Sheriff: "68/110? We ran out of ammo!"

[txinvestigator]

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.

Gunfights happen quickly and the bad guy often does not do what he is supposed to do or what you expect them to do. You are justified to continue to fire until the BG stops being a threat. That does NOT mean shoot 2 rounds and stop and evaluate. Ask the FBI how many rounds a BG can take and continue to kill LEO's. Ask the LEO's in LA back in the early '80's how many rounds it takes to stop a guy who has already killed 2 of your fellow officers in the same encounter and has you in a bear hug, raised up off of the ground and slamming you repeatedly into a wall. (it was 33, and the shot that stopped him was one down thru the top of his head.)

BTW, any officer involved in a deadly encounter gets days off. Usually with pay and the officer is usually required to see a psychologist before returning to work.

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.

Perhaps...but LEO's have a legal duty to apprehend and insure the safety of others.

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?

You are right, the justification of DF is to stop, not to kill. However, only if a bad guy stops, drops his weapon or surrenders and THEN officers continue to fire is there a legal problem.

[GlockenHammer]

I'll jump in.

When you decide to use deadly force, you are accepting the fact that it may mean the death of the person on the other end. It is not realistic in this situation to fire one shot and assess whether or not the BG is out of the fight. In case it isn't obvious, while you are assessing if the threat is stopped by your magic bullet, the BG can get off a shot. That one shot can end your life. No, you don't stop shooting until the threat is clearly out of the fight. Usually, that will be when he hits the ground. THEN, you MIGHT be able to safely afford the time to assess. If the gun is still in his hand and he is still moving, then he's still a threat and worthy of being shot again, even when he or she is on the ground.

For a civilian, I have an even LOWER expectation of assessing whether or not the BG is out of the fight.

Our plan is to always stop the threat. You'll find that the vast majority of defensive handgun uses do not result in shots fired at all. The point is to stop the threat. If a BG is coming at you with a knife, you pull your gun and he abandons the encounter, you have stopped the threat and didn't even need to fire. If the BG in the original post had abandoned the encounter instead of pointing a pistol at the LEOs, they could have stopped the threat without shots fired.

This BG chose his fate by posing a threat to the LEOs. I have absolutely no problem with 110 rounds fired in this case.

[KBCraig]

Interesting that this happened during a live broadcast.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216439,00.html

September 29, 2006 11.23 am
Lakeland, Fla.

Of course it is a thankless job to try and call a sheriff on a cell phone when that sheriff is organizing a 500-officer manhunt for a suspect who killed a sheriff's deputy.

He's never gonna answer, or he will be far too busy to talk, so someone might think, why bother? Why not just wait, and the information will come out on the wires? But someone at a desk in New York called and called and called, and got through to Sheriff Judd. He was on the air talking to our anchor when shots broke out yards away from him — and he could tell what had happened, that he thought they got their suspect, that hundreds of shots had been fired, and that he thought the suspect was dead.

[Paladin]

This BG chose his fate by posing a threat to the LEOs. I have absolutely no problem with 110 rounds fired in this case.

+1

If I was in the LEOs situation as described, I would have done the same thing.

[Glockamolie]

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 only kill someone once. The other 50 or so shots were insurance.

[flintknapper]

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.

I understand how you might think this shooting "excessive". Lets break it down a bit though. There were 9 SWAT members involved in the shooting, that equates to approximately 12 rounds fired by each.

We are not told if this was pistol fire or "automatic" rifle/carbine fire. Either way, I can easily see how each person felt threatened (they were close together), and simply responded to the threat as trained. Frankly, I am surprised more shots were not taken.

Additionally, if you consider the environment (a wooded area), and that the suspect was using cover (a fallen tree), then it only makes sense to saturate the area with fire. I can assure you this happened quickly, and was just what the suspect wanted.

I see no wild west justice being dispensed, and I know that is not what you are suggesting.

It will be interesting to see what other facts unfold in the coming days.

I will say this though: It is a patently bad idea to shoot and kill a LEO, wound another, kill a police dog, hide behind a tree and point a gun at the rest of them. The outcome of that will always be, ummmmm......"consistent".

[seamusTX]

... It is a patently bad idea to shoot and kill a LEO,

Ditto that.

If someone is wanted for an "ordinary" crime and gets caught, the worst that can happen is they go to prison and maybe get the death penalty 20 years down the road.

If they kill a LEO, the search will never end; and when they're caught, they risk a fate similar to this guy, or rough handling (to put it politely), and the death penalty in most states.

They're morons with no ability to plan or consider consequences.

- Jim

[GlockenHammer]

I will say this though: It is a patently bad idea to shoot and kill a LEO, wound another, kill a police dog, hide behind a tree and point a gun at the rest of them. The outcome of that will always be, ummmmm......"consistent".

[cxm]

Would never have happened... I would surrender and sort the problem out...

Though in this case the critter was NOT the wrong person.

I suspect he was also an illegal to boot....

V/r

Chuck

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?

[stevie_d_64]

I would consider it nearly impossible if not rediculous to start having to be concious of the amount of ammunition expended "while" actually defending yourself against a threat, regardless if you are a Law Enforcement Officer or civilian...

Excessive use of ammunition is not going to be in a book I write in that event...

[kw5kw]

How many rounds were coundted in this car, and, do you think the couple in the car deserved what they got?

http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynami ... 3Doutvegas

[seamusTX]

Bonnie and Clyde asked for and deserved their fate. Even by modern standards, they were fugitives from justice, armed, and in flight. They had made it all too clear that they would never be captured alive.

Six police officers emptied their machine guns at their car. Figure they had at least 100-round magazines. Then they started with shotguns.

Do you know exactly how many holes were counted in the car?

- Jim

[stevie_d_64]

Bonnie and Clyde asked for and deserved their fate. Even by modern standards, they were fugitives from justice, armed, and in flight. They had made it all too clear that they would never be captured alive.

Six police officers emptied their machine guns at their car. Figure they had at least 100-round magazines. Then they started with shotguns.

Do you know exactly how many holes were counted in the car?

- Jim

612?

[kw5kw]

Do you know exactly how many holes were counted in the car?

- Jim

no, I don't know how many holes in the car, as it was meant to be an ambiguous question (posting) relating to the bad guy behind the tree... I'm sure that he got what he deserved just as much as Bonnie and Clyde deserved all that they got.

[Mithras61]

According to Wikipedia, the officers shot approximately 130 rounds at Bonnie & Clyde.