Police shoot homeowner six times

[nitetrane98]

I don't understand why cuffing is such a big deal.

I'll guarantee you that you cannot, by yourself, handcuff someone who doesn't want to be handcuffed unless you possess a tremendous advantage in strength or administer a painful submission technique. This is true even if the suspect is simply resisting the cuffing and not trying to hurt you. So if you want to wallow around on the floor with the guy until you give out, knock yourself out. It ain't going to happen.

There's simply nothing for a situation where the cops enter a room and start shooting without friend or foe ID and according to the report without even seeing a gun.

I can say that nobody is leaving my house after breaking in so the cops can chase them. I've lost more than a few BGs who ran out the back door on me when I tried to arrest them. Evading arrest is a low class misdemeanor. Just something to be bargained away by the DA. If you want to let them go why confront them in the first place? Instead of a HD gun get a bullhorn and say, "ATTENTION BG. Please leave through the backdoor when you're done. We're all in the livingroom and scared a whole lot. Thank you for your cooperation."
I really can't believe that anybody would continue to live in an area where a jury of your peers would convict you for false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful restraint or anything else for holding a BG who broke into your house. Does anybody really believe that could happen? Or are you just making up what-ifs?

 

[BigO01]

Quotes from the local Article that everyone seems to have missed

Phoenix Police officers already in the neighborhood heard the crash of the Arambulas' window. When they approached the house, Lesley says, she told Sgt. Sean Coutts that her husband was inside holding the intruder at gunpoint. Lesley says Coutts failed to pass on that information to the two other officers.

Lilly says on the tape that he did not know where Anthony's gun was when he shot him and that he "opened fire because he heard loud noises and saw someone who looked like he might be the 'Hispanic' male they were pursuing" before getting to the Arambulas' house, according to the complaint.

Plainly this wasn't the run of the mill break in and 911 call with responding officers where there was plenty of time for the dispatcher to relay information to the responding officersas they drove to the scene or even Sgt. Coutts to communicate with his fellow officers once inside the home .

For all the information in the article they may have been chasing a Suspect that had just murdered multiple victims in front of dozens of witnesses or had already been in a shootout with those very same officers .

Officers pursuing a known armed suspect are going to be pumped with adrenaline trying to stay alive themselves .

About all I think the homeowner could have done better and this is iffy in such a situation is to have been facing the direction the officer would be coming from so he could have put his hands in the air as soon as they saw each other and started yelling "I Live here !!!" or "He's the Criminal" or some such short to the point statement to advise the Police he wasn't the BG .

Maybe we should all keep a Oversized Blaze orage vest and Cap close by to toss on for a home invasion and hopefully any responding officers will quickly think/understand that no criminal is going to be running around dressed in those to Commit crimes .

This sound alot like what they call in baseball a "Bang , Bang Play"
It happens so fast that no matter how professional an umpire and how good of an angle on the play sometimes mistakes happen , its the actions and chatter afterwards that seem to be the only clear wrong doing on the part of the cops involved here .

 

[Zoogster]

The problem with these topics after the fact, when everyone knows what the outcome was, is people decide to improve upon what does not need improvement.

We all know he got shot. So a good deal of posters change his actions so he would not have got shot. With the unknown result being better than the known result.
You always see this on these forums. If things turn out perfectly, then the response is predictable, and if they don't the response is predictable.

One good guy carrying concealed may stop a robbery without problem and everyone says he did a great job. Another robbery that nobody stops results in the death of some clerk or customer when the criminal gets upset, has a slip of the finger, or otherwise shoots them. Then the same people say "if only someone had been armed". Yet the same robbery where the good guy with the gun gets shot results in "well he shouldn't have pulled it out over a mere robbery, let them take the money and don't get involved."
Already knowing the outcome these same individuals always know the other course of action would have been better.

The truth is the home owner did a good job, kept in contact with the police, kept them well informed of what was happening, and he was shot by police. The police involved knew it was wrong so fast they were already discussing the mistake as soon as it happened.
He stopped the criminal, he kept him from posing a threat, and he kept the officers informed of his armed presence.
He even sent his wife out to meet them and inform them of the situation while being on the phone with 911.
He got shot by an officer oblivious to all that information.

Had he put the gun down, away, etc the criminal could have just as easily grabbed the firearm or another weapon, or overpowered him.
In fact I would not even put it past a criminal to grab the gun you just set down when the police arrive.
Will he get a shot off at you with the gun you put down and he went for before the police shoot him? Would they even shoot him or just order him to put it down before he fires at you? Will he grab the gun you set down and try to take you or a family member hostage?

Yes I can come up with plenty of "if he had just done ____, he would not have been shot". I can pretend to know the result of my stated action would have been worse, and since all we will ever know is what did happen, it will have a better imagined outcome.

Unfortunately things sometimes go wrong. Keeping a gun in your hand can go wrong. Putting the gun down can go wrong. Even keeping the 911 dispatcher completely informed of everything happening and having your wife go out and brief them of the situation can still have a bad result. Walking out in front of numerous police with the gun could have gone wrong. Leaving the gun behind and walking out could have gone wrong.
When other peoples' judgment is involved in the eventual outcome, including the LEO, there is only so much of the outcome in the hands of the home owner.
The same type of situation can happen after a self defense shooting in public. A LEO can shoot the good guy, or even another person with a concealed weapon can shoot the good guy thinking he is a bad guy.

 

[ChaoSS]

Forensic evidence, perhaps?

He can't get to you while you reload, and yet you think you will be able to convince others that you reasonably believed that additional shooting was necessary to protect yourself from death or serious injury?

My point was point out the ridiculous nature of the post I was quoting. No. I can't imagine a situation where I would be putting 14 bullets into one person. My post was obviously sarcastic, pointing out how ridiculous it was to think that I thought that I could pump 14 bullets into someone for failing to cuff themselves. Thank you for missing that though.

Chaoss

you failed to address the legal issue of taking the person into your custody, which would be exhibited by trying to cuff them, if you hold them a gun point that is one thing, but shooting someone for refusing to cuff is, well, a no go, just like shooting the person for running away.

Trying to cuff the person is a no go. And finally, most of the criminals know the system MUCH better than you, no not a 16yo punk, but an older criminal that has been to prison and understand the legal escalation of force, does.

Please, show me where I advocated shooting someone for not cuffing himself. Please. Because obviously, I was in an altered state of mind when I posted it, and I'd like to fix it. Funny thing is, I can't find where I said that, so I can't do that.

BTW, the law allows you to use reasonable force, as necessary, to protect yourself. If it's a tossup between restraining someone and threatening them with lethal force, the law will be easier on you for restraining them. I can't imagine a jury convicting me for making someone cuff himself.

I'll guarantee you that you cannot, by yourself, handcuff someone who doesn't want to be handcuffed unless you possess a tremendous advantage in strength or administer a painful submission technique. This is true even if the suspect is simply resisting the cuffing and not trying to hurt you. So if you want to wallow around on the floor with the guy until you give out, knock yourself out. It ain't going to happen.

Did you read my post? Seriously?

 

[Domina]

The S&T that come to my mind in this situation are as follows.

Under no circumstances would I get any closer to a home invader than neccessary for any reason. It is possible for a person within a few yards of you to move faster than you can react. Some of the history recorded in Clayton Cramer's CGSD Blog shows again and again that people who try to hold folks at gun point, be it a defender or aggressor, are at risk of counter attack and fight for control of a weapon. It seems to me you put yourself and your family at huge risk by approaching, and getting close enough for an aggressor to act. Would not touch with 10 or 20 foot pole (you don't know where they've been anyway).

You never know who else is coming to the party and what shape they are in. If for some reason an aggressor surrendered and I found myself holding them at bay with a firearm, I'd ask my wife to meet/get the attention of the police and alert when they arrived, as well as keep an eye out in general in case the aggressor had associates.

Knowing that police have enough stress in their lives, especially when responding to a home invasion, I would be quite happy to put my firearm away, back away, look friendly, and let them deal if I was aware they had arrived / were entering. Ideally I'd seek to conceal the firearm before they saw it to keep from adding stress. I'd keep the firearm on me concealed in case it were still needed but I'd be all to happy to get out of their way and let them do their job when they arrived.

I would not chase someone that fled the house, though I would keep alert and ready in case they decided to return. The whole point is to bring the threat to your family to an end. If that's accomplished with them running away, fine by me.

I've also installed tasteful bars over my windows and I keep the doors locked when people aren't coming or going to reduce the opportunities for someone to enter easily. There are also overwatch points, solid implements near every door that can be grabbed at an instant, and a fast electronic gun safe if there is ever a disagreement about entry with a stranger at the door. It always seemed to me the most important thing was to look less inviting than your neighbors, and if that failed, funnel an invader's entry options down to the path you've prepared to defend.

 

[Fred Fuller]

One more 'shoot 'em to the ground and don't worry about it' comment here and this one is done. The author of the previous one (no longer visible) will be taking a brief vacation due only to his short tenure here and obvious lack of familiarity with the place. Otherwise the ban would have been permanent. A quick reference to Post # 14 might be in order for those who don't bother to read threads before they post to them.

Don't forget where you are, folks.

lpl

 

[skwab]

What this all comes down to IMO is that as a homeowner, in a highly volatile situation, I do not have the time nor the training nor the desire nor the mindset to detain someone. The thought that some BG is going to calmly allow me or my wife to cuff him is laughable- my only concern in a SD situation is self-defense - and holding the guy in my living room is not the goal of SD - I am not a LEO - my job is not to ensure this guy goes to jail - that's their job, their liability - mine is to get the BG as far away from me and my loved ones as quickly as possible, and hopefully without the use of deadly force.

If you confront someone and they cower and become cooperative at gun point, then yeah - it would be criminal to shoot this person. But to detain them? If they are that cooperative, get them the hell out of your house and let the police chase them down.

So did the homeowner do anything wrong? I don't think so from the info we were given. Did he maybe not use the best judgement? in hindsight sure. If the BG was that cooperative, he should have removed him from the home and let the police do their thing.

 

[PumpPep]

So did the homeowner do anything wrong? I don't think so from the info we were given. Did he maybe not use the best judgement? in hindsight sure. If the BG was that cooperative, he should have removed him from the home and let the police do their thing.

Summed it up perfectly. You have to anticipate that the police are going to shoot whoever is holding the gun. Get the BG to scram and talk to the police later, preferably outside your home.

 

[Kleanbore]

The facts are that a civilian was erroneously shot by a police officer responding to a shots fired call. It is reported that the unfortunate victim was detaining an intruder. That can happen. Doesn't happen very often, but it did here.

This issues that have been discussed include whether to try to detain an intruder. Trying that can lead to an unfortunate shooting by first responders; it can lead to the homeowner being ambushed by accomplices; it can result in the homeowner being jumped by the intruder. All downside, no upside.

 

[Norinco982lover]

First: thank you for leaving this thread open (for the time being)...I can see that a lot of these guys are starting to get out of control with their posts.

Second: Some great information in the first page and a half.

Third: My thoughts,

#1. Stay as far away from the intruder as possible while keeping between him and your family.

#2. If you are ordering him to leave the premises, please do not be standing in the fatal funnel (doorway) blocking his only exit.

#3. Did I say stay away from him? Do not attempt to cuff him, hit him over the head, or scare him by moving closer.

#4. Call 911 while keeping your gun pointed at his center mass. Do not be distracted by the phone call--keep your eyes and ears on the intruder. Have someone nearby such as a family member make the call if possible.

#5. Clearly identify yourself on the 911 call and ask that the information be relayed to the officers. for example: The good guy is the white male, 22, no shirt, black boxers, standing in the hallway with the gun. The bad guy is white male, approximately 40, long blonde hair, black coat, he is in the corner of my daughters bedroom.

#6. When the officers arrive DO NOT move. Specifically...do not move your torso or arms. The officers will have their weapons drawn and will be running on adrenaline. Keep your focus on the intruder and THEN the officers instructions. Have a family member outside to greet the officers and identify where you are and what you are wearing to the officers if at all possible.

#7. Officers are on scene, guns are pointed at you--you are frozen with your gun trained on the intruder. What now? Without moving your arms or swinging your body say loudly, "He is XXXXX (in the corner), what do you want me to do? Follow the officers instructions exactly--SLOWLY.


Just what I would do. YMMV.

If the intruder has left the premises when ordered to do so I would secure my firearms and open the door for the officers empty handed.

A friend of mine was plinking with his .22 pistol out in the country and had an officer swing by to see what he was doing. My friend was walking back to his car with his pistol holstered OWB on his hip when the officer approached and asked what he was shooting. He said, "bottles and pop cans." The officer said, "no, what were you shooting." My friend said, "oh, this" and dropped his hands to his waist and looked down at his pistol and turned sideways so the officer could see it. He looked up and the officer had his gun drawn finger on the trigger. He ALMOST got shot because he moved his arms and did not wait for instruction.

Be careful out there.

~Norinco

 

[PandaBearBG]

In this particular case the HO did the right thing, "wounding" "incapcitating" "binding" the burglar could lead to countersuits, ridiculous but it happens. Letting him escape is a horrible idea as he could come back for revenge. The HO stayed on the phone, was calm and in control and was informative to the 911 operator and stayed on the line.

Plain and simple, the police messed up and tried to cover it up. Those 2 officers in thier individual choice of actions and poor decision making were the cause of this incident, not the HO.

I don't understand why members HERE are advocating letting the BG escape? So he can go rob someone else? So he can come back and slash your tires, steal your guns since he knows where they are? Bring a whole crew for retribution? Hell no! The cops will not automaticly shoot someone with a gun. I will not trust a BG to just "leave" so I can let a trigger happy rookie be slack on judgement and decision making. What if the BG had a gun and just turned around and shot you and your family? Cops are smart and do a difficult job, but they are human and there are always individuals who make some stupid and bad mistakes. These cops did, by their decision to cover it up it is readily apparent. No way would I comprise my safety and rights on obviously corrupt individuals, cops are cops but they have to follow the law too.

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't understand why members HERE are advocating letting the BG escape? So he can go rob someone else? So he can come back and slash your tires, steal your guns since he knows where they are? Bring a whole crew for retribution?

Letting? Do you think you have the ability to prevent his departure? Do you have the training? Do you have the necessary backup (one or more to cover, one or more to restrain)? What about the liability (the police are indemnified, you are not)? Do you know how police officers would handle the situation? Certainly you are well aware that you cannot lawfully shoot to prevent his escape, nor can a police officer. What are you proposing?

Many people, not only on this forum but some of those whom I know, seem to think it to be their duty to restrain a suspect, and perhaps to order him to the ground (an unenforceable command) or to fire a warning shot, or to shoot as he flees.

I do not understand the reasoning. Too much television? Influence from movies based on pure fiction?

No, LEOs do not fire on fleeing felons except in rare circumstances, even if the marshal did so every other week on Gunsmoke. No, it is not the duty of the citizen to try to effect an arrest when he is neither trained nor equipped nor indemnified, and no, he damn sure cannot lawfully shoot anyone in the process.

Want to risk getting shot, stabbed, slashed, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, and/or sued? Go ahead. That's what's in it for you.

Otherwise, understand the law, comply, and use common sense and sound judgment.

 

[skwab]

A BG breaks into your house - you hear it, you grab your gun and confront him - he cooperates so you don't discharge your weapon. You have him laid out on the floor at gunpoint. Police come and haul him off to jail. What crime has he committed? Breaking and entering, attempted robbery maybe but he didn't get away so he didn't actually steal anything - he might have some other warrants or issues but what kind of jail time is he truly going to get? And he cooperated so he could get some leniency.

IMO a BG breaking into a house wants one of two things- he either wants to harm you or wants something specific really bad, which in that case he likely won't concede to you even at gunpoint and you'll be forced into a position where you'll have to discharge your weapon to protect yourself. Or he wants an easy score, which in that case you run him off and he's not going to come back, because if you think he's going to come back with a crew for running him off, don't you think he'll come back when he gets out on bail or paroled for sending him off to jail?

To me there are far less risks for shooing a dumbarse criminal off and away from my family then holding him in place, where at anytime he could change his mind and become violent. I think the police shooting the homeowner is a rare and unfortunate incident - I would be more worried about the BG getting desperate when he hears the sirens and lunging for the weapon, forcing me to use it.

And an attorney would love to have you fire on an unarmed person that you had detained for several minutes in your house - you might not be guilty, but you're going to have to spend many many months and lots of money defending yourself - I just don't think it's worth it - so yeah - I'd "let" the guy go and let the police do their job.

 

[PandaBearBG]

What I'm saying Kleanbore, is that if a BG broke in and situation escalated and required lethal force, by all means do what you have to do. If you have the subject held at gunpoint, and he is compliant, I'd keep him there; I would not lay down my arms and allow him to flee as other members have suggested. If I had a BG cornered in my home which he broke into (whether or not it was burglary, murder, kidnapping or other violence as his intent, I always assume the worst, regardless what a "burglar" says), and he tried to escape THRU ME, I would take that action as a threat and do what I would have to do.

I'm not talking about cuffing, wounding, or restraining a subject, if he attacks, I would retaliate, if I had him at a stalemate at gunpoint as the OP stated with 911 and LEO on the way I would not let him go. If someone was to charge a man with a gun pointed at him I'd see it as a violent attack. I don't care if the BG thought it was a bluff so he could escape, I would see it as an attack. What kind of man charges into a barrel of a gun, a dangerous one. Do what you gotta do. Dead men don't get to complain.

I was merely responding to the other memebers opinions to just let the perp go. I am not a LEO, I don't shoot fleeing men, I don't cuff burglars, I do shoot violent intruders in my home who threaten the safety and security of my family and property.

I know LEO's don't shoot fleeing subjects, and LEO's aren't suppose to shoot first and ask questions later, and they sure as hell are not suppose to cover up a wrongful shooting of an innocent civilian. But everyone is human and prone to mistakes and bad judgement. I'm saying you break in I assume the worst intentions and take the proper action as the situation requires.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you have the subject held at gunpoint, and he is compliant, I'd keep him there;...

Great, as long as he remains compliant. But if he chooses to depart, don't even think about using deadly force to "keep him there."

Do what you choose, but understand that there is risk in "keeping him there" even if he chooses to remain. While your attention is focussed on him you could get shot from the back, side, or both by accomplices. Not for me.

Not to mention the risk attendant in the encounter with first responders....

If I had a BG cornered in my home which he broke into (whether or not it was burglary, murder, kidnapping or other violence as his intent, I always assume the worst, regardless what a "burglar" says), and he tried to escape THRU ME, I would take that action as a threat and do what I would have to do.

The principle of the castle doctrine is that if someone has broken in there is the presumption of a reasonable belief that imminent danger exists and that reasonable force can be used to protect yourself. However, that presumption is rebuttable. If it should happen to look like an execution, woe to you.

"Escape through me?" Dangerous ground. You might get off, you might not. At that point you are talking about a citizen's arrest. Reasonable, non-deadly force except in a very few jurisdictions..... And unlimited personal liability except for a sworn officer.

I'm not talking about cuffing, wounding, or restraining a subject, if he attacks, I would retaliate, if I had him at a stalemate at gunpoint as the OP stated with 911 and LEO on the way I would not let him go.

Retaliation is unlawful. You may lawfully use deadly force if necessary to prevent death or serious injury and, in many jurisdictions, to prevent a forcible felony, but you may not retaliate.

Again, you cannot use deadly force to "not let him go" except in some jurisdictions and under very, very limited circumstances in those.

If someone was to charge a man with a gun pointed at him I'd see it as a violent attack. I don't care if the BG thought it was a bluff so he could escape, I would see it as an attack. What kind of man charges into a barrel of a gun, a dangerous one.

Okay then, Maybe others would see it your way after the fact, and maybe not. I wouldn't want to be in the position of defending my shooting of an unarmed parson who was heading toward my door. Even if you prevail, it could cost you more than you have.

Do what you gotta do. Dead men don't get to complain.

Ah, but they can! Have you ever heard of forensic evidence?

And maybe it's the effects of TV fiction made to entertain, but I do not understand why everyone seems to think that if he shoots, he will kill. Your shots may not prove fatal or immediately fatal. The man in Phoenix was shot six times, and is alive to file a lawsuit. I've read that about 80% of the people shot by handguns survive. Yes, you may have some real live testimony to contend with after all.

Also, how about earwitnesses? The 911 recording? What the neighbor or policeman saw from the street? Joe Horn was saved by the testimony of an eyewitness. Could work both ways.

I was merely responding to the other memebers opinions to just let the perp go. I am not a LEO, I don't shoot fleeing men, I don't cuff burglars, I do shoot violent intruders in my home who threaten the safety and security of my family and property.

The law in all states allows you to protect yourself and your family as necessary, and in many you don't have to retreat or provide any evidence of a threat other than that of an unlawful entry or attempt, sometimes with force.

Watch what you say and do about shooting someone to protect property, though--in forty eight states that would be murder, and in the other two there are thresholds of necessity and circumstance.

I've had two unlawful home invasions and one violent attempt. The gun saved the day in each instance.

I've never had to fire a shot. I've never spent a dime on defense attorneys. I've never had a perp's family come back to retaliate.

Much, much better that way!

There is a great deal of training available, some on line, and many excellent books. Worth the investment, in my opinion.

 

[.45&TKD]

I've had two unlawful home invasions and one violent attempt. The gun saved the day in each instance.

OMG! Where do you live?

 

[skwab]

I have to agree with kleanbore on this. When an intruder enters your home and the initial confrontation occurs, there are a specific set of rules governing this exchange. In this initial confrontation use of force is justified in most situations - this is self defense, defense of your family and property.

When the intruder concedes a whole new set of rules come into play. The law is less on your side, and your liability increases with each passing minute this person is subdued by you in your home, and any action you take against this intruder will look less like self defense and more like imprisonment. Just because the guy broke in, doesn't mean you can keep him there.

And like I said earlier, you have him detained and he decides he's done cooperating, and you have to "defend" yourself against the guy you've been holding captive for however long, you're going to find yourself much more open to criminal and civil allegations - in the end you might get off, but after the stress, expense, and inconvenience of defending yourself in the courts.

 

[rondog]

I don't understand how the homeowner was hit six times. I can't imagine a person remaining standing after the first one or two hits. Did they keep shooting at him after he hit the floor? I also wonder how many total shots were fired, and how many missed, and where those bullets went.

 

[Fred Fuller]

OK, I think we've done about as much good here as we're apt to be able to accomplish, and so far no permanent damage. I'd as soon quit while we're ahead, so I'm declaring the 'three page rule' in effect here.

lpl