TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0906/365477.html

Florida: one deputy wounded, another killed along with his K9 partner. Manhunt ensues for the suspect who fled into the thick underbrush. Fox News manages to get the sheriff on his cell phone, for a brief interview which is interrupted by "hundreds of gunshots" and "I think we got him!" (per the sheriff).

Autopsy says that 68 of the 110 rounds fired hit the critter who was crawled up beneath a tree, and who pointed the dead deputy's pistol at the officers who had him surrounded.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said he was not concerned by the number of shots fired.

"I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back."

Aight, den. Sounds reasonable to me. So long as the entrance wound, exit wound, and hole in the floor don't line up...

Kevin

I watched the news the other day with some interest, and hoped and prayed that some justice would be served--I guess 98 bullets will do.

I thought this as good a quote as any:

"God will be the judge and jury in this case. The killer chose his own end," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said at a news conference in central Florida.

My heart goes out to the fallen deputy's family.

I hereby nominate Sheriff Grady Judd as our new Head of Homeland Security, effective immediately.

KBCraig wrote:Autopsy says that 98 of the 110 rounds fired hit the critter who was crawled up beneath a tree, and who pointed the dead deputy's pistol at the officers who had him surrounded.Kevin

Now THAT is the kind of thing I like to read with my morning coffee.

I think the article says he was hit 68 times not 98, but that works too.

The BG got just what he wanted, "death by cop".

Saved us taxpayers a lot of money to boot. Works for me.

Lets change the situation a little.

Lets say you have been accused, wrongly, of killing a Law enforcement officer.

Now how would you feel about this type of justice?

Alric wrote:Lets change the situation a little.

Lets say you have been accused, wrongly, of killing a Law enforcement officer.

Now how would you feel about this type of justice?

Why change the facts to get a reaction? He didn't do what "wrongly accused" people do. If I was wrongly accused, I wouldn't be hiding in the woods with the dead Deputy's pistol. He was, and now he's dead. Good.

My point is, I've seen a lot of shootings I'd consider excessive force. The guy being shot at simply didn't have a chance in hell. If I empty a mag into a BG, or two mags that I'd usually carry, you know the LEOs that come to investigate the situation would raise eyebrows, and rightly so. It doesn't take 110 bullets to "stop" a threat. 110 bullets annihilates it.

And I'm not even saying that from the LEO perspective, I wouldn't have done the same thing. But thats also one of the reasons I'm not a LEO. We have a judge and jury system to determine and deal with guilt.

flintknapper wrote:I think the article says he was hit 68 times not 98, but that works too.

Yup, typo. I corrected it. I had it correct in the subject line.

Other articles I'd read said they had searched the areas heavily for 24 hours, with men and dogs. The brush was so thick the officers were walking shoulder to shoulder, and were almost literally on top of the guy when they spotted him. When he pointed a pistol instead of sticking his hands up, they unloaded on him.

Kevin

Alric wrote:My point is, I've seen a lot of shootings I'd consider excessive force. The guy being shot at simply didn't have a chance in hell. If I empty a mag into a BG, or two mags that I'd usually carry, you know the LEOs that come to investigate the situation would raise eyebrows, and rightly so. It doesn't take 110 bullets to "stop" a threat. 110 bullets annihilates it.

And I'm not even saying that from the LEO perspective, I wouldn't have done the same thing. But thats also one of the reasons I'm not a LEO. We have a judge and jury system to determine and deal with guilt.

You can't "over kill" someone. Deadly force is deadly force. The argument you could have is if one of the first shots made him stop or drop the weapon, and then the officers kept firing.

Also, please point out the "lot of shootings you would consider excessive force" and explain.

Are you suggesting the shooting s were not justified, or that it was a justified shooting and the person was "over killed"?

flintknapper wrote:Saved us taxpayers a lot of money to boot. Works for me.

txinvestigator wrote:
Also, please point out the "lot of shootings you would consider excessive force" and explain.

Are you suggesting the shooting s were not justified, or that it was a justified shooting and the person was "over killed"?

The one that comes immediately to mind happened in California, but I don't have the link right now. 3 officers shot between 3 and 5 rounds a piece into a suspect. It was a justified shooting, per the article, and the officers received a few days off, whatever the term is for that.

I am suggesting that if we, as civilians, used as many rounds in shootings as some LEOs have in some incidents, that we would be treated a lot different than they are. No, I am not saying that I should not be looked at strange if *I* fired 110 rounds into a BG. But I probably would if I fired the same amount as one of those officers involved in this incident. And isn't the justification for deadly force a justification to use deadly force to /stop/ a BG, not to use such force as to assure his trip to the morgue?

I was not there but the way I read this is he was shot because he pointed a firearm at a group of LEO's. Maybe I am wrong but I trust our system enough to believe that if he had shown them the palm of his hands rather than the end of a barrel he probably would be alive and in jail now.
There are situations where LEO's may need bashing but this ain't one of them.

Alric wrote: The one that comes immediately to mind happened in California, but I don't have the link right now. 3 officers shot between 3 and 5 rounds a piece into a suspect. It was a justified shooting, per the article, and the officers received a few days off, whatever the term is for that.

I am suggesting that if we, as civilians, used as many rounds in shootings as some LEOs have in some incidents, that we would be treated a lot different than they are. No, I am not saying that I should not be looked at strange if *I* fired 110 rounds into a BG. But I probably would if I fired the same amount as one of those officers involved in this incident. And isn't the justification for deadly force a justification to use deadly force to /stop/ a BG, not to use such force as to assure his trip to the morgue?

LEOs must secure the BG so that he can safely approach the felon. As civilians and CHLers legally and and morally we are only required shoot deffencively. Once the bad guy is down and immobolised we can safely retreat and let the authoritys do the clean up. The LEO has no such option he has aprehend and disarm the BG.