- May 13, 2005
- 2,770
Officers fire 33 shots at suicidal man (Frederick)
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
TrappedinMD
Active Member
Just imagine if not one but two of the "ordinary people" had been "defending themselves" and fired that many rounds at a "threat" that did not fire back........ hmmmmm
Name Taken
Ultimate Member
The difference is no one called an "ordinary" person at 1 a.m. to go and deal with the situation. Police are charged with dealing with these types of events.
I doubt these officers left their home and family hoping to encounter an armed and likely suicidal person that day.
If someone walked into your place of employment and presented a firearm to you I'd back you 100% in firing as many rounds as you FELT were necessary to deal with the situation.
Assuming that was the direction of discharge and no ricochets
I'm going out on a limb here and say I bet they blocked both entrances...that would be standard procedure and I'm just a civilian and I know that. Then from there they moved in with the hill/quarry in the background.
Let me go and find that fish hatchery and post the google map pic here...
Attachments
Ok- I have some knowledge of the situation, albeit second hand. The range was 40-60 yards, the park and ride is very well lit at night. What the papers neglect to say is that some of the rounds ended up in another deputies cruiser! A lot of the other rounds hit low into the asphalt.
boss66tcode
a bit of an Eddie Haskle
Eh, I won't armchair quarterback this one. 1am, guy has gun, no bystanders in commuter lot, eh, it took a few, but I wasn't there. It ended without a fatality and no collateral's. Some will say its too many rounds, but we don't know how the potential assailant moved, were some of the shots fired low as a warning, etc.
Bolts Rock
Living in Free America!
It's obvious most of the comments here were made by people that did not read the article. The guy did NOT fire at all, let alone at the cops. The guy was approaching the cops which would be kind of difficult to do from cover. The deputy sheriff fired 20 rounds, the DNR cop fired 13 rounds. Still crappy shooting at 40-60 yards in a well lit parking lot.
Yikes!!
mancheechee
Daily Trigger
Kind of sad to think that the guy thought he had no other way out of his problems.
He got charged as he rightfully should. But suicide by getting others involved really SUCKS.
Think about how the LEO have to deal with his, yet another, stupid action.
My theory on the 33rds: The LEOs probably did try to get that guy to drop his weapon by indirect fire...then decided it wasn't going to work so dropped the guy. But wow, he was hit by .223 at that range and still survived? must have been taking aim at his limbs or something.
He got charged as he rightfully should. But suicide by getting others involved really SUCKS.
Think about how the LEO have to deal with his, yet another, stupid action.
My theory on the 33rds: The LEOs probably did try to get that guy to drop his weapon by indirect fire...then decided it wasn't going to work so dropped the guy. But wow, he was hit by .223 at that range and still survived? must have been taking aim at his limbs or something.
Way to think it through...makes a lot of sense.
tsmith1499
Poor C&R Collector
Personal opinion: I don't think any LEO goes out on patrol with the intention of Killing anyone. I know upper mass shots are preferred BUT I also agree that maybe they were trying to disarm him before having to go to the exreme of killing him. I feel sorry for what these guys will have to go through now for the next couple of months or however long it will take to get over this. Most LEO's in the course of their career NEVER have to shoot another human. But I'd rather they go home alive than the perp.
Diesel Kinevel
Ultimate Member
......really? where did you hear that? I go home at the end of the shift. Bottom line. Who will take care of my family if I don't go home? You? Sorry I ain't buying it.
Indiana Jones
Wolverine
Well said. Agreed.
- May 13, 2005
- 2,770
Quote from another recent thread sums a lot up very eloquently and tactfully:
I however don't have that level of eloquence, or tact. Having said that, I, and most members of this board know most LEOs are there for us if we call you. I think you have made it clear you might not be one of those LEOs.
The people you should be protecting as your priority #1, created a job for you and pay you to do it - to protect people's daily lives from being disastrously interrupted by dickheads of many natures.
IMO If in your mind, at any point officer safety outweighs public safety you should not be wearing a badge. Let me try to put it as simple as I can: If you think your well being is a higher priority than those who you are supposed to be protecting, and you wold prioritize your safety above the bystanders around you then I think your azimuth isn't working correctly and you should fix it before you get someone killed. But at least you would go home and that's the bottom line, right?
My kids and I include our LEOs close friends in our prayers frequently. As far as a LEO dying in the line of duty and a family losing a father, nobody wants that and we hope you go home at the end of the shift. But, unfortunately LEOs do get killed with disgusting frequency. Hopefully in your line of work you have realized your job has inherent regular and deadly risks that you have signed up for and have already taken extraordinary steps to assure your family will be taken carer of if something happens to you. If my line of work had the risks a LEO takes I sure as shit would.
You have stated your bottom line, Here is mine:
If I don't think you are going to act in the best interest of my safety and the safety of my family, and you would put your life above ours in while acting in the capacity of a LEO, then you are a liability to the safety of my family. Conversely, if I know you are there to protect my family first and foremost, which is how I view the majority of LEOs attitudes, then you are a hero to my family which we can trust.
Diesel Kinevel
Ultimate Member
I never stated I wouldn't act in the best interest of you or your family. I also never took an oath saying I will die for anyone. I don't know any other LEO that has as a matter of fact. My oath say I will uphold and defend the constitutions of the United States of America and Maryland. A police officer who goes to work not having his own safety the number one priority has too much of a hero complex and is quite frankly, a fool. Do I understand that my career is an inherently dangerous profession? Yes. Do I understand that at any time during my career I may lose my life in the performance of my duties? Yes. But I will not willingly put myself into a position that will keep me from ending my shift on my own two feet. One thing we are taught throughout all of our training from day one is that if it doesn't feel right then wait for backup. There are times where that isn't an option but hey, shitty day to be a cop.
Am I willing to die for you and your family? You betcha. You call and I will be there as fast as I can safely make it to the scene. But don't for one second tell me that your safety is more important than mine, as I would never expect you to say the same thing to me. I am going to do everything I can to go home at the end of the night.
boss66tcode
a bit of an Eddie Haskle
This very subject is precisely why individual preparedness is important. Interventions by police (by design) are reactionary. I'm not talking about crime prevention stuff, but when it comes to an actual situation that needs to be dealt with, everything is reactionary. Too many people with the "sheep" mindset.
gmhowell
Not Banned Yet
Since when do cops use suppressive fire? I thought they were under the same 'shoot to stop the danger' rules as civvies.
beafly.cakes
Active Member
Was the suspect using cover?
Fyshbum
Member
Just does not read well to the average tax payer. Any colateral damage?
- Status
