« Brady Campaign on the Chicago cases | Main | LA Times endorses Chicago gun case »
Officer backshoots defender as defender talks to 911
Story here. Prof. Bob Cottrol once pointed out that most training is done with targets that are clearly good guy or clearly bad guy, and bad guy status is often denoted by his having a gun. He thought it'd be more appropriate to have some targets that were homeowners, armed, but not aggressive.
Via SondraK.
17 Comments | Leave a comment
Only the police can be trusted with guns.
... 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.
Lesson learned. A corrupt and/or incompetent police force is outide the control of the average householder, but holding the intruder at gunpoint is discretionary. Incentives matter, and an armed intruder is pretty cut and dried in a lot of jurisdictions, especially if he can't testify.
Wonder why they tried the cover up as the shooting was ruled to be in accordance with policy?
Arambula had his handgun trained on the intruder when he was shot, so it's a given that Lilly shot the wrong person. Under certain circumstances, according to the review board, such an error is allowed by department policy.
Plus this wasn't just some guy with a gun breaking into the house. He discharged inside the house
Canales, meanwhile, has been in county lock-up ever since the incident. Last month, he cut a plea deal that involves dropping several charges, but he admits to discharging a firearm at the Arambula's house -- a stiff felony charge. He's scheduled to be sentenced on September 28.
Notice of claim -
That's got to be one of the most blatant bad shoots and coverups that I've ever heard. It sounds like the Feds should investigate and prosecute the cops involved.
In a nutshell, this case proves so much. The police can't protect you from attackers, but they can ride into the situation post-facto and mess it all up.
So, tell me again why a homeowner doesn't just shoot the intruder, throw the body in a dumpster, and not bother with the F*****g cops?
Bad shoot. The cop screwed up. Many of these are excused by cop department investigation as a bad mistake. The homeowner was lucky he survived. Worse than the bad shoot was the alledge treatment after with him dragged and thrown on hood of hot car and the driven off while on the hood.
Most police dept just call the EMT and let them take care of the shot person, whether a homeowner or the robber. The cops really panicked afterward.
Police and the rest of us are going to get accustomed to an openly armed populace.
The romantic westerns always had armed people but there were signs if there planned to actually fire. Not sure how much that was true or part of the penny dreadfuls. But if people did carry rigs and walked around then certain normal codes of behavior had to be accepted.
Social codes like in elevators where people do not stare at each other, have to evolve with an armed people. So we do not have mistakes like this. The police especially have to learn that armed is not a crime and can not be used as clue that the armed person whether in holster or not is not a criminal.
That will make it harder to id criminals by clothes and tools.
If a young man has a gun then that is not grounds for arrest even if it is stuck in his pants
What difference would the training targets have made? If the article is accurate - a BIG if - the officer never saw a gun anyhow, and just panicked.
The other side will trumpet this incident as evidence that having a gun in your home is dangerous. They will simply overlook the reckless actions of the officer during the shooting, and will see the cover up as irrelevant.
I have heard from sources in PHX that the case has been settle for a large amount of $$. No details however and no notice in the local press.
There should be some cops in jail. For the cover up and for the shooting.
Maybe there are mitigating factors not disclosed in the article, but the actions of the responding officers as reported strike me as absolutely beyond the pale. My initial gut reaction is that appropriate consequences would be criminal conviction and 5 years in the general population for the cop/shooter, if possible a conviction and time in the general pop for the partner for covering up, 7 figure civil judgments against both cops personally to bankrupt their families (as a personal message that other cops will get and understand) and 8 or 9 figure judgment against the city to get their attention focused on better officer training and on crushing any personnel involved in covering up violations of law and department policy.
Shit like this certainly dos'nt improve the already widespread distrust of LEOs.
I have never witnessed a cop improving any situation. I have seen the f**k up a lot of them.
Teats on a jeep have more relevance.
Six times and he survived. I am guessing it is a 9mm or .40 cal. Goes to show that the .45 is the round of choice.
Fox news is running this story now. Nice to see it garner some national attention.
Followup to the above comment about the Fox coverage:
One of the last things the attorney said was that there was a low retaining wall, and the homeowner's hand with the gun in it was behind it, pointing at the bad guy, suggesting that the PD couldn't possibly have seen the weapon.
More TWB...thugs with badges.
And the taxpayers pay - again.