Bean Bag Bullets Save the Day

"A Cameron man is still behind bars after firing at least 17 shots in and around his Steuben County Mobile home. All this after a nearly three-hour standoff in the Riverview Trailer Park on County Route 22 that could have ended tragically. Investigators say at least one of the 17 shots fired by 34 year-old Larry Schoonover was fired in the direction of police who had surrounded him and evacuated the area. Investigators say Schoonover never put down his shotgun, and at one point even asking authorities to shoot him.

However authorities didn't use real bullets, instead they used a non-deadly bean bag bullet to knock the man down and take him into custody."

If the police thought their lives were actually threatened they should have defended themselves.

Since they fired back with bean bags, I'm guessing that the one of those 17 bullets fired "at" the police was fired in something resembling thier general direction, but not at an officer.

It seems pretty obvious that they thought this guy was trying to commit suicide by cop and they didn't think he was a serious threat to others, just himself.

I wouldn't have felt sorry for him if he'd gotten his wish, he made his choice. However, the officers we not negligent in their actions. If they had been forced to shoot him I would have felt sorry for the officer who was forced to do that. I'm glad for the officers sake that they weren't forced to do that.

Not a good analysis on your part, someone throwing shots in the direction of the police is attempting murder since anyone of those bullets can find its way into a human body and cause death. Anyone willing to kill by throwing shots at people is a danger to society and remains a danger. Now the repercussions are the fact that this scumbag will be eventually let out of prison and is a thousand times more likely to kill someone than the average schmoe on the street, and therefore should have been put down when the chance presented itself to save future innocents, because no good deed goes unpunished...

Not a good analysis on your part,

Well I'll explain my reasoning in more detail.

The onething you can pretty much guarantee is that reporters will sensationalize any story.

The evidence in the story that he was directly threatening the officers is this.

Investigators say at least one of the 17 shots fired by 34 year-old Larry Schoonover was fired in the direction of police who had surrounded him and evacuated the area.

It says that one of the 17 shots were fired in the "direction" of police that were surrounding him, not that he attempted to shoot an officer.

He fired 17 shots, and the reporter doesn't even try and claim that 16 were fired at anyone, and even with the last only the general statement that if was fired in the direction of police was made.

The article also doesn't say that the officers fired any normal shots back at the suspect. Instaed they took the time to clear the area, surround him, and take him down with non-lethal means.

someone throwing shots in the direction of the police is attempting murder since anyone of those bullets can find its way into a human body and cause death.

I believe that it isn't murder unless there is intent. I'm not sure how you can logically attempt to kill someone through negligence.

It was unquestionably a dangerous and criminal act. If the officers felt they needed to defend themselves I believe they had ever right to do so.

Anyone willing to kill by throwing shots at people is a danger to society and remains a danger.

I agree completely. However, police officers apprehend people. They only kill people if they have no other choice such as when they need to defend themselves or others, or when it is necessary to prevent a dangerous criminal from escaping.

Now the repercussions are the fact that this scumbag will be eventually let out of prison and is a thousand times more likely to kill someone than the average schmoe on the street, and therefore should have been put down when the chance presented itself to save future innocents, because no good deed goes unpunished...

That's not for the police to decide.

The ramifications of the way this incident was mishandled, is that someone(s) will become the victim of this yahooo in the future,and pay with their lives, after he gets out of jail; whereas he could now be in his grave rotting where he surely belongs.

Truly someone who fires at other human beings in a criminal manner, whether he hits them or not, is someone who "needs killin'" , the proper course is to take a legal and righeous sniper shot at the perp. In the 1930's lawmen laid an ambush for Bonnie and Clyde and shot them and their car to pieces as they drove by. Nobody in that era batted an eye as to the niceties of whether they crooks got justice. We are less enlightened than the people of that era were. Now with the same kind of rampant crime, we instead coddle murderous criminals with rubber bullets. Rubber bullets insure repeat offenders, lead ones bring justice to future victims who never suffer victimhood because their killer is already dead and cant harm them. To believe otherwise is to be a wuss.

It's a police officer's job to apprehend people, not convict and sentence them on the spot. If you have a problem with our lax justice system putting people like this back out on the street, you should blame the legislature, not the police.

If the police kill a suspect because they are forced to defend themselves, that is justified. If they kill them because they think they deserve to die and don't trust our justice system to hand down that sencence it's murder.

You appear to be suggesting that the police should have murdered him.

Truly someone who fires at other human beings in a criminal manner, whether he hits them or not, is someone who "needs killin'"

You better take that one up with the legislature.

the proper course is to take a legal and righeous sniper shot at the perp.

If they can't take them alive to stand trial without putting themselves at serious risk, then that's a reasonable solution.

However, just deciding that the deserve to die without a trial violates our constitution and is murder.

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.