Police shoot homeowner six times

[Deleted member 66305]

PHOENIX (CN) - A homeowner says a Phoenix police officer shot him six times in the back during a 911 home-invasion call, and the 911 tape recorded the officer's partner saying, "That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?" The family says the officers were not aware that the 911 call was still recording as they spoke about covering up the shooting.

In their complaint in Maricopa County Court, Anthony and Lesley Arambula say an armed intruder "crashed through the front window" of their home on Sept. 17, 2008 and ran into one of their son's bedrooms.

Anthony, worried about his son who was still in his bedroom, says he "held the intruder calmly at gunpoint" and called 911.

More...

CNN Video

The lesson from this incident is clear: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, HAVE A WEAPON IN YOUR HAND WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVE.

Either chase the intruder away, or otherwise render him not a threat. Make sure the weapon is away from you, and preferably, be yourself on the floor, hands behind your head, when the police arrive. The police will arrive either panicked, or wanting to "get some", and you must immediately convince them that you are not a legal target.

MODERATOR NOTE: Stay focused on the S&T aspect of this topic and off of the issue of whether the shooting was justified or whether you agree with the ruling on it.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

The City should act swiftly to correct this. Fire the officers and pay for all bills and damages. The State should revolk these guys rights to be LEO's ever again.

 

[SalchaketJoe]

The officer was cleared.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

"Make sure the weapon is away from you, and preferably, be yourself on the floor, hands behind your head, when the police arrive." Ain't NO way THAT's gonna happen!

 

[Deleted member 66305]

"Make sure the weapon is away from you, and preferably, be yourself on the floor, hands behind your head, when the police arrive." Ain't NO way THAT's gonna happen!

What's your plan, then, for convincing the police you are not the bad guy, and not otherwise a threat to them?

 

[jimmyraythomason]

By being in constant contact by phone until they arrive. Advise them before they arrive that you have the intruder subdued. There is no reason for them NOT to know that you are the homeowner and that you are armed. NO WAY IN H-LL will I be on the floor with my hands behind my head unless ordered there by the police.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

By being in constant contact by phone until they arrive. Advise them before they arrive that you have the intruder subdued. There is no reason for them NOT to know that you are the homeowner and that you are armed. NO WAY IN H-LL will I be on the floor with my hands behind my head unless ordered there by the police.

This family WAS in constant contact with the police -- well, with 911 dispatch, which is the closest you're going to get.

The wife told 911 the intruder was subdued, told 911 that the homeowner was the one with the gun, and advised police multiple times as they arrived that it was her husband who had the gun.

When they busted into the room he was in, they immediately shot him (six times) without a word, and without time to survey the situation.

Upon realising their mistake, they discussed covering it up -- and were caught on the 911 tape doing so.

Your strategy for not getting shot by the police depends very heavily on the snap-judgment of a person you don't know, acting under the influence of a heavy dose of adrenaline and cortisol.

The lesson I've taken from this is that it is vitally important to convince the police in an instant that you are not a threat -- and the best way to do that is to be prone and disarmed.

Obviously, it's not a viable strategy if there is a conscious intruder still in the house, so I am determined either to chase him off, or otherwise render him harmless before the police arrive.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I'll keep my gun in my hand until ordered to put it down by police. I will take my chances that I won't get shot by overzealous police.

 

[tunnug]

The article that I read said the cop never even saw a gun before he fired, the homeowner was facing away with the badguy opposite of where the cop was, afterwards on his report he said the HO raised his gun towards him and he opened fire, not explaining how all the shots ended up on his back.

 

[Cosmoline]

In their complaint in Maricopa County Court

Remember, you're seeing portions of the plaintiff's initial lawsuit here. These are notoriously histrionic and often (I'd say usually) full of exaggerations and outright lies. Not to say someone didn't screw up, but to base judgment on the plaintiff's complaint is a huge mistake.

When dealing with the police in this kind of situation, ambiguity is not your friend. Use your voice. Yell your identity and status! YELL it! And be ready to get those hands in the air, simply dropping the firearm. Ideally you should not be having to hold anyone at gunpoint. The intruder should either be dead or run off. You're not there to arrest people.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Folks, let's stick to discussing the issues involved as related to S&T, and NOT the personalities. Or else this one won't last much longer.

lpl

 

[sidheshooter]

Not good.

I'd only add to all the above that this whole thread can be thrown in under the "Training for HD overrated" thread with good reason; there is a whole science around interacting with RO's post-shooting (or post-holding).

It's a science well worth looking into. Any LFI grad will have a strong opinion, though I'm sure there are lots of other schools covering the topic.

That's not to say that all the LFI training/thinking/reading in the world would have helped this guy; it's pretty clear that the officer stepped in it big time on this one.

But it's always good to try and stack the deck far enough in one's favor to cover for other's incompetence, if at all possible.

Just another inet opinion, of course. YMMV.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

Tactics suggested by this news story:

We, the homeowners, are NOT trained to hold intruders captive until the police arrive. Even if we do, there is a LARGE risk of being mistaken for a bad guy by the officers arriving. It is not enough merely not to have a weapon in your hand -- the only way to be reasonably sure of not being mistaken for a target by the police is to be on the floor and disarmed when they arrive. It is inherently dangerous to be disarmed and prostrate on the floor with a conscious attacker in your house, or in the vicinity of your house. You must be sure to chase him off or otherwise render him beyond all doubt not a threat before rendering yourself as obviously inoffensive and harmless as possible before officers arrive.

 

[Fred Fuller]

You must be sure to chase him off or otherwise render him beyond all doubt not a threat before rendering yourself as obviously inoffensive and harmless as possible before officers arrive.

Let's be sure we're very clear what is being discussed here.

Attempting to physically restrain an intruder with handcuffs, tape, rope or anything else that requires physical proximity is basically a bad idea. An unresisting intruder held at gunpoint is no threat. An unresisting intruder who flees is no further threat. We're not going to "but what if" this to death. Anyone who has rational questions about how to deal with a captured intruder can ask them.

As for when the police arrive- police can talk. Homeowners can talk. Clear communication is essential in emergency situations.

Discussing "rendering an intruder harmless" by shooting him when not absolutely necessary as opposed to trying to hold him for police is not High Road.

Let's be crystal clear about this- any discussion of shooting unresisting intruder(s) out of hand and I will close the thread and open a private discussion with the person who suggests doing such a thing as a deliberate course of action involving a non-resisting intruder. And that discussion is apt to be quite Hobbsean in nature...

lpl

 

[jimmyraythomason]

To each his own. I will be upright when police arrive and take my chances.

 

[Cosmoline]

The problem is how do you hold him safely (both for him and you)? Unfortunately when you opt to hold a person for the police, you've undertaken certain responsibilities to do it in a non-negligent manner. It's an assumed duty. I don't know to do it, but it might be necessary if the fellow just decides to surrender as some of them do. My preference is for the guy to run off so it's no longer my problem. But I'd hesitate to tell him to run off after he's given himself up, as that puts me in the chain of events for future crime.

What about training to use those zip-ties? I know bouncers who've used them and they seem to work well enough. The idea being you tie his hands behind his back then holster your sidearm so you can show hands when the cops arrive.

It's just a dicey situation all around.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Can you be sued/charged with false imprisonment for tying up an intruder? How about "Arrest Powers" as it pertains to your state/locale? Citizen's arrest? Holding a person at gunpoint? Allowing the intruder to leave before the police arrive? A lot of questions to consider.

 

[Lou McGopher]

My questions are...

1. Were the lights in the house turned on so that everyone could see clearly?
2. Did the 911 caller give a physical description of himself and a description of the intruder (skin tone, hair color, clothing, etc)?
3. Was the homeowner standing somewhere that potentially made him vulnerable to attack from an accomplice of the intruder? I think this possibility gets ignored a lot. Criminals don't always act alone. They may have a friend waiting outside who could also pose a threat to you.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

Discussing "rendering an intruder harmless" by shooting him when not absolutely necessary as opposed to trying to hold him for police is not High Road.

That is why I chose that particular phrasing. What is required to render an intruder harmless varies from situation to situation. If I am holding him at gunpoint, and my wife handcuffs him (yes, we have a pair; please don't ask why...), then he is effectually rendered harmless.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

So, what purpose does holding the guy at gunpoint have when officers are clearing the place?

The strategy of dropping your weapon immediately will allow your chances of survival to increase dramatically. And, if stunt rookies 1 and 2 see the guy making a break for it, they'll either run him down or shoot HIM in the back.

Worst case scenario is that the guy gets away. Not a big deal for a burglary, really.

The underlying ethos of even defending yourself with deadly force or protecting your family from intruders is that of survival.

I don't care if the guy broke in to steal my collection of Betamax movies or my Partridge family posters. Nothing in here is worth my life.

If he wants to make a run for it, let him. At that point, my best decision (with the fuzz entering the home and me holding a guy at gunpoint) is to drop it and be the non-threatening one.

Survival is the whole point. I'm not getting killed by either of the stunt rookies because they are over anxious. Not for anything I'm doing anyway. If they see me and blast me from nerves, I can't help that. We all gotta go sometime.

 

[Jeff White]

If I am holding him at gunpoint, and my wife handcuffs him (yes, we have a pair; please don't ask why...), then he is effectually rendered harmless.

What kind of training does your wife have in handcuffing? Handcuffing is one of the more dangerous things the police have to do and I can tell you from personal experience that the "go" signal to start the fight is often the steel hitting the wrists. Now you have your wife involved in a ground fight with the intruder while you are trying to figure out how to shoot him and miss her.

If you must attempt to hold an intruder for the police, face him away from you, prone him out, arms straight out to the sides, palms up and ankles crossed. Don't attempt to approach for any reason.

Be advised that once you take the intruder into custody you have just assumed legal responsibility for him until that custody is transferred to someone else. Aren't citizen's arrest laws fun, all of the legal responsibilities and none of the tort protection . If he has a heart attack, seizure or bleeds to death from his wounds while he's in your custody, YOU are responsible criminally and civilly.

 

[hso]

The family called 911 and give the information that the husband was holding the intruder at gunpoint.

The wife spoke with one of the first responding officers and said her husband was holding the intruder at gunpoint.

What other information the officers were given, or not given, might have made a world of difference in the outcome. Were they told what the husband was wearing so they could identify him positively? We don't know.

What the husband did or didn't do when the officers came in the door might have made a world of difference. Did he start to turn while he had the gun in his hand, forgetting that it was extended? We don't know.

What we do know is that when everyone is flooded with adrenaline it is best to not appear threatening to anyone with a gun. Drop the weapon when they come on the scene. It's important to not be in a situation where you can be mistaken for a threat. It's important to tell responding officers what the good guy is wearing and what he looks like and anything else that sets him apart from the BG and not depend upon the BG not having gotten the gun somehow. All this is difficult to think of without planning and still difficult to remember to do even with it.

Do you hold a BG at gunpoint? How do you do that safely so that there's no chance the BG can attack (they're a lot more motivated to get away once they're caught)? How do you do that so that the responding LE know who' s the threat and who isn't?

I advise people to start yelling "GET OUT" in a loud commanding voice while your weapon is on them as soon as you encounter someone in your home. If they get out, secure the property and tell 911 what direction they went and give the best description possible. Wait for the LEOs with your weapon secured in a holster.

I advise people to not approach the BG to avoid being attacked. Don't try to "cuff" or hogtie them. Don't approach them to render aid if they're injured. Nothing means they're not a threat unless they're either out of the house or the LEOs have them.

If you're wearing something distinctive in appearance (bunny jammies, boxer shorts, yellow T-shirt, birthday suit) tell the 911 operator and make sure they repeat it to the responding officers. If someone can meet them at the perimeter be sure they describe your distinctive appearance (Hey, they may not automatically think the naked pudgy guy with the 1911 is the home owner [those boys see a lot of strange stuff]).

If you have to keep watch over the BG because he didn't or can't leave, make sure that you drop the weapon as soon as the LEOs show up. Don't turn to identify them with the gun in your hand.

I'm sure that there are other very good bits of advice that some can come up with.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

order him on the ground in the eagle position then have someone handcuff, its kinda hard to start a fight from that position.

plus theres no excuss for a cop to shoot a guy in the back.

 

[Jon_Snow]

I'm weighing this story against all the others that I've read on this site where the HO/CCW/'good guy' still had his gun in hand when the police arrived and didn't get shot. Is is possible that you can be shot by the police by mistake? Yes. Do I think it's likely? No. Am I going to risk getting within arm's reach of an intruder to 'subdue' him so I can be disarmed when the police do arrive? Absolutely not. As Jeff pointed out, a plan like that seems to increase the overall risk to the HO and family.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

What kind of training does your wife have in handcuffing? Handcuffing is one of the more dangerous things the police have to do and I can tell you from personal experience that the "go" signal to start the fight is often the steel hitting the wrists. Now you have your wife involved in a ground fight with the intruder while you are trying to figure out how to shoot him and miss her.

If you must attempt to hold an intruder for the police, face him away from you, prone him out, arms straight out to the sides, palms up and ankles crossed. Don't attempt to approach for any reason.

Be advised that once you take the intruder into custody you have just assumed legal responsibility for him until that custody is transferred to someone else. Aren't citizen's arrest laws fun, all of the legal responsibilities and none of the tort protection . If he has a heart attack, seizure or bleeds to death from his wounds while he's in your custody, YOU are responsible criminally and civilly.

Sadly, you are right. Neither I nor my wife have any experience or training in restraining somebody.

My hope is that I never face this situation, but if I do, my hope is that the intruder turns and runs. I'll be happy even to hold the door open for him.

If he surrenders, I'm honestly at a loss -- I don't want to have to wait there until police arrive and then have to worry about whether they will mistake me for the intruder and shoot me.

I don't know if I can count on audio cues that the police are about to arrive, but if I knew I could, I'd probably be inclined to tell him to get the hell out just before they bust in, so I can assume a non-threatening posture without fear of the intruder jumping me, and give them a good chance at catching him.

It's an aspect to which I definitely need to give more serious thought.