Shooting suspect thought cop was criminal [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Shooting suspect thought cop was criminal


TBO
02-12-2012, 11:44
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/shooting-suspect-thought-cop-1339626.html

Sam Spade
02-12-2012, 12:25
What a cluster.

I believe the shooter when he says he never would have shot someone he knew to be a cop. I also think that his discernment and decision-making skills under stress are abysmal.

Study. Train. Rehearse. Don't be that guy.

Dragoon44
02-12-2012, 12:42
What a cluster.

I believe the shooter when he says he never would have shot someone he knew to be a cop. I also think that his discernment and decision-making skills under stress are abysmal.

Study. Train. Rehearse. Don't be that guy.

Sound judgment and decision making don't function in the grip of panic.

That is what I see of the situation as reported. The guy was fully in the grip of panic.

Sam Spade
02-12-2012, 12:55
Sound judgment and decision making don't function in the grip of panic.

That is what I see of the situation as reported. The guy was fully in the grip of panic.

I agree, and add two points to your post. First, How do we reduce the tendency to panic? Through training and rehearsal. Second, is someone in a panic capable of acting as a reasonable man in the use of deadly force? No. In fact, he's likely to be reckless, even criminally so.

HandyMan Hugh
02-12-2012, 13:14
I agree with Dragoon. Sheer panic can not only cloud, but totally destroy a person's ability to make good judgements. When in a state of panic, I believe that anyone may be percieved by the panic victim as a major threat. Have any of you ever tried to separate a couple of fighting animals? Everybody gets bit!

NMGlocker
02-12-2012, 13:35
I recently watched a video of a woman who had crashed her car into another car.
She then panicked and backed into a second car, then panicked some more and drove straight into a store.
The stores surveillance cameras showed her repeatedly trying to drive forward and reverse while stuck inside the building.
She was completely gripped by panic and was in full flight mode.
The only thing that stopped her was the car finally gave out and the store employees managed to drag her out of the car.
Full blown panic can cause some crazy tunnel vision and single mindedness.

fastbolt
02-12-2012, 13:36
I think the comments by Dragoon44 & Sam Spade have been fairly clear and insightful.

Training and "rehearsal" preparation to face some situations can often be a good thing. (Pilots, aviators, cops, fire fighters, soldiers, doctors, nurses, EMT/Paramedics and any of the other numerous occupations and professions which require judgment and precise, correct responses under adverse conditions benefit from training for emergency, exigent situations, and generally have continuing in-service training, right?)

Training has been found useful to help "inoculate" people against some of the adverse effects of stress when it comes to remaining able to function, both physically and cognitively.

Most folks (even without emergency services or LE experience) can probably think of times when they knew of someone (or even themselves) who experienced the blind, unthinking panic reaction to some unexpected dangerous situation, and how it overwhelmed them being able to react reasonably & deliberately to it. Maybe they froze in place, unable to think or move at all, or maybe they tried to resist the situation, or tried to escape it.

That old "fight, flight or freeze" reaction is a strong one. Seems to be hard-wired into us at a pretty deep level.

Unfortunately, doing any of those things at the wrong time, in the wrong situation, and ineffectively (or improperly) can often lend themselves to tragic results. Poor judgement under stress still has real-world results and consequences, though.

Dragoon44
02-12-2012, 14:01
serious and realistic training can make a big difference. For one it gives you a level of confidence in your own abilities that helps ward off blind panic. But it also has to be matched with the proper mindset. I think mindset is one of the most neglected aspects of self defense preparations.

First and foremost one should seriously consider what are you capable of doing? This requires some serious introspection absent bravado and wishful thinking. It is easy to imagine yourself pulling the trigger in an imaginary scenario, it is something else to do it in real life.

It means understanding that the gun is merely a tool not a complete self defense plan in and of itself. it's not a talisman that wards off evil or defends itself. Always have a plan, it is easier to modify a plan on the fly than to try and come up with one in the heat of a deadly force encounter.

To that end it helps to practice what I call the "what if" game. instead of daydreaming or thinking of other things consider instead what if... this happened...what should I do? how should I or would I respond?

fastbolt
02-12-2012, 14:54
But it also has to be matched with the proper mindset.

Deserves Bold & Underline. ;)


I think mindset is one of the most neglected aspects of self defense preparations.

Absolutely. Probably because you can't buy it in a box, or have it handed to you at the equipment counter. :whistling:

Good thoughts throughout your post. (Let's just hope you're not preaching to the choir, or else talking over the heads of the younger, earnest & enthusiastic folks who are easily distracted by non-reflective, tactical-looking gear and advertising slogans.) ;)

H&K 4 LIFE
02-12-2012, 17:21
Bad situation for everyone.

After the shooting, the next step was search and assess. This was clearly a failure in the assessment stage of things, when adrenalin ran high and panic set in.

What we do know from the article...

“This guy was shooting in broad daylight, and all I could do was react,” Roach said. “I was in full uniform. There is no way he could look at me and not believe I was a police officer.” It was not night-time, so the citizen could clearly see what appeared to be uniformed officer.

As a citizen with a CCW, I am familiar with how the local police are typically dressed when in uniform.

He had noted Roach got out of a Tahoe with tinted windows, not a squad car. I'm aware that local LEO's don't always use marked units.

Thomas saw tattoos on the officer’s forearms.I've seen officers with tattoos, even specifically on their forearm.

Apprising yourself of some of this information beforehand may prove useful and factor into how you react in the situation described. At least the cop had his vest on.

HarleyGuy
02-12-2012, 17:28
It would seem to me that there should be some middle ground here on both sides.

It's obvious that Thomas was definitely trying to kill a uniformed police officer, but considering the circumstances it seems that Thomas was in fear of his life (whether it was real or not) and I wonder how many of us would have reacted under the same conditions.

Remember, Roach also mis-read the situation and was chasing the victim of a crime vs a perp, and he could have just as easily wounded or killed Thomas.

I would think a little time followed by a lot of probation would be justice in such a horrible mess.
I know a person who strangled his girlfriend and served less than 7 years!

H&K 4 LIFE
02-12-2012, 17:50
...Remember, Roach also mis-read the situation and was chasing the victim of a crime vs a perp, and he could have just as easily wounded or killed Thomas.

I disagree insofar that Roach (the officer) mis-read the situation.

Remember that he reportedly see's only Thomas, shooting with gun in hand, headed in the direction of a fast food restaurant. He (Thomas) also ignores repeated commands by the uniformed officer Roach to drop his weapon.

The officer is, at that time, not privy to the fact that Thomas was the intended victim of an armed robbery.

I would argue that, if looking through the eyes of the officer, he has not "mis-read" a thing, but rather has drawn a reasonable conclusion based on what he is actively witnessing at the time.

jellis11
02-12-2012, 18:19
wow, I don't think I've ever read anything so terrible all the way around.

NMGlocker
02-12-2012, 18:33
It also depends on the uniform and whether Roach was in "full uniform".
Around here the city police uniforms are a mixed bag of all black traditional uniforms, BDU/Polo or T shirt combinations and the occasional bike officer in shorts and a Polo or T.
I've seen off duty officers headed home with untucked shirts, partly or completely unbuttoned uniform shirts with their wife-beater displayed and other less that obvious identifying clothing.
"In uniform" could be a lot of things.
If Roach was in BDU pants and a Polo shirt with an embroidered badge his status as a LEO might not be so obvious to someone in the middle of the most traumatic event of their life.

ithaca_deerslayer
02-12-2012, 18:56
I think Thomas should go completely free, but be subject to lawsuits for negligence. But he isn't guilty of anything criminal.

At least how that story is written, I believe him.

Also sounds like the cop did make some mistakes in how he was trying to cuff Thomas.

And what kind of crap gun, or crap training, did the cop have with regards to his gun malfunctions? If he would have killed Thomas, he would have been justified.

Seems it was some unfortunate circumstances at play. But no need for jail time.

ssharber
02-12-2012, 19:01
It would be interesting to find out exactly what kind of weapon the LEO was using. I'd bet that it wasn't a Glock. I'm not saying that Glocks are immune to FTF problems, but I've shot thousands and thousands of rounds through many different calibers without a glitch one.

NMGlocker
02-12-2012, 20:27
It would be interesting to find out exactly what kind of weapon the LEO was using. I'd bet that it wasn't a Glock. I'm not saying that Glocks are immune to FTF problems, but I've shot thousands and thousands of rounds through many different calibers without a glitch one.
How many rounds have you shot while rolling around on the ground fighting with someone?

emtp2rn
02-12-2012, 21:01
We had a situation about 10 years ago where a liquor store owner and the swat team got in a standoff when SWAT raided the establishment and they came gun to gun. Thankfully neither side pulled the trigger.

At the time the incident happened the only law enforcement identifying symbol on the swat uniform was a shoulder patch not the large "POLICE" that you see today. The SWAT team was compelled to provide a "fashion show" in court for the jury of their raid uniforms.

The guy was found not guilty....

In this case, I think most know what a police officer looks like, so if it wasn't panic/tunnel vision it was plain stupidity.

I'm glad the officer survived.

G31
02-12-2012, 21:10
This is truly one of those "you had to be there" situations. Unfortunately, these things happen, just like friendly fire in combat, or between on-duty police officers. A similar situation was also a big fear in the discussions about "no knock" warrant service some time ago on these forums. It happens. I know of a situation in Orlando, in which an on-duty plain clothes university police officer was shot and killed by a uniformed city officer, who was responding to the plain clothes officer's shots.

Oh, and APD issues the M&P 40. Of course, the malfunction could be ammo related. The mag probably got disengaged in the scuffle. Who knows.

ssharber
02-12-2012, 22:40
How many rounds have you shot while rolling around on the ground fighting with someone?

Is that what you do? Dis other members posts? I have frequented this forum for awhile and generally found it friendly. But as usual, theres always someone like you who has something smart to say about what someone else posts. A gun malfunctioning doesn't have a whole lot to do with being on the ground.

For that matter, how many times have you? I simply stated it would be nice to know what type of gun the guy carried. My bad for wondering about such a subject on a forum.

Please forgive me to all I offended.

Dragoon44
02-12-2012, 23:22
So the guys defense boils down to him claiming that he should not be held accountable for poor judgment.

He was just in a shootout with robbers so he surmises that the guy in the police uniform must be one of the robbers even though he is doing the things an officer would do, taking him at gunpoint instead of jut shooting him, proning him out, and attempting to handcuff him just like a police officer would.

The officer meanwhile screwed up by approaching the guy, he should have held him at gunpoint until officers arrived to cuff him.

id1otbox
02-12-2012, 23:27
Tough situation. Many of you may claim that you have trained a rehearsed enough that you wouldn't be that guy but it doesn't always work that way.

The other night I watched some alien movie and that night I had a dream of being abducted. My girlfriend woke me up because I feel asleep in my clothes watching the movie in bed. I'll tell you that I have never had my heart pound so hard in my entire life. Straight adrenaline rush. Why? Because I was being woken up to brush my teeth.

HarleyGuy
02-13-2012, 00:28
I sure would not want to be on that jury.

NEOH212
02-13-2012, 00:33
Man, if that's not a giant crap sandwich for everyone involved.

In a moment of panic, I can see how this could happen. This is another example of why if your going to carry, you should have training and prepare yourself for a situation like this so this kind of thing can be avoided.

If it can be proven that the shooter shot the officer accidentally due to a temporary mental issue, adrenalin, extreme panic, ect, I'm not sure he should do time.

He does however need to be held accountable for his mistake.

I'm glad no one was killed. :wow:

HarleyGuy
02-13-2012, 00:34
I disagree insofar that Roach (the officer) mis-read the situation.

Remember that he reportedly see's only Thomas, shooting with gun in hand, headed in the direction of a fast food restaurant. He (Thomas) also ignores repeated commands by the uniformed officer Roach to drop his weapon.

The officer is, at that time, not privy to the fact that Thomas was the intended victim of an armed robbery.

I would argue that, if looking through the eyes of the officer, he has not "mis-read" a thing, but rather has drawn a reasonable conclusion based on what he is actively witnessing at the time.

Perhaps.
No matter how this works out, one of these guys ( or perhaps two) ain't gonna be happy.

NEOH212
02-13-2012, 00:36
Perhaps.
No matter how this works out, one of these guys ( or perhaps two) ain't gonna be happy.

That's for sure.

:agree:

HarleyGuy
02-13-2012, 00:39
Man, if that's not a giant crap sandwich for everyone involved.

In a moment of panic, I can see how this could happen. This is another example of why if your going to carry, you should have training and prepare yourself for a situation like this so this kind of thing can be avoided.

If it can be proven that the shooter shot the officer accidentally due to a temporary mental issue, adrenalin, extreme panic, ect, I'm not sure he should do time.

He does however need to be held accountable for his mistake.

I'm glad no one was killed. :wow:

There's no way that he could claim it was an accidental shooting but bad judgement definitely.

JuneyBooney
02-13-2012, 00:41
Sound judgment and decision making don't function in the grip of panic.

That is what I see of the situation as reported. The guy was fully in the grip of panic.


I agree. I have even seen cops kill other cops during undercover operations. It happens. I think this should be a civil case but it also shows that when you are not in a marked car people can mistake you for a bad guy. :shocked: I may think the same if i am a Black guy robbed by Black dudes and a Black dude comes up in a Tahoe and says he is a cop.That always makes things more difficult for a jury. I hope the cop recovered fine.But it is a horrible mistake as stated previously..in a panic.

NEOH212
02-13-2012, 00:41
There's no way that he could claim it was an accidental shooting but bad judgement definitely.

I have to agree. That's what I was getting at.

JuneyBooney
02-13-2012, 00:51
serious and realistic training can make a big difference. For one it gives you a level of confidence in your own abilities that helps ward off blind panic. But it also has to be matched with the proper mindset. I think mindset is one of the most neglected aspects of self defense preparations.

First and foremost one should seriously consider what are you capable of doing? This requires some serious introspection absent bravado and wishful thinking. It is easy to imagine yourself pulling the trigger in an imaginary scenario, it is something else to do it in real life.

It means understanding that the gun is merely a tool not a complete self defense plan in and of itself. it's not a talisman that wards off evil or defends itself. Always have a plan, it is easier to modify a plan on the fly than to try and come up with one in the heat of a deadly force encounter.

To that end it helps to practice what I call the "what if" game. instead of daydreaming or thinking of other things consider instead what if... this happened...what should I do? how should I or would I respond?

I agree about training but when you hear of Blacks putting on uniforms and breaking into homes in cities like Baltimore etc I can actually understand why the shooter shot the cop. He didn't believe he was a cop because of the Tahoe and not a police car. How would you know a real cop from a fake cop?

Gallium
02-13-2012, 04:25
serious and realistic training can make a big difference. For one it gives you a level of confidence in your own abilities that helps ward off blind panic. But it also has to be matched with the proper mindset. I think mindset is one of the most neglected aspects of self defense preparations.

First and foremost one should seriously consider what are you capable of doing? This requires some serious introspection absent bravado and wishful thinking. It is easy to imagine yourself pulling the trigger in an imaginary scenario, it is something else to do it in real life.

It means understanding that the gun is merely a tool not a complete self defense plan in and of itself. it's not a talisman that wards off evil or defends itself. Always have a plan, it is easier to modify a plan on the fly than to try and come up with one in the heat of a deadly force encounter.

To that end it helps to practice what I call the "what if" game. instead of daydreaming or thinking of other things consider instead what if... this happened...what should I do? how should I or would I respond?

Deserves Bold & Underline. ;)




Absolutely. Probably because you can't buy it in a box, or have it handed to you at the equipment counter. :whistling:

Good thoughts throughout your post. (Let's just hope you're not preaching to the choir, or else talking over the heads of the younger, earnest & enthusiastic folks who are easily distracted by non-reflective, tactical-looking gear and advertising slogans.) ;)

Hello,

I agree with everything Dragoon, Sam Spade and FastBolt have said, with regards to stress inoculation, training and judgment under stress.

There are no other scenarios in existence that very closely mimics or mirrors what happened here, so there is not much for comparison.

However, when we do look at the other police shootings (specifically, where POLICE OFFICERS were shot by "mistake"), in most of those situations, the same elements that occurred in those shootings occurred here.



Confusion
Stress
High levels of a modified amino acid dumped in the blood stream (epinephrine)

What bothers me about the argument fostered by FastBolt Sam Spade and Dragoon is, at no point have I seen in any of their posts mention what is often discussed in other shootings, and in particular, police shootings - Totality of the Circumstances:

Let us take a look....



Thomas suspected he was being set up to be robbed.
He was actually robbed, and shot at someone (article did not say if Berry also fired shots)
He fled, while still shooting at people who he believed was persuing
Someone else alights from a vehicle, which was not a police vehicle, dressed like the police and orders him to stop
The person attempting to restrain him/place him in custody has tats on his forearm.

All of this happens in the immediacy and immediate vicinity of where the attempted robbery takes place. There is no great separation of distance, threat or time that would lead the reasonable person (police or non police) to conclude or assume the person attempting to detain them is not a fake cop.


It would be interesting to hear what APD's policy is on off-duty officers for handling situations like this. I accept that the officer was fully uniformed, but on duty or off duty, his approach was not the most tactically sound in affecting a detention or arrest. There were a few options available to him, and of the 3-5 on the table, he chose one of the worst two to utilize in attempting to make this arrest.


Recent shootings in the greater NYC area tell us that it is not always easy for off duty or plain clothes officers to work scenes where they are the 1st active responders to that scene.


I fear if my feet were in Mr. Thomas' shoes and I was approached by an officer with tats while in the immediate throes of a retreat from a gunfight, that my judgement too might have been a bit clouded. I fail to see how additional stress training would have helped Mr. Thomas in this situation. It is not hard to deduce that those two jackoffs (Sims & Warner) could have had a FOURTH accomplice wearing full police gear.


Officer Ridley of the Mt. Vernon PD was shot by officers, one of which in the responding group of officers knew him. Another in that same immediate responding group went to the same academy with him and knew him from the academy, and yet he was still shot and killed. Who needed more training, Ridley, or the officers who shot him? I am (very) familiar with the firearms training Westchester County police officers experience, as well as their in-service training and "quals".


ATF senior special agent John Capano was shot and killed in Seaford (Long Island) NY by either a retired Nassau Cty Lt or an off duty NYPD officer. In a memo posted accidentally (and now removed) on the Nassau County prosecutor's website, an accounting of what transpires says the retired LT shot the ATF agent only after a shot "whizzed past his head" (according to other witnesses no shot had been fired as yet). Here is a retired Lt, for a major metropolitan police dept (2500 strong) who was a secondary participant in an armed struggle, who had a similar error in judgement as Thomas, who was a primary participant in an armed struggle. How much more "training" would we demand of a police lieutenant?


(An also little known fact is that the pharmacist in that case was armed, with a gun in an ankle holster. The situation could have been far more complicated if not tragic, than it ended up being).


Given the totality of the circumstances that Mr. Thomas faced, it is my opinion (which I respectfully concede might not coincide with those of Mr. Spade, Mr. Dragoon or Mr. Fastbolt) that he acted no differently than how an "average" police officer would have acted (it's for the sake of brevity that only two extreme examples have been cited, there are 1/2 dozen more that ended in "blue on blue shooting" and dozens more that ended with "close calls).

So, the situation thus becomes


a) Mr. Thomas' natural reactions were reasonable given the situation, or


b) Mr. Thomas' natural reactions were indicative that he made irrational decisions under a very stressful situation.

If that is the case, I would be interested to see what "training" Mr. Thomas had, so it might be compared and contrasted to the training of the officer he shot (Officer Roach), Officer Ridley (detective posthumously) of Mt. Vernon, the officers who responded to and shot Ridley; SSA Capano, and the retired police Lt. who shot SSA Capano.


I hope that Officer Roach recovers fully from his injuries. He reacted to a situation while off duty, and I commend him for this. Hopefully his dept or a civil trial will make him as close to "whole" as is possible. I agree with Ithica_Deerslayer that he should not face any criminal charges.


-G.

Misty02
02-13-2012, 05:00
That is probably everyone’s worst nightmare rolled up into one.

We have had enough police impersonators down here to be suspicious of what appears to be an officer, even in uniform, who is not in a marked vehicle. I haven’t heard of an impersonator chasing someone on foot yet though. The one’s I heard about involve either a traffic stop or a home invasion. I pray I never find myself faced with a real officer when I believe he/she isn’t one.

As far as the weapon malfunctioning, that part is scary too, although most likely due to some user handling error. I thought it would be impossible to ever jam my G19. That was the case in many range training session where we even purposely attempted to jam it. During my first training session of firing from retention and on the run I found out it was not impossible after all. I have not been able to recreate the conditions since, but it did happen and I know it wasn’t the G19.

.

frank_drebin
02-13-2012, 05:25
Since he was still in uniform, he would have most likely had his duty weapon on him. Atlanta PD carries M&P 40's

Dragoon44
02-13-2012, 08:29
How would you know a real cop from a fake cop?

in this instance I don't think you have to be the sharpest pencil in the pack to determine even under stress, that if you just had a shootout with armed robbers and shot one of them that any accomplices regardless of how they are dressed aren't likely to attempt to detain you and take you into custody. They are simply going to shoot you at the first opportunity.

Again I will state I think they guy was in a blind panic and the simple fact of the matter is, actions taken while in a blind panic are not ultimately justifiable if you were wrong.

SCmasterblaster
02-13-2012, 09:22
serious and realistic training can make a big difference. For one it gives you a level of confidence in your own abilities that helps ward off blind panic. But it also has to be matched with the proper mindset. I think mindset is one of the most neglected aspects of self defense preparations.

First and foremost one should seriously consider what are you capable of doing? This requires some serious introspection absent bravado and wishful thinking. It is easy to imagine yourself pulling the trigger in an imaginary scenario, it is something else to do it in real life.

It means understanding that the gun is merely a tool not a complete self defense plan in and of itself. it's not a talisman that wards off evil or defends itself. Always have a plan, it is easier to modify a plan on the fly than to try and come up with one in the heat of a deadly force encounter.

To that end it helps to practice what I call the "what if" game. instead of daydreaming or thinking of other things consider instead what if... this happened...what should I do? how should I or would I respond?

Good thoughts . . . . . . . :cool:

JuneyBooney
02-13-2012, 13:40
in this instance I don't think you have to be the sharpest pencil in the pack to determine even under stress, that if you just had a shootout with armed robbers and shot one of them that any accomplices regardless of how they are dressed aren't likely to attempt to detain you and take you into custody. They are simply going to shoot you at the first opportunity.

Again I will state I think they guy was in a blind panic and the simple fact of the matter is, actions taken while in a blind panic are not ultimately justifiable if you were wrong.

I agree with what you have said but I also believe that if the cop had been white that maybe Mr Thomas would have possibly thought he was a cop and not panicked so much. The detention aspect is very valid.

John Biltz
02-13-2012, 13:59
Who fired first is a matter of contention, but Roach’s pistol malfunctioned after one shot and ejected the clip.
As more people joined in to help, Melvin saw the pistol’s magazine was ejected. He slammed it in tight and chambered a round. Can't blame the gun, sounds like the magazine release was hit either prior or during the struggle.

If I was his lawyer I'd be looking for some blue on blue shootings and what happened to the shooter afterwards. My guess is no one was tried for a 25 year sentence. If I was on the jury I would be very reluctant to convict this guy to 25 years for this offense. I might even buy temporary insanity if some one sold it well enough. There is little doubt he was out of control and there was some diminished capacity.

Sam Spade
02-13-2012, 14:04
If I was his lawyer I'd be looking for some blue on blue shootings and what happened to the shooter afterwards.

Difference is that the vast majority of cop v cop shootings are uniformed guys shooting the plainclothes that didn't obey commands. I can't think of any where the cop in uniform was intentionally shot by someone in street clothes.

Rule is that the uniform is always right.

wjv
02-13-2012, 15:25
Generally speaking, what are most department's policies about being off-duty, and getting involved in hot calls?

Seems like you read about a LOT of cops being shot/killed (many times by friendly fire) when they are off-duty and come across a hot situation. Seems especially prevalent in big cities where members of a 5,000 man force do not personally know every other officer.

There is a reason why my policy as a person who is NOT a LEO but has a CCW permit is: I WILL NOT GET INVOLVED to stop a robbery, theft etc unless I or my family is personally threatened with harm/death . . . Not worth risking my life over someone else's money. Be a good witness. . . That is it.

Patchman
02-13-2012, 15:51
As others have already pointed out, if the cop in uniform was an impersonator, he's not going to waste time trying to apprehend you.

Also, with other bystanders showing up, and shots already fired, someone (probably a number of people) called 9-1-1. The "impersonator" in the police uniform is not going to linger until the 'real cops' showed up.

Patchman
02-13-2012, 15:55
I also can't think of a blue-on-blue shooting situation where the off duty/plain cloths LEO shot a uniformed LEO intentionally.

Always the other way around.

Sam Spade
02-13-2012, 15:57
Generally speaking, what are most department's policies about being off-duty, and getting involved in hot calls?
Generally speaking, there's an expectation that off-duty officers will act to preserve life. IMO, dealing with a MWAG after you've just heard shots fired fits the bill.

Short of the preservation of innocent life, policies vary widely.

Patchman
02-13-2012, 16:11
Playing devil's advocate here. I have to wonder if this off-duty LEO, in hindsight, now thinks he should have just sat in his car, called 9-1-1 and said "a number of shots were just fired, and a man with the gun ran that-a-way."

Granted, to remain in his car would probably go against every fiber in his body. Probably that's why he became a cop.

Black Smoke Trail
02-13-2012, 16:28
Yep. Sure is a mess.

I think this man should be held to the same standard as Brian Lilly:

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Or Eric Scott:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/30/national/main2867791.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Or the NYPD:

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=7949843

RussP
02-13-2012, 17:01
Yep. Sure is a mess.

I think this man should be held to the same standard as Brian Lilly:

Or Eric Scott:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/30/national/main2867791.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Or the NYPD:

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=7949843What standard would that be? :dunno:

Black Smoke Trail
02-13-2012, 17:04
What standard would that be? :dunno:

Read/watch the links and then you tell me. :dunno:

RussP
02-13-2012, 17:18
Read/watch the links and then you tell me. :dunno:The statement about the "standard" was yours, not mine.

What standard?

Misty02
02-13-2012, 17:24
Playing devil's advocate here. I have to wonder if this off-duty LEO, in hindsight, now thinks he should have just sat in his car, called 9-1-1 and said "a number of shots were just fired, and a man with the gun ran that-a-way."

Granted, to remain in his car would probably go against every fiber in his body. Probably that's why he became a cop.

He might have given it a thought but would likely dismiss it soon thereafter. The possibilities of another event similar to this one, I believe, are remote. The possibilities of a person firing and running with firearm at hand where that individual is not the victim of a crime, but the criminal, I believe would be substantially higher.

It’s really a catch 22 and he may be able to deal with the whole thing better if the penalties suffered by the other person are not severe. If they are, there might be a higher possibility where he could hesitate, at the wrong time, next time.

I definitely don’t envy either of these gentlemen.

.

Bren
02-13-2012, 17:32
Sound judgment and decision making don't function in the grip of panic.

That is what I see of the situation as reported. The guy was fully in the grip of panic.

I'd go for that more if he hadn't responded to commands, got on his stomach and then shot the guy while he was trying to cuff him. Everybody has a BS story after they shoot a cop - his just happened to make the paper.

However, if he was that dumb, I'd as soon have him in prison where we can regulate his "mistakes."

Sam Spade
02-13-2012, 17:51
Read/watch the links and then you tell me. :dunno:

So you're saying he acidentally shot the cop? Because even he isn't saying that.

ceverhart
02-13-2012, 18:06
Well this is all good for debate, he may or may not deserve criminal punishment. Here is my question- The good samaritan who tried to help the cop, what criminal charges is he facing? From what I read he committed felony assault. He hit the guy with his car, then when that did not work he exited his car and picked up the cop's gun and attempted to shoot guy. He ended up beating him with gun to submission.
So a crime defending yourself is wrong, a crime to defend a cop is ok?

Patchman
02-13-2012, 18:22
He might have given it a thought but would likely dismiss it soon thereafter. The possibilities of another event similar to this one, I believe, are remote. The possibilities of a person firing and running with firearm at hand where that individual is not the victim of a crime, but the criminal, I believe would be substantially higher.



I have no idea what he'll do in the future.

But the possibility of something similar happening to him again in the future will be zero if he made a conscious decision, from now on, when off-duty, to take no active action. Just sit back, call 9-1-1 and be a good witness.

And I wouldn't knock him for that decision.

Misty02
02-13-2012, 18:49
I have no idea what he'll do in the future.

But the possibility of something similar happening to him again in the future will be zero if he made a conscious decision, from now on, when off-duty, to take no active action. Just sit back, call 9-1-1 and be a good witness.

And I wouldn't knock him for that decision.

No idea here either. Whatever he decides to do, I just hope it’s not something that makes him hesitate at the wrong moment, his life would be on the line.

Maybe he is able to sit out the next one, who knows? Depending on the type of person he is, it may take all the will power he possesses to fight off the usual personality traits found in many individuals attracted to law enforcement.

.

Dragoon44
02-13-2012, 18:56
Well this is all good for debate, he may or may not deserve criminal punishment. Here is my question- The good samaritan who tried to help the cop, what criminal charges is he facing? From what I read he committed felony assault. He hit the guy with his car, then when that did not work he exited his car and picked up the cop's gun and attempted to shoot guy. He ended up beating him with gun to submission.
So a crime defending yourself is wrong, a crime to defend a cop is ok?

The good Samaritan reasonably believed he was trying to stop a felony assault on the officer ( and he was right). the guy in the story was not defending himself he was resting an officer in the performance of his duties. And then escalated it to attempted murder of a police officer.

svjackson
02-13-2012, 20:19
I totally agree that this is bad situation for both men involved. But is it standard operating procedure for a lone LEO to try to cuff a man who has a gun in his hand? I'm not saying he's in any way at fault - just curious as to what SOP is.

Black Smoke Trail
02-13-2012, 21:08
The statement about the "standard" was yours, not mine.

What standard?

If you read the links, then you know what standard is being applied. If you accidently shoot someone.......no criminal charges.

Dragoon44
02-13-2012, 21:15
I totally agree that this is bad situation for both men involved. But is it standard operating procedure for a lone LEO to try to cuff a man who has a gun in his hand? I'm not saying he's in any way at fault - just curious as to what SOP is.

it is a very bad idea to approach a potentially dangerous suspect alone. Much better to hold them at gunpoint until the other officers arrive.

My best guess would be the guy was acting antsy and since the officer did not have radio communications to know whether officers had been dispatched or not he thought he needed to get the guy secured and under control.

It was a very bad decision that almost cost him his life.

JuneyBooney
02-13-2012, 23:14
it is a very bad idea to approach a potentially dangerous suspect alone. Much better to hold them at gunpoint until the other officers arrive.

My best guess would be the guy was acting antsy and since the officer did not have radio communications to know whether officers had been dispatched or not he thought he needed to get the guy secured and under control.

It was a very bad decision that almost cost him his life.

I agree with that part. Did you read the article that said the officer had three guys jumping on him at one point? That seems strange to me too. I wonder if the real story is actually as described.

nikerret
02-13-2012, 23:30
As others have already pointed out, if the cop in uniform was an impersonator, he's not going to waste time trying to apprehend you.

Also, with other bystanders showing up, and shots already fired, someone (probably a number of people) called 9-1-1. The "impersonator" in the police uniform is not going to linger until the 'real cops' showed up.

I would be more inclind to agree with you if we didn't have so many whacker threads in CT, right now. The DEA impersonator interacted with real LEO's. I could only imagine what kind of wet dream that situation would be for a person like that; even with the likelihood of getting caught. He may very well have thought it was his ticket to real creds.

I totally agree that this is bad situation for both men involved. But is it standard operating procedure for a lone LEO to try to cuff a man who has a gun in his hand? I'm not saying he's in any way at fault - just curious as to what SOP is.

Hold at gunpoint, behind cover, if possible, until backup arrives. Seperate person from known weapons through verbal commands ASAP.

Patchman
02-14-2012, 04:13
Here is my question- The good samaritan who tried to help the cop... He hit the guy with his car, then when that did not work he exited his car and picked up the cop's gun and attempted to shoot guy. He ended up beating him with gun to submission.

Nice point you raised.

How did the good samaritan instantly recognize the guy in the police uniform as a policeman?

In fact, the samaritan was certain of it. So certain that he (1) used his own car to hit the attacker, (2) screamed at the attacker that "he's a cop" (or something like that), (3) actually pulled the trigger on the cop's gun to shoot the attacker, and (4) finally had to physically beat the attacker into submission.

These actions the samaritan took are pretty severe. So I'm thinking the samaritan was pretty certain that the guy in the police uniform was a real policeman.

Misty02
02-14-2012, 05:36
I would be more inclind to agree with you if we didn't have so many whacker threads in CT, right now. The DEA impersonator interacted with real LEO's. I could only imagine what kind of wet dream that situation would be for a person like that; even with the likelihood of getting caught. He may very well have thought it was his ticket to real creds.



Hold at gunpoint, behind cover, if possible, until backup arrives. Seperate person from known weapons through verbal commands ASAP.

You are right about that.

This man, who my son and I had an extended conversation with, fooled not only us (we really didn’t know better) but his employer and many others. He was present during one of our training classes and I have little doubt he would have jumped in to act as a LEO if he had witnessed a crime. To my knowledge he didn’t have a uniform (which I read/hear is not so difficult to get), but he did have credentials that appeared real to those of us who wouldn’t be able to tell a fake from the real thing.

http://www.okeesheriff.org/press-releases/138-press-release-vincente-valdes-20110801.html (http://www.okeesheriff.org/press-releases/138-press-release-vincente-valdes-20110801.html)

The scary part is that we kind of liked him, he and my oldest son exchanged phone numbers, he wanted to go shooting with us. He was a bit too twitchy for my taste and we never did; however, I too believed he was who he said he was.

ETA: I just found the thread where this was discussed, he did have the uniform, vehicle siren, etc.

.

Sam Spade
02-14-2012, 06:08
If you read the links, then you know what standard is being applied. If you accidently shoot someone.......no criminal charges.

Except this wasn't accidental.

Whether is was a reasonable act has yet to be determined.

redbaron007
02-14-2012, 07:39
This one is tough!! Not sure the author of the article has presented all the facts; but it would be nice to sit in the court room to hear the arguments and evidence.

My thoughts lean a little to this being an accidental shooting, not a criminal act.

Can't wait to find out what the verdict is.

:wavey:

red

Misty02
02-14-2012, 07:49
Except this wasn't accidental.

Whether is was a reasonable act has yet to be determined.

I guess it will boil down to whether or not a reasonable person could have believed he was not dealing with a real police officer?

While not much of a defense, some departments do not allow visible tattoos. Some regular people know this; some even think you’re not allowed to have any. Not sure if that would be enough to create a reasonable doubt.

.

Mayhem like Me
02-14-2012, 08:21
If you read the links, then you know what standard is being applied. If you accidently shoot someone.......no criminal charges.

Yup,, too bad he did not shoot him by accident. See this is where you get in trouble you do not read..

He clearly stated he saw the tatoo and thought "this guys not a cop"

that would be a decision to act.. not an accident. Please try again.

Dragoon44
02-14-2012, 09:00
This one is tough!! Not sure the author of the article has presented all the facts; but it would be nice to sit in the court room to hear the arguments and evidence.

My thoughts lean a little to this being an accidental shooting, not a criminal act.

Can't wait to find out what the verdict is.

:wavey:

red

How could it possibly be accidental? he intentionally shot someone. his mistaken belief about the officers status as legit or not does not make it accidental.

In short, deliberately and intentionally pulling the trigger does not become accidental based on a mistaken belief as to who you are shooting.

Accidental would be you didn't mean to shoot them.

Even though your belief was mistaken when you shot the standard is was your belief reasonable.

Black Smoke Trail
02-14-2012, 09:00
Yup,, too bad he did not shoot him by accident. See this is where you get in trouble you do not read..

He clearly stated he saw the tatoo and thought "this guys not a cop"

that would be a decision to act.. not an accident. Please try again.

Yep, he genuinely thought the cop was a fake dressed in a cops uniform (like that has NEVER happened :upeyes: ) who was part of the robbery and possibly about to kill him so he fired in self defense. An accident under extremely stressful conditions.

that would be an decision to act under overwhelmingly mitigation and understandible circumstances......an accident. Please try again.

This is yet another glaring example of the mediocre screening and leadership in law enforcement. Tatoos in my opinion are a red flag to indvidual judgement as well as common sense and should be a red flag in the screening process. A tattoo or two on the arm or other areas not noticable in uniform might be overlooked provided more detailed background investigation supports it. A tattoo covered arm that shows in uniform, I would be suspect of myself.

Had the police officer looked like a professional police officer in uniform and not a former prison felon, perhaps he may not have been shot.

Speaking from personal experience, I have scene some tattoo covered ear ring wearing freaks in police and SWAT uniforms that immediatley drew my attention and questioned their fitness to be in that uniform. People like that, I would NOT allow around my family, anyone I cared about, much less my dogs or livestock. In years past, tatoos of this nature would have precluded their being hired. Yet another sign of the precipitous and slumping standards in this field as well as in the military.

Oh.......and by the way.......in the above examples that I posted, the police deliberately and intentionally shot these homeowners........one of them 6 TIMES, thinking they were the bad guy. No charges filed. Same standard should apply in this case here. Yep......try again.

Misty02
02-14-2012, 09:05
If you read the links, then you know what standard is being applied. If you accidently shoot someone.......no criminal charges.

If you “accidentally” shoot someone then you lose the ability to claim self-defense. Our attorney listed that one among the many things to never, ever say “it was an accident”.

We must consciously remember that firing a weapon at another person is a crime; with the exception of firing in self-defense.

.

Dragoon44
02-14-2012, 09:19
Yep, he genuinely thought the cop was a fake dressed in a cops uniform (like that has NEVER happened :upeyes: ) who was part of the robbery and possibly about to kill him so he fired in self defense. An accident under extremely stressful conditions.

.

Right he "reasonably" believed that the guy in the uniform taking actions that a police officer would, (detaining him at gunpoint, (instead of shooting him) proning him out,((instead of shooting him ) and then attempting to handcuff him (instead of shooting him ) must really be someone attempting to kill him. Right there in broad daylight at 10AM in front of multiple witnesses to the event. (Some who later intervened on the officers behalf).

Obviously all those actions by the must not be an officer were part of his jam up get away strategy, to dawdle at the scene of a shooting and taking those police like actions instead of just shooting the guy and beating feet.

Why am I not surprised this is your version of "reasonable" thinking?



If you “accidentally” shoot someone then you lose the ability to claim self-defense. Our attorney listed that one among the many things to never, ever say “it was an accident”.

We must consciously remember that firing a weapon at another person is a crime; with the exception of firing in self-defense.

.

You can't derail BST's ideology based alternate reality with facts. Like most ideologue's he is committed to the ideology regardless of the facts.

RussP
02-14-2012, 09:48
If you read the links, then you know what standard is being applied. If you accidently shoot someone.......no criminal charges.Accidentally? Yep. Sure is a mess.

I think this man should be held to the same standard as Brian Lilly:Officer Lilly did deliberately shoot homeowner Tony Arambula, mistakenly, but not accidentally, and not outside the department's rules and policy.

There was a civil suit filed on this. BST, do you know if it went to jury?

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/03/hero_homeowner_shot_mistakenly.php

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/09/25/20090925phxarambula0925.html
Or Eric Scott:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/30/national/main2867791.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBodyYes, Eric Scott, an off duty police officer who mistook his 18-year-old daughter for an intruder after she sneaked out of the house earlier to see her boyfriend, and set off a motion alarm in the back yard when she sneaked back into the basement of the house.

Did he shoot the intruder accidentally? No, he meant to shoot the intruder.Or the NYPD:

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=7949843What's the situation here, BST? This may be the only true accidental shooting in your threesome. isn't the victim's attorney suing the city saying the officer accidentally discharged his weapon trying to engage his Surefire X300 weapon light? What similarity does that have to the shooting in this thread?

Dragoon44
02-14-2012, 09:53
What similarity does that have to the shooting in this thread?

uhh...they all involved guns and someone got shot????

That makes it the same doesn't it?

:rofl::rofl:

RussP
02-14-2012, 10:11
Yep, he genuinely thought the cop was a fake dressed in a cops uniform (like that has NEVER happened :upeyes: ) who was part of the robbery and possibly about to kill him so he fired in self defense. An accident under extremely stressful conditions.

that would be an decision to act under overwhelmingly mitigation and understandible circumstances......an accident. Please try again.Atibi Thomas did willingly and deliberately shoot Officer Roach believing he was part of the group trying to rob and possibly kill him. He did not accidentally shoot Roach. He shot with the intent of stopping a robber from killing him.

As to the fake cops allegation, why didn't you post a link to something that happened just a week before that might have influenced Thomas. That would constitute a fact supporting your allegation. Man Accused Of Impersonating Officer Arrested (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/man-accused-of-impersonating-officer-arrested/nFDg8/)This is yet another glaring example of the mediocre screening and leadership in law enforcement. Tatoos in my opinion are a red flag to indvidual judgement as well as common sense and should be a red flag in the screening process. A tattoo or two on the arm or other areas not noticable in uniform might be overlooked provided more detailed background investigation supports it. A tattoo covered arm that shows in uniform, I would be suspect of myself.

Had the police officer looked like a professional police officer in uniform and not a former prison felon, perhaps he may not have been shot.

Speaking from personal experience, I have scene some tattoo covered ear ring wearing freaks in police and SWAT uniforms that immediatley drew my attention and questioned their fitness to be in that uniform. People like that, I would NOT allow around my family, anyone I cared about, much less my dogs or livestock. In years past, tatoos of this nature would have precluded their being hired. Yet another sign of the precipitous and slumping standards in this field as well as in the military.Bias and prejudice?Oh.......and by the way.......in the above examples that I posted, the police deliberately and intentionally shot these homeowners........one of them 6 TIMES, thinking they were the bad guy. No charges filed. Same standard should apply in this case here. Yep......try again.Wait, first you say...An accident under extremely stressful conditions.

that would be an decision to act under overwhelmingly mitigation and understandible circumstances......an accident. Please try again.Now you say...Oh.......and by the way.......in the above examples that I posted, the police deliberately and intentionally shot these homeowners........one of them 6 TIMES, thinking they were the bad guy. No charges filed. Same standard should apply in this case here. Yep......try again.Accident or deliberate, make up your mind...

RussP
02-14-2012, 10:27
This may be the only true accidental shooting in your threesome. isn't the victim's attorney suing the city saying the officer accidentally discharged his weapon trying to engage his Surefire X300 weapon light? What similarity does that have to the shooting in this thread?
uhh...they all involved guns and someone got shot????

That makes it the same doesn't it?

:rofl::rofl:WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!! The all involve cops shooting innocents... :cool:

redbaron007
02-14-2012, 13:02
How could it possibly be accidental? he intentionally shot someone. his mistaken belief about the officers status as legit or not does not make it accidental.

In short, deliberately and intentionally pulling the trigger does not become accidental based on a mistaken belief as to who you are shooting.

Accidental would be you didn't mean to shoot them.

Even though your belief was mistaken when you shot the standard is was your belief reasonable.

Allow me to clarify accidental; meaning the shooting was in self defense. A bad selection of words. There is no question he intentionally meant to do harm to the officer; but out of self-defense.

Does that help? I'm sure there is more to the story, but what is it? That's why I said it would be interesting to sit in the courtroom during the trial.


:wavey:

red

RussP
02-14-2012, 13:24
Allow me to clarify accidental; meaning the shooting was in self defense. A bad selection of words. There is no question he intentionally meant to do harm to the officer; but out of self-defense.

Does that help? I'm sure there is more to the story, but what is it? That's why I said it would be interesting to sit in the courtroom during the trial.


:wavey:

redI'll refer you to Misty's post...If you “accidentally” shoot someone then you lose the ability to claim self-defense. Our attorney listed that one among the many things to never, ever say “it was an accident”.

We must consciously remember that firing a weapon at another person is a crime; with the exception of firing in self-defense.

.The words "accidental" and "self-defense" may not mix well.

redbaron007
02-14-2012, 13:39
I'll refer you to Misty's post...The words "accidental" and "self-defense" may not mix well.

Yep, would agree. Bad selection of words in my original post.

:wavey:

red

Misty02
02-14-2012, 14:15
I'll refer you to Misty's post...The words "accidental" and "self-defense" may not mix well.


Based on what I have been taught, they don’t mix at all and one can’t exist with the other. Self-defense is a conscious and intentional act, an affirmative defense for an otherwise illegal act.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the man’s intention was to shoot a police officer. Rather than interpreting what was going on as a legal use of force for the purpose of apprehension, he saw it as another person attacking him and trying to harm him.

I believe it is a case of mistaken identity where, based on his personal observations and state of mind, the shooter believed he was dealing with another criminal (a fake officer). It would be interesting to see the final outcome of this case. Would the defense use the experience he had just had as setting the tone for the encounter? Would they use prior cases of police impersonators (some in full uniform) to show that their client’s assumptions were not completely farfetched? Would they use his belief that real police officers don’t have tattoos? Did their client see the officer exit the vehicle and it not being a marked vehicle contributed to the erroneous assumption?

It would be interesting to read it all, to say the least.
.

redbaron007
02-14-2012, 14:21
Based on what I have been taught, they don’t mix at all and one can’t exist with the other. Self-defense is a conscious and intentional act, an affirmative defense for an otherwise illegal act.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the man’s intention was to shoot a police officer. Rather than interpreting what was going on as a legal use of force for the purpose of apprehension, he saw it as another person attacking him and trying to harm him.

I believe it is a case of mistaken identity where, based on his personal observations and state of mind, the shooter believed he was dealing with another criminal (a fake officer). It would be interesting to see the final outcome of this case. Would the defense use the experience he had just had as setting the tone for the encounter? Would they use prior cases of police impersonators (some in full uniform) to show that their client’s assumptions were not completely farfetched? Would they use his belief that real police officers don’t have tattoos? Did their client see the officer exit the vehicle and it not being a marked vehicle contributed to the erroneous assumption?

It would be interesting to read it all, to say the least.
.

I concur!! The legal jousting is going to be interesting in the court room. I'm curious to see how the officer was dressed; what is full uniform? How is the jury going to interpret the totality of the circumstances?

:wavey:

red

Misty02
02-14-2012, 14:58
I concur!! The legal jousting is going to be interesting in the court room. I'm curious to see how the officer was dressed; what is full uniform? How is the jury going to interpret the totality of the circumstances?

:wavey:

red

Indeed! It would be a very interesting case to follow. The article mentions “full uniform”, not that reporters are known for reporting accurate facts, but this one seems to me a tad better than most. When I read "full uniform" my mind assumes the official/original one, not the polo shirt with "Police" on the back.

Sadly, I’m afraid I’ll never get to satisfy my curiosity and learn what the final outcome was or read the details as presented in court.

I do hope the best for both, based in the quoted comments made, I believe both were acting in good faith.


.

janice6
02-14-2012, 15:33
I believe the "victum" was terrified and incapable of making a rational decision.

I also believe he thought anyone coming to him was a deadly threat to him. He was so full of adrenalin, he didn't know when/how to evaluate his situation. He reacted like a cornered animal

Everything he did he conciously chose to do, and he got what he deserved.

RussP
02-14-2012, 15:56
Lets not forget this......As to the fake cops allegation, why didn't you post a link to something that happened just a week before that might have influenced Thomas. That would constitute a fact supporting your allegation. Man Accused Of Impersonating Officer Arrested (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/man-accused-of-impersonating-officer-arrested/nFDg8/)

There were other news reports about other impersonators in the months just before this event. Google "Atlanta police impersonators."

Misty02
02-14-2012, 17:32
Overly upset and dramatic postings of family/ friends /supporters of the shooter. In spite not actually knowing all the facts of this case, their claims seem to be a tad farfetched. http://www.atibiisinnocent.org/search/label/AJC (http://www.atibiisinnocent.org/search/label/AJC) I would be upset too, if what I think may be the truth was what actually took place, but if they lose sight of their main goal they won’t be as much help as they can be.

redbaron007, it seems quite possible you may be on to something with wondering what “full uniform” means.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/man-arrested-charged-after-atlanta-police-officer-/nD94J/ (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/man-arrested-charged-after-atlanta-police-officer-/nD94J/) In this article they portray Thomas as one of the robbers and charged him with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Which is the robbery attempt that Roach witnessed and tried to intervene in?

One thing for sure though, Thomas should have listened to his inner voice when he sensed something wrong and should have abandoned the sale or at least the delivery part.


.

Bren
02-14-2012, 17:33
I believe the "victum" was terrified and incapable of making a rational decision.


He claimed he did make a rational decision. He admits he recognized the guy as a police officer and then made the conscious decision that he was a fake and he shot him. He may have been under stress, but it was a rational thought process, not blind panic.

At best, a mistake of fact and poor judgment. And that's from hearing what appears to be mainly just the shooter's "why I shouldn't be convicted after having plenty of time to think about my story" story.

Sam Spade
02-14-2012, 17:59
He claimed he did make a rational decision. He admits he recognized the guy as a police officer and then made the conscious decision that he was a fake and he shot him. He may have been under stress, but it was a rational thought process, not blind panic.

He's pretty much stuck with that for a defense, regardless of what happened. To admit panic, to be irrational, is to be reckless. Shooting someone as a result of a reckless mindset is a confession to a felony everywhere I know of.

redbaron007
02-14-2012, 18:01
Overly upset and dramatic postings of family/ friends /supporters of the shooter. In spite not actually knowing all the facts of this case, their claims seem to be a tad farfetched. http://www.atibiisinnocent.org/search/label/AJC (http://www.atibiisinnocent.org/search/label/AJC) I would be upset too, if what I think may be the truth was what actually took place, but if they lose sight of their main goal they won’t be as much help as they can be.

redbaron007, it seems quite possible you may be on to something with wondering what “full uniform” means.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/man-arrested-charged-after-atlanta-police-officer-/nD94J/ (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/man-arrested-charged-after-atlanta-police-officer-/nD94J/) In this article they portray Thomas as one of the robbers and charged him with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Which is the robbery attempt that Roach witnessed and tried to intervene in?

One thing for sure though, Thomas should have listened to his inner voice when he sensed something wrong and should have abandoned the sale or at least the delivery part.


.

Interesting links! Thanks for finding these. I did look for the case online, but didn't find it. I'll be following this blog.

Thanks Misty!

:wavey:

red

Misty02
02-14-2012, 18:06
He claimed he did make a rational decision. He admits he recognized the guy as a police officer and then made the conscious decision that he was a fake and he shot him. He may have been under stress, but it was a rational thought process, not blind panic.


At best, a mistake of fact and poor judgment. And that's from hearing what appears to be mainly just the shooter's "why I shouldn't be convicted after having plenty of time to think about my story" story.


You could be right, I am curious as to how soon after the incident he expressed his rationalization. Based on the article it appears he started to submit until he noticed the tattoos.

They seem to have confirmed the rest of the story via interviews, court documents and police records. One of the BG bought 4 tires with rims that were advertised on Craigslist, which included the delivery. Were the other three convicted of the crime toward Thomas? Was Berry in possession of a revolver? Did Berry have a criminal record and thus carrying illegally? Does the police record for the other two reflect they were bad guys? Is there evidence that they fired at him? Based on 911 calls, it does appear he in fact had someone call the police for help. What constituted the “full uniform” comment in the article? The webpage in support of Thomas states that it was just dark colored clothing and not distinctively apparent as a police uniform.

.

Sam Spade
02-14-2012, 18:28
Misty writes a wonderful set of questions showing why we should always look to get facts.

:thumbsup:

Misty02
02-14-2012, 18:45
Interesting links! Thanks for finding these. I did look for the case online, but didn't find it. I'll be following this blog.

Thanks Misty!

:wavey:

red

My pleasure, redbaron007. :)

I just read the letter to the officer and his family. It is so much easier to Monday morning quarterback things when we are not personally involved and affected. It is a good letter but they shouldn’t have included anything that denied officer Roach the right to be angry and bitter about what happened. He has every right to be upset. They go into Thomas being innocent and doing nothing wrong, I almost wish they hadn’t gone there either.

“I know that one now has to ask, “Could there be innocence on both sides?” “Could this truly be a simple case of misunderstanding?” And to the one that sees clearly, the answer is a simple yes.” I liked that part. When we seek forgiveness for making a grave mistake we can’t attack the person we’ve wronged. I know it wasn’t Thomas who wrote that letter and it would be nice to learn that he did write one that was actually sent to officer Roach.

.

NMGlocker
02-14-2012, 18:45
Reason #235 that "relaxed" grooming standards for uniformed LEO's is a bad idea.
I've started to see visible tattoos, Fu-manchu 'staches and shoulder length hair on our local uniformed officers... and frankly it looks like unprofessional crap.
When you toss in polo shirts and BDU shorts they look like a slovenly episode of Reno 911.

Misty02
02-14-2012, 22:29
Misty writes a wonderful set of questions showing why we should always look to get facts.

:thumbsup:

Something like this has been one of my nightmares since we started having so many reports of police impersonators down here, Sam. One went as far as telling an elderly lady that refused to open the door that they had a warrant, she believed they were real until they took her to an ATM and forced her to withdraw money. Others have been reported at traffic stops where the victims have been robbed. There is no way I would stop for an unmarked unit, but the thought of breaking down and being approached while waiting for help sends chills down my spine.

I pray that I’m more observant and a better judge of character than this gentleman was, but I have no way to know in advance if I’ll actually be. Theoretically, I could be this man if I don't get an answer from 911 in time. So yes, I’m very interested in learning more so I never find myself in the same situation.

.

TBO
02-14-2012, 23:46
Misty,

If your area (or near area) have any version of:



Citizens Academy
Ride Along


and you are able to partake, I cannot encourage enough.
Neither will "give all the answer", but I have no doubt that someone like you, with eyes open, will gain things they otherwise might not be able to.

Sincerely,

TBO

Misty02
02-15-2012, 01:00
Misty,

If your area (or near area) have any version of:



Citizens Academy
Ride Along

and you are able to partake, I cannot encourage enough.
Neither will "give all the answer", but I have no doubt that someone like you, with eyes open, will gain things they otherwise might not be able to.

Sincerely,

TBO




We have the ride along; I have long thought about participating in one but have not done so yet. I just looked up information about the Citizen’s Academy; a 13 week commitment is beyond what I’m able to do at the moment.

I’ll be calling about the ride along and stop procrastinating on that one. It can’t hurt; although understanding better may make me even more intolerable to some people. :)

.

JuneyBooney
02-15-2012, 03:18
Lets not forget this...

There were other news reports about other impersonators in the months just before this event. Google "Atlanta police impersonators."

I wonder how the jury will decide the case. There have been a number of these cases in Baltimore and Richmond as well as Atlanta where the police impersonators even handcuff the people and then rob them. If that point gets across the jury may find it difficult to convict at all.

RussP
02-15-2012, 04:52
Misty writes a wonderful set of questions showing why we should always look to get facts.

:thumbsup:Amen...

RussP
02-15-2012, 05:03
Misty,

If your area (or near area) have any version of:



Citizens Academy
Ride Along


and you are able to partake, I cannot encourage enough.
Neither will "give all the answer", but I have no doubt that someone like you, with eyes open, will gain things they otherwise might not be able to.

Sincerely,

TBOWe have the ride along; I have long thought about participating in one but have not done so yet. I just looked up information about the Citizen’s Academy; a 13 week commitment is beyond what I’m able to do at the moment.

I’ll be calling about the ride along and stop procrastinating on that one. It can’t hurt; although understanding better may make me even more intolerable to some people. :)

.TBO is right, and so are you.:cool:

The more you/we/everyone understand(s) about all sides of issues, the more we can see about issues.

Misty02
02-15-2012, 05:09
I wonder how the jury will decide the case. There have been a number of these cases in Baltimore and Richmond as well as Atlanta where the police impersonators even handcuff the people and then rob them. If that point gets across the jury may find it difficult to convict at all.

That is where a good self-defense attorney will become necessary. They would have to bring to the table everything that is known and then some. Depending on which are the real facts in this case, it should not be impossible to create sufficient doubt in the jury that Thomas’ assumptions fall within what a reasonable man could have believed.

If they succeed in clearing him of the criminal charges I don’t know if that would preclude a civil case though.

.

Misty02
02-15-2012, 05:17
TBO is right, and so are you.:cool:

The more you/we/everyone understand(s) about all sides of issues, the more we can see about issues.

I know he is right. I also know how much of a pain in the rear I am already, a tad more may not even be enough to be noticeable. :supergrin:

.

Patchman
02-15-2012, 07:08
That is where a good self-defense attorney will become necessary. They would have to bring to the table everything that is known and then some. Depending on which are the real facts in this case, it should not be impossible to create sufficient doubt in the jury that Thomas’ assumptions fall within what a reasonable man could have believed.

The reasonable person standard will be the hurtle. All the other samaritans there seemed to have believed the guy in the 'uniform' was a real LEO. (And in that belief, at least one of them took some pretty serious actions).

redbaron007
02-15-2012, 07:33
The ride-a-longs are great. I encourage everyone who hasn't, to look into the ride-a-longs. The public (non-LEOs) will see things a little differently. I'm trying to get another one scheduled this spring with a friend of mine who is now on the DUI taskforce.

If the criminal case goes down in favor of Thomas and Keith decides to proceed with a civil case; this too will be very interesting. The reasonable person standard is the test for these, like Patchman stated; however, these 'fighting' cases seem to be crapshot for either party. You can get more of the events through the civil cases; so it will be something to look for. The directions for the jury is something to watch/read about, too.

Thanks Misty!

:wavey:

red

Misty02
02-15-2012, 08:04
The reasonable person standard will be the hurtle. All the other samaritans there seemed to have believed the guy in the 'uniform' was a real LEO. (And in that belief, at least one of them took some pretty serious actions).

Perhaps an argument can be made about the knowledge possessed and what those individuals are exposed to? Most of the people close to me would have little knowledge about the crime around us if it were not for some of the articles I share with them. I share less than 1/20 of what I’m exposed to and a great number of them come from the two forums I’m a member of.

My first question to the good samaritans would be something along the line of: are you aware of the increased number of crimes perpetrated by individuals impersonating officers? Do you believe it is easy for a regular citizen to obtain a full police uniform?

The good samaritans acted based on what they believed they knew; however, in absence of certain knowledge they couldn’t have reached the same conclusions.

What is the policy for the Atlanta PD as respect visible tattoos? What was the policy 5 years or so ago? If it was more restrictive how long was the restrictive policy in place? Thomas comes from a family with several veterans, are there any police officers in the family or close friends? If there are any, did they serve during a time when tattoos were forbidden and this is what he believes is policy?

The reasonable person standard has to take in consideration, at least in part, the individual’s background and exposure, shouldn’t it? (I honestly don’t know and I’m fishing for additional info)

.

Patchman
02-15-2012, 08:42
As for the line of questions to the samartians, I'll let a trial lawyer give their professional opinion as to whether a judge will allow them to be asked.

Of course, those questions (if allowed) will/could be a double edged sword.

Dragoon44
02-15-2012, 10:29
I wonder how the jury will decide the case. There have been a number of these cases in Baltimore and Richmond as well as Atlanta where the police impersonators even handcuff the people and then rob them. If that point gets across the jury may find it difficult to convict at all.

How many of those cases involved people involved in something that any reasonable person would conclude would initiate an aggressive police contact?

I would bet that the cases you refer to were contacts where the individuals had no reason to suspect that police contact was inevitable or even likely at the time.

What would a reasonable man conclude would be the most likely outcome be if in the aftermath of a shooting police observed them running across the street, gun in hand firing wildly behind them?

Would a reasonable man not conclude that on the basis of what the officer saw the officer would take the exact steps the officer who witnessed this in fact did?

He then fled toward a Popeye’s restaurant across Oak Street, firing back at the men he feared were pursuing him.

Notice what the above quote says, NOT that he fired at men that were pursuing him, but that he FEARED might pursue him.
in other words he is running across the street firing wildly in the direction of the guys that had tried to rob him but were not actually pursuing him. is this the act of a reasonable and responsible individual?

Bodyarmorguy
02-15-2012, 10:44
Not defending the guy on trial by any stretch, remember, I am a cop as well, just throwing a thought out there. Could this be likened to the "fog of war" or the state of mind known as "hyper-fight"?

janice6
02-15-2012, 11:05
He claimed he did make a rational decision. He admits he recognized the guy as a police officer and then made the conscious decision that he was a fake and he shot him. He may have been under stress, but it was a rational thought process, not blind panic.

At best, a mistake of fact and poor judgment. And that's from hearing what appears to be mainly just the shooter's "why I shouldn't be convicted after having plenty of time to think about my story" story.


Only to clarify what I mean in my post.

I was speculating that this story of mistaking the police officer for another criminal, was a lawyer's technique of changing what may have occurred, as I orginally posted, into an argument that casts doubt on the officers authenticity (to the shooter). The lawyer is trying to modify the thought process of the shooter, into something that is defensible in court.

And, of course, I could be full of it also.

Misty02
02-15-2012, 11:32
How many of those cases involved people involved in something that any reasonable person would conclude would initiate an aggressive police contact?

I would bet that the cases you refer to were contacts where the individuals had no reason to suspect that police contact was inevitable or even likely at the time.

What would a reasonable man conclude would be the most likely outcome be if in the aftermath of a shooting police observed them running across the street, gun in hand firing wildly behind them?

Would a reasonable man not conclude that on the basis of what the officer saw the officer would take the exact steps the officer who witnessed this in fact did?



Notice what the above quote says, NOT that he fired at mean that were pursuing him, but that he FEARED might pursue him.
in other words he is running across the street firing wildly in the direction of the guys that had tried to rob him but were not actually pursuing him. is this the act of a reasonable and responsible individual?

I would agree that he was involved in something that would involve aggressive police contact and that contact was inevitable, he even had someone call the police for help.

Every reasonable person (I believe), including Thomas would conclude that the likely outcome once a police officer observed them running across the street firing would be their intervention, and with full force.

The actions of the officer are not in question (well, at least for me), based on what I have read he acted like an officer would/should. What I see as up in the air and what the trial may entail is whether or not it was reasonable for Thomas to believe he could have been dealing with a fake officer.

Am I incorrect in assuming that if they conclude that it’s not unreasonable for Thomas to possibly believe he was dealing with a fake officer then he would be able to claim self-defense? Could his belief be accepted as reasonable, it be considered self-defense and he still face other issues here?

redbaron007
02-15-2012, 14:12
I would agree that he was involved in something that would involve aggressive police contact and that contact was inevitable, he even had someone call the police for help.

Every reasonable person (I believe), including Thomas would conclude that the likely outcome once a police officer observed them running across the street firing would be their intervention, and with full force.

The actions of the officer are not in question (well, at least for me), based on what I have read he acted like an officer would/should. What I see as up in the air and what the trial may entail is whether or not it was reasonable for Thomas to believe he could have been dealing with a fake officer.

Am I incorrect in assuming that if they conclude that it’s not unreasonable for Thomas to possibly believe he was dealing with a fake officer then he would be able to claim self-defense? Could his belief be accepted as reasonable, it be considered self-defense and he still face other issues here?

The question that comes to mind, what are the department's protocol on these events? Do they have one? Do they need one? Then, the question comes to mind, could the officer be readily assumed to be an officer once identifying themself as one?

One the civil side, is there enough that a reasonable prudent person would have responded the same or different under the same circumastances? Then, if the officer is making his shooting an intentional act, will Thomas's insurance provide a defense? Most liability policies do exclude intentional acts by an insured. The insurance company may provide a defense under a reservation of rights, but then deny any liability coverage once the jury decides it was intentional act; forcing the officer to obtain judgements against Thomas. If this is the case, it's like getting blood out of a turnip.

Watching and reading with bated breath! :supergrin:

:wavey:

red

Dragoon44
02-15-2012, 16:02
I would agree that he was involved in something that would involve aggressive police contact and that contact was inevitable, he even had someone call the police for help.

Every reasonable person (I believe), including Thomas would conclude that the likely outcome once a police officer observed them running across the street firing would be their intervention, and with full force.

The actions of the officer are not in question (well, at least for me), based on what I have read he acted like an officer would/should. What I see as up in the air and what the trial may entail is whether or not it was reasonable for Thomas to believe he could have been dealing with a fake officer.

Am I incorrect in assuming that if they conclude that it’s not unreasonable for Thomas to possibly believe he was dealing with a fake officer then he would be able to claim self-defense? Could his belief be accepted as reasonable, it be considered self-defense and he still face other issues here?

The short answer is you can never been certain of the outcome of a trial.

nikerret
02-15-2012, 16:26
The short answer is you can never been certain of the outcome of a trial.

This^

Jury trial-always a gamble.

JuneyBooney
02-16-2012, 03:21
How many of those cases involved people involved in something that any reasonable person would conclude would initiate an aggressive police contact?

I would bet that the cases you refer to were contacts where the individuals had no reason to suspect that police contact was inevitable or even likely at the time.

What would a reasonable man conclude would be the most likely outcome be if in the aftermath of a shooting police observed them running across the street, gun in hand firing wildly behind them?

Would a reasonable man not conclude that on the basis of what the officer saw the officer would take the exact steps the officer who witnessed this in fact did?



Notice what the above quote says, NOT that he fired at men that were pursuing him, but that he FEARED might pursue him.
in other words he is running across the street firing wildly in the direction of the guys that had tried to rob him but were not actually pursuing him. is this the act of a reasonable and responsible individual?

You are correct in this because I don't know of any reasonable person who would fire wildly at someone who may be following him. You are also correct in that most of the cop impersonator caes have been at homes where the perps gain access posing as police and then rob the people.

But I still think a jury may have a problem with the officer being in a personal vehicle and getting out of his car. They may think that the officer should have not gotten involved. Has anyone heard how the trial is going or the racial makeup and the male-female balance of the jury?

JuneyBooney
02-16-2012, 03:25
The short answer is you can never been certain of the outcome of a trial.

This is very true and cases where the evidence seems clear and convincing can be nullified by the jury seemingly without thought.

Misty02
02-16-2012, 03:50
The short answer is you can never been certain of the outcome of a trial.

As you may have expected, I don’t like that answer. :crying:

series1811
02-16-2012, 04:04
Not defending the guy on trial by any stretch, remember, I am a cop as well, just throwing a thought out there. Could this be likened to the "fog of war" or the state of mind known as "hyper-fight"?

More like the mindset of sheer, unadulterated, brain freezing, panic.

series1811
02-16-2012, 04:05
The short answer is you can never been certain of the outcome of a trial.

Or, even a grand jury. :supergrin:

Misty02
02-16-2012, 04:31
You are correct in this because I don't know of any reasonable person who would fire wildly at someone who may be following him. You are also correct in that most of the cop impersonator caes have been at homes where the perps gain access posing as police and then rob the people.

But I still think a jury may have a problem with the officer being in a personal vehicle and getting out of his car. They may think that the officer should have not gotten involved. Has anyone heard how the trial is going or the racial makeup and the male-female balance of the jury?

I don’t see how the racial make-up would be an issue here; both the officer and the citizen are black. Gender shouldn’t be an issue either, although from the article I gathered that Thomas was a bigger man than the officer. I don’t recall seeing a picture of the officer; Thomas, however, seems like a young, strong and fit man. Perhaps a larger number of females might see this as a disparity with Roach’s physical make-up?

Still, if the path they are following is that Thomas believed he was dealing with a police impersonator, their physical differences are of less importance considering they both were armed.

There are fake police officers out there doing all sort of things, this fake cop was arrested after he pulled over a real cop:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/whoops-fake-cop-pulls-over-real-cop-and-gets-himself-arrested/ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/whoops-fake-cop-pulls-over-real-cop-and-gets-himself-arrested/) This other fake cop was working a case and even maintained his story of being an officer when he was questioned by real police officers: http://lakeexpo.com/news/crime/article_ec8c8a68-d9a5-11e0-990b-001cc4c002e0.html (http://lakeexpo.com/news/crime/article_ec8c8a68-d9a5-11e0-990b-001cc4c002e0.html)

.

redbaron007
02-16-2012, 06:55
You are correct in this because I don't know of any reasonable person who would fire wildly at someone who may be following him. You are also correct in that most of the cop impersonator caes have been at homes where the perps gain access posing as police and then rob the people.


The reasonable prudent person standard is not what 'they' do; but what would a reasonable prudent person would do in that 'same' situation.

You are correct, a reasonable person wouldn't shoot wildly at an officer or others; but its under the same circumstances, would a RPP act the same? This is what the jury would have to determine in the civil trial.

Would it be reasonable for a person to fire at someone who had ID'd themselves as law enforcement, after being just shot at by some thugs in a set up? Do you think the person would be highly suspicious after being jumped, especially (I'm making an assumption here) when the individual may not have the immediate appearance of an officer? All these things we don't unfortunately know; hence, why the trial on the criminal and civil side would be very interesting.

Race and gender shouldn't even be an issue unless the officer/Thomas has some past history that may come out. I'm not suggesting they have any!

:wavey:

red

redbaron007
02-16-2012, 06:58
More like the mindset of sheer, unadulterated, brain freezing, panic.

Is this a bad thing under the circumstances?

Or, even a grand jury. :supergrin:

Grand Juries are 100% one sided, the prosecuting attorney side. They are like mushrooms, in the dark and feed crap most of the time. :rofl:


:wavey:

red

JuneyBooney
02-16-2012, 21:34
The reasonable prudent person standard is not what 'they' do; but what would a reasonable prudent person would do in that 'same' situation.

You are correct, a reasonable person wouldn't shoot wildly at an officer or others; but its under the same circumstances, would a RPP act the same? This is what the jury would have to determine in the civil trial.

Would it be reasonable for a person to fire at someone who had ID'd themselves as law enforcement, after being just shot at by some thugs in a set up? Do you think the person would be highly suspicious after being jumped, especially (I'm making an assumption here) when the individual may not have the immediate appearance of an officer? All these things we don't unfortunately know; hence, why the trial on the criminal and civil side would be very interesting.

Race and gender shouldn't even be an issue unless the officer/Thomas has some past history that may come out. I'm not suggesting they have any!

:wavey:

red

I guess we will really have to wait and see what comes out. What I was talking about race was that the shooter may have believed he was a cop if he had been a white cop. In most of these fake cop stories that involve robberies the offenders do seem to be blacks in the news.

If the jury believes him he will go free but who knows nowadays. I wonder what the racial makeup is of the jury.

tophatxj
02-17-2012, 01:49
****ty situation all around

redbaron007
02-17-2012, 07:02
I guess we will really have to wait and see what comes out. What I was talking about race was that the shooter may have believed he was a cop if he had been a white cop. In most of these fake cop stories that involve robberies the offenders do seem to be blacks in the news.

If the jury believes him he will go free but who knows nowadays. I wonder what the racial makeup is of the jury.


I see what you're talking about now. That actually could play into it. Very interesting take.

:wavey:

red

writwing
02-17-2012, 14:29
I trained my wife to always be aware of her surroundings and to think how she should react should something happen. One night while on vacation there was a noise. She was able to react by rolling out of bed, grabbing her SIG, taking cover and pointing in the direction of the noise with her trigger finger on the side of the gun. She assessed the situation calmly and coolly. All this from after being awakened from a dead sleep.

JuneyBooney
02-17-2012, 20:42
I trained my wife to always be aware of her surroundings and to think how she should react should something happen. One night while on vacation there was a noise. She was able to react by rolling out of bed, grabbing her SIG, taking cover and pointing in the direction of the noise with her trigger finger on the side of the gun. She assessed the situation calmly and coolly. All this from after being awakened from a dead sleep.

Just don't let the wife shoot the cat. :whistling:

Does anyone know if this action is in Fulton or Dekalb County?