A Cop Dodges a Bullet

[simonkenton]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e6_1271936781


Bad guy had a Smith and Wesson .41 mag revolver.
He initially dropped the hammer on an empty cylinder.

[Double Naught Spy]

We are fortunate for the incompetence of many bad guys. Smooth move by the officer to also bat the perp's gun off target, buying additional time.

The chamber wasn't empty, but the cartridge in the chamber was.
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/...cc4c03286.html

14 shots by the officer, 1 hit on the suspect.
http://www.ktvm.com/pages/6804528.ph...tentId=5924692
http://www.kxlf.com/news/hamilton-po...ed-in-inquest/

[nefprotector]

WoW!!!!!!!!!!

[DogoDon]

Thank God for that spent round! And a huge "thumbs up" to Officer Jessop for handling that situation exactly as he should have. [applause]

DD

[mygila]

Two questions come to mind after reading about this shooting.
1.. Why did it take the jury five to hours to justify the shooting????
2. DITTO ??? # 1.
Mygila

[Double Naught Spy]

Two questions come to mind after reading about this shooting.
1.. Why did it take the jury five to hours to justify the shooting????
2. DITTO ??? # 1.

I think you asked the wrong question, twice. It isn't why the jury took five hours to justify the shooting, but why did it take 5 hours of presented evidence to fully explain what is so obvious in such a short video.

The jury heard five hours of testimony Tuesday, which included a
video that showed Raymond Davis of Hamilton pointing a .41-Magnum
pistol inches from Officer Ross Jessop's face and pulling the
trigger. The click of the revolver's hammer hitting a previously
fired round was audible in the recording.

The reason it took 5 hours, no doubt, is that the case was presented very thoroughly. My guess is that nobody involved in the process thought the officer acted in an illegal manner, but didn't cursorily dismiss the case either as that would be inappropriate. It was, after all, a homicide. They went step by step through the evidence which undoubtedly showed that that the officer did act within accord of the law.

Here is a pic of the perp, FYI....
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...WUO5C0Me6d9KoF

[SigP6Carry]

I'm really glad that he didn't get nailed for this. Too many cops take heat for defending themselves.

[sonick808]

I'm presuming that the officer shot in defense of the community, and not himself ?

If any one of us had shot 14 times into a vehicle speeding away (whether we'd been shot or not), we'd be locked up.

I can completely see it justified as protecting the community though

[teeroux]

No sonic I have to diagree with you. It may have been in defence of the community sure but it was still in defence of himself and other officers. Its is still his and others job to chase down that subject. His intent on murdering an officer unprovoked is proven and cannot be ignored.

I also don't think the guy took off to flee more like he knew that cop went out of his range of fire and he knew he had him dead to rights. The act of taking off was equivalent to someone taking cover it doesn't make it a genuine act of fleeing. He could have fled anytime during the encounter without trying to murder the officer. JMHO

[Double Naught Spy]

Just because the aggressor is moving away does not mean that he has taken flight in many cases. It means the aggressor is moving to a more advantageous position. Until the aggressor is out of range, I would assume the latter to be taking place. There are a goodly number of examples where this has happened, so I fairly certain it is a position that can be defended.

[Catfishman]

Thank god it worked out the way it did.

I loved the officer's response.

[N.H. Yankee]

I would love to know his heart rate numbers as this progressed. Thankfully it went the right way for the officer both in the incident and the trial.

[Claims Rep.]

Glad this turned out the way it did...

[Skans]

Good reactions on the Officer's part - glad he wasn't hurt.

Just one question - how come the car didn't blow up when the Officer fired shots at it while driving away?

[booker_t]

Glad to see it worked out, and the officer wasn't hurt.

Since this is a Tactics sub-forum.. to move away from the legal discussion, regarding the stop, it seems as though the officer is standing rather far forward, in front of the van window. Although depth is hard to judge. If the officer had been standing farther back, close to the rear of the door, it probably would have put him in a better position to see the revolver being drawn, and made it more difficult for the driver to point the weapon (over his left shoulder). Likewise, I've seen many officers perform right-shoulder traffic stops from the passender side, which gives them greater visibility of the vehicle interior and less exposure to oncoming traffic. That said, each department has their own protocol and there are tradeoffs from every approach.

Oh and Skans, it would have burst into flames but he wasn't wielding dual chrome Desert Eagles with laser sights. I'm sure the Barrack Armory will have to reconsider their selection of sidearms as a result of public pressure.

[AcridSaint]

All 14 shots were put into the vehicle at a range where he could have easily thrown it into reverse. A running vehicle is means and opportunity, I think he covered the intent part when he tried to shoot him. This shoot also underscores the usefulness of a reload. The shooting on the officer's part looked very good to me and he only got one hit. Yes, it was a lethal shot, but fatal handgun wounds are not the norm. If the BG had stayed in the fight, the officer would have been into his second magazine.

[cpallen]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ooting28m.html

This police officer shot and killed a drunk driver behind the wheel of his car in a restaurant parking lot. His BAC was 0.26. The officer was charged with Manslaughter and/or (?) 2nd degree murder and was acquitted. However, the shooting was determined not to be in self defense and so the same jury decided he was not entitled to restitution for his lost income and the costs of his defense. The survivors have filed a $15M wrongfull death claim.

There is much more to this story, but the bottom line is you better be careful when you pull that trigger.

[Skans]

Oh and Skans, it would have burst into flames but he wasn't wielding dual chrome Desert Eagles with laser sights. I'm sure the Barrack Armory will have to reconsider their selection of sidearms as a result of public pressure.

That made me laugh!

[elwaynum1]

Wow....that is one blessed officer.

[cracked91]

To settle the question of legality. . . An officer is allowed to employ force in order to stop a fleeing felon, deadly force however, according to the supreme court

"may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

I think having a gun stuck in your face and the trigger pulled gives you enough evidence that the perp presents "a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others".

In most states however, I believe deadly force may only be used by civilians in self defense, defense of others, and in some cases, defense of property. So once the threat is moving away from you/ the van is in gear and accelerating rapidly, I think you would have a hard time justifying continued fire.

[Kmar40]

Since this is a tactics forum, let me say that you officers out there should have immediately noticed that, as the officer approached the vehicle, he had his flashlight in his gun hand. Looks like he was messing with his radio with the other hand. Big no no as I'm sure we all were taught. Yet I see it fairly often.

For the home defense types, the lesson applies also. Gun hand should be free to draw the weapon. If you're right handed, you'll have to teach yourself to carry the flashlight in the weakhand. open doors with the weak hand etc.

[Enoy21]

I think having a gun stuck in your face and the trigger pulled gives you enough evidence that the perp presents "a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others".

As well as someone who has already made the traffic violations, admitted to drinking , shown an aggressive ( intent to kill ) attitude and is currently flooring the gas to escape headless of his surroundings....

Most definitely a danger to others.

[Double Naught Spy]

...it seems as though the officer is standing rather far forward, in front of the van window. Although depth is hard to judge. If the officer had been standing farther back, close to the rear of the door, it probably would have put him in a better position to see the revolver being drawn,

I don't think so. Standing where he can look directly down in the car where he can see the suspect's hands, lap, etc. provides the officer with a better view than standing behind and to the left of the driver as the B Pillar, seat back, and driver's body shields from view the driver's right arm, chest, and part of the driver's lap.

[Skans]

Does anyone else find it interesting that the perp used a .41 Magnum revolver? Not a common gun or common ammunition, especially for someone who's prone to killing cops during a traffic stop.

[Mr. James]

Yes, the .41 Magnum intrigued me, as well.

For the home defense types, the lesson applies also. Gun hand should be free to draw the weapon. If you're right handed, you'll have to teach yourself to carry the flashlight in the weakhand. open doors with the weak hand etc.

Yep. Keep that north paw unencumbered.