"We would have shot him more"

Post by **Roofus** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:32 pm

A fugitive gunman accused of killing a Florida sheriff?s deputy was shot 68 times by SWAT team officers who found him hiding in the woods, according to autopsy results.

Police fired 110 shots at Angilo Freeland, 27, the target of a massive manhunt in central Florida following the shooting death of Polk County Sheriff?s Deputy Matt Williams Thursday.

?That?s all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more,? Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel newspaper.

Judd said Williams was ?executed? after Freeland was pulled over in a routine traffic stop on Thursday. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.

Williams, 39, was shot eight times?one bullet fired at close range behind the deputy?s right ear and another in his right temple, according to autopsy results released on Saturday by the sheriff?s office.

Sheriff?s officials said SWAT team members found Freeland on Friday hiding under a fallen oak tree in a wooded area near where the deputies were shot, and began firing when they saw a gun in his hand.

Link

ace · Post by **ace** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:41 pm

I think the most disturbing thing about that article isn't that the police wanted to fire more shots at the gun man, but that a mere 62 per cent of their shots actually hit him.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:18 pm

You know, I really hope that in becoming judge, jury, and executioner, they at least got the actual murderer.

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:40 pm

Yeah, due process of law gets tossed out the window when people start shooting cops.

ace · Post by **ace** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:43 pm

I can understand their sentement, but I certainly don't respect it.

Luriden · Post by **Luriden** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:25 pm

Who cares? The fucker is dead, that's all we need to know.

Post by **|darc|** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:30 pm

Freaky Keneaki wrote:Who cares? The fucker is dead, that's all we need to know.

You're assuming he's a fucker. They might have gotten the right guy this time, but doing this and making it okay makes it more likely for a mistake to happen in the future.

Luriden · Post by **Luriden** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:57 pm

Darcus Magnus wrote:
Freaky Keneaki wrote:Who cares? The fucker is dead, that's all we need to know.

You're assuming he's a fucker. They might have gotten the right guy this time, but doing this and making it okay makes it more likely for a mistake to happen in the future.

Sure, but if they didn't shoot him he would have escaped and killed more people. Think of it that way. Sure it's dangerous to just shoot blindly like that for someone they think "might" be the guy, but in this case it was and they saved the day.

He killed a dog. A dog. The bastard deserves to burn in hell.

Post by **|darc|** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:42 pm

Freaky Keneaki wrote:
Darcus Magnus wrote:
Freaky Keneaki wrote:Who cares? The fucker is dead, that's all we need to know.

You're assuming he's a fucker. They might have gotten the right guy this time, but doing this and making it okay makes it more likely for a mistake to happen in the future.
Sure, but if they didn't shoot him he would have escaped and killed more people. Think of it that way. Sure it's dangerous to just shoot blindly like that for someone they think "might" be the guy, but in this case it was and they saved the day.

He killed a dog. A dog. The bastard deserves to burn in hell.

Now factor in how many innocent people will be shot and killed in the same way because other law enforcement thinks it's okay to play judge. If it became okay because of issues like this not being taken care of it will very easily be much higher than how many people this guy could've killed.

I also think that it's evident these guys are off their rocker a bit when they say they would've shot him more if they could.

perry · Post by **perry** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:07 am

Surely you train you're SWAT teams better then that... They should have been able to take him out in a non lethal capacity, and if not kill him in a couple shots...

Oh it was in America you say ? I Understand..

ian · Post by **ian** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:19 am

ace wrote:I think the most disturbing thing about that article isn't that the police wanted to fire more shots at the gun man, but that a mere 62 per cent of their shots actually hit him.

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:24 am

ace wrote:I can understand their sentement, but I certainly don't respect it.

I wasn't trying to justify or condone the actions taken by the police. I was just pointing out why they decided to kill on sight.
I agree that it is an unfair double standard. And it is indicitave of a much larger problem: the fact that police "protect their own".

perry · Post by **perry** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:31 am

"The same with the gangbangers on the street, the police are just a gang unto themselves. With the good and the bad, same as the gangbangers on the street" -Tupac

AgentGreen · Post by **AgentGreen** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:21 am

ace · Post by **ace** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:37 am

perry wrote:Surely you train you're SWAT teams better then that... They should have been able to take him out in a non lethal capacity, and if not kill him in a couple shots...

Oh it was in America you say ? I Understand..

That's the whole point... They could have taken him down him down in a non-lethal manner. Instead, they chose to fire countless rounds (missing nearly half the time, mind you) into him as "retribution" for the deputy this fugitive murdered earlier.

perry · Post by **perry** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:44 am

ace wrote:
perry wrote:Surely you train you're SWAT teams better then that... They should have been able to take him out in a non lethal capacity, and if not kill him in a couple shots...

Oh it was in America you say ? I Understand..
That's the whole point... They could have taken him down him down in a non-lethal manner. Instead, they chose to fire countless rounds (missing nearly half the time, mind you) into him as "retribution" for the deputy this fugitive murdered earlier.

And they should face be under investigation..

Hawq · Post by **Hawq** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:08 pm

AgentGreen wrote:

Beaten to it, ah well

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:24 pm

To be fair, at least he had a gun in his hand. No, that still isn't really ok (from everything we have read, there is no sign he threatened them in any way), but it is at least marginally better than straight-up execution.

Lunchbox · Post by **Lunchbox** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:39 pm

I read a different article that said he stole the gun from the officer he killed, then raised it when the officers surrounded him in the bush he was hiding in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061001/ap_ ... y_shooting

Deth2k7 · Post by **Deth2k7** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:42 pm

This happened about 20 minutes away from me,we are going over the case in Law Studies.