It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Police Officer fired for not shooting an armed man.

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
With all of the hue and cry about police shootings, it would seem to be in the interests of police to de-escalate situations where a shooting may occur. Instead, here we have a case where an officer was fired for not shooting an armed man.

www.post-gazette.com...


After responding to a report of a domestic incident on May 6 in Weirton, W.Va., then-Weirton police officer Stephen Mader found himself confronting an armed man.

Immediately, the training he had undergone as a Marine to look at “the whole person” in deciding if someone was a terrorist, as well as his situational police academy training, kicked in and he did not shoot.

“I saw then he had a gun, but it was not pointed at me,” Mr. Mader recalled, noting the silver handgun was in the man’s right hand, hanging at his side and pointed at the ground.


The officer in question may have been taking a risk, but it seems a calculated one that was paying off, at least until the arrival of 2 other officers.


“I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it.

“I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and deescalate it. I knew it was a suicide-by-cop” situation.

But just then, two other Weirton officers arrived on the scene, Mr. Williams walked toward them waving his gun — later found to be unloaded — between them and Mr. Mader, and one of them shot Mr. Williams’ in the back of the head just behind his right ear, killing him.


So the man is shot, and then the officer who did not shoot loses his job.


In a meeting with the chief and City Manager Travis Blosser, Mr. Mader said Chief Alexander told him: “We’re putting you on administrative leave and we’re going to do an investigation to see if you are going to be an officer here. You put two other officers in danger.”

Mr. Mader said that “right then I said to him: ‘Look, I didn’t shoot him because he said, ‘Just shoot me.’ ”

On June 7, a Weirton officer delivered him a notice of termination letter dated June 6, which said by not shooting Mr. Williams he “failed to eliminate a threat.”


Boingboing offer a nice summation.


The obvious contrast here is with the cops who murder unarmed people, even children, and are given short administrative leaves before being welcomed back on the force with full benefits -- or, if they're terminated, simply walk one town down the road and get a new job in law enforcement.

America's police forces have no trouble summarily firing cops who de-escalate and avoid needless killing, but are institutionally incapable of doing anything about sociopathic murderers with badges.


It turns out the gun the killed man was holding wasn't even loaded.

edit on 16-9-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold

Heard about this yesterday. Crazy to say the least. Whats really crazy is the lack of responses to your post.
edit on 16-9-2016 by Jahari because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Seems like a case can't do right for doing wrong! Good on the now ex cop for actually taking a little time to properly assess the situation what an almighty shame he was sacked for not being an arse



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
What.the.fuc*.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Yes, he was fired for cause. According to the former cop's own statement, the man was a threat. Unless the officer can see that the weapon is unloaded it is to be treated as loaded. It is not the officer's place to diagnose the suspect or figure out their reasoning. It is his job to remove the threat. This probably would have been a good time for a taser, but the story didn't say anything about whether the department carries them. As for me, I would have my sidearm out in said situation not a taser. But since the cop was feeling sorry for the suspect, taser it is. And yes, he put other officers as well as anyone else who might have come in contact with this person in danger by not shooting them. If you can't disarm them then it is on them. Yes, this guy committed suicide by cop, it happens often. But if you can't make the call and remove the threat, then you cannot be a cop.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

What the hell. The man wanted suicide by cop. Shouldn't the first call be to 'serve and protect'? Officer one called it rightly and at the least they should have called in a negotiator. Officers now days only protect their self at the expense of others. Consider many are sent to Israel for training. Shoot first and ask questions later. There was a time in the US where this wasn't the case



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

I am so glad that style of policing hasn't yet invaded the UK



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Que BLM yawn



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89




But if you can't make the call and remove the threat, then you cannot be a cop.


This now ex cop should be promoted not fired........the reason cops get such a bad rap is because they shoot first and ask questions later...you knew though already as you are an ex cop



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

No, because in another scenario . . . the cop makes same decision and the cop's partner walks up and gets shot. Now cop 1 is liable, because he did not remove the threat.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
That's right I am an ex-cop. And that ex-cop was a liability to everyone around him. He was trained to take in the situation. It is fine to monday morning quarterback it, but when it comes down to it . . . the cop's job is to protect everyone else from the idiot with the gun, not the other way around.

And yes this style of policing is in the UK. They have to call in special armed units to deal with people with guns.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89




And that ex-cop was a liability to everyone around him. He was trained to take in the situation.


Apparently this is where the disconnect is .....the cop was not a liability to everyone around him he was a liability to his colleagues, he was not a liability however to the people that he took an oath to protect and serve...so one could argue he was "for the people"

I realize you will not accept it but the shoot first and ask questions later scenario is what will lead to an all out war between the people and the police....that scenario is not very desirable for either party....



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

indeed they do however here we take an effort to defuse the situation somewhat first before dropping a subject/suspect
and even then effort is made to not kill unless there is no other choice.

officers over here still for the most part still act and think like public servants not like a paramilitary enforcement squad.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89


Yes, he was fired for cause. According to the former cop's own statement, the man was a threat. Unless the officer can see that the weapon is unloaded it is to be treated as loaded. It is not the officer's place to diagnose the suspect or figure out their reasoning. It is his job to remove the threat.


What a crock of narcissistic chicken #. The officer's job is to serve and protect the public. It is not the officer's place to diagnose every man, woman and child as a threat because he BELIEVES and/or FEARS that they MIGHT be a threat at some point or another. They are not judge, jury and executioner.

The man was not a threat, as evidenced by the victim NOT pointing the gun at officers, and as proven by the UNLOADED weapon after being killed in cold blood by a thug with a badge and a gun. But he's dead -- murdered -- because a couple thugs rushed into a situation, scared themselves, and reacted like all cowards.

We all have an absolute inalienable right to life... unless and until a person clearly threatens another person's life -- including an officer -- there is no justification for lethal force. Period. If cops cannot respect and protect EVERYONE's right to life, then THEY are the problem.

I thank everything sacred that I've known good cops with honor and integrity and noble standards so that I don't automatically judge them all by these piss poor murderous standards.

When cops demand better equipment, better training, better anything that will protect themselves as well as the public, I'll be right there beside them and demanding the same... but the cops just making excuses for killing people in cold blood only have my contempt. Because that's all murderers deserve -- especially murderers hiding behind a badge and a gun under color of law.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDeLattre89

And yes this style of policing is in the UK. They have to call in special armed units to deal with people with guns.

Yep, armed response were in my town for two separate incidents of someone waving a gun around last month. Neither got shot, both arrested alive.

Whatever you say, UK policing is less lethal than US...that really can't be argued against.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JDeLattre89


Yes, he was fired for cause. According to the former cop's own statement, the man was a threat. Unless the officer can see that the weapon is unloaded it is to be treated as loaded. It is not the officer's place to diagnose the suspect or figure out their reasoning. It is his job to remove the threat.


What a crock of narcissistic chicken #. The officer's job is to serve and protect the public. It is not the officer's place to diagnose every man, woman and child as a threat because he BELIEVES and/or FEARS that they MIGHT be a threat at some point or another. They are not judge, jury and executioner.

The man was not a threat, as evidenced by the victim NOT pointing the gun at officers, and as proven by the UNLOADED weapon after being killed in cold blood by a thug with a badge and a gun. But he's dead -- murdered -- because a couple thugs rushed into a situation, scared themselves, and reacted like all cowards.

We all have an absolute inalienable right to life... unless and until a person clearly threatens another person's life -- including an officer -- there is no justification for lethal force. Period. If cops cannot respect and protect EVERYONE's right to life, then THEY are the problem.

I thank everything sacred that I've known good cops with honor and integrity and noble standards so that I don't automatically judge them all by these piss poor murderous standards.

When cops demand better equipment, better training, better anything that will protect themselves as well as the public, I'll be right there beside them and demanding the same... but the cops just making excuses for killing people in cold blood only have my contempt. Because that's all murderers deserve -- especially murderers hiding behind a badge and a gun under color of law.


We'll take it by your statements.

1st - you just agreed with the very statement you called a crock. It is not the cop's place to diagnose. It is the cop's job to protect the public, and that means from armed people who are presenting a threat.

2nd - If you are holding a gun in your had and start flicking your wrist where the gun points towards people, then you are a threat . . . there is no interpretation involved. The gun being unloaded is NOT evidence unless he walked over and showed the cop it was unloaded before anything else happens. If you and your family are walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on you, are you going to assume that it's unloaded or loaded?
(Clear and present danger).

3rd - Yes, you understand the concept: we all have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . . UNLESS we infringe upon others' rights to same. By waving the gun around, this man was threatening others' lives. He obviously had the intent to get the cops to shoot him. Guess what, they did.

4th - Yes the vast majority of cops are good people and good cops. In any given profession there is around 3% whom are "bad apples", that statistic drops in LE. But had this cop did what he did and the suspect walked away and shot someone else, you would all be criticizing the cop for not doing his job and calling him one of the bad cops.

5th - Shooting someone who is waving a gun around is not murdering in cold blood as you put it. If said person does not want to be shot, they can put down their weapon. But again we come back to the fact that this man wanted to die. So, obviously you do not stand behind a cop who also would like to enjoy the right to live.

Have a good day.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand




Yep, armed response were in my town for two separate incidents of someone waving a gun around last month. Neither got shot, both arrested alive. Whatever you say, UK policing is less lethal than US...that really can't be argued against.


So, I am assuming that both of these people were talked down and NOT trying to commit suicide by cop?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed




Apparently this is where the disconnect is .....the cop was not a liability to everyone around him he was a liability to his colleagues, he was not a liability however to the people that he took an oath to protect and serve...so one could argue he was "for the people" I realize you will not accept it but the shoot first and ask questions later scenario is what will lead to an all out war between the people and the police....that scenario is not very desirable for either party....


His oath is to protect all, his fellow officers included. And yes the suspect was a threat to others if left to his own devices. He was waving a gun around and acting without judgement.

As far as shoot first mentality? That was not the case. They attempted to talk him down, his response was to attempt to get the officer to shoot him. If he wanted to live he could have disarmed himself. What part of suicide by cop does nobody here seem to understand?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ShayneJUK
a reply to: JDeLattre89

indeed they do however here we take an effort to defuse the situation somewhat first before dropping a subject/suspect
and even then effort is made to not kill unless there is no other choice.

officers over here still for the most part still act and think like public servants not like a paramilitary enforcement squad.


Well, it sounds like they are trained pretty much like every other cop in the world, including in America.

As for being a paramilitary force? Well, last time I checked it was the UK and not the US that succeeded in disarming its citizens. When a nation wants to have a paramilitary state, the first thing that it does is to disarm its citizens. It makes it much easier to control them. But when you have the right to carry a gun, you also have the responsibility of not being stupid with it and endangering others.

When someone is intentionally provoking cops to shoot them, do not be surprised when they are shot.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
If I missed responding to anyone, I apologize. I explained the situation with logic as well as I can. If you do not understand the basic logic in this case, then there is nothing more that I can say to you because your mind is already made up. Have a good day folks, and I do hope that none of you run across an idiot today who is mentally unstable and carrying a gun because a cop failed to do his job.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join