20 Year old Irish man,shot dead by US police

Manic Moran

Given that the Grand Jury verdict was unanimous, and the incident was observed by passing citizens who testified, I don't think there's anything more to be said. Some people may disagree with the use of deadly force in such circumstances, but that's far from saying that the police were out of control or abusive.

Three page description:
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/assets/pdf/J0113714724.PDF

Eye-witness report quoted from the above briefing.

As this incident was occurring, Silverton resident, Jeff DeSantis, was driving along Oak Street. Mr. DeSantis did not know either Tony Gonzalez or Andrew Hanlon. Upon seeing Tony Gonzalez's patrol car parked in the street, Mr. DeSantis stopped his vehicle. Mr. DeSantis then looked to his left and saw the beginning of the confrontation between Tony Gonzalez and Andrew Hanlon. Mr. DeSantis had an unobstructed view and was approximately thirty-five feet from Tony Gonzalez and Andrew Hanlon when it began. When Mr. DeSantis first observed them Tony Gonzalez and Andrew Hanlon were at the rear of the two vehicles and Tony Gonzalez had his weapon drawn. He heard Tony Gonzalez repeatedly say, "Get down!" "Freeze!" "Don't move!" "Get down!" Mr. DeSantis said these commands were made several times and were
very clear. Mr. DeSantis then heard Andrew Hanlon make what he described as a "primordial war scream" and start toward the officer, trying to strike and kick him with what appeared to be martial arts moves. Mr. DeSantis describes Tony Gonzalez's retreat from Andrew Hanlon as similar to that of a football player back-peddling and he called it "very professional." Mr. DeSantis heard Officer Gonzalez continue to order Andrew Hanlon to "Get down!" and "Stop!" even while retreating. Mr. DeSantis also saw that despite his retreat,
Tony Gonzalez was never able to get more than five feet from Andrew Hanlon. Mr. DeSantis watched as Tony Gonzalez began to fire his service weapon and he saw that Andrew Hanlon continued to pursue Tony Gonzalez even as Tony Gonzalez fired. It was not until several shots had been fired that Andrew Hanlon began to slow down. Mr. DeSantis saw that Tony Gonzalez stopped firing as soon as Andrew Hanlon stopped coming after him. Mr. DeSantis saw Andrew Hanlon fall to the ground. Mr. DeSantis also saw that Tony Gonzalez never shot Andrew Hanlon when he was not chasing him
and never shot him when he was on the ground.

If Gonzalez was just a normal citizen out for a walk, with a legally held pistol, and then same scenario occured, would this be 'lawful' use, or could he be charged with manslaughter?

Almost certainly 'justifiable homicide' in that case.

NTM

drunkmonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

Almost certainly 'justifiable homicide' in that case.

NTM

Rubbish, if you want to stop a man running you break his legs, you don't need to off load 6 shots into the poor chap....

Justifiable homicide my arse....that cop was more than capable of taking him down with out a gun....

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

From what I've heard, it sounds like Hanlon was off his head on something

When I was a young monkey I was told if the guards ever chase you and your on Drugs, tell them your on drugs and they have to leave you alone incase they cause you to have a mental breakdown.....not sure is that's true but that's what all my mates believed...

could the sight of a big cop waving a gun around have triggered something inside to make him flip......should the cop have backed off when it was obvious that he was on something, maybe call for a mediator?

Steve

Manic Moran wrote: »

Three page description:
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/assets/pdf/J0113714724.PDF

Eye-witness report quoted from the above briefing.

Thanks for that - nice to know the facts.

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

When I was a young monkey I was told if the guards ever chase you and your on Drugs, tell them your on drugs and they have to leave you alone incase they cause you to have a mental breakdown.....not sure is that's true but that's what all my mates believed...

Sounds like a total teenager urban myth.

could the sight of a big cop waving a gun around have triggered something inside to make him flip

Read the reports and the eyewitness accounts. He had already "flipped" before the cops were even called.

Manic Moran

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Rubbish, if you want to stop a man running you break his legs, you don't need to off load 6 shots into the poor chap....

But in order to break his legs, you need to wait until he's in close to you. Which defeats the purpose of trying to get him to stop running, because if he he's so close that you can break his legs, he doesn't need to run any more...

Justifiable homicide my arse....that cop was more than capable of taking him down with out a gun....

We know that is likely the case now. I strongly doubt it was as apparent to the officer at the time he approached Hanlon.

NTM

drunkmonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

I strongly doubt it was as apparent to the officer at the time he approached Hanlon.

The fact that he tried to Kung Fu kick him should have made it pretty apparent that he did not have a gun, I don't think at any point did the cop think he was close to death....

There is no way this case is justifiable homicide, at no point did hanlon try and kill anyone...he should have not been shot, there is no excuse...

Steve

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The fact that he tried to Kung Fu kick him should have made it pretty apparent that he did not have a gun, I don't think at any point did the cop think he was close to death....

There is no way this case is justifiable homicide, at no point did hanlon try and kill anyone...he should have not been shot, there is no excuse...

So what would you have done in the same situation.

You have less than 5 seconds to post your reply

4...3...2...1...

/fail - the perp got your gun and just shot three people.

PeakOutput

completely justifiable

police (in america anyway) are specifically told to not shoot to wound they are told to aim for the mass. there is a very famous case in america were sharpshooters aimed to wound two hijackers the hijackers both collapsed with wounds in their arms and legs but still got of some more shots in the direction of the police b4 turning the guns on themselves.

aim for body mass. if someone is stupid enough to 'attack' an armed police officer they automatically take the gamble that they will be shot and if they take that one they take a gamble they will be killed. maybe he was off his face on something but again that was his choice not the police officers

drunkmonkey

SteveC wrote: »

So what would you have done in the same situation.

wrestle him to the ground and cuff him, the same as any experienced police offer would have done in the same situation....

I'm finding it hard to believe that so many people think the officer was correct, there's always more than one way to skin a cat and none of those ways involves shooting it.....

drunkmonkey

SteveC wrote: »

the perp got your gun and just shot three people.

Ohh I wonder where he would have got the gun from, you don't bring a gun to a fist fight....

Manic Moran

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The fact that he tried to Kung Fu kick him should have made it pretty apparent that he did not have a gun, I don't think at any point did the cop think he was close to death....

Rule #1 in a street fight. Don't fight fair.

If your opponent has no weapon, and you have a weapon, use it! There is no telling how good your opponent is at unarmed combat by simply looking at him, he could be a Kung Fu black belt for all you know. There's a 77-year-old, 5' tall grandmother (Keiko Wakabayshi) who wipes the floor with Italian soldiers as part of their unarmed combat training precisely to point out that "No matter how good you think you are, the most unlikely person could be better." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2180451/Italian-soldiers-floored-by-77-year-old-Japanese-woman.html. Can you imagine the furore if some cop shot her? "Cop shoots unarmed 77-year-old woman!" Despite the fact that if she got in close, the cop wouldn't have had a chance.

I for one take this to heart. I do not automatically assume that the combatives training I have received will result in my being the victor against Joe Bloggs on the street.

Given this, your unarmed opponent could attempt to disarm you. He could have a knife slipped in his belt which he could reach for after closing the distance which you allowed him to do because you didn't see anything in his hand.

Because of the circumstances of the approach, Gonzalez drew his sidearm, not his baton or Mace. SteveC probably has it right that by the time it became apparent that Hanlon was unarmed, Gonzalez didn't have the opportunity to change to a different weapon. His choice was 'don't use a weapon' or 'use what you're holding in your hands right now.' A simple choice from my point of view.

I'm sorry, but this 'Monday morning quarterbacking' seems to be done without a proper injection of reality.

Ohh I wonder where he would have got the gun from, you don't bring a gun to a fist fight....

You do if you want to win...

NTM

pirelli

Nailz wrote: »

I visited America twice in my lifetime, but I'm not going to return if I had a choice. I find America to be a shìt hole, filled with odd and paranoid people. Ran by republicans, very unwelcoming to any other cultures apart from there own, assuming every muslim is a terrorist, and every body who is tanned and has facial hair is one of them aswell. They're very fake, odd and hatefull people.

... IMO.

They is racist to all races is all.

drunkmonkey

So the next time i'm involved in a fist fight I should draw my weapon and shoot every mother fcuker in the place just in case there all packing colt 45's,
better still i'll order in an air strike just to make sure I win...

Speak your mind, but ride a fast horse

pirelli

seamus wrote: »

Sounds like a total teenager urban myth.
Read the reports and the eyewitness accounts. He had already "flipped" before the cops were even called.

Im surprised that you all find against him so quickly. Is there any fingerprints from the kelly house. I get a very bad impression from the report that the kellys are just exaggerating. I get the impression that anyone could have been messing about the neighbourhood doing knick knacks. Amercian teens get up to way more mischief than you'd imagine. They love playing pranks.

The report is very incomplete.

If you read the report they did not find Hanlon at the kelly house. The kellys did not identify him. There is no evidence to put him there and it sounds like there should be prints all over that place. Hanlon could have been just sitting nearby minding his own business or sitting on a branch just thinking or acting the maggot.

He is not in the vicinity of the kelly house when:
The cops pullup and yell at him and tell him to get on the ground. He hasn't a clue why they are treating him this way and gets paranoid and upset or very scared. He tries to run away and gets chased and then tries to run in another direction and is shot five times. He dies wondering what was happening.
The witness was probably looking to be mister popular with the police or could be a sex offender looking to get in good with the local sheriff. We don't know, but you can be certain that people lie,and they lie and lie. People love to exaggerate in reports.

The supposed martial arts kick could be him thinking a cop was behind him and running diagonal to the cop that shot him and just be him jumping a kerb or anything.

Fact is, he is the only witness and he is dead.

Manic Moran

Im surprised that you all find against him so quickly. Is there any fingerprints from the kelly house. I get a very bad impression from the report that the kellys are just exaggerating.

<snip>

The report is very incomplete.

If you read the report they did not find Hanlon at the kelly house. The kellys did not identify him. There is no evidence to put him there and it sounds like there should be prints all over that place.

Fact is, he is the only witness and he is dead.

Did you read the same report I did? Heck, I quoted the report of one witness, who is currently most assuredly not dead.

As for the fingerprints...

inspection of the Kelleys' front door revealed blood, blood spatter and even skin tissue.

DNA is pretty well accepted as a good way of identifying people. You'd also have to give a door a pretty good battering to leave skin and blood behind. And you can hear the beating on the door in the recorded 9-1-1 call. I don't think I'd be calling the Kelleys exaggerating much.

NTM

seamus

pirelli, go read the reports and the eyewitness statements before talking crap.

The Kelleys later identified the person as Hanlon (after his death). A number of witnesses saw Hanlon's conduct towards the cop.

What would any of these people have to gain by lying? And let's steer clear of accusations of corruption and sex offences, because that's just ridiculous.

PeakOutput

seamus wrote: »

And let's steer clear of accusations of corruption and sex offences, because that's just ridiculous.

haha i must of missed that part of the thread. us irish never get tired of the old sex offences no matter how seemingly unrelated they are

pirelli

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did you read the same report I did? Heck, I quoted the report of one witness, who is currently most assuredly not dead.

As for the fingerprints...

DNA is pretty well accepted as a good way of identifying people. You'd also have to give a door a pretty good battering to leave skin and blood behind. And you can hear the beating on the door in the recorded 9-1-1 call. I don't think I'd be calling the Kelleys exaggerating much.

NTM

seamus wrote: »

pirelli, go read the reports and the eyewitness statements before talking crap.

The Kelleys later identified the person as Hanlon (after his death). A number of witnesses saw Hanlon's conduct towards the cop.

What would any of these people have to gain by lying? And let's steer clear of accusations of corruption and sex offences, because that's just ridiculous.

I read the rerports and they did indicate that the person kelly saw was later identified as Andrew Hanlon. I just dont believe it, as she only got a brief look at him for only a brief moment.

The blood on the door ( the report did not state it was hanlons) was put their by Gonzalez . Gozalez had no problem shooting him five times when he was stressed and had no problem putting blood on the door of the kellys either as he was so scared about just killing someone and losing his career. He had no problem bringing some of the paint from Kellys door and wiping it on Andrews clothes as he was dead.

The driver santiaos gave his statement to a police officer and these statemetns gets very polished by the police who have an awful amount of influence of people giving statements.


The witness was 35 feet/yards away and it was dark at night. The cop was moving around, Hanlon moved in one direction. So what! He didn't do as he was told. He might have been deaf.

In fact the only evidence you can rely on is kelleys witness statement, but that is of little value as it was dark and she admits to only briefly seeing the man kicking their door. So a fleeting image of a man that could fit hundreds of thousands of people.

If a person can shoot you 5 times because they want to defend themselves, they can get some blood on their hands and put it on the kelleys door to defend their career. Where does someone like that draw the line. Most people argue that they are dishonest corrupt and utter swines but they wouldn't hurt a fly and the other half claim they kill only when necccessary but wouldn't lie be dishonest and corrupt to save their career.


SHOW ME FINGERPRINTS ON THE WINDOW. They can't fake fingerprints.

Manic Moran

pirelli wrote: »

SHOW ME FINGERPRINTS ON THE WINDOW. They can't fake fingerprints.

Well, if you're going to advocate such a cover-up as you do in your post, I might suggest perhaps that Gonzalez could drag Hanlon's lifeless body to the door and plant the fingerprints. Or use a fast-drying latex rubber mould available in your local hobby store (I use it for modelling) to create a cast of Hanlon's fingerprints to place them on the window.

NTM

Davei141

pirelli wrote: »

I read the rerports and they did indicate that the person kelly saw was later identified as Andrew Hanlon. I just dont believe it, as she only got a brief look at him for only a brief moment.

The blood on the door ( the report did not state it was hanlons) was put their by Gonzalez . Gozalez had no problem shooting him five times when he was stressed and had no problem putting blood on the door of the kellys either as he was so scared about just killing someone and losing his career. He had no problem bringing some of the paint from Kellys door and wiping it on Andrews clothes as he was dead.

The driver santiaos gave his statement to a police officer and these statemetns gets very polished by the police who have an awful amount of influence of people giving statements.


The witness was 35 feet/yards away and it was dark at night. The cop was moving around, Hanlon moved in one direction. So what! He didn't do as he was told. He might have been deaf.

In fact the only evidence you can rely on is kelleys witness statement, but that is of little value as it was dark and she admits to only briefly seeing the man kicking their door. So a fleeting image of a man that could fit hundreds of thousands of people.

If a person can shoot you 5 times because they want to defend themselves, they can get some blood on their hands and put it on the kelleys door to defend their career. Where does someone like that draw the line. Most people argue that they are dishonest corrupt and utter swines but they wouldn't hurt a fly and the other half claim they kill only when necccessary but wouldn't lie be dishonest and corrupt to save their career.


SHOW ME FINGERPRINTS ON THE WINDOW. They can't fake fingerprints.

Lmfao. Somebody been watching too much of this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097579/

utick

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So the next time i'm involved in a fist fight I should draw my weapon and shoot every mother fcuker in the place just in case there all packing colt 45's,
better still i'll order in an air strike just to make sure I win...

Speak your mind, but ride a fast horse

if someone breaks into my place there wont be a fist fight, i will shoot them right there and then.
criminals deserve what they get tbh

pirelli

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, if you're going to advocate such a cover-up as you do in your post, I might suggest perhaps that Gonzalez could drag Hanlon's lifeless body to the door and plant the fingerprints. Or use a fast-drying latex rubber mould available in your local hobby store (I use it for modelling) to create a cast of Hanlon's fingerprints to place them on the window.

NTM

I would need to see the cuts on his hands that caused the blood on the door and a medical opinon. I would need to see finger prints, because if you drag a heavily bleeding body, people are going to see you and it leaves a trail that is hard to cover and there are step's leading to the house. Getting some of his blood on your hands is so simple, and of course the police will visit kelleys before the forensic team get there.

You need to have an open mind when dealing with these incidents.

pirelli

Davei141 wrote: »

Lmfao. Somebody been watching too much of this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097579/

Most likely you, as you introduced it. I am very aware, as most people are that police are capable of extreme dishonesty.
Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction?
No! and they knew this, but they lied to your face anyway.The police are exactly the same except worse.

humanji

But you've delved deep into the territory of conspiracy nuts. They have plenty of evidence that it was him. But for some reason you've decided that real evidence isn't usable in a court of law and decided to make up stuff. Where's all your evidence against the officer? Can I save you some time by saying there isn't any?

a5y

This thread has gone so off topic. The only thing it is good for is adding names to my ignore list.

Someone was shot dead a long way from home. I really hope his family don't find this thread, I doubt they'll appreciate the "Let's all play CSI" game, tangental anti-American rants, and gun control "debate" and "I know so much more about guns than you do" circus it has turned into.

Am I the only one who'd like the thread locked?

Steve

a5y wrote: »

This thread has gone so off topic. The only thing it is good for is adding names to my ignore list.

Someone was shot dead a long way from home. I really hope his family don't find this thread, I doubt they'll appreciate the "Let's all play CSI" game, tangental anti-American rants, and gun control "debate" and "I know so much more about guns than you do" circus it has turned into.

Am I the only one who'd like the thread locked?

1. Ignoring people is downright rude.

2. Freinds of the deceased have already posted here so rest assured they know about it.

3. If you want it locked then report some posts giving reasons why - I'm sure the AH mods are aware of this threads existence.

4. @pirelli, I am currently folding some tinfoil hats, PM me if you want one.:)

pirelli

humanji wrote: »

But you've delved deep into the territory of conspiracy nuts. They have plenty of evidence that it was him. But for some reason you've decided that real evidence isn't usable in a court of law and decided to make up stuff. Where's all your evidence against the officer? Can I save you some time by saying there isn't any?

The statement was a press release and not evidence in a court. The grand jury were to decide if excessive forse was used. They did not question the authenticity of the evidence.

The cop that shot him parked right near to the kelley house.
He would have had to return to the residence to get to his police vehicle and had more than an oppourtunity to plant the blood.


An excerpt from the district attorneys statement.

Upon hearing that Andrew Hanlon was coming down the hill, Tony Gonzalez parked his patrol car near the residence at
606 Oak Street and got out to attempt to locate Andrew Hanlon.

a5y wrote: »

This thread has gone so off topic. The only thing it is good for is adding names to my ignore list.

Someone was shot dead a long way from home. I really hope his family don't find this thread, I doubt they'll appreciate the "Let's all play CSI" game, tangental anti-American rants, and gun control "debate" and "I know so much more about guns than you do" circus it has turned into.

Am I the only one who'd like the thread locked?

By adding names to your ignore list i assume that includes the admins and moderators on the previous page, or do you just want us to keep justifying his death by saying he acted like the fool and deserved to die.

The officer was desperate man who shoots people because he is nervous, why wouldn't he be the brave man and plant the blood while he is standing there and save his career. How did the kelleys identify him, or did they just agree with the police.

pirelli

SteveC wrote: »

1. Ignoring people is downright rude.

2. Freinds of the deceased have already posted here so rest assured they know about it.

3. If you want it locked then report some posts giving reasons why - I'm sure the AH mods are aware of this threads existence.

4. @pirelli, I am currently folding some tinfoil hats, PM me if you want one.:)

Ignoring people is polite stevec.
Like I could have ignored you, but instead im going to staple that tin foil hat onto your head. Point proven.

Phototoxin

if anyone wants to play csi, the computer games are very good !

inspection of the Kelleys' front door revealed blood, blood spatter and even skin tissue. DNA is pretty well accepted as a good way of identifying people. You'd also have to give a door a pretty good battering to leave skin and blood behind. And you can hear the beating on the door in the recorded 9-1-1 call. I don't think I'd be calling the Kelleys exaggerating much.

Maybe I touched that door - I'm a diabetic , I prick my finger 4 times per day. Skin sloughs off all the time. Tissue is merely a clump of cells ya know..

Also unless you have ALL the facts, which you WONT get from reading the media, you will not know. Also witnesses can and DO get things horribly wrong.

Steve

pirelli wrote: »

Ignoring people is polite stevec.
Like I could have ignored you, but instead im going to staple that tin foil hat onto your head. Point proven.

Ow
/hurts

Can I ask you a serious question - have you any personal connection to this or is it a moral thing?

I am willing to debate this as adults. I feel you are just disregarding the witness statements as piffle and making up your own set of events to justify your point of view. Please - prove me wrong and have something to back it up with.

CtrlSource

SteveC wrote: »

1. If what seamus said is true and shooting him the first time did not incapacitate him, what would you suggest he do? Call him names?

Eh no. After a number of years in police academy and a number years experience on the street, i would hope i'd have a few more ideas than a) shoot and oh if that doesn't work, then b) call him names! i know you're being sarky but sheesh, you're not seriously suggesting that shooting a guy who's not carrying a gun is the only sensible thing to do, are you?

2. Shooting to kill? If an officer has made the decision to shoot, he aims for centre body mass as it is the most effective way of stopping an attacker. This has the unfortunate side effect of hitting a major organ and therefore being lethal. Shooting to wound is only in the movies.

Ease up on the CSI there buddy! Saw you used the term 'perp' earlier too :rolleyes:

Again, are you suggesting that officers don't sometimes shoot to wound and not kill?

yayamark

So after all yer bitching and giving out about the cop it turns out the shooting was justified.

Wheres yer apologies now.

Form an orderly line please

seamus

CtrlSource wrote: »

Again, are you suggesting that officers don't sometimes shoot to wound and not kill?

Are you suggesting that US police officers ever shoot to wound? Have you ever read a guns thread on AH before?

Steve

CtrlSource wrote: »

Eh no. After a number of years in police academy and a number years experience on the street, i would hope i'd have a few more ideas than a) shoot and oh if that doesn't work, then b) call him names! i know you're being sarky but sheesh, you're not seriously suggesting that shooting a guy who's not carrying a gun is the only sensible thing to do, are you?

you tell me - you seem to know a lot about this so answer my question please.

Again, are you suggesting that officers don't sometimes shoot to wound and not kill?

I'm suggesting that when an officer makes the decision to use his firearm then he intends to use lethal force - whether it works or not is irrelevant to his decision making process.

a5y

SteveC wrote: »

1. Ignoring people is downright rude.

3. If you want it locked then report some posts giving reasons why - I'm sure the AH mods are aware of this threads existence.

I think the thread should have been locked some time ago, but I will respect the mods judgement in not locking it.

I don't like it because I think its just turning the news of a violent death (something that in real life is taken very seriously) into an online off topic three ring circus. My reason for wishing the thread to be locked is because off topic threads are covered in the AH Charter.

But I'll respect their judgement if they do not think it is necessary. If you think my use of the ignore feature (which the mods and admins allow all users to use) is rude, then I'd ask you to extend the same respect for the mods' judgement in allowing me and every other user to use the ignore list feature.

pirelli wrote: »

By adding names to your ignore list i assume that includes the admins and moderators on the previous page,

Ignoring admins and mods is the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears when a Garda is talking to you. I don't know why you'd assume I was adding mods to my ignore list.

Manic Moran

CtrlSource wrote: »

i know you're being sarky but sheesh, you're not seriously suggesting that shooting a guy who's not carrying a gun is the only sensible thing to do, are you?

Given distances, how much time you have, and what you're holding in your hand at that exact moment, it may well have been.

Again, are you suggesting that officers don't sometimes shoot to wound and not kill?

I won't say it's never happened, but any instances I can think of have been ones where there has been a stand-off, that plenty of time has been taken to aim, and usually it is done with a sniper rifle. These are rather rare instances. I've certainly never heard of a beat cop training to 'shoot to wound.'

NTM

Overheal

SteveC wrote: »

To me it doesn't look like he had much opportunity to holster his weapon and revert to a non leathal defence - e.g. mace or nightstick.

Right. Standard OP: have your gun out, your dispatch tells you the lunatic has a samurai sword.

Its not a video game: in video games I just press Q on my keyboard and bam ive gone from holding my rocket launcher to a melee weapon. Welcome to Real life though were those kind of actions take time.

Also, you have no way of knowing the close quarter lethality of this lunatic, as I'll allude to below*

If it happened as described, I don't think the officer had much choice in how he was to defend himself. He certainly couldn't risk a hand to hand struggle in case his weapon was compromised and the guy started shooting randomly at the 13 witnesses who were there.

True as well. As above the only way to enter hand to hand on such short notice? Probably to drop his gun on the ground, where it can easilly be picked up - and used - by anyone. Not really the way you want to go.

bugler wrote: »

When you arm your police, this is what is going to happen (and I'm not stating on opinion on whether armed police are good or bad).

You can bet that Gardai face situations like this every night of the week. They don't have guns, they have to deal with it the old fashioned way.

In America, if you attack or threaten a police officer, you are likely to be shot.

If you're dumb enough to think the gun is an empty threat, as a suspect, then you probably got what you deserved. What do you think would happen to the safety of american cops if suddenly police had a reputation for trying to fist fight you when you come running at them? Lots of dead cops.

You have to remember the situation in America is different; here in Ireland theres laws to forbid concealed weapons and firearms. That, and its a small ****ing island, its relatively easy to enforce.

seamus wrote: »

Without having seen it first-hand, it is a tough one to call, as it all depends on what kind of timeframe the events took place in.

Indeed, he shot him five times in total. Eyewitnesses said that he didn't even react to being shot, which would probably be fairly terrifying for the officer. This is also what leads me most strongly to believe that he was probably completely off his head on something.

*Right here: a lunatic eats 5 bullets before going down? How intelligent then is it to get into a fist fight with something like that? For all you know the suspect could overpower the cop and snap his neck, which doesnt take a gross amount of force to do afaik.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's no excuse for murder, he was unarmed, the cop was an x cage fighter, if anybody could have controlled the situation without lethal force it was that cop....

If it was a garda this would never have happend, America really needs to have a good long hard look in the mirror....

Voilence breeds voilence, the sooner they realise this the better....

Gun Laws in america are a whole issue in and of themself.

Again, Cage Fighter or not, you never underestimate your suspect's lethality. Or you can end up dead.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

should the cop have backed off when it was obvious that he was on something, maybe call for a mediator?

Before or after the lunatic made a raving battle cry and lunged at the officer? Officers are mediators. The next best thing is a Hostage Negotiator afaik.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ohh I wonder where he would have got the gun from, you don't bring a gun to a fist fight....

............from the cop?

pirelli wrote: »

I read the rerports and they did indicate that the person kelly saw was later identified as Andrew Hanlon. I just dont believe it, as she only got a brief look at him for only a brief moment.

Morgue much?

<More CSI bullplop>

Unless youre a highly trained forensic investigator with clearance to the evidence in this case, you know as much as me about the particulares: squat.

pirelli

seamus wrote: »

Are you suggesting that US police officers ever shoot to wound? Have you ever read a guns thread on AH before?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given distances, how much time you have, and what you're holding in your hand at that exact moment, it may well have been.



I won't say it's never happened, but any instances I can think of have been ones where there has been a stand-off, that plenty of time has been taken to aim, and usually it is done with a sniper rifle. These are rather rare instances. I've certainly never heard of a beat cop training to 'shoot to wound.'

NTM

Overheal wrote: »

Right. Standard OP: have your gun out, your dispatch tells you the lunatic has a samurai sword.

Its not a video game: in video games I just press Q on my keyboard and bam ive gone from holding my rocket launcher to a melee weapon. Welcome to Real life though were those kind of actions take time.

Also, you have no way of knowing the close quarter lethality of this lunatic, as I'll allude to below*


Morgue much?

.

Right laddies, here it is , An official training manual on whether to shoot or not to shoot. No more references from overheals fertile imagination required.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Ogs-OzA2aBsJ:www.learning-for-life.org/exploring/lawenforcement/study/shootordont.pdf+police+when+challenging+a+suspect+shoot+to+injure+or+kill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=ie

Morgue?.

He had a dark jacket on. That's all they needed to identify him.
Then stick a holiday snap of him in with a few obvious mug shots and there is still a one in 5 chance that the witness will pick him. If that fails the cop says are you sure, just think it over, are you sure it's not no 3.

Manic Moran

pirelli wrote: »

Right laddies, here it is , An official training manual on whether to shoot or not to shoot. No more references from overheals fertile imagination required.

I believe this paragraph from said study guide rather sums things up rather succinctly, and supports the position that I and others have taken on the purpose of shooting.

linked study guide wrote:

This guideline simply means that when a law enforcement officer fires his/her weapon at someone, the officer doesn't shoot to kill, doesn't shoot to wound, but shoots to stop the suspect’s activity, thereby eliminating the imminent danger

If that fails the cop says are you sure, just think it over, are you sure it's not no 3.

That's called 'leading' and is unlawful. Even a pathetic defense lawyer (who is required to be present for it) can get it barred from evidence.

NTM

humanji

pirelli wrote: »

The statement was a press release and not evidence in a court. The grand jury were to decide if excessive forse was used. They did not question the authenticity of the evidence.

The cop that shot him parked right near to the kelley house.
He would have had to return to the residence to get to his police vehicle and had more than an oppourtunity to plant the blood.

Pirelli, by your own style of condemnation I can accuse you of being a sex offender and show no evidence, and still assume you'll be found guilty besides all the evidence to the contrary.

I can only assume you've some link to the victim and have no ability to accept the reality of the situation. It's sad that someone had to die, but it happened and blaming an innocent man because you can't accept the truth is no way to go about your life. You need to step away from the keyboard and look out your window.

CtrlSource

seamus wrote: »

Are you suggesting that US police officers ever shoot to wound? Have you ever read a guns thread on AH before?

Yes. No.

SteveC wrote: »

you tell me - you seem to know a lot about this so answer my question please.

i will. When you grow up

SteveC wrote: »

I'm suggesting that when an officer makes the decision to use his firearm then he intends to use lethal force - whether it works or not is irrelevant to his decision making process.

Okay. He/she knows it's a potentially lethal force. He/she doesn't neccessarily believe it will be fatal though.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given distances, how much time you have, and what you're holding in your hand at that exact moment, it may well have been.

I won't say it's never happened, but any instances I can think of have been ones where there has been a stand-off, that plenty of time has been taken to aim, and usually it is done with a sniper rifle. These are rather rare instances. I've certainly never heard of a beat cop training to 'shoot to wound.'

Is it really true that they're trained to use lethal force always when discharging a weapon? Is that always the intent (i know it's always a potential consequence)?

i don't believe that shooting this man dead was justified, or an appropriate response to the threat he posed. May he rest in peace

pirelli

humanji wrote: »

Pirelli, by your own style of condemnation I can accuse you of being a sex offender and show no evidence, and still assume you'll be found guilty besides all the evidence to the contrary.

I can only assume you've some link to the victim and have no ability to accept the reality of the situation. It's sad that someone had to die, but it happened and blaming an innocent man because you can't accept the truth is no way to go about your life. You need to step away from the keyboard and look out your window.

Humanji your a sad worthless ***** and no I am not a sex offender. My condemnation is to shoot this asshole down like he shoots people. If you accussed me of being a sex offender I would take the polygraph and prove I was innocent. Then with no physical evidence I would begin on a course of seeking retribution for your callous accusation .

All these have a go freaks should sit a polygraph and have a set of general questions asked. One question would be did you fabricate or move evidence.

It seems that he would pass, but there is the delicate of possibilites that he might fail. Life also is delicate. These delicate possibilities matter or at least should.

Overheal

pirelli wrote: »

<snip> My condemnation is to shoot this asshole Police Officer down like he shoots people. If you accussed me of being a sex offender I would take the Polygraph...<snip>

Polygraphs are inadmissible in a court of law.

Right laddies, here it is , An official training manual on whether to shoot or not to shoot. No more references from overheals fertile imagination required.

Mom always said I was the creative one in the family.

As for the training manual thats all well and good. But honestly why cant we leave it to the investigation team in oregon to verify whether Gonzalez was in the wrong?

Morgue?.

well yeah, I just took it in the context that they confirmed the guy he had shot dead was yer man.

But seriously how many raving lunatics with such and such a description do you meet in an average day to merit wondering if this is the guy youre after or not?

pirelli

Overheal wrote: »

Polygraphs are inadmissible in a court of law.

No! they are admissable in court . All machinations of data are valid in a court of law. In the united states the defendant and the prosecutor must both agree to the evidence being used. i would imagine something similar along those line operates in most courts.


They just say that they are not admissable in court, because it might be cosntrued as implicating oneself and a mainly because of all the corrupt officals out there that would run a mile if asked to do a polygraph.

Politicians
Supervisors
Managers
Forensic scientists
Medical examiners
Crime scene investiagtors
Prosecutors
witnessess

So many powerful people have so much to lose with the introduction of the polygraph, it sits idle in some countries, like ours. Even Russia uses the polygraph and if you ever want to go to russia, be prepared to have to sit a polygraph examination. There is no reason to infringe on peoples privacy, but should be used to catch the corrupt politicians and corrupt police and forensic people.

Overheal

only insofar to say that the polygraph can be used as part of an evaluation of your character, etc.

however if you are asked if you commited a crime under polygraph and the machine spits out a Lie, that is not admissable as a conviction, because of the ability to fool polygraph tests.

But, Ill leave it to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Admissibility_of_polygraphs_in_court

edit: ooh actually, this might be of interest pirelli. beside generally being inadmissable or unreliable:

Wikipedia wrote:

Sexual offenders are now routinely polygraphed in many states of the United States and it is often a mandatory condition of probation or parole. In Texas, a state appellate court has upheld the testing of sex offenders under community supervision and has also upheld written statements given by sex offenders if they have committed a further offense with new victims. These statements are then used when a motion is filed to revoke probation and the probationer may then be sentenced to prison for having violated his or her probation.

A significant number of Federal appeals courts have upheld polygraph testing for Federal probationers as well. The most recent decision was by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a New York sex offender.

The UK will soon allow compulsory polygraph tests for convicted sex offenders released on license.[36][37]

pirelli

Overheal wrote: »

only insofar to say that the polygraph can be used as part of an evaluation of your character, etc.

However if you are asked if you commited a crime under polygraph and the machine spits out a Lie, that is not admissable as a conviction, because of the ability to fool polygraph tests.

But, Ill leave it to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Admissibility_of_polygraphs_in_court

edit: ooh actually, this might be of interest pirelli. beside generally being inadmissable or unreliable:

I hope your not being cynical overheal and have realised your mistake and have not introduced wikipedai as to try pass off the fact that it contradicts the part of your post I quoted above.

Yes I read your wikipedia:

In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court.

Europe:
It also states that polygraph evidence can also be used in any lawsuit as opinion evidence.


This topic does interest me, this thread is rapidly going off topic.

Manic Moran

Is it really true that they're trained to use lethal force always when discharging a weapon? Is that always the intent (i know it's always a potential consequence)?

Yes, and sortof. We've gone over this before.

It's legally considered a use of deadly force because death is not an unlikely outcome of shooting at people, whether you have a particular intent to kill them or not (I was aiming at his leg, but accidently hit his femoral artery and he bled to death). However, the desired end-state is not a dead target. The desired endstate is a target which no longer poses a threat to you. He/She/It may be dead, or he/she/it may not be dead. At the time you stop pulling the trigger, you don't care, the only factor to consider is the threat to you or others, not the condition of the person you were shooting at. If not dead, the fact that at the time you fired you considered it a matter of preservation worthy enough to use deadly force does not entitle one to make sure that the target actually is dead, which is why it's not called 'shoot to kill.' If the guy survives, so much the better. The catch is that if there is a threat, you try to remove it as quickly as possible, which means multiple shots, centre mass. This happens also to be where most of the vital organs are, hence death is not a particularly unusual result.

NTM

Overheal

pirelli wrote: »

I hope your not being cynical overheal

nope. thought it would interest you. When I am cynical I let you know it :pac:

Manic Moran wrote:

At the time you stop pulling the trigger, you don't care, the only factor to consider is the threat to you or others, not the condition of the person you were shooting at. If not dead, the fact that at the time you fired you considered it a matter of preservation worthy enough to use deadly force does not entitle one to make sure that the target actually is dead, which is why it's not called 'shoot to kill.' If the guy survives, so much the better.

Makes sense. When the guy kept coming, Gonzalez kept shooting. May as well been screaming Im Tony ****ing Montana at him. Granted he may have been as good as dead after the first 2/3 shots but that didnt eliminate him as a threat. We can argue about it here in writing for weeks, but its about what happens in the heat of the moment.

dee_97880

pirelli wrote: »

They is racist to all races is all.

Must not have been in Silverton. Havent talked to anyone that didnt like AJ even if he was a little different. Those who do not like the USA shouldnt visit and the people that you met that are racist should stay in their close minded town. My friends and family accept everyone and the traveling I have dont I have had few problems. Some rude people in some countries I was in but for the most part everyone nice. Same as the states here I have visited. I have found some rude people but the majority seem very nice. Maybe the factor is the attitude of the visitor.