Marine fatally shot in his car by police in front of his two young daughters

Originally posted by chrismicha77
So when is shooting to disable the vehicle not a viable option? I don't see what could have been done or said by the father of two children, that would have warranted him being shot multiple times.

What will be lost in all this is the reality that two you daughters will have to grow up without their father!!!

I see this comment a lot. Contrary to what people see on tv, police dont get to shoot out tires of cars in the manner portrayed. Discharging a duty weapon is done only when deadly force is being used. There have been cases of officers doing that, and in those cases the officer was either disciplined / fired or worked for an agency that has a policy that forbids it except in certain situations.

An example would be a neighboring police force in my city. They are prohibited from shooting from a moving vehicle, however they are trained to do it. They acknowledge the dangers however they also understand that regardless of policy there will always be the possibility of a situation where the best and safest course of action will be the prohibited action.

Law Enforcement cannot shoot to wound a person. Law Enforcement shoots to stop the threat, not to kill the person. We are trained to shoot center mass as it offers the largest possible area while also limiting the possibility of missing. When you try to wound, the chances of missing are extremely high, especially in a fluid situation. Also a defense attorney will use that against the officer

- IE Officer so and so you stated in your report that you discharged your weapon in an attempt to wound my client. Your shot didn't only wounded my client, it killed him. Your actions had a negative result resulting in the taking of a life. Officer, tell me, do you justify that? Is your training that sub-par that you can't even wound a person?

People need to consider that if an officer fires his weapon and misses, the bullet doesn't just stop, but continues to travel downrange. Collateral damage is not applicable to law enforcement - we are responsible for that round.

reply to post by Iwinder


Local / state law enforcement is not empowered to enforce Federal law unless they are part of a task force. The laws passed by the Federal Government are enforceable by Federal law enforcement agencies.

Originally posted by Hellas
Why is the title 'Marine' so important? Does that make him a better person somehow?

Why is the title "Deputy" or "Police Officer" so important? Does that make them a better person somehow?
It is in reference to the position they hold, a form of respect. It's just common courtesy.

Originally posted by retiredTxn

Why is the title "Deputy" or "Police Officer" so important?

Those are so important because without them, in this situation, you would be on a one way track to Life in prison.

With those titles, you will get a paid vacation.

I guess you can compare this cop to a Hit man.

Since when did it become a Capital Crime to disobey a police order when a) a known felony had not been committed and b) the life of the officer was not threatened?? This is happening almost on a weekly basis.

reply to post by Xcathdra


So it is OK to kill someone to stop them (perceived threat) but NOT OK to shoot out their tires to stop them? That doesnt make sense unless you miss the tire and kill a bystander.....

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

So it is OK to kill someone to stop them (perceived threat) but NOT OK to shoot out their tires to stop them? That doesn't make sense unless you miss the tire and kill a bystander.....

Because the discharging of a weapon for police is extremely restricted to deadly force encounters (some exceptions exist for dispatching injured animals).

I am finding this mindset of shooting out tires interesting. Reason being people are upset because they perceive police as being gung ho and wanting to shoot at anything. Yet when its explained as to why the use of a weapon is restricted, people find fault with it?

Shooting out a tire does not always end the vehicles ability to travel.
Wounding a person does not always remove that person as a threat.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Since when did it become a Capital Crime to disobey a police order when a) a known felony had not been committed and b) the life of the officer was not threatened?? This is happening almost on a weekly basis.

You are leaving out the statement he made to the officer. We still dont know what was said, and it could explain the use of force. Secondly it was a combination of actions that resulted in the shooting, not just the refusal to comply.

Who wants to bet the cop is a racist?

I'm sure part of the reason he's dead is because he was black.

Really sad. This whole business needs to be investigated and the cop at least fired for this.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You are leaving out the statement he made to the officer. We still dont know what was said, and it could explain the use of force. Secondly it was a combination of actions that resulted in the shooting, not just the refusal to comply.

edit on 13-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

It is you leaving out the Meat of the story, I'll remind you.

Two Shots In The BACK

Unarmed

reply to post by Xcathdra


Very nice explanation. People have got to understand, this isn't a Hollywood movie. Officers have to make split second decisions based on the info they are getting in real time. They don't get any do overs and don't have the benefit of Monday quarterbacking. There are plenty of videos on youtube where the officer cautioned on the wrong side and was buried 3 days later.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You are leaving out the statement he made to the officer. We still dont know what was said, and it could explain the use of force. Secondly it was a combination of actions that resulted in the shooting, not just the refusal to comply.

edit on 13-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

It is you leaving out the Meat of the story, I'll remind you.

Two Shots In The BACK

Unarmed

Again we dont know what he said to the deputy.

Im not sure what your hangup is on shooting in the back. Tennesse Vs. Garner established police cannot shoot a fleeing felon unless that person presents a threat to the community as a whole / people at large.

I dont mind your comments but at the very least could you acknowledge the laws?

"Rover, Rover..!!! Come over here, you just trampled the damn flowers.... Come here dammit!!! I'm not going to tell you again..!!!" "Pop, pop pop..!!!" "Damn dog.." "Walk through my flower bed again why don't ya.."

###############

Judgement is easy when you are sufficiently empowered and you are above reproach.

I think one thing we all need to realize is that the police are being spoon fed fear of military veterans right now. Some police may truly shake in their boots when confronting veterans because of this. They are told we are all radical and violent and uncooperational. Now it will be interesting to see what was said to the officer, but I fear the officer may have been the only one who heard it, unless the dash cam caught it. It is sad. We don't know what the officer was thinking and coming from being in simalar situations, I can't blame the man unless I know the whole story. I would like to believe that there could have been another way to resolve the situation but I was not there, so I can only speculate. This officer, unless he is a phsycopath, is probably going through some very emotional turmoil over this incident. If it is found that the officer was in the wrong then I hope he is punished to the fullest extent of the law. We deffinitely have a serious problem going on in our country right now, and I believe it will only worsen before it get's better. For now, We Marines have to say goodbye to one more member of our eternal brotherhood. Semper Fi brother, Semper Fi.

as much as I see things like this, and becoming more and more prevalent, it strikes me as SO bizarre that people around me just simply don't care. Isolated incident, whatever... side with the cops everytime, seeing no trend whatsoever. Such a sad state our nation is in!

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Again, another reason i dont trust police. Flippin cowards with guns. He shot that soldier in the back because wanted to get back in his vehicle with his children. Yepppp wanting to get in a vehicle with your family is now reason to be killed.

Errrrrr i dont trust them at all. Yeppp have my conceal carry, yepppp for the hoodlums, gangs, and police. I will protect my family. They are armed thugs protected by the law. How i have self preservation on my side and am charged with protecting my familiy.

And will do so!

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Who wants to bet the cop is a racist?

I'm sure part of the reason he's dead is because he was black.

are you joking??

You recognize that YOU are making a racist statement by thinking someone whom you have NEVER MET is a racist. You don't know a damn thing about this, yet you make a horrific claim about this man who just accidentally killed someone.

Originally posted by Hellas
Why is the title 'Marine' so important? Does that make him a better person somehow?

Good question. Do you think it makes him a 'better person'?

Typically, if an identify other than "person", "man", "woman" can be given to describe someone when an incident like this occurs, it is given. If he were an off duty cop himself, they'd describe him as such. If he were a lawyer, the headline would probably be "lawyer killed by police in front of children", if he were a mayor, or student, you see where I'm going with this? He happened to be a Marine, that's who he was.

And yet, not TASER was used. Odd that, shot in the back with bullets, but not a Taser.

I guess we Marines are immune to TASER's now.

Why couldn't a taser have been used??

Oh right, he was such a threat....

No one will ever really know what was said, could have been something like, "go away cracker"

Or "Sorry, my ID is in the car", or, "what gate, I didn't see it"

I hope the children heard what was said and are asked to testify......


see we can make suppositions as well, doesn't make them any closer to the truth as anyone else's.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
It is you leaving out the Meat of the story, I'll remind you.

Two Shots In The BACK

Unarmed

And this is what happens when you assume and jump to a conclusion -

Updated Info on shooting- ABC7 News - Suspect shot by OC deputy was US Marine

The suspect was not shot in the back. He was given verbal commands to stop all the way up to him entering the vehicle and starting the engine, at which point the deputy fired his weapon, from the side.

Only after the incident occurred was it discovered the individual was a Marine.

It has been confirmed the suspect did not have a weapon on his person (no info about what, if anything was found in the car).

The entire incident was caught on the deputies dash cam but has not been released.

An autopsy is scheduled (which will also answer the question of intoxication / under the influence of legal / illegal drugs).

The link also has a video update that shows pictures of the vehicle. There is damage to the front end of the vehicle from crashing through the gate. The Orange County PA's office is also investigating. There is an interview done with a Orange County Sheriffs Office as well.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

The entire incident was caught on the deputies dash cam but has not been released.

So a Rep for the Police have started Damage Control, and all is well with the Blue Line.

I guess a investigation by the Sheriff will be next, I wonder what he will find?