OUTRAGE AT U.S. SHOOTING

Sky News ^ | 06/16/03 | Sky News

[tomball]

There has been controversy in the United States after two police officers shot and killed a suspected drunk driver in Louisiana.

The incident happened in a supermarket car park in the town of Shreveport and was captured on CCTV.

The 25-year-old man jumped out of his car and pointed what the officers say they thought was a gun.  They responded by shooting him eight times in the back as he ran away.  They then discovered his supposed weapon was only a mobile phone.

Police had chased him to the car park after he jumped a red light.  A spokesman for the local police said they had studied the video tapes of the shooting.  They decided it was justified because the officers felt threatened.

Shreveport police chief Jim Roberts said: "They felt their lives were in danger."

He said he believed the victim had engineered the incident to get himself killed in a "suicide-by-cop".

[miltonim]

Three videos from different police cars: http://www.nwlouisiana.com/video/shooting051103/Unit%20138-Armstrong.wmv
http://www.nwlouisiana.com/video/shooting051103/Unit%20170-Ramsey.wmv
http://www.nwlouisiana.com/video/shooting051103/Unit%20185-Hathorn.wmv

[joesnuffy]

[Grando Calrissian]

Well if he aimed his gun-shaped cell phone at the cops, then good riddance.

[stryker]

I'm more concerned about cops killing innocent people by going in hot pursuit of red light violations and subsequently pulling firearms on minor traffic violators, then firing away without any evidence of a felony, especially a violent one. This victim, if left alone, would have endangered no one further, but because of the contemporary attitudes of some police officers, he and all of the officers involved became threats to the life and limb of myself and my family. A pox on both of their houses.

[Paleo Conservative]

Would "an ordinary citizen" (not law enforcement) have been cleared in this shooting, considering the deceased was shot 8 times in the back?

Yes or no.

Case closed.

An ordinary person could not get me to stop my car. I would never pull over for someone in an unmarked car. I don't see how an ordinary person get into this situation.

[discostu]

2 in the 10 is standard firearms defense training, for cops and citizens. Shooting low means you're aiming at highly mobile body parts without a lot of mass (to stop the bullet) and if you miss you're hitting the ground (often concrete) at an angle condusive to ricoche which will send to bullets to areas you can't see. That's bad. You aim for the center mass, it doesn't move as quick, is good at stopping bullets, and if you miss there's nothing to redirect the bullet so you can see what else is at risk while you're aiming.

[Grando Calrissian]

This was a "suicide-by-cop" situation

I've heard of these where the cop's check out the guy afterward and they have a suicide note on them. I believe that would be enough to turn me off policing forever.

[stryker]

This "perp" merely ran a red light.

[Grando Calrissian]

Well discostu, since my computer has no video capabilities I'll take your word for it. In cases like these, you almost wish the cops had stun guns like they do in Science Fiction so the guy would have to go through processing after pulling this trick. I believe Hunter Thompson, when running for Sheriff of Aspen, wanted to get rid of all guns and replace them with high powered tasers that would do the same trick. Of course Aspen is an entirely different animal than Shreveport.

[discostu]

They've also got stills that show it pretty clearly. Really once you see the first one you'll understand why the guy go shot. Really effective stun guns would be nice, but that's a ways off.

Of course Thompson has a gun collection that would be the envy of many police departments, so don't pay too much attention to him.

[Grando Calrissian]

Yes, and (independent of adrenaline) one shot center mass should always be enough. Of course there really isn't a lot of difference getting shot once center mass and getting shot 10 times center mass. You usually end up dead in both instances.

This is why we need to remove the endocrine gland from all cops.

[stryker]

Your knowledge of the general law of most states is not correct. In most states, one may not defend property with deadly force, only oneself or another from serious imminent bodily injury or death. Additionally, for self-defense to apply, both subjective and objective tests are applied. The defendant must have honestly believed his life was in imminent danger and objectively his life must have been in fact in imminent danger.

[Springman]

#4 is what my Dad told what to say. Saved me from a ticket a long time ago. Just do has he says, say yes sir.

[Poohbah]

This "perp" merely ran a red light.

Timothy McVeigh was merely speeding on April 19th, 1995.

How come I never get shot at by pi$$ed off cops if they try to pull me over for running a red light?

[Poohbah]

In most states

Texas and Louisiana (the latter being where this took place) being two of the most notable exceptions.

[discostu]

Not at all. Unless you're putting a 12 gauge round into the person's chest he'll still be able to shoot you for at least 10 seconds (even a 12 gauge round is no garauntee of instant incapacitation, people aren't easy to make stop twitching). It's all about rendering the person incapable of shooting back right now, dead or alive doesn't matter, there are two questions to ask after shooting someone: can he still shoot me? is he still trying? If the answer to both of those appears to be yes then you shoot them again. Even in the stills you can see the guy is continuing to stumble around and attempting to point his "gun" at the officers, the answer to both appeared to be yes, shoot him again.

[stryker]

Just lucky so far.

[paul51]

Onelife's recommendations for a long life:

#7. Don't turn your back on a cop pointing a weapon at you

[Grando Calrissian]

I am aware of Thompson's extensive gun collection as well as his many peacocks. It's certainly a shame that he's taken leave of his mind.

[sinkspur]

Your knowledge of the general law of most states is not correct. In most states, one may not defend property with deadly force, only oneself or another from serious imminent bodily injury or death.

I never claimed to speak for "most states." I know Texas and Louisiana, law, however, especially as it applies to deadly force, since I've carried a handgun for eight years. And, in both of those states, at night, one is permitted to use lethal force to defend one's property. And that lethal force can be used off of one's homestead, i.e., the street in front of one's home.

Additionally, for self-defense to apply, both subjective and objective tests are applied. The defendant must have honestly believed his life was in imminent danger and objectively his life must have been in fact in imminent danger.

This is open to interpretation, isn't it? That's why we have grand juries.

Five years ago, on a busy Dallas street, a van sideswiped a vehicle, tearing off the side mirror. The vehicle owner, a very large man, came back to the van owner and began pummeling him with his fists. The van owner reached under his seat, pulled out a .45 and shot the man in the face.

When's the last time you heard of someone dying from blows from fists?

Didn't matter. The Dallas county grand jury no-billed the shooter.

Texas ain't California, that's for sure.