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.

 

Police officer involved in two shootings in four days

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Police officer involved in two shootings in four days


www.cnn.com

MIAMI BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- On the grainy, silent black and white video, it's hard to tell exactly what happened the night of June 14 in Miami Beach. But one thing is certain: A tourist, Husien Shehada, can be seen falling to the ground, shot by a police officer. Shehada, 29, later died.

Four nights later, again in Miami Beach, Lawrence McCoy allegedly pistol-whipped a cab driver and led police on a chase. Police say shots were exchanged. McCoy, also 29, was killed.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Okay, I saw this story and thought I would post it and see what the ATS consensus is. This thread is not intended to accuse the officer of any abuse of powers, rather to discuss the police department's handling of the officer after the first shooting. After shooting and killing the suspect in the first shooting, the officer was placed on 72 hours leave. Now, being placed on leave after such an incident it typical operating procedure; however, he was placed back on duty 72-hours later, only to be involved in another shooting on the day he came back. So, my question is: Was 72-hours sufficient time for someone to deal with the psychological effects of shooting/killing a person? Did the officer have an itchy/jumpy trigger finger related to the first shooting (psychological)? Did the Police Department err in letting the officer back on duty before a complete psychological evaluation could be done?

I personally feel that this officer should not have been put back on full duty so quickly, as I do not believe he could have been sufficiently evaluated in 3 days time. I believe that it was negligent of the PD to allow him back so soon and that by doing so, the PD placed the public in harms way.

What are your thoughts?



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



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Aggie, that is a tough one. Maybe the officer was the perfect guy to get put back on the job. It is unfortunate, but the account of the second situation sounds like he did a great job, so without knowing more of the first situation, we have to assume he is a good cop!

I have never agreed with the mandatory off-duty period. The last thing I want when I am upset or depressed, is a bunch of free time to mull it over!!

So, if the shootings were justified, and the correct people got killed, and the cop is obviously decisive and a decent shot, then I say keep him on the street as much as possible!



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Aggie, that is a tough one. Maybe the officer was the perfect guy to get put back on the job. It is unfortunate, but the account of the second situation sounds like he did a great job, so without knowing more of the first situation, we have to assume he is a good cop!

I have never agreed with the mandatory off-duty period. The last thing I want when I am upset or depressed, is a bunch of free time to mull it over!!

So, if the shootings were justified, and the correct people got killed, and the cop is obviously decisive and a decent shot, then I say keep him on the street as much as possible!


Great points. If both shootings were justifiable, then he might just get cop of the year. If not, then the PD has epically failed.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I saw this article as well, and thought about posting it buut I decided against it Here's why:

It is unknown whether the second person was killed by that officer. If it is unknown whether or not it was HIS bullet that killed the guy, that means other officers were firing.

Regardless of the situation, if one officer fires or is fired upon, their mates are trained to fire along with them(obviously within some perameters). Therefore, the second was was situational, and was not a matter of judgement. He more or less HAD to fire in that one. And, again, they still don't know if it was he who hit the man.

Finally, they are placed on 72 hour leave, and the shooting is investigated. If it was found to be a "bad shot" so to speak, they are not put back out right away. This was found to be a legal shoot. And I cant fault every cop who kills someone, especially in a situation where they are in imminent danger.

Good questions though.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

...they are placed on 72 hour leave, and the shooting is investigated. If it was found to be a "bad shot" so to speak, they are not put back out right away.


Great points!

On this one above, I don't know what standard operating procedure is. Is it to only investigate the legitimacy of the officer using his gun? Good shot, so go on about your business...that seems reasonable; however, what about the psychological side of things? I've never killed anyone, but I would think that it would weigh heavy on one's mind.

Even if it turns out that his bullet killed the second suspect and that shooting was justified, the question stands...was he psychologically equipped to return to full duty. How about now? If, in deed, the second suspect was killed by this officer will he get another 72 hours and then right back to full duty?

Point being, how many confirmed kills does one need to have before it affects their mentality? I hear of soldiers in combat that "go nuts" after shooting 1 enemy...surly officers are no more strong willed and psychologically sound than soldiers. So should psychological evaluations and counseling be available and mandatory? Or is that something that is already in place within the law enforcement system.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
In every department I have ever worked for, the standard time off after a shooting is a week.. 7 full days and then you go through an evaluation and must pass before they let you back on full duty.

And the 7 days can be extended at the request of the officer but it can NOT be shortened.

Semper



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man


Okay, I saw this story and thought I would post it and see what the ATS consensus is. This thread is not intended to accuse the officer of any abuse of powers, rather to discuss the police department's handling of the officer after the first shooting. After shooting and killing the suspect in the first shooting, the officer was placed on 72 hours leave.


OK, the article says:


Although it is not yet clear whether Tavss fired one of the shots that killed McCoy, questions are being raised as to whether the officer was cleared for patrol duty too soon after the first shooting.


Do you have any further updates to this article stating Tavss did fire one of the shots that killed McCoy?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by Aggie Man


Okay, I saw this story and thought I would post it and see what the ATS consensus is. This thread is not intended to accuse the officer of any abuse of powers, rather to discuss the police department's handling of the officer after the first shooting. After shooting and killing the suspect in the first shooting, the officer was placed on 72 hours leave.


OK, the article says:


Although it is not yet clear whether Tavss fired one of the shots that killed McCoy, questions are being raised as to whether the officer was cleared for patrol duty too soon after the first shooting.


Do you have any further updates to this article stating Tavss did fire one of the shots that killed McCoy?


No updates that I know of. But the question was not about whether or not he shot and killed the second suspect. The question is whether or not he should have even been back on duty.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Point being, how many confirmed kills does one need to have before it affects their mentality? I hear of soldiers in combat that "go nuts" after shooting 1 enemy...surly officers are no more strong willed and psychologically sound than soldiers. So should psychological evaluations and counseling be available and mandatory? Or is that something that is already in place within the law enforcement system.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Aggie Man]


It's those same individuals that choke up on the trigger the second time, and hesitate. It's cliche as hell nowadays (look at the movie Full Metal Jacket) but I'll paraphrase the Good Gunny's line: "If your killer instinct is not pure in the moment of truth, you will hesitate, and you will become dead Marines." I've seen boots clam up, and I saw one of my senior Marines do it. Dude freaked out and dropped down into the gun turret of the 7-ton and just sat there. He could not do his job, and his lack of action made him a liability to everyone around him. People who have qualms about taking a life WHEN IT IS NECESSARY should never be in these situations in the first place.

Some people are too trigger-happy, and they reveal themselves just as obviously. Always the first to draw and shoot, they display a lack of measure and discretion when looking for other options besides violent, terminal respose, and overkill is their byword when performing the killing action.

Neither of these two groups have any business carrying a weapon or being deliberately placed in a hostile situation in the first place, and it's obviously impossible to tell ahead of time who's going to choke up and who's going to go condition black. That said, once someone reveals themself as either one, it is MY OPINION that they should be canned and sent packing.

Someone working in a profession such as law enforcement should by no means be eager to deal out violence, but by the same token have no compunctions whatsoever in doing so should such action be required to stop a hostile situation that would otherwise end the life of the officer or bystanders. Maybe it was a bad shoot, maybe the officer was having a bad day, maybe he acted as the situation dictated both times. No one can say. Either way, at least he can hit what he shoots at.

[edit on 2009/9/16 by Griever0311]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join