Peoria police shot a man who officers said came at them with a baseball bat.
Police said they responded to a domestic violence call near 107th Avenue and Deer Valley Road on Monday evening. Investigators said a 62-year-old man had been fighting with his wife over finances. When police got to the house, they said the man, who was not identified, ignored their commands to back down and came at them with a baseball bat.
"He refused to comply with their commands, and at one point charged at them with the bat," said Jay Davies, Peoria Police Department spokesman. "A bat in close contact can do some serious damage, and the officers absolutely feared for their lives and fired to protect themselves and each other."
A third officer may have deployed her Taser, said police.
The man was airlifted to the hospital in critical condition.
How much do you want to bet they'll be exonerated? I'm sure the gun crowd supports this loose definition of lethal threat. I'm sure none of them would consider that one guy with a baseball bat cannot truly threaten several police officers. But what can happen is when police officers have their adrenalin pumping and issue commands like "drop the bat," which are ignored, they get very mad. Afterwards, like so many DGUs, they describe it as having been afraid for their lives.
What's your opinion? Do you condone this kind of police shooting?
Please leave a comment.
I'm sure none of them would consider that one guy with a baseball bat cannot truly threaten several police officers.
ReplyDeleteThen you are surely wrong. One swing of a baseball bat can kill--whether the victim is a police officer, or not (can't imagine what that has to do with it, really), and whether there are more police officers there, or not.
Baseball bats, like guns, are lethal weapons, and that's why I support identical laws for the regulation of both (meaning no regulation at all).
glad thing you live in Italy where the police are corrupt and are afraid to fight the mafia. Just imagine if you tried to open a store in Italy and someone came by and told you you had to pay a pizzo (tax) for them to protect your store from being damaged. You would have no choice because the cops are controlled by the mafia who control the politicians.
ReplyDeleteWhen you see someone with a gun and they tell you to lower your bat, you lower your bat.
The guy was probably drunk also.
How much do you want to bet they'll be exonerated? I'm sure the gun crowd supports this loose definition of lethal threat. I'm sure none of them would consider that one guy with a baseball bat cannot truly threaten several police officers. But what can happen is when police officers have their adrenalin pumping and issue commands like "drop the bat," which are ignored, they get very mad. Afterwards, like so many DGUs, they describe it as having been afraid for their lives.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your opinion? Do you condone this kind of police shooting?
You can't seriously believe this. Of course it was justified. A bat is a deadly weapon.
Tell you what, B, you get a couple of your friends together -- some big ones -- and I'll come at you with lousiville slugger. I'll bet $1,000 I can put at least one of you in the hospital. If you give me odds, I'll bet I can lay out all three of you before you can get the bat away from me and be the only one standing.
ReplyDeleteThere is one very simple rule to not be shot by police officers or citizens:
1. Do NOT threaten or charge a fellow citizen/cop with a weapon of any kind.
Does that really seem like too much to ask?
Here is my own favorite personal self defense video, which shows how even a piece of fresh fruit can be deadly!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
I have since moved on to pointed sticks and AK-47's ;-)
No one is questioning if a baseball bat CAN be a deadly weapon. I would imagine a toothpick can too. What I'm saying is it seems like overkill when three cops shoot a guy to death for wielding a bat. I think it was more likely they were punishing him for disobedience or for being an out-of-control maniac than that they feared for their lives. This is what happens in many DGUs, I'm afraid. The shooter unnecessarily kills and afterwards says he feared for his life.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteI think you're smart enough to be able to make the distinction between a toothpick and a baseball bat. Seriously, I'd rather go up against someone with a switchblade than with a bat.
Apparently MikeB thinks fists, bats, crowbars and other large blunt objects cannot cause death / serious injury.
ReplyDeleteI suppose such a belief fits with the majority of his beliefs in that it is patently false.
So I guess if you were in the cops situation you wouldn't fear for your life?
ReplyDeleteWould you nonchalantly walk up to him, introduce yourself and shake his hand?
If you are weilding a deadly weapon and the police tell you to put it down and stay where you are YOU COMPLY. If instead of complying you COME AT THEM WITH A BAT they will shoot you.
Any armed private citizen would have taken the same course of action as the cops.
In what whacked out world is a guy charging you with a bat a "loose defiinition of lethal threat?"
Aren't you interested in where he got the baseball bat?
ReplyDeleteAre lax bat laws to blame here?
What I'm saying is it seems like overkill when three cops shoot a guy to death for wielding a bat.
ReplyDeletePoint 1: To "shoot a guy to death," doesn't the guy have to have died?
Point 2: When being charged by an enraged guy brandishing a bat, with every apparent intent to cause you and your partners death or great physical harm, what's your brilliant idea for coming out of it without your head smashed in?
You admit that a bat can be used as a deadly weapon. The story, as given, makes clear that the guy gave every indication of intending to of do his best to use it precisely that way.
Good shooting, Officers.
Hey MikeB, shouldn't we blame little leaguers? After all if not for them people wouldn't "need" bats and maybe this guy wouldn't have one.
ReplyDeleteLet's ban bats, who cares if we inconvenience little kids?
Sebastian said, "I'd rather go up against someone with a switchblade than with a bat."
ReplyDeleteYou must mean if you were unarmed. With a gun in hand, it wouldn't matter much, I'd say.
The post does not make clear what the man did. It makes clear what the cops say he did.
ReplyDeleteNow, all of you gun owners, especially the mike w. and zorro's of the world are surely good enough shots to disable a guy without having to wound him critically? If not, then I guess you maybe shouldn't be shooting at people. Oh, wait, he was attacking 3 armed police officers. Sure a basebaeall bat can be deadly but I'm guessing a Glock will beat it for both average and distance, every time.
But, then how much fun would it be to just subdue someone when you can shoot him instead?
Democommie--if there's a police academy in the entire country that trains recruits to "shoot to disable," rather than to shoot for center mass, I'll owe you a box of ammunition--your choice of caliber.
ReplyDeleteWhy are gun owners so reluctant to admit that a shooting might have been unwarranted? When someone pulls a gun and shoots or prepares to shoot at the cops, I'm all for their blowing him away. But in anything short of that, I have my doubts. Aren't the police too often overly aggressive in these situations?
ReplyDeleteWhy are gun owners so reluctant to admit that a shooting might have been unwarranted? When someone pulls a gun and shoots or prepares to shoot at the cops, I'm all for their blowing him away. But in anything short of that, I have my doubts. Aren't the police too often overly aggressive in these situations?
ReplyDeleteYou know I am not reluctant to admit such when that is the situation, but if you and three friends want to try to disarm a man with a baseball bat, and see how many of you end up in the hospital or worse, be sure to capture that on film.
Do you think this is the movies, where you can just hit someone and knock them out for a bit? All it takes is one good hit with a baseball bat to smash someone's skull in. One hit can be lethal. On hit can break a bone and put you on the ground, unable to escape further hits.
No, shooting someone threatening you with a baseball bat is absolutely the proper thing for a police officer, or anyone else.
I admit, it is possible for one man with a baseball bat, a big man, high on PCP and all pumped up from a raging fight with the wife, to so frighten three armed policemen.
ReplyDeleteCan we agree there are not enough facts in the story to tell one way or another?
You know how I like to read into these stories. The only ones I like to persecute more than gun owners are law enforcement gun owners.
Can we agree there are not enough facts in the story to tell one way or another?
ReplyDeleteThere was a man threatening police with a bat. That's all the facts you need. They asked him to drop the bat, he did not. That didn't leave them with any other alternative that didn't risk one of those officers not going home to his family at the end of his shift.
It doesn't take being high on PCP, or super human strength. Go put a water melon up on a stand, and give it one good swing with a baseball bat. Now imagine that was a human head. If you want to try it with a coconut too, if you insist on something harder, be my guest. Baseball bats are deadly weapons.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteWhy are gun owners so reluctant to admit that a shooting might have been unwarranted?
I have no problem at all in admitting that. What I object to is the assumption that the shooting was unjustified, with exactly zero evidence to support that . . . remarkable assertion.
Mikeb also says:
The only ones I like to persecute more than gun owners are law enforcement gun owners.
This, from the same guy who contemptuously dismisses the possibility that gun owners are subject to bigotry.
Zorro:
ReplyDeleteI've got a better idea. You show me the specific training manuals that tell police recruits to use deadly force against assailants--in every department in the country.
It's a two way street. You and mikey like to throw out challenges and then disappear when someone else challenges you.
Show the documentation.
"A third officer may have deployed her taser"?
ReplyDeleteSo, the cops had tasers and the gun was still the only effective tool for stopping the guy? Or do tasers only work when the suspect is already in cuffs?
Democommie says, apparently while huffing paint fumes:
ReplyDeleteI've got a better idea. You show me the specific training manuals that tell police recruits to use deadly force against assailants--in every department in the country.
You apparently have me confused with your research assistant (unpaid, of course). I am not, and owe you nothing. I certainly don't owe you the impossible task of getting every department's policy on use of deadly force (as if you'd read 1% of them anyway).
When I suggested you find one--just one--example of cops being trained to "shoot to disable" an assailant, I made that suggestion because if you had managed to do so, it would have significantly bolstered your argument that the cops in question should have tried that . . . novel approach to neutralizing a deadly threat.
If you don't find such an example (and I'm confident you won't), fine--that's no skin off my nose. It's not I who come off looking foolish here.
I've got a better idea. You show me the specific training manuals that tell police recruits to use deadly force against assailants--in every department in the country.
ReplyDeleteYou're kidding right?
If someone is threatening the cops with a deadly weapon they are well within their rights to respond with deadly force.
Are you claiming that police training tells cops they may not shoot someone who is threatening them with a deadly weapon? Please show me any Dept. Training manual that says this.
Cops are trained to shoot to "stop the threat" That means center of mass. The thoracic triangle if we're really being specific.
ReplyDeleteThe targets my brother uses look something like this.
http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=DST-CB
Someone weilding a baseball bat and threatening you is absolutely a lethal threat. That's not even up for debate.
If you disagree then have someone grab a bat and hit you full force with it.
If you don't find such an example (and I'm confident you won't
ReplyDeleteDon't hold your breath. Democommie won't bring facts or examples to the discussion. He rarely does.
By the way, Mikeb, if you want to talk about a law enforcement shooting that looks suspiciously like somewhat excessive force, you might consider this little gem. It seems to me that the FBI could have "protected the public" sufficiently with only 12 or 15 shots into the handcuffed suspect.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, you tend (by your own admission) to be pretty hard on cops. For that matter, I have my own cynicism about the "Only Ones," and my own suspicions about the government's hired armed muscle.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I thought you'd like to read something about a cop whom I think we can agree is worthy of admiration. Might even force you to reevaluate your thinking about what kind of people live in Montana.
Zorro, Thanks for that link. That is certainly a good cop. I guess it's like gun owners or any other group, there are some good and some bad. The percentages are up for debate.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of cops with something of a reputation for being quick on the trigger, this officer has certainly had an . . . eventful career. That article tells a pretty sinister narrative--one that I imagine will strike you, Mikeb, as being correct in its suspicious view of him.
ReplyDeleteReading this, though, I'm not sure I see anything to make me believe that he's anything but a good cop, and one hell of a good gunfighter, who has, in defiance of all statistical likelihood, had occasion to legitimately shoot 6 bad guys. Admittedly, that source is a blog, rather than a "respected" news source--which might, depending on one's perspective (not mine), make it less reliable than the first source I linked to.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in your presumption of excessive force (murder) from the Peoria police. The police were called by his own family because Richard Dodds was a threat to HIMSELF with a history of depression for which he was seeking treatment. Will this 911 call that warns police to handle the situation carefully ever make the news?
The point of having tasers is to subdue a person without shooting them. It is quite effective. One officer tasered Richard Dodds, while 2 others shot him 11 times.
Unlike a knife, a bat is neutralized is a close space. With riot gear helmets and shields the cops could have subdued Dodds without risk of injury or death. The entire defense of the police is based on Dodds rushing them. Instead of keeping safe distance and subduing Dodds, they told him to put the bat down and when he didn't they murdered him in his own house in front of his wife.
Dodds did not rush police. He was killed by two trigger happy cops who MIGHT lose their jobs and know when they shoot somebody that they will be given paid leave.
Peoria police murdered Richard Dodds and lied about him rushing them to cover their own ass.
ollieill, Thanks for the comment. Isn't it amazing how many pro-gun commenters try to justify this kind of thing. It must have been really hard for them to choose between their distrust of the police and their need to defend gun use at any cost.
ReplyDeleteMikeb says:
ReplyDeleteIsn't it amazing how many pro-gun commenters try to justify this kind of thing. It must have been really hard for them to choose between their distrust of the police and their need to defend gun use at any cost.
I see we're taking ollieill's word for what happened without question. I'm not calling him/her a liar, but that seems awfully trusting, Mikeb, especially for someone who immediately suspected the police of lying--and much worse.
So be it.
However, given the story as presented by KPHO, I stand by my initial assessment. Until I see a compelling reason to believe that the article had it entirely wrong, I see no need to back off from my contention that lethal force was entirely appropriate.
It has nothing to do with a "need to defend gun use at any cost," and everything to do with calling a witch hunt a witch hunt.
1. A bat IS a deadly weapon!
ReplyDelete2. Out of the three officers, which should have given their life to save the others?
3. When confronted with deadly force you have three choices:
A. Do nothing.
B. Run. ( Cops can get fired for that. )
C. Defend yourself.
If you shot to wound you would be sued and possibly charged yourself because if you fear for your life and the threat is deadly anything less than deadly force will contridict that fear and he seriousness of the threat.
Read up on the "tueller drill".
4. Not all cops have tasers and sometimes they do not work forone reason or the other, probably did not work in this case.
Thanks a lot Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI'd change your first point to 1. A bat CAN BE a deadly weapon.
Whether that particular situation merited a deadly-force response, is the question. Anyone like you who says yes for the mere fact that he had a bit, is failing to place the proper value on a human life.
Responding with deadly force when there are ANY other options, is wrong.