Posted on 07/29/2013 4:55:57 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
An off-duty Garland police officer fatally shot a man suspected of shoplifting Sunday at a Wal-Mart, police said. Police said the officer, a 19-year veteran, was working security at the Wal-Mart in the 1800 block of Marketplace in Garland. The officer said the man had been seen shoplifting several items, police spokesman Joe Harn said. Harn said the man ran outside after the officer attempted to stop him on his way out through the outdoor living section’s sliding doors just before 4 p.m.
The officer used his Taser on the man, but it appeared to have no effect. Harn said the man then came at the officer with a crowbar, one of the items police accused him of stealing from the store.
Snip
The officer had warned him to stop, police said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Was the crowbar black? Did this influence the officer’s decision?
“Should the officer have attempted to take the crowbar away from the guy instead of shooting him?”
No. I’ve blocked plenty of blows in practice. In real life, if the block isn’t perfect even a light object can cause injury. A glancing blow from something like a crowbar might cause debilitating injury. The officer might not be able to respond quickly to the second blow and he’d die or be horribly injured.
I’ll bet they don’t get many shoplifters.
other than the cop. lol
Jim Crowbar
Should have included ‘crowbar wielding’ in the title. First thing I thought when I read the headline was ‘Wow, thats a bit harsh’.
Officer’s at fault. He shouldn’t have gotten out of his car that morning. The saintly crowbar aficionado was probably only looking for Skittles and Iced Tea. We need justice for the crowbar. /s
Nice headline by newspaper to create fake news.
How about suspected shoplifter shot for attempted murder on police officer.
Garland’s not a particularly “black” part of the Metroplex. Odds are the perp was hispanic. I suspect, though, that this is a case of “dog bites man”. The perp came at the guard with a weapon. This being Texas we’re talking about, there was no question that the guard was armed, and fully within his rights to defend himself against imminent bodily harm. Texas’ laws are nice and straightforward in that respect, much as they are about property (can shoot invader inside your house any time, and anywhere on the property after dark).
I have a couple of thoses yellow civilian crow bars but they are wimpy!! I want to get one of those assault crowbars. They can really tear $hit up good!
What a bullshit headline...it sounds as though the officer shot him for shoplifting. It’s several paragraphs into the story before it comes out the guy came at him with a crow bar.
Well,it *is* an electronics store...and a huge one at that.And they *do* have an entire department dedicated to security systems.And you *do* see security cameras everywhere you look.So maybe the cops,in this case,fight the temptation.
” the man then came at the officer with a crowbar”
“came at”? What does that mean exactly?
1. He raised the crowbar above his head and rushed at the officer.
2. While still 20 feet away, the man started to raise the crowbar. Before he could fire, I shot first.
” Harn said there were witnesses and surveillance video of the incident.”
Good, let’s keep everybody honest. Justified or not justified? The video should tell us.
The officer tazed the perp to no effect? Sum Ting Wong.
Autopsy/toxicology called for, IMO.
That's what I thought too.
At the bottom of the article, there is this statement:
Did you see something wrong in this story, or something missing? Let us know.
The reporter's email address is at the top of the article:
Sometimes the electrodes hang up in the perp’s clothing, or miss completely. The guard might also have been too far away.
I forgot to include you on the reply list.
What, no "UNARMED"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.