PDA

View Full Version : Off Duty Officer shot in the Line of Duty



Ice
01-28-2006, 21:58
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/28/officer.shot.ap/index.html


A woman called 911 from White Castle, and Hernandez -- with his gun drawn -- ran into the parking lot after his assailants, Bloomberg said.

He apparently subdued one of the suspects, and when a patrol car arrived, was pointing his gun at a man on the ground.

One of the two officers in the car, apparently believing Hernandez was about to shoot, opened fire, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

This is truly a pity. They need a better way to recognize these guys when they are off duty.

Matrixman
01-29-2006, 01:36
I agree....what a shocker.

Hope he survives.

Crazed Rabbit
01-29-2006, 04:36
Very unfortunate.

But for recognition maybe they could realise not everybody besides them with a gun is automatically a bad guy.

Crazed Rabbit

Major Robert Dump
01-29-2006, 05:19
Officers often tell good intentioned people to stay out of the fray so backup doesn't come and start hosing down the good samaritans. It's a pity this happened, but as an off-duty cop he should have known the other police would have no way of knowing him from Jack. He's lucky he wasn't shot 47 times. Hope he pulls through.

Xiahou
01-29-2006, 09:55
Very unfortunate.

But for recognition maybe they could realise not everybody besides them with a gun is automatically a bad guy.

Crazed Rabbit
I think they should take a good close look at what procedures the police followed before opening fire- it sounds to me like they screwed up here.

Tribesman
01-29-2006, 11:44
Which State was it that recently stopped its off-duty officers from carrying guns , because of incidents like this ?

Now then , for those who belong to the "I want a gun to defend myself against attackers" posse .
What are your thoughts when a law abiding citizen gets shot by the police for pointing a gun at a mugger ?

Xiahou
01-29-2006, 11:55
Which State was it that recently stopped its off-duty officers from carrying guns , because of incidents like this ?I don't think police should get automatic off-duty carry priveledges. Once they're off duty, they should be entitled to the same protections as everyone else- no more, no less. If they want to carry, they can get a permit.


Now then , for those who belong to the "I want a gun to defend myself against attackers" posse .
What are your thoughts when a law abiding citizen gets shot by the police for pointing a gun at a mugger ?
See my previous post.

Tribesman
01-29-2006, 12:16
Once they're off duty, they should be entitled to the same protections as everyone else- no more, no less. If they want to carry, they can get a permit.

yep , its just strange as my cousins husband always carries and complies with the "plain sight" requirements , yet he was car jacked in a parkinglot and they not only took his truck they took his gun as well .
Being a police officer and visibly having a gun didn't stop the criminals , as it is hard to use a gun when one hand is carrying groceries and the other is trying to get the door open when you get a gun shoved in your face .
Its just one more crime statistic and one more gun in the hands of criminals.:shrug:

BTW I think it was R.I. that passed the no carry provisions for its officers .

doc_bean
01-29-2006, 12:31
But for recognition maybe they could realise not everybody besides them with a gun is automatically a bad guy.


One of the rare occasions I agree with you :2thumbsup:

Of course, like Xiahou pointed out, they should have followed procedure, which I assume would include shouting "Drop the gun !".

rory_20_uk
01-29-2006, 12:56
Wouldn't happen in the UK...

~:smoking:

Xiahou
01-29-2006, 13:44
yep , its just strange as my cousins husband always carries and complies with the "plain sight" requirements , yet he was car jacked in a parkinglot and they not only took his truck they took his gun as well .
Being a police officer and visibly having a gun didn't stop the criminals , as it is hard to use a gun when one hand is carrying groceries and the other is trying to get the door open when you get a gun shoved in your face .
Its just one more crime statistic and one more gun in the hands of criminals.:shrug:I think open carry is a stupid idea under most circumstances- certainly if you're in a crowded area and your hands are full.

Just A Girl
01-29-2006, 13:46
Guns Are bad M-Kay

JAG
01-29-2006, 13:51
Wouldn't happen in the UK...

~:smoking:

Well put Rory...

I do hope everyone realises why.

Xiahou
01-29-2006, 13:58
Well put Rory...

I do hope everyone realises why.
They've certainly shot innocents before though.

rory_20_uk
01-29-2006, 14:06
They've certainly shot innocents before though.

An argument for less guns, surely? :idea2:

~:smoking:

Xiahou
01-29-2006, 14:10
An argument for less guns, surely? :idea2:

~:smoking:
You guys can try to ban all weapons for all I care- it doesnt effect me. It's clear that it won't stop violent crime, or even gun violence for that matter though- both are still on the rise there no?

Just A Girl
01-29-2006, 14:14
The more Guns Othere Idiots Have The more they loose. The more they loose The more that end up here.

So stop giving idiots Guns,
They wont loose em.

And gun crime wont be on the rize here,

rory_20_uk
01-29-2006, 14:21
Sadly gun crime is rising - but no where near America's levels. Probably because we can get rid of what we find, whereas you lot sell them at supermarkets. haeven forbid they are regulated as that might infringe on a criminal's rights...

Where next? Land mines? Grenades? I'm sure if all good honest people can get hold of them it'd be safer.

~:smoking:

Ice
01-29-2006, 19:35
Sadly gun crime is rising - but no where near America's levels. Probably because we can get rid of what we find, whereas you lot sell them at supermarkets. haeven forbid they are regulated as that might infringe on a criminal's rights...

Where next? Land mines? Grenades? I'm sure if all good honest people can get hold of them it'd be safer.

~:smoking:

Make sense when you post. We do not sell that at supermarket's and the reason why they are legal because of the second amendment in our Consitution which gives all the citzens the legal right to bear arms. Sorry if we want to be different from the country we seperated from.

Ice
01-29-2006, 19:36
Wouldn't happen in the UK...

~:smoking:


Hernandez had been in line at a White Castle restaurant in the Bronx shortly before 5 a.m. when he was assaulted by a half-dozen men, Bloomberg said.

Nah you're right it wouldn't have. The 6 men assaulted him would have beaten him to a pulp, possibly killing me, and then robbed him dry. So, yes, you are abosolutely right.

Crazed Rabbit
01-29-2006, 19:43
For our foreign friends, it is practically impossible for an ordinary person to get a permit to carry a gun in NYC.


yep , its just strange as my cousins husband always carries and complies with the "plain sight" requirements , yet he was car jacked in a parkinglot and they not only took his truck they took his gun as well .
Being a police officer and visibly having a gun didn't stop the criminals , as it is hard to use a gun when one hand is carrying groceries and the other is trying to get the door open when you get a gun shoved in your face .
Its just one more crime statistic and one more gun in the hands of criminals

It sounds like he wasn't paying attention to his situation. BTW, what are the laws regarding firearms in Ireland?

Crazed Rabbit

rory_20_uk
01-29-2006, 21:41
Yeah, I read the 2nd amendment. Not that hard to do with google... I know why they are currently legal - what's your point?

So have wall mart stopped selling guns? They used to.

And so a beating is worse than shooting someone? Of course - only the undeserving get shot / carry guns :inquisitive:

One piece of hearsay doesn't do away with the number of people that get show in the USA every year.

~:smoking:

BDC
01-29-2006, 21:47
Sorry if we want to be different from the country we seperated from.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of British people on the frontier had guns anyway and that the people who wrote the constitution had loftier aims than a heavily armed populace.

Ice
01-29-2006, 22:11
Yeah, I read the 2nd amendment. Not that hard to do with google... I know why they are currently legal - what's your point?

So have wall mart stopped selling guns? They used to.

And so a beating is worse than shooting someone? Of course - only the undeserving get shot / carry guns :inquisitive:

One piece of hearsay doesn't do away with the number of people that get show in the USA every year.

~:smoking:

My point with the second amendment was that it is in our Constitution that you are allowed to have a gun. Owning a gun is one of the principles this country was founded on, so we aren't just going to change it because a couple of people have a hissy fit over it. There are both pros and cons of allowing guns.

You can just stroll into walmart and buy a gun. They have to a do background screening on you and it usually takes several days. I'm almost postive.

My point was, that if the cop hadn't been carrying the gun, he would have most likely got his ass kicked and materials stolen from him. The presence of the gun most likely saved his life from the assaulters.

Banning guns will not reduce crime, all it will do is make criminals find other ingenous ways of getting the job done.

Papewaio
01-29-2006, 22:54
I thought the right to bear arms was as part of a well regulated miltia for the security of the state... the modern equivalent being police and national guard.

I assume well regulated means that they have a recognisable uniform?

Or is that a requirement for regulars?

Mixing the regulated vs regulars here

Xiahou
01-29-2006, 23:05
I thought the right to bear arms was as part of a well regulated miltia for the security of the state... the modern equivalent being police and national guard.
With all due respect, that's an absurd interpretation. Why on earth would the government need to spell out, in the Bill of Rights the obvious fact that the government has the ability to arm it's military and police? Further, the Bill of Rights deals almost exclusively with protecting individual rights- the notion that this wasn't the idea behind the 2nd seems like an attempt at clever revisionism.

Papewaio
01-29-2006, 23:10
Well doesn't the bill of rights state that they have to be members of a well regulated militia that is for the security of the state... its modern equivalent being police and/or national guard.

BTW not all the worlds police are armed... the job police do is what the military/militia used to do.

rory_20_uk
01-29-2006, 23:20
I'll give you that if anyone is stupid enough regardless of colour, creed or occupation to go up against 6 drunken pieces of scum deserves a Darwin Award :laugh4:

Banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but it does make it less deadly as there is not the arms race going along I'd rather be knocked out by a criminal than shot

Call me a pedant, but can an amendment be part of the founding of the country? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

Xiahou
01-29-2006, 23:21
Well doesn't the bill of rights state that they have to be members of a well regulated militia that is for the security of the state... its modern equivalent being police and/or national guard.

BTW not all the worlds police are armed... the job police do is what the military/militia used to do.
The US had police before the Bill of Rights was passed.

The 2nd Amendment does say that a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state and it also says the right of the people(not the government) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, it doesnt pass the smell test to argue that there intention was to protect the rights of the government. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit government power.


Call me a pedant, but can an amendment be part of the founding of the country? :inquisitive:The ratification of the Constitution was dependant on the addition of a Bill of Rights.

Ice
01-29-2006, 23:53
I'll give you that if anyone is stupid enough regardless of colour, creed or occupation to go up against 6 drunken pieces of scum deserves a Darwin Award :laugh4:

Banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but it does make it less deadly as there is not the arms race going along I'd rather be knocked out by a criminal than shot

Call me a pedant, but can an amendment be part of the founding of the country? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

He had two options:defend himself or surrender. Due to the fact that he had superior firepower, He chose to defend himself.

It doesn't make it any less deadly. If a criminal wants a gun, he will still get one or find an alternative method of killing.

Lonely Soldier
01-30-2006, 00:09
The fact is that if this particular officer was unarmed while off duty he would not have been shot by other police officers. Surely most criminals will just want to steal money or valuables, rather than actually wanting to assault someone.

As far as I can tell all weapons potentially incite violence.

Besides, what is the use of drawing a fire-arm on six unarmed muggers, when all they probably want is to steal your wallet? Drawing a weapon immediately, and pointlessly, raises the stakes.

By the way, I'm against the carrying of weapons in public, home defence is a more delicate issue, but the moment that a mugging can lead to a shooting, fatal or otherwise, something has to change.

And the argument about the 2nd Ammendment is a little thin too. Just because you are permitted to do something doesn't mean you should. It's a classic case of: Q "Why do you do that?" A "Because I can". Or that's the way it seems to me.

Tribesman
01-30-2006, 01:02
It sounds like he wasn't paying attention to his situation.
Yep you must at all times in all situations be ready to draw your weapon and shoot anyone who walks anywhere near you ????????

BTW, what are the laws regarding firearms in Ireland?

Shotguns , easy to get a license .
Rifles , a more thorough check and references .
Handguns , an even more thorough check .
Automatics , police and military only .

Oh and BB guns (airguns) totally illegal , they are dangerous :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Roark
01-30-2006, 01:40
What are your thoughts when a law abiding citizen gets shot by the police for pointing a gun at a mugger ?

That's easy:

Guns don't kill people, confused police officers do.

No, wait...

Guns don't kill people, tense situations involving guns do.

Hmm... still not right.

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.


Look, it really doesn't matter, as long as the right to discharge high-speed projectiles isn't taken away from law-abiding frontiersmen who have to lie awake at night worrying about Indian raids.

Xiahou
01-30-2006, 01:44
It sounds like he wasn't paying attention to his situation.
Yep you must at all times in all situations be ready to draw your weapon and shoot anyone who walks anywhere near you ????????Well, speaking personally, I sure wouldn't have a firearm hanging off of me in the open while lugging an armload of groceries in a crowded area. But maybe that's just me.

Ice
01-30-2006, 02:14
Besides, what is the use of drawing a fire-arm on six unarmed muggers, when all they probably want is to steal your wallet? Drawing a weapon immediately, and pointlessly, raises the stakes.



lol.. just lol

Tribesman
01-30-2006, 02:47
Well, speaking personally, I sure wouldn't have a firearm hanging off of me in the open while lugging an armload of groceries in a crowded area. But maybe that's just me.

I know , but your job doesn't mean that you have to carry a firearm all the time does it .

Lonely Soldier
01-30-2006, 03:09
Ghost908 - ? Lol? It does raise the stakes, I probably should have said that they appear unarmed. Besides, who cares about their wallet if the choice is between shooting someone or losing the $20 and credit cards in a replaceable piece of leather?

Ice
01-30-2006, 05:06
Ghost908 - ? Lol? It does raise the stakes, I probably should have said that they appear unarmed. Besides, who cares about their wallet if the choice is between shooting someone or losing the $20 and credit cards in a replaceable piece of leather?

They appeared unarmed. One could have had a concealed knife or other weapon. Letting someone take something of yours when you have the power to stop them isn't right. It's not like he took out his gun and emptied an entire clip into one, he just took it out so they would know this guy isnt screwing around.

rory_20_uk
02-01-2006, 12:25
Ah, you see - although they had no weapon and wern't using any they might have had one. And although they were robbing the guy using superior force of 6 vs 1 (an old tried and tested method of robbery) he pulled a gun - which ended in him getting shot.

If he'd called the police and quickly got out of sight it's unlikely that they'd have followed, as they are using numbers to win here, not weapons.

He wasn't defending himself, as far as I am aware he was not in danger. He placed himself in the situation that got him shot.

~:smoking:

Ser Clegane
02-01-2006, 13:19
In wonder where some people here got the idea that Eric Hernandez was being robbed.
Actually the article says nothing about robbing or mugging.

According to this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/nyregion/31officer.html) this was "just" a fight and it does not even seem to be claer yet who started it.

I would also like to point out that according to the article Hernandez may have been intoxicated.

So this might not at all be a case of a guy who was defending himself against six potentially armed robbers - it might well be a case of a guy who was drunk, picking a fight, and when things went bad for him escalated the fight by drawing a gun.
If the latter is the case, I can only say that the thought of having an "intoxicated" person who carries a gun and is not really trying to avoid a fight would be somewhat disturbing.

But I guess the bottomline is, that we should be careful with speculations about what happened and what led to a gun being drawn, as the development of the whole incident still seems to be unclear

BTW, from what I have read Mr Hernandez is still in a critical condition and part of his leg had to be amputated - no matter how the fight started, I hope the doctors will be able to save his life.

Xiahou
02-01-2006, 14:13
According to this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/nyregion/31officer.html) this was "just" a fight and it does not even seem to be claer yet who started it.That link asks for a login....

Ser Clegane
02-01-2006, 14:25
That link asks for a login....

Very strange ... worked for me (and I am certainly not a subscriber for the NYT). Had some strange experiences in the past though that sometimes articles were accessable and sometimes not.
Here it is:



January 31, 2006
Police Say Shooting of an Officer Appears to Have Been Justified
By AL BAKER
A preliminary investigation has indicated that a police officer was justified in shooting an off-duty colleague who was pointing a gun at another man, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said yesterday.

The determination came as the police arrested three men who they said attacked the off-duty officer, Eric Hernandez, inside a White Castle in the Bronx on Saturday, touching off the sequence of events that led to the shooting. But the parents of one of the men said last night that their son was being used as a scapegoat.

Officer Hernandez was shot by another officer while he held his gun over a man who he may have believed was among those who had just beaten him.

Mr. Kelly said that an initial review of witnesses' accounts, among other evidence, indicated that the officer who fired, Alfredo Toro, followed departmental rules. And a spokesman for the Bronx district attorney said it appeared that Officer Toro had committed no crime.

The twin investigations — trying to solve a crime while also getting to the bottom of the first shooting of one officer by another in the city in recent years — were progressing along parallel tracks, the police said.

Above it all, Mr. Kelly repeatedly stressed, was the health of Officer Hernandez, 24.

"The major, the overarching issue now, is the well-being, the status of Officer Hernandez," said Mr. Kelly.

Fred Winters, a spokesman for St. Barnabas Hospital, said Officer Hernandez remained in "very critical condition" and on life support yesterday after having undergone six hours of surgery, his fourth round of surgery. More operations are planned, Mr. Winters said. "We take it day by day."

Officer Hernandez was shot in both thighs and once in the abdomen; the arteries feeding his lower limbs were shredded, flooding his abdominal cavity with blood.

Mr. Kelly said doctors could not fully ascertain the extent of Officer Hernandez's injuries from the assault because of the need "to take care of his much more serious problem of arterial bleeding."

The shooting occurred after Officer Toro and his partner responded to a 911 call about the fight at the restaurant, at 1831 Webster Avenue.

Officer Toro, 43, of the 46th Precinct, came upon Officer Hernandez, who was dressed in street clothes. He had his gun drawn and was hovering over a man lying face down on the parking lot pavement. It was about 5 a.m. and still dark outside.

Witnesses said they heard Officer Toro and his partner shout, "Police!" and three or four times tell the man to drop his gun. But Officer Hernandez, apparently intoxicated, and injured from the beating, did not drop his gun and did not identify himself as a police officer — he works in the 52nd Precinct — and Officer Toro fired three times.

The department's Firearms Discharge Review Board will examine the shooting, but Mr. Kelly said, "We have determined, in preliminary fashion, that this shooting was within our guidelines."

The commissioner said a long list of factors led to that determination, including the circumstances, and interviews with several witnesses. He did not elaborate.

As of yesterday, Officer Toro had not been interviewed, the police said.

Steven Reed, a spokesman for the Bronx district attorney, Robert T. Johnson, said, "From what we know up to this point in our investigation, there appears to be no criminal conduct in regards to the shooting."

Late yesterday, the police arrested three men from the Bronx in the case, charging each with first-degree attempted assault and second-degree assault. The arrests came after callers and a police officer contacted detectives to say they recognized the men from a security camera videotape showing the attack, which was released by the police.

The men arrested were Nelson Rodriguez, 26, of Manida Street; Edwin Rivera, 25, of Spofford Avenue; and Daryl Massey, 22, of Boston Road. The police said they were still seeking two other men.

Luz Morales, 59, and Edwin Rivera Sr., 58, Mr. Rivera's parents, said their son was being treated unfairly.

"My son did not shoot that police officer, why should he have to pay for it?" Edwin Rivera said. "If that cop had identified himself in there, maybe things would have gone differently. But he came in and out of that restaurant and never said who he was."

Their son told them he had sat down to eat but had forgotten his soda at the counter, they said. When he went back to get it, they said, Officer Hernandez appeared annoyed because he thought Mr. Rivera was cutting in line and getting a free soda.

"He said, 'Why should I have to pay for the soda, and he got a free one?' " Ms. Morales said.

The police have said the attack might have been sparked when one of the men in the group mocked Officer Hernandez, saying that he should purchase their sodas.

Last night, a police spokesman said the words exchanged by the officer and the men might never be known. Still, he characterized the episode as an attack on Officer Hernandez, rather than a fight.

Janon Fisher contributed reporting for this article.

Source: NYT

rory_20_uk
02-02-2006, 21:09
Seems very up in the air as to what exactly happened: did he start the fight in the first place?

I'd personally ban alcohol and guns and legalise dope and heroin: no more armed fights, just very placid people occasionally killing themselves on the streets... :skull:

~:smoking:

Major Robert Dump
02-02-2006, 21:37
Oddly enough, if you do a google search for "off+duty+shooting" you will get a whole messload of recent stories where off duty cops were involved in an illegal shooting. You will also get plenty where off duty cops shot a robber. I was surprised at how many of these seem to happen in states where the general public typically cant carry concealed weapons.

The problems with cops is that they have a cop mentality both on and off duty. Cops who are caught in integrity snafus off the job will usually be fired, and a cop -- even unarmed ones (like the donut shop video where the unarmed cop got stabbed trying to stop a robber, its about 2 weeks old now) -- will try to intervene on behalf of the publics safety. But the fact that these guys arent in uniform opens up a pandoras box.

Theres anothe recent case in oklahoma where a cop at home got call from his wife that a wierdo was following her home. When she pulled into the driveway with the other car close behind, the cop -- who was not in uniform -- runs out with his gun drawn, leaps into the drivers side of the wierdos car, the wierdo tries to drive off, the cop shoots him and then falls out of the car and gets his head run over. This story is wrong on so many levels. I mean you can't blame a guy for defending his wife, but he also ran outside with a gun and lept into another mans vbehicle without identifying himself, trying to prevent someone from fleeing, whereas legally it was the suspects very right to flee since he didnt know the guy pointing a gun at him was a cop.

I know lots of cops due to some of my past and present occupational contacts, and about half the ones I know well don't carry a weapon off duty because when they are off duty they arent interested in being a cop. But most of these guys also live in suburbia Oklahoma, which has low crime and plenty of police.

I'd like to see communities strengthen the standards for police hires by requiring more education and more physc testing than a minnesota/california profile test administered by a shrink. Places like Norman require bachelors degrees, but rural communities and ghetto cities like OKC have a harder time getting quaility hires, so its not uncommon for them to relax the standards. but even with higher standards you're still going to have rogues and cops with integrity issues.

rory_20_uk
02-02-2006, 22:02
In the UK the standards are pretty appalling at the moment. But making sure that none of these knuckle dragging neanderthals shoots anyone or in extremis themselves its been found best not to give them guns in case they get ideas.

To me the "cop mentality" seems rather too close to "SWAT mentality without the training".

Police should know their place, and they along with everyone else is just a citizen / subject when they are off duty

~:smoking:

Gawain of Orkeny
02-03-2006, 02:31
Personally I think cops use their guns far too much and are more interested in protecting themselves than the public. All these swat team and the klike. If its a choice between what maybe an innocent civilian or a cop getting killed you can bet the civilian is going down everytime. In the intersest of protecting the police there is too much brutality on their part. I know better safe than sorry but they take it way to far.

Proletariat
02-03-2006, 03:48
Personally I think cops use their guns far too much and are more interested in protecting themselves than the public.

Well put!

:shame:

Major Robert Dump
02-03-2006, 05:03
Well put!

:shame:


Agreed. And the golden umbrella doesn't help, you know, the thing that causes them to protect each other even in the most obvious cases of abuse of power.

A person standing 20 feet away with a brick can be shot dead because the officer "fears for his safety." Or carrying a coat hanger. Or, better yet, shooting a guy in the stomach because you think he may be armed, then when he grabs his stomach to keep his guts in, shooting him 10 more times because he was "reaching for a weapon" These are all actual cases.

Oh, and the whole "I shot him because he was trying to run me over" thing is a hoax. In most cases, the car isn't aimed at the cop, it's the cop who jumps in the way of the car, and can now claim self defense and shoot a shoplifter, even though he jumped in front of the vehicle in a manner that the person never had time to try to stop.. This is a joke amongst cops, because its something only cops can do and get away with.

Gawain of Orkeny
02-03-2006, 06:08
Any of you see the video of the cop shooting the Airforce officer just back from Iraq the other night? Truly disturbing.


California Deputy Taped Shooting AF Officer


Responding to a dramatic videotape of a police shooting, federal officials opened an investigation Tuesday into the conduct of a San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy who opened fire on a man who appeared to be following the deputy's order to get off the ground.

A grainy videotape of the shooting in Chino was broadcast repeatedly on television Tuesday. The quality of the tape is poor, and it is difficult to clearly hear all the exchanges between the deputy and 21-year-old Elio Carrion during the seconds before the shooting.

At one point, a voice on the tape appears to say "Stay on the ground." A moment later, however, the deputy appears to tell Carrion: "Get up, get up."

"I'm going to get up," Carrion replied as he began to rise from a crouch. As he did so, the deputy, who was standing a few feet away, fired multiple rounds.

Carrion, a U.S. Air Force security officer who had recently returned from duty in Iraq, was hit in the chest, shoulder and leg. He was listed in good condition Tuesday at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton.

San Bernardino County sheriff's officials have refused to release the deputy's name.

The incident, which took place Sunday night, began with the deputy's chasing a blue Corvette on a short pursuit that authorities said reached speeds of 100 mph. Officials said the deputy pursued the Corvette because the driver was speeding. Carrion was a passenger in the car.

The chase ended when the car crashed into a fence on a residential street in Chino about 10:30 p.m. The driver, Luis Fernando Escobedo, 21, was arrested on suspicion of felony evading. The district attorney's office has not filed charges against him, however, and he was scheduled to be released from jail Tuesday night, officials said.

Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Cindy Beavers said Tuesday evening that neither the driver nor Carrion was armed and that there was no indication Carrion would be arrested or charged with a crime.

Sheriff Gary Penrod has reviewed the videotape, as have several members of the department, Beavers said.

"The dialogue is difficult to understand," Beavers said. "We cannot make judgments on this shooting yet. It is not crystal clear, and if there's any question left open, we can't say whether Carrion or the deputy is wrong." The deputy's conversation with Carrion in the seconds before the shooting is "critical," she said.

Beavers said sheriff's officials hoped the federal investigation would include a forensic review of the video to help "clear up audio issues, to be exact in the dialogue between the deputy and the passenger."

On Tuesday, U.S. Atty. Debra Wong Yang asked the FBI to look at the incident to determine whether the deputy violated Carrion's civil rights, her spokesman, Thom Mrozek, said.

In addition to the federal investigation, the Sheriff's Department will investigate and report its findings to the San Bernardino County district attorney. Assistant Dist. Atty. Michael Risley said Tuesday that, according to available records, the district attorney's office had never filed criminal charges against a law enforcement officer involved in an on-duty shooting.

Current and former elected officials in the county said they were troubled by the shooting.

"I found the images very disturbing," said Supervisor Gary Ovitt, whose district includes Chino. "It did not appear that the passenger had done anything to provoke the shooting, so I can understand why people are demanding answers."

Eunice Ulloa, a 21-year Chino councilwoman and former mayor, called the shooting "frightening" and said she had received numerous calls from concerned residents in the blue-collar farming town of 80,000.

"It doesn't appear there was any justification for the shooting," said Ulloa, who lives near the shooting scene. "The video was horrifying, and it was horrifying to hear that night -- all this yelling and screaming. I just hope the Sheriff's Department interviews all the witnesses involved to learn what triggered this officer to shoot. It appears this guy [Carrion] was shot unprovoked."

The videotape was shot by a bystander who provided the original to law enforcement officials and sold a copy to KTLA-TV Channel 5. The tape picks up after the pursuit ended and shows Carrion crouching with the deputy hovering over him, his gun drawn.

The deputy can be heard shouting repeated profanities at Carrion, calling him a "punk" and telling him to "shut up."

At one point, the deputy kicks at Carrion, but it is unclear whether he makes contact.

On the tape, Carrion can be heard telling the deputy, "I'm here on your side. All right? I'm here to tell you.... We're here on your side." In the background, yelling can be heard, and Carrion appears to yell at the driver to be quiet.

"We mean you no harm ... all right?" said Carrion, who also interspersed his statements with profanity. "I served more time than you in the ... police, in the ... military, OK?"

After the shooting, Carrion can be heard moaning in pain as the deputy shouts -- apparently into a radio -- "Shots fired! Shots fired!" He then shouts: "Shut the ... up!" several times.

Someone in the background says, "You told him to get up!" The deputy tells the unidentified person, "Shut ... up!"
Carrion's wife Tuesday denounced the shooting, calling it a criminal act by the deputy. Mariela Carrion said the Sheriff's Department should fire the deputy who shot her husband and prosecutors should file criminal charges against him.

"He shouldn't ever be carrying a badge again," Mariela Carrion said. "It's unfair and sad for a man like my husband to be treated like that. For what he [the deputy] did, he should have to pay for it in court."

Bill Abernathie, president of the sheriff's deputies union, the San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Assn., complained about the video's repeated airing on television.

"To paint every cop in California as bad people because one incident happened, and we don't know the facts, is just wrong," he said.

Jim Erwin, chief of administration for the union, said the deputy involved had retained an attorney, and rank-and-file members were "waiting for the investigation to conclude.... I don't know all the details or what provoked it," Erwin said.

The attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

Vanessa Escobedo, 19, the sister of the Corvette driver, said she spoke to Carrion by telephone Tuesday. She said he expected the deputy to be charged with a crime for shooting him.

Carrion "said he doesn't want to talk to anyone in the newspaper or television; he said he'd just rather go to court and talk," said Vanessa Escobedo. "He told me they had no weapons at all in that car. He's upset. He doesn't know why they shot him."

Carrion grew up in Montclair and attended Montclair High School. He graduated in 2002 and joined the Air Force the next year.

Kimberly King, a nurse assistant at the high school, said she met Carrion when he worked as an aide. When King heard about the shooting on television Tuesday morning, she said, "I just wanted to come through the screen" and knock the gun from the deputy's hand.

"It broke my heart this morning when they announced his name. I just cried for him and his sweet family," said King, 42. "It just broke my heart this way to see his name announced on TV, like he's a common criminal."

She said Carrion once befriended a schoolmate who was struggling in class and encouraged him to stay out of trouble, and that he was respectful of his family and girlfriend, whom he married.

"I remember him so vividly as truly one of the most polite, conscientious, extraordinarily devoted kids," said King, who has received several e-mails from Carrion since his graduation and saw him when he visited his former high school in his Air Force uniform.

Carrion played basketball for three school years and notched perfect attendance in 2002, according to his yearbook, where he is pictured in a gray suit and silver tie. In the nurse's office, he would run errands, make deliveries and greet other students.

"He was a quiet and very honorable young man," King said.

No one answered the door at Carrion's parents' house, a modest stucco building across from an elementary school. Three flags rustle on poles -- the Mexican flag, the U.S. flag and the Air Force flag -- and hand-held Mexican and U.S. flags dot the rose bed in the frontyard

Major Robert Dump
02-03-2006, 07:49
Police don't like it when you talk back, and will try to get you on obstruction charges if you mouth off. For the cops with really bad attitudes, they will escalate the situation to a ridiculous point and almost bait people into an altercation.

In the cops defense, there was a chase and a crash, but you can't hold passengers responsible for a drivers actions (the driver fled on foot right?) and you can't assume guilt by association. FFS man, sometimes people give other people rides.

The worst part about this is that we may not be hearing about it at all if it were not a soldier this happened to (a military cop at that).

And even more so, if there weren't a video tape of the incident the cop would have denied being overly aggressive, he would have used the "he reached for something" argument, his word would have prevailed over the witnesses, and it would be just another day on the job. I have a feeling stuff happens like this more than we know.

It's crazy how with all the surveillance technology on vehicles that keeps crooks from getting away with stuff, with all the nifty gadgets they can use to incapcitate people without killing them, and with the knowledge that backup is 60 seconds away, some of these guys still act like they are in a war zone at all times.

Major Robert Dump
02-03-2006, 11:28
Back to the white castle off-duty shooting:

the altercation was caught on tape, and the man who the off duty cop cornered at gunpoint was not one of his attackers, he was mistaken due to the fact that:

the off duty cop had a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit, which means that:

he was carrying a firearm while intoxicated (illegal) and may have been why:

he didn't drop the gun despite the shooting officer telling him to 4 times.

Not to sound like a jerk, but what he got was somewhat deserved, and the cop who did the shooting should not lose a minute of sleep or be upset. Even without these mitigating circumstances, the police roll up and see a guy with a gun pointing it at people they have every obligation to shoot. Yelling "put the gun down" is a formality if peoples lives are in danger. Throw in the idea that the guy waving the gun around is sworn to uphold the law, yet breaking it while way drunk, well I have no sympathy.

Saw the airman vs deputy video btw, but its heavily bleeped out. Very crappy video, the kid who got shot sounds drunk but it doesn't appear hes doing anything threatening.

Xiahou
02-03-2006, 17:18
Even without these mitigating circumstances, the police roll up and see a guy with a gun pointing it at people they have every obligation to shoot. Yelling "put the gun down" is a formality if peoples lives are in danger.
I agree with most of what you say- except that. Police aren't justified in just rolling in and gunning down anyone holding a weapon when they show up.

Major Robert Dump
02-03-2006, 17:48
I agree with most of what you say- except that. Police aren't justified in just rolling in and gunning down anyone holding a weapon when they show up.

I suppose I should have qaulified that part as being the opinion of the police in general, not mine. As long as they can reasonably say there was a threat they will shoot, and in cases where there are no witnesses they will go ahead and say they yelled to disarm even if they didn't.

Yelling "put the gun down" or even going to the trouble of identifying oneself as police can be completely unnecessary in certain situations, but when the cops roll in blind there needs to be some cautious reservations. Another thing to consider is that yelling at a suspect often causes them to turn towards the person yelling, and if a person with a gun or a knife turns towards the cops the cops will shoot and say he was turning to assault them. One would also need to consider if this were a city/state where people could legally carry handguns. Running around with a gun to stop a criminal in a city with a gun ban is going to get one shot by police, because their first assumption is that the criminal is the guy with the gun since guns are illegal

I'm curious about the call to police. If they were told there was a drunk guy chasing people in the parking lot with a gun, I'm surprised he even got a warning when they showed up. The call info has been kind of vague up to this point.

At any rate, if I had a gun out for whatever the reason, as soon as I see flashing lights or hear car doors or hear cops yelling I'm gonna reach for the stars.

rory_20_uk
02-04-2006, 13:10
The same is said in the Army: If you need to use your gun make sure that the person you shoot is dead. Then there is only one version of what happened: your version - and of course your life was genuinely in peril.

~:smoking:

Major Robert Dump
02-04-2006, 15:05
The same is said in the Army: If you need to use your gun make sure that the person you shoot is dead. Then there is only one version of what happened: your version - and of course your life was genuinely in peril.

~:smoking:


Hey brother, this is how it is. When a group of cops can shoot a man because he has a hanger bent into a pointy-thingy and the cops not only avoid charges but keep thier jobs, well that tells me certain presuppositions exist regarding the rights of the suspect and how much "danger" he can represent with or withoiut being killed. When you get onto that slippery slope, anyone carrying a weapon, or "reaching" for an "alleged" weapon, is fair game. I'm not supporting this line of thinking or attacking it, I'm just calling it how it is. If you want to protect the citizens at all costs, one of those costs is going to be people being killed when, in fact, a little discretion could have prevented it.

KukriKhan
02-04-2006, 16:26
Our local police are required to carry a weapon while 'off-duty', and they are actually considered 'on duty' 24 hours a day, just occasionally 'off-assignment'. Guys have been fired for NOT intervening when present at a public-safety-threatening event.

However, that whole concept of being 'on' 24/7/365 is being debated currently. Complicating issues include city insurance and liability coverage, union contracts, mandatory retirement ages, and other personnel matters.

My opinion? Once a town grows beyond the Andy of Mayberry level of 2 cops, on-call at all times, it's time to have a more professional force...one where when he/she is clocked-off, they're totally 'off'. See a crime? Call it in as any other citizen would.

Major Robert Dump
02-05-2006, 11:24
Our local police are required to carry a weapon while 'off-duty', and they are actually considered 'on duty' 24 hours a day, just occasionally 'off-assignment'. Guys have been fired for NOT intervening when present at a public-safety-threatening event.

However, that whole concept of being 'on' 24/7/365 is being debated currently. Complicating issues include city insurance and liability coverage, union contracts, mandatory retirement ages, and other personnel matters.

My opinion? Once a town grows beyond the Andy of Mayberry level of 2 cops, on-call at all times, it's time to have a more professional force...one where when he/she is clocked-off, they're totally 'off'. See a crime? Call it in as any other citizen would.


Thats an interesting policy for your town to have. What if the cop is drunk? What if they are outside city limits? It also raises a labor issue because people on salary are often hosed by having to work extra hours as it is, and having to be salaried and on-call makes it even worse.

KukriKhan
02-05-2006, 18:22
Good questions. Can't answer most of them with facts. I can only guess that they obtain concealed-carry licenses, and so can/do carry outside the city limits. And I agree with you: how public servants get paid largely defines how they work, and often, how well they work (I refer to your own topics on congressional pay).

From my reading, I find that the "on 24/7" theory of policing is more traditional out west here, than back east.

Major Robert Dump
02-05-2006, 20:54
Found one of better picture qaulity than the others I've seen, but its a shorter clip


http://home.comcast.net/~scabass/cop_shooting.mp4

Gawain of Orkeny
02-05-2006, 20:58
Your link didnt work for me but heres a long one of the Chino one. See what you people think.

LINK (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed2feb02,0,28796.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines)

Click on the video link upper right hand corner.

Major Robert Dump
02-05-2006, 20:59
Your link didnt work for me but heres a long one of the Chino one. See what you people think.

LINK (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed2feb02,0,28796.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines)

Click on the video link upper right hand corner.

yeah i had to save as, watching yours now

Major Robert Dump
02-05-2006, 21:08
He was being slightly uncooperative because in a situation like that cops arent interested in talking to uou until beackup arrives and you ar cuffed...

And judging by the guys age, he certainly hasn't "Served more time" than the cop in the line of duty...

And it was a high speed chase that ended in a wreck

BUT, shooting a guy just for standing up isn't justified, even if you think he is going to try to run. He wasn't even the driver. I can't say if this guy was on an ego trip, or if he actually thought he was in danger from this guy standing up, but either way its inexcusable

I think it was you who earlier mentioned the police are sometimes less worried about the public than they are about themselves. I honestly believe if there were no camera here this shooting would have already been a closed case of "justified"