Suspect shoots cop in mistaken self-defense

[shootniron]

He should be punished the exact same way a cop who shot the wrong person is. A months suspension with pay.
__________________

x 2

And, the Atlanta police have had their share of officers killing the wrong folks over the years.

 

[316SS]

avs11054 wrote:

Say this guy was fearing that this officer was impersonating a police officer, so he felt he needed to use lethal force to defend himself or he was going to die. He is now About to lose 25 years of his life to prison. If he would have submitted to the officers lawful actions, he would have been dusted off and sent on his way. Because of the way he handled it, an officer was shot three times and this man's life as he knows it is over.

You recognize that Thomas may have had doubts as to whether Roach was a police officer. Yet you think that because you now know that Roach was in fact a police officer, that Thomas should have known and responded accordingly? Even though if his suspicions were correct he might be killed?

If, god forbid, an officer kills somebody outside his or her oath, there are legal reprucussions as for anyone who is convicted of murder.

Errrrr ... so a murdered victim of a police officer (or someone who plays one on TV) should rest (in peace) easy in the knowledge that their killer may (or may not) face legal repercussions? Do you object to all armed resistance against someone who poses an imminent mortal threat? Your reasoning suggests that you would.

crazy4milsurps wrote:

and there was no reason to cuff or arrest the victim, all the officer had to do was properly approach the man and ask what happened and thn serve and protect him not jump the gun and ruin the victims life.

I never seen so many male cop groupies in one place geez

I make a point of never apologizing for questionable cop behavior of any kind, but this statement is ridiculous on its face. The cop heard shots fired and saw a man with an unholstered weapon running across the parking lot. If he didn't verbally identify himself as police, he should have. But if cops responded as you suggest, a lot more of them would be shot in the line of duty.

 

[superscribe]

Discrimination at it's best

I like how Thomas, the "victim" and shooter, decided that someone coming out of a Tahoe with tinted windows with tattooed arms had to be a bad guy. That's stereotyping, and from what I'm told, it's bad.

 

[Rob G]

I wasn't cop bashing at all just stating the facts, they have too much power to use it correctly.

Could you please cite this fact? In what study was this proven?

and there was no reason to cuff or arrest the victim,

#1 How was the officer to know the man was a victim until a full investigation was done?
#2 I think it's pretty reasonable for an officer to detain a man seen running with a gun in his hand from an area where gun shots were just fired. Please note that he didn't attempt to hurt the guy, he just tried to disarm him and take him in to custody.

all the officer had to do was properly approach the man and ask what happened and thn serve and protect him

I'm guessing you're not an LEO. Ordering a man to put down the weapon and get on the ground IS the proper way to approach an armed suspect. As for the serve and protect part, I'm sure the officer would have gotten to that part if Mr. Thomas hadn't put three bullets in him.

If i run up and aim a gun at a cop that is fleeing from a shoot out

Except you wouldn't because that would be stupid and I'm sure you know that.

, i'll have more than a few mags worth of Hollowpoints in my chest

This is usually the end result of pointing a gun at a cop.

but its ok for a cop to do it AND arrest the victim???????????????????

#1 Yes, that's actually in their job description, which is why it's okay for them to do it. It's funny how often people on here justify gun ownership by implying that police don't do their jobs, then criticize the police when they step up and handle things.
#2 Again, the officer didn't know that Mr. Thomas was the victim and not the perp. If we can believe that the defendant could think that a man in full police uniform was actually a gang member out to kill him and not a cop, then I think it's not too much of a stretch to believe that Officer Roach thought a man fleeing the scene of a shooting with a gun in his hand might be a criminal who'd just shot someone.

I never seen so many male cop groupies in one place geez

I'm not sure how showing respect for a bunch of guys who have a really rough job that could get them killed, and doesn't exactly pay a fortune, is inherently bad.

 

[leadcounsel]

Keeping in mind this article is certainly not the whole story, I don't think that Thomas could have an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - Roach was wearing a uniform and yelled halt, and then was proceeding to handcuff Thomas. Three facts that don't seem to favor any mistake of fact. I'm also guessing that Roach "looks" like a cop and that the other thugs didn't.

As an aside, it's interesting that several times Thomas 'survived' being shot and probably killed due to the Smith and Wesson design feature that prohibits shooting if the magazine is ejected. I'd call that a design flaw personally - and it nearly cost this cop his life!!! Had things been a little different (Thomas aimed for Roach's head, or Roach failed to wear his vest), Roach could have died because of this S&W "safety" feature...

 

[crazy4milsurps]

I'm wrong then, it is ok for a cop to make a deadly mistake but it is not ok for a civilian to make a deadly mistake. cops are god and civies are roaches. point taken!

 

[mgmorden]

I'm wrong then, it is ok for a cop to make a deadly mistake but it is not ok for a civilian to make a deadly mistake. cops are god and civies are roaches. point taken!

The thing is in this case the cop DIDN'T make a mistake. As far as I can tell this was 100% textbook what he was supposed to do. Hear shots? Check on it. See suspect? Detain. (and YES - any person fleeing from fired shots with a gun is a suspect - doesn't mean they're guilty - but they most certainly are a suspect). Suspect resists and *POINTS GUN AT THE OFFICER*? Return fire.

I understand that the shooter had a lot of adrenaline pumping at this moment and it was likely hard to make sound judgement calls, but realistically he saw tinted windows and tattoos and let his stereotypes get the best of him. No matter how much stress you may be under, you are ALWAYS responsible for your actions. I hate that this guy had to make a choice under these circumstance, but regardless, he chose poorly. He now has to live with the consequences. In all honesty he should be thanking his lucky stars that the officer's gun malfunctioned. Otherwise, he'd be having a funeral rather than a trial, and I can't say that I could fault the officer one bit had it gone down that way.

 

[Rob G]

I'm wrong then, it is ok for a cop to make a deadly mistake but it is not ok for a civilian to make a deadly mistake.

I don't think I've seen anybody argue this point in any post so far about this particular topic. In fact we've pretty much all said it's not okay for either a cop or a civilian to make a deadly mistake. Fortunately, in this specific case, eveyone lived.

cops are god and civies are roaches. point taken!

I don't think anyone has said this either.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Hey, why give cops a break when the shoot EACH OTHER
it happens, hopefully he has a competent attorney

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Throw the book at Thomas.

I'm sorry, but when you strap on a lethal weapon you can't go around shooting people that you think might be part of a robbery crew. You have to be better than that. Yeah yeah, adrenaline, stress, just been robbed, yatta yatta. No excuse. You don't get do overs with a lethal weapon. Every single shot that comes out of the barrel must be 100% justified.

 

[Zach S]

It sucks for all involved. I'm on the fence with this one.

there was no reason to cuff or arrest the victim,

I learned a long time ago that when the police show up, they don't know the suspects from the victims. Everyone gets secured first, then they try to sort it out.

When someone points a gun at you in a stressful situation like a gun fight you tend to focus on the gun. I think that is what happened here.

I agree. I happen to know, that even though its only .40" in diameter, the muzzle of a Glock 23 pointed at you looks big enough to crawl in.

If the officer assumed that the uniform IDed him as a LEO, he may not have verbally IDed himself. I'd also like to know what they're calling a "uniform." Was it the typical pressed and creased uniform, or a polo shirt with 5.11 pants? And he was off duty, in his personal vehicle, so was he on his way home, did he take his duty belt off?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to point the finger at the officer, but I know its possible to not notice a uniform.

I got in a fight years ago and a uniformed officer (typical uniform, not 5.11 pants and a polo shirt) grabbed me from behind in an effort to break up the fight. Thinking I was outnumbered two to one, I manged to break his hold, and started to punch him in the face, until I heard the unmistakable sound of a collapsible baton opening up... At which point my hands were open and up.

 

[Sam1911]

I like how Thomas, the "victim" and shooter, decided that someone coming out of a Tahoe with tinted windows with tattooed arms had to be a bad guy. That's stereotyping, and from what I'm told, it's bad.

It may be legally questionable for agents of the government to proceed with certain actions against or investigations of citizens based solely on their appearance, but it is an innate part of the survival instincts of a human being to evaluate others based on the subtle cues those other people give off about their social identity, allegiances, alignments, intents, etc. While those cues very often may mislead us -- hopefully generally into "false-positive" danger readings, rather than tricking us into letting our guards down at the wrong moment -- they more often serve to protect us.

While we may all bemoan the damage to "freedom of expression" and the right of "individuality" represented by the fact that what we drive, how we dress, what "ink" we wear, how we cut our hair, what jewelry we display, how we speak, etc., etc., may prejudice others against us, the fact remains that this is exactly how human beings -- and other animals too! -- work.

Mr. Thomas noticed a very few details about Officer Roach as he approached and interacted. Two that stood out were that he was driving a vehicle at least ambiguously identifiable with a certain category of society which was not unlikely to be involved with the type of violent encounter he was in the midst of suffering, and that he was wearing body art which indicated that same social identity.

IF Officer Roach had turned out to be what Mr. Thomas thought he was -- we'd all be congratulating him on his well-tuned powers of perception and "Situational Awareness."

(Actually, from reading the account, it looks like Mr. Thomas was a pretty sharp guy in that regard anyway, having seen early warning signs and attempting to position himself out of an ambush position before the event really started to "go down." Unfortunately, he didn't simply break off contact at his first warning.)

 

[Sam1911]

crazy4milsurps, I really don't know how to say this more politely, but you're sounding foolish here.

I wasn't cop bashing at all just stating the facts, they have too much power to use it correctly.

NOTHING about what Officer Roach did indicated ANYTHING inappropriate or any -- even REMOTE -- abuse of power. He appears to have behaved exactly as every police officer in the country is, and SHOULD BE, instructed to handle a "shots-fired, armed suspect" interaction.

and there was no reason to cuff or arrest the victim, all the officer had to do was properly approach the man and ask what happened and thn serve and protect him not jump the gun and ruin the victims life.

At this point I have to wonder if you really simply don't understand anything about police work and proper arrest procedures or if you're just doing a bad job of trolling for reaction.

No officer who wants to live to see the end of his shift approaches an armed man on a public street, leaving the scene of shots being fired and makes a casual inquiry into the matter.

The officer WITNESSED, HIMSELF, at least two crimes. Discharging a firearm on a city street is a crime. Running down a public street brandishing a weapon is a crime as well. So there are two laws he saw (or it was reasonable to infer) that Mr. Thomas had broken. That, right there, requires him to arrest Mr. Thomas, pursuant to an investigation into the matter. (Maybe charges will be filed, maybe he had a justification that would encourage no charges to be filed, but an arrest needs to happen to halt the present danger to the public and to begin that investigation.)

Second, the absolutely obvious conclusion to be drawn by Officer Roach's observations is that at least one other, much more serious crime has just taken place and this man is almost undoubtedly involved. Shots fired and a man fleeing with a weapon mean that someone has almost certainly been assaulted with a deadly weapon, and quite possibly a murder has been committed. Maybe the man he sees fleeing was just the victim of an assault. Maybe he was the assaulter or the murderer. It is the absolute DUTY of that officer to investigate that probable felony and detain any and all suspects. One does not approach a likely murder suspect and ask, "Sir, if you don't mind, would you please relieve yourself of your weapon and, if it isn't too much trouble, stop for a moment and tell me if you are the guilty party?"

This should be self-evident -- really, really self-evident -- to anyone.

If i run up and aim a gun at a cop that is fleeing from a shoot out, i'll have more than a few mags worth of FMJ in my chest but its ok for a cop to do it AND arrest the victim???????????????????

Are you actually reading the things you are writing? Yes. Yes, that is exactly how it is. And surely you understand WHY that is. If you are firing a weapon in public, you are breaking the law. The duty of that officer is to arrest you and investigate. You may have an affirmative defense for that act, and you may be freed and exonerated of wrong-doing, but he has witnessed you breaking a law and MUST react.

I never seen so many male cop groupies in one place geez

You have a distressingly poor understanding of the law, and of law enforcement. I hope we're shedding light into the darkness, here.

 

[Sam1911]

Keeping in mind this article is certainly not the whole story,

Absolutely a good point. It would be most interesting to get to observe the facts which come to light during the trial. He was either resisting arrest, or he made a reasonable mis-identification and believed this fourth man was continuing the assault on him. The jury will have to believe one story or the other.

I don't think that Thomas could have an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - Roach was wearing a uniform and yelled halt, and then was proceeding to handcuff Thomas. Three facts that don't seem to favor any mistake of fact.

It very much depends on what exactly Officer Roach did look like right at that moment. As others pointed out, what was he really wearing? A full uniform complete with duty belt, badge, hat, baton, taser, etc., etc? His uniform shirt and slacks, and a ball cap? A "casual duty" outfit of some sort? We already know he was somewhat "out of uniform" in that he was stepping out of a non-official vehicle. That sent up warning flags. What else was "amiss" about the way he looked at that moment, we just don't know. (We know Mr. Thomas saw tattoos on his arms -- was this a short-sleeved uniform shirt? A PD-marked casual polo shirt? His exercise tee? We don't know yet.) And what, exactly, did he say... and what did Mr. Thomas HEAR? We don't know.

I'm also guessing that Roach "looks" like a cop and that the other thugs didn't.

That's a pretty heapin' helping of "guessing!" Not every cop is an athletic looking white ex-Marine with a high-and-tight haircut and mirror shades. Not every strong-arm robber is a "black male between the ages of 18-24 wearing dreadlocks and sagged pants" -- or whatever our common perception of them might be.

All of that will come out in trial and the jury will have to decide whether Mr. Thomas made the decisions of a "reasonable and prudent" man given the information he had, or not.

 

[crazy4milsurps]

I'll make this my last post in this thread due to it starting to go south.

I was talking to by buddy about this and he brought it to my attention that living in Pittsburgh, PA for 27 years I am naturally biased against law enforcement. I have no idea what a good cop is honestly. Down there the general rule is if a cop is around someone is going to jail. In Allegheny county, the police are a gang rather than public servants. they are just all young, crooked and seems they all have something to prove. because of living under their oppression for so long, I naturally see them as someone to fear and as bullies.

I wouldn't know what an honorable police officer is and like an abused dog flinches at every movement of its master, I see LE as a negative power. Maybe one day I'll meet a police officer that I can respect.

 

[BullfrogKen]

. . . living in Pittsburgh, PA for 27 years . . .

Wow, with gangs operating under the pretense as cops running around town, one must wonder why you stayed in there that long.


But thanks for sharing, milsurp.

 

[M-Cameron]

I don't think that Thomas could have an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - Roach was wearing a uniform and yelled halt, and then was proceeding to handcuff Thomas. Three facts that don't seem to favor any mistake of fact.

It very much depends on what exactly Officer Roach did look like right at that moment. As others pointed out, what was he really wearing? A full uniform complete with duty belt, badge, hat, baton, taser, etc., etc? His uniform shirt and slacks, and a ball cap? A "casual duty" outfit of some sort? We already know he was somewhat "out of uniform" in that he was stepping out of a non-official vehicle. That sent up warning flags. What else was "amiss" about the way he looked at that moment, we just don't know. (We know Mr. Thomas saw tattoos on his arms -- was this a short-sleeved uniform shirt? A PD-marked casual polo shirt? His exercise tee? We don't know yet.) And what, exactly, did he say... and what did Mr. Thomas HEAR? We don't know.

another thing to point out.....

say you were just involved in a gun fight......and then you see someone else running at you with a gun.......are you really going to take the time to notice what clothes they have on?

im willing to bet( assuming the officer was wearing a 'standard' black uniform) that all the guy saw was a black figure pointing a gun at him........

and im sure under stress, he didnt hear any of his verbal commands......



now should the guy face some sort of punishment.......well yes, mistake as it may have been, he is still responsible for his actions...


but do i think he is a cop killing madman who needs to be made an example of.....not a chance.

 

[jerkface11]

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/04/cop-who-shot-seven-year-old-de

Cop sets little girl on fire and shoots her in the head = involuntary manslaughter. Citizen mistakenly shoots a cop in the leg = 25 years. Sounds fair to me.

 

[AKElroy]

I can see this type of situation happening more often due to the recent move of LEO's to become more stealth in their presense. I live in San Antonio, and the well-marked police cruiser is becoming a thing of the past. Now "lightly" marked Tahoes, Chargers and Camaros are the cruisers of choice.

Secondly, most departments would not allow visable tattoos 20 years ago, and they certainly would not allow a simple navy T-shirt with "Police" on the back, jeans and a sidearm. I see that often, particularly with the recent explosion of JP courts hiring poorly trained constables to generate traffic citation revenue. I've been pulled over by one of these, and I was extremely nervous not being sure he was the real deal.

Let's go back to the days when LEO's were instantly identifiable as the good guys before this happens again.

Let's hope the courts come through with reason on this one, get to the truth.

 

[mgmorden]

say you were just involved in a gun fight......and then you see someone else running at you with a gun.......are you really going to take the time to notice what clothes they have on?

If you read the article that's not the case here. Through the guy's own testimony he got down on the ground for the officer to detain him, but then whipped around and opened fire when he saw tattoo's on the officer's arms, which apparently was enough to convince him that the uniform was invalid.

Even after citizens are coming to the aid of the officer clearly shouting that he's a cop the guy is running around screaming that the guy isn't a cop.

I know he was under a lot of stress, and having never been in that situation I can't say for sure how I would have acted myself, but in this case he made a stupid judgement call (assuming that because he saw tattoo's on the guys arms that he couldn't be a cop) and acted rashly.

It was a bad call, based on bad assumptions, that resulted in a bad (nearly tragic) outcome. If the officer hadn't still been wearing his vest he'd be dead. If the officer's gun hadn't malfunctioned the other guy would be dead.

IMHO he should thank Lady Luck that he's still breathing, and then accept the judgement of Lady Justice. Personally, depending on how good the previously offered plea deals were I'd have jumped at them. He's not going to get out of this with just an apology.

 

[crazy4milsurps]

Wow, with gangs operating under the pretense as cops running around town, one must wonder why you stayed in there that long.

My first 27 years on earth to boot..... and what a great first impression they gave!

Cop sets little girl on fire and shoots her in the head = involuntary manslaughter. Citizen mistakenly shoots a cop in the leg = 25 years. Sounds fair to me.

as I always said if you ever want to commit a crime and have a much higher chance of getting away with it, do it drunk or be an LEO. sad

 

[ATLDave]

Keeping in mind this article is certainly not the whole story, I don't think that Thomas could have an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - Roach was wearing a uniform and yelled halt, and then was proceeding to handcuff Thomas. Three facts that don't seem to favor any mistake of fact. I'm also guessing that Roach "looks" like a cop and that the other thugs didn't.

Then how do we explain an otherwise exemplary citizen suddenly becoming a cop-killer? You think this guy suddenly said, "<deleted> it, I'm turning supervillian?" Mistake of fact seems beyond clear to me. The harder question is whether that mistake was reasonable.

 

[crazy4milsurps]

well, in four years when we have drones floating freely, we'll see and hear everything they let us.

 

[dayhiker]

I see LE as a negative power.

I can sort of see your point. Sort of... there are good cops and bad cops. But they are not all power-full.

If you read your laws, and case laws you will see that.

For instance in my state I can not resist arrest. Whether law-full or unlaw-full.

Sec. 53a-23. Use of physical force to resist arrest not justified. A person is not justified in using physical force to resist an arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b or motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, whether such arrest is legal or illegal.


However case law establishes that I am not required under this statute to submit to a beat down by a rouge cop.


Cited. 45 CA 390. Under this section, illegality of an arrest is not a defense to charges under. Sec. 53a-167c. Statute was intended to require an arrestee to submit to an arrest, even though he believes, and may ultimately establish, that the arrest was without probable cause or was otherwise unlawful. It was not intended to require an arrestee to submit to egregiously unlawful conduct-such as an unprovoked assault-by the police in the course of an arrest, whether the arrest was legal or illegal. 79 CA 667.


If you look real hard I am sure you will find protections in your State's case law that protects you from rouge cops.

 

[crazy4milsurps]

However case law establishes that I am not required under this statute to submit to a beat down by a rouge cop.

their defense will stomp yours though

If you look real hard I am sure you will find protections in your State's case law that protects you from rouge cops.

means nothing if it already happened, the damage has been done.