Skip to comments.Fatal shooting of man by police raises some troubling questions
Posted on 11/17/2002 7:15:50 AM PST by putuponEdited on 07/20/2004 11:47:58 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If only Jeramy O. Gilliam had matched the description of the late-night burglary suspect on July 20.
If only the .38-caliber Taurus revolver Richmond police say he pulled and pointed at a Richmond officer had his fingerprints on it.
If only police could trace ownership of that revolver - bought at a gun show - to him.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
This case appears to be very clear-cut. The man resisted being even required to identify himself and fought with the officer. The rest means nothing IMO.
In a struggle the gun could easily have been flung some distance away. It matters not about record of ownership. Fingerprints are often not part of the evidence in situations like this.
The officer fought for his life and was successful. His opponent at the least used very bad judgement and died as a result. End of story.
Read this and tell me that police are held to the same standard as citizens are when they shoot someone.
The first rule when confronted by a police officer is - do exactly what he/she says. I won't be resisting arrest in any manner. We'll sort out possible unlawful arrest in court, not on the street.
I have a suggestion: Spend an evening riding with a police officer in your town (most departments offer "ride-along" opportunities to citizens.) Watch what the officer has to deal with on his shift. You will be amazed at how much bad behavior he/she encounters by "upstanding"citizens, let alone the scum who clearly have done something wrong.
I believe you will conclude that police officers are seriously underpaid, patient, professional people who typically don't over-react even in dangerous situations. After your ride-along experience, let's discuss this again.
I will read the article. However, the tip-off is "got into a scuffle with a cop." Never resist arrest - period! Sort it out later.
We can always find instances in which officers make a mistake or over-react. When that happens, the situation is reviewed by the courts. Most of the time everything is dealt with properly.
You must decide whether you wish to operate in a society based on law or emotion. I choose law, myself.
Gee, it's nice to know you were there, we needed someone to give us a detailed account so we know how everything went down.
We got it. The police handled everything properly (as usual) and the dead guy had it coming. Do you happen to own a donut shop?
Read the account. The struggle would not have happened if the person who got shot had not started fighting over providing his ID. Things esclated from there, according to the account.
We don't improve our situation on the street by demonizing every police officer who ends up shooting someone who fights him while he's doing his job IMO.
You are correct about the SWAT team being its own worst enemy in this case. Sure looks like their own sniper shot the officer.
From my point of view the homeowner has some responsibility here because of his actions - throwing his wife out of the house and setting her belongings on fire in the front yard. It appears there would have been no assault on the house IF the guy would have simply walked out the front door with his hands on his head.
Just my opinion.
The "account" is nothing more than the word of someone who killed another human being. He benefits greatly by making certain that his "account" clears him. Apparantly that's enough for the factually challanged, unscientific types.
OK, let's wait until the full investigation is completed. It's my opinion - assuming I'm allowed to have one - the conclusion will be the same. This officer fought back against someone who was armed and attempted to shoot him. The officer lived, his adversary didn't. I'll give this officer the benefit of the doubt, but it appears you won't.
Now you're getting nasty, "Freddy." The "killer" is a police officer who fought for his life, it appears. I doubt seriously there will be any other finding. Looks straight-up to me, but apparently that's not good enough for you.
Sticks and stones, "Freddy."
That may be so but it isn't responsive to my point, which regards a caste system. How was this police officer treated for killing a homeowner vs. how was the Lubbock homeowner treated for NOT killing an officer? There is a gigantic double standard and I find it unacceptable. What finally happened to the Lubbock cop who actually killed the other officer is that he was FIRED - while the homeowner was looking at the death penalty if it had been him. When a Lord kills a Lord he gets slapped on the wrist (Lubbock), but when a peasant kills a Lord he would be executed (Lubbock). When a Lord kills a peasant, he doesn't even get a slap on the wrist - it was a "good shoot" (the present case).
How do you know what happened, or who fought who? You know nothing.
Heck I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, that's not your position however. You already had figured everything out and came to the "end of story" conclusion, when the only evidence available was a dead non-suspect with two holes in his back, and a flying gun with no fingerprints or chain of ownership.
You sound like ex-LEO, I hope you're not current LEO. It would be troubling to know that you're on the street given your bias and approach to critical thinking.
If nothing else it's s***ty and unprofessional police work when non-suspects wind up dead during the course of the investigation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.