The comments posted on this message board represent the individual opinions of their respective posters only and are not to be construed as statements of proven or alleged fact.
When it was a clearly justifiable shooting? Yes, that is what I am saying. Its a waste of everyone's time and tax payers money. Listen to cops when they tell you to stop doing something and don't ever try to fight a cop. Its just dumb. The guy with the gun always wins.
The attorney called it a "fist fight"? You don't get to fist fight with a cop. You try, you're going to lose, everytime.
"Clearly justifiable" is in the eye of the beholder. Presumably the city or PD (I don't know exactly who's being sued) tried to get this tossed before it got to trial and the judge thought there was enough of a case that the plaintiffs could at least make their case for the jury, at their own expense, or at least at their lawyer's
While this is maybe not a great comparison. Since OJ Simpson was cleared in a criminal trial then he should not have had to face a civil trial later on.
I had spoke to a police friend of mine after that incident happened and asked, WTF, why didn't the cop just shot his arm or shoulder or something. And he said that it's shot to kill. I didn't know that... correct me if I'm wrong. Why not taser or hit with a billy club? Unless he was alone or really incapacitated?
How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two lost souls Swimming in a fish bowl, Year after year, Running over the same old ground. What have we found? The same old fears. Wish you were here.
The police training I received made it clear that your firearm was to be used only if the situation required deadly force. You would not use a firearm to wound someone.
It's so very unfortunate that the situation the officer encountered required the use of deadly force.
With regard to tasers, I seem to recall that they were provided to our police force within the past year. This incident occured in 2006.
So the jury has decided. Is GEB&R satisfied, or displeased that the Plaintiff's even had access to the courts?
I agree very much that individuals ought not get into altercations with police. But at the time this happened and now I wonder why this situation got to the point at which the cop needed to use his weapon on a naked unarmed individual. I realize that domestic disturbances can be dangerous, and situations can be stressful, fast moving, and explosive. But I would certainly hope that the department's desired response when an officer encounters a naked unarmed person outside would end otherwise than with the cop wrestling the guy in a bedroom and discharging his gun into the guy's eye.
Sorry Dinsdale. There's a certain amount of society that believes the police are right in any circumstance. It gives them comfort. They haven't had any run ins with the police to take away that benefit of the doubt. That time will come.
The jury came back in an hour. That is more telling than anything else about the strength of the Plaintiff's case.
I think the larger issue was the method of response to the call. One cop for a domestic violence call. If there were two cops on the scene, I don't think it would have gotten to trial.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." William James
You are trained to shoot at center mass, the chest area etc. This shoot to wound or aim for the shoulders is nonsense. If you have ever fired a weapon you would know how difficult it is to have that degree of accuracy.
Once the officer was down on the ground being assaulted he was in a life threatening situation so shooting the suspect was his only recourse.
I think it was appropriate that this was bought to trial that a jury was allowed to hear what happened and make a decision. I believe they made the right one.
My only complaint is why the officer did not have or request additional backup. That is one thing in this that has never been clarified.
In glacing at the news article and reading responses here, may he was pinned or the 'underdog' at one point in which maybe his neck could have been 'snapped.'
How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two lost souls Swimming in a fish bowl, Year after year, Running over the same old ground. What have we found? The same old fears. Wish you were here.
Unnecessary, repetitive and redundant quote removed. --Ted E.
Have to agree with Taxpayer on this one. If there truly is a call for deadly force (apparent egregious harm potential to officer or citizens), then the police officer has to take out this person as trained.
But, it just seems very strange that one officer went to this place alone. Especially, as Dinsdale points out, with how the police like to swarm any incident with as much back up as possible. Suppose only this officer and the dead guy will know what happened and leave it at that...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ted E.,
I am pleased with the results of the verdict. Let me clarify one thing, I do not, by any means think that police are always right. I think the police can be very wrong and there should be back-ups and checks for these things. I think I was unclear before, when in a situation where the police instruct you, at gunpoint, to stop, you should stop whatever you are doing and then try to sort through the situation once adrenaline and all deadly weapons are put away.
I do think that this is an unfortunate situation that should never have even occurred. (I mean the shooting). It’s unfortunate that someone was killed, that his family has to go through that, as well as that Officer/Trooper Bradley has to live the rest of his life knowing that he had to kill someone. I posted earlier this week, a bit fired up from the unfair media coverage of this trial and I came off as ignorant. My apologies. I am, however, pleased with the verdict, as the facts of this case do support the police action.
Was it ever clarified that the guy who was shot was trying to harm his kid? I remember that was the story in the media at the very beginning. Was that the way the story ended up?
Disturbed naked guy runs around apartment complex. Cop shows up. Naked guy runs into apartment potentially to harm little kid. Cop follows, fight ensues. That's what I remember. Does anyone know if that's "the way it was"?
Posts: 1957 | Location: Posh YMCA District | Registered: June 04, 2003
Of course what has never been answered is why officer Bradley was in there by himself.
Last Sunday I was in the Library and there were three police officers dealing with one person.
It is a standard police procedure to have at the minimum two officers during a domestic disturbance call. So two should have been dispatched immediately. Also once a child was involved more officers should have been sent to the scene.
You have to wonder about the Village's total lack of curiosity in this. I mean the same village that has combed through our police chiefs adventures in texting seems totally uninterested in over something that really matters.
