I Must Rant About This
I've been following a story in the Washington Post about a Charles County (MD) Sheriff's deputy who shot and killed a man over this past weekend.
Apparently the deputy, along with two other Sheriff's deputies, found this guy passed out in a car which was parked (still running) over a curb right next to a building that it had almost struck. They managed to wake the driver and had reason to believe that he was under the influence of alcohol. Not an unrealistic scenario at all, if you ask me.
What happened next is the source of some controversy. According to the Sheriff's Office, the suspect, after having failed field sobriety testing, was being placed under arrest and began to resist. At some point, the suspect draws and fires a handgun, which fortunately doesn't strike anyone. A deputy draws his service weapon, fires one round, striking the suspect in the chest. The suspect is flown to a hospital and pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
In my opinion, that sounds like a completely justified police shooting. In the same situation, I would've done the exact same thing.
Now, the victim's family and friends are all clamoring that he was a "good young man, trying to get his life on the right track." They even went so far as to imply that the Sheriff's deputies killed him simply "because he was a young black man." Let me be perfectly clear on this. That is all a huge load of horse shit!
From the Washington Post:
"Since 1999, (the suspect) had been found guilty of assault, possessing marijuana and cocaine, carrying a handgun, driving on a revoked license and attempting to elude police, court documents show. During a 2000 arrest for marijuana possession, he ran from a car into the woods in Waldorf, the records show, and police used a K-9 team to find him behind a tree."
So, the suspect, who was only 22 years old, had managed to rack up a slew of charges (and convictions) that include having a handgun. So him having a gun this past Saturday morning is so far fetched? I don't think so. In an article in yesterday's paper regarding the shooting, a family member actually implied that it was the deputies' fault the shooting took place because he had apparently not been searched for a gun. I got news for you folks, we aren't permitted, by the Constitution of the United States, to search people unless there is probable cause to do so. Being suspected of DUI isn't probable cause. However, once someone is placed under arrest, which the deputies were attempting to do, police are permitted to perform what's referred to as a "search incident to arrest," at which time I'm sure the handgun would've been found on him. But all of that is irrelevant. He had a gun, he knew he had a gun. He had a history of run-ins with the police in that area. Another theory advanced by his family was that the local police were tired of always dealing with him and were looking for a reason to kill him. How amazingly absurd is that???
The bottom line is this. The man had a gun, fired it when deputies tried to arrest him. The deputy, doing what any one of us in our line of work would do, shot him. The friends and family can try to shift the blame all they want. The fact of the matter is, if this guy didn't have a gun on him, much less fired a round from it when he was being arrested, he'd still be alive. It had nothing to do with the color of his skin (trust me, I'll shoot whitey in a heartbeat under the same circumstances), or the fact that he hadn't been properly searched by the deputies at that point. The notion that if they'd searched him better they would've found the gun and none of this would have happened is a ridiculous argument.
"He was trying to turn his life around." Bullshit. Trying to turn one's life around usually doesn't involve wrecking your car while pissed up drunk and firing your gat at the police. But what the hell do I know?
Apparently the deputy, along with two other Sheriff's deputies, found this guy passed out in a car which was parked (still running) over a curb right next to a building that it had almost struck. They managed to wake the driver and had reason to believe that he was under the influence of alcohol. Not an unrealistic scenario at all, if you ask me.
What happened next is the source of some controversy. According to the Sheriff's Office, the suspect, after having failed field sobriety testing, was being placed under arrest and began to resist. At some point, the suspect draws and fires a handgun, which fortunately doesn't strike anyone. A deputy draws his service weapon, fires one round, striking the suspect in the chest. The suspect is flown to a hospital and pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
In my opinion, that sounds like a completely justified police shooting. In the same situation, I would've done the exact same thing.
Now, the victim's family and friends are all clamoring that he was a "good young man, trying to get his life on the right track." They even went so far as to imply that the Sheriff's deputies killed him simply "because he was a young black man." Let me be perfectly clear on this. That is all a huge load of horse shit!
From the Washington Post:
"Since 1999, (the suspect) had been found guilty of assault, possessing marijuana and cocaine, carrying a handgun, driving on a revoked license and attempting to elude police, court documents show. During a 2000 arrest for marijuana possession, he ran from a car into the woods in Waldorf, the records show, and police used a K-9 team to find him behind a tree."
So, the suspect, who was only 22 years old, had managed to rack up a slew of charges (and convictions) that include having a handgun. So him having a gun this past Saturday morning is so far fetched? I don't think so. In an article in yesterday's paper regarding the shooting, a family member actually implied that it was the deputies' fault the shooting took place because he had apparently not been searched for a gun. I got news for you folks, we aren't permitted, by the Constitution of the United States, to search people unless there is probable cause to do so. Being suspected of DUI isn't probable cause. However, once someone is placed under arrest, which the deputies were attempting to do, police are permitted to perform what's referred to as a "search incident to arrest," at which time I'm sure the handgun would've been found on him. But all of that is irrelevant. He had a gun, he knew he had a gun. He had a history of run-ins with the police in that area. Another theory advanced by his family was that the local police were tired of always dealing with him and were looking for a reason to kill him. How amazingly absurd is that???
The bottom line is this. The man had a gun, fired it when deputies tried to arrest him. The deputy, doing what any one of us in our line of work would do, shot him. The friends and family can try to shift the blame all they want. The fact of the matter is, if this guy didn't have a gun on him, much less fired a round from it when he was being arrested, he'd still be alive. It had nothing to do with the color of his skin (trust me, I'll shoot whitey in a heartbeat under the same circumstances), or the fact that he hadn't been properly searched by the deputies at that point. The notion that if they'd searched him better they would've found the gun and none of this would have happened is a ridiculous argument.
"He was trying to turn his life around." Bullshit. Trying to turn one's life around usually doesn't involve wrecking your car while pissed up drunk and firing your gat at the police. But what the hell do I know?
posted by P. at 11:41 AM
2 Comments:
Okay, so here's my question: could the officer have shot him in, say, the kneecaps or something less lethal than in the chest? Just wondering. What's the ruling on something like that? I thought shoot to kill was only if they were shooting AT you rather than shooting AROUND you. Hep me, occifer!
Nice rants for the day, btw. Enjoyed them muchly.
Answer: No, we dont' shoot kneecaps and don't shoot guns out of the hands of bad guys. That's movie cop stuff. Someone has a gun, points it at, or even near us, and especially when they shoot it, our shots are going for the torso or even the head.
Post a Comment
<< Home