Garfield Heights Officers Kill Man At...

Garfield Heights Officers Kill Man At Gas Station | Ohio News Network (ONN)

There are 30 comments on the 10TV WBNS story from Feb 26, 2011, titled Garfield Heights Officers Kill Man At Gas Station | Ohio News Network (ONN). In it, 10TV WBNS reports that:

Garfield Heights Police said a man was fatally shot by officers after lunging at them with a billy club at a gas station Friday night.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at 10TV WBNS.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Elmer Fudd

Portsmouth, OH

#1 Feb 26, 2011
Nice job guys.
Jake Stidd

Saint Clairsville, OH

#2 Feb 26, 2011
One more career criminal off the streets,great job officers. Five bullets are much cheaper then years of jail @ thousands per year.
Kevin

Largo, FL

#3 Feb 26, 2011
Thank you officers...Down here in Florida cops are being murdered at an alarming rate. Be safe and look after one another.
joh

Thermal, CA

#5 Feb 27, 2011
i am glad the officers are ok, and i was not there on scene, i think that one bullet would have stopped the offender, not five.
Just Listening

United States

#8 Feb 27, 2011
Good stuff. Another car off the road.
angie columbus ohio

Centerburg, OH

#11 Feb 27, 2011
I think they should not shoot to kill.Why can't they shoot people where they will still live. Shit he had a billy club how could he hurt them with that with more than one cop.And why do they all have to shoot.Shoot in arm or leg.I think they get carried away.
what

Columbus, OH

#12 Feb 27, 2011
joh wrote:
i am glad the officers are ok, and i was not there on scene, i think that one bullet would have stopped the offender, not five.
Well,I don't think the officers wait to see if the first bullet worked or not, you shoot until the offender drops. Remember, you have only seconds to make that decision and execute it fully when decided upon. That is why they do not shoot at ankles or knees to put down the perp. All or nothing.
what

Columbus, OH

#13 Feb 27, 2011
ListenUp wrote:
Wow. I would have tazered the guy, or pepper sprayed him, or simply taken my own club and beat the crap out of him. But then again, I'm not a coward and a cheap-thrill murderer. Also, I don't punk out and say that my first duty is to "go home safe at night" instead of the real job, which is to serve and protect, and to uphold justice. When you enlist, you know that your job might cost you your life, unlike these cowards with guns and shields who wouldn't last 10 minutes up against the Mujahideen garbage.
Dipsh%* what would u do, throw a 9 volt battery at him till he drops. The article states clearly THEY DO NOT CARRY TAZERS.
cue haha guy

Jackson, OH

#14 Feb 28, 2011
There are plenty of ways you can hurt a man and bring him to the ground
You can beat him, you can cheat him
You can treat him bad and leave him when he's down
But I'm ready, yes I'm ready for you
I'm standing on my own two feet
Out of the doorway the bullets rip, repeating the sound of the beat. Oh yeeeah
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust

More lyrics: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/q/queen/#share
Guido

Columbus, OH

#15 Feb 28, 2011
This is the correct way to solve the carreer criminals cycle of activity...give the officer a raise, time off and an all expense paid vacation to vegas or something
Guido

Columbus, OH

#16 Feb 28, 2011
live by the billy club die by the gun....too funny
ExLEO

Miamisburg, OH

#17 Feb 28, 2011
joh wrote:
i am glad the officers are ok, and i was not there on scene, i think that one bullet would have stopped the offender, not five.
I used to think the same thing until I served as a police officer many years ago. I learned from my training that some suspects have an almost super hero ability to withstand devestating shots, even to vital areas of the body. I remember reading about one case where an officer shot a man in the chest with a shotgun. Blew the suspects heart apart, yet the suspect wrestled the officer's shotgun away from him and beat him to death with it before collapsing and finally dying himself. This is a common misconception that civilians have, and I think it would do all police departments well to explain this to the public. CPD used to have a very informative program on local cable TV where they addressed issues like that with the public. You may want to check with them to see if they still offer that program.
ExLEO

Miamisburg, OH

#18 Feb 28, 2011
angie columbus ohio wrote:
I think they should not shoot to kill.Why can't they shoot people where they will still live.**** he had a billy club how could he hurt them with that with more than one cop.And why do they all have to shoot.Shoot in arm or leg.I think they get carried away.
Another common misconception that civilians have. Shooting for the arms or legs is suicidal. If the situation is bad enough that deadly force is justified, your goal as a police officer is to stop the attack as quickly as possible before you or other innocent people get hurt. It is hard enough to hit a moving target the size of someone's torso. Hitting something that is as thin as an arm or leg and that moves as fast as they can would be exceedingly difficult. It also would be far more unlikely to stop a suspect's attack than hitting them center of mass even if you could hit them in an extremity. Again, local police departments would be doing themselves a big favor by taking some time to explain these things to their local communities so that citizens would understand better why police have to do some of the things they must do to the untrained public.
Sheriff Andy Taylor

United States

#19 Mar 2, 2011
It's called thinn9ng the herd.
observer

United States

#20 Mar 3, 2011
I for one would like to see someone in a "fight or flight" mode be able to reliably hit a suspect "in the arm or the leg" without fail.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#21 Mar 3, 2011
As a CCW holder, I have the authority to kill an attacker with a deadly weapon. Why shouldn't our police have the same authority as I do?

All these armchair quarterbacks here. This clown was shot five times by two police officers. That means one officer shot three times, and the other shot twice the way they were trained; to shoot in two shot bursts.

I think the real problem here is that criminals detect fear in the police because of all the scrutiny that follows a police shooting of a black person. If this guy was approached by two lowlifes wanting his money, he would have followed his orders exactly to give up his loot. Criminals today just don't fear authority. The old adage "crime doesn't pay" no longer applies in our country.:-(
Mapleman

Bedford, OH

#22 Mar 4, 2011
Yeah xxxrayted, but the guy who Maple Heights police shot was an old white guy. You said yourself at the age of 50 you are pretty sure you can disarm a senior citizen with a bat.

You know I'm all for getting the criminals. I think I should be able to execute the guy breaking into my car, but I don't like the fact law enforcement doesn't have non-lethal weapons. There is no excuse for that in 2011.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#23 Mar 5, 2011
So blame the police department? I say blame the parents who raised a person like this. From young on, I was taught to respect authority, that's why the cops never shot me. If you're stupid enough to attack any two men with a bat while they're holding guns on you, you deserve to die. You're too stupid to be on this planet.

Okay, so the cops taser him and he goes to jail for a few days. He gets out, and this maniac will be right back in the pubic again, and who knows what he is capable of next. These police officers saved us a ton of money not to mention our future safety. They solved a problem that could not be solved with non-lethal weapons.
Mapleman

Bedford, OH

#24 Mar 5, 2011
Not really worried about this person, it's just crazy that police in 2011 don't have non-lethal weapons in a first-world nation.

We've seen before how police have mistaken cell phones and keys for guns and unloaded on people. Just makes sense that to avoid tragedies police would have some form on non-lethal weapon.

But hey, these police departments have to share a police dog, things are beyond pathetic around here.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#25 Mar 5, 2011
You have to remember that by having non-lethal weapons, it creates more scrutiny. One reason this is no big deal is because the Garfield police don't have such weapons on them. Therefore, they have no alternative but to shoot the SOB. Now what do you think would happen if they had taseers, but believed that a taser might not do them any good in this situation, and they shot him? I guarantee there would be a lawsuit involved, and the judge would probably find the department at fault. By not having tasers, the stand a better defense in a court should the family try retaliating.

There is always a reason for everything.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Garfield Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
neighbor from hell (Aug '14) Fri Maple 13
News Maple Heights drug dealer sold fatal heroin dos... (Jan '17) Dec 13 Daddy 10
News The Enduring Mystery Of Beverly Jarosz (Feb '08) Nov 29 Alex 1,155
News Traffic Camera Ban May Be On November Ballot (Jul '10) Nov 27 amadeeprovance 76
This is a Sad forum Nov 24 Juan Todamera 2
News Masked men take $2,700 during armed robbery at ... Nov 24 Juan Todamera 2
Dead Nog At Stafford Park Nov '17 Wonderful City 1

Garfield Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Garfield Heights Mortgages