Leo's shoot ANOTHER unarmed man.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sprig

Moderator
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2568651540-4f2

08:50 PM ET 08/03/00

Ill. Cop Charged in Motorist Death

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. (AP) _ Prosecutors filed murder charges
Thursday against a police officer who allegedly shot to death a
mentally disabled motorist after chasing him down on the highway
for failing to pay for a tank of gas.
State's Attorney Charles Reynard charged Jeffrey Gabor, 23, with
first and second degree murder in the July 24 death of Shannon Lee
Smith, 27.
Reynard said charges were filed against Gabor after an
investigation by Illinois State Police. He refused to provide
further information.
Officials said Gabor turned himself in Thursday at the McLean
County Sheriff's Department and was being held on $500,000 bond.
Police say Smith drove away from a Chenoa service station
without paying for $15.05 worth of gas, and officers from three
agencies began a chase after he was spotted about an hour later.
Officers apparently boxed his vehicle in at a bridge, and more than
20 shots were fired after Smith backed into an unoccupied police
car while trying to get away.
Bev King, manager of the gas station where Smith failed to pay,
said Smith had driven off on more than two previous occasions, and
those incidents also had been reported to police.
King said Smith would eventually come back to the store to pay
the money.
----------
The number of unarmed persons shot and killed by Leo's these last few months sure seems to be rather high. This type of shooting should be a RARE event.
And some Leo's wonder why the public is starting to distrust them... Or why some threads seem to lead to Leo bashing.
If the story is correct, this Leo NEEDS a bashing for his actions.

Sprig
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sprig:
State's Attorney Charles Reynard charged Jeffrey Gabor, 23, with
first and second degree murder in the July 24 death of Shannon Lee
Smith, 27.
[/quote]


Huh?

How many people died?

~USP
 
My take on this is that you should treat people the way that you would like to be treated. (The Golden Rule)

Was a couple of bucks worth of gas cause for a person to be shot to death?

Something is seriously wrong here.

Skyhawk
 
No LEO bashing from me on this one.

Sounds like the guy may have used his car as a weapon. No different from using a knife or gun, IMHO. Hard to second guess an officer being run down by a car. Get your butt out there and step in front of a Buick and then we'll talk.

If the guy has so many mental problems he doesn't remember to pay for his gas and he panics when the police try to pull him over, well, he probably shouldn't be driving.

How do you get charged for 1st and 2nd degree murder from one incident?
 
2nd degree murder is generally a lesser included offense when one is charged with 1st degree murder. If it were to go to trial, the jury could choose either 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder or not guilty.

The DA is not limited to charging only one offensd.
 
He may not have had a gun, but he damn sure wasn't unarmed. A Chevy at 20 MPH will kill you just as dead as a .45.

LawDog
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LawDog:
He may not have had a gun, but he damn sure wasn't unarmed. A Chevy at 20 MPH will kill you just as dead as a .45.

LawDog[/quote]

LawDog, I am not replying just to pick on you. You just made it more obvious then other posters above yours.

Lets not get write things into the article that aren't there. The article didn't say, "He tried to drive over an officer." The article clearly says, "backed into an unoccupied police car while trying to get away."

We could go around and around all day long if we alter what the article says are the events. If a Leo can't manage to stay out of the way of a car thats blocked on a bridge, then that Leo has no business getting out onto the bridge. Cars don't move sideways. I can safely say that you could NOT run me over with a car that is on a small 2 lane bridge. I'm not even all that fast. (Note that I assume it was a fairly small bridge otherwise 3 patrol cars would probably not be enough to block a car in.)

So, we also would hope to think that the prosecuter wouldn't charge this Leo for MURDER had the car been coming at the Leo. This would be a selfdefense issue.

Sprig
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Lets not get write things into the article that aren't there.[/quote]

Good point. In that spirit, let's not read more into my reply than the fact that I pointed out that a car at 20 MPH is as lethal as a handgun, and as such, the driver was hardly unarmed.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(Note that I assume it was a fairly small bridge otherwise 3 patrol cars would probably not be enough to block a car in.)[/quote]

One car in front, one car to one side, a curb or other obstruction on the other side and a car behind. Three patrol cars could block a vehicle on the main Red Chinese Parade Ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Lets not get write things into the article that aren't there. The article didn't say, "He tried to drive over an officer." The article clearly says, "backed into an unoccupied police car while trying to get away."[/quote]

I think we can probably guess that the police car was unoccupied, because the police officer driving the car was attempting to apprehend the driver of the suspect vehicle.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I can safely say that you could NOT run me over with a car that is on a small 2 lane bridge. [/quote]

I think we can also safely say that you would be trying to get away from that particular car. An option that would be rather limited for the officers attempting to do their job.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So, we also would hope to think that the prosecuter wouldn't charge this Leo for MURDER had the car been coming at the Leo. This would be a selfdefense issue.[/quote]

Every self-defense issue begins with the Grand Jury deciding if the charge of Murder is a True Bill.

LawDog
 
I wasn't going to reply, then I got so mad I decided to reply, then I got to where I realized it was so stupid to reply that as I type this I wiped out the quotes.

Lawdog I don't like what you are doing with the way you have replied. If you did it intentionaly, its dishonest.

You stick up for this Leo and justify it by impling two contradictory issues. If the car is properly blocked in by three cars, as you suggested, then I know of NO car that can accelerate to 20mph in 1 foot of space. Any Leo that leaves more space and gets out of his car and places himself between the patrol car and the suspects car is STUPID.

When you openly justify the shooting of a person whom the Leo could have prevented from accelerating to 20mph, and you call that person armed, you are with your words destroying the relationship between the public and Leos.

YOUR STATEMENTS OFFENDED ME. YOUR STATEMENTS have dropped my regards for Leos another notch.

While I understand the need to not jump to conclusions, I can not understand your overwhelming support based on contradictory premises.

Spiting with disgust.

Sprig
 
WTF2?

First off, bub, I suggest you point out where in my post I support what the officers did. You won't, because I very carefully do not either support or condemn the officers actions. I don't even support or condemn what the victim did. Matter-of-fact, the only thing I said about the victim, is that the media decided he was unarmed, so I pointed out that he may not have had a gun, but he had the car and I would have considered him armed, then I pointed out why I would have considered the car to be a weapon.

Did I say he used the car as a weapon? No.
Did I say he should have been killed? No.
Did I say he shouldn't have been killed? No.
Did I say the officers did well? No.
Did I say the officers screwed up? No.

You see, bub, I wasn't there, and I try not to leap to a conclusion based on one article from a media who can't tell the difference between a bolt-action hunting rifle and an AR15.

Secondly, my previous post was merely to point out your misconceptions and to show you a different way to look at the facts presented by the aforementioned media. For example, you have decided the stop took place on a narrow bridge. Based on what I know, I pointed out that the stop didn't necessarily have to be on a narrow bridge, and I used the Red Chinese Parade Ground as an example. You opine that the shoot was bad because the car that was rammed was unoccupied. I pointed out that the car didn't have to be occupied for the driver to be in danger. You decided the shoot was bad because you would have run away. I pointed out that the officers might not have that luxury.

Thirdly, if the format of my reply is somehow insulting to you, WTF? It was not meant so, and it is a format that I commonly use when I'm in an instructor mode to ensure that the person I am replying to understands what part of his/her post I am responding to. I have used it often at The Firing Line, and I will continue to do so. To date, you are the only person in the hundreds of replies I have made to take offense.

Granted, it wasn't one of my most eloquent works, but it damn sure doesn't deserve your hissy fit.

I don't know who put sand in your Post Toasties, me bucko, but I suggest you take it up with them and not me.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited August 05, 2000).]
 
First of all: it said "three agencies." Not "three officers." Not "three patrol vehicles." That's significant in that it FURTHER escalates the ambiguity of the facts of the story. There might've been 10 cars and 20 cops on the scene, for all we know from the story. Recently, a chase downn I-35W that my agency was involved with had 4+ agencies involved, and more than 10 cars! My own department had two cars and two officers in on it.

Secondly, I notice that "more than 20 shots were fired after Smith backed into an unoccupied police car while trying to get away." Obviously, Officer Gabor was not the only one who seemed to feel that deadly force was merited. Not known is the intended target, the mindset of the officer, whether Officer Gabor in fact fired first, whether he felt other officers' lives were in danger...

There's SO MUCH that is not known about this.

Me, I tend to let a JURY convict a man, after they've duly heard all of the facts of a particular case, rather than convict a man based on(A)what a news account says a man did, or (B)what an ellected (and thereby political) prosecuting attorney says he did.

Now, as an aside, as a citizen, I'll sigh and say that, yeah, it doesn't look good. But I'll just as quickly say that that's why we have grand juries, and that's why we have jury trials. There's PLENTY of room for interpretation, here.

As a cop, I'll tell you that, worst case scenario, 1st degree murder doesn't work. Things just happen TOO quickly to prove premeditation. We had a state trooper shot in the head Wednesday by an old man with a .30-06 whom he was writing a ticket for no seat belt. The shot came through the windshield. The trooper might've had a window to save himself, but how long was that window? 2 seconds? 5? I haven't seen the tape yet. You act quickly, or you DIE. Sometimes, tragically, your action is wrong. Suppose our trooper had drawn his Sig and shot the old man, only to find out that the old man was going to ask him about his opinion on where to have it gunsmithed? Snap decision. Frankly, the 1st degree murder charge is just for show, if you ask me.

I am not blindly in support of cops.

I am not blindly in support of our Staff.

I do, however, feel that you would do well to reconsider some of your statements, Sprig. Lawdog's merely allowed that there are other possibilites not mentioned by either the AP article nor the State's Attorney.

--L.P.
 
There's a lot to this story that is'nt in the article.Shannon Smith's car was completely Blocked.An officer went up to the side of the car and broke out a window with his baton.Smith put his car in reverse and backed into a police unit,a distance of about 3 feet.Police open fire at Smith's tires.Parttime Hudson Police officer Jeff Gabor Fires 2 times into Smith's back.A Mclean county deputy starts to walk around the passanger side of the car,when Gabor fires 3 more times,he is ordered to reholster. A total of thirty one shots were fired,in a heavily populated work zone. All this over 15 dollars in GAS!!!
Gabor was completely out of his Jurisdiction and wasn't asked to jion the pursuit.I see in today's Bloomington Pantagragh During the july 24th shooting,A Chenoa officer was waitng at Smith's mobile home to queitly arrest him. :(

P.S. If your ever in the area go to The Green Gables in Hudson,coldest beer and the best burgers in the area
 
Friends,

Seems to me we are getting angry at each other without knowing all the facts first (and a newspaper article is hardly "facts"). Please be polite to the guy in the next foxhole: you might need them when real nasties swarm you.

------------------
Oleg "peacemonger" Volk

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Officers apparently boxed his vehicle in at a bridge, and more than 20 shots were fired after Smith backed into an unoccupied policecar while trying to get away.
[/quote]

When was a patrol car considered the same as an LEO?
We're not talking about you're partner here, nor a K-9 "officer".
Were talking about an automobile, nothing more, nothing less.

Was there mention of the "murder suspect" firing shots at the officers?
Did he shoot at the patrol car, thereby in essence, shoot at an actual LEO?

I've seen LEO total patrol cars chasing some kid on a moped. :rolleyes: But this guy gets gunned down for stealing some gas.
WTF, over

More evidence that material things are ultimately more valuable than one's life...
Especially if the material things belong to one group over another.

SAD.


Oh, something else on this. It was mentioned that the fella had a history of mental illness, etc.
And had been alledged to have done this before, and later pay for the gas.
Would be interesting to know if this was known by the LEO, about the "suspect" before he was terminated.
I certainly hope the Jury get's to hear all the facts.
I don't mean like the facts of the Waco fiasco either. According to the facts, the government (and agents doing their job) did nothing wrong.
You have to ask yourself, why was Gabor arrested???

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 05, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 05, 2000).]
 
Something is seriously wrong here? Yeah there is: Smith had driven away without paying more than once and then he used his car as a weapon on thew bridge backig into a police car.

If Smith was mentally disabled, why was he driving in the first place? Come on! Gabor thought his life and the lives of his fellow officers was in jeapoardy. Believe me, the Chicago Police did not set out to kill someone over a tank of gas.

Once again, good and evil get distorted. Just as with Rodney King, if Smith would have complied to Officers, WHO HAD PROBABLE CAUSE, he would be alive today. He broke the law and he paid for it.

No I am no an LEO and no I am no fan of the Chicago PD. The Chicago Police that Patrol O'Hare Airport are very Rude. I fly in frequently and Once a Female Officer was screaming at me as I was trying to put my luggage into a colleague's car at passenger pick-up. I politely asked her to give us a break to get set and she exploded threatening to send me downtown. That was garbage I don't have a great deal of respect for any LEO that would act like that. I know why they want to move cars along but give me a break and treat me like a human.

So, lest ye think I am biased I am not. The times where I was at a point where I could not have afforded gas, I walked or called a friend. Smith could have done the same.

I hope and pray Gabor's life is not ruined for LEGALLY doing his job and enforcing the law.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
One more thing: Shots in the back or not, Smith put the fork in the road not the Police.

Have we let the trial lawyers so corrupt our system that now a man who clearly violated the law with eyewitness substantiation must be allowed to go free so he won't be "hurt" by those who are sworn to uphold order?

When it got to the point where three agencies were involved, and road blocks were deployed, all bets were off for Smith------Sorry Charlie.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Smith was known to local L.E..They knew he had done this before and that he had came back to the gas station and paid.Will Beararms, Yes he was mentally slow but he had met all state requirements and held a valid drivers licence.A Mental disability does not mean mental illness or retardation. :mad:
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg Volk:
Friends,

Seems to me we are getting angry at each other without knowing all the facts first (and a newspaper article is hardly "facts"). Please be polite to the guy in the next foxhole: you might need them when real nasties swarm you.

[/quote]

Oleg, the overwhelming support of the Leos on this board for this murderer makes that impossible. Their own words and actions separate me, and others, from them.

The Leos in this case should have prevented this guy from being able to use his car as a weapon. This fact stands from the beginning. Now, we see that the Leos did do this, by leaving only a 3 ft space there is no way a car can accelerate to lethal impact speeds, nor can maneuver sideways. To get in-between the suspects car and the patrol car is the ONLY way to take the suspects car as a life threatening danger, and to do that is stupid.

Once that is established, the shooting becomes murder. And all the Leos on here that support or suggest it is justified drive the wedge between them and civilians.

They of course don't see it. Then, they wonder why so many Leo bashing threads. Well, I am saying right now, that the Leos in this thread have offended me and my intelligence and have further taken the step to alienate others.

Sprig
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Will Beararms:
One more thing: Shots in the back or not, Smith put the fork in the road not the Police.

When it got to the point where three agencies were involved, and road blocks were deployed, all bets were off for Smith------Sorry Charlie.

[/quote]

Lets drive that wedge in a little deeper. As soon as a roadblock is deployed its perfectly acceptable to murder "suspects" without a trail. All the bets are off and Sorry Charlie you didn't a trial.

Sprig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top