Police Abuse

Police Fire 80 Rounds at Schizophrenic Man, Chief Knows It's Justified, Investigating Anyway

|

Laredo police shooting surveillance video
surveillance video

Here's a police shooting in Laredo, Texas, that happened in late August that I just got a wind of now. Its details are, sadly, pretty typical in questionable police shootings. The victim, Jose Walter Garza, was a schizophrenic. Cops from the Laredo Police Department in Texas unloaded at least 80 rounds at Garza after he made a "threatening gesture" with what turned out to be a replica handgun. Six officers were involved. They were placed on paid administrative leave while the department investigates, but here's what the local police chief said, via KGNS (emphasis mine):

Chief [Ray] Garner says he doesn't know how many shots his officers fired or how many of those shots hit Garza. What he does know is that he supports the actions of his officers.

"The officers were justified. When the officers get there and feel there not threatened they'll lower their weapons. But if they get there like in this case and their life is threatened, they have the right to use deadly force."

Chief Garners says this case like any officer involved shooting is being thoroughly investigated.

"At the end of the day no officer wants to be involved in a situation like this, but they also want to be able to go home to their family."

There's only so much of this bullshit I can report on and remain patient. What the fuck is there to investigate if the police chief's already decided what the cops did was justified??

Surveillance video of the shooting, which you can watch below, also caught two of the cops appearing to fist-bump each other after the shooting.

Advertisement

NEXT: Florida Cop Fires Stun Gun at 62-Year-Old Bystander's Back

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s coming.

  2. Lemme guess – the guy was hit with 5 bullets.

  3. You have to admit that the very least, the honesty is refreshing.

    1. refreshing like an unexpected hollow point to the chest

  4. What the fuck is there to investigate if the police chief’s already decided what the cops did was justified??

    What the fuck is stopping any unethical behavior committed by cops if brain-dead fuckwaffles like Chief Ray Garner operates from a 24/7 belief that police do no wrong?

    Herein lies the problem. Most police chiefs are not leaders and do NOT set examples of professional and ethical leadership because most of them come directly from the very ranks they lead. Corrupt and abusive behavior moves right up the chain of command.

    1. fuckwaffles

      Nice.

  5. Cops from the Laredo Police Department in Texas unloaded at least 80 rounds at Garza after he made a “threatening gesture” with what turned out to be a replica handgun.

    This actually seems pretty atypical. Like, it might even be reasonable that the police were scared for their lives this time, instead of simply being total cowards.

    1. Eighty rounds! Think about that. Do you realize that the police in this case posed far more threat to life than the schizo ever did with his fake gun?

      Police are retards killing retards. They haven’t the slightest clue how to deal with abnormal situations without smacking it with a shit ton of bullets.

      1. You should reread my comment and then address what I actually said instead of an argument I didn’t make.

        1. Serious question – are you being serious? What is a “threatening gesture”? Is it raising an actual firearm and aiming it at police? Or is it whatever the cops want it to be to justify going home safe at night?

          1. Reread my fucking comment:

            might even be reasonable that the police were scared for their lives”

            I never even said that being reasonably scared for their lives should justify shooting (it shouldn’t).

        2. Your humor or sarcasm is threaded so delicately that a goddamn butterfly landing on my screen would’ve caused the letters of your post to fall on my fucking keyboard.

        3. Define threatening gesture because a grandma was shot for reaching for a baby because it was a threatening gesture.

          At this point I think police should actually be fired on before being allowed to shoot back. Too many innocent people are dying just so our boys in blue go home at night.

          1. police should actually be fired on before being allowed to shoot back

            This should always be the case. Don’t like it? Don’t be a cop.

      2. Or, more likely, missing it with a smack-ton of bullets since they aren’t adequately trained to fire at anything under pressure.

      3. Eighty rounds!

        This isn’t surprising at all. For the moment let’s assume this was a textbook “good shoot”. There had to be at least 10 cops there with their guns out. 80 rounds could have been fired in less than 3 seconds with that many weapons. Once you’ve decided to use lethal force in self defense you don’t hold back. (Again, I’m assuming it was an honest “good shoot” and only arguing that we shouldn’t be upset that 80 rounds were fired in that context.)

    2. I was also more open to the idea that it may have been a good shoot. Not 80 rounds good, but possibly legitimate. The fucking fist bump killed that idea.

      1. The fist bumping doesn’t bother me that much. If these guys honestly thought they were about to be shot at I can understand them being phyched that no one on their side got hurt. In other words, maybe they’re bumping fists because they are alive, not specifically because the crazy guy is dead. We’ll never know their true reasoning, but this case doesn’t look anything like, say, the Walmart shooting, so I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

        1. The fist-bumpers just killed a human being after a five minute interlude of waving a gun around.

          This wasn’t a shoot-out with gang-bangers intent on killing them.

          The fist-bumping was childish and extremely unprofessional in light of the circumstances.

    3. Yeah, I understand Ed’s exasperation at Garner’s “we’re investigating but they did nothing wrong” comment but, if you assume this guy actually did have a replica handgun and began waving it at the cops I’m hard-pressed not to agree with the use of deadly force. This isn’t a “waistband” or “cell phone” shoot.

      I am curious though as to what the effectiveness is of the various less-than-lethal technologies out there and why they aren’t employed more. I understand if one or two cops in an altercation keep their primary weapons drawn but if there are more than that during a response, wouldn’t it be good training for one to employ less-than-lethal as the first option?

      1. So, a replica/toy gun, i.e.- not a gun, qualifies as a deadly instrument and gives cops leeway to open fire. Terrific.

        Here’s a thought. Find out first if it actually is a gun before murdering someone. Oh, and since the gun wasn’t actually a real gun, maybe all the cops could have, I dunno, just waited him out? Maybe they could have tackled the guy? How about throw a net over him?

        1. A replica gun often looks exactlt like a real gun–hence ‘replica’.

          How do you find out if it’s real or fake without examining it? Ask the guy who’s pointing it at you?

          But you hit on the one thing that needs to be looked into more–ways to take suspects alive.

          1. You have to wait until you get shot at. It’s just that simple, and if you as a cop don’t like those odds then don’t be a cop. Sorry, but I don’t believe the cops have any more right to go home safe at night than I or anyone else does.

            1. Do you not realize how stupid you sound?

              No one, cop or not, should be required to stare down a gun barrel and wait to be shot before having the right to respond.

              1. A cop SHOULD be required to say ‘police, put the gun down’ before firing.

                But, in that situation, no more than that.

                1. I’d add one more caveat, Azathoth. If there are a bunch of cops around (as in this case) at least a few of them should have their less-lethal weapons out and should use them to prevent the situation from escalating if practicable.

                  I don’t see why it isn’t standard for cops to always travel in twos, one with a taser and one with a gun. And they should be trained to try the taser first.

              2. No one, cop or not

                You would kill a 10 year-old if he threatened you with a replica UZI?

                1. You would kill a 10 year-old if he threatened you with a replica UZI?

                  That’s not the same thing as an agitated adult threatening you with what appears to be a real handgun, and you know it.

                  1. You mean ‘agitated’ like that 13 year-old kid that was recently killed by cops for not dropping his replica machine gun?

                    Agitation indicates mental instability which is more indicative of human behavior than a kid simply ignoring a command.

                    Point is, time is required in these cases and not a single cop is willing to give these scenarios nearly enough time before he starts slamming bullets at the target so he can get home to his beer and pizza.

                    1. not a single cop

                      Absolutes like that are always false. Always. You only hear about cases of police misconduct because proper conduct does not warrant attention by anyone but local media.

                      And that 13-year old kid is a different case, so stop bringing it up. I happen to think the cops there should have been prosecuted, because what kid could possibly get his hands on a real sub-machine gun? I also agree, in general, that some cops are too quick to shoot. And I think that all such shootings should be investigated thoroughly by an independent organization. But this particular case looks like a good shoot. Vilifiying these officers makes it look like you are against the right of self-defense.

                    2. Vilifiying these officers makes it look like you are against the right of self-defense.

                      When I read about 80 bullets and a dead crazy who was given FIVE minutes to drop his replice weapon of course some of us more rational folks are going to be vehement about the lack of professionalism and ethics.

                    3. Absolutes like that are always false. Always.

                      “I always lie.”

                      Good one.

                    4. You only hear about cased of police misconduct because of citizen video and libertarianish websites.

                      Fixed it for ya.

                    5. *You mean ‘agitated’ like that 13 year-old kid that was recently killed by cops for not dropping his replica machine gun?*

                      Yeah, cops should wait until that kid sprays a few innocent bystanders and then fire on him, so you idiots can come here and denounce the cops for not saving innocent lives.

                2. Do I know it’s a replica?

                  What is the context? Context is important.

                  My neighbor, with a replica M16, or a kid with a replica uzi–what are they doing? Are they threatening me? How well do I know them? Are they pointing their guns at a loved one?

                  Context.

                  If the context is right then I would shoot.

            2. I’m not a big fan of cops and I agree with you that they don’t “have any more right to go home safe at night than I or anyone else does.” But you just put a higher burden on them re self-defense than we have for ourselves. If someone points what clearly looks like a gun at me, I’m not waiting for “bang” I’m fucking shooting. And every jury in a state I’m willing to set foot in would find in my favor.

              If it was a supersoaker or a cell phone I’d be more sympathetic to your argument.

              1. You would kill a neighbor if he threatened you with a fake M16?

                What would your chances be in court as an armed citizen?

                1. You would kill a neighbor if he threatened you with a fake M16?

                  What would your chances be in court as an armed citizen?

                  If by “fake” you mean “replica”, then his chances would be excellent. In fact, I doubt he would even be charged in most localities. Again, “replica” means it looks like the real thing.

                2. As Azathoth pointed out, a “replica” is not a “toy.” It is designed to externally look exactly like a real, functioning firearm and oftentimes the slide and magazine mechanics work as well. Unless you picked it up and checked for springs and a firing pin you wouldn’t know the difference. So yes, if a neighbor is pointing what looks exactly like an M-16 at me I’m more than likely going to shoot him. Obviously other circumstances come into play. How well do I know my neighbor, is he/she a violent person, are they exhibited other threatening or unbalanced behavior, etc. It doesn’t appear these cops had that luxury. But on balance, you would be absolutely justified under the law to make the shoot you are describing.

                  1. It doesn’t appear these cops had that luxury.

                    What ‘luxury’ don’t police have in relation to you? There is no hostage. The cop is surrounded by team members. They have access to non-lethal technology and so-called specialized training to deal with crazies.

                    But on balance, you would be absolutely justified under the law to make the shoot you are describing.

                    The world is full of crazies and kids who choose not to obey orders and replica weapons such as airsoft rifles (for example) are everywhere.

                    In the midst of this are people (citizens and cops) willing to kill at the drop of a hat if an order is not obeyed.

                    1. The “luxury” is the other data points I referred to in your neighbor scenario. And in my initial post I actually asked the question about less-than-lethal effectiveness and training (and see below where I admit it’s a possible caveat to my argument).

                      Setting aside the cops though, are you honestly saying an individual citizen should have to take a round before they fire back? In every jurisdiction in this country, brandishing a firearm is a crime and pointing one at someone is at minimum an assault. What psychic powers do you possess that allow you to know this replica is just that?

                    2. *In the midst of this are people (citizens and cops) willing to kill at the drop of a hat if an order is not obeyed.*

                      It takes a hat five minutes to drop where you live? Might wanna get that gravity looked at.

              2. Cops should be held to a higher standard. That should be part of the risk they assume when volunteering to be cops.

                1. Cops should be held to a higher standard. That should be part of the risk they assume when volunteering to be cops.

                  The right to self defense is a natural right that cannot be surrendered. When it comes to self-defense cops should be held to the same standard as everyone else. Otherwise, what rational person would become a cop?

                  1. If police where held to the same standard as us and didn’t get qualified immunity then I would cut them slack. But they are free to shoot innocents because they wet themselves. And they should be held to a higher standard than us. They are paid to enforce the law not execute people.

                    1. Completely agree with your first sentence.

                  2. You can surrender any right of yours that you choose.

                    If you choose not to, that’s fine. Just don’t become a cop.

                  3. The right to self defense is a natural right that cannot be surrendered. When it comes to self-defense cops should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

                    This wasn’t self-defense. Barring legal repercussions, any citizen with a gun could’ve shown up and shot the schizophrenic dead just as effectively and efficiently.

                    Cops aren’t paid to shoot. Especially not first. We don’t pay them to avoid any risk to their life. Quite the opposite, they are paid to risk their lives in place of ordinary citizens.

                    Otherwise, what rational person would become a cop?

                    The same reason people become soldiers? 13% of ‘active shooter’ incidents involve unarmed civilians who laid down their lives so that others could have time. That’s the sort of heroism that does and should earn life pensions; not shooting a schizophrenic with a replica and getting assigned to a desk. Let alone the ones who beat up and rape women, torture suspects, and extort money from relatively innocent bystanders.

      2. I still disagree with the use of deadly force. A cop should be willing to make the sacrifice of waiting to return fire (or else go get a different job).

        But if the guy was waving a replica gun around, the cops being scared of him was actually reasonable, which is rarely the case with these things.

        1. What if the gun isn’t aimed at them? Should they wait until a shots been fired at the person who the gun’s pointing at before firing?

          And if the gun IS aimed at them, do you really expect them to wait until they’re shot to return fire?

          1. It wasn’t a gun. It was a fake gun and therefore posed no threat to the cops except as a potential instrument of blunt force trauma.

            1. How could they know that?

              1. I own two replica handguns. Props from movies I worked on.

                They are visually identical to real guns–and one is more than visually identical–it can be disassembled to a point.

              2. They’d have to wait until the gun was fired.

            2. Stop being obtuse. “Replica” guns are designed to look exactly like real ones, sans some of the internals. Unless you think it’s incumbent upon you as part of your right to self-defense to walk up to the guy pointing the replica at you and ask to see the fucking firing pin, it shouldn’t be different for cops in that situation.

              1. We aren’t talking about a cop off duty.

              2. Yes, it should be different for cops. They should be held to a higher standard of conduct than non-cops. “Protect and Serve” includes the person holding the fake gun.

                1. It should be different for cops in this situation but we rail against cops being treated differently under the law when it comes to filing false reports, false arrest, assault, etc. in the line of duty?

                  I agree with most of the of the folks here that if a cop knowingly (or even negligently) arrests someone on something that isn’t against the law, they should face criminal penalties of kidnapping/false imprisonment just like we would if we engaged in such behavior. I also believe their standard of self-defense should be the same as ours. “Would a reasonable person believe they were at risk of death or significant bodily harm?” No more, no less.

                  To your point about attempting to protect the public (and suspects being a member of the public), that was why I initially asked about less-than-lethal technology effectiveness and group training. If there are 8 cops on the scene and the less-than-lethal technology would allow for a relatively safe attempt at disarming the suspect, I’m curious to know why let’s say 2 out of the 8 didn’t tase or beanbag the dude before everyone opened fire. It’s a possible caveat to my position.

          2. No, because protecting other people is supposed to be their job.

            Do I expect them to? No. Should they? Yes. Just like I don’t expect people to tell the truth all the time, which doesn’t affect the fact that they should.

            1. The supremes have already ruled the police have no obligation to protect us. Their job it to enforce the law not protect

              1. And what does the Supreme Court’s opinion have to do with what is right?

    4. 80 rounds. About the same as in all Rocky movies. These cops must freak out when they kill a cock roach “hit it with a brick, I saw its leg twitch”

      1. *80 rounds. About the same as in all Rocky movies.*

        In which “Rocky” “Movies” were any bullets fired?

        1. 80 rounds of boxing. Drunk when I wrote that, sorry.

  6. The guy was obviously a muslim terrorist. Medals for everyone!

  7. I’m so proud of our boys in blue. It’s amazing they can even leave the house in the morning. For a group that doesn’t have even close to the most dangerous job around they sure seem to be afraid of dying all the time.

    Let’s give them a round of applause for overcoming their fear and leaving the house to kill someone.

    /cue dumpy defending this shit

    1. Dunphy does have a strange twist of quite good ethics weaved narrowly within the folds of his law enforcement ass-sucking.

      1. Nothing good he says means shit when he defends the actions of those who violate our rights and kill innocents just so they can go home at night. And I agree he says the rights things at some points but I’m finding it impossible to read his stream of text in his current posts.

        1. He seems to be a lot more into long monologues since he got back.

        2. I concur. He’s proven he’s a law enforcement bottom who rambles like a bag lady.

  8. the right to use deadly force

    So this is a thing now?

  9. Okay, so cops shot a person waving around a gun.

    That doesn’t sound so bad.

    What? He was schizophrenic? And that matters why? Should they have known somehow? Would his mental illness excuse his waving around of a gun?

    Oh, the gun was fake–it was a replica. And I bet the guy waving it around let everyone know that? Or it had some big indicator that it was fake, right?

    So all the things that make this wrong are things that couldn’t be found out until the man was stopped.

    Ah.

    Here’s the thing. Cops are actually doing their jobs properly when they stop people from waving guns around–even if they have to shoot them.

    Cops are fucking up left and right. There are enough valid cases of the truly horrific stuff that cops are doing that shit like this doesn’t need to be included. Find one.

    1. So all the things that make this wrong are things that couldn’t be found out until the man was stopped.

      They gave him FIVE minutes, you plucky effervescent reactionary! FIVE minutes! Supposed professionals trained to deal with sticky situations involving crazies did not give this nutjob nearly enough time to live so they could develop a more humane strategy that did not involve 80 bullets and a dead body.

      Five minutes and dead.

      1. How many minutes would you give a guy pointing a gun at you?

        1. In this case, with lots of cops around, the guy isn’t going anywhere and is not posing a threat to anyone, except potentially the cops. Easy enough to wait him out. Go get some donuts and coffee, cordon off the area, etc. How about throwing a big net on him like gladiators used to do?

          1. Ah, context. Just as I noted above.

            So what’s the context? What do the cops know?

            They know that there’s a person waving a gun around.

            That’s it. That’s all they know.

            They do not know that his gun isn’t real.

            They do not know that he’s schizophrenic(though why anyone thinks this might excuse anything or buy him some favor is beyond me).

            In short, they do not know that the man isn’t a threat. He looks like a threat. He’s acting like a threat.

            So, based on that context, what should a cop do?

            A cop should tell the person to put down the gun and get on the ground.

            If the person does not do this and is far enough away that he could shoot someone before non-lethal force could be applied, the cop can then shoot.

            It may not look good anymore once it’s discovered that the gun isn’t real, but, based on what the cops could see it’s a justified shoot.

            A good shoot? No.

        2. I would develop a strategy whereupon the subject could be tasered from a distance or flash-banged. He has no hostage. I am in the business of protecting people, including those who harm themselves and others. It’s not my job to kill just to get home.

          1. I’m not necessarily opposed to this but it presupposes the individual doesn’t appear to be a threat to the public. You don’t have to have a hostage Robocop-style to be a threat. In this case, the dude is moving toward a gas station quick-stop. If, in the time it takes to formulate and execute (bad choice of word) a less-than-lethal strategy this dude starts popping off rounds and civilians are hit, something tells me more than a few of us will be calling for civil or criminal liability for the cops “not adequately protecting the public” because they wanted to “go home safe tonight” all the same.

            Yes there should be an investigation (hopefully by an independent commission but I’m not holding my breath). But in a world of no-knock-raids, paramilitary assaults, burned babies, roadside rapes, shot dogs and people executed in their beds for drawing down on ninjas busting into their homes in the middle of the night, the outrage over this altercation seems a bit over the top.

    2. You’ve already assumed the exonerating facts are true. But given that an unarmed person was shot, it at least merits some investigation to determine what happened.

      The only way to pressure that sort of investigation to happen is to give the issue some exposure and criticism. Even if it was a person waving a gun-like object threateningly, that doesn’t mean that police procedures couldn’t be adapted to give priority to a better response.

      It’s possible that some people behaving erratically may be easily handled and treated, so it’s crazy unethical to simply exterminate them as a first order response.

  10. Hold on a second—was the guy barking like a dog? Because that might explain it.

  11. The truly surprising thing is that there are so few cops killed by friendly fire in these panic attacks. Something tells me they have no clue what or who is backstopping their 19 round magazine clearing trigger finger spasms.

    1. They have been well trained to form a semicircle around the victim so they don’t shoot each other. Other civilians they don’t care so much about.

    2. I often wonder about this myself. I was always taught to “know what’s beyond your target.” Assuming that not all 80 rounds found their target since the dude does not appear to be ground chuck, how much of the surrounding area (or populace) is now ventilated?

  12. Cops are actually doing their jobs properly when they stop people from waving guns around–even if they have to shoot them.

    So you believe cops are roving executioners. Good for you.

    1. Up to and including waving non-guns around. Since a non-gun is basically a piece of metal with a handle, I guess you can get shot for using a hammer.

      1. Please, describe how they would know that it wasn’t real without a physical examination?

        Did they say ‘drop the gun?’

        Or did they just start shooting the guy?

      2. Danger, Will Robinson, the obtusemeter is in the red.

        1. Hammers are dangerous. They are used in hundreds of murders every year.

          1. And you keep hammering on this “not a gun” thing, completely ignoring the fact that if it walks like a Glock and quacks like a Glock it’s a fucking Glock in the mind of the person staring down its beak.

            Did I break the record on mixed partial analogies?

  13. But if they get there like in this case and their life is threatened, they have the right to use deadly force.

    Does this go for Garza, as well? Or are there two sets of laws?

  14. Anybody who *doesn’t* fear for his life when cops are present is crazy.

  15. There are two aspects to this story, not sure what the answer is here.

    Guy was waving around a replica gun, and so it’s not surprising he got shot. ON the aspect of the 80 bullets, I think there’s something that needs to be done on this issue, but I’m not sure which.

    I believe that modern cops are trained to keep pulling the trigger until the threat is ‘neutralized’.

    What we have here is an unfortunate incident where someone who wasn’t thinking clearly had a weapon that probably couldn’t readily be discounted as fake. But when you have half a dozen officers with what, 13 to 15 rd magazines, you’ve got a highly volatile situation where bystanders or innocents can (and have) be killed or injured. Does every cop on the scene really need to unload their weapon?

    1. Does every cop on the scene really need to unload their weapon?

      The moment that first gunshot goes off, all the other pigs are thinking is, “hell yeah, we’re shooting our guns now!”

    2. I believe that modern cops are trained to keep pulling the trigger until the threat is ‘neutralized’.

      I’m not any kind of cop and that’s how I was trained.

      And 80 rounds isn’t surprising when you’ve got that many cops around. 10 people can dump out 80 rounds in a couple of seconds. When a bunch of cops show up at a scene like this I doubt they have time to coordinate who among them is going to shoot if need be.

      1. I’m not any kind of cop and that’s how I was trained.

        Some of us grew up with the Mozambique Drill.

        I’ve never been in any elite military units, but my understanding is that it’s standard practice.

        And if any four random people can figure out a four-way stop to a greater or lesser degree, certainly a small army of well-trained cops can figure out how to stop an (un)armed man with 6 rounds or less.

        1. Or even no rounds.

    3. There are two aspects to this story, not sure what the answer is here.

      This has been answered, almost daily, on every battlefield in the world. When you are truly surrounded by threats, you have to prioritize the them and conserve ammunition. This barely approaches the rules of engagement.

      Only an overwhelming force can expend such resources in such an undisciplined way on such a non-threat.

  16. They have to investigate something so they have a reason to delay any skepticism or criticism until it all blows over and journalists forget about it.

  17. threatening gesture

    Sticks and stones may break my bones…

    This is bullshit straight to the bottom. Soldiers in Iraq aren’t this cavalier with bullets and they face actual threats and fewer replicas.

    Good shoot actually means your life was in danger. Killing someone who had little to no capacity to kill you is not a good shoot regardless of the impression they gave. If a friend jumped out with a replica just to mess with me and I shot him dead, the law may forgive me, but it’s still not a good shoot.

    If I drag my thumb across my throat and make a ‘kay-eccch’ noise is that threatening enough for 20 bullets?

  18. How fortunate for the Schizophrenia sufferer that they were not forced into the hospital for treatment against their will. That would violate their civil rights!

  19. I’d like to see a picture of that “replica” handgun before I’m willing to believe a cop telling me it was a replica and not a pretty obvious toy.

    I mean, c’mon, since we do we take the self-serving reports of cops, especially when they kick off their investigation by assuming the conclusion?

    And the idea that 80 bullets is an appropriate response is just lunatic. If you’ve 10 cops standing around, they’ve plenty of manpower to take a moment and designate a shooter if one is needed. Spraying that many bullets is a hazard to random passers-by.

    These pack attacks by gangs of feral, panicky cops are, IMO, de facto unjustified, simply because they are so unorganized and pose such a danger to the public at large.

    1. If you’ve 10 cops standing around, they’ve plenty of manpower to take a moment and designate a shooter if one is needed. Spraying that many bullets is a hazard to random passers-by.

      It shouldn’t even take a moment, it should be automatic.

      Football teams don’t step on the field or get up to the line and then decide who’s going to be the QB and the running backs… 20 people get to the ATM at nearly the same time, we don’t end up with 80 credit cards crammed in the machine.

      1. “It shouldn’t even take a moment, it should be automatic.”

        Nonsense. We’re talking about a guy waving around what looks like a real gun. It’s not football, and it’s not a line at the ATM: It’s a possible life or death situation. If you are certain enough that your life is in danger that you’re prepared to shoot someone, you certainly aren’t going to rely on someone else to eliminate the threat for you.

  20. There’s a pretty simple solution: remove immunity.

    The problem with process oriented solutions is that it removes liability for unjust force.

    But once you remove immunity, you actually don’t need any standard process because individuals and departments will form their own dynamically, adjusting for whatever the situation calls for in real time, just out of their own self interest but also balanced with the interest of others–assuming a libertopian private security model of protecting clients–since all policing actions would be speculative.

    You don’t need legal process to determine what is or isn’t threatening gestures, or how to determine if the person is actually armed. All you need to do is be right.

    Because if you made the wrong bet, then you’d be treated just like a criminal.

    With that simple principle alone, cops would be a whole lot less trigger happy.

  21. There’s a pretty simple solution: remove immunity.

    The dunphybot will be along shortly with his canned refutation, based on slobbery appeals to authority, citations of imbecilic Supreme Court decisions and spurious claims of “due process rights”. He never gets around to the agency problem, wherein two groups of government employees conspire to fleece and defraud the taxpayers while immunizing themselves from any consequences of their actions, no matter how egregrously incompetent or flagrantly evil they may be.

  22. Cops from the Laredo Police Department in Texas unloaded at least 80 rounds at Garza

    Panic fire much?

    I’d also like to point out that if they really cared about making it home to their fmailies, they might want to lay off the do-nuts before they have massive heart attacks. Seriously, is it standard police practice to hire the fattest fucks they can find? Dudes so fat they all walk with that straight knee’d penguin like shuffle (which looks really hilarious in the sped up video, sadly the only thing about it that’s funny).

  23. *There’s only so much of this bullshit I can report on and remain patient.*

    LOL…oooh, whatcha gonna do Mr. Impatient? Write a blog post on an ineffectual and disengenous web site? March up and down the street wiht a giant papier-mache head?

    *What the fuck is there to investigate if the police chief’s already decided what the cops did was justified??*

    If they didn’t “investigate”, arm chair shift commanders like you would be griping about the lack of internal oversight.

    Why don’t you take your impatience somewhere it might be useful? Like a rally to get the mentally ill locked-up where they can’t take a fake gun to a real gun fight.

  24. “When the officers get there and feel there not threatened…”

    I realize this is a quote from the original, but did all the proofreaders in the world go on vacation simultaneously? There have been errors in almost everything I’ve read here today.

    And oh yeah: this department and its cops suck, too.

  25. You come late to this party. Look up the interview with the CFO of the truck stop company. The man was drinking wine and had a BB gun. When the company security guard told him he had to put the gun away and stop drinking, the man complied. He was sleeping on a bench when some busy-body summoned the gestapo. Upon arrival, the security guard TOLD THE POLICE THE MAN HAD A “GUN” AND THAT IT WAS NOT A REAL FIREARM. This was well before the police came into contact with the man. Knowing that the gun was NOT A REAL GUN the cops nonetheless proceeded to murder the victim.

    Every officer in this botched operation – right on up to the “supportive” chief – should be fired. Many should be charged with manslaughter and some with First Degree Murder. None should ever work another day of their miserable lives in a police uniform or on the public payroll.

    This is “law enforcement” as scum.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.