The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 27, 2010, 07:47 AM   #1
simonkenton
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2008
Posts: 891
A Cop Dodges a Bullet

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.
simonkenton is offline  
Old April 27, 2010, 08:26 AM   #2
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,582
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/
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old April 27, 2010, 09:26 AM   #3
nefprotector
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2009
Location: SE Alabama
Posts: 701
WoW!!!!!!!!!!
nefprotector is offline  
Old April 27, 2010, 10:07 AM   #4
DogoDon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
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
DogoDon is offline  
Old April 27, 2010, 10:31 AM   #5
mygila
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 13
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
mygila is offline  
Old April 27, 2010, 11:37 AM   #6
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,582
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old April 27, 2010, 01:18 PM   #7
SigP6Carry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2009
Posts: 1,086
I'm really glad that he didn't get nailed for this. Too many cops take heat for defending themselves.
__________________
-liberal gun nut = exception to the rule-
-1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes-
-Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-
SigP6Carry is offline  
Old April 27, 2010, 01:28 PM   #8
sonick808
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 396
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
sonick808 is offline  
Old April 27, 2010, 01:55 PM   #9
teeroux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,494
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
teeroux is offline  
Old April 27, 2010, 05:07 PM   #10
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,582
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old April 27, 2010, 06:08 PM   #11
Catfishman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 695
Thank god it worked out the way it did.

I loved the officer's response.
Catfishman is offline  
Old April 27, 2010, 06:49 PM   #12
N.H. Yankee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Rural N.H.
Posts: 1,586
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.
__________________
The real danger to America is not abroad but within..
Having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brains fall out!
Save America, abort liberalism.
N.H. Yankee is offline  
Old April 27, 2010, 08:55 PM   #13
Claims Rep.
Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2008
Posts: 72
Glad this turned out the way it did...
__________________
Blessed beyond measure thanks to Jesus!
Claims Rep. is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 07:41 AM   #14
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 8,048
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?
Skans is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 08:17 AM   #15
booker_t
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2009
Posts: 797
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.

Last edited by booker_t; April 28, 2010 at 08:23 AM.
booker_t is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 09:00 AM   #16
AcridSaint
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 407
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.
AcridSaint is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 09:46 AM   #17
cpallen
Member
 
Join Date: April 11, 2010
Posts: 48
Here is an entirely different outcome....

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.
cpallen is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 11:18 AM   #18
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
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!
Skans is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 11:41 AM   #19
elwaynum1
Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 85
Wow....that is one blessed officer.
elwaynum1 is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 01:58 PM   #20
cracked91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2009
Posts: 385
14 shots dilemma

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
Quote:
"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.
cracked91 is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 07:53 PM   #21
Kmar40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 668
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.
Kmar40 is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 08:19 PM   #22
Enoy21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2009
Posts: 240
Quote:
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.
Enoy21 is offline  
Old April 28, 2010, 11:44 PM   #23
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,582
Quote:
...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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old April 29, 2010, 07:17 AM   #24
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 8,048
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.
Skans is offline  
Old April 29, 2010, 08:29 AM   #25
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
Yes, the .41 Magnum intrigued me, as well.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13216 seconds with 7 queries