Officer shoots Wilson man after another officer's gun fired

[olhamada]

That's what you get for not following procedure.

Sad outcome. In the blog associated with this article, some say the kid deserved it for running, others say police at fault for accidental discharge leading to death of prisoner.



Officer shoots
Wilson man after another
officer's gun fired

By Clay Carey • THE TENNESSEAN • April 28,
2010

A Wilson County man was killed early this morning
in what police are calling an accidental shooting.

Two Lebanon Police officers, David McKinley and
Mitch McDannald, are on routine administrative
leave as state investigators look into the shooting
death of Greg Thompson Jr., 22, said Billy Weeks,
the city’s public safety commissioner.

Authorities said Thompson led police on a chase
down Carthage Highway, just east of the Lebanon
Public Square after nearly hitting a patrol car head-
on.

About three miles outside of Lebanon, Weeks said,
Thompson crashed his car off an embankment on
the highway.

Weeks said McKinley went down into the
embankment to try to get Thompson out of the car.
McDannald stayed up on the road to cover him.

As he walked toward the car with his gun drawn,
Weeks said, McKinley slipped on some loose rocks.
As he tried to steady himself, he accidentally fired
his gun into the air.

From the road, McDannald saw the officer’s gun go
off. Thinking that Thompson was shooting, Weeks
said, McDannald opened fire and killed him.



http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...r+s+gun+fired+

[The Reaper]

Safety?

Finger outside the trigger guard?

TR

[fng13]

In my opinion they are all guilty here. The kid certainly is at fault by putting himself in a situation where death is a likely outcome. However, the kids poor judgement does not excuse the police officers of their actions.

I understand that after a pursuit, adrenaline is pumping and tension is high, however, if you are going to use deadly force you have to be willing to take responsibility when you excersize that force wrongfully.

I believe there is such a thing as negligence which contributes to a death. I would think both officers are at least guilty of that. The first officer was negligent in his ability to control his firearm. The second was negligent in his responsibility to use deadly force only when his life or the life of his partner was directly threatened. I understand that he thought this was the case, however, he was wrong.

I know the objection will be raised that because he thought himself or his partners life was threatened that he isn't guilty. I offer this, if I were to use deadly force because I thought it was necessary and was wrong it is unlikely that I would not be found guilty of a crime. Police should be held to atleast the same standard as I am. I am not saying that I don't understand why the officer opened fire nor am I saying that in that situation I wouldn't do the same thing. However, simply because it was a tough situation that turned out bad does not obsolve the partys involved of wrong doing IMHO.

I will say though that I don't believe the officers will be found guilty of any wrong doing based on looking at the outcomes of similar cases. I'm not sure that speaks highly of the justice system but it is what it is. Also, this is only a preliminary opinion based on limited information and I reserve the right to adjust it as more information becomes available . For instance I think knowing the number of rounds the second officer fired into the car would be relevant information, also knowing how the first officer responded after his initial discharge and the subsequent discharge by his fellow officer.

[Five-O]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Safety?

Finger outside the trigger guard?

TR

...and shoot what you know and know what you shoot. Sad for all concerned.

[kgoerz]

Believe it or not there are laws that protect Police in these situations. Totality of the Circumstances I think it's called.
The Cop that had the AD is probably in trouble. The Cop that shot the suspect will probably be OK. Its what the Cop was thinking what was the right thing to do at the time. Not what actually was accruing at the time. Sometimes it sucks to be you.

[Utah Bob]

Sometimes things just go all to hell.

[badshot]

Totality of the Circumstances I think it's called.
The Cop that had the AD is probably in trouble. The Cop that shot the suspect will probably be OK. Its what the Cop was thinking what was the right thing to do at the time. Not what actually was occurring at the time.

yep...

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by fng13

I know the objection will be raised that because he thought himself or his partners life was threatened that he isn't guilty. I offer this, if I were to use deadly force because I thought it was necessary and was wrong it is unlikely that I would not be found guilty of a crime. Police should be held to atleast the same standard as I am. I am not saying that I don't understand why the officer opened fire nor am I saying that in that situation I wouldn't do the same thing. However, simply because it was a tough situation that turned out bad does not obsolve the partys involved of wrong doing IMHO.

When was the last time you were in a similar situation as a sworn peace officer?

You will NOT be held to the same standard as a peace officer because you are not one, nor have you received the same training, nor acting in the same capacity. Most states have laws that govern the use of force that are specific to Police Officer's acting in official capacity. Arizona has multiple coded laws that pertain to Officer's use of force not to mention many departmental policies as well. And every one is for a peace officer while acting in his or her official capacity. As such unless you are a peace officer acting in that capacity no use of force will be held to the same standard as a civilians use of force. That is like comparing apples to oranges.

Because if you (as a citizen) chased an individual for several miles in your personal vehicle then shot him, you would probably go to prison for 1st degree murder.

Make no mistake an officers use of force will be heavily scrutinized on multiple levels where as a civilians will only be scrutinized on two: criminal law and civil law.

[ryno]

It was an unfortunate series of events, but if the guy had not led the police on a chase in the first place he would still be alive.

[badshot]

It is slightly off topic Smokin' Joe, but Phoenix has a damn good all around PD. I assume you contributed your part...Thank you

Had the pleasure of some brief training from Lt. Bob (whom helped create the hostage safe breaching device) and found him to be a true professional and nice guy who knows his stuff. Damn good shot too...

[fng13]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

When was the last time you were in a similar situation as a sworn peace officer?

You will NOT be held to the same standard as a peace officer because you are not one, nor have you received the same training, nor acting in the same capacity. Most states have laws that govern the use of force that are specific to Police Officer's acting in official capacity. Arizona has multiple coded laws that pertain to Officer's use of force not to mention many departmental policies as well. And every one is for a peace officer while acting in his or her official capacity. As such unless you are a peace officer acting in that capacity no use of force will be held to the same standard as a civilians use of force. That is like comparing apples to oranges.

Because if you (as a citizen) chased an individuFisal for several miles in your personal vehicle then shot him, you would probably go to prison for 1st degree murder.

Make no mistake an officers use of force will be heavily scrutinized on multiple levels where as a civilians will only be scrutinized on two: criminal law and civil law.

First of all let me say that as you seem to have taken this as an attack against all police when I expressed my opinion that these police officers should be held responsible for shooting an unarmed person, that my intent was not to cop bash. I respect police officers and believe that they have a difficult and important job to do.

I also do not think that simply because there are protections for police officers who shoot the wrong people that that is evidence that they are not guilty. I also didn't imply that I had the same training as a police officer, I only implied that as a citizen I would be held accountable for my actions. We apparently will have to agree to disagree that police officers should be held to the same standard as citizens. I say that they should.

My argument is like this:

1. We (Most People) think that shooting someone who didn't diserve (necessitating the use of deadly force) to be shot is wrong and warrents punishment of the set standard.

2. The Police officer shot someone who did not diserve to be shot.

Conclusion: The police officer should be held to the same standard as anyone who shot someone who did not diserve to be shot.

Simply because those that enforce the law manage to create protections for themselves does not mean those protections are right.

We tend to think like this about politicians, that is, they should be held accountable for the things they do. When they arn't we think that is wrong.

As I stated in my original post, I doubt anything will happen to the officer involved, but that doesn't mean I must think that he isn't guilty of a cime.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by fng13

First of all let me say that as you seem to have taken this as an attack against all police when I expressed my opinion that these police officers should be held responsible for shooting an unarmed person, that my intent was not to cop bash. I respect police officers and believe that they have a difficult and important job to do.

I also do not think that simply because there are protections for police officers who shoot the wrong people that that is evidence that they are not guilty. I also didn't imply that I had the same training as a police officer, I only implied that as a citizen I would be held accountable for my actions. We apparently will have to agree to disagree that police officers should be held to the same standard as citizens. I say that they should.

My argument is like this:

1. We (Most People) think that shooting someone who didn't diserve (necessitating the use of deadly force) to be shot is wrong and warrents punishment of the set standard.

2. The Police officer shot someone who did not diserve to be shot.

Conclusion: The police officer should be held to the same standard as anyone who shot someone who did not diserve to be shot.

Simply because those that enforce the law manage to create protections for themselves does not mean those protections are right.

We tend to think like this about politicians, that is, they should be held accountable for the things they do. When they arn't we think that is wrong.

As I stated in my original post, I doubt anything will happen to the officer involved, but that doesn't mean I must think that he isn't guilty of a cime.

You are comparing apples to oranges at a meat market......

The standard that is applied in this type of case as others have said is what a reasonable PERSON in that officers position would have done given the facts that the actual officer had at the time the event occurred....this case law was not established by police officers but by lawyers and courts including the SCOTUS IIRC.

As others have said you would not be chasing someone though the streets and then getting out on foot to try to apprehend a fleeing felon, that alone means you don't get to be treated the same as the officer because the facts simply aren't the same. These facts (as I understand them) suggest that the officer should have had a heightened sense of danger in this situation IMO as he was dealing with a felon already (evading LE/Failure to stop for blue lights is a Felony in most states).

Now did the guy deserve to be shot....no....however the officer in question from what it appears, believed that the suspect was firing at him/his partner, and based on that belief he returned fire....(by the way in my AO, and in most states LEO’s have a duty to intervene in violent felonies….in this case he had a duty to act if he believed a violent felony was in progress…) Also in most states in order for a crime to have been committed there must be intent or at least negligence of some kind, there is no intent or negligence here IMO, one could argue a bad split second call possibly but that’s about it. IMO this gets chalked up to things sometimes go bad...and the lesson is DON'T RUN from the police.

Also understand no matter how good a shooting it was or was not this officer will now face civil lawsuits from the family regardless of if he is cleared or not.

[Smokin Joe]

I didn't take it the wrong way. I took your words at face value.

But honestly, when do citizens have to chase down bad guys and take them into custody? I understand your point, and your expectation however their is a huge difference between an OIS an a civilian shooting. Furthermore, if officers were not afforded the protection by specific statutes then every time they pointed a gun at someone it would be a Felony! Ultimately just about every officer would be out of a job and be a convicted felony probably before they got off FTO.

The laws are in place for a reason and they are applicable. If they did not exist and officers UOF was evaluated at the same standard in which a typical civilians UOF was evaluated. No one would be an LEO.... well probably no one who you would want being an LEO...


Just my .02 cents

[monsterhunter]

FNG, I believe you are well intentioned but your youth and inexperience in this matter is bringing this down a bad road. Those of us in law enforcement do not create protections for ourselves. Check in with the D.A.'s office, who I'm sure will also be investigating the case, for clarification on those "protections." These stem from case law and the penal code. We don't have anything to do with their make up and never have.

I don't have much information on this case except for a newspaper article. They're not often the best source of information, especially for what is often referred to as a "state of mind" shooting. I'm also not to sure on how many politicians are forced to make split second life or death decisions either.

There will be plenty that happens to the officer, guilty of a crime or not. Nobody ever just gets to walk away from a shooting like this. You may never hear of what happens and the news rarely goes beyond criminal cases.

There is no question of a big screw up. It started south with the finger on the trigger. You are entitled to your opinion; however, I wish you would reserve your judgement on such a situation until you have the experience to make a competent assessment.

[fng13]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

I didn't take it the wrong way. I took your words at face value.

But honestly, when do citizens have to chase down bad guys and take them into custody? I understand your point, and your expectation however their is a huge difference between an OIS an a civilian shooting. Furthermore, if officers were not afforded the protection by specific statutes then every time they pointed a gun at someone it would be a Felony! Ultimately just about every officer would be out of a job and be a convicted felony probably before they got off FTO.

The laws are in place for a reason and they are applicable. If they did not exist and officers UOF was evaluated at the same standard in which a typical civilians UOF was evaluated. No one would be an LEO.... well probably no one who you would want being an LEO...


Just my .02 cents

I think there is a big difference between drawing a weapon and killing someone. Allowing officers to draw without there necessarilly being enough evidence to open fire is not comparable to protecting officers who mistakenly open fire.

I don't think there is a defenseable position for protecting officers who wrongfully kill someone. I understand that it was a mistake, but it still cost someone their life.

At the very least, it should be an automatic career ender.

Again I understand its a serious job, and sometimes bad shit happens. While that is true, that doesn't take away responsibility for those involved at least it shouldn't.

I also don't understand your argument against holding the police to the standards you would hold a citizen to, at least in this sense. I want the police to actually have to be sure of what they are shooting at before they start sending bullets down range. Knowing that if they make the wrong call there is going to be real consequences. This seems fair. If people don't want to live to that standard then I don't want them to be police officers. Because what if its me or someone I know who the officer mistakenly shooting at.
(I know in this instance the kid was running from the cops, but that isn't the case in all mistaken shootings, and running from the cops does not warrent death).