( – promoted by BP)
Vermont Public Radio has reported that yet another state trooper has shot – but this time did not kill – an unarmed man suspected of stealing a car, breaking into a building and a school bus, and threatening suicide after announcing he had a bomb and a gun.
“[Suspect William J.] Mahoney then made several overt movements toward the holster, and began to advance on the trooper,” Colonel Tom L’Esperance told reporters at a press conference. “Believing that Mahoney was reaching for a gun inside the holster, the trooper discharged his service weapon five times, striking the male subject once.” […]
Police say the holster turned out to be empty but that Mahoney was carrying CO2 cartridges and they also found a BB handgun in the car that Mahoney allegedly abandoned.
In their defense, the police point to Mahoney’s “extensive criminal record” and say the state Parole Board had been seeking Mahoney’s whereabouts earlier in the day.
Six thoughts: One: Is it safer or more dangerous for us common folk who might cross paths with the police as unarmed suspects or innocent bystanders that they are such bad shots? I mean, less than the length of a schoolbus?
Two: Is it bravery or stupidity to go inside the otherwise empty schoolbus after a suspect who claims to have an explosive device? Was any thought given to letting the suspect chill out, using negotiation to avoid unnecessary risk of deadly harm to either the trooper or Mahoney? If not, who made that decision?
Three: CO2 cartridges and a BB gun?
CO2 cartridges are used to make carbonated beverages, cool and preserve food, inflate tires, and automate or propel machinery.
Not to mention whipping cream.
Oh yeah, also in deadly paintball, pellet, and BB ‘guns’.
Four: Is this progress, that Mahoney was not killed outright? Were the witnesses (two other troopers, who, btw, rendered first aid and called an ambulance) a factor in that outcome?
Five: So much for the promise by the state police to call a mental health professional in situations where a suspect appears or is known to have mental health issues – which should include any suspect who threatens suicide. According to Col. L’Esperance, “mental health professionals were not summoned because the situation was dangerous.” Right. Isn’t that the point? To save lives in situations that turn dangerous when mental health issues are affecting behaviors? To slow down the process from “shoot first, get the A.G.’s blessing later” to “ask questions now, let everyone have a chance to come out alive, no shooting necessary”?
Six: When did the State Police get to be such rootin’-tootin’ sidearm-shootin’ cowboys? Were there ever days when they could be proud of entire careers when they never had to fire their weapons except in target practice on paper targets? When did shooting unarmed suspects become the first resort and not the last?
PS: Mr. Kestrel – this is not about guns being good or bad or regulated or not. It’s about how and why state police decide to use their legitimate guns on unarmed ‘suspects.’
for the police to board the bus, too; but that is hard to judge with so little information.
I do think that negotiation should always be the first avenue…but I am sure there are occasions when this is simply not practical.
Given the contributing facts as they were known at the time, and the nature of the threat I tend to think the police were probably justified in this case.
The problem is that we have come to a juncture in law enforcement where there are SO many armed lunatics out there, fully capable of doing exactly what they threaten, and with a growing statistical likelihood of doing so.
1) Do not use CO2 for whipped cream. It doesn’t make whipped cream, but carbonated cream, like a soda. To make whipped cream you use Nitrous Oxide, aka Laughing Gas.
2) The trooper fired five shots and hit the guy once in the butt??? That officer needs more training!
His decision to climb on a dark bus to confront a clearly agitated idiot who claimed to have firearms and explosives definitely needs review. How is that possibly the proper procedure?
And then to spray five bullets in the hopes of hitting something and only scoring a single hit (when the ‘suspect’ had turned to the side or turned around completely) clearly indicates more training is needed.
Believe me, I understand the mindset of an officer in a life-n-death shootout. I had thought that their superior training would have the officer better prepared.
{anti-gun snark} Even an average homeowner, eager to shoot intruders, manages better hit ratios on lost innocents just asking for directions. Why is it that we hear far more stories of gun-nuts shooting their own families thinking that they are intruders than shooting actual dangerous intruders?{/anti-gun snark}