get it. You're a mind reader. What am I thinking right now? (Hint: It's that you're not actually a mind reader). If the wrasslin' went on long enough for Thomas to get on top of the officer and point his gun at his face, I'm pretty sure Thomas could have shot him a 4th time. Thomas almost certainly knew the gun was empty. The officer probably didn't. Regardless, shoving an empty pistol into a guy's face and telling him to stop resisting or you'll kill him isn't "trying to shoot him in the face."

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:07:54 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

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.

Why?
Cause some guy came up with a cockamamie story about thinking a uniformed police officer was a stick up boy?
Usually GD states they would have no choice but to shoot plainclothes police because they can't *really* be identified as police *wink wink*
Now GD states they have no choice but to shoot uniformed police officers because they can't *really* be identified as police *nudge nudge*
Very interesting

Wait. Step back. Are you really saying that, based on the facts presented in the article, you believe that Thomas knew the guy was a police officer and deliberately tried to shoot a police officer?

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:09:02 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

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

Yeah, but it's only ok to make mistakes if you wear a uniform. Law enforcement officers are the only one's professional enough to be afforded the benefit of a doubt. Fuck up as a civilian and you're indeed fucked.

Why lie?

I can't think of a good reason.

Me lieing? I don't think so.

Me being a facetious asshole? Always.

Your statement in red is false.

Reread the part in blue. If sarcasm is trolling, then lock me up.

Actually, I'm a retard.

Sorry man.

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:11:45 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

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.

thats not a premise, those are the facts of what happened...
the reason isnt important. its no differant then any other ccw member. YOU are responsable for your rounds, YOU are responsable for correctly IDing your target.
what if instead of a cop some innocent black teen had walked out of that popeyes and Thomas saw tats and pumped 3 rounds into him?
what if he missed the guy in the door way and hit a 5 year old girl inside the store? you are still liable for your actions.
this man shot a fully uniformed peace officer 3 times in the chest then tried to shoot him in the face. all because he thinks that cops dont have tatoos.
being stupid is not an excuse.

Your statement makes it clear that you believe the victim knew it was a cop he was shooting at. Explain why he would do that.

What if worms had machineguns? Would birds still fuck with them?

Sure, if an "innocent" black teen walked out of the Popeye's, pointed a gun at the victim and demanded compliance, it might be reasonable to expect that the victim respond with force.

You're absolutely right that we are responsible for our actions, even if unintentional. 25 years is not appropriate for this sort of mistake, especially when cops who make similar mistakes but with bodies attached don't get so much as a slap on the wrist.

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:14:04 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
he was trying to shoot the cop in the face when a bystander hit him with his car.

Where do you get that? Thomas emptied his gun into the police officer. After that, it was just wrasslin'.

from the artical posted in the OP.
"The larger Thomas soon was atop Roach, who was trying to turn the muzzle of Thomas' gun away from his face"
this is after Thomas had shot Roach in the chest. both of them believed at the time that the gun had one in the chamber.

Oh. I get it. You're a mind reader. What am I thinking right now? (Hint: It's that you're not actually a mind reader). If the wrasslin' went on long enough for Thomas to get on top of the officer and point his gun at his face, I'm pretty sure Thomas could have shot him a 4th time. Thomas almost certainly knew the gun was empty. The officer probably didn't. Regardless, shoving an empty pistol into a guy's face and telling him to stop resisting or you'll kill him isn't "trying to shoot him in the face."

this is like trying to reason with a fucking potatoe.....
first, if you get shot 3 times in the chest at point blank range, its a good bet that the person shooting can get ontop of you pretty quick.
if the slid was back, or the cop had reason to belive the gun was empty, he would not have made such effort to move the muzzle away, nor would Thomas
have made such great effort to force the muzzle into the cops face.

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:14:18 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

I don't know why he would shoot the officer.

Maybe he was in a panic to shoot everybody.

It seems as though everyone has a clear mental picture of what happened and we are unintentionally inserting particulars of the case. How could a man clearly identify a vehicle but not the officer? I'm just spitballing, but the the officer might have exited the opposite side of the vehicle or the victim might have been at an angle that made it difficult to get a clear view of the officer.

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:19:03 PM EDT

[#47]

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.

Seeing someone in a uniform step out of what is clearly NOT a squad car, that is significant.

People DO get cop uniforms. Police on more than on occasion have advised motorists to call 911 and ask for a MARKED squad car to assist if someone in an unmarked car (even with uniform) attempts a traffic stop.

Here in the Twin Cities we had a pair of police shoot another undercover officer who was Hmong who they thought was a gang banger...even though the officer had made a point of removing his jacket so his ballistic vest with POLICE emblazoned on front and back was visible

forensic reproduciton video of event

Mistakes happen.

(Note that in the above case, the police department had to be sued before they admitted they did anything wrong)

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:21:13 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

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.

thats not a premise, those are the facts of what happened...
the reason isnt important. its no differant then any other ccw member. YOU are responsable for your rounds, YOU are responsable for correctly IDing your target.
what if instead of a cop some innocent black teen had walked out of that popeyes and Thomas saw tats and pumped 3 rounds into him?
what if he missed the guy in the door way and hit a 5 year old girl inside the store? you are still liable for your actions.
this man shot a fully uniformed peace officer 3 times in the chest then tried to shoot him in the face. all because he thinks that cops dont have tatoos.
being stupid is not an excuse.

Your statement makes it clear that you believe the victim knew it was a cop he was shooting at. Explain why he would do that.

What if worms had machineguns? Would birds still fuck with them?

Sure, if an "innocent" black teen walked out of the Popeye's, pointed a gun at the victim and demanded compliance, it might be reasonable to expect that the victim respond with force.

You're absolutely right that we are responsible for our actions, even if unintentional. 25 years is not appropriate for this sort of mistake, especially when cops who make similar mistakes but with bodies attached don't get so much as a slap on the wrist.

"Thomas is in the process of being handcuffed by a uniformed police officer " check.
at some point he decided (because he had already complied, it would take concious thought to change your mind) to shoot a man who was infact a cop, wearing a full police uniform in the chest 3 times.
i dont see why you are having a problem understanding the facts in the case.
you really shouldnt be allowed around firearms if you cant understand this stuff

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:24:37 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

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.

Why?
Cause some guy came up with a cockamamie story about thinking a uniformed police officer was a stick up boy?
Usually GD states they would have no choice but to shoot plainclothes police because they can't *really* be identified as police *wink wink*
Now GD states they have no choice but to shoot uniformed police officers because they can't *really* be identified as police *nudge nudge*
Very interesting

Okie dokie. We'll go down this road. Pay close attention: IF THE VICTIM BELIEVED THE OFFICER TO BE A REAL COP, WHAT REASON DID HE HAVE TO SHOOT? Answer that without making up a "cockamamie story," and we can continue down this line of thinking. If you can't, then you need to admit you're full of shit.

Posted: 2/10/2012 12:26:01 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

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.

Seeing someone in a uniform step out of what is clearly NOT a squad car, that is significant.

People DO get cop uniforms. Police on more than on occasion have advised motorists to call 911 and ask for a MARKED squad car to assist if someone in an unmarked car (even with uniform) attempts a traffic stop.

Thomas does not have a cop for a son. the person that tryed to run over thomas has a cop for a son.
and no, a uniformed officer getting out of a non-squad car is NOT significant.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ga. shooting suspect 'thought cop was criminal' - cop resonded off duty to shot fired full uniform (Page 5 of 10)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us