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 Shot By Off-Duty Sheriff's Deputy Identified

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Off-Duty Deputy Shoots Man


Off-Duty Deputy Shoots Man

Deputy Shot Man Twice, Investigation Into Shooting Underway

SAN ANTONIO -- Officials have identified the man shot by an off-duty Bexar County sheriff's deputy Friday morning while working security at a north side apartment complex.


(visit the link for the full news article)

Man Shot By Off-Duty Sheriff's Deputy Identified


edit on 11/19/10 by Marked One because: forgot to fix something




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
First of all. I want to mention that technically the sheriff had no grounds for drawing his weapon and opening fire at the car. If he had enough time to draw his weapon? He had enough time to jump out of the way.

And the man who got shot MAY have been planning to break into cars. So the sheriff did have probable cause to make contact with him and question him. And had even more probable cause to do so because the he ran.

I can't say I know for sure though if Gries WAS indeed planning on breaking into cars. But that's what it appears to be at face value. Because it mentions that he was looking into the window of a truck.

However if authorities come out and say their investigation concludes this to be the case? Well at first I disagree and say no because usually when people break into cars? If they're professionals?

#1. They don't work alone. They typically operate in two. One to do the breaking in and the other one to act as a lookout and a getaway driver.
#2. They don't drive Cadillac Escalades. (Unless they stole it.)

But on the other hand he is 30 yrs old. And typically professional car-burglars are about that age or older. Give or take a few years.

Bottom line is, regardless? The courts may feel that the sheriff was NOT justified because again; if he had enough time to draw his weapon? He had enough time to jump out of the way. That's what Gries' defense attourney is going try to use in court. I can say this is possible w/o a shadow of a doubt.

What's your opinion?

www.ksat.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 11/19/10 by Marked One because: corrected a typo



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Let's see how it all pans out.
Are you in law enforcement, lawyer, judge, jury?
How do you know the "technicalities".
How do you know the answers as to how and
what before everyone else?



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by endtimer
Let's see how it all pans out.
Are you in law enforcement, lawyer, judge, jury?
How do you know the "technicalities".
How do you know the answers as to how and
what before everyone else?


I work around law-enforcement. So yes I do know about technicalities. And no. I don't know the answers before anyone else. I'm just saying what it looks to me as being the case.

(I'll explain more. I'm just waiting for more ppl to leave replies before I continue on.)
edit on 11/19/10 by Marked One because: forgot something



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
the guy was obviously up to no good, and in my opinion, even if the officer is off duty, he still has a duty to keep our streets clean just as much as any other citizen does...the fact that the guy ran when he was questioned and then tried to run the guy over shows his actions were criminal in nature so this officer had every right to shoot the douche, on duty or off...

Why run if you're not doing anything wrong? He ran because he knew what he was doing was wrong probably...



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


Just asking. In your first line, you state as fact that the
officer technically had no right.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by here4awhile
 


Oh yeah. I agree with that. Gries definitely had to be up to something. I just kinda doubt he was getting ready to be breaking into cars. Car-burglary history or not.

But I still think the sheriff won't be justified in court for drawing his weapon and opening fire on the car. Does he appear to be lawfully justified at face value? Heck yeah. Will he be justified in court? I doubt it. Do I like the fact that he won't be found justified in court. No I don't! I want the deputy to get off Scott-free!

Problem is that there's too many technicalities to be exploited by too much bureaucratic red-tape out there.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by endtimer
reply to post by Marked One
 


Just asking. In your first line, you state as fact that the
officer technically had no right.



No. Because I said; "If he had enough time to pull his gun? Then he had enough time to dodge the oncoming vehicle." Now was I there to see how it happened? No. Maybe there wasn't enough room for the deputy to jump out of the way. But if there was? He shouldn't have shot him. But thank you for asking.

edit on 11/19/10 by Marked One because: none



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
...the guy that got shot (the suspected thief) had a criminal record and was out on bond... he's innocent and the cop was wrong?... not likely...



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...the guy that got shot (the suspected thief) had a criminal record and was out on bond... he's innocent and the cop was wrong?... not likely...


Was the cop morally wrong? No. Do I feel he was morally wrong? No. Will the courts determine him to be morally wrong and the suspected thief to be innocent? I don't doubt it.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
The man was trying to run away & yet he was shot. He didn't confront the cop. He didn't threaten the cop & yet he is on a murder charge. The cop is the one who tried to kill him. If he was trying to kill the cop with his car he would have swerved at the cop.

I don't get it. Something doesn't add up here.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


The deputy did have grounds to draw his weapon, as that is a personal choice based on circumstances. If he felt there was a danger, and in this case the person he attempted to make contact with ran, I would have drawn mine as well as the actions the suspect took is out of the norm.

The news report does not state or show if this deputy was in uniform. I would like to know if he was, since it could explain behavior of the person the deputy made contact with. I have made contact with people while out of uniform and use my crediential card and badge to verify I am a LEO. Also, unless I missed it, it does not say anything about the deputy identifying himself as a LEO verbally.

As far as the deputy standing in the path of the vehicle, and I say this based on the news accounts, is a huge no no. The USSC has ruled on this action several times, and unless there is an immediate danger at that moment, we can not attempt to stop a vehicle by standing in front of it, and then open fire if they dont. The argunment used in the past was by not stopping they are placing the officer in imminent danger, however the USSC takes note the danger is created by the Officers actions as well. Doing this creates an escalation into the use of force, raising it from an investigative presence to deadly force (exceptions will always exist based on perception).

Tampering with a motor vehicle in pretty much all states rises to the level of a Felony. Again based on the news account it looks like someone might have gone a bit to far in their actions. Chasing a suspect vehiucle in a personal car, again, causes issues. Your not an emergency vehicle, and as such, cannot violate motor vehicles laws (exceptions will always exist based on the letter of the law - spirit of the law basis).

Based on the news release, this gives the rest of us a bad name. Now, with my opinions stated, I will point out that the USSC has also ruled that when an officer excersizes force, hind sight can not be used to interpret actions. The incident can only be used to the extent of what the officer perceived at the exact moment he used force.

Its entirely possible we are not getting the entire story since its an ongoing criminal and internal investigation, and release of evidence to the media can prejudice an investigation and any potential juror pool.

Food for thought.

Let the investigation take its course.

edit on 19-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: Spelling, etc

edit on 19-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...the guy that got shot (the suspected thief) had a criminal record and was out on bond... he's innocent and the cop was wrong?... not likely...


Since the suspect was identified after the fact, and the news report says nothing about the Deputy having any knowledge of who this guy is, the criminal history is not a factor in the incident. If the DEputy knew who this guy was, and was familiar with his history and actions, it changes things to the extent their is already justification to take quicker steps to detain / gain control of the suspect.

Hind sight is not allowed in a use of force review.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One
No. Because I said; "If he had enough time to pull his gun? Then he had enough time to dodge the oncoming vehicle." Now was I there to see how it happened? No. Maybe there wasn't enough room for the deputy to jump out of the way. But if there was? He shouldn't have shot him. But thank you for asking


Sorry, but this is garbage. Just because he"theoretically" could have got out of the way doesnt mean he should have.

The driver obviously has no inhibitions about running down people who get in his way, so any vehicular pursuit could have ended in even more tragic circumstances. IMO the Deputy was correct to fire his weapon to end any potential threat to innocent members of the public.

CT



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Sorry, but this is garbage. Just because he"theoretically" could have got out of the way doesnt mean he should have.


He is required to get out of the way. Unless using Stop sticks to stop a fleeing vehicle, or a pit maneuver which is counted as deadly force and generally authorized by a supervisor, and again only after the actions fo the fleeing driver place the public at large in imminent dangers, standing in front of vehicle is simply not an option.


Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
The driver obviously has no inhibitions about running down people who get in his way, so any vehicular pursuit could have ended in even more tragic circumstances. IMO the Deputy was correct to fire his weapon to end any potential threat to innocent members of the public.


To play devils advocate here how do we know the driver of the vehicle was not having a medical emergency, or even the passenger. How do we know their wwas not some other factor that cause the driver of the vehicle to go from rational to fight or flight mode? High stress situations causes a bodily reaction, and fine motor control and thought process go out the window. Why do you think cops yell loudly and repeatedly when dealing with someone.

Auditory / visual exclusion.

As far as firinf his weapon, again based on the article, the guy ran from the deputy. Simply by running away, taking no other offensive action against the deputy or anyone around, whith no clear signs of a weapon, there is conceviable no overt threat to the public, which means discharging his weapon at the guy who ran is out of bounds. again based on the article.

Resisting / fleeing from an arrest in a basic level is generally a misdemeanor, which includes vehicle pursuits. If the pursuit shows an imminent danger to the public (very high speeds, rush hour traffic, driving into oncoming traffic, etc) then you get the felony. In either case though the use of deadly force will not be the first response absent exigent circumstances.

The suspect is innocent until proven guilty, regardless of criminal records, which cannot be brought up in court. Lets let the investigation run its course.

CT



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Even if we KNOW that driver is having a seizure of some description,what are your options? Allow an out of control vehicle to run over an innocent person? More than one? How many peoples lives have to be threatened before definitive action can be used?

To clarify. The guy ran from the deputy after trying to run him over with his car, his leaving the scene is more than a misdemeanor.

CT



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to [url= by acrux[/url]
 


Well the report does say that the suspect attempted to attack the deputy w/ a vehicle. & the vehicle was a cadillac escalade. (thats a big SUV) I'd have been scared too & wouldve wanted to draw a gun & shoot at it. That doesn't mean I'm not going to get sued & get off completely scott-free. No.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One

First of all. I want to mention that technically the sheriff had no grounds for drawing his weapon and opening fire at the car. If he had enough time to draw his weapon? He had enough time to jump out of the way.
__________________________END QUOTE__________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________SORRY I DONT KNOW HOW TO FIX THIS_____________________________
Wrong. In some states a CIVILIAN must retreat before using deadly force but not a cop. The officer ORDERED the perp. to stop. The perp then chose to come at the officer with a 2 ton weapon.

The article stated that the car was hit in the windshield , indicating a forward angle. Then drivers door ( not window) was then shot, telling me that the cop was trying to back away in a hurry (lowered his weapon). Thus the hip injury.

This Cop did one thing wrong. He missed a clean head shot. Hell, if cops must retreat why have them?
edit on 20-11-2010 by nocents because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to [url= by nocents[/url]
 


I agree that the sheriff deputy shouldve killed Gries. That way he wouldn't live to come back & sue the sheriffs deputy.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


Based on the news article (non tv account) it sounds like the DEputy was justified in discharging his weapon. Looks like he possibly violated department policy by chasing the guy in his personal vehicle.

Depending on the IA investigations outcome will determine whether he can be sued civiliy or not (provided the state he is in has the same caluses as other states for Law Enforcement). If he is within Law and Policy then he should have civil immunity. If he is outside department policy, the deprtment can technically disassociate itself from the deputy, meaning the deputy will be the only person that can be sued (this varies from State to state of course).

Based on the second news account I would most likely have acted in the same manner.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join