Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Police Stop Cars with Bullets

Ever since we discussed the famous case of Ladon Jones, who was exonerated in the shooting death of someone in the act of stealing his SUV, I've been intrigued by the image of a man with a handgun shooting in self defense at an attacking vehicle. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it a bit incredible. Nevertheless, there are two cases in the news today.

The Los Angeles Times reports on the acquittal of an off duty policeman who shot at such a vehicle wounding the driver and her 8-year-old boy.

Officer Frank White, 29, was charged in a March 2008 "road rage" incident that occurred while White and his wife were shopping in Oceanside.

Another driver, Rachel Silva, 29, allegedly followed White and rammed her car into his in a parking lot. White identified himself as a police officer and fired five bullets into her car, striking Silva in the arm and her son in the leg, according to court papers and White's testimony.


The Houston Chronicle reports on one that took place in El Paso in which the offending driver was killed.

El Paso police have identified a 12-year veteran with the department as the officer who shot and killed a motorist accused of trying to hit a police officer and a group of pedestrians with his car.

Police said Sgt. Louis C. Johnson shot 31-year-old Ruben Troncoso on Friday night after Troncoso fled from a traffic stop after allegedly trying to run down an officer and then steering his car toward a group of pedestrians.

Troncoso died after being shot and running his car into a light pole. No one else was injured.


Please don't get me wrong. I'm all for a righteous shooting, but I can't quite shake the feeling that shooting a handgun at an out-of-control automobile is the stuff of Hollywood movies, not real life. This is the kind of thing Bruce Willis does convincingly, not real-live cops and homeowners protecting their property.

I still have serious reservations about old Ladon, and the two cop shootings don't really work for me either. The first one sounds a bit excessive and the second, completely implausible.

What's your opinion? Does the idea of Officer Frank White shooting at Rachel Silva and discovering later that her kid was in the line of fire, bother you? It bothers me. Does the fact that Officer Louis Johnson killed only Ruben Troncoso and no one else comfort you? It doesn't comfort me. In fact, I put this one in the same category with Ladon.

Does it sound plausible to you that Troncoso's car was first "trying to run down an officer" and then was aiming "toward a group of pedestrians," and that the officer was able to shoot and kill the driver in time to prevent the tragedy?

To me it sounds exactly like what I suspect happens in a questionable DGU. The shooter, whether it be Ladon Jones or Officer Johnson, describes the sequence of events in such a way as to excuse the incident as justified. Sometimes that sequence of events is transparently implausible. And what happens next is the other cops and the prosecutors and the judges decide to accept that version all for their own reasons.

What's your opinion? Were these justified shootings? Do you think unjustified shootings are sometimes passed off in the way I've described?

Please leave a comment.

27 comments:

  1. "Please don't get me wrong. I'm all for a righteous shooting, but I can't quite shake the feeling that shooting a handgun at an out-of-control automobile is the stuff of Hollywood movies, not real life."

    Well, you better shake that feeling because more and more firearms schools are offering classes based on shooting into, out of, and around vehicles. Here is an example of such a class:

    http://www.sigsaueracademy.com/Courses/ShowCourseDetails.aspx?cid=190&ccid=10

    "Does the idea of Officer Frank White shooting at Rachel Silva and discovering later that her kid was in the line of fire, bother you?"

    It bothers me. Mostly because if White were not a police officer, he wouldn't be a free man today.

    It also bothers me that the usual suspects are completely silent. Had this incident involved a civilian as the shooter, the VPC and Brady Campaign couldn't dance in the blood fast enough, lamenting about the evils of "loaded, hidden firearms" on our streets.

    "Does the fact that Officer Louis Johnson killed only Ruben Troncoso and no one else comfort you?"

    It comforts me because it's a case of a police officer doing their job: protecting the public.

    "Were these justified shootings?"

    Yes. In nearly every state, trying to hit someone with an automobile is considered assault with a deadly weapon, treated no differently than pointing a gun at someone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry Mike, but I've got a family full of cops, and if some asshole tries to ram my brother, brother-in-law or anyone else I hope they react exactly as the cops in these cases did.

    Only an idiot believes a car is not a deadly weapon.

    killed a motorist accused of trying to hit a police officer and a group of pedestrians with his car. Police said Sgt. Louis C. Johnson shot 31-year-old Ruben Troncoso on Friday night after Troncoso fled from a traffic stop after allegedly trying to run down an officer and then steering his car toward a group of pedestrians.

    So Troncoso was using his car as a deadly weapon. Trying to run down a cop and pedestrians is ABSOLUTELY an immediate threat to the life of those people. It is NO different than if he'd pulled a gun and started shooting at them. Deadly force is deadly force and thus using deadly force to stop such actions are entirely justified.

    If someone was trying to run me over with their car you're damn right I'd shoot at them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually Mike, it happens far more than you might think. In fact, it happened 25 miles from my home just last Thursday.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FWM, By "more than you might think" I hope you mean bogus shootings dressed up to sound legit, but somehow I don't think that's your intention.

    "Kirk somehow got into the deputy's car and attempted to run over him."

    Doesn't that "somehow" make your cynic-meter go off, it does mine. The eyewitnesses said he took possession of the police cruiser at knife point. How did the car end up aiming at the cop then? How do you picture it? The whole thing is improbable. The bad guy had a knife, the cop had a gun which he ended up using?

    Please tell me you were citing that story as another example I could use to illustrate my point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike W., Please look at that story about Troncoso again and try to do the choreography. It just doesn't work. That's my point. I've never disputed that lethal threat by automobile is possible, I'm just questioning if these examples were that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What exactly are you disputing in the 2nd incident?

    Guy tried to run down the cop and pedestrians while fleeing a traffic stop. The cop shot him, eliminating the threat.

    Again, why can't you accept that actions have consequences Mike? Why do you always make excuses for criminals and accuse victims of wrongdoing?

    ReplyDelete
  7. mikeb,

    Maybe it doesn't make sense in your mind because the writer doesn't understand the chain of events, wasn't there, and can't report them effectively?

    Or the cop - who receives so much training - is just a hothead that wants to use his gun?

    Which do you think is the more likely scenario.

    I say Bravo Zulu to the cop!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It strikes me as more than a little pointless to speculate on what really happened without having been there, and without access to a detailed account of what happened. I know you like to make that kind of wild-assed guess, Mikeb (and your guess seems always to be that the person with the gun was in the wrong--no bias there), but a lot of us don't like to make assumptions without anything on which to base them.

    Could either or both of these shootings have been wrong? Sure, as could the one by Ladon Jones. All three could, on the other hand, have been completely justified, for the reason cited by the shooter--self-defense. That's why we have courts, and the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt.

    As for the 8-year-old boy who was hit: if the cop didn't know he was in the car, I guess we now have demonstrable evidence of the dangers of allowing people to carry concealed children in public ;-).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Isn't it ironic that MikeB, who bases many ideas of reality off movies or teevee shows such as the wire is describing an actual event in this way:

    but I can't quite shake the feeling that shooting a handgun at an out-of-control automobile is the stuff of Hollywood movies, not real life.

    Maybe the pro-gun people aren't the ones with a reality problem MikeB.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 45superman, Thanks for admitting that it could be either way. I agree with that. My question always gets back to, "how often do those bad ones happen?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. "FWM, By "more than you might think" I hope you mean bogus shootings dressed up to sound legit, but somehow I don't think that's your intention."

    I think we both know I was talking about cops stopping a car.

    As far as this account in Ohio, I believe there were several witnesses. Still, the department has been very tight lipped about the incident even not releasing the name of the deputy after a week. Guess we'll wait and see what unfolds.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 45superman, Thanks for admitting that it could be either way.

    You're welcome, I guess, although I don't think I was being charitable. It's not much of an "admission," after all, to acknowledge that not all shootings are justified, and I've never known anyone to claim that they are.

    My question always gets back to, "how often do those bad ones happen?"

    How are we ever going to know, beyond trusting the courts to sort it out, and to get it right? What I see from you is that even after the courts, after having been presented with all the evidence and having heard all the arguments, exonerates the shooter, you dismiss the court's findings, and judge the shooter guilty, with nothing to go on but a newspaper article and your own preconceptions. Seems like kind of a shoddy way to behave, to tell you the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kurt - MikeB believes in "guilty until proven innocent" as far as gun owners are concerned. Then, even when they've been proven innocent he'll continue to question that and drag their name through the mud some more.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Exactly, Mike W., and that's why I find it so puzzling that the very same person would say "I think we need to give people the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Isn't that what 'reasonable doubt' means?"

    I'd be hard pressed to find a more blatant example of the application of a double standard.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, indeed, I base many of my ideas of reality on TV and movies, and I say stopping cars with a pistol is the stuff of Hollywood.

    And, yes, indeed, I consider police who shoot their guns at criminals to very often be overreacting. And just like the private citizen who uses his defensive gun a little too quickly, what's the cop gonna do afterwards? He's gonna dress it up as best he can. After all, the guy was a criminal anyway.

    That is a common attitude among cops. I never said most of them abuse their power, like I've been accused of, but I have said it does happen and it happens too often.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "That is a common attitude among cops. I never said most of them abuse their power, like I've been accused of, but I have said it does happen and it happens too often."


    I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I never said most of them abuse their power, like I've been accused of, but I have said it does happen and it happens too often."

    Yes it does yet you give them the benefit of the doubt which you refuse to the rest of the citizenry who own firearms.

    ReplyDelete
  18. MikeB - I say you volunteer to be run over by a car, THEN you can tell me that police who shoot someone trying to run them down in a car are "overreacting."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mike W., I'm afraid you're not listening to me. I'm questioning whether the bad guy's were really trying to run over the cops with a car. That's what I doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There must be something in the stories you cited that raise this "doubt" in your mind.

    Do you know something about these cases other than what we read in the articles?

    Why do you immediately side with the criminal in every single case mike?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm questioning whether the bad guy's were really trying to run over the cops with a car. That's what I doubt.

    And your "benefit of the doubt" mantra doesn't apply here, apparently. I notice that you now admit to holding felonious thugs to a lesser standard of behavior than you would apply to . . . decent people, but how in the hell do you justify differing standards for proof of one's innocence?

    Yes, I said "proof of innocence," because the principle of the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt notwithstanding, you very clearly want to presume guilt for everyone but felonious thugs, unless they can prove their innocence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. there are things you will NEVER understand there mikey because you obviously have no idea what it's like to be in life or death situation where a split second decision can save your life or end it.

    i agree with 45superman... quit watching so much tv and wake up!

    ReplyDelete
  23. MikeB...

    I don't care to adress this particular case simply because I was not there and any analysis on my part, or anyone's part, would amount to wild speculation.

    I fully support your stance of asking questions about the incident, but none of us were there so I'm not sure any resolution can be attained from discussing events none of us can confirm.

    I just wanted to say thankyou for responding to comments on your blog.

    We are worlds apart on the issue of gun-control and the 2A, but you have the cajones to state your position, debate that position, make concessions(yes, i've seen 'em) and respond to critiques.

    You are a rare bird in the gun-control crowd.

    Please continue.

    ReplyDelete
  24. kaveman said, "We are worlds apart on the issue of gun-control and the 2A, but you have the cajones to state your position, debate that position, make concessions(yes, i've seen 'em) and respond to critiques.

    You are a rare bird in the gun-control crowd."


    I've asked you guys about the name calling before, yet you persist. I am not a "bird," I demand proof, proof, I say.

    kaveman, You forgot to mention my sense of humor.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sorry MikeB,

    But I haven't seen a sense of humor from you.

    I demand proof that you have one.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Touche' MikeB...

    My main focus is that I like "reasoned discourse" on the 2A issue as well as all others.

    We're not monsters. We are passionate about freedon.

    There is a difference.

    I have vowed to not attack you on a personal level; I simply attack your positions and assumptions.

    Again, there is a difference.

    There is a whole host of antis that I loathe. You haven't reached that level yet and I dare say that I might even wish to sit down and have a beer with you.

    Dutch pay, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't think the cop was right to ASSUME that Troncoso was going to hit that crowd...I have yet to see anyone come out and say that they were in this "crowd". No one has come out as a witness saying they saw him driving towards a crowd...only the cop has stated this so called fact. The way I see it, there are too many holes in the story.

    ReplyDelete