TexasCHLforum.com

In September 2008, an armed man fleeing from police broke into a Phoenix home. The homeowner, who had a weapon, cornered the man in a bedroom. Police arrived, and an officer shot the homeowner six times, reportedly leaving him with permanent injuries.

The precise details are unclear (at least to me).

Later a recorded conversation turned up in which the police officer's supervisor discussed covering up the incident and smearing the injured homeowner.

This week, a review board cleared the police officer of wrongdoing.

The injured man has, of course, filed a multi-million-dollar lawsuit.

Some of these links quote vulgar language, which police officers have occasionally been known to use under stress:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... a0926.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... _while.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/2 ... ooting.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the takeaway here is that if you catch a bad guy, the police are not necessarily going to shake your hand and buy you a doughnut. Especially in Phoenix.

- Jim

I think the takeaway is: don't turn your back on a Phoenix cop.

He's letting them off easy at $5.7mil.

I don't know how they come up with these amounts, other than medical bills; but I would not trade any amount of money for being disabled and in pain for the rest of my life.

- Jim

The Annoyed Man wrote:I think the takeaway is: don't turn your back on a Phoenix cop.

I want to say that the takeaway is to NOT let them take my guns away! It is sad that some LEO's make bad names for others- Hmm, just like those "weird" ones who shoot up a place gives us card-carrying, law abiding, peace seeking citizens!

Hooyah!

The Arambulas seek punitive damages for gross negligence, civil rights violations, failure to supervise, excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, false arrest, and emotional distress.

Reading those articles makes my blood boil. They should have included "Attempted Murder" since the cop shot the homeowner two more times while he was lying helpless in a pool of blood inside his own home.

NAVY CHIEF wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I think the takeaway is: don't turn your back on a Phoenix cop.

I want to say that the takeaway is to NOT let them take my guns away! It is sad that some LEO's make bad names for others- Hmm, just like those "weird" ones who shoot up a place gives us card-carrying, law abiding, peace seeking citizens!

Actually, I am a strong supporter of LEOs, which makes my disgust twice as strong when I see criminal behavior among cops. The bad ones are very visible, and they really tarnish the brand. There's no place for them in law enforcement.

seamusTX wrote: This week, a review board cleared the police officer of wrongdoing.

How? With all the evidence that they knew they were wrong, tried to cover it up, shot him in the back, shot him on the floor, and never saw a weapon pointed at the officer how could they have possibly come to the logical conclusion that he acted appropriately? We now have evidence of a second cover up!!!

The Annoyed Man wrote:

NAVY CHIEF wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I think the takeaway is: don't turn your back on a Phoenix cop.

I want to say that the takeaway is to NOT let them take my guns away! It is sad that some LEO's make bad names for others- Hmm, just like those "weird" ones who shoot up a place gives us card-carrying, law abiding, peace seeking citizens!

Actually, I am a strong supporter of LEOs, which makes my disgust twice as strong when I see criminal behavior among cops. The bad ones are very visible, and they really tarnish the brand. There's no place for them in law enforcement.

I am a supporter as well, having family and friends who are and are retired LOE's. I agree there is NO place for the "bad ones". Good point TAM.

Hooyah!

IF the facts are as stated, and they have the 911 tape then I would imagine that those LEO's need to become inmates at Sherrif Joe's tent city. (including the sargent) To me it would have been much better if they admitted they made a mistake in the heat of the moment and man up about it.

As for IA, they need firing too. What is needed is an independent review team to police the police, while they are allowed to investigate their own, they are always going to be open to favoritism and bias.

As I learned during my studies for US citizenship ....... The law applies to everyone, no one is above the law.....that includes LEOs.

I don't know about Phoenix in particular, but nearly all police review boards are appointed by the city council, which means by definition that they are people known to council members. Sometimes an activist gets onto one of these boards, but if they find fault with the police too often, they are replaced.

It also doesn't help that minorities who complain about police brutality or misconduct are often dismissed as race-baiting opportunists.

- Jim

"If Brian would have known there was a homeowner in there, he probably would have hesitated," Gannon said, "but if he had hesitated, and it was the (suspect), the outcome could have been tragic

- from the first article link

The message between the line is chilling. The officer is to protect himself even at the expense of innocent parties.

The officer is to protect himself even at the expense of innocent parties.

This strategy is ethically defensible. If a berserk, armed criminal or lunatic is at large, and the officer loses his life or mobility, the criminal is still there and can also pick up the officer's weapon.

However, it can't escalate to "kill them all and let God sort them out" (look up the Philadelphia MOVE siege).

- Jim

This strategy is ethically defensible

Somehow, cops killing innocent people to keep themselves alive in order to maintain control just does not resonate.

Arambula, the homeowner, would have been completely justified in opening fire on the cop had he been able. It's not solely the cop's decision who comes out on top, and there is certainly no obligation to take it laying down.

The first rule of the gun is don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at. It doesn't say anything about shooting at random to eliminate all imaginary threats. Like a guy yaking on a phone with his back toward the cops.

In this case, based on what we know from news reports, I think the officer acted recklessly.

However, as a general principle, injuring an innocent party while stopping a criminal may still result in more good than harm.

Jim