Off-duty deputy shoots, kills suspected Walmart shoplifter

[Skyfrog]

In the care bear society of the future that some posters here seem to want, criminals will simply have to run away and they'll be allowed to threaten others and even endanger the lives of police officers. However we must absolutely not chase them or try to stop them in any way because the poor little things might get hurt. Then when they are all done with their crime spree we'll all hug and sing around the campfire.

Whatever. This officer did not break any laws and he followed proper procedure. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon after committing a crime and while resisting arrest, it's very likely that you're going to die. It's totally your fault, not the officer's. It's called personal responsibility. Try not being a repeat offender piece of trash thief, and not putting other people's lives in danger trying to escape punishment.

[neo1911]

She tried to run him over. If this statement is proved, the cop can get out of this under self defense.

[Richteralan]

Should've fired warning shots when they get in the car.

[Skyfrog]

Should've fired warning shots when they get in the car.

Police don't fire warning shots, nor should anyone. Aside from being completely ineffective the stray shots could hit a bystander.

The only time a gun should be fired is to stop an immediate threat to yours or someone's life. In this case his life was in danger.

[someonefromtheus]

Should've fired warning shots when they get in the car.

The cop opened the door and told them to not go anywhere. that warning enough for you? On top of the previous wanrings inside the walmart and outside of it.

[Richteralan]

The cop opened the door and told them to not go anywhere. that warning enough for you? On top of the previous wanrings inside the walmart and outside of it.

Then the cop put himself in physical contact with the car which poses danger to him.

Do you hold the car's door when somebody desperately trying to run away? No. You stay away from the car and fire warning shots unless you have the physical ability to pull the car door off.

And I believe all "previous" warnings are just verbal warnings. Did the off-duty deputy escalate the warnings? When you verbally tell somebody stop and they ignore you, why you think keeping yelling stop at them will make them stop? Keep doing the same thing and expect different outcome?

But of course, hindsight is 20/20. Just some ideas.

Police don't fire warning shots, nor should anyone. Aside from being completely ineffective the stray shots could hit a bystander.

The only time a gun should be fired is to stop an immediate threat to yours or someone's life. In this case his life was in danger.

Well sounds like u r the bawss!

[Wyn6]

First off let me preface this by saying what someone else said. We don't know all the facts of this incident. We just allegedly know what happened. We won't know all the facts until the security camera footage is viewed and all witnesses have been interviewed. So, no one can make assumptions either way.

That being said... this police officer made several procedural mistakes. He recklessly approached a suspect vehicle alone in a high-risk situation in which he had neither cover nor control. He was outnumbered and had no indication of whether any of the suspects were armed or whether weapons may have been in the car (always assume they are and that there are). Since, he failed to establish any sort of control at that point, he should have allowed the vehicle to leave and called for backup/the local PD, and given them the vehicle description and plates along with the number and description of the suspects he encountered. Yes, you can make the "Take reasonable action to detain or arrest" argument. But, he actually exposed himself pretty badly by doing what he did.

Now, an assumption on my part is that he assumed since they were female and were only shoplifting, they weren't armed. I hope he didn't make this assumption, but his alleged actions say otherwise. Had they been armed and were the type, he would be dead. Too many instances of officers losing their lives in this very scenario or very similar scenarios. There've been several here in the Dallas area.

Moving on. If it turns out that from where he fired he was indeed in danger, it will be a justified shoot. But, if the security footage and or witnesses find him well clear of the vehicle before he fired, he's in trouble. Again, this will all depend on the actual facts not our conjecture here on a forum for geeks. Oh as an FYI, he didn't shoot the driver, he shot a passenger.

Then the cop put himself in physical contact with the car which poses danger to him.

Do you hold the car's door when somebody desperately trying to run away? No. You stay away from the car and fire warning shots unless you have the physical ability to pull the car door off.

And I believe all "previous" warnings are just verbal warnings. Did the off-duty deputy escalate the warnings? When you verbally tell somebody stop and they ignore you, why you think keeping yelling stop at them will make them stop? Keep doing the same thing and expect different outcome?

But of course, hindsight is 20/20. Just some ideas.

Well sounds like u r the bawss!

While you are somewhat correct about how the officer should've handled the situation (read the above), Skyfrog is correct about warning shots. In the U.S. a police officer is taught to never discharge his firearm in less it is in a situation In which they are justified in the use of deadly force. To put it bluntly, a police officer will only fire their weapon with the intent to kill someone.

[trag3dy]

Should've fired warning shots when they get in the car.

He told her to stop three times previously. How many warnings did he need to give?

[Rippleman]

He shot in fear of his life. Anyone who steps on the gas of a 2000 lb weapon ( a car ) when an officer is in the immediate area deserves to be shot as you placed the officer in a potentially deadly situation where he needs to defend his life.

the car was moving forward, not backward. The officer was in no danger of being ran over.

[Inactive]

the car was moving forward, not backward. The officer was in no danger of being ran over.

So getting run over by the rear tire is not dangerous? Lots of people have been killed after being dragged by a car.

[Rippleman]

So getting run over by the rear tire is not dangerous? Lots of people have been killed after being dragged by a car.

when i was young (18 or so) had a fiery relationship with a girl. A couple times she would race off with me trying to talk to her with me having the door open.... at no time was I in danger of been run over with the vehicle moving forward. this was probably because i wasn't being dragged. According to the report, neither was the officer.

[Inactive]

when i was young (18 or so) had a fiery relationship with a girl. A couple times she would race off with me trying to talk to her with me having the door open.... at no time was I in danger of been run over with the vehicle moving forward. this was probably because i wasn't being dragged. According to the report, neither was the officer.

Which report? Did you ignore the other articles linked that said he was being dragged or that one talking about how his shoes were pulled off? Also the linked article here is incorrect, she was actually going in reverse not forward which makes sense considering that's how you get out of a parking spot. Go read the police report and other articles, or just keep saying what the thieves did was perfectly safe since your girlfriend never ran over you I guess.

[TheLegendOfMart]

That being said... this police officer made several procedural mistakes. He recklessly approached a suspect vehicle alone in a high-risk situation in which he had neither cover nor control. He was outnumbered and had no indication of whether any of the suspects were armed or whether weapons may have been in the car (always assume they are and that there are). Since, he failed to establish any sort of control at that point, he should have allowed the vehicle to leave and called for backup/the local PD, and given them the vehicle description and plates along with the number and description of the suspects he encountered. Yes, you can make the "Take reasonable action to detain or arrest" argument. But, he actually exposed himself pretty badly by doing what he did.

Like cops in most civilised societies do. Ours try and smash the car windows to scare the criminal with force, if they don't stop they don't jump onto the car like in an action movie. They don't try and murder the criminal because they have put themselves into that situation.

The sad thing is American cops have to use deadly force because general public has easy access to guns.

[trag3dy]

Like cops in most civilised societies do. Ours try and smash the car windows to scare the criminal with force, if they don't stop they don't jump onto the car like in an action movie. They don't try and murder the criminal because they have put themselves into that situation.

The sad thing is American cops have to use deadly force because general public has easy access to guns.

Why on earth you would bring that up when this has nothing to do with guns. He had to use deadly force because this stupid woman turned her car into a weapon.

More people trying to place blame on the cop for doing his job instead of the one who actually deserves it. The person who committed the crime in the first place and escalated the entire situation which resulted in her death. And had nothing to do with guns in the hands of "the general public".

I always get the impression that people from the UK think the US is literally like the wild west where we have duels at high noon and shoot outs over bar fights daily. You can keep your silly theories to yourself because they have nothing to do with what's being talked about.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

People justifying a ridiculous and preventable outcome again, I see. :rolleyes:

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if this happened in England, nobody would have died.

[rfirth]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if this happened in England, nobody would have died.

But it didn't. And you're wrong... had this happened in England, the officer probably would have been the one that died.

And had the criminal died, the upstanding citizens of London would have gone on another building burning spree and rioted. I was there during your riots in 2011.

[dnast]

But it didn't. And you're wrong... had this happened in England, the officer probably would have been the one that died.

With the fact that the shoplifters still escaped in the car I don't understand how you can really say shooting one of them saved his life.

I'm not saying the cop was necessarily wrong, though. I'd have to see footage to really form an opinion.

[TheLegendOfMart]

But it didn't. And you're wrong... had this happened in England, the officer probably would have been the one that died.

And had the criminal died, the upstanding citizens of London would have gone on another building burning spree and rioted. I was there during your riots in 2011.

No because the officer would have had sense not to hold onto a moving vehicle.

[Rippleman]

Which report? Did you ignore the other articles linked that said he was being dragged or that one talking about how his shoes were pulled off? Also the linked article here is incorrect, she was actually going in reverse not forward which makes sense considering that's how you get out of a parking spot. Go read the police report and other articles, or just keep saying what the thieves did was perfectly safe since your girlfriend never ran over you I guess.

some thieves are better off dead... very true but not saying anything about that. Just speaking about the "danger" factor only. I did only read this article which yes could be wrong.

[seta-san]

in America you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent escape from justice.

[Richteralan]

First off let me preface this by saying what someone else said. We don't know all the facts of this incident. We just allegedly know what happened. We won't know all the facts until the security camera footage is viewed and all witnesses have been interviewed. So, no one can make assumptions either way.

That being said... this police officer made several procedural mistakes. He recklessly approached a suspect vehicle alone in a high-risk situation in which he had neither cover nor control. He was outnumbered and had no indication of whether any of the suspects were armed or whether weapons may have been in the car (always assume they are and that there are). Since, he failed to establish any sort of control at that point, he should have allowed the vehicle to leave and called for backup/the local PD, and given them the vehicle description and plates along with the number and description of the suspects he encountered. Yes, you can make the "Take reasonable action to detain or arrest" argument. But, he actually exposed himself pretty badly by doing what he did.

Now, an assumption on my part is that he assumed since they were female and were only shoplifting, they weren't armed. I hope he didn't make this assumption, but his alleged actions say otherwise. Had they been armed and were the type, he would be dead. Too many instances of officers losing their lives in this very scenario or very similar scenarios. There've been several here in the Dallas area.

Moving on. If it turns out that from where he fired he was indeed in danger, it will be a justified shoot. But, if the security footage and or witnesses find him well clear of the vehicle before he fired, he's in trouble. Again, this will all depend on the actual facts not our conjecture here on a forum for geeks. Oh as an FYI, he didn't shoot the driver, he shot a passenger.

While you are somewhat correct about how the officer should've handled the situation (read the above), Skyfrog is correct about warning shots. In the U.S. a police officer is taught to never discharge his firearm in less it is in a situation In which they are justified in the use of deadly force. To put it bluntly, a police officer will only fire their weapon with the intent to kill someone.

Thanks for the post! Good clarification!

[shakey]

"but the car was placed in drive and moved forward,"

So you automatically assumed that she would just drove away without hitting him?

So you automatically assume that she would just drive over him when he was on the side of the car? See, it works both ways. Maybe if you didn't assume things you wouldn't seem like an ass.

It's pretty sad that the moment a person does anything wrong they become fair game to die in the eyes of Neowin's gun nuts. You people are disgusting examples to humanity and I hope someone couples all of you with the kind of violence you seem to crave to be inflicted upon others.

It's a good thing most of the people on these forums stay inside and aren't a big part of society. They are mostly pathetic lonely beings who think that small little actions deserve death, that if 1 small time shop lifter got away then every criminal ever would steal and always get away, and that police never lie or do anything wrong and their use of force against citizens is a measure to keep us in line! Sheeps and just plain asshats are making up a lot of the population lately.

Most procedures tell cops to not attempt to stop a suspect if it will endanger others lives or if it is in the best safety of everyone to just let them go for the time being. They had her on camera, they had her license plate and car. This woman died because the cop did not use his brain, and instead reacted upon instinct. Stealing a little item is no reason for death. Unless we are living in Iran or something.... because some of you backwoods people sure spout **** out that sounds much like it.

[hjf288]

I'm not putting all the blame on the Cop, if you read my earlier comment I said I know she was wrong to commit the crimes, I'm just saying the Cop handled it wrong and used excessive force. I'm not saying this stuff to the Cop, Im saying this to the people who are saying stuff like "Good" and "One less Scum" etc

It's ridiculous people like you that makes the UK look foolish when it comes to the handling of criminals.

OH WE CANT HURT THEIR FEELINGS, OH NO THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS..

Hell I suppose you condoned the riots here because They were just expressing their pent up negativity?

The woman got what she deserved after blatently disregarding the law and trying to injure an officer of the law - He gave her ample chance to give herself up and could've been injured for his leniency - it's not like he pulled his weapon right away and just shot her after being assaulted.

[Wyn6]

in America you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent escape from justice.

Sorry, seta-san. That's not quite the case. A police officer is not legally justified in shooting a fleeing suspect. They are justified in giving chase, in which case they're instructed to call for support and continue pursuit if possible. However, they are also instructed, in many cases (this varies by agency), to only continue pursuit of a fleeing suspect as long as officer and civilian safety is maximized. The use of deadly force is only permitted in instances in which the officer feels that their life, the life of fellow officers, or others are under imminent threat.

Shooting a fleeing suspect, especially if unarmed, is a no-no. This is the quickest way for a cop to face criminal charges. That's not to say they will be necessarily indicted, or if indicted, convicted. But, they will definitely be in a bar situation.

[trag3dy]

People justifying a ridiculous and preventable outcome again, I see. :rolleyes:

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if this happened in England, nobody would have died.

You're right. It was 100% ridiculous and preventable. All she had to do was stop within the first 3 times he told her to.