A homeowner says a Phoenix police officer shot him six times in the back during a 911 home-invasion call, and the 911 tape recorded the officer's partner saying, "That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?" The family says the officers were not aware that the 911 call was still recording as they spoke about covering up the shooting.
Incredibly, the homeowner survived. Even more incredible is that the trigger happy cop survived, career-wise.
AZCentral.com reports.
A Phoenix police officer who mistakenly shot an armed homeowner during a search for an intruder was cleared of wrongdoing this week by a committee that reviews such shootings.
The ruling by the Phoenix Use of Force Board determined Officer Brian Lilly acted within police policy in the incident, in which he fired six shots at the homeowner amid the confusion of a home invasion last September.
Actually I don't find that so incredible. The police have a tough job and they protect each other as much as possible. In cases like this I suppose they tend to give the benefit of the doubt to their own. Even civilian review boards are often inclined towards this.
What the story points out is how someone acts after a questionable shooting. Whether policeman or civilian, the first natural response to a bad shooting is be to cover it up. If circumstances permit, it get recorded as a legitimate act instead of what it really is. This works for cops who are nervous and show bad judgment, shooting too quickly like in this case, as well as the more sinister vigilante or vendetta type shootings. In those, if the victim of the shooting is doing something wrong it's that much easier to cover it up.
What's your opinion? How many of the reported DGUs do you think might be wrongful shootings covered up? Take the Kleck estimate based on his survey, or even the daily reports on the famous site of Clayton Cramer, how many of them might be wrongly reported in your opinion?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
What's your opinion? How many of the reported DGUs do you think might be wrongful shootings covered up
ReplyDeleteI have a question, too. How would any "estimate" of that number be any better than a wild-ass-guess (WAG)? I realize, from your "10%" methodology, that you have no problem throwing WAGs around as legitimate theories, but others of us prefer to have some rational basis for numbers we throw around.
Otherwise, we would just look silly.
beowulf, I admit my 10% theory is something short of a scientific survey, but I believe it's a bit more than a WAG.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you saying, that those categories of gun owners I outlined in my explanation don't exist? That would be pretty wild, don't you think?
I'm not saying that at all--I'm just saying that we can throw numbers hither and thither, but it's kinda silly to do so without some data to back it up. I don't have such data, and wouldn't know where to get it. I suspect you are little different from me in that regard.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that I'm not really a "numbers guy." Whether 100% of gun owners are moral, responsible, and competent, or 1% (likewise, whether 100% of reported DGUs are legitimate, or 1%)--or even 0%--that doesn't affect my fundamental right to access to effective means of self-defense.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I tend to try to stay out of statistical arguments about gun rights/gun law issues--because I think they're irrelevant.
"I admit my 10% theory is something short of a scientific survey, but I believe it's a bit more than a WAG. "
ReplyDeleteProve it!
This works for cops who are nervous and show bad judgment, shooting too quickly like in this case, as well as the more sinister vigilante or vendetta type shootings. In those, if the victim of the shooting is doing something wrong it's that much easier to cover it up.
ReplyDeleteYou are leaving out one critically important point that invalidates your entire post.
Police that are involved in "bad shoots" are acting proactively. They are going after someone, entering a strange building. DGUs, on the other hand, represent people in their own home acting against a pepetrator. If that person wasn't in their home there would be no issue. You also continue to ignore that most DGUs don't even involve the discharge of a gun, let alone shooting someone, so there cannot possibly be a coverup.
TomB, That's a good point. The police are aggressors and the DGU guys are defenders. There are exceptions to both, but that's the general breakdown. I don't see how that invalidates anything I've said though.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how that invalidates anything I've said though.
ReplyDeleteIf someone enters my house forcibly, I am entitled to use deadly force to stop them (in most states). So there is no need for shootings to be covered up. The police, OTOH, are constantly asked to go into potentially dangerous places and make split-second decisions that can result in bad shoots.
The two situations are completely different. I don't know how it could be made any clearer.
Tell me how you feel about this statement...
ReplyDelete"So, yes, I blame the Police Chief. I blame the whole Justice system that allowed this sick cop to get to this point. And especially I blame the law enforcemnt culture in America, the sick law enforcement culture which encourages cops, even sick cops like this one, to keep guns.
What the media didn't say is that the homeowner came out of a bedroom pointing a gun at the police officers, and did not drop the gun when told to do so. Officer Lilly did what any well trained cop SHOULD have done.
ReplyDeleteBullshit, anonymous, it was a negligent shooting to say the least.
ReplyDeleteHow can you call "bullshit" if you weren't there?!? In a report taken by police the homeowner admitted to having gun in hand. Remember who all you armchair jockey's call when the shit hits the fan!!
ReplyDelete