Officer and suspect draw on each other (video) Graphic

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Vasa Croe

No more or less common than any other light guys will carry, no. Really just personal preference.

The one I carry has three settings:

1) That's really bright and I am uncomfortable

2) my god, why is the sun in my retina?

3) the sun is now strobing and not only am I blind but I may need to vomit

Works pretty well.

Ha...yeah I have a few that are similar...Surefires mostly...some with the SOS beacon as well. And yeah....at night those things can seriously disorient anything they are pointed at.

a reply to: Bilk22

I think they wanted him away from the noise and distraction so they could talk. He looks too heavy to run far or fast.

He could have pulled out his gun in there. Waiting until he was outside suggests he thought he could get away. Whatever the reason he was not thinking realistically. Very sad and very difficult for the cops to live with.

Another video of somebody who suddenly goes bat-crap crazy for no discernible reason. Another case of "Why on earth...??"
Clearly the officers had no choice. They saw the gun come out and did what needed doing. My prayers are with them as they deal with the aftermath.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ya looking at a strobe really messes with ya.

Have you ever had anyone not affected by it?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Depends how you define "not affected" by it. Some people legit lose their balance, others just get disoriented, others just don't want to look at it. Personally it doesn't seem to have a ton of affect on me other than its just bright as all hell. The strobing doesn't bother me. But, not being able to look at it just because it's bright still counts in my book. So no, I haven't ever dealt with anybody that didn't react to it. At a minimum they'll look away or try to shield their eyes.

a reply to: crayzeed

Well I counted at least 4 bullet holes in his backside with blood already puddling the back of his shirt. Also I don't think the female officer went into the bathroom too far...maybe this is a shortened version of the full day of recordings.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Is that how they would apprehend a suspect? Walk him thru the entire restaurant and then outside where he's not cuffed and can flee or do exactly what he did? Something doesn't seem right about any of that.

Well, the suspect was not being apprehended. He was simply going to be questioned about his possible involvement in a theft situation. He was not being detained, he was not being charged. He was simply being questioned. If they were apprehending him they never would have asked for his ID or walked him out of the bar. They would have thrown cuffs on him and dragged him out.

They were simply trying to ascertain that he was the man they were looking for when he pulled the pellet gun. Who knows this man could of walked if he was smooth enough. Instead, he tried to live by the sword.

I didn't read the story. That was a pellet gun he pulled? Now it really doesn't make any sense - well not from a reasonable person's perspective. It makes sense from other perspectives though. So the guy didn't look drugged out or significantly drunk yet he pulls a pellet gun on two fully armed officers? Story doesn't seem right.

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: yeahright
The sad thing is, had the officers searched and cuffed the guy prior to taking him out of the restroom, he'd still be alive and no shots would've needed to be fired. It's always a lot easier to second guess after the fact than deal with a situation in real time, but my God, isn't it SOP to secure a suspect prior to walking him (or her) through an area with a lot of people?

There was a real possibility for that to have ended a lot more tragically than it did, and the way it ended was tragic enough.

There wasn't anything to suggest him being hostile at all when confronted. Police don't usually cuff you and pat you down unless you are obviously in the act of committing a crime or seem hostile in some way. This guy actually seemed pretty harmless from what I saw....until he pulled a pellet gun.

And even then, he was only dangerous to himself. Maybe he grabbed the wrong gun when he left the house that day. Id love to hear more details on this guy's situation when they become available. Perplexing.

All signs point to it being another "suicide by cop" unfortunately.

originally posted by: Bilk22
So the guy didn't look drugged out or significantly drunk yet he pulls a pellet gun on two fully armed officers? Story doesn't seem right.

It makes sense if it was a suicide by cop.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22
So the guy didn't look drugged out or significantly drunk yet he pulls a pellet gun on two fully armed officers? Story doesn't seem right.

It makes sense if it was a suicide by cop.

The guy washed his hands before he decided to suicide himself? Really?

I was a little surprise at the number of shots fired but I understand the officers want to make sure he wasn't able to fire from the ground.

Stupid enough to pull the gun then that what a person gets, 1 round to 1 magazine, officer discretion.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22
So the guy didn't look drugged out or significantly drunk yet he pulls a pellet gun on two fully armed officers? Story doesn't seem right.

It makes sense if it was a suicide by cop.

The guy washed his hands before he decided to suicide himself? Really?

Do people who commit suicide leave notes? Clean their rooms? Organize all their stuff? Call people and make amends for past wrongs, or say goodbye? Put on nice clothes? Groom themselves?

The answer to all that would be "yes."

You're applying reason to an unreasonable act. Or trying to, anyway.

It's not going to work.

I think the guy thought the police wouldn't react the way they did. He may have thought he was in a western where the cops drop the guns and he rides off.

If you slow down the video it appears the female officer first pulls her taser. At least, I see her draw what appears to be a yellow object (taser), then she drops her hands out of frame, and then back on target with a black object (her gun).

Just like that, in a split second, that could of been her last call.

Do you think the officers thought that something of this nature would occur when simply trying to investigate a misdemeanor theft call?

If this doesn't prove that "what if" scenarios play a role in law enforcement, I don't know what would.

Not preparing for the worst on every call, every traffic stop, is complacency and can get you killed.

a reply to: roadgravel

It does look like that. Very sad for the cops having to live with the memory of killing what may have been a child in a mans body dreaming he was in movieland.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

If this doesn't prove that "what if" scenarios play a role in law enforcement, I don't know what would. 

Not preparing for the worst on every call, every traffic stop, is complacency and can get you killed.

Absolutely.
They had some ability to react in this case.
When you walk up to a car during a traffic stop, the gun could already be out, safety off, giving an officer no chance to react.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Shamrock6

The officers failed miserably in their duty which lead to the escalation of what could have been a straightforward arrest.

Or..

The criminal caused this problem and like anything their were consequences in life..

It never ceases to amaze me how a few posters on ATS refuse to believe that criminals cause problems and everything falls at the feet of the Police.

a reply to: opethPA
You got the wrong end of the stick. Probably my wording of officers duty threw you. What would have been more appropriate was the officers modus operandi, the way thay handled the situation. Agreed the problem of criminal behavior is their fault but how the officers carried out their supposed questioning and what happened thereafter was their problem because they failed to take the necessary precautions.

a reply to: crayzeed

Questioning a guy about a larceny in a restaurant bathroom, where patrons of the restaurant have every right to expect to be able to use the restroom at any time, is stupid. Questioning him in the restaurant is stupid. Asking him to step outside for questioning is absolutely the right call. "What happened after" is Bushey decided to pull a gun like a moron instead of answering questions. That's nobody's fault but his own.

You really think getting into a fight in the bathroom is a good idea? Okay let's run with that little idea: they start questioning Bushey in the bathroom of a restaurant. Bushey does the exact same thing he did outside. And now there's a shooting inside a restaurant bathroom with people all around. Yep, that's WAY better than it happening outside.

Oh, they should've marched in there and immediately searched him and put him in cuffs? Who's to say the search goes well? Who's to say he doesn't pull his piece when they start to search him?

Ah, they should've bum rushed him and taken him by force!

And then it turns out the guy isn't the right one and they just threw an Applebee's customer on a bathroom floor for no reason.

Riiiiiiiight.

If you think you know so much better about police policy, procedure, and tactics them by all means, start shopping your training services around. I'm sure agencies will lining up for it.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: opethPA
You got the wrong end of the stick. Probably my wording of officers duty threw you. What would have been more appropriate was the officers modus operandi, the way thay handled the situation. Agreed the problem of criminal behavior is their fault but how the officers carried out their supposed questioning and what happened thereafter was their problem because they failed to take the necessary precautions.

Since you clearly know so little about police procedure, you should probably refrain from commenting about it.