Search Warrants Reveal Details of Off...

Search Warrants Reveal Details of Officer-Involved Shooting

There are 42 comments on the NBC29 Charlottesville story from Jun 13, 2013, titled Search Warrants Reveal Details of Officer-Involved Shooting. In it, NBC29 Charlottesville reports that:

Search warrants are giving us a closer look at what happened right before an Albemarle County police officer shot and killed a man in Afton.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29 Charlottesville.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
SMooneyham

Waynesboro, VA

#1 Jun 14, 2013
Why did the officer not taze or shoot to wound?
Mark

Charlottesville, VA

#2 Jun 14, 2013
SMooneyham wrote:
Why did the officer not taze or shoot to wound?
Going in to a volatile situation, I suspect the officer could only draw one weapon, and the tazer wouldn't be the one.

When you shoot, you don't shoot to wound. Only on TV do the police try tricky shots.
the deal

Thomasville, NC

#3 Jun 14, 2013
It was dark and most extremities (shooting to wound) would be hard to hit, especially if being charged by the suspect....you pretty much get 1 shot before you might be taken down yourself. You shoot to make it mean something.
Huh

Charlottesville, VA

#4 Jun 14, 2013
So basically the officer shot an unarmed man that posed no direct threat to that officer. There are definitely other ways this situation should have been handled. I think that the officer should be charged, not sure with what but, it does not sound justified to me. This sets a bad precedent that police can kill unarmed citizens at will when they see them in commission of a crime.
Davedude

Rocky Mount, VA

#5 Jun 14, 2013
SMooneyham wrote:
Why did the officer not taze or shoot to wound?
Police are not trained to shoot to wound. There is no such thing.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#6 Jun 14, 2013
we need phasers
Areyoukiddingme

Waynesboro, VA

#7 Jun 14, 2013
SMooneyham wrote:
Why did the officer not taze or shoot to wound?
Shoot to wound, have you ever fire a hand gun much less a hand gun while someone is charging at you. There is no time to take steady aim, you shoot center mass. As for the tazer, why would you use a non-lethal weapon on a person who was actively assaulting another person. My guess is the officer stepped out of his patrol car , yelled at the now dead to stop assaulting the women and was bull rushed by the now dead guy. He used the right amount of force for the situation.
the deal

Thomasville, NC

#8 Jun 14, 2013
HUH, you are clueless. Just because he wasn't armed doesn't mean he wasn't a threat. He ignored the officer's command to stop beating his girlfriend. And in some reports charged the officer. The officer shot him to stop him from beating the girl to death and also to protect themself. 24 years on the force, I'm sure the officer has seen their share of domestics. Probably one of the most passionately violent and unpredictable scenarios there are. Would love to see what you would do in the same situation...
Areyoukiddingme

Waynesboro, VA

#9 Jun 14, 2013
Huh wrote:
So basically the officer shot an unarmed man that posed no direct threat to that officer. There are definitely other ways this situation should have been handled. I think that the officer should be charged, not sure with what but, it does not sound justified to me. This sets a bad precedent that police can kill unarmed citizens at will when they see them in commission of a crime.
I guess the hands he was beating the women with would not be considered weapon in your world? The man was given the option to stop his assault, he chose to leave that victim and victimize the officer. To bad for him he brought stupidity to a gun fight. My suggestion to all "if the police are pointing a gun at you Comply with their commands".
Fortunately most people are abiding citizens and will never find themselves in this situation. This guy was not, he was a criminal and got his reward.
HuhHuh

Charlottesville, VA

#10 Jun 14, 2013
Huh wrote:
So basically the officer shot an unarmed man that posed no direct threat to that officer. There are definitely other ways this situation should have been handled. I think that the officer should be charged, not sure with what but, it does not sound justified to me. This sets a bad precedent that police can kill unarmed citizens at will when they see them in commission of a crime.
The officer pulled up alone in the middle of the night into an unknown situation and witnessed the man violently beating a woman. How, in that short amount of time, in the dark should the officer know if the man was armed or not? The beating of a woman and charging of a police officer is going to get you shot. That officer had every right to fire. And they are trained, as every police officer in America, to aim center mass, shoot to kill.
useYourCommonSen se

Charlottesville, VA

#11 Jun 14, 2013
Huh wrote:
So basically the officer shot an unarmed man that posed no direct threat to that officer. There are definitely other ways this situation should have been handled. I think that the officer should be charged, not sure with what but, it does not sound justified to me. This sets a bad precedent that police can kill unarmed citizens at will when they see them in commission of a crime.
You say there are other ways this situation could have been handled. How would you have handled it, "Huh"?
Whoa Stop the Clock

Waynesboro, VA

#12 Jun 14, 2013
SMooneyham wrote:
Why did the officer not taze or shoot to wound?
Shoot to wound? Who are you, Matt Dillon?
Whoa Stop the Clock

Waynesboro, VA

#13 Jun 14, 2013
Huh wrote:
So basically the officer shot an unarmed man that posed no direct threat to that officer. There are definitely other ways this situation should have been handled. I think that the officer should be charged, not sure with what but, it does not sound justified to me. This sets a bad precedent that police can kill unarmed citizens at will when they see them in commission of a crime.
Deadly force is justified when there is a direct threat of death or serious injury to yourself or another person. He already showed he was a threat of serious injury to another and if he went toward the officer, I don't think it was to shake his hand. Should the officer wait and get punched a few times first?
LOL

Charlottesville, VA

#14 Jun 14, 2013
Huh is definently an idiot. Everyone like huh can sit back and monday morning quarterback but would have gotten his tail whipped or possibly killed in the same situation because apparently he knows how to restrain a violent individual from what he watches in the movies. Get a clue man. You have probably taken a ride in the back of that tight caged car before and feel all officers are against you. Is that the case huh?
zapper

Charlottesville, VA

#15 Jun 14, 2013
Huh wrote:
So basically the officer shot an unarmed man that posed no direct threat to that officer. There are definitely other ways this situation should have been handled. I think that the officer should be charged, not sure with what but, it does not sound justified to me. This sets a bad precedent that police can kill unarmed citizens at will when they see them in commission of a crime.
Charged for what? if anyone is ever beating your wife, girlfriend,or older daughter heck just remind cops to let the beating the crap out of her continue because the guy is unarmed. Your a trip do you know how you sound? this was a idiot violent guy that obviously had a lead difficiency. Cured case closed.
robert

Dyke, VA

#16 Jun 14, 2013
Huh wrote:
So basically the officer shot an unarmed man that posed no direct threat to that officer. There are definitely other ways this situation should have been handled. I think that the officer should be charged, not sure with what but, it does not sound justified to me. This sets a bad precedent that police can kill unarmed citizens at will when they see them in commission of a crime.
well if i charged an officer that had his gun drawn on me, i would expect to be shot. if in there shoes i probably would have done the same.
saturday night

Macomb, MI

#17 Jun 14, 2013
the deal wrote:
HUH, you are clueless. Just because he wasn't armed doesn't mean he wasn't a threat. He ignored the officer's command to stop beating his girlfriend. And in some reports charged the officer. The officer shot him to stop him from beating the girl to death and also to protect themself. 24 years on the force, I'm sure the officer has seen their share of domestics. Probably one of the most passionately violent and unpredictable scenarios there are. Would love to see what you would do in the same situation...
While I'm not necessarily saying he shouldn't have shot the guy the double standard the law gives citizens is bs if an everyday citizen were to shoot an unarmed person giving the same situation almost definitely charges would be brought against them for manslaughter or someting
zapper

Charlottesville, VA

#18 Jun 14, 2013
saturday night wrote:
<quoted text>
While I'm not necessarily saying he shouldn't have shot the guy the double standard the law gives citizens is bs if an everyday citizen were to shoot an unarmed person giving the same situation almost definitely charges would be brought against them for manslaughter or someting
Now there you just might have a point, but I do remember same situation years ago and the shooter was not charged, the guy like this guy had a history of violence and a lead difficiency
twinmom

Charlottesville, VA

#19 Jun 14, 2013
Huh wrote:
So basically the officer shot an unarmed man that posed no direct threat to that officer. There are definitely other ways this situation should have been handled. I think that the officer should be charged, not sure with what but, it does not sound justified to me. This sets a bad precedent that police can kill unarmed citizens at will when they see them in commission of a crime.
The officer didn't shoot him in the back, cold-blooded, while he was out for a Sunday stroll, for crying out loud. The perpetrator was beating a woman, and then became a threat when the assailant lunged towards the officer. The assailant's weapons were his fists, which can be just as lethal as a gun or a knife.
Liberalace

Lexington, VA

#20 Jun 14, 2013
Are Molly the reporterette and the assignment editor (if there even is one at this news operation) serious? This is a story? "New details"? We have known since day one from accounts that it: a) was a domestic; b) the officer shot the perp, and c) the perp charged the officer.

There is not one iota of new information here--oh, except one fact reported that is wrong...

The officer from Albie who shot the perp does NOT have 24 years of experience on the force--as Balkenbush reports. READ THE WARRANT! The VSP investigator named Special Agent Tuggle--who completed the affidavit for the warrant to be issued by the judge--is the one who has 24 years' experience.

Does the newsroom even have a dictionary in it? Look up "affiant." Then they wonder why we call them "reporterettes" and "talking heads."

Priceless, isn't it?

R.I.P.: Bob Terry

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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.

Lyndhurst Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Thinking of moving to Waynesboro, getting away ... (Dec '14) Aug 6 KKKdeeeznuts 4
Sonya Coffey Jun '16 calf mountain nei... 3
Town of fishersville Jun '16 Guest 1
baby Horn jan 1958 information Jun '16 lucy 1
IF someone has my full name, phone number, date... (Dec '13) Dec '13 alfredatuognstana... 2
Yahoo is asking me for a new e-mail,is this a s... (Dec '13) Dec '13 wekyvinemel 2
Favorite bank and least favorite bank?!?!? (Dec '13) Dec '13 xusydofevid 2

Lyndhurst Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lyndhurst Mortgages