Pheonix cops shoot homeowner, try to cover it up. [Archive]

Sinister Rouge

October 3rd, 2009, 2:57 pm

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.
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.
Inside the house, the Arambulas say, Officer Brian Lilly shot Anthony six times in the back while he was still on the phone with the 911 operator - twice when he was on the ground.
The officers ran into the bedroom after Anthony told them, "You just killed ... you just killed the homeowner. The bad guy is in there."
The complaint states that Officer Lilly "admitted that it was only after Tony was laying, bullet-ridden, on the ground that he assessed the situation. The 911 tape continued to record what happened even after Officer Lilly unloaded his weapon into Tony, including Officer Lilly's post-shooting, one-word 'assessment': '****.'
"Tony believed he was going to die; the 911 tape records his plaintive goodbye to his family: '... I love you ... I love you.' Then Tony made what he believed was a dying request to the officers; he did not want his young family to see him shot and bloodied. Officers callously ignored his request and painfully dragged Tony by his injured leg, through the home and out to his backyard patio, where they left him bloodied and shot right in front of Lesley, Matthew and Zachary."
The Arambulas say the officers later dragged Anthony onto gravel, then put him on top of the hot hood of a squad car, and "drove the squad car down the street with Tony lying on top, writing in pain."
According to the complaint, Lilly can be heard on the 911 tape telling Coutts, "We ****ed up."
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.
The complaint states: "Sgt. Coutts knew that officers has just shot up and likely killed an innocent homeowner and the husband of Lesley, with whom he had spoken before entering the home, instead of the armed intruder. Sgt. Coutts was quick to commence the cover-up of their terrible mistake. Sgt. Coutts asked Office Lilly where Tony's gun was at the time Officer Lilly had opened fire on Tony. Officer Lilly admitted that he did not know where Tony's gun was: 'I don't know. I heard screaming and I fired.'"
Lilly later told a police internal affairs investigator that Anthony had pointed his gun in his direction, "in the 'ready' position," the complaint states. But Anthony Arambula says he was facing away from the officers, who could not have even seen his gun.
The complaint continues: "Still not knowing that he is being recorded n the 911 tape, Sgt. Coutts interrupted Officer Lilly's admission and apology with his assurance that the cover-up would commence: 'That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?'"
After the shooting, the Arambulas say, the Phoenix Police Department treated them "like suspects in a drug bust," denying Lesley, Michael and Zachary information about Anthony's condition and denying friends and family members access to him at the hospital.
Anthony Arambula survived, but continues to suffer pain, which he expects will last for the rest of his life.
The City of Phoenix and Officer Dzenan Ahmetovic also are named as defendants.
The Arambulas seek punitive damages for gross negligence, civil rights violations, failure to supervise, excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, false arrest, and emotional distress. They are represented by Michael Manning with son Morrison Hecker. http://www.courthousenews.com/document.ico (http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/23/911Call.pdf)

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/0...r_Shooting.htm (http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/23/Family_Says_911_Tape_Caught_Cops_Planning_Cover-Up_After_Shooting.htm)

Tulsa

October 3rd, 2009, 3:07 pm

Thankfully the home owner lived.

Don't believe I'd want to be either one of those cops right about now.

RickRhetoric

October 3rd, 2009, 3:16 pm

Don't believe I'd want to be either one of those cops right about now.

If they have the proper pigment and plumbing, they'll be okay. Eh?

Sinister Rouge

October 3rd, 2009, 3:22 pm

Thankfully the home owner lived.

Don't believe I'd want to be either one of those cops right about now.

They should be very popular in prison.
As they should be.

samurai7

October 3rd, 2009, 3:29 pm

Wow, these guys should be held accountable. This is awful!

:eek:

FidelisAdMortem

October 3rd, 2009, 6:02 pm

That has to be some of the most idiotic **** Ive read this week.

LouC

October 3rd, 2009, 6:08 pm

A Phoenix police officer who mistakenly shot an armed homeowner during a search for an intruder was cleared of wrongdoing this week by a committee that reviews such shootings.

The ruling by the Phoenix Use of Force Board determined Officer Brian Lilly acted within police policy in the incident, in which he fired six shots at the homeowner amid the confusion of a home invasion last September.

The shooting hospitalized homeowner Tony Arambula, who earlier this year sought a $5.75 million settlement in the case.

Lilly and Phoenix Sgt. Sean Coutts were named in a lawsuit filed last week in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Arizona Central Click LINK (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/09/25/20090925phxarambula0925.html)

There is this.

FidelisAdMortem

October 3rd, 2009, 6:16 pm

This is odd. Most force boards are supervisors and internal affair types, if they can find a way to hang us they will. There might be more to this story. I dont know, I just found that part odd.

JenyEliza

October 3rd, 2009, 6:26 pm

I hope they get every single red-cent they ask for--and more.

The officers involved should be prosecuted criminally and put UNDER the jail for their malfeasance and failure to perform the duties of their position.

THIS is the kind of stuff that makes average citizens like me fear law enforcement. It happens WAY too damned often.

LouC

October 3rd, 2009, 6:26 pm

This is odd. Most force boards are supervisors and internal affair types, if they can find a way to hang us they will. There might be more to this story. I dont know, I just found that part odd.

I have read about this case several times since it happened.

It has been a problematic one for me to get a grip on.

JenyEliza

October 3rd, 2009, 6:29 pm

FidelisAdMortem

October 3rd, 2009, 6:29 pm

I have read about this case several times since it happened.

It has been a problematic one for me to get a grip on.

If I go on the OP alone, my opinion is clear on these officers. However like I said the fact their review board found the shooting justified causes me to think. Our review board consists of high ranking supervisors, captains and above, many with internal affair backgrounds. After hearing about the review board findings, I'm a bit hesitant to form an opinion on the OP only.

gdoane

October 3rd, 2009, 6:44 pm

Cops responding to a man with a gun on a call of shots fired shoot first when they see a man with a gun.

Nothing surprising about that.

LouC

October 3rd, 2009, 6:54 pm

If I go on the OP alone, my opinion is clear on these officers. However like I said the fact their review board found the shooting justified causes me to think. Our review board consists of high ranking supervisors, captains and above, many with internal affair backgrounds. After hearing about the review board findings, I'm a bit hesitant to form an opinion on the OP only.

The OP is all about the lawsuit filed that the shooting victim is rightfully entitled to file.

It is going to go for every claim it can make against the Officers and Department and the claim will be colored as negatively as possible.

I do believe without a doubt Tony Arambula is entitled to extensive compensation claims and an apology from all involved.

The officer that shot him should never see anything but desk duty again.

I don't rush to crucify the other officers.

The scum that broke in to his house should be held accountable for this as well.

We will have to see how many of the claims made in the suit stand up at trial and what the jury decides.

Vaard

October 3rd, 2009, 7:12 pm

This is odd. Most force boards are supervisors and internal affair types, if they can find a way to hang us they will. There might be more to this story. I dont know, I just found that part odd.

well, they might not be so inclined to hang cops if they know a 5 million lawsuit coudl hang on their findings....

FidelisAdMortem

October 3rd, 2009, 11:24 pm

well, they might not be so inclined to hang cops if they know a 5 million lawsuit coudl hang on their findings....

Ive personally never seen my department try and save a cops reputation over money, if anything they like to hang us to the public.

So, I'm not so inclined to buy into that.

jimjames418

October 4th, 2009, 1:29 am

Ive personally never seen my department try and save a cops reputation over money, if anything they like to hang us to the public.

So, I'm not so inclined to buy into that.
There seems to be a problem with the review board. This was back in April but according to the article Jack Harris has the final say in the matter.
Phoenix Public Safety Manager Jack Harris will review the Use of Force Board's ruling and make an official determination on Lilly's shooting (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/09/25/20090925phxarambula0925.html).LINK (http://www.kpho.com/news/19214514/detail.html)
AZ POST, as it’s known in the law enforcementhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://forums.hannity.com/#) community, is the group that certifies and disciplines police officers around the state.

A couple of weeks ago, Phoenix Public Safety Manager Jack Harris resigned from the board without telling the Phoenix city manager or council.

gdoane

October 4th, 2009, 2:10 am

well, they might not be so inclined to hang cops if they know a 5 million lawsuit coudl hang on their findings....

City is insured, probable outcome is that insurance lawyers will come to the conclusion that it's cheaper to settle and get it over with than to pay lawyers salaries for five years on both sides for lawsuit and legal fees.

Personally, I think the guy is a damned idiot calling the cops and then he's holding a gun in his hands when the cops show up. Holy Predictable Outcome, Batman! Cops show up and think that the guy holding the gun is the perp? Who couldn't see THAT coming?

Apparently, in some fantasy world, Cops are supposed to approach a guy with a gun in his hand and strike up a conversation with the dude. You know, ask him his name, if he likes Van Halen, that sort of thing.

Maybe you don't realize how deadly guns are. I've been clocked in the fast draw at the Ben Avery shooting range at 250 milliseconds with a .357 Magnum single action. Which means if I've got my Ruger Blackhawk on my hip and I decide to kill, there's about a quarter of a second to stop me. With the gun already drawn, the time would probably be a tenth of a second.

Not a lot of time for thinking there, and the armchair quarterbacks have all of the time in the world with no gun in their face so it's all brainwork and no survival instinct for the candyasses who never put their lives on the line for anything.

I think it's a totally reasonable response for cops responding to a reported home invasion with shots fired to take down a man with a gun.

If you're the good guy, then you should be throwing down your gun, offering the cops doughnuts and coffee and pointing the way to the bastard who broke your window. Holding a gun when the cops show up to secure the scene is a BAD IDEA. Seriously. They have no sense of humor when it comes to guys on crime scenes holding guns.

Tulsa

October 4th, 2009, 9:07 am

I don't have a problem with the home owner holding the guy with a gun, the other choices appear to be to just shoot the perp or let him walk. The guy alerted the 911 operator of the situation and that information should have been passed on to the officers. This is not the home owners fault and he's hardly an idiot. He was protecting his family.

Having said that, the story says the cop admitted he didn't see the gun prior to putting six into the guy, two while he was on the ground. The cop didn't know there was a gun at all when he started shooting. So it's shoot first and ask questions later, especially if you think he's a Mexican. Then they proceed to drag the home owner around by his leg, first into the back yard then into the front yard and put him on top of their squad car and drive the wounded home owner down the street, and you're calling the home owner an idiot?

The world has to suffer fools ad nauseam, when those fools have a badge and a gun and we have to be protected from the people paid to protect us, it's all the more sad.

smyrna

October 4th, 2009, 9:24 am

Cops responding to a man with a gun on a call of shots fired shoot first when they see a man with a gun.

Nothing surprising about that.

Except that they didn't see the gun before firing...according to the article and the recorded 911 call. Why would there be two additionial shots in the back of a downed suspect...if this is true? Dead men tell no tales?

gdoane

October 4th, 2009, 11:58 am

I don't have a problem with the home owner holding the guy with a gun, the other choices appear to be to just shoot the perp or let him walk.

The obvious smart choice is to shoot the perp. I decided a long time ago that if I ever draw a gun on a man, I'm shooting. There's not going to be any warning shot, no "stop" or "freeze", I'm shooting to kill because the penalties in the law for pointing a gun at a man and shooting him dead on the spot are the EXACT SAME. The safest bet is to shoot to kill. You won't face any worse legal penalties for doing it.

If this homeowner idiot would have just had the basic smarts to shoot and kill the intruder, the cops would have found a dead perp, an unarmed homeowner and called the county coroner to clean up the mess.

Instead, the cops found a live deadly situation and a guy with a gun. They didn't know which one was the bad guy. How could they? Psychic? KILL THE BAD GUY. That makes identification a lot easier and takes the stress out of the situation.

The guy alerted the 911 operator of the situation and that information should have been passed on to the officers. This is not the home owners fault and he's hardly an idiot. He was protecting his family.

If he were protecting his family he'd have shot to kill, and the report said 911 wasn't involved. The cops nearby heard the window breaking. They weren't responding to any 911 dispatch, they were responding to an observed crime in progress.

You NEVER pull a gun on a man without using it. The law won't forgive you for not pulling the trigger anyway. Just shoot the bastard. The cops had EXACTLY the right attitude. Pulling a gun is not a threat, it's not a deterrent, it's for one thing and one thing only and that's for the use of deadly force.

Having said that, the story says the cop admitted he didn't see the gun prior to putting six into the guy, two while he was on the ground. The cop didn't know there was a gun at all when he started shooting.

You think a guy on the ground with a gun isn't capable of killing? Being on the ground makes no difference.

So it's shoot first and ask questions later, especially if you think he's a Mexican.

Now hold the phone. First you say the cop couldn't even tell the guy was holding a gun, and now you say the cop could tell he was a Mexican?

The way I see the situation is the cops heard the window breaking, rushed into a crime in progress, saw a man cowering in terror with another guy posing over him in a threatening fashion, and made the snap (and understandable) decision that the guy with the weapon was a BAD MAN.

When guns and violence are involved, you don't have the luxury of thinking about a whole lot. You can either act fast or die, and be among the quick or the dead.

Then they proceed to drag the home owner around by his leg, first into the back yard then into the front yard and put him on top of their squad car and drive the wounded home owner down the street, and you're calling the home owner an idiot?

Yes, he's an idiot. He pulled a gun on a bad guy and did not pull the trigger. He's an idiot and a coward. The bad guy wound up being the winner in this situation because of his stupidity.

The world has to suffer fools ad nauseam, when those fools have a badge and a gun and we have to be protected from the people paid to protect us, it's all the more sad.

I don't think the cops are fools at all. They're smarter than the guy who pulled his gun and didn't use it. At least they USED their guns when they drew them in a violent situation.

gdoane

October 4th, 2009, 12:01 pm

Except that they didn't see the gun before firing...according to the article and the recorded 911 call. Why would there be two additionial shots in the back of a downed suspect...if this is true? Dead men tell no tales?

A downed man holding a gun is still very much a threat.

EnchantedFrog

October 4th, 2009, 12:29 pm

The obvious smart choice is to shoot the perp.
Yep.

The story would have ended there. Bad guy dead. Homeowner and family fine.

If a guy plows into my house, he will face my hot lead dispenser.

FidelisAdMortem

October 4th, 2009, 1:06 pm

Except that they didn't see the gun before firing...according to the article and the recorded 911 call. Why would there be two additionial shots in the back of a downed suspect...if this is true? Dead men tell no tales?

Approaching a downed individiual assuming they are no longer a threat is a good way to end up dead.

Tulsa

October 4th, 2009, 1:18 pm

The obvious smart choice is to shoot the perp. I decided a long time ago that if I ever draw a gun on a man, I'm shooting. There's not going to be any warning shot, no "stop" or "freeze", I'm shooting to kill because the penalties in the law for pointing a gun at a man and shooting him dead on the spot are the EXACT SAME. The safest bet is to shoot to kill. You won't face any worse legal penalties for doing it.

If this homeowner idiot would have just had the basic smarts to shoot and kill the intruder, the cops would have found a dead perp, an unarmed homeowner and called the county coroner to clean up the mess.

Instead, the cops found a live deadly situation and a guy with a gun. They didn't know which one was the bad guy. How could they? Psychic? KILL THE BAD GUY. That makes identification a lot easier and takes the stress out of the situation.

If he were protecting his family he'd have shot to kill, and the report said 911 wasn't involved. The cops nearby heard the window breaking. They weren't responding to any 911 dispatch, they were responding to an observed crime in progress.

The home owner was on the phone with 911 - the wife alerted one of the officers of the situation and he failed to notify the other officers.

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

You NEVER pull a gun on a man without using it. The law won't forgive you for not pulling the trigger anyway. Just shoot the bastard. The cops had EXACTLY the right attitude. Pulling a gun is not a threat, it's not a deterrent, it's for one thing and one thing only and that's for the use of deadly force.

You think a guy on the ground with a gun isn't capable of killing? Being on the ground makes no difference.

Now hold the phone. First you say the cop couldn't even tell the guy was holding a gun, and now you say the cop could tell he was a Mexican? "Sgt. Coutts asked Office Lilly where Tony's gun was at the time Officer Lilly had opened fire on Tony. Officer Lilly admitted that he did not know where Tony's gun was: 'I don't know. I heard screaming and I fired."

"But Anthony Arambula says he was facing away from the officers, who could not have even seen his gun."

The cop didn't see a gun! Seems plain enough to me.

"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,"

Should I have said Hispanic instead of Mexican?

The way I see the situation is the cops heard the window breaking, rushed into a crime in progress, saw a man cowering in terror with another guy posing over him in a threatening fashion, and made the snap (and understandable) decision that the guy with the weapon was a BAD MAN.

When guns and violence are involved, you don't have the luxury of thinking about a whole lot. You can either act fast or die, and be among the quick or the dead.

Yes, he's an idiot. He pulled a gun on a bad guy and did not pull the trigger. He's an idiot and a coward. The bad guy wound up being the winner in this situation because of his stupidity.

I don't think the cops are fools at all. They're smarter than the guy who pulled his gun and didn't use it. At least they USED their guns when they drew them in a violent situation.

The way I see it, these cops were inept, they have no business wearing a badge and should go to jail for a bad shooting and attempted cover-up. I'm not a cop hater, both my brothers were officers and detectives.

smyrna

October 4th, 2009, 1:30 pm

A downed man holding a gun is still very much a threat.

b.a.c.k.

that is where all 6 shots hit...4 in the back...he's on the ground now...back up...and you shoot him 2 more times...in the back:rolleyes:

Gray

October 4th, 2009, 1:30 pm

A downed man holding a gun is still very much a threat.

Yeah, he can testify.

smyrna

October 4th, 2009, 1:33 pm

Approaching a downed individiual assuming they are no longer a threat is a good way to end up dead.

The assumption is all yours...I am stating that a man who has been shot 4 times in the back and is now down...back up...I am approaching...gun drawn...ready for the worst...and I shoot him 2 more times...in the back...unprovoked:rolleyes:

FidelisAdMortem

October 4th, 2009, 1:48 pm

The assumption is all yours...I am stating that a man who has been shot 4 times in the back and is now down...back up...I am approaching...gun drawn...ready for the worst...and I shoot him 2 more times...in the back...unprovoked:rolleyes:

I assume based on what I read. Your post came across as those who approach downed suspects should not assume they are still a risk. Did I misread your post?

gdoane

October 4th, 2009, 1:52 pm

The home owner was on the phone with 911 - the wife alerted one of the officers of the situation and he failed to notify the other officers.

"Failed to notify?" What, like issue them a memo?

All this armchair quarterbacking is getting silly.

Cops were in hot pursuit, heard a crashing window and chased a perp who ran into a house. That's a RED HOT situation that lasted maybe 15 seconds at most, with no time for text messaging each other on the cell phone. "Failed to notify?"

The cop didn't see a gun! Seems plain enough to me.

Banks get robbed all the time and all the crook has to do is ACT like he has a gun. It's reasonable to assume that a man holding a gun is ACTING like he has a gun. ESPECIALLY when the guy he's pointing a gun AT is acting like he's scared spitless.

Should I have said Hispanic instead of Mexican?

Not really because Hispanic is as white as I am. I've been to Spain. They're totally European. Spanish is a European language, one of the Romantic (Roman, or Latin) languages in the same family as Italian and French. I studied Spanish for 6 years, French for 3. French was stone cold easy because it's so similar to Spanish that I could guess at the words and be right probably 2 out of 3 times.

What you're talking about is Mestizo, or Amerindian people. A Hispanic could be from Spain or Portugal and be as white as any European gets, blonde hair, blue eyes, the works.

Wouldn't matter any because I don't think the cop's decision had any time to go through the whole process of threat assessment clean to the point of "where do I think this guy is from? Mexico? I'll shoot him then."

The way I see it, these cops were inept, they have no business wearing a badge and should go to jail for a bad shooting and attempted cover-up. I'm not a cop hater, both my brothers were officers and detectives.

Sure, it's a bad shooting. What I would have called a good shooting would have been the homeowner blowing away the bad guy and then there wouldn't have been any bad shooting.

You can sit there and armchair quarterback this and say bad decisions were made and you'd be right, but in a snap life and death situation like that the convenience of reading through the story and thinking it through doesn't exist. The rules are think quick, act quick or be dead.

I had a friend in a similar situation. He heard a helicopter outside and saw a man jump his backyard fence. He grabbed a gun and ran outside to chase the creep off and away from his wife and two daughters and no sooner had he opened the door than two police dogs came over the fence after the perp.

He dropped the gun and the police dogs never even looked at him. Tore the bad guy up pretty good though. I have no doubt that if he'd have acted like a threat, he'd have been treated as a threat.

Cops don't take threats real well. They're trained not to. Posing a threat around a cop is a real predictable way to get shot and killed.

gdoane

October 4th, 2009, 2:00 pm

The assumption is all yours...I am stating that a man who has been shot 4 times in the back and is now down...back up...I am approaching...gun drawn...ready for the worst...and I shoot him 2 more times...in the back...unprovoked:rolleyes:

What you're failing to grasp here is that the guy was holding a gun on another man. Even though the man was the perp the cops are after, the cop had no way of knowing that.

If the tables were turned and it had been the perp holding the gun on the homeowner, the cop would be a by gum HERO. All the cop had time to do was guess and he guessed wrong.

The only person in the room who knew what was going on was the homeowner and he wasn't being very smart holding a gun on a man with cops around. The cops are going to stop a bad guy and if you're holding a gun on a man, YOU LOOK LIKE THE BAD GUY.

It doesn't even matter if the guy had his back to the cop. He had his gun pointed at a man. That understandably looks like a bad thing to be doing to a cop.

smyrna

October 4th, 2009, 2:22 pm

What you're failing to grasp here is that the guy was holding a gun on another man. Even though the man was the perp the cops are after, the cop had no way of knowing that.

If the tables were turned and it had been the perp holding the gun on the homeowner, the cop would be a by gum HERO. All the cop had time to do was guess and he guessed wrong.

The only person in the room who knew what was going on was the homeowner and he wasn't being very smart holding a gun on a man with cops around. The cops are going to stop a bad guy and if you're holding a gun on a man, YOU LOOK LIKE THE BAD GUY.

It doesn't even matter if the guy had his back to the cop. He had his gun pointed at a man. That understandably looks like a bad thing to be doing to a cop.

After the four shots in his back...he must have then fallen on top on the intruder to make the officer decide to put two more holes in his...back. Unless there is more to this story, this is not the type of individual that makes for a good officer. I would guess that even though he was declared free of wrong doing by internal affairs, he will be relieved of duty very shortly.

gdoane

October 4th, 2009, 2:38 pm

After the four shots in his back...he must have then fallen on top on the intruder to make the officer decide to put two more holes in his...back. Unless there is more to this story, this is not the type of individual that makes for a good officer. I would guess that even though he was declared free of wrong doing by internal affairs, he will be relieved of duty very shortly.

My only criticism is the cop shot the guy six times and the guy he shot lived. What the HECK is that about? Are Phoenix cops using BB guns or what? If I shot a guy with my Ruger .357 Magnum and the 150 grain Jacketed Hollowpoints I have in it there wouldn't be no surviving that.

SIX SHOTS AT POINT BLANK RANGE... with a survivor. What the HECK?? Those guns are supposed to have STOPPING POWER. A ONE SHOT DROP. Heck, TASERS are more lethal than the capguns Phoenix cops are carrying.

As for the shots being in the back, so what? Is the cop supposed to wait for the guy to face him and aim the gun his way like some kind of spaghetti western cowboy?

I want the cops to win and there's no such thing as cheating in a gunfight. When you're fighting for your life, anything goes and everything is fair game.

jimjames418

October 4th, 2009, 3:13 pm

As for the shots being in the back, so what? Is the cop supposed to wait for the guy to face him and aim the gun his way like some kind of spaghetti western cowboy?

I want the cops to win and there's no such thing as cheating in a gunfight. When you're fighting for your life, anything goes and everything is fair game.
There was thread not long ago about a drug store clerk who shot a robber after he was down. He was charged with murder. About half the people on this board supported the charge and half did not. Which side were you on?

gdoane

October 4th, 2009, 4:18 pm

There was thread not long ago about a drug store clerk who shot a robber after he was down. He was charged with murder. About half the people on this board supported the charge and half did not. Which side were you on?

I was on the side of the drug store clerk. He was a disabled man, facing an evil punk.

I don't think it was murder. Murder to me would be if the guy intended to kill somebody for some sort of personal gain, be it greed, revenge, what have you.

In both of these cases, the situation was caused by a bad guy. But for the actions of the bad guy, the situation would not have occurred, simple as that. Therefore, everything that happened is 100% the fault of the bad guy.

That's why we have Felony Murder laws in Arizona.

I was screened for a jury on a felony murder case. A woman and her boyfriend saw a running car in front of a convenience store and decided to take a joyride. The car owner had a gun and shot her boyfriend dead as they drove off and the car ran over a pedestrian. She was on trial for felony murder because she was involved in perpetrating a felony that resulted in two deaths. Her boyfriend didn't stand trial for obvious reason, being as how he was one of the deaths.

I don't understand why nobody is blaming the bad guy. The bad guy is the one who caused the situation. He's the one who was running from the cops, busting in through windows, scaring the Hell out of everybody and causing people to act unreasonably.

The bad guy is 100% to blame. Nobody else created the situation. The situation was unreasonable. It had an unreasonable outcome, which is a predictable thing given an unreasonable situation.

I blame the bad guy who created the situation. Everything that happened due to his criminal conduct is on his head and his head alone.

smyrna

October 4th, 2009, 6:04 pm

My only criticism is the cop shot the guy six times and the guy he shot lived. What the HECK is that about? Are Phoenix cops using BB guns or what? If I shot a guy with my Ruger .357 Magnum and the 150 grain Jacketed Hollowpoints I have in it there wouldn't be no surviving that.

SIX SHOTS AT POINT BLANK RANGE... with a survivor. What the HECK?? Those guns are supposed to have STOPPING POWER. A ONE SHOT DROP. Heck, TASERS are more lethal than the capguns Phoenix cops are carrying.

As for the shots being in the back, so what? Is the cop supposed to wait for the guy to face him and aim the gun his way like some kind of spaghetti western cowboy?

I want the cops to win and there's no such thing as cheating in a gunfight. When you're fighting for your life, anything goes and everything is fair game.

I want the cops to win too...but why are they here?

gdoane

October 4th, 2009, 6:39 pm

I want the cops to win too...but why are they here?

The story as I interpret it:

Cops are chasing, hot pursuit, a male suspect. They hear a window crashing as a home is invaded by the suspect. They rush in after the perp and find a situation with a guy holding a gun in a bedroom.

Throw aside the Monday Morning Quarterbacking. What conclusion would you or any reasonable person reach?

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that the guy in the house holding a gun is the bad guy. We live in liberal gun control world where only bad guys are supposed to have guns so this guy holding the gun is going to be assumed to be the bad guy because we're all raised from birth with the knowledge and teaching that only evil people have guns.

jimjames418

October 4th, 2009, 6:52 pm

JenyEliza

October 4th, 2009, 7:39 pm

Having said that, the story says the cop admitted he didn't see the gun prior to putting six into the guy, two while he was on the ground. The cop didn't know there was a gun at all when he started shooting. So it's shoot first and ask questions later, especially if you think he's a Mexican. Then they proceed to drag the home owner around by his leg, first into the back yard then into the front yard and put him on top of their squad car and drive the wounded home owner down the street, and you're calling the home owner an idiot?

BINGO!!! :clap: :clap:

For the life of me I can't understand why LEO supporters in this thread completely gloss this over and pretend it didn't happen.

THIS behavior on the part of the police is grounds for dismissal and prosecution alone--nevermind shooting the innocent HOMEOWNER/VICTIM (x2 victim of home invader, victim of police) SIX TIMES IN THE BACK, they parade the wounded man around like a deer kill in buck season. Makes me sick. :eh:

The world has to suffer fools ad nauseam, when those fools have a badge and a gun and we have to be protected from the people paid to protect us, it's all the more sad.

AMEN!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

smyrna

October 4th, 2009, 7:56 pm

The story as I interpret it:

Cops are chasing, hot pursuit, a male suspect. They hear a window crashing as a home is invaded by the suspect. They rush in after the perp and find a situation with a guy holding a gun in a bedroom.

Throw aside the Monday Morning Quarterbacking. What conclusion would you or any reasonable person reach?

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that the guy in the house holding a gun is the bad guy. We live in liberal gun control world where only bad guys are supposed to have guns so this guy holding the gun is going to be assumed to be the bad guy because we're all raised from birth with the knowledge and teaching that only evil people have guns.

You asked.........his back is to me and I say...you even breathe and I'll blow your head off. He says...I'm the home owner. I pause, while keeping him in my sights and tell him to drop his weapon. It is totally at my discretion whether to blow him away. I then tell my partner to go get the other home owner outside for identification. He does...she identifies her husband...bad guy is handcuffed and we all live happily ever after.

It never appeared in the scenario presented in this thread that there was imminent danger to the officer. What it does appear is that the officer over reacted to the situation at hand. That being said the question is...was that over reaction within tollerance of a professional in the line of duty...I say with the facts presented...NO. This officer is not a good candidate for this line of work.

Would I prosecute him? Maybe/probably not. This situation clearly identifies this officers weakness and I suspect he will be removed from the line of duty.

The officers are here to "serve and protect" of which he did neither at a standard worthy of an officer..IMHO

ISYairio

October 4th, 2009, 8:09 pm

Looks real bad IMHO.

gdoane

October 5th, 2009, 12:01 am

My only problem with this as you have laid it out is the cop who fired the shots did not see a gun, only a guy with his back to him.

Totally doesn't matter, he saw a citizen threatened and responded to the threat. Cops aren't only out to save their own hides. They've got a duty to protect and serve the public and for all they knew, a member of the public was being held at gunpoint and threatened by a guy who had just busted into a house while fleeing police.

Guns are fast. A .357 Magnum round has a muzzle velocity of 1,450 feet per second. That's 989 MPH, or about 200 MPH faster than the speed of sound. It's a hypersonic round.

By the time you see a gun, you're probably dead. A fast human reaction time is 100 milliseconds, so if you're inside of 145 feet of a gun with a muzzle velocity of 1,450 feet per second, the bullet will hit you before you have time to even humanly react to the trigger being pulled and you will never even hear the "bang" first because the bullet will hit you faster than the sound will reach you.

This is a real life situation, not some bonehead spaghetti western where the bullets travel nice and slow and the good guys can duck and dive them like playing dodgeball. The cop who waits to see a gun pointed at him is going to wind up dead.

The way I see the situation is the cop walked in on a man with a gun, and you don't have to see the gun when the guy on the floor is crying and peeing his pants to know that there's a gun. It's kind of obvious that at least two people in the room already believe there's a gun.

It doesn't particularly matter which way the gun is pointed, because for all the cop knew the gun was pointed at the homeowner and he was facing the perp. There's not a whole lot of time for fact finding when there are only milliseconds between life and death.

The homeowner should have shot the perp. That way he doesn't wind up looking like the bad guy in front of cops, he doesn't have to be holding a gun when the cops come by and he doesn't get shot.

The situation is not the fault of the cop nor is it the fault of the homeowner (although he should have shot the bad guy instead of trying to play hero and spare his worthless life) it's 100% the fault of the bad man who broke into the house.

The cop is faultless. He did a good job.

gdoane

October 5th, 2009, 12:16 am

You asked.........his back is to me and I say...you even breathe and I'll blow your head off. He says...I'm the home owner. I pause, while keeping him in my sights and tell him to drop his weapon. It is totally at my discretion whether to blow him away. I then tell my partner to go get the other home owner outside for identification. He does...she identifies her husband...bad guy is handcuffed and we all live happily ever after.

There's no time for witty repartee'. It doesn't really matter if the gunman's back is to the cop because he's got a hostage for all the cop knows. The cop thinks he's saving a hostage. Isn't shooting a bad guy who is holding a hostage during a home invasion scenario a reasonable response?

It never appeared in the scenario presented in this thread that there was imminent danger to the officer.

There doesn't have to be imminent danger to the officer. The officer sees a guy pointing a gun at another guy has the duty to try and save the guy getting a gun pointed at him. How's he supposed to know who's the good guy and the bad guy? He can't know that and for all he knows, the bad guy wrestled the gun away from the homeowner and is about to kill them all.

There's not a lot of time to be had in a situation like that. No time for talking, no time for heroics and no time to put a whole lot of thinking into the response for the situation.

What it does appear is that the officer over reacted to the situation at hand. That being said the question is...was that over reaction within tollerance of a professional in the line of duty...I say with the facts presented...NO. This officer is not a good candidate for this line of work.

What if the cop had underreacted? If the bad guy were the man holding the gun, the homeowner was the guy on the floor at gunpoint and the cop gave the bad guy time to blow his hostage away? Would you say the cop reacted properly? NOT AT ALL. The cop would be in even MORE hot water because he did nothing to save an innocent civilian.

Would I prosecute him? Maybe/probably not. This situation clearly identifies this officers weakness and I suspect he will be removed from the line of duty.

I'd send him to target practice so the next time he shoots a guy at point blank range, there's no survivor.

The officers are here to "serve and protect" of which he did neither at a standard worthy of an officer..IMHO

Again, if that had been the perp holding the homeowner at gunpoint, the cop would be a hero. It was a simple and perfectly understandable mistake, one which the homeowner could have easily avoided if he'd have just shot the perp instead of acting like he was taking a hostage in front of the cops.

jimjames418

October 5th, 2009, 12:19 am

The cop is faultless. He did a good job.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I really don't have enough information to make a real judgement, I can only guess. Kind of like everyone else.

But if there was a cover-up, as alleged, someone should do some time over that.

We had two border agents sentenced to 10 and 12 years in jail for a cover up of shooting an illegal ailen drug runner in the ass. Should the police expect less?

gdoane

October 5th, 2009, 12:49 am

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I really don't have enough information to make a real judgement, I can only guess. Kind of like everyone else.

But if there was a cover-up, as alleged, someone should do some time over that.

We had two border agents sentenced to 10 and 12 years in jail for a cover up of shooting an illegal ailen drug runner in the ass. Should the police expect less?

I totally disagreed with the border agents getting any jail time. The illegal alien drug runner they shot was a bad hombre who wound up getting busted AGAIN which pretty much vindicated the shooting.

I don't see a coverup. The incident was investigated by internal affairs, the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing and no facts were hidden, no guns were planted, nothing was lied about so I just don't get the coverup angle.

If there were a coverup, then yeah, I'd totally agree, fry the liar. I can't stand liars. I don't see that in this situation at all, nobody lied, every shot fired was accounted for, every action made was reported (even the stupid ones like dragging the guy out and putting him bleeding on top of the cop car) and nothing was covered up.

I've worked with Phoenix PD on several occasions and never found them to be secretive or corrupt or anything but professional. A dirty cop wouldn't last long with them, that's for sure because nobody hates dirty cops more than other cops.

drylok

October 5th, 2009, 9:55 am

Did they get the bad guy atleast? I didn't see that in the article.

JenyEliza

October 5th, 2009, 10:04 am

Did they get the bad guy atleast? I didn't see that in the article.

Not from what I can ascertain. Based on the article, the cops were pretty damned busy hog-tying the homeowner, dragging him around his yard and then tying him to the squad car like a deer kill in Buck season.

No mention of them actually trying to aprehend the bad guy.

Disgusting!

birddog1

October 5th, 2009, 1:53 pm

Totally doesn't matter, he saw a citizen threatened and responded to the threat. Cops aren't only out to save their own hides. They've got a duty to protect and serve the public and for all they knew, a member of the public was being held at gunpoint and threatened by a guy who had just busted into a house while fleeing police.

Guns are fast. A .357 Magnum round has a muzzle velocity of 1,450 feet per second. That's 989 MPH, or about 200 MPH faster than the speed of sound. It's a hypersonic round.

By the time you see a gun, you're probably dead. A fast human reaction time is 100 milliseconds, so if you're inside of 145 feet of a gun with a muzzle velocity of 1,450 feet per second, the bullet will hit you before you have time to even humanly react to the trigger being pulled and you will never even hear the "bang" first because the bullet will hit you faster than the sound will reach you.

This is a real life situation, not some bonehead spaghetti western where the bullets travel nice and slow and the good guys can duck and dive them like playing dodgeball. The cop who waits to see a gun pointed at him is going to wind up dead.

The way I see the situation is the cop walked in on a man with a gun, and you don't have to see the gun when the guy on the floor is crying and peeing his pants to know that there's a gun. It's kind of obvious that at least two people in the room already believe there's a gun.

It doesn't particularly matter which way the gun is pointed, because for all the cop knew the gun was pointed at the homeowner and he was facing the perp. There's not a whole lot of time for fact finding when there are only milliseconds between life and death.

The homeowner should have shot the perp. That way he doesn't wind up looking like the bad guy in front of cops, he doesn't have to be holding a gun when the cops come by and he doesn't get shot.

The situation is not the fault of the cop nor is it the fault of the homeowner (although he should have shot the bad guy instead of trying to play hero and spare his worthless life) it's 100% the fault of the bad man who broke into the house.

The cop is faultless. He did a good job.

Are you seriously suggesting that is should be acceptable for the police to enter a persons home and fire upon the first person they find with their back turned?

gdoane

October 5th, 2009, 3:35 pm

Are you seriously suggesting that is should be acceptable for the police to enter a persons home and fire upon the first person they find with their back turned?

In a hot pursuit situation, YES.

They know a bad guy is present. They know that the bad guy isn't going to give any warning, no "drop your weapon" or "stop or I'll shoot" or any of the standard sweet nothings that cops are supposed to whisper in the ear of a deadly felon after a hot pursuit.

It's a life or death situation and the only people who have the right to be holding a gun in the presence of police officers are other police officers. Anybody else is fair game.

The whole reason police officers wear uniforms is so that they don't get hit by friendly fire (and even that doesn't work all the time) so if the cops are doing things to prevent collateral damage to themselves, citizens should do the same by, say, not pointing a gun at somebody while cops are trying to get control of an out-of-control situation.

If a cop in hot pursuit of a violent suspect who just pulled a home invasion (very, very violent crime) sees a guy holding a gun, what's the natural conclusion he or any reasonable man would reach?

I know I'd think the gunman was the bad guy. What kind of idiot busts into a house unarmed? A guy busting into an occupied structure hoping he doesn't get his ass kicked better be armed or named Chuck Norris or something because no jury would ever convict the occupants of the structure for any harm inflicted on an intruder.

That's why the home owner should have shot the intruder. He'd have never been shot himself, he'd have never been prosecuted for it and he wouldn't be in the very unenviable position of looking like the bad guy in front of an armed and very scared police officer in a volatile situation.

It's reasonable that the homeowner looked like the bad guy, holding a gun on a hostage in a house which had just been broken into.

When the cops come running into a house where a bad guy is at and they see a dude holding a dude at the point of a gun, who's the safest choice to pick as the bad man?

It's a totally understandable mistake and the officer is not to blame. 100% of the blame and liability rests on the perp, and no one else.

nick21ia

October 5th, 2009, 3:42 pm

Color me SO not surprised to see the IA guys protect and defend their own.

And LEOs *wonder* why average citizens distrust and fear them? THIS is a good example of WHY.

No, the average citizen trust and repsects the police. Only people like you (as evidenced by your posts) think the police are corrupt.

birddog1

October 5th, 2009, 4:52 pm

In a hot pursuit situation, YES.

They know a bad guy is present. They know that the bad guy isn't going to give any warning, no "drop your weapon" or "stop or I'll shoot" or any of the standard sweet nothings that cops are supposed to whisper in the ear of a deadly felon after a hot pursuit.

It's a life or death situation and the only people who have the right to be holding a gun in the presence of police officers are other police officers. Anybody else is fair game.

The whole reason police officers wear uniforms is so that they don't get hit by friendly fire (and even that doesn't work all the time) so if the cops are doing things to prevent collateral damage to themselves, citizens should do the same by, say, not pointing a gun at somebody while cops are trying to get control of an out-of-control situation.

If a cop in hot pursuit of a violent suspect who just pulled a home invasion (very, very violent crime) sees a guy holding a gun, what's the natural conclusion he or any reasonable man would reach?

I know I'd think the gunman was the bad guy. What kind of idiot busts into a house unarmed? A guy busting into an occupied structure hoping he doesn't get his ass kicked better be armed or named Chuck Norris or something because no jury would ever convict the occupants of the structure for any harm inflicted on an intruder.

That's why the home owner should have shot the intruder. He'd have never been shot himself, he'd have never been prosecuted for it and he wouldn't be in the very unenviable position of looking like the bad guy in front of an armed and very scared police officer in a volatile situation.

It's reasonable that the homeowner looked like the bad guy, holding a gun on a hostage in a house which had just been broken into.

When the cops come running into a house where a bad guy is at and they see a dude holding a dude at the point of a gun, who's the safest choice to pick as the bad man?

It's a totally understandable mistake and the officer is not to blame. 100% of the blame and liability rests on the perp, and no one else.

Personally I think that is some screwed up logic on your part and I am grateful that the vast majority of LEOs don't subscribe to it. People shouldn't have to fear being shot in the back in their own home by the police. While in most cases I agree that LEOs have to abide by rules that put them in increased danger I believe this type of scenario warrants an officer at least trying to ascertain who is who before he comes in blasting people in the back. (If the story in the OP is indeed how things went down). Police officers take on a certain amount of risk when they put on a badge and in instance like this I and I would think most other people expect them to try to sort out the facts before they start shooting, even if that increases the risk to their own safety. God Bless them for the job they do and the risk they take by the way. Now confronting a crazy guy on the street waving around a gun is totally different situation.