Routine traffic stop, officer shot 4 times in the head, "self defense" (RO)

The BBQ Pit
41

It’s two AM. You’re (allegedly) drunk, the police start flashing at you, and you park in your own driveway.

The officer comes out and gets close. Close enough to eventually put a handcuff on at least one of your wrists. The police officer’s gun is still holstered. You’re in a public neighbourhood in a very peaceful part of a peaceful town. You have a right to carry a concealed weapon, and you are. Yet you don’t tell the police about it, you don’t surrender it.

In fact, you start struggling with the police. You’re convinced the father of a three-month-old baby is going to kill you, out in front of your home, in the middle of the night. In a residential neighbourhood, in front of witnesses.

Do you:
A) Pull the gun and threaten the police officer?
B) Pull the gun, put it under the chin of the police officer and squeeze the trigger four times. (Which, considering the proximity of the two fighting men, is the only realistic way I can imagine putting four out of four rounds fired in the head of a man without deliberately taking time to aim and shot him again when he’s down.)

42

[QUOTE=Gukumatz ]
It’s two AM…
[/QUOTE]
Oooooh, can I play too?

It’s two A.M., the fear has gone (being drunk and all), and he’s driving in his car with his gun warm under his arm. There’s a storm on the loose and sirens in his head, he tries to call the police to verify it is a real squad car but the circuits are dead. He pulls over and his whole life spins out of control into a frenzy…

It’s like he’s stepping into the twilight zone, a madhouse, he no longer feels like himself, like he has been cloned. The police beacon moves under the moon and stars and he suddenly realizes he’s gone too far. He knew when the bullet hit the bone.

His life sprials down, he drives, destination unknown. He double crossed the messenger that tried to sober him up and put his life on the right track. He’s all alone, his girlfriend is screaming and he can’t get through. He can’t make a connection.

The guilt lays heavy on his guilty mind and he drives over the county border line to his aunt’s house. When the police comes he knows damn well he has been cheated… and he says to them:

OK, that was kind’ve a stretch, but hey…

Really, I don’t think we can know what went on. How bout this: He is somewhat inebriated with his girlfriend and playing loud music as they come back from a night out dancing or playing pool… The officer pulls him over and maybe he gives the officer a little lip and the police officer gets pissed and threatens him with violence. Tells he that he is resisting arrest and is going to get ass-raped with the gang bangers tonight if he isn’t careful. The guy freaks out and yells “don’t taze me bro” which sets the policeman off (not having a thing for smart alecs). The officer promptly gets a handcuff on one arm. He then pulls out his wallet (where he keeps the cheat sheet with the Miranda warning) and the guy mistakes it for a gun and fires 41 times, killing him with the 4 bullets that hit him.

Jeeze, can’t we wait until we get more details before we hang the guy in effigy?

43

Right now, right above this thread is this one: It’s official: Police Officers can murder anyone without any reprocussions.

44

[QUOTE=Eyer8]
Jeeze, can’t we wait until we get more details before we hang the guy in effigy?
[/QUOTE]

Okay, that’s two… want to go for a third “lynching” metaphor, or can we stop building strawmen for a while?

I don’t know what happened either, but was merely curious what sort of situation could plausibly represent justified self-defense, in killing a uniformed officer making a traffic stop in a patrol car—who (assuming the news reports bear out) had called for backup, had his weapon holstered, and had not released the police dog. Both your scenario (the latter one; ignoring the song lyrics for the time being) and Frylock’s sound more like the result of temporary insanity or panic, rather than legitimate self-defense.

If I shoot you because I’m convinced you’re the devil and you’re about to gore me with your trident, I rather doubt that would fly.

45

[QUOTE=Eyer8]
Jeeze, can’t we wait until we get more details before we hang the guy in effigy?
[/QUOTE]
They’re going to have to be really spiffy details to justify putting 4 bullets in a cop’s head, when the uniformed officer hasn’t drawn his own weapon, and was in the process of arresting you.

Smart money in this case is on the shooter being drunk, belligerent, and making a tragically bad choice when faced with arrest.

46

That self defense plea is BS in my opinion. It reminds me of a recent local incident where a man with a CCW permit went to a gas station where is “rival” worked. They exchanged words or something then upon seeing his rival pick up a garbage can lid and wave it at him threatenlingly the guy with the CCW took out his gun and shot his rival in the head killing him. He claimed self defense which the courts justified. That also is BS. Here is the article from MLIVE

47

[QUOTE=chela]
That self defense plea is BS in my opinion. It reminds me of a recent local incident where a man with a CCW permit went to a gas station where is “rival” worked. They exchanged words or something then upon seeing his rival pick up a garbage can lid and wave it at him threatenlingly the guy with the CCW took out his gun and shot his rival in the head killing him. He claimed self defense which the courts justified. That also is BS. Here is the article from MLIVE
[/QUOTE]

Indiana’s self defense law addresses this exact situation. A person is not justified in defending himself if he provokes unlawful action by another person with the intent to cause him harm.

48

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but as I recall, police are trained to shoot until the gun is empty. So it’s only to be expected that a lot of bullets would get fired when it’s the cops doing it.
[/QUOTE]

Some good research is available on ForceScience website. Especially “Telling The Truth About Police Shootings” is worth reading.

49

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but as I recall, police are trained to shoot until the gun is empty.
[/QUOTE]

Police officers are trained to shoot until the target is no longer life threatening. You don’t continue to shoot after that point because your magazine is not empty.

50

We keep getting this line that “it can’t be self defense because he shot the guy in the head four times”.

Cops are trained to shoot to kill in self-defense, not to disable.

Why is it acceptable for a civilian to be killed “in self-defense”, but not the policeman? That was the point of my original post - not that this was self-defense, which I highly doubt, but that if the situations were reversed, the cop would be “blameless”.

51

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Police officers are trained to shoot until the target is no longer life threatening. You don’t continue to shoot after that point because your magazine is not empty.
[/QUOTE]

The technical term is ‘buck fever’.

Also, it takes a relatively short time to empty said weapon. Faster than you think when you’re tweaking on adrenaline.

It’s been established, see the NY cop shootings, that people can even reload weapons without actually being aware, and continue firing.

Now, is it just that a policeman will shoot a guy with more than a clip when he just pulled his wallet out? No. But it is what happens when you have an undisciplined shooter.

We need more details… but emptying a gun in a conflict is not a surprising event.

52

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]

Cops are trained to shoot to kill in self-defense, not to disable.
[/QUOTE]

Cops are trained to to stop threats in self-defense and in the defense of others, not to kill. They do (most often) aim for center mass to eliminate the threat, often killing the target, but this is done to to eliminate the threat, not to kill. Many suspects survive. If police officers were trained to kill, they would keep shooting until they were dead.

53

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Cops are trained to to stop threats in self-defense and in the defense of others, not to kill. They do (most often) aim for center mass to eliminate the threat, often killing the target, but this is done to to eliminate the threat, not to kill. Many suspects survive. If police officers were trained to kill, they would keep shooting until they were dead.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but I suspect the distinction is academic for most victims. What are the odds of surviving an abdominal/thoracic gunshot wound, or more likely several?

54

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
We keep getting this line that “it can’t be self defense because he shot the guy in the head four times”.

Cops are trained to shoot to kill in self-defense, not to disable.

Why is it acceptable for a civilian to be killed “in self-defense”, but not the policeman? That was the point of my original post - not that this was self-defense, which I highly doubt, but that if the situations were reversed, the cop would be “blameless”.
[/QUOTE]

It does seem out of order, yes, but a citizen concealed carry permit holder is not the same as a certified and sworn police officer lawfully (I’ll assume for the purpose of brevity) carrying out his duty. The reson it’s more acceptable is because an officer is in a position of trust, who has been vetted personally, mentally and physically then trained using proven techniques that have been backed by the law of the land. A civilian is simply that and has only his own interests in mind (according to the law) whereas an officer is considered to be an agent of the people.

First, cops don’t shoot for the head. They’re taught to aim for center mass, which is a) a bigger target than the head and b) the fastest way to stop a suspect. Second, blameless is hardly the word for a police involved shooting. If you, as a police officer, shoot someone in the line, in most jurisdictions you’re immediately pulled from street duty pending inquiry which can take quite a long time. Meanwhile, you’re villified in the press for shooting the “innocent victim” who by all accounts was a boy scout who read to blind kids, tutored the dumb ones and delivered meals on wheels on his bicycle so he could save the planet and feed old people at the same time, when you’re the one who saw him slingin dope on the tennis courts, and you tried to stop him and he pulled his gun from his waistband and you drew on him and just this one time, got the better of the person who would have killed you if given the opportunity.
*this is not to say, by any stretch of the imagination that all police shootings are justified, some to many aren’t, I’m not blind to that fact, but this case, I can’t believe they’re even considering self defense

Then you’ve got to go through PTSD (post traumatic stress debreifing) and depending on your agency, see a shrink for some time after the incident. All that is nothing compared to the hell your family will be going through (if you have one) having to deal with all of those same things with you. not to mention the paperwork. Mounds and mounds of it.

Despite being trained and recertified, most officers likely couldn’t, and more importantly WOULDN’T shoot the same person four times in the head to defend him/herself. Four shots to the head is not, i repeat NOT a defensive posture. one shot, two shots, maybe, four is willful hatred or mental defect.

55

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
We keep getting this line that “it can’t be self defense because he shot the guy in the head four times”.

Cops are trained to shoot to kill in self-defense, not to disable.

Why is it acceptable for a civilian to be killed “in self-defense”, but not the policeman? That was the point of my original post - not that this was self-defense, which I highly doubt, but that if the situations were reversed, the cop would be “blameless”.
[/QUOTE]

Except that I don’t see that at all, ever, anywhere. I see people often giving policemen the benefit of the doubt, but only when the situation is in doubt. There is an anti-police group on this board, and they often jump to the conclusion that police are automatically guilty as a weird way of somehow balancing things. There are poor policemen and corrupt cops. Pre-judging any copper, or pretending that nigh-impossible scenarios are at all plausible to dump on the police is not rational, not fair, and not sane.

56

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
It does seem out of order, yes, but a citizen concealed carry permit holder is not the same as a certified and sworn police officer lawfully (I’ll assume for the purpose of brevity) carrying out his duty. The reson it’s more acceptable is because an officer is in a position of trust, who has been vetted personally, mentally and physically then trained using proven techniques that have been backed by the law of the land. A civilian is simply that and has only his own interests in mind (according to the law) whereas an officer is considered to be an agent of the people.
[/QUOTE]

Let me be clear here: my concern is not whether or not the citizen had a right to shoot - clearly he didn’t. It just bothers me that (IMHO) regardless of the circumstances of the case, his self-defense justification would be brushed aside because he shot the officer in the head.

You’re trained to shoot for center mass because you’re more likely to hit the suspect there. If you were within arm’s length, though, and engaged in a struggle, presumably you’d shoot for the head, no?

ETA: I missed this-

-which pretty much answers my question.

57

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Fair enough, but I suspect the distinction is academic for most victims. What are the odds of surviving an abdominal/thoracic gunshot wound, or more likely several?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know. But as someone who worked as an ER x-ray tech in an inner city trauma center for several years, I’ve witnessed dozens of patients that were shot by the police and lived to tell about it or lived long enough to be taken to the hospital. I’ve even seen a few cases where the target was shot in the shoulder and leg and not killed after the threat they were responsible for was removed. “Academic for most victims” is not really relevant on the SD. Incorrect statements made out of ignorance or sloppy wording get corrected.

58

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
First, cops don’t shoot for the head. They’re taught to aim for center mass, which is a) a bigger target than the head and b) the fastest way to stop a suspect. Second, blameless is hardly the word for a police involved shooting. If you, as a police officer, shoot someone in the line, in most jurisdictions you’re immediately pulled from street duty pending inquiry which can take quite a long time. Meanwhile, you’re villified in the press for shooting the “innocent victim” who by all accounts was a boy scout who read to blind kids, tutored the dumb ones and delivered meals on wheels on his bicycle so he could save the planet and feed old people at the same time, when you’re the one who saw him slingin dope on the tennis courts, and you tried to stop him and he pulled his gun from his waistband and you drew on him and just this one time, got the better of the person who would have killed you if given the opportunity.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen a report from the Department of Justice that says 95% of jurisdictions require the officer to file a report for whenever their weapon is discharged.

59

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
I don’t know. But as someone who worked as an ER x-ray tech in an inner city trauma center for several years, I’ve witnessed dozens of patients that were shot by the police and lived to tell about it or lived long enough to be taken to the hospital. I’ve even seen a few cases where the target was shot in the shoulder and leg and not killed after the threat they were responsible for was removed. “Academic for most victims” is not really relevant on the SD. Incorrect statements made out of ignorance or sloppy wording get corrected.
[/QUOTE]

If the target was shot in one of the extremities, it could only have happened by accident, as I understand it.

60

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
If the target was shot in one of the extremities, it could only have happened by accident, as I understand it.
[/QUOTE]

What’s your point? Had the intent of the officers have been to kill, they would have continued to shoot regardless of whether or not the shoulder or leg was hit. They stopped shooting because the threat was removed.

Police officers are trained to shoot for center mass but they understand this is to stop a threat to life, not to kill. Because of this understanding, they do on occasion use their own judgment and sometimes shoot in a less lethal area. I vaguely recall an incident in NYC a year or two ago where a mentally disturbed man was wielding an ax in a crowded area. A police officer purposely shot him in the leg to remove the threat and lessen the chance of serious injury compared to being shot in the chest. If he was “trained to kill” instead of “protect and serve” I have no doubt the outcome would have been different as would be the outcomes of the ones I witnessed.