In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
42 shots.....
wsfiredude
Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
(CBS/ AP) Police are under scrutiny after a toddler was accidentally shot by officers aiming at a robbery and carjacking suspect at a fast food drive-through in Jacksonville last Friday.
Authorities say 2-year-old old Daniel Crichton was shot in the arm and upper torso after a suspected bank robber forced his way into the car in which the toddler was seated.
The child remains in critical condition.
"We had a very volatile situation," Sheriff John Rutherford told the Florida Times Union. "I just don't want to try to speculate on why they felt the need to shoot at the suspect while he was in the vehicle."
The child's mother, Joann Cooper, was hit once in the foot. A 7-year-old girl also in the car was not injured.
The suspect was killed but has not been identified.
The gunman did not discharge his weapon.
Five officers with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office fired a total of 42 rounds at the vehicle. Four of the officers involved were veterans, and one was a rookie still in field training, the Times Union reported.
Thomas J. Aveni, executive director of The Police Policy Studies Council, told the newspaper that training for situations where gunfire may be necessary amid crowds is nearly impossible. He added that police departments are working toward better guidelines to give officers on when to fire at moving cars.
"Officers tend to miss significant number of rounds when firing at human beings on foot," Aveni said.
CBS News legal analyst Jack Ford agreed.
Ford told "The Early Show" that the investigation will have to look at whether the shooting "was reasonable under the circumstances." If it was, Ford said there will likely be no criminal charges for the officers.
Authorities say 2-year-old old Daniel Crichton was shot in the arm and upper torso after a suspected bank robber forced his way into the car in which the toddler was seated.
The child remains in critical condition.
"We had a very volatile situation," Sheriff John Rutherford told the Florida Times Union. "I just don't want to try to speculate on why they felt the need to shoot at the suspect while he was in the vehicle."
The child's mother, Joann Cooper, was hit once in the foot. A 7-year-old girl also in the car was not injured.
The suspect was killed but has not been identified.
The gunman did not discharge his weapon.
Five officers with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office fired a total of 42 rounds at the vehicle. Four of the officers involved were veterans, and one was a rookie still in field training, the Times Union reported.
Thomas J. Aveni, executive director of The Police Policy Studies Council, told the newspaper that training for situations where gunfire may be necessary amid crowds is nearly impossible. He added that police departments are working toward better guidelines to give officers on when to fire at moving cars.
"Officers tend to miss significant number of rounds when firing at human beings on foot," Aveni said.
CBS News legal analyst Jack Ford agreed.
Ford told "The Early Show" that the investigation will have to look at whether the shooting "was reasonable under the circumstances." If it was, Ford said there will likely be no criminal charges for the officers.
Comments
Too bad for the kid.
The guy has a gun, he has just robbed a bank, now he has just committed carjacking, if you are a cop on the scene you have got to shoot the guy.
I do not disagree with that at all.
The guy has a gun, he has just robbed a bank, now he has just committed carjacking, if you are a cop on the scene you have got to shoot the guy.
Too bad for the kid.
It would have been appropriate to not shoot Mom and the kid, since the reason you are shooting in the first place is to protect Mom and the kid and the 'public' plus apprehending the criminal, right?
'I'll protect you even if I have to shoot 42 times and even if I shoot you in my zeal to protect you.'[:)]
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
The guy has a gun, he has just robbed a bank, now he has just committed carjacking, if you are a cop on the scene you have got to shoot the guy.
Too bad for the kid.
It would have been appropriate to not shoot Mom and the kid, since the reason you are shooting in the first place is to protect Mom and the kid and the 'public' plus apprehending the criminal, right?
'I'll protect you even if I have to shoot 42 times and even if I shoot you in my zeal to protect you.'[:)]
Brother Jeff[:)],
As always, you prove to be the voice of reason.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
The guy has a gun, he has just robbed a bank, now he has just committed carjacking, if you are a cop on the scene you have got to shoot the guy.
Too bad for the kid.
It would have been appropriate to not shoot Mom and the kid, since the reason you are shooting in the first place is to protect Mom and the kid and the 'public' plus apprehending the criminal, right?
'I'll protect you even if I have to shoot 42 times and even if I shoot you in my zeal to protect you.'[:)]
Brother Jeff[:)],
As always, you prove to be the voice of reason.[;)]
You can say that again![:)]
I will side with the police until there is evidence other wise. No problem with this shooting.
How about the 42 rounds fired by police and the Mom and kid who were shot?
Not saying this was intentional by any means, yet the end result is a critical 2 year old who may die and a shot Mommy.
Hey, on the bright side, the mope is dead.[:)]
I, of course, have no further details other than what I read here, so there may be far more to the tale of intrigue.
quote:Originally posted by bobbyrose512
I will side with the police until there is evidence other wise. No problem with this shooting.
How about the 42 rounds fired by police and the Mom and kid who were shot?
Not saying this was intentional by any means, yet the end result is a critical 2 year old who may die and a shot Mommy.
Hey, on the bright side, the mope is dead.[:)]
I, of course, have no further details other than what I read here, so there may be far more to the tale of intrigue.
I bet that perp has a real birth certificate to go along with his official death certificate. [;)]
I hope the child recovers.
How did she get hit in the foot, a ricochet?
They need more a lot more practice time at the range.Committing to the belief that accuracy was a problem without further info is a mistake.
At this point, for all we know a number of those rounds were put into that car's tires or engine compartment in attempt to prevent the situation from going mobile.
I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that many of those rounds were directed toward the bad guy through the car's doors or other body components.
The reality is that with a standard cop handgun and duty type ammunition you're lucky if even half the rounds make it through a vehicle door.
I'm not sure I'm okay with the notion that stopping one criminal is worth the expense of potentially three innocent lives.
42 rounds is more than 8 rounds per officer...at a vehicle with four people inside, only one of whom is a criminal.At this point we really don't know that each of those five cops knew three innocents were inside the car.
Keep in mind we're basing everything upon a media account written in the immediate aftermath, which is a GUARANTEE we aren't getting the entire story.
Lots of conclusions being reached by people based upon very few facts. I'm shocked. [;)]
totally justified.
and i really dislike most pigs.
Could have been a half dozen people killed in a crash on the interstate.
The cops had to put a stop to this when and where they did.
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
The guy has a gun, he has just robbed a bank, now he has just committed carjacking, if you are a cop on the scene you have got to shoot the guy.
I do not disagree with that at all.
And that exact same thought is more than likely what caused the first shots to be fired into the vehicle. On the surface, it appears that the officers will walk when all is said and done.
There are so many questions. I understand lt496's points, but do not have enough information to know about this case.
I feel sorry for all involved and the families.
I have tried to teach my family to fight on the spot if someone carjacked or attempet to abduct them. On the belief it is better to fight then, when you choose, rather than let the perp gain more control.
However, I'd say it's a pretty good assumption that the officers knew there were others in the car. The car was at a fast food drive-through, and was stated to have been a victim of a 'carjacking'. Criminals don't carjack vehicles from accomplices. And the very word carjack implies others inside, otherwise it would have been just been a 'stolen car'.
Just sayin...Again, you're reaching a conclusion based upon an assumption.
Point out where this story tells you those cops knew at that time this was a carjacking and not an accomplice vehicle? Could you also point out where it says they knew there were two kids down in that backseat?
Just for clarification my intent isn't simply to defend these cop's actions. I'm just pointing out that it's a mistake to reach any sort of conclusion based upon the crappy info we're getting at this point.
The reasonableness of people's actions in any situation must be based upon information known to them at the time, not what later comes to light.
In other words, I'm maintaining the same attitude I'd have if the media were shoddily reporting on 'Joe CHL' stepping in and taking action during a robbery. I'd wait on complete information before coming down one way or another.
While a person can be prosecuted while hunting for not identifying what is around their intended target before they pull the trigger, the police seem to have no such guidelines.
Combat is combat, this is not combat, it is public safety. get it? Public safety, not an Iraq checkpoint.
Those defending the outcome would be singing a different tune if it was their child/wife
My feeling is no, that was not reasonable...no matter what the story is.'Facts? We don't need no stinking facts!'
Please do us all a favor and don't ever serve on a jury.
error err
Signed,
Language Nazi
While a person can be prosecuted while hunting for not identifying what is around their intended target before they pull the trigger, the police seem to have no such guidelines.The fact that you're placing shooting as a sport on the same level as shooting to save someone's life makes it apparent how far out of touch with reality you are.
The reasonableness standard of whether to risk a shot for a trophy to hang on your wall compared with the level to risk shooting because it's required to save someone's life are worlds apart.
In a defensive shooting situation there's rarely such a thing as being 100% sure of your backdrop. The reality is that it's a matter of how reasonable your decision was when weighed against the threat. This applies to anyone, not just cops.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Friendly
While a person can be prosecuted while hunting for not identifying what is around their intended target before they pull the trigger, the police seem to have no such guidelines.The fact that you're placing shooting as a sport on the same level as shooting to save someone's life makes it apparent how far out of touch with reality you are.
The reasonableness standard of whether to risk a shot for a trophy to hang on your wall compared with the level to risk shooting because it's required to save someone's life are worlds apart.
In a defensive shooting situation there's rarely such a thing as being 100% sure of your backdrop. The reality is that it's a matter of how reasonable your conclusion is when weighed against the threat. This applies to anyone, not just cops.
I'm out of touch with reality? Think about what you are saying. You are excusing peace officers for firing into a car with citizen occupants who not only outnumber the bg in the vehicle, but also in a very busy, public place. You are a peace officer, and public safety officer first and foremost, the law enforcement aspect you seem to subscribe to is nothing more that to appease the chest thumping, we v. them members of your chosen career.
1:4 ratio of hitting your target, are those acceptable odds? Would you place your wife/child into that situation? Better yet would YOU fire into that car with your family in there?
You choose your career, you choose to push the limits of what a person can/cannot reasonably do, it is YOUR choice to put the uniform on everyday, and accept the risks that go along with it. Do not dance around YOUR liability, and attempt to pass the buck when you make "unreasonable decisions" and cannot deal with the consequences of your actions. This type of gunplay is only "acceptable" in one venue, and that is combat. Until our cities are deemed to be such, do not attempt to justify the inability of officers to properly size up a situation, or their inability to control their own emotions.
Every man, woman, child in this republic is responsible for their own actions, regardless of what our government tells us. It matters not whether they wear a badge, or a polo.
BTW, ever hear of buck fever? It is proven to be a an uncontrollable response by some to a situation. Do the people who can prove they suffer from this stimuli get a free pass on where their bullet goes as well? After all, the stress takes control away from them, right?
Should the officers have done things differently? Obviously yes, but in the heat of the moment, you don't have time to second guess your every action.
Also, would it have made anyone feel better if the robber had gotten away and then murdered the children and raped the mother?
I think the police could have done things better, but saying they did something "wrong" is a bit harsh. I doubt any of them were pleased that they had wounded bystanders.
If there is any blame to be placed, place it on the robber that decided to add carjacking and kidnapping to his list of charges.
If the cops had not shot the guy then and there, that hijacked car would have been out on the interstate in 10 minutes, in a high speed chase.
Could have been a half dozen people killed in a crash on the interstate.
The cops had to put a stop to this when and where they did.
I don't differe with that but I think they used a sledge hammer to drive a tack. In a perfect world with time to think, one officer with very good aim should have attampted to take the guy out.
Course that's easy for me to say here in the comfy of my chair.
It was a bad situation made worse by a suspect who decided to involve bystanders.
Should the officers have done things differently? Obviously yes, but in the heat of the moment, you don't have time to second guess your every action.
Also, would it have made anyone feel better if the robber had gotten away and then murdered the children and raped the mother?
I think the police could have done things better, but saying they did something "wrong" is a bit harsh. I doubt any of them were pleased that they had wounded bystanders.
If there is any blame to be placed, place it on the robber that decided to add carjacking and kidnapping to his list of charges.
rigggght emm, because that was their only two choices, right? Let them go, or fill the car with lead?
So, you think it is perfectly acceptable for police to make the WRONG choice, because they made A choice?
Thing about the scenario, think real hard here. DO you see another way to keep them from leaving?
Bad choices, does the crook get a free pass? Nope, but neither should the rest. 42 from the friendlies, ZERO from the bg
Not having any details other than what is in the article, let's think of the possibilities.
Was there another way to stop the vehicle?
Without a doubt... unless the guy was pointing a weapon at me, a fellow officer (were I an officer), or one of the hostages. If that was the case, priorities change. Do you shoot tires or shoot the guy aiming a weapon at you?
Without trying to sound like I'm being too harsh on you, you sound like one of those people who asks, "Why couldn't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?"
In my opinion you are blaming the wrong people.
Had the robber not decided to put children in harm's way, I doubt very seriously if children would have been hurt.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
Just for clarification my intent isn't simply to defend these cop's actions. I'm just pointing out that it's a mistake to reach any sort of conclusion based upon the crappy info we're getting at this point.
The reasonableness of people's actions in any situation must be based upon information known to them at the time, not what later comes to light.
In other words, I'm maintaining the same attitude I'd have if the media were shoddily reporting on 'Joe CHL' stepping in and taking action during a robbery. I'd wait on complete information before coming down one way or another.
Read back over some of the stuff posted here and you'll see I'm not the one with my shorts in a wad. My calling for calm, rational consideration over this and any other shooting incident has seemed to run contrary to how some prefer to operate in this particular situation.
It's ironic that a few here are committing themselves based upon obviously limited information when that's exactly what they're saying was so reckless on the part of those cops. [:D]
Mr. Friendly,
Not having any details other than what is in the article, let's think of the possibilities.
Was there another way to stop the vehicle?
Without a doubt... unless the guy was pointing a weapon at me, a fellow officer (were I an officer), or one of the hostages. If that was the case, priorities change. Do you shoot tires or shoot the guy aiming a weapon at you?
Without trying to sound like I'm being too harsh on you, you sound like one of those people who asks, "Why couldn't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?"
In my opinion you are blaming the wrong people.
Had the robber not decided to put children in harm's way, I doubt very seriously if children would have been hurt.
I do? Well you sound like a "kill them all and let god sort them out" type.
Yes, the decision was made by the robber to put the people in harms way, BUT that does not excuse the officers from using the car as a turkey shoot imho. Using your own words it should be perfectly acceptable for us to shoot into a crowd to hit a criminal who just robbed us with a weapon, who is trying to get away. After all, blame the crook, not me, he put me in that position, right?
how long does it take 5 officers to shoot 42 rounds? 5 maybe 10 seconds? plenty of time for them to coordinate so that only one takes a shot and not the others...
I'm not saying anything in this was reasonable, that's for the experts who are actually there with access to all the information to determine
a) Regardless of the truth their will be no action brought against the police officers involved. Heck, they may even get a medal
b) The truth will never be known because............the police police themselves.
If I sound like a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" sort of person to you, then you don't know me very well.
I'm not some sort of gung ho Neanderthal meathead who thinks might makes right and that any and all conflict resolution should go to the guy with the most firepower.
But I'm also not so naive as to believe that (a) bad things don't happen and (b) sometimes the choices presented are "bad" and "worse."
I wouldn't be happy if the cops shot me or a loved one during an altercation with an armed robber, but neither would I be complaining that they were trigger-happy Rambos.
Let this be a faultless lesson learned for the police and let us, the remote observers, save our scorn for the idiot that decided armed robbery was a smart thing to engage in.
EMM - Hang it up. You're trying to describe a rainbow to a blind man. [:D]
exactly
Posted: March 28, 2010 - 11:52pm
By Matt Soergel
As 2-year-old Daniel Crichton remained hospitalized in critical condition Sunday, parishioners at the church where he went to preschool knelt in prayer for the boy injured in a barrage of bullets fired by five police officers trying to stop a suspected bank robber.
The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said it was dispatched at 3:09 p.m. to an armed bank robbery in progress. Witnesses said a masked gunman armed with a .357 revolver knocked two tellers to the floor, then fled with an undisclosed amount of cash.
At the nearby Wendy's, he pointed a gun at Joann Cooper, forced her into the passenger seat and tried to flee in the car down Baymeadows Road, police said.
Officers fired 42 bullets at the vehicle, then shot and killed the armed suspect when he tried to leave the car as it rolled to a stop after it crossed a median, police said.
Daniel Crichton, in a child safety seat in the back seat of Cooper's Nissan, was critically wounded by gunshots to the upper torso and arm. Alexis Cooper, also in the back seat, was unhurt. Joann Cooper was shot in the foot.
it is so funny, I used to be one of you badge wearers. Looks like I made the right choice when I left
The world it would seem is better off