Police: Officer shoots accused motorcycle thief

There are 72 comments on the KUSA Denver story from Aug 20, 2007, titled Police: Officer shoots accused motorcycle thief. In it, KUSA Denver reports that:

" Police say an officer shot a man accused of trying to steal a motorcycle early Monday morning.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KUSA Denver.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Mar 07

Nashville, TN

#68 Aug 21, 2007
JEFF wrote:
Did he shoot him in the back of the leg or the front of the leg?
The results of their investigation have not been completed or made public yet.
I would surmize based on available information, seeing as how the suspect refused to show his hands when ordered and was running TOWARD one of the officers when he reached into his waistband, the round probably entered in the front.
glad_its_law

Denver, CO

#69 Aug 21, 2007
Yeah, dudamonster....that's the good stuff.

Since: Mar 07

Nashville, TN

#70 Aug 21, 2007
The use of lethal, deadly force is justified only when an officer reasonably believes an aggressor poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to himself or a third person or is about to commit first degree arson. Heres' the actual text:

18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
Statute text
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.

Whether he deserved to be shot, they can only use enough force to neutralize the threat. Anything more would be deemed excessive and could hurt their case.
Mike

Pleasanton, CA

#71 Aug 21, 2007
To all monday morning quarterbacks: Do some research. The fact that he hit a moving target at all is pretty good shooting. Cops train on motionless targets. Think of the stress as someone is running towards you and you believe they are reaching in their waistband for a gun. The cop had to process that info, decide the bad guy was a deadly threat, draw and fire before the bad guy shoots him.
Criminlas have a much better hit rate than cops because they have already made the decision to shoot. They don't worry about losing their job or being sued. Cops have to make split second decisions to shoot or not, then hit the target under alot of stress. Hitting a moving target in this situation was a job well done by the cop. I'm sure he wasn't trying to hit the leg, but if he was visually focused on the waistband, he may have aimed lower than center mass.
unhappy

United States

#72 Aug 21, 2007
denver resident wrote:
I hope some of the Denver PD reads this, you don't have to kill everybody that makes a mistake.
Wish this guy would have bled to death. Would have taught him and many others a little lesson.

Since: Mar 07

Nashville, TN

#73 Aug 21, 2007
Mike wrote:
To all monday morning quarterbacks: Do some research. The fact that he hit a moving target at all is pretty good shooting. Cops train on motionless targets. Think of the stress as someone is running towards you and you believe they are reaching in their waistband for a gun. The cop had to process that info, decide the bad guy was a deadly threat, draw and fire before the bad guy shoots him.
Criminlas have a much better hit rate than cops because they have already made the decision to shoot. They don't worry about losing their job or being sued. Cops have to make split second decisions to shoot or not, then hit the target under alot of stress. Hitting a moving target in this situation was a job well done by the cop. I'm sure he wasn't trying to hit the leg, but if he was visually focused on the waistband, he may have aimed lower than center mass.
Well said, Mike. Great post.

“2+2=?? OMG!! I Know This One!!”

Since: Apr 07

B-Town, USA

#78 Aug 22, 2007
Mike wrote:
To all monday morning quarterbacks: Do some research. The fact that he hit a moving target at all is pretty good shooting. Cops train on motionless targets. Think of the stress as someone is running towards you and you believe they are reaching in their waistband for a gun. The cop had to process that info, decide the bad guy was a deadly threat, draw and fire before the bad guy shoots him.
Criminlas have a much better hit rate than cops because they have already made the decision to shoot. They don't worry about losing their job or being sued. Cops have to make split second decisions to shoot or not, then hit the target under alot of stress. Hitting a moving target in this situation was a job well done by the cop. I'm sure he wasn't trying to hit the leg, but if he was visually focused on the waistband, he may have aimed lower than center mass.
Amen!!
Annie Oakley

AOL

#79 Aug 22, 2007
Wild Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I guarantee you this officer was not aiming at the suspect's leg and had no intention of merely "disabling" him. This type of procedure is not given anywhere in POST academy training or as part of Northglenn PD's on-going firearms in-service training. Anytime an officer draws and fires his weapon his intention is to use deadly force. This dirtbag punk happened to get off lucky.
Bill's right. A cop can lose his job for shooting a suspect in the leg. A wounded suspect can return fire. Cop is a bad shot. Let me know if you find any legs on this linked range target.
http://home.comcast.net/~derrickb1/target.jpg

Since: Mar 07

Nashville, TN

#80 Aug 22, 2007
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Kiss my butt, pal. I never said I was a cop. Screw you. Joe Police buttkisser.
It's nice to see how you resort to insults and name-calling when people don't agree with your uneducated, biased comments. No one wants to hear from you anymore, little Mikey.
denver resident

Denver, CO

#81 Aug 22, 2007
1 wants to know wrote:
<quoted text>
No, DPD just knows how to aim...
Your right,the old mall security gaurd was a bad shot.
Gridlock

United States

#82 Aug 22, 2007
Personal property theft has become an epidemic in parts of the country, and personally, I am happy to hear a story like this. I think thieves should be punished alot worse then they do most of the time.
Mikey

AOL

#83 Aug 23, 2007
Dudamonster wrote:
<quoted text>No one wants to hear from you anymore, little Mikey.
Is that right? Maybe YOU, but you're going to anyway, Mr. "I wanna be a policeman". Please educate the rest of us dipshits on law enforcement. You're so good, go to National American University, Joe Professor, haha.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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.

Northglenn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Julia Lopez 4 min Sooperdooper 4
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 10 min lides 4,427
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 13 min The_Box 18,145
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 17 min lides 21,573
Democrats the party of SCUM 2 hr Wilber 17
Review: Tree Land Christmas Trees (Dec '11) 3 hr Nucklehead 15
Debate: Marijuana - Broomfield, CO (Aug '10) 11 hr me 2
More from around the web

Northglenn People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]