'Nobody ... walks away unscathed'By Glenn Smith (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Alan Hawes To helpA memorial fund has been set up for Carlina Amber Smith in care of Community First Bank, 8485 Dorchester Road, North Charleston, SC 29420. Police train extensively to learn the appropriate use of deadly force, but the decision to exercise that option is often made in an adrenalin-soaked split second, far from any classroom. When an officer makes the call to use his gun, he's playing for keeps. That's the way they're taught. Shoot for center body mass, the largest target available. Hollywood films and television are rife with images of crack-shot officers blasting a gun out of a suspect's hands or disabling the perpetrator with a well-placed bullet to the arm or leg. It doesn't work that way in real life, police say. There's just too much room for error. "We shoot to eliminate the threat," said Cpl. Craig Farr, range master and a firearms instructor for the Charleston Police Department. "When the threat is there, you don't have the time to say 'I'll wing him in the shoulder or the ankle.' Very few people are good enough shots to accomplish that in the first place." The Lowcountry has seen more than two dozen police-involved shootings during the past decade, including at least eight in the past year alone. The latest incident occurred Saturday, when a Charleston County sheriff's deputy fatally shot a rifle-wielding man outside a Meggett home. Some police shootings in recent years have prompted outcries in area communities and accusations of excessive force. In almost every case, however, authorities determined that police acted appropriately. Elder James Johnson, a longtime civil rights activist from North Charleston, said police too often seem to resort to deadly force to resolve confrontations. He questioned whether officers could do more to negotiate, disarm or wait out a distraught suspect before using lethal means. "Why do the police departments always have to shoot and kill somebody?" he asked. Police officials said using deadly force always is a last resort and never is a decision officers take lightly. Officers have been known to leave the force after killing a suspect, too traumatized to return to duty. "Nobody involved in these kinds of situations walks away unscathed or unaffected," Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon said. Area law enforcement agencies have specific guidelines governing when it is proper — or reasonable — for an officer to use deadly force. The rules revolve around the principle of imminent danger. An officer is justified in shooting a suspect if he feels his life or someone else's is endangered or if a fleeing felon presents an obvious threat to someone's safety. University of South Carolina criminology professor Geoff Alpert, an expert in police use-of-force, said the parameters of justifiable shooting drew tighter in the mid-1980s and that police departments have improved both training and policies in its use since that time. Still, the number of police-involved shootings has been on the rise nationwide as officers encounter more heavily-armed suspects "who really don't have much respect for life," he said. "The thing people always forget about is this: What is the suspect doing and why does the suspect think he can walk around threatening people with a gun or knife?" Alpert said. "If you have a weapon and some opportunity to use it, it is quite likely an officer will be justified in taking your life." Vance McLaughlin, a criminal justice professor at Jacksonville State University in Alabama, said aiming to wound is unrealistic. Studies have shown that, at best, police officers hit home with only one out of every five shots they fire in a combat situation. They need to aim at the biggest target possible. Each miss by an officer increases the chances of a suspect shooting them first or a stray bullet striking an innocent bystander, he said. Charleston County Sheriff Maj. John Clark said officers can't afford to wait until a suspect shoots first. That point was illustrated all too clearly in March when two Moncks Corner police officers were gunned down by a shotgun-wielding man whom they approached at his home, he said. "Police officers are paid to do a job that has risk associated with it," Cannon said. "They are not paid, however, to be injured or killed." Reach Glenn Smith at 937-5556 or gsmith@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 93 comment(s)
Posted by upcountry on January 10, 2008 at 3:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if the various statements made by law enforcement officers and per se' experts .... are to rectify WHY a man was fatally shot in the BACK of HIS NECK . ..... THE NECK is SO much SMALLER than the body mass.
There were no winners here.
Posted by COB on January 10, 2008 at 4:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
upcountry,
I pray to God that you never have to be in that situation to find out.
My thoughts and prayers to the family for their loss and my support for all brave peace keepers that put it on the line every day so that those who are ignortant in bliss have the oppertunity to exercise free speech and remove all doubt.
Great Job to those two brave officers
Posted by COB on January 10, 2008 at 5:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnQ???,
Obviously not johnIQ,
My friends and relatives don't run around anywhere drunk with guns let alone continue shooting when ordered to stop.
Like the saying goes It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Thanks for removing the doubt.
Posted by proud2bme on January 10, 2008 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
COB,
kudos to you! Couldn't have said it better!
Posted by moonpie on January 10, 2008 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the po po says drop the gun your better drop the gun. No problem with them shooting him in the back of his neck. This shot is probably was just a coincident. Without being there we'll never know will we...?
It's a tragedy in the sense this man obviously had some problems and I wish someone had spotted this early on. He might still be alive and headed in the right direction.
Posted by mggoose2000 on January 10, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, they shot him in the back. After they told him repeatedly to disarm himself. They had a call from a person that said he'd been stabbed in the neck. This man was enraged and screaming and shooting into the woods.
The deputies believed that someone's life was in danger and they had no way of knowing if this person was purposly shooting at someone or just randomly shooting.
The officer fired his weapon in defense because he feared someone's life was in danger.
I wonder what all of you that are hollering about this would have to say if you or one of your loved ones had been in those woods and this crazy, mad, out of control person was shooting into the woods all around you and the officers had decided to let him empty his clip before trying to disarm him.
This was a very dangerous situation for these officers; they could have been shot or some innocent bystander could have been mortally wounded.
When the police arrived at my home after I had confronted a thief that was crawling out on one of my homes' window, the first thing they did was confiscate my weapon until they had the situation accessed and felt safe in returning my weapon, unloaded, of course. I had almost shot this thief; thank God I didn't, but I would have been justified because he would only show one hand, had been in my house where I had other guns and he was approaching me while I was telling him to show his hand and to stop. I shook so bad afterwards that I couldn't get my key into the door lock and I lost my voice when trying to call 911.
If you've never been in a situation like that which the officers were confronted with upon arrival at the scene; SHUT UP!
Posted by Creeker01 on January 10, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The sound of ignorance responding to this article is already deafening.
If the Public only knew of the number of local stupid, drunk and high people who would have been justifiably met with deadly force who haven't been, at the expense of LEO safety, injury or lives, they would be much more intelligent when it came to the ones which are obvious.
As the article says, there are no winners, but there are certainly plenty of losers who take the opportunity to attempt to incite and bash those who would keep Society from Anarchy.
Posted by Creeker01 on January 10, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Palm Man:
Nor will I be going to the funeral of a man who would think so little of his off-spring as to do something that stupid.
Will you thank the next Cop you see for protecting your Rights and your freedom, maintaining the line between Chaos and Order, and providing you the ability to sleep soundly at night, knowing there are good men willing to respond to your call for help, for a salary and benefits that is laughable?
Posted by tygers1231 on January 10, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
THANK A COP FOR WHAT. Making the public feel more unsafe in the our homes and on their on property???? There are a FEW cops that even worth their weight, most of them walk around with a "Holier Than Thou" attitude, looking to screw someone over and ruin someone's life. Have you ever watched an innocent person be handcuffed and charged with attempted murder for trying to DEFEND their own life...well, I have. I have watched one of North Charleston's Finest, threaten to "drum up Charges" on an innocent friend of mine when one of our other friends wrecked his motorcycle because of another driver that was drunk!!! Let's stop making all the excuses for why these cops do what they do, and let's start trying to help make it better. The last thing I would do is TRUST my life or anyone of my loved one's lives in the hands of any of these cops!!
Posted by iculukin on January 10, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And its attitudes like yours that make what the police do even more dangerous. You have no respect for authority and therefore, they should have no respect for you. I hope you are not passing those same thoughts down to your children.
Posted by granny2 on January 10, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
tyges1231, I hope you never have to call a cop for help, if you do I hope they don't come. The cops do the best that they can. If you want it done any better,why don't you become a cop. Could it be you have been in so much trouble that you couldn't get the job. Seems the trouble makers are always the ones that hollow the loudest.
Posted by tmh32 on January 10, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I see a few posters have the idea that the man did not hear the order to surrender his weapon. Well, since I was not there I won't comment on that therory but will say this: I'm quit sure the officers gave him more than several warnings and orders to drop his weapon and he ignored and continued to fire it. My cousin was a Federal Marshal and shooting a suspect is ALWAYS the last resort. I also read that alchohol may have been involved and that he was allready upset over another issue which contributed to the situation. It's very unfortunate that this occured and I feel sorry for both the familys loss and for the Officer who now has to live with the fact that he sent a soul to God. My prayers are with you.
Posted by tygers1231 on January 10, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
granny2:
Again: I have never been in any type of trouble. I am active duty and I serve my country with HONOR, I have pounded more sand than you have probably ever seen in your life. Maybe you will have a chance to encounter one of these crooked cops charge an innocent person, maybe yourself and you will understand. My point is, everyone wants to jump to the defense of these COPS without really knowing what happened, and as the public we will never know!!, these cops will stick together with the story they told whether it is right or wrong. I am not saying that what the MR Smith was in the right or wrong. I wasn't there, just remember people have had their FILL with police officers and their COCKY attitudes. Lets look back on the apt that was busted in on last week, and the two young teenagers that probably have lost all respect for COPS because of what transpired. Regardless, of who they were looking for, they took the word of probably an "illegal immigrant" that had to have a translator to make her report, didn't do their research and now they have permanently scarred the ones involved. Everyone else looks at that and they get a "bad taste" in their mouth for the police also. It is all one BAD effect on society.
Posted by lawguy on January 10, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Johnny Q, I was serving warrants in your neck of the woods. I was problably looking for you at your trailor as well.....You are an idiot sir...Were you there, how do you know if they were in danger or not? If you were in their situation you problably would have pissed in your pants. Do me a favor, how about you wait until the SLED investigation comes out. If the deputies are found to be negligent, so be it, they need to pay the piper, but for now, how about you take a chill pill, in your case of good old milwakee's best.
Posted by greyrider on January 10, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Up front, I want to acknowledge that there are innocent victims. But the only way to ELIMINATE innocent victims is to eliminate the police and the jails and just have survival of the fittest. Kill or be killed. Who wants that as an alternative? Why is it that when most (but not all) of those "innocent victims" are later found to be not so innocent? We always hear this "shot in the back" complaint. Now as far as this specific incident, I was not there. But how many times have we heard this complaint and then later find out that the person shot was indeed facing away from the police but facing towards innocent bystanders waving a gun at them? or was he strung out on drugs and jumping all over the place and turned just as the officer fired his weapon? Considering that the Lowcountry is a tourist area, there are at any given time close to 1 million people in the surrounding area, and yet we have a handful of these incidents. It's tragic when a TRULY innocent person is shot by the police, but all things considered, that rarely happens. These men and women deserve our support, not our criticism.
Posted by lawguy on January 10, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
tygers1231, did you not get accepted when you put in your application with CCSO. Served with honor and distinction...please....I would love to see your SRB...oh wait, do you even know what that is? Please....
Posted by grannyofsix on January 10, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the man lived on 120 acres of land? We will never ever know the truth never.
Posted by tygers1231 on January 10, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lawguy:
You have proven my point THANKS!!! You must be one of those CROOKED ASS cops that are always looking for a reason!
Posted by greyrider on January 10, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe there's one out there somewhere, but I have NEVER met a law-abiding person who saw the cops as the enemy. It's one thing to disagree with how cops handled an incident or two, but when someone displays an animosity towards the cops in general, it makes you wonder....
Posted by Beerkrugul on January 10, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How would the police know if Mr. Smith wasn't shooting at an innocent person in the woods?
Mr. Smith called 911, he should have known someone from law enforcement was going to show up.
Posted by buttercup on January 10, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PalmettoMan you need to get a life.. go hunting or fishing. *LOL If .you were in the same place as the police officers you would have done the same thing.Ho no I forgot you would have let him shoot you right."S"
Posted by grannyofsix on January 10, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dang, Earley, I cant believe I actually agree with you
Posted by urvoucher on January 10, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Better to be judge by 12 than carried by 6........
Posted by oldglory on January 10, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait!
The man was in a drunken state in public, wielding and wildly firing a weapon and by his actions, a threat to everyone's lives. At that point he'd already broken some major laws, don't you think? Enraged drunks have NO reasoning abilities. I doubt he would have been able to comply with an order to turn around so he could be shot in the front, rather than the back of neck.
Those officers were performing the duties for which we citizens pay them. And let me say, had they not shown up and this man had continued rampaging resulting in the death of a law-abiding citizen, you guys would still be flapping your lips about how bad law enforcement is! Your ignorance and lack of respect for laws is showing, boys and girls.
And for all you gentlemen, even though I'm well past my majority, guns have been a part of my life, and I wouldn't hesitate if I felt my life was threatened, believe me. I too know all the rules regarding guns, thank you. You need not expound on gun policies every single time a shot is fired and reported.
It's not hard to pick out the law-breakers in the comments every morning :) And yet, these same people are hair-trigger ready to judge and hang with a few facts printed in the newspaper. Get real, people. I'd sure hate to have you all on a jury. Let's wait for SLED's findings BEFORE we hang these officers, okay?
This is a trajedy for everyone involved, family/friends of the man and law enforcement.
Posted by ashleyatwork on January 10, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Incapacitate the man by shooting his legs out from under him, Im sure the pain and blood loss would put him on the ground. There were other options than killing this man and leaving that child without a father permanantly.
Posted by ricktib on January 10, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Would you willingly confront a deranged lunatic with a gun? Any of us who would not need not pass judgement.
Maybe this person was not a deranged lunatic, but these officers cannot (nor can we expect them to) wait to find out.
From the article, "...That point was illustrated all too clearly in March when two Moncks Corner police officers were gunned down by a shotgun-wielding man whom they approached at his home..."
Thanks to all who protect and serve.
Posted by HaftaSpeak on January 10, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shot in the back and shot in the back of the neck are very different. The neck is round in form and at the top of a swiveling structure called the spine. To be shot in the back of the neck can present many options relative to the person's stance at the moment of impact. The only confirmed shot in the back premise is if the exit wound comes out near the Adam's apple. It is possible to be shot in the back of the neck from many different angles. A poor choice of words or lack or explanation allows people too much room to build their own scenarios and sometimes they build them to promote their own agenda. Let the investigators do their job.
Posted by grannyofsix on January 10, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is so much running through my head aboout this so many mixed feelings about this. I feel so bad for this family this terriable thing to have happened. But On the other hand, I have so much trust in the Police grew up trusting them. True we have some cops who are hair triggered but, if they werent there then what would we all do when we call 911, because we have been robbbed or raped or some one has broken into our house.
Some cops are very gung ho many of them X marines who think they are still in the marines. but some are so very soft hearted we cant judge by what we are told here in this paper the truth may never be come reality but please dont judge all police by what a few bad ones do we dont know what was in the minds of the officers that night as we dont know what was in Jeffs mind.
Posted by considerthefacts on January 10, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
well said haftaspeak
Posted by ashleyatwork on January 10, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rictib......I do expect law enforcement to find out the circumstances of a situation BEFORE they kill someone unless there is a clear sign that their life or the life of an innocent person is in immediate danger. If there is any way a person can be subdued without death it should be tried. Legs are alot bigger than neck.
Posted by greyrider on January 10, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
raregar67 - no, the back of the head is. Also, "exexcution style" killing is done from inches away. Next time, any of the local law enforcement departments confronts a drunk man wielding a loaded gun, they'll call you to run up and grab it off him. You'll be our hero.
Posted by grannyofsix on January 10, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Too all the police responding in this forum, THANK YOU
but, before you answwer anyone here when they ask a question please be sure they arent really asking for knowledge sake like I have for the past couple of days. yes some people here are asking sarcatic question. but some of us know you are here and are really asking ligit questions Again God Bless our policemen and may god be with the Smith family
Posted by jscampb on January 10, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
O.K. so 2 cops show up on someones land (120 acres) after a 911 call from the victim. They see him shooting into the woods, and when he does not respond to their demands, they shoot him. Do I have that correct. Now everyone seems to be saying that one of the contributing factors is that the man was drunk, firing a weapon, and the police were not sure if he was shooting at someone. How did they know he was drunk? How did they know he was firing at anything other than a tree. Sounds like deadly force was used, when it may have not been determined it was justified. Guilty until proven innocent???
Posted by greyrider on January 10, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jscampb - You bring up a good point with the "guilty until proven innocent" question. Sadly, that is sometimes the best (but not a good) option. It's a classic case of the lesser of two evils. The cops have two options, shoot the man or wait and HOPE he doesn't shoot anyone. Sometimes, the second option is reasonable, but think about this situation. They just recieved a 911 call about an alleged violent crime that just took place there, this man is acting erratically firing a rifle, and it's too dark to tell if there are innocent bystanders. Yes, you're right. They did declare him guilty and fire, but considering all the facts that they knew at the time, it looks like it was the best option. The man LOOKED guilty, but remember, he looked guilty because of his own actions.
Posted by jscampb on January 10, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
greyrider - I understand what you are saying. But they would have had to determine that this man was the reason for the 911 call. Tough call to make. How did they know he was not defending his own land??? I am just trying to ask honest questions. What did the victim do that was illegal? Is firing a 30-30 on his own land illegal in that part of the county? I know that the story we have is most likely not the entire story. Hopefully, the entire truth will come out.
Posted by whatintheworld on January 10, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW! Some people are very ignorant! This guy was breaking the law! He had no regard for himself or his child! You bleeding heart liberals are all alike. I want you to feel sorry for the drunk, ignorant person that KILLS your child or loved one or even you. I'd like to know when people are supposed to take responsibility for their actions. Why are criminals given so much lee-way. Well this is one drunk idiot that didn't get away with it. Sorry he has a child that had to endure his idiocy. Now she doesn't have a daddy because of his OWN idiodic actions. The police did their JOB and what they needed to do. I'd do the same...
Posted by MCgurl on January 10, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wish they'd state if he was truly stabbed or not - a bogus 911 call is a MAJOR break of the law. Of course everyone has compassion for the poor girl left with no father. But I have no compassion for an out-of-control drunk wielding a gun - in the country or not! Guns are not toys to "blow off steam" - they kill! No, guns don't kill, people using guns kill.
Posted by jscampb on January 10, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
whatintheworld says "This guy was breaking the law!"
What law was he breaking. Was it that he failed to put down the weapon? The story does not say if he even acknowledged that the officers were present.
Posted by considerthefacts on January 10, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jscampb-making a false 911 call and scrambling police and ems to a scene is a crime. If he was drunk firing a gun, as he was previously arrested for once, that is also a crime.
Posted by jscampb on January 10, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So they knew he made the call? Did they know it was a false 911 call. They didn't show up for an hour after the call. Did they know he was intoxicated? And, even if the answer to these questions is yes, is this acceptable force for these offenses.
Posted by considerthefacts on January 10, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They traced the call to his cell phone. They didn't know if it was a false call and had the responsibility to determine if it was. The trace and finding the home took time. When the police arrive on scene and the man was acting "aggitated" with a weapon in his hand, I doubt police had the ability to do a field sobriety test. And if the article is true and the response to drop your weapon was two shots from a rifle, can the deputies response be deemed acceptable?
I don't know, I'm not a cop and I wasn't there. Thats why there is an investigation.
Posted by considerthefacts on January 10, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
what if the stabbing was true and the police came on scene and saw a man with a rifle. Could the man with the rifle be the person who stabbed the other man? Could they both have scene the police arrive and the person who was stabbed make a run for the woods and the guy in the field was shooting at him? Too many ifs and coulds, I'm waiting for the investigation to conclude
Posted by flinsc on January 10, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
stabbed through the heart
and you're to blame
you give cops a bad name
Posted by lawguy on January 10, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Johnny Q, No Sir, you proved my point...and that is that you can dish out ignorance, but when your confronted you retaliate with even more. Thank you for proving my point..
Posted by JohnS on January 10, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The police did not have to shoot this man. I hope they get fired and have charges filed against them. I pray his family is holding up ok.
Last week some low IQ Hanahan cops busted down the wrong door. Officers please get it straight and double check things before you even think about doing a life changing thing for someone else. A Couple of weeks before the cops scared some folks just eating lunch at Pappys for a non life threating ordeal. Get it right or get out of the job. Getting it almost right is not acceptable.
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
palmettoman- can you please send the name of the lawyer you are speaking of to the family or post it here? Tonya is waiting until next week when the funeral is done to pursue a civil case.
To the others: A few facts: 120 acres is a BIG property. The police came to the front of the home, but the shooting happened in the back of the home, hence the need for flashlights instead of their police vehicles. I'm sure it was split decision action on the police part, but I have a couple of questions; Did the police think to knock on the front door to talk to the two other people inside? Diffusing a dangerous situation is a lot easier with someone who knows the person. How about calling for back up when you hear shots fired? Sounds like to me and from what I have gathered in talking to his exwife(who has a copy of the police report), police arrive to the scene, hear shots at the back of the house, go to the back and start yelling for him to drop the gun, then fired. We are told he was beligerant, but do we know for sure he even saw or heard the police? A side neck shot is a lot easier to give from the side of a hous and does explain the 50 yard distance from him.
Jeff wasn't running, didn't have the weapon pointed at them, and probably never even heard the gun that shot him fired. But these fine boys in blue will get a pat on the wrist for doing another good service for the community.
How would the police have reacted if they walked up to his body and had found stabbing wounds and the person who had done it in the woods? Why was that thought not contemplated? Because police are trained to kill not to diffuse the situation. Especially if there is a gun involved. BTW if you look up suicide by cop you'll find most cops do not shoot until a weapon is pointed AT them. Shooting in the woods is not imminent danger.
Posted by mrwarmth on January 10, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
what about the poor trees that were hit with those bullets?
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The police couldn't tell if he was shooting at someone in the woods or not. Why would they knock on the door to talk to two people who are drunk and passed out when they receive a 911 call regarding a stabbing. That's considered an emergency that I don't believe the cops want to risk taking time on and knocking on a door to talk to two people who are drunk? Time is of the essence in this situation, he had a gun and was drunk. Furthermore, why take more time to find people who know him to try to "diffuse" the situation as you say. The closest people who knew him apparently were the drunks in the trailer, one of whom I read was a girlfriend who they were on the outs at the time. What were they going to do? Send her drunken self out there to try to talk some sense into him and then what would happen? He could have shot her.
I will reiterate. Time is of the essence in these types of situations. The officers served a purpose and did as they were trained to do in this instance. IMO...
Posted by Q_T on January 10, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is to the two Police men that shot Jeffrey Ryan Smith.... The man that you killed was the most hardests workin guy that i ever knew! If someone he didnt even kno needed the shirt off his back he would insist that they would take it! He ALWAYS put other people before himself!!! Especially his daughter Carlina! I know this because he was like a father figure to me and always did what me and Carlina wanted to do!! But now thanks to the "Oh so smart cops," we dont have him anymore!! And to everybody who agrees with what the cops did, and want to bad mouth the Greatest person i ever knew, can just keep thier comments to their self! Of coarse he wasnt perfect but NOBODY IS!!!!! So thanks for all the heartache, pain, and tears!! Our lives are now ruined and we have to live with what yall did for the rest of our lives!!!!
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Q_T,
I'm sure this is very hard for you to deal with. I am sorry for your loss, but you are on a public forum. PUBLIC meaning people are free to express their opinions and views as they see fit, as are you. If you can't handle the comments other readers post, maybe it's best you don't read them.
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pratt07 are you a cop? If that is the way you deal with emergency situations in your county, count me as someone that will NEVER live there. How did you know there wasn't someone bleeding out in the house? How would the police have known that the two people in the house were drunk? In fact how do you know that? It hasn't even been concluded that Jeff was drunk, tox reports are still out and aren't supposed to be back for a couple of weeks. A scared cop shot one round, not 3-5 which would have been more realistic right? Come on, there has got to be a point where police take responsibility for screwing up. Running towards gun fire was what a cop that is trained to kill is going to do. That was why they didn't knock on the door. Get real what ELSE would have drawn them around to the back of the house?
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
palmetto man can you answer my question to you?
Posted by greyrider on January 10, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Q_T - I'm sorry to hear that. If you read these posts, for the most part, people are not trying to pass Judgment on Jeffrey, the man. We didn't know him as you did. This was a very unfortunate situation. Ask yourself this question: What if Jeffrey himself had called the police because he heard gunshots outside his home. The police respond, and they find some drunk guy wandering around shooting a rifle and Carlina is playing outside. EVEN IF this guy doesn't even seem to notice Carlina, the cops would've shot him if he was firing a gun anywhere near her. Now think of this. It's dark out. The cops had no idea if Jeffrey was going to (even accidentally) kill someone while randomly firing the rifle. Rifle shots can travel great distances (a shot from a 7mm rifle can travel 5 miles for instance). I'm sorry that you lost someone close to you, but I guarantee you, the cops did not show up looking to kill anyone. I hope people take your post to heart and remember that alcohol and guns don't mix. This was a great tragedy and I pray that it doesn't happen again. If you want to drink, leave the guns alone. If Jeffrey would've left his guns alone, he'd be alive right now.
Posted by ccfromsc on January 10, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow!
This is a testy topic!
On my two cents here it is: How many people are going to be shot and killed in Charleston area (primarily North Charleston) due to some drug dealing or "gang banging" in the next day or two? There are still the same drug dealing houses that are there now that were there yesterday, last week, last month, last year, five years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago,... I think you get the point. Yet they respond to this guy... I wonder if any city of even the county government wanted to seize his land lately? Also, are there powder burns on the neck?
Now to the police with their arrogant buts in the air here: why and where were you last week when the Hanahan police raided the wrong house and apologizing for that? Why is it in those raids, the police can NOT get the right address, but a local moving company can (and with a driver that is illiterate), a drugged out taxi cab driver can find the right address, UPS, FED Ex can, but the police can't? The so -called apology is pathetic.
Posted by jscampb on January 10, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pratt07 - If the police could not tell if there was anyone in the woods or not, are they to assume that there is??? Also, " he had a gun and was drunk ". Should this translate into "shoot him". Plus you said "Furthermore, why take more time to find people who know him to try to "diffuse" the situation as you say." You are right. Why do that when you have a 9mm. One other thing. You said - "I will reiterate. Time is of the essence in these types of situations" Are you clear as to what type of situation this was??? As far as I can tell, you have a false 911 call, and a drunk on his back 120 firing a 30-30 into the woods. Should that translate into shooting him in the neck??? Not to stretch this out, but doesn't a drunk driver on the interstate pose at least the same danger to the public that this guy does? I think the truth was said by another post. This cop just panicked.
Posted by outrage on January 10, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
amy38 - Look up the word ignorant. I am not being mean, look it up!
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amy,
The article states his BAC was .19, so yes I am sure he was intoxicated. BAC is Blood Alcohol Content and you don't need a tox report to tell someone's BAC. Duh...
Furthermore, yes in the county I live in, I do want officers to act in this manner. And I hate to break it to you, but if you live in the tri-county area, you live in a county also in which those officers will do the same thing.
Also, you say a "scared" cop shot the round. How do you know he was "scared"? Did you personally speak with him? Did he make a statement clarifying this? Apparently you must know something the citizens as well as police don't know, so maybe you should give them a ring and enlighten them on what really happened since you are so knowledgeable. You could help the investigation. (Note my sarcasm)
As far as running toward a gun being fired, yes they are trained to do that. That is their job. Would you do that? Can you do that? If the cop was "scared" as you say, now would have have really run toward the weapon that was being fired. Your statement contradict themselves. My advice is to proof-read before you post.
Posted by mrwarmth on January 10, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ccfromsc- they police were responding to someone being stabbed in the heart.
the shot was reportably taken from 50 yards, no powder burns
and the bust in hanahan, they found the right house, it was just that the informant gave them bad information.
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
outrage what's your point are you giving me your answer to what you are?
Or trying to explain why the cops couldn't knock on the door first?
If you're trying to say I'm ignorant you're grossly wrong. Just take a moment and do a random search on how police forces nationwide are trying to determine the best way to deal with suicide by cop. Bean bag guns, tasers, rubber bullets, someone even suggested trank guns. There ARE better ways to deal with someone that wants to commit suicide, not saying that is what Jeff wanted, but it should have been the warning from the 911 dispatcher.
And I still don't know that I believe he heard them say a word, even if the cops said he did. Sorry, I've seen too many dirty cops.
Posted by mrwarmth on January 10, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
pratto7-I believe the .19 BAC was from his DUI arrest last month
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
pratt- your mixing up parts of the story. He was pulled over in December and his BAC was .19. Tox reports have not been finalized yet. Read this story and do a search on his name and you will find the other stories that state there was one shot fired then warning then the next shot fired then the police shot.
Posted by jscampb on January 10, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The bottom line here is that they shot a man that is just guilty of being drunk, and acting foolish and irresposible (that goes with being drunk). This guy most likely fired that same rifle into those same woods many times. The crime does not appear to justify the shooting, but many are unwilling to accept this, and continue to try to rationalize what happened here. I will bet that these cops have been going over this many times in their own mind, and seeing where things did not have to turn out as they did. I say this as I believe that most have a conscious, and killing someone would not be easy to deal with.
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, you caught me on that one, yes I did mix that up. My mistake.
jscampb-
Yes a drunk driver on the I does translate into a similar situation. Yes that driver is capable of killing someone. I'm sure if he had a gun as well the officers would have acted the same: Ordered him to drop the weapon. Similar but different. Mr. Smith was aiming out into the woods, that is clear. It was a POSSIBILITY that it was at someone. Should it have been, an innocent person could have been dead at the hands of a drunk man. The cops acted appropriately, IMO.
You ask if I am clear to what kind of situation it was...I was not there, nor do I claim to know what went on or the timeline of events. Do you? Were you there? Apparently Ms. Amy was, I'm still waiting on her to answer my questions.
As far as a "false" 911 call. I doubt they knew en route to Mr. Smith's residence that it was false.
No doubt in my mind they will be cleared.
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pratt have you seen or heard the police report? I'm going off of what the information is that is out there and what has been told to me as a family member. One shot- not multiple, if there were concerns for safety why didn't both officers shoot? Why not more than one shot? As for the officer that shot, he either had way to much adrenaline pumping through him from fear, anger, or excitement. The point is he fired and didn't need to.
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have not seen the police report. I base my opinions solely off what information I receive via media. As far as the officer, it is no one's responsibility to decide if he "needed" to fire or not except Internal Affairs. As far as the number of shots, if one officer shoots, that doesn't necessarily constitute the other shooting. THAT would be too much adrenaline, IMO.
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pratt-If you haven't seen the police report maybe you shouldn't be so quick to defend the cop that shot a man in the back of the neck, without further checking to see if there was someone inside the house that could possibly talk him down. I wasn't there either, but I do have a closer link than what is being printed in the paper.
Posted by outrage on January 10, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
amy38 - Ignorant; lack of knowledge. Yes, I am ignorant of all the facts in this situation. This is why I have stated police training, use of force amendments, and not made statements such as yours.
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Outrage- 4 months ago a woman in Seattle went missing, after leaving her job and not showing up for her second part time job. Her husband made multiple calls to police and 911 and was told he couldn't file a missing person report just because she wouldn't answer her phone, that she was an adult and could do whatever she wanted. Their response was that she must have just left him. After a week of this, he begged them to check her phone, he gave them bank records and was even about ready to take a lie detector test, when the police pinged her phone and found her upside down in her car in a ravine. She was in the hospital for months. Now just because something is done one way for the last how many years doesn't mean it isn't time to start looking for new ways to handle situations. Technology is an amazing thing, and if LEO would take the time to listen to families they might end up finding themselves with more allies than people saying they are bad. There are many good cops, I often say hi and thanks to good ones when I see them, but I will not sit blindly and say that there isn't a good possibility that these cops screwed up. Policy or not.
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amy,
As I said in a previous post. You have a man, with a gun, who is PRESUMED drunk, outside of the house. Why the hell would an officer stop to knock on the door to say "Exucse me, do you think you can talk to your friend to see if he can calm down and put away the gun?" I don't think so. Maybe in the movies or CSI but this is reality. If someone was in real danger, they aren't going to waste that kind of precious time to talk to people in the house who are drunk.
I understand that you have a link to this family, but that doesn't make you more knowledgeable than the officers that were at the scene, assessing and diffusing the situation. Nor does that mean that you would have been effective in your ideal ways of alleviating the problem.
And yes, I am quick to defend the officer who shot him. He is obliged to serve and protect, which IN MY OPINION, was doing just that. Did he have to die? No. Unfortunately he did. I feel for his daughter and his family struggling with this loss. You, a person who has lost a loved one, it is normal to blame and want answers and alternatives and you aren't going to be happy until you get the ones you want. I don't know you and I don't know Mr. Smith and not once have I passed judgement on his character nor will I. But I don't feel as though you will be satisfied with the outcome of the investigation.
Posted by CarolinaWren on January 10, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who would just stand there while a drunk is on a rampage shooting a gun in the dark. What would you do? I bet no one would just stand there and beg someone to put down their gun but would either sh-t their pants, run like hell or shoot back if they have excess to a gun!!!
I probably would sh-t my pants because I don't own a gun....I couldn't run cuz I am too damn old and would have lost my voice out of fear so I wouldn't be able to beg anyone to put down their gun! I guess I would drop dead myself but out of fear! I am so very sorry for everyone who is involved in this whether they are friends, family, or the police. Hopefully we will be able to get all the facts after the investigations until then it is best we do not reach our own conclusions. None of us where there.
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
pratt-Because LEO's job is to protect, even if that means from your own self. We've all heard the 5150 drama with Hollywood last week. People can get out of the right frame of mind whether by mental incapication by something they took or their own mental issues. Cops have to consider all the scenarios, that I have heard from cops more than I have liked to. So many times it's more exciting to go running to the gunshots, then it is to help someone. That is why I stated earlier cops are taught to kill not to diffuse. You answered my question.
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amy,
You are correct on one thing: They do have to consider all scenarios. That is why your friend was shot.
"So many times it's more exciting to go running to the gunshots, then it is to help someone. That is why I stated earlier cops are taught to kill not to diffuse."
This makes no sense. Cops are not taught to kill just to do it. They are taught to kill after they evaluate the situation and feel as though the threat of immenent danger is present- their or another citizen's life is in danger. They don't take their sweet ass time assessing either. They are trained to be quick-thinking and most (not all) are smart with their judgements. They go running toward gunshots...well doesn't that tell you that someone needs help?
You said it yourself, they have to assess all scenarios. In this scenario, Mr. Smith could have been shooting at someone for all they know. What if he would have killed someone had that been the case? And they tried to diffuse. They ordered him to drop his weapon. Did he? He DID NOT.
Posted by buttercup on January 10, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CarolinaWren how right you are. FOR AMY38 if you were (You must have been there you know so much)in the dark with a drunk with a loaded gun shooting at random would you just stand there and let him shoot you. It is a no brainier. You would not. The police officer did the right thing. Thank god the police got to go home that night. I feel for the family, but Mr. Smith did this to himself. There is no one else is to blame. Did he stop to think what it would do to his daughter? Please answer that question for us.
Posted by lawguy on January 10, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by PalmettoMan (anonymous) on January 10, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lawguy,
You're one of the reasons subpoenas need to be served on the webmaster for the Post and Courier and therefrom all ISPs recorded by such so that if you are an officer of the law, the public can know the type of words and mentality you and the others in law enforcement are posting in response to this killing. I am sure a Federal Grand Jury doing an investigation, and a civil jury, would be very interested to know.
You are such a fine example to the people who are the
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wow...I am shaking in my boots. The fact of the matter, is that I will not allow an idiot as yourself and others make outrageous comments and belittle officers doing their jobs. What, freedom of speech does not exist for me? Only you right? You better look at all my posts, I have clearly stated that let the investigation come out and then make your pathetic comments. I additionally stated that if they are found negligent, then they must suffer the consequences. Why is it O.K. for you to bash us, and we cant defend ourselves. The day you decide to be a man or women and do our job, only then you will understand what we go through. Many lives were destroyed that night, to include the deputies. Shooting someone is the last thing in our mind. Every day i put my uniform, ensure that my vest is covering my vital organs, and finally I kiss and hug my kids and hope I can see them at the end of my shift. Do you do that? Remember, even severe paper cuts still allows you to go home. I have seen many officers involved in shootings that are torn up inside and wish they could have avoided it. So please...give it a rest...
Posted by amy38 on January 10, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pratt-read the comments from the other story today. There is still more to this story than is completely being reported, including a possible earlier confrontation with Jeff. I am not saying anymore because I don't have to. And at this point I've already wasted more time and energy on you than I would like to. You see it one way, I see it another. You are quick to site the example of someone being shot at, but don't consider someone could have been bleeding out in the house. There are so many coulda woulda shoulda's here. The whole situation is ugly. Stick to your guns though obviously we both think we are right on this. So I'll agree to disagree even if you won't.
Posted by outrage on January 10, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lawguy - I agree.
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are damn right I will stick to my guns. Yeah there might have been someone bleeding in the house but your friend was outside with a gun acting belligerent. THAT was the problem, and the officers diffused it. Would you rather them take some time, go inside, see what's up in the trailer while he was outside with a gun shooting it of at God know's what? Hell no, Mr. Smith outside with a gun is classified as an IMMEDIATE threat.
Again, since you say there is more to the story, and no one seems to know but you the Charleston County Sherrif's Office number is 843-554-4700. Maybe you should give them a call and enlighten them on what really happened. I'm sure they would love to hear from you :)
And you don't have to say any more than what you already have. You have no valid point, your statements all contradict one another. We agree on two things: We disagree and this situation is VERY ugly.
lawguy, from what I gather, you are an officer and you have my utmost respect and gratitude for your services :)
Posted by Bartaybarbara on January 10, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have listen to the 911 call. Maybe its just my ears but what I hear is stabbed me with a freaking fork it scared the hell out of me.
Posted by forget on January 10, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know the family is salivating waiting to file a suit. Amy posted it a few back. Just waiting until after the funeral. Sad. thinking like that so soon. Too bad he didn't hit someone while he was driving drunk. Then they could have been on the receiving end of a suit. No, it would have been the Charleston County Schools. Because wasn't he driving one of their vehicles? I think a suit would have been the last thing on my mind right now if I had been the family of this great guy. Just a thought.
Posted by Pinckney on January 10, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The thing people always forget about is this: What is the suspect doing and why does the suspect think he can walk around threatening people with a gun or knife?" Alpert said. "If you have a weapon and some opportunity to use it, it is quite likely an officer will be justified in taking your life."
That's a pretty big blank check, don't you think? I have had more than one police officer tell me that in these situations the foremost thought in the officer's mind is, "I'm going home tonight." Policemen aren't expected to go out and commit suicide, but they are expected to use reasonable force. An out of control suspect doesn't necessarily deserve to die. The police CAN get it wrong.
Posted by lawguy on January 10, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The title to this article says it all...'Nobody ... walks away unscathed'. It very clear by the posts that that many people were affected, not only the parties involved.
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
forget,
IMO, I think that the lawsuit is just going to be a waste of money for them.
Posted by forget on January 10, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
is that his daughter's picture?
If it is, his family should be ashamed of themselves exploiting her like that. I have a daughter and I would never have allowed her picture be taken and posted like that.
Posted by forget on January 10, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
unfortunately Pratt, usually the insurance company settles.
Posted by lawguy on January 10, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well folks, got to go, I have to answer some of your loud noise complaints....and my husband/wife beat me up, but I dont want you to do anything about it calls...sleep well tonight..
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a pity scam. And I agree with you totally, forget.
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did this guy have insurance?
Posted by Pratt07 on January 10, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My brain is fried...
My condolences to the daughter of the slain. My prayers are with you.
Posted by forget on January 10, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
on another article. someone is asking for donations for the daughter, that after talking about the suit they're waiting to file
Posted by onlyme on January 10, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
forget-Uhm... I understand like many your not able or have no intention to contribute to the fund. But, your statement seems callas and cold. It's not his Daughter's fault in any situation on which ever side you care to bias your opinion. If your a single parent and have to provide for your family that's understandable. No one says you have to donote. Furthermore, If a wrongfull death suit is filed on/or behalf of the family that is thier affair and their is no promise that the little girl will receive any settlement. She lost her father who was not a dead beat dad he loved, cared, and supported her... no amount of money will ever bring her Daddy home to her... So show some empathy
Posted by onlyme on January 10, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Always said it best "Everyone will have a different opion as to why and how come. What needs to be said is that this is a personal loss. Those who truly knew Jeff,either from the past or present are suffering terribly. His family has been forced to thier knees, and here you are analizing who and what you don't know. Idle gossip is shameful and useless. I hope Jeff's family offers you forgiveness for such crass and uncalled for comments. And they will, now you know a little bit about Jeff's character. A genuinely goodnatured countryboy and father!"
Posted by Creeker01 on January 10, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't let "Amy" BS anyone. She may have seen a statement, but SLED has not yet released the entire report, nor will they for a comparitively long time. They only recently released the Moncks Corner cop execution details, but since there are a pair of Cops dangling in the wind on Admin Leave waiting for people like some of these commenters to vent their rage upon them, perhaps they may be a little quicker.
I severely doubt the S.O. has released anything more than what the press has, other than to SLED. The case is still open, and is no longer the County's case to investigate.
I would challenge Amy to scan and upload any "report" she has to any of the filesharing websites, so that we can see where she is getting her "unbiased" information.
Lawguy - Be careful out there. You apparently have more Loons, Leftists and ignorants to deal with that have access to the Internet than we previously realized.
Posted by COB on January 11, 2008 at 4:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think palmettoman and johnq were seriously deprived of hugs. lets all give them one.
you sure can tell those that have run afoul of the law and still refuse to accept the responsibilities for their actions.
to bad there isn't a maturity pill.