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.

 

Man cops killed was in diabetic shock

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Man cops killed was in diabetic shock


www.tucsoncitizen.com

The way Chris Burdon's family sees it, police killed an innocent man May 12 for no good reason.
Burdon, 39, a diabetic since age 8, was apparently suffering from low blood sugar when he fired his handgun - three quick shots - to get help, the family says.
The police say they shot a man who was waving a gun, pointing it at officers and refusing to follow their commands.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Yet another case of police killing an innocent without knowing the full story?

I was not sure what to think myelf at first but reading what his brother has to say

"Every (news) article so far has said my brother was shooting at the police," Adam Burdon said. He said that is preposterous.
"My brother had an AR-15 (assault rifle) at home. If he really wanted to kill people he would have taken that and shot all the people he wanted to," he said.


Adam, Bill, 41, and Tom, 43, all say they are certain Chris, an avid outdoorsman, fired three rounds into the air in a hunter's SOS call as he fell into hypoglycemic shock. The shell casings were found in the dirt by officers and police could find no evidence any structures in the area were hit, according to police reports.
"He's never acted violently toward anybody," Adam said. "What the police said makes our family look bad."


I can see the police side of the story to a point, but shooting into the air is not necessarily menacing. It is simply attention getting at the best of times.


www.tucsoncitizen.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I feel sick to my stomach.

One thing that irks me most about hearing these incidents is knowing that the police involved would have been told they did nothing wrong, that they were in the right according to the rules they follow. Yet those rules get an innocent person killed and the killer thinking he was right to do it.

I want off this planet.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


That is where the problem is, "The Rules"!

I think it's time they changed those rules so that less innocent people are killed.

Their "rules of engagement" seem to be pretty lax anymore, especially with tazers.

Although somebody waving a gun around IS pretty threatening.

But, there IS more to this story!

Family: Man cops killed was in diabetic shock


Police reports said Burdon had removed the clip from the gun and laid it on the floor of the sand rail before he got out and started staggering around.

The gun still had one round in it, but it couldn't be fired without the clip. It's a safety feature of that weapon, Adam Burdon said.

Police had no way of knowing that, Robinson said.



He couldn't have even fired the gun! Apparently he shot off his distress shots and then removed the clip to disable it, probably so the cops wouldn't shoot him!



Police reports show that while Burdon was seated in the dirt with his back to Campos, appearing disoriented and holding a gun, the officer fired five times, hitting him in the arm, back and head, shattering his skull.

"The subject made an aggressive movement with the gun and officers shot the suspect," one officer wrote in his report on the shooting.



An aggressive movement countered by a LETHAL movement.

Shot him 5 times, I think that's a little overkill myself!

Sad story!



[edit on 8/20/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
An unknown subject is walking through a neighborhood, that is known to have drugs and prostitution. Firing shoots into the air and acting disoriented. For all the "witnesses" knew he could have been high or drunk.

There are too many different types of hand guns to memorize them all and know their safety features. From just what this news story says about the police responce. I'd say they reacted properly.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


It took a trained police officer 5 shots to hit this guy? Dont they have ranges for officers to train at?

This story is really sad in the fact a man did what he could to get help, and winds up blown apart. One could attack the police in this matter, jumping all over the "protect and serve" but they have families as well, and probably wanted to go home to them. Unless I was there, I cant say who is right in this scenario. An innocent man is dead at the hands of cops who cant shoot straight, and I cant say anyone is really to blame.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
What a pathetic lack of brainpower by cops. i understand their excuse would be "we were just doing our jobs" but when I hear that about cops, i puke because the police officer should be held to the highest expectations of respect towards the public, this makes me think, silent eugenics or cops who cant use more understanding. Take your time when you investigate a scene. The truth of it might not be so, obvious.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
This is a tough one really.
Is there any witness's?
Why would they shoot him if he dropped the gun?
He must have been waiving it at them when they got there.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Yes there were witnesses

"In my opinion, what I get from people who are telling me he was stumbling, falling down on his head and dropping his gun, he must have been going into diabetic shock. There's no question in my mind about it," said Adam Burdon, 35, one of Chris' three brothers.


Basically what has happened here is the police stuffed up, realised their mistake and tried to start a media campaign to make the victim look like a crazed gun man.


"Every (news) article so far has said my brother was shooting at the police,"



A few hours after the shooting, the Pima County Attorney's Office determined the killing by Campos was a "justifiable homicide," a County Attorney's Office official said.
Campos was cleared after the shooting to return to work.


So this was just quickly swept under the carpet and back to work. Business as usual. It took only a few hours to determine that it was justifiable. No investigation.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
I feel sick to my stomach.

One thing that irks me most about hearing these incidents is knowing that the police involved would have been told they did nothing wrong, that they were in the right according to the rules they follow. Yet those rules get an innocent person killed and the killer thinking he was right to do it.

I want off this planet.


This is a horrible story but we are really only hearing one side of it right now. Most police are not it the habit of shooting someone out of hand, although the media would have us think differently. I really hope they had a reason to use leathal force, and if not then they derserve to get nailed to the wall. I haven't read the story yet so I am not sure of why the police would have shot this man. Was he at home? Or out in the open? If he was at home why would he fire rounds off instead of using a phone?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Sometimes accidents happen. These were just unfortunate circumstances.
It did not take the officer five shots to hit him. He got him five times, in different parts of the body. The man was flailing about, so each shot is not going to be where it was pointed at.

Feel really bad about this man dieing, living through his illness into the prime of his life only to be dispatched from a misunderstanding.

What is the ter for one of those scenarios where no matter how innocecent the situation was, there was no way to stop the inevitable from occuring?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
It did not take the officer five shots to hit him. He got him five times, in different parts of the body. The man was flailing about, so each shot is not going to be where it was pointed at.


That just makes it worse. Once the first shot hit, the man would have succumbed. Since he was still moving about, the extra 4 shots were obviously to make sure the man was killed outright. Simply injuring him was not enough?
What was wrong with 1 non lethal shot, overpower the man and find out what was going on?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I cant say I am happy the man died, or even believe he should have.

But you should not approach your judgements with an "I hate the cops" attitude all the time.

A man shot ocne or five tiems does not always succumb outright. These men did not know the circumstances of the current scenario.

They only arrived to a scene in which a man acting in an unusual manner was waving a tool of death (whether you want to believe it is anything other than that, no I am not a gun control activist). The typical scenario police face that are simliar to do this do not grant the police time to ask the man what is going on or observe the scene with restraint.

It only takes a few seconds for anyone to begin killing innocent people. Yes obviosuly that was not this mans intent we know.

But again, remember which side you have to view this from. The men who approached have a career that deal with extremely dangerous scenarios on a daily basis, most of the time being exactly what they seem. They understand that it only takes a few seconds of hesitation for an armed entity to being dispatching innocent people.

If this man was a junkie on PCP who was waiting to die by cop before he began shooting bystanders, even being hit half a dozen times in the torso may not completely stop him right away. The police had no way of knowing what the situation was, only that a man with a firearm in a public area was acting in an highly unusual manner, and that this should not go any further until a bystander gets involed.

I think the officer is a victim just as much as the man who died. Think of how he feels, that the day an inevitable mistake was made during a career in which more than 95% of scenarios (similar to this) are exactly what they seem and he is the one who does it, and an innocent man dies.

This is part of the risk of law enforcemnt. I understand there are brutal, corrupt and overbearing officers out there, but we shuold not generalize. Innocent people die in many ways everyday all over the world,sadly it happens in this field also.

One of the scenarios where anything and everything that could go wrong, will go wrong.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
The police want to see their wives and family again too.

It's real sad but a gun is not a good way to get police attention.
He made more than one mistake that got himself killed. The cop only made one judgement call, and it's anyone's guess whether it would have been right if the man was looking to kill someone.

I feel bad for both of them. He's dead, and the cop has to live with shooting a guy in diabetic shock.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a sidearm is NOT an emergency communication device - sheesh

no mobile phone , no ` emergency pack ` [ mars bars , insulin etc ]

but he did remember his side arm - thats a seriously flawed "plan "

i know two diabetics - and both are VERY paranoid about forgetting / misplacing thier kit when they go out



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


there is no such thing as a ` disabling shot ` - if you shoot some one - you shoot to kill



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I think some of you are missing the point. The 'distress call' he sent out was a hunters distress call, something the police should have been well aware of seeing as hunting season comes around once a year.

So, that either makes for an ignorant, dumb cop, or a cop that knew all too well what it meant but wanted a 'notch' marked on his tally. Either way I do not believe this was anything else but a call for help and that the police shot an innocent man for no reason.

If this is how police react to a man calling for help then Im never stepping out my front door again in case some copper sees my shoelace, calls it a hypodermic needle then fills me full of holes.


Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


there is no such thing as a ` disabling shot ` - if you shoot some one - you shoot to kill


Unless you shoot them in the leg or shoulder


[edit on 21/8/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Again, they do not know what the situation with the man was. Anyone on enough PCP can take several shots and keep on truckin like nothing happened.

Police do not want to take that risk with someone who has fired a gun and is wielding it in a provacative manner.

Did you even know what a hunters distress signal was until you read the article? I gaurantee that was not on anyones mind when the shots were fired.

It was just a sad unfortunate and unavoidable misunderstanding.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Did you even know what a hunters distress signal was until you read the article? I gaurantee that was not on anyones mind when the shots were fired.


I used to go fox and kangaroo shooting with my grandfather many years ago and he taught me that signal. Came in handy once actually when I accidentally stumbled into a wild pig!



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


Yeah I agree with Keyhole here about the lax rules of engagement with tasers.
There have been 3 people killed by taser in my area... apparently it is more lethal than everyone knows.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join