Passerby shoots, kills motorist assaulting deputy after traffic stop

Restraining an angry violent male is nothing like in the movies. No one-bombs or feints and no sweet side-steps followed by an choke-hold. It's an intense thing and made much, much worse if the angry guy outweighs you and has more fight experience.

The situation sounds like it was a serious beating on the cop that may have been attempted murder. The passerby could have been someone not experienced in self-defence, restraints or fighting. He might have assessed the situation as a potential murder. The cop shouted several times to shoot and that shows hesitation on the passerby's part.

He finally fired after being instructed to by the cop and was most likely stuck in flight or fight mode as he wouldn't have been prepared for all this as he drove past.

The cop and the man who saved him will both be traumatised by the experience. The dead man took his chances and lost. He might have been mentally ill and that still wouldn't have changed the way the cop and passerby assessed the dangers in the time it was happening.

originally posted by: skywatcher44
Why three shots and not One in the Arm ? The Perp didn't have a knife or a Gun ?

So you are one of those who believe someone has to be armed to be dangerous, and if one is armed that they MUST be considered dangerous. How SJW of you! An unarmed person can be quite dangerous given the will, insanity, or drink/drugs. Sometimes, a 'triple-tap' center-mass is the ONLY option, given the propensity of criminals to behave as SAVAGELY as animals. Could be reduced to a 'double-tap' with inceptors.

a reply to: WAstateMosin

You said it better than I could. I was trained to shoot center of mass until the attacker went down. One round, two rounds, ten rounds, whatever it took. Once the attacker went down you stopped shooting.

I remember in the mid 80's when PCP was in it's hey day. The evening news showed the inside of a police car that was trashed by a man on PCP. He broke his handcuffs, and his wrist at the same time. He ripped out the back seat, smashed the rear window and bent the supports that held the screen between the front and back of the car.

I also remember seeing a report, about a man, again on PCP who was shot by Police. The first shot supposedly severed his spinal cord, but, he kept going for a few more minutes. The report was from a researcher who was trying to determine if that actually happened. This was before there was a camera on every street corner. The researcher thought that if this actually happened and if he could figure out how it happened, it might lead to being able to reverse paralysis in people with damaged spinal cords.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm curious, genuinely, what do you believe the bystander did that was brave? Did he try to apprehend the assailant in any way at all? It seems not, he decided to shoot him three times, killing him from a relative distance - please explain the bravery.

would you have stopped and tried to beat the perpetrator into submission, are you that brave? it is a stupid move. you would risk the same happening to you.

he gave the perpetrator a warning that included the words or i'll shoot. the perpetrator choose poorly.

for most rational people, to kill someone takes a certain amount of courage. this man displayed that.

I've had several responses, but you weren't rude so I'll respond to yours. The assailant appears not to have a gun or knife. The police man was not unconscious, and there is nothing I've read that implies the police man was at immediate risk of death. I merely asked why it should be considered brave to draw a gun on an (as far as we desktop judges on ATS know) unarmed man and shoot him three times. If he had made an attempt to push him away from the police man, or pull him away from the guy, but then had no recourse but to shoot him, then I would say calling him brave might be justified.

The fact that he stopped to me makes him more of a human being than someone who would watch and drive away. Would I have attempted to manually stop the assailant? I've stood between someone kicking the crap out of someone else when I was younger, but that doesn't mean I'd do it now or in any given scenario. I just think the fact that the guy shot first may have been the most appropriate action in this case, but that isn't bravery in and of itself, apart from the fact that you would never forget you took a life without knowing if in reality you actually saved one.

We can all have opinions of course.

He had his gun drawn and told the guy to stop or he would shoot. Of this man overpowered a deputy and wasn't stopping when a man with a gun pointed at him was telling him to stop I am pretty sure trying to get between them would have been a bad idea. It would also have given the guy a chance to get the gun himself and then we may be reading about a dead bystander and cop.

I don't agree with killing somebody for giving someone else an ass whooping.

It's not just in my opinion.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
I don't agree with killing somebody for giving someone else an ass whooping.

It's not just in my opinion.

An opinion is defined as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" so...yes, yes that is just your opinion.

originally posted by: sg1642
I know every situation is different but why is the first instinct for the cop or a passer by to shoot to kill? Couldn't the cop have used pepper spray or a baton?

I'm not trying to blame the police here far from it. And does it really take 3 shots to stop an assault?

And does it really take 3 shots to stop an assault?

Atleast that many or enough to do the job.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: skywatcher44

Why three shots and not One in the Arm ? The Perp didn't have a knife or a Gun ?

because this was real life not TV.
in real life a shot to the arm is very unlikely, unless you get close enough. then you risk being involved in a physical altercation that you might not survive.

when training with a firearm,it is usually taught that you aim at center mass. the largest part of the body and less likely to miss. if aiming at smaller parts you increase the chances of missing and hitting innocent people.

ya cant say it better than that. besides hind sight is 20-20, you truly cant imagine what you would do till you are smack in it

a reply to: Vasa Croe

"Officer orders bystander to execute unarmed man"

...just guessing at what the CNN headline would be..

To me it sounds like a concerned citizen intervened because he thought the cop was going to be beaten to death..
I don't blame him, but maybe one well placed shot to disable the attacker would have been better than 3 shots to put him down for good.
Easy for me to say though.
It mentions the attacker was armed? How so?
I would like to hear more details.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
I don't agree with killing somebody for giving someone else an ass whooping.

It's not just in my opinion.

so...yes, yes that is just your opinion.

No, it is not.

Under pretext of not knowing anymore about this story then the OP and article, I see no bravery either. Over here we do not get taught to shoot center mass to stop any threat. Certainly not if the criminal element does not have a weapon. We shoot legs, nothing lethal, nothing difficult about that either from mere meters away.

If you don't believe me, do a quick google search, there's plenty of news articles citing criminals being apprehended after being shot in the leg in Belgium and the Netherlands. There's even video of such an arrest after the bombings in Brussels this year.

Warning shots are given first too, which are very much a proven deterrent in much any part of the civil world.

I commend the man for stepping up but, again without knowing more about the whole situation, killing an unarmed man is certainly not brave around here.

a reply to: Balans

I don't really give a damn about "over there." "Over there" isn't here, where the event happened.

And "getting your ass handed to you" is categorically and unequivocally a reason to use lethal force. You're under no legal obligation to sit there and take a beating, especially as a law enforcement officer, and just hope your assailant stops at some point.

I'd rather go home than go in the ground with you thinking I did the "heroic" thing by taking an ass beating and not stopping it.

ETA - It's funny that you use the Dutch police as an example, seeing as they've been encouraging their command to be more aggressive when it comes to using force.

www.statewatch.org...

Firing warning shots is idiotic. There is no legal reason to require lethal force (guns) to be used in a less lethal manner. That's never held up in an American court, nor has it ever managed to get passed in to law. If your police are shooting people in the legs then I would question the need for your police to be using their firearms at all.

Authorities have not identified the suspect or the person who shot him and it was unclear if charges would be sought.

If the citizen ends up charged, that will put a further dent into people helping in deadly situations. I hope that was just the author's words because nothing was stated as to that point.

I'm going to guess the attacker had a warrant and therefore the attempt to flee.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I don't really give a damn about "over there." "Over there" isn't here, where the event happened.

So because I'm from "over there" and give an opinion it is of no value to you. A car chase can only happen in America, got you.

And "getting your ass handed to you" is categorically and unequivocally a reason to use lethal force.

Our reasoning is just that touch milder in definition. It presumes that if you are the one holding the gun, you should be able to dominate the situation without resorting to deadly force.

You're under no legal obligation to sit there and take a beating, especially as a law enforcement officer, and just hope your assailant stops at some point.

I never said he had to just sit there and take it.

Addendum:
Please tell me why you think warning shots are idiotic, they are mandatory here even in our army and are a proven deterrent as I said.

Could you also explain to me why you question the need for our police to be using their firearms at all to shoot people in the leg?

Add. 2: I'll assume you haven't even read the article you linked to. It is a complaint against the police using more violent measures ...

a reply to: Balans

It was in Florida.

The only state I know where after someone beats a victim up, they eat their face off.

a reply to: Balans

No, because you're comparing apples and oranges it has no value to me. I didn't say anything about car chases, no need to use strawman arguments.

Clearly the guy holding the gun didn't dominate the situation, despite repeated attempts to take control of it.

Because warning shots still land somewhere. No more than your police are required to actually use their firearms, I'm sure the risk is substantially less than what it is here. I'm also pretty certain that wherever you live doesn't have 300-odd million folks living in it.

I'm assuming you didn't read it, because at the very top of the article it pretty clearly states that police are being instructed to be more aggressive. I did not pontificate on whether it was in support of or against increased aggression, as it wasn't germane to the point that your police are being told to be more aggressive and shoot more people.

so if i see 2 people fighting without knowing anything on who started the fight or why they were fighting, am i clear to kill someone?

oh, man, this country is going to be a purge sequel in a few months.

i love where its headed.

a reply to: Shamrock6

This whole thing happened after a car chase, that was the scene.
Warning shots have a much better chance of not killing the person you're confronting, firing in the air does not produce a deadly falling projectile as the myth predicts.

I did read it, from your article, after the introduction:

a spokesperson for the council of Police Chiefs, is quoted by the newspaper as saying: “in the past we were reluctant with violence. Nowadays we say: be quicker in drawing your gun and show it as a menace, fire a warning shot if necessary... If that does not produce the necessary effect, you [may] shoot at the legs if needs be.”

Where does this oppose what I was trying to convey ?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
so if i see 2 people fighting without knowing anything on who started the fight or why they were fighting, am i clear to kill someone?

How is that the same thing as what this thread is about?

1. Criminal beating up a cop

or

2. 2 people fighting

A picture of the suspect on the officer.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
we have no clue as to how big the suspect was or the bystander nor the deputy.

But we DO know the guy blew past a deputy, engaged in an apparently very brief pursuit and then decided at the stop to come out of his car like the Flash, close the distance to the SO car, tackle what looks like a pretty hefty armed deputy, and proceed to beat the crap out of him.

In my book, you've just nominated yourself as 'target'. You've demonstrated both intent and ability to violate pretty major laws, and damned if I'M going to walk up and say 'Tut, tut, stop this, young man, or I may be forced to use ta-jutsu restraint holds on you!', me not being Jackie Chan.

The guy. is. grounding. and. pounding. a. big. ass. deputy. I have an aversion to getting my big ass whupped as well. Thus, it's pretty much a no brainer to escalate all the way. I would probably have tried vocal control, once, unless he was gouging the guys eyes out or something, while I moved to get a clear field on the far side.

My only fear in this situation would be - obviously the chase was too brief or traffic too #ed up for other deputies to converge on the scene in real time. Generally, high speed pursuit calls will attract every LEO in the vicinity, and they'll all be hyped up like two year olds on Christmas Day. I'm not totally sure I want to be the big beardy guy with a gun pointing it somewhere in the vicinity of the deputy when the cops all arrive in the middle of this event, responding to phone calls of a pursuit followed by an assault on a LEO.