Ellington

What makes this even worse is that the officer shot at him 13 times. From WBAL TV:

According to Baltimore City police, Tyrone Brown -- a 32-year-old Marine who has served two tours of duty in Iraq -- was shot at 13 times at close range, with six shots hitting him. He died a short time later.

The incident happened outside a nightclub in Mount Vernon.

Baltimore police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the officer, identified as 36-year-old Gahji Tshamba, shot Brown after Brown made advances toward a woman who was with the officer.

"After the advances, the officer and the individual exchanged words," Gugliemi said. "There was an argument, and the altercation turned physical. At that point, the officer pulled out his service weapon and fired multiple shots at our victim."

The powers that be need to do more to the officer than fire him. He should serve time for abusing his authority. The man shouldn't be allowed to operate a pea shooter, much less a gun, for the rest of his life. What do you think?

Previous Comments

ID

158105

Comment

Yes he needs to do time. The Marine's sister said Brown his hands up showing the officer he was unarmed and the officer shot him anyway. The officer refused to take a breath test, he shot a man in the foot while off duty in 2005. The shooting was found to be justified, but was disciplined because he was under the influence of alcohol. Why was he still a cop? Should have been fired the first time, for having his service weapon while drunk.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-08T22:18:02-06:00

ID

158106

Comment

Absolutely he ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But I can't say I understand the opening comment that the situation is somehow worse because the officer in question fired 13 times. How does that make it worse? If the assumption is that 13 shots were somehow excessive, that would reveal that the writer has a limited understanding of combat and police shootings.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-08T23:24:55-06:00

ID

158107

Comment

I grew up with an older man who didn't allow other men to even look at his woman. The only man to defy him was a cousin of mines who had to apologize and promise to never do it again after Bradley caught his wondering eyes looking in the wrong direction. A 12 year old Walt was looking too but was smart enough even back then to hide behind somebody as he did so. Bradley was a pulpwood cutting and hauling man who was also meaner than a rattlesnake and strong as an ox, but he only kicked booty for looking at his woman. About 2 years later young Walt was riding with his uncle PB who got drunk and ran into Bradley's nice car. Young Walt said "sheeit, we're about to get our asses whipped" and and statrted contemplating running or getting a jack iron and trying to kill Bradley. Before I could run or find a weapon, Bradley checked for damage and said he didn't find any. That was the last time young Walt went riding with Uncle Pete.

Author

Walt

Date

2010-06-09T02:35:44-06:00

ID

158109

Comment

Why was he still a cop? Should have been fired the first time, for having his service weapon while drunk. If he has a history of doing this, he should certainly be stripped of his badge and gun ASAP.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2010-06-09T09:32:24-06:00

ID

158110

Comment

But I can't say I understand the opening comment that the situation is somehow worse because the officer in question fired 13 times. How does that make it worse? If the assumption is that 13 shots were somehow excessive, that would reveal that the writer has a limited understanding of combat and police shootings. Mark, I said it was worse because the man could have been struck 13 times, and to me, six is already excessive, especially when an unarmed man who is not a threat is gunned down. The average person does not need expertise in combat to see how ridiculous that is.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2010-06-09T11:25:11-06:00

ID

158111

Comment

There is something ridiculous here, but it's not the "excessive shots". We've already established the officer judged the so-called "threat" poorly, but the number of shots fired after that poor decision was made is irrelevant. The phenomenon of "excessive shots" is so common (and so frequently decried by those uneducated or willfully ignorant of combat statistics) that it took me all of 30 seconds using google to find this nicely written essay examining the causes: http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2010/03/force-science-news-144-"excessive"-shots-and-falling-assailants-a-fresh-look-at-ois-subtleties/ As you'll see, an officer operating under elevated stress levels, intending to stop a (supposed) threat, doesn't have the privilege of firing one shot, then stopping to see if that one did the trick, firing another shot, stopping again, and so forth.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-09T11:38:24-06:00

ID

158112

Comment

and so frequently decried by those uneducated or willfully ignorant of combat statistics I am neither uneducated nor willfully ignorant. I simply believe that firing that many shots is excessive in a nonviolent situation. In addition, zero shots should have been fired if the man only came on to his date. He should have just told him to back off and left it alone. The essay you shared is nice, but it does not excuse the perpetrator's behavior because there should not have even been one shot fired. The victim did not pose a physical threat.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2010-06-09T14:32:11-06:00

ID

158113

Comment

It sounds like you are withdrawing into the position that the officer's mistake was the decision to draw and shoot at all (as I stated originally), rather than the number of shots fired after that fateful decision was made. If you still believe that the situation would be "better" if the officer had fired 1 shot, or 2 shots, or 5 shots, then by all means, defend that position.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-09T14:36:38-06:00

ID

158115

Comment

Mark, did you read the story? The officer in question was (a.) not on duty, (b.) had his weapon in a nightclub, where, if he consumed alcohol he was in violation of department policy (he refused a breathalyzer test) and (c.) was not involved in a law-enforcement scenario. He was in an altercation outside a nightclub with an underarmed man who apparently pissed him off. He got off 13 shots in apparent anger. Would you really, under those circumstances, use *police science* to JUSTIFY his actions? All I can say is...wow. If anything, I would think that gun rights and police supporters would RUN -- not walk -- from this example. This is (presumably) a highly trained gun owner using his weapon in an extremely irresponsible and excessive manner that does not reflect well on his profession.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-06-09T15:07:52-06:00

ID

158116

Comment

Yes, I read the article. Did you read my comment? My objection is not to the criticism of the officer's decision to shoot a citizen over what looks like a nonviolent, personal conflict. My complaint is with the baseless, uninformed criticism of the number of shots fired. However misguided and twisted the officer's thought process might have been at that time, once he made the decision to shoot, the stress levels (with the accompanying loss of fine motor control and tunnel vision) provide more than enough explanation for the officer firing 13 shots. Why tack on baseless editorializing when what we actually know is bad enough? It sounds like a bad shoot; the officer ought to be investigated and prosecuted. Let's turn it around -- what was the appropriate number of shots for an off-duty officer to fire into an unarmed citizen over a personal altercation? I think it's a silly question for Latasha to raise. I wouldn't feel any better about the officer's actions if he'd fired one shot, two shots, five shots, or twenty five shots. But please, go on with the armchair psychoanalysis and assumptions about the nature of violent confrontations.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-09T15:21:22-06:00

ID

158117

Comment

Let's turn it around -- what was the appropriate number of shots for an off-duty officer to fire into an unarmed citizen over a personal altercation? Fewer than 13. From your research: On average, the subjects took 1.1 seconds to fall down. During this amount of time, Lewinski's research has shown that "4 shots could be fired by an 'average' police officer," Jason writes. "A crumple fall [going to the knees first, then down] will take more time and could result in several more shots fired during the movement. Additional shots could also be fired until the shooter perceives that the person is no longer a threat and is able to interrupt his shooting sequence." So in a (presumably) non-life threatening situation against an unarmed victim where a cop appears to be using his weapon as "remote control authority" instead of as a last resort to stop a deadly threat, we find that even if you try to apply the study you link and come up with an "appropriate" number of shots, it would be tough to justify 13. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. It sounds like a D.A. and jury may get a chance to make up their own mind. I think it's a silly question for Latasha to raise. I wouldn't feel any better about the officer's actions if he'd fired one shot, two shots, five shots, or twenty five shots. Wow... you're a piece of work. Look at those two sentences together. According to your reasoning, it would be EQUALLY as responsible to fire one shot as it is to fire 20? Really? 20 shots? Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. There are two reasons why I disagree that the number of shots fired is the zero-sum scenario you're arguing for: (a.) There's a valid assumption that fewer bullets *could mean* a better chance of survival for the victim, however unlikely. (b.) There's a valid assumption that the fewer shots fired, the less risk to OTHER PEOPLE in the vicinity. Each irresponsible shot added to the likelihood that the victim would die of his wounds, and each irresponsible shot added to the possibility that someone else would be wounded. If this shooting was not justified, then the cop did not make one mistake; he made 13, each with its own set of potential consequences. My complaint is with the baseless, uninformed criticism of the number of shots fired. You're the one shooting from the hip here, Sundance. Even your own linkage doesn't appear to support your hyperbole. I'd appreciate it if you'd rein in the condescension and be more agreeable even when you disagree.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-06-09T16:50:49-06:00

ID

158119

Comment

"If this shooting was not justified, then the cop did not make one mistake; he made 13, each with its own set of potential consequences." That statement seems to be the summation of your position, and highlights how patently absurd it is. Whether fueled by rage, fear, or simply poor judgment, it's ridiculous to suggest that each shot fired is a unique decision bearing separate and unrelated moral weight. Police are trained to make the decision to shoot, and then shoot until they believe the threat is neutralized. For all the reasons I've mentioned, they often fire many more shots then uninvolved third parties might believe to be appropriate. 5 minutes spent on YouTube watching videos of police shootouts completely devastates the idea that shooters on either side of the law consider each and every shot as individual decisions. It simply isn't the case, and no amount of sanctimonious finger-wagging can change that.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-09T17:05:01-06:00

ID

158120

Comment

Whether fueled by rage, fear, or simply poor judgment, it's ridiculous to suggest that each shot fired is a unique decision bearing separate and unrelated moral weight. Fortunately I didn't do that. I didn't say "unique decision" I said "mistake." Each shot doesn't have to be a unique decision in order for it to be a mistake. Aside from that, I'll let the reader note for him- or herself the points I've raised that you're choosing to ignore.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-06-09T17:27:38-06:00

ID

158121

Comment

Word-parsing. A mistake implies another course of action was available. This means each shot into a unique decision, which it clearly isn't in high-stress combat situations. The bottom line is that this moral outrage at 13 shots is unfounded. If we knew some more of the circumstances, if witnesses agreed that the shooter stood over the inert body, firing away, or the shooter himself admitted to firing after the so-called threat was clearly neutralized, then I'm all for it. But the reasoning being offered here, that we ought to be shocked at 13 (!) rounds being fired, simply because of the number itself, when it's actually not particularly out of the ordinary, is the same kind of reasoning leveled against LEO's in righteous shoots, accompanied by shrill cries of "police brutality".

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-09T18:22:55-06:00

ID

158123

Comment

It sounds like you are withdrawing into the position that the officer's mistake was the decision to draw and shoot at all (as I stated originally), rather than the number of shots fired after that fateful decision was made. Withdrawing into the position? That's been my position the whole time. That's the reason why I posted this story in the first place. If you still believe that the situation would be "better" if the officer had fired 1 shot, or 2 shots, or 5 shots, then by all means, defend that position. Never said that. I said: What makes this even worse is that the officer shot at him 13 times. The fact that I used the word "worse" means that I already believed that the situation was bad to begin with. There's no "better" here. Let's turn it around -- what was the appropriate number of shots for an off-duty officer to fire into an unarmed citizen over a personal altercation? Zero. I've said it already, bu I suppose it's worth repeating. After all, if the study you shared is an indication that cops somehow develop an unstoppable trigger finger, the officer certainly had no business firing a gun. What in the world would he do to someone who cuts him off in traffic or takes the last soda out of the fridge? The guy reminds me of Tackleberry from "Police Academy." I think it's a silly question for Latasha to raise. I wouldn't feel any better about the officer's actions if he'd fired one shot, two shots, five shots, or twenty five shots. If you think the question is silly, why do you keep posting? You've already implied that maybe I'm not too bright, so why continue to engage?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2010-06-09T18:43:21-06:00

ID

158125

Comment

[quote]You've already implied that maybe I'm not too bright, so why continue to engage?[/quote] I think I've covered most of the material in previous replies or in my "soon-to-be-approved-sometime-in-the-next-24-hours" reply to Todd, but I do want to address this. If you gathered somehow that I think you are stupid, I can assure you I certainly didn't intend that. If you focused on my use of the terms "uneducated" or "willfully ignorant", I'd point out that I restricted those terms with regard to combat statistics (something I wouldn't expect everyone to know off hand). I did not use them as pejorative insults, simply as descriptions of someone who, either by circumstance or intention, was not familiar with common phenomenon of police and other trained shooters continuing to fire their weapons well beyond what seems to be a reasonable point (at least, reasonable to third parties).

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-09T19:16:06-06:00

ID

158126

Comment

Mark- I would agee with you, IF the cop had been in a life threatening situation, the number of shots would not matter. If he had to shoot, you shoot till the threat stops 1 or 100 shots it doesn't matter. BUT, he wasn't in a life threatening situation, he got pissed because the guy groped his girlfriend. It was time to put his foot in his butt, but shooting the guy?, he WAY over reacted to a non-threat. I'm gonna have to agree with Todd and Latasha, a probably drunk cop shooting at unarmed probably drunk man 13 times does make it worse. 1 shot was excessive, 13 is just plain ass stupid.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-09T20:23:34-06:00

ID

158127

Comment

BubbaT, I'd agree with what you've said IF we had a video and audio of the entire altercation and understood exactly what happened. Is it within the realm of possibility that it began as a personal altercation, and then the victim made a move or did something that triggered the "threat" response in the officer? That's not to excuse the shooter -- clearly, he exhibited layers upon layers of poor judgment, from the initial decision to carry in that situation to the final decision to draw and shoot -- but to question the idea that it's so clear cut in who the aggressor was and what the officer's mindset was when he made the decision. Wow, this is my 3rd comment waiting for "approval". I wonder how far the discussion will go before any of them get posted?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-09T20:34:16-06:00

ID

158133

Comment

...not to mention that the "cop" shouldn't have even been carrying the weapon in the first place, especially if he was off duty; in a club; and possibly drinking. And if I understand this correctly, Mark, you're saying that cops, or any shooter, looses all control once they make the first shot. If that's the case and nothing separates a TRAINED policeman from a regular dude with a gun, why in the hell do we even need police. We can just go around with the Wild, Wild, West mentality and just have shoot outs. I'm sorry, but either I'm "not too bright" or your point just seems ridiculous. What are you saying exactly? Are you saying that we shouldn't expect cops to not shoot to kill each and every time they fire a shot whether it's life threatening or not? Are you saying that if a cop shoots once, it's okay to shoot again and again and again - even if they aren't being threatened? Surely that's not your stand on this? Lastly, are you a cop?

Author

Queen601

Date

2010-06-10T08:24:06-06:00

ID

158144

Comment

Queen- Why should a cop not be carrying a firearm while off duty? Even if he is not on the work schedule he still a cop on duty or off duty. Lots of departments require their off duty officers to carry a firearm. They should not carry while drinking,and most PD have rules about that. That was this cop's first mistake.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-10T14:47:25-06:00

ID

158145

Comment

In addition, Maryland already prohibits carrying while under the influence of alchohol (as do most states). Queen601, I am not a LEO in any capacity now or in the past. My comments regarding the common phenomenon of police continuing to shoot beyond what seems to be a "reasonable" point to bystanders or third parties stem solely from what I've read on the subject. I do recommend the book "Meditations on Violence" by Rory Miller. It focuses particularly on hand to hand combat, but the insights into the psychology of violent personal conflict extend into other areas as well. You are welcome to engage in hyperbole like, "you're saying that cops, or any shooter, looses all control once they make the first shot," but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. What are you saying exactly? Are you saying that we shouldn't expect cops to not shoot to kill each and every time they fire a shot whether it's life threatening or not? I'm not sure I follow all the negations in that question. I will say that expecting LEO's to "shoot to maim" or "shoot to disarm" is a cruel joke; shooting guns out of villains' hands or shooting them in the kneecaps are fairy tales. LEO's are trained to stop the threat, which generally means shooting center mass until the threat is down. Are you saying that if a cop shoots once, it's okay to shoot again and again and again - even if they aren't being threatened? Surely that's not your stand on this? If the LEO isn't being threatened, then shooting at all isn't okay. My stand is that once the LEO has assessed a threat (correctly or not) it's unreasonable to expect them to do anything other than shoot to stop the the threat. The assessment of the threat and the decision to shoot may be in error, but the process of shooting until the threat is down is not in question. It's standard police procedure.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-10T15:08:54-06:00

ID

158146

Comment

Why was the marine trying to holla at his girl yo? Maybe he was asking to be shot. Pop pop. The cop was just keeping it real, and keeping it real went wrong.

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-10T15:26:40-06:00

ID

158147

Comment

Welcome to the" Waiting For Approval" club, Mark. Frustrating, ain't it? Yay freedom of speech.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-06-10T15:52:33-06:00

ID

158148

Comment

Eh, it's a privately-owned website, no freedom of speech rights here, and that's as it should be. It's just frustrating to see questions and comments directed at me pile up and not be able to stay with the flow of the discussion.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-10T16:05:46-06:00

ID

158150

Comment

The assessment of the threat and the decision to shoot may be in error, but the process of shooting until the threat is down is not in question. It's standard police procedure. Well -- wait -- which is it? Standard procedure or elevated stress? Are the 13 bullets the result of "training" or "tunnel vision"? If the argument being made is that a cop simply can't control how many bullets come out of the gun -- even in a situation as described here -- then doesn't it pretty much argue for a good ol' service revolver? What I'm reading from Mark is that once ANY officer's finger pulls a trigger past the point of no return -- regardless of the level of training, mastery of the weapon or the actual circumstances of the shooting event -- rounds are going to keep flying in the general direction of the victim until the victim is inert. So, if only for the safety of law-abiding citizens in the vicinity, doesn't that suggest we need to limit the number of bullets in any cop's gun?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-06-10T16:28:37-06:00

ID

158153

Comment

A drunk cop with a history of alcohol induced violent incidents fires 13 shots at an unarmed man because he groped his girl? This is a no brainer...lock this dirty cop up and charge him with murder.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2010-06-11T07:19:24-06:00

ID

158155

Comment

Mark, you've clearly chosen the wrong sword to drop your odd brand of conservatism on. I mean, really. No-brainer, indeed.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-06-11T08:35:51-06:00

ID

158156

Comment

[quote]Well -- wait -- which is it? Standard procedure or elevated stress? Are the 13 bullets the result of "training" or "tunnel vision"?[/quote] To borrow a phrase from the JFP lexicon, your thinking is too dichotomous. It's not an either/or. I'll lay it out as simply as I can: Human stress response in these high-adrenaline situations frequently results in loss/reduction of motor control and tunnel vision. Police training seeks to control and limit these stress responses by emphasizing muscle memory and strong visual cues in the actual shooting process. The quality of the training, the individual LEO's ability to maintain focus, and the particular stress levels of a given situation all combine to produce a variety of reactions. That's it in about as small of a nutshell as I can put it. If you're done trying to spin that very straightforward explanation in one direction or another, then what should be quite clear is that trying to make grand moral statements about the number of shots fired in any given shooting is a difficult and complicated thing, especially when the actual details of the situation are not completely clear. Absolutely, I am in full agreement that this officer made several poor decisions that led up to his fateful decision to shoot a citizen. But trying to attach some moral significance to the number of shots he fired just doesn't work when we don't know exactly what happened, and too often this kind of third-party moral chastisement based on limited information is used to attack law enforcement in righteous shoots.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-11T08:47:28-06:00

ID

158159

Comment

Bubba....okay...point taken. But maybe the fact that having the gun, while in a night club, drinking and shooting at an unarmed civilian could be reason enough to not even carry the weapon. My stand is that once the LEO has assessed a threat (correctly or not) it's unreasonable to expect them to do anything other than shoot to stop the the threat.---Mark Okay, I dont want to give the impression that I am as "educated" on this as you seem to be. This really doesn't appear to be rocket science and although I certainly appreciate you taking the time to "educate" me, it seems to be cut and dry. I still just can't wrap my head around this. Tell me again, why must a cop shoot 13 shots to stop a threat (which this guy wasn't or doesn't seem to be)? Why doesn't it make perfect sense to shoot him in the foot like Quick did to Vera in Harlem Nights? Why not shoot up in the air and not fire at the dude at all? Why did he have to shoot so many times, risking killing this man, just to nullify what he deemed a threat; i'm at least hoping he "thought" there was a threat.

Author

Queen601

Date

2010-06-11T11:57:45-06:00

ID

158160

Comment

Oh....and how can you tell your comment is waiting to be approved? I just want to know in case I run into that same problem. :-)

Author

Queen601

Date

2010-06-11T12:08:11-06:00

ID

158162

Comment

Oh, just realized that the preferred JFP term is "binary" and not "dichotomous"...my mistake.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-11T12:46:59-06:00

ID

158168

Comment

Queen- LOL "I'm gonna shoot your pinkie toe off" Love that movie. But really shooting someone in the foot,leg,arm just happens in the movies, not in real life, very few people are that good of a shot under stress. It would take an expert marksman to be able to hit a person in the arm or leg under stress,and very few cops are expert marksman. You can find videos of police sharpshooters shooting guns out of the hands of people but that's rare and they were shooting from far away with a rifle and not in danger or under stress at all. "Shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop the threat" aren't the same thing. No police officer is taught to "shoot to kill" they are taught to shoot to "stop the threat" and shoot till the threat stop". That means to aim for center mass and shoot till the threat is down or surrenders. That might mean 1 shot or 20 shots, whatever it takes. They aren't trying to kill them, just stop the threat. If the person they are shooting dies as result of that,well they shouldn't have been doing something that threatens the cops life. Now that only applies to a legitimate threat to the officer, but in this case I don't see how an unarmed man was legitimate threat. I think the cop was very wrong to shoot at all. Oh FYI Shooting up in the air is one of the most dangerous thing anybody could do. What goes up must come down and they have no way to control where it's gonna land. I know a guy that's in prison now because he shot up in the air and when the bullet came down it killed a lady a block away. Shooting in the air is a big no-no.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-11T15:15:56-06:00

ID

158170

Comment

*Mouth wide Open* WOOOOW! I really never thought of that (shooting in the air). I feel a little silly now having ask that. Oh well, better to ask to know than not ask and not know. Now, back to this cop, threat, shoot-to-stop thing. So, if someone is coming at an officer and the officer "thinks" the person is threatening him, he has reason to shoot and keep shooting, right? If that's the case then there is absolutely no wonder so many people are killed by cops. I mean is there any other method to this other than "if you feel threated, stop the threat?" A cop can always "say" they felt threatened. Hell, they can go out to a club on duty, off duty and just shoot up folk they don't like and say, "I felt threatened - ALOT". Surely there has to be some code of conduct or something else I'm missing.

Author

Queen601

Date

2010-06-11T15:29:49-06:00

ID

158172

Comment

Queen- there is a code of conduct. The cop is suppose to assess the threat level and react accordingly. That's why they have firearms,tazers,pepper spray, and nightsticks. For different threat levels. I was strickly talking about a life threatening situation as to "shoot till the threat stops" not reacting to a guy wanting to kick a cop's butt, where a tazer or pepper spray would be thing to use.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-11T15:50:06-06:00

ID

158173

Comment

What you (and most likely, this officer) are missing is that LEO's are not only trained to deal with immediate threats with potentially lethal force, but also with a variety of nonlethal methods including pepper spray, flashlight/batons (where they are still allowed), unarmed holds (where they are still allowed), stun guns, and, of course, verbal commands with the stated threat of potentially lethal force. So, I stand by my comments that the real issue here is not how many shots the officer fired, but his conduct leading up to the confrontation and his decision to use potentially lethal force in the first place.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-11T15:52:09-06:00

ID

158174

Comment

Whoops -- BubbaT's post popped up in my email just as I responded. Same idea.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-11T15:53:07-06:00

ID

158195

Comment

I guess this story could be used by guns-rights activists to promote more relaxed concealed weapons laws, as maybe if this guy was armed, he could have shot back or first in a no holds barred gun fight, and killed that crooked-ass cop. 187 son. Is it illegal to kill a cop in self-defense?

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-14T14:44:25-06:00