You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Don't mess with the Polk cty. FL Sheriff
- Thread starter skeeter1
- Start date
Marko Kloos
Inactive
The "overkill" argument kind of cracks me up.
If you hav a reason to shoot someone, should it really matter whether you shoot them once or sixty times? One shot already constitutes lethal force. There's no such thing as "getting killed too much"...dead is dead.
If you hav a reason to shoot someone, should it really matter whether you shoot them once or sixty times? One shot already constitutes lethal force. There's no such thing as "getting killed too much"...dead is dead.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
I have to disagree here. Kill your wife's lover in a fit of passion and you've committed murder, perhaps. Kill the rival gang-banger over a drug turf battle and you've committed murder, probably. But execute a Police Officer in this manner and you have clearly declared war on our entire society. You have announced to the world that you will kill any man, woman or dog in your path.The message of "kill a cop..." is meaningless. He's just another human being and the message should be the same for anyone. We've been over that before.
At that point you have forfeited your right to be treated the "same as anyone". And if your actions fail to culminate in a tag on your toe, you simply got lucky beyond expectation or signaled a clear change of heart before it was too late. Freeland's luck ran out 68 times.
Yawn.
Rich
WOW... I really opend up a hornets nest
My experience with LEOs has been always positive. When I had a family member in trouble, the cops were there to help. Yes, there are probably a few bad apples out there, but for the most part, LEOs are out to help you.
As far as this guy goes, killing a deputy, wounding another, and killing a police dog, AFAIC he didn't get shot enough times.
My experience with LEOs has been always positive. When I had a family member in trouble, the cops were there to help. Yes, there are probably a few bad apples out there, but for the most part, LEOs are out to help you.
As far as this guy goes, killing a deputy, wounding another, and killing a police dog, AFAIC he didn't get shot enough times.
No matter what kind of scum this perp was the SWAT team is not supposed to be judge, jury and executioner. Their job is to capture a suspect not decide his penalty.
I agree.
I am not a SWAT officer, so I was not able to read about this story with knowledge of how they were likely to have been proceeding during this manhunt. Full-auto, semi-auto, I wouldn't have known (and still do not know).
What I do know is that I think the sheriff is shooting off his mouth a bit too much for my tastes. I'm getting the "killin's too good for 'im!" vibe from this guy, and while I agree, that is not what professional law enforcement people should be publicly avowing!
"We would have shot him more"?! That stinks of police officers engaged in a vengeance shooting and it takes the wind right out of the sails of those saying that these SWAT cops were just making sure it was the suspect, not one of them, who ended up getting shot in the final takedown.
Ask yourself why a sheriff would say that kind of stuff. There is wrath at work -- and while I don't deny the police the right to feel angered by the fact that this piece of human dung killed their fellow, wrath has no place in the conducting of official police business, even when it's a guns-drawn-in-the-woods manhunt.
The large number of shots fired could be explained by full-auto SWAT operations, yes, but couple that with the sheriff's statements and one is given cause to be concerned...
-azurefly
I don't know about the state of Florida, but here in Alabama, if you kill a LEO, thats a capital offense, that means the death penalty. Sure he may have sat on death row for 15-20 years first, but he was going to be put to death by the state anyway, whether he was dragged out by officers and taken to jail fully healthy. But the man killed 2 police officers (some departments treat their K9's as fellow officers), wounded another and probably had absolutely no fear of doing it again. So yes, sending in SWAT teams to find him was the best idea. From what I hear is that they yelled at him to show his hands, but he resisted and when he did, he had the pistol in it, so they opened fire on him. Personally they did right, they stopped the threat, as people said, do the math, it was justifiable by the number of officers present, if there was 8-10 officers present. Some of you "excessive force" folks are forgetting that he did execute police officers. Many of those SWAT team members were a little scared and edgy themselves I'm sure. The only question I had, given in the news clippings on this thread was the qoute: "That’s all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more,” Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, which leads me to believe it was 3 or 4 SWAT officers, and were still justified given the perp- Freeland's recent cop killing history. Justified, case closed. -BamaXD
Last edited:
I wonder how many of the objections to what transpired are the result of misunderstanding the sheriff's statements. I know at first glance I thought the sheriff was boasting about executing the perp. Instead, the sheriff was stating the simple fact that the perp executed one of his men.
The gentleman in question committed "suicide by cop".
Could we please stop using the term "gentleman" when it is so obviously an incorrect usage? "Gentleman" is not synonymous with "person" or "man." It denotes a refinement and respectability that this person obviously did not possess.
Why would you say, "When I approached the person who cut me in line to express my indignation, the gentleman who did it spat in my face"?
From Dictionary.com:
1. a man of good family, breeding, or social position.
4. a civilized, educated, sensitive, or well-mannered man.
-azurefly
But the man killed 3 police officers (some departments treat their K9's as fellow officers) and probably had absolutely no fear of doing it again.
I thought that one human cop and one dog cop were killed, and that the other human was shot in the leg and was expected to make a full recovery. (That's what news articles I read the other day said.)
So, how accurate is your understanding of the subject about which you're forming opinions? How accurate are any of our understandings? We can start by weeding out factual errors like the one above. They certainly call into question any other statements that may follow.
Now, afsnco:
I wonder how many of the objections to what transpired are the result of misunderstanding the sheriff's statements. I know at first glance I thought the sheriff was boasting about executing the perp. Instead, the sheriff was stating the simple fact that the perp executed one of his men.
How does that quote, "That's all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more," state the simple fact that the perp executed one of his men? I don't see ANY text in that quote that says anything about what the perp did. Where are you getting that?
You're saying that it is a misunderstanding on my part to believe that the sheriff's statement was about what the cops wanted to do to the suspect. You're saying that if that's what I thought, I misunderstood. HOW?
-azurefly
If the rat has a gun that he has shown that he has the ability and willigness to use and all I have is a bazooka, why wouldn't IWill you use a bazooka to kill a rat? I guess not.
110 rounds fired by 9 officers. That's 12.23 fired by each officer. IF they were using their handguns, they didn't even fire to slide lock. Now, imagine if they were using automatic weapons. 12 rounds is a quick depression of the trigger. Then you register that he's hit, and you let off the trigger.
If the rat has a gun that he has shown that he has the ability and willigness to use and all I have is a bazooka, why wouldn't I
Say what?
Sir, if you're serious i think you misunderstood my analogy. Otherwise, maybe you're just being funny.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
jrk-
And a good observation. Honestly.
But let's not take the Sheriff's statement out of context. It was uttered after the fact; exactly as any of us might have said, after the fact, with Family down.
The good guys lost Two; the Bad Guys lost nothing. There's lots more of them out there. I'd like to be sorry that Freeland was killed "Too Dead". I just can't find it in me to care whether he was shot twice, 68 times or 6,800 times. He's still dead. I'm still unhappy about the two lost. I'm rather gratified that he'll be dead a whole long time, if not forever.
The Court System is only for those who avail themselves of it by choice of surrender. He did not.
May he burn in Hell.
Rich
And a good observation. Honestly.
But let's not take the Sheriff's statement out of context. It was uttered after the fact; exactly as any of us might have said, after the fact, with Family down.
The good guys lost Two; the Bad Guys lost nothing. There's lots more of them out there. I'd like to be sorry that Freeland was killed "Too Dead". I just can't find it in me to care whether he was shot twice, 68 times or 6,800 times. He's still dead. I'm still unhappy about the two lost. I'm rather gratified that he'll be dead a whole long time, if not forever.
The Court System is only for those who avail themselves of it by choice of surrender. He did not.
May he burn in Hell.
Rich
The guy had it coming, no doubt about it. But, do we really want to encourage a culture of 'kill a cop, get killed being taken in, period'? It'll happen to the CCWer who defends his two daughters in a mall from a pair of gunment and pops a plainclothes cop who fails to show a badge. It'll happen to the guy who never even got a traffic ticket in his life who watched a CNN report on thugs dressing up on cops for home invasions the night before officers nail the wrong side of the duplex - if he kills any of them he probably won't be allowed to surrender, and if he does it's on to be killed by HIV in jail instead - and those who know about that sort of thing will agree with me even if you can't say it publicly. What about the off duty cop with a history of spousal abuse and DUI who tried to strangle a guy's wife to death (after attacking his own) and got shot for it? Oops, the guy who defended his wife's life killed a cop, and there isn't much hope for him.
See where I'm going?
See where I'm going?
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
How in bloody blue hell can you equate Freeland's demise with "getting killed being taken in", Heist?? He never gave officers any opportunity to "take him in"! HE chose not to be taken in. HE chose to have a gun in his hand when SWAT's purpose was to take him in. HE forced them to shoot, and HE is solely responsible for his own death.But, do we really want to encourage a culture of 'kill a cop, get killed being taken in, period'?
I can't believe that you can even remotely compare this case to the arrest of someone that shot a cop through mistaken identity.
Apparently toward left field, Heist.See where I'm going?