Don't mess with the Polk cty. FL Sheriff

Sir, if you're serious i think you misunderstood my analogy. Otherwise, maybe you're just being funny.
Click to expand...

It is a term for the use of excessive force that seems to go much further than just achieving its goal. Will you use a bazooka to kill a rat? I guess not.
Click to expand...

Possibly I have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

What I am saying is that a fight will be what it wants to be not what you want it to be

If a bazooka is the only weapon available against a threat then I will use a bazooka against the threat ,if a pointy stick is all I have I will use a pointy stick, if a 9 man SWAT team armed with the latest high cap fierearms is all I have I will use all nine of their guns to make sure I go home tonight.
 
Okay joab. I see where your going. Although it seems like you're still misinterpreting my post. Anyway man, the bazooka issue doesn't matter and i bet we're on the same page when i say the BG got what he deserves. ;)
 
You guys think using a bazooka on a rat is overkill?

You must have never been to New Orleans. We grow 'em big down here... a bazooka would just make them mad and then you would really be in trouble :)
 
I think most of us (all of us, probably) are glad that Freeland is a dead and rotting piece of $*^@. There. Fine.

My preference would have been if he had leapt up out from the brush and pointed the gun, only to be shot 68 times.

Unfortunately, what we are looking at, given the sheriff's after-the-fact mouth-shootin', is that it begins to appear that the SWAT team was nothing more than a posse sent out to take this guy in dead. And that's something we cannot allow.

I'm frankly surprised at people who leap to the defense of cops kiling because they've suffered the loss of a colleague: once again, it begins to seem like cops are afforded better-than-equal status. Do you think they'd be so eager to kill, for YOU, the guy who raped and murdered your sister? They're not going out with the same mental mission on that count as they are when they turn out, still hotheaded, to avenge their brother.

I am glad the perp is dead. I struggle to believe that the SWAT team went out there with anything more than an order to bring the guy in dead, though. Really, raise your hand if you think the SWAT guys were told to be mindful that their job is to bring the suspect in to face justice? And for that, we have the sheriff's unprofessional statement to thank.

-azurefly
 
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.
Click to expand...

Because the cop is theoretically an "authority figure"? Or are you saying you view the police as the definers and managers of our society? Regardless, as far as I am concerned ANY murder is a declaration of war on society. I simply can not accept that any life is any more important than any other. Or that any one group is truly more important to society than another.

Otherwise, like I said, the cooling corpse probably got what he deserved. It's the Sheriff's words that bother me. Not because he thought them but rather because he potentially gifted some lawyer with them. Then, of course, there's the fact that had someone here said something similar there'd be one or more bleats about "chest thumping" and "testosterone", etc.

The Sheriff was right, and a had a right to think it...even say it among his men and friends...but the media never needed to hear it from his lips.
 
Which means... what exactly?

Most general police shootouts occur at close range, and yet the hit ratio isn't very good at all.

And just because someone is a SWAT officer doesn't mean that each one is Dead Eye Dick, The Cowboy Supershooter.

I've shot with a number of tac & SWAT officers over the years, and generally they're not much better/worse than the average officer. I particularly remember one police marksman who was hell on wheels with a rifle, but put a handgun in his hands and I swear to God he turned into Elmer Fudd.
Click to expand...
Come on Mike. Why are they SWAT if they're no better at Special Weapons And Tactics than the average officer? Why not just label EVERY officer as SWAT if there's no difference?

And who says they were using handguns? ;)

Anyway, I was just trying to explain that this didn't sound like an extended process of pumping rounds into a perpetrator--it sounds to me like it went very quickly. I was merely pointing out that a hit rate of around 50% at point-blank range by the SWAT team (who SHOULD be at least marginally better with weapons than non-SWAT officers) seems to indicate (to me at least) that not everyone was taking carefully aimed shots which made it also seem likely (to me at least) that the shooting was over very rapidly as opposed to a long execution as has been implied on this thread by more than one poster.
 
I'm frankly surprised at people who leap to the defense of cops kiling because they've suffered the loss of a colleague: once again, it begins to seem like cops are afforded better-than-equal status. Do you think they'd be so eager to kill, for YOU, the guy who raped and murdered your sister? They're not going out with the same mental mission on that count as they are when they turn out, still hotheaded, to avenge their brother.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice anybody needing to until several posters BLAMED the police for their behavior. That entire paragraph presumes that you have interviewed the officers in question, and found that the actions you describe were in fact correct. Just for the record, ANY violent criminal who stood up with a weapon in his hands, at close range, would probably have been fired upon. If he had killed the lady two houses down, or the old man two blocks over. Not only had this cretin killed one man, shot another, and killed a dog, he had also engaged in a fire fight with two additional LEOs. He had the chance to surrender, and didn't. Just HOW MANY chances had he been given to surrender? How many more people needed to be injured, or die, to fullfill this mystical process you ascribe to?

Because the cop is theoretically an "authority figure"? Or are you saying you view the police as the definers and managers of our society? Regardless, as far as I am concerned ANY murder is a declaration of war on society. I simply can not accept that any life is any more important than any other. Or that any one group is truly more important to society than another.
Click to expand...

This is a personal quest for you, and it doesn't seem to be truly in evidence here. There were several lives involved here that were more important than one other. The man who had executed one man, wounded another, and engaged in a firefight with two more was not worth their lives. He had committed murder, and forfeited his life when he continued his agressive posture. Your philosophy need work. I'd be willing to bet that a productive member of society is held to be more important than a criminal who attempts to kill him. It has always been acknowledged by philosophers that one can step beyond the pale of humanity through acts of such savage intensity that they render the perpetrator less than human. This was one. :)
 
As I live in Polk county and have a brother that is a sheriff's deputy here, I support their actions 100%.

For those claiming overkill, based on the videos shown on local TV, the BG was shot by 4-6 M16/M4's on full auto. The officers claim the BG was raising the .45 he had taken from the dead deputy and they responded accordingly. Naturally, those that support the "execution" theory will claim they lied. If the BG wanted to live, he could have dropped the gun and stood up at any time in the HOURS it took to physically track him down. The fact he hid with a firearm implies he had no intention of surrendering as long as he thought he might escape.
 
From what I understand (by reading after-action statements given to the press), the murderer could have surrendered at any time. He chose to hide under a log. When caught, and ordered to give up, he refused. When ordered to show his hands, he showed one empty hand, but hid the other under "a cloth" of some kind. An officer exposed the hidden hand, which was holding a gun. The murderer chose to point the gun at ten armed and armored police officers, and they lit him up.

Either he wanted (and expected) to die, or he was incredibly stupid to think he could shoot them all before they shot him. I see no fault in the officers' actions.

BTW, from what I understand, one of the officers had no shot, so he didn't shoot, and many of the rounds that didn't hit the perp went into the log he was hiding under.
 
Because the cop is theoretically an "authority figure"? Or are you saying you view the police as the definers and managers of our society? Regardless, as far as I am concerned ANY murder is a declaration of war on society. I simply can not accept that any life is any more important than any other. Or that any one group is truly more important to society than another.
Click to expand...
2A-
One needn't search too hard to learn my view of LE's role in society. No life is more important than another, once we get to the courthouse. However, tactics for capture are defined by situation. A man who has killed his wife's lover in a fit of rage and disappeared warrants "armed and dangerous". But one who executes a cop, after he has been shot to the ground, sends a very clear signal that he's hardly done with his killing career. In fact, he's announced that he's just warming up.

That warrants extraordinary, extreme, no second chances, no do-overs tactics. He may safely surrender in any number of ways: to the cops, the media, the local church, the SPCA or the PTA. But, when he's spotted with a gun in his hand, "Halt, Drop your weapon" is not exactly in order. Not if it's my life on the line. YMMV
Rich
 
What if the man under the log would have turned out to be a hunter hiding in his makeshift blind? Would we all still be cheering this killing? Just asking, 'cause I can see that happening (to ME or someone like me), with all the emotion.... guy "hiding" - it MUST be our suspect - time to get him, boys - open up!!!

THAT's why we have courts, and don't allow cops to be judge, jury, and executioner, for mistakes on the innocent. Not to protect lowlifes like this guy.

Now, having said all that, IF a positive ID was made (could have been) prior to opening up, and IF the guy posed a threat by having a gun in hand, or what appeared to be a gun in hand, THEN in that event, the number of shots does not seem excessive, given the number of people shooting. I was initially inclined to agree with Coinneach and Wildcard, and would be had it been just 1 or 2 or 3 shooters. But as has been pointed out, with that many LEOs firing, it does not seem to be overkill, or an actual execution.... provided that the value of the first two IFs above is yes. But we just don't know that for sure, now do we?

THIS one turned out OK, because it WAS the cop-killer, and it's quite conceivable the LEOs did NOTHING wrong, but the hunter scenario gives me a little chill, if the first two ifs had turned out the other way, particularly the first if (positive ID before firing).
 
What if the man under the log would have turned out to be a hunter hiding in his makeshift blind? Would we all still be cheering this killing? Just asking, 'cause I can see that happening (to ME or someone like me), with all the emotion.... guy "hiding" - it MUST be our suspect - time to get him, boys - open up!!!
Click to expand...

I don't believe identification was an issue. They apparently knew who they were looking for, and when he stood up (thereby allowing a positive ID), he was armed.

I also agree with earlier posts that the Sheriff's comments about an "execution" were misinterpreted to suggest that the decedent was executed.
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends on your definition of if.

I doubt that a hunter would have been spending the night inside the perimeter set up. Night hunting in Fla. isn't allowed.

You have managed to offer no positive evidence that what transpired was any different than the reports given. Your last attempt to justify your earlier statements is now reduced to
provided that the value of the first two IFs above is yes. But we just don't know that for sure, now do we?
Click to expand...

That's a bit lame. Do you NEED to believe that the police did something wrong? It seems that this is somehow a quest for you.:confused:
 
Because the cop is theoretically an "authority figure"? Or are you saying you view the police as the definers and managers of our society? Regardless, as far as I am concerned ANY murder is a declaration of war on society. I simply can not accept that any life is any more important than any other. Or that any one group is truly more important to society than another.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
No I don't NEED anything. But given that SOME LEOS (small minority, mind you) very often lie about things to cover their butts, they bring the questioning upon themselves. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's a fact. There are many historical examples of police planting throwdowns, planting drugs, lying on the stand, on and on and on - and THAT's just to get an ordinary collar - so when the stakes and emotions are high, as in this case, you bet your sweet butt the cops must be scrutinized in the tightest possible way. But I have no idea whether this force has the culture of say, and LAPD or NOPD, where corruption is or was rampant. So I must question. Here, we don't know for sure, but all appearances so far are that the cops probably did nothing wrong - good for them - if that pans out they will deserve a pat on the back for a job well-done, and good riddance to this scum-sucking miscreant.

I doubt that a hunter would have been spending the night inside the perimeter set up. Night hunting in Fla. isn't allowed.
Click to expand...

Ok, then, fine, looks like ID was not an issue - glad to hear it. I was just offering possibilities which have now been ruled out by the facts. Good. Not the possibility that is WAS a hunter; but the possibility that it COULD HAVE BEEN a hunter, necessitating a positive ID.

The truth is, for me personally, IF a positive ID was made by the clothing or whathaveyou, then it matters very little whether he had a gun in actuality in his hand, or whether he wanted to surrender. The fact that he was known to be armed and dangerous, and so if anything looked even remotely like a weapon, I'm all for gunning him down but good. I was just concerned with the other 2 issues - one, was it overkill? Given the number of officers, no it was not. Two, did they positively ID before shooting? Looks like they did. So bottom line, good shoot, unless contrary facts materialize.
 
No I don't NEED anything. But given that SOME LEOS (small minority, mind you) very often lie about things to cover their butts, they bring the questioning upon themselves. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's a fact.
Click to expand...

The last sentence would indicate that a small minority of LEOs lie for some reason. To take what is admittedly a few percentage points, and then attempt to tar ALL LEOs with that brush isn't logical.

Would you automatically suspect all fires of being arson, because there have been documented instances of firefighters setting fires? Should all mechanics be suspect due to the antics of a few crooks? Should all doctors be investigated for murder when a patient dies, because some doctors have been known to kill? You live in a very narrowly constructed world, sir.
 
Not at all. Given the intolerably high incidence that I see and hear about corrupt LEOs, such incidences must be scutinized with the utmost suspicion. Low on the whole, but nevertheless intolerably high, because we must not tolerate such corruption or lying on the part of LEOs. I have a half-lifetime full - an entire bank of personal experiences and personally known LEOs who lie and engage in corrupt behavior, and it's far, far too intolerably common to have LEOs plant guns, plant drugs, lie on the stand to get a conviction, etc. This is documented in many many news stories throughout the years across the country, and witnessed with my own eyes, and admitted to by cops I know of (albeit sometimes I get it secondhand, where an LEO has admitted something to an acquaintances of mine). Maybe not everywhere, but here cops can get away with murder and lie about it without worrying about repercussions because the public is so law-and-order, and think that "cops don't lie" - puh-lease. Point is, their acts must always be scrutinized, and especially so when an incident like this comes along due to the emotions involved. Cops, as protectors of the law, should be held to a higher standard when it comes to following the law, including matters of perjury. I'm quite sure that your view is influenced by YOUR experiences with LEOs which are probably all positive or mostly positive. My experiences with them are mostly negative, with clear lies being told to gain convictions in cases.

People die in a hospital. That's to be expected. A corrupt cop is NOT expected, and should not be tolerated. Apples & Oranges.

Should all mechanics be suspect due to the antics of a few crooks?
Click to expand...

Heck YES they should! That's another area where there's an intolerably high level of fraud & corruption!
 
I still want to know how an officer could be close enough to this guy to raise the cloth from over the suspect's hand or arm, see the weapon and then not get blown up with the bad guy when the shooting began! Just a question. By the way, have any of you guys ever heard the phrase "playing the devil's advocate"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top