Police Fire at Man 59 Times

[Bigum1969]

I will not go into specifics about this and am only putting this here to open some eyes but doubt that it will.

I have fired my pistol while someone was trying to kill me with a 2000+ pound weapon. I fired 5 rounds in less than a second and I felt as if I was shooting slow. If you average out the (9) rounds fired in this case, I would say they fired those rounds in 1-2 seconds, which when someone is trying to kill you is like a snap of the fingers. In my incident, I was alone and I bet you every one of those officers felt as if they were the only one there......as they should have. No matter how much training the guy/girl next to has, you can not depend on them to protect you, you must do this yourself. Also I'm pretty positive in saying this........none of those officers heard their own weapon go off let alone the other officers weapons, again leaving them to feel as if they were alone.



I guess the bottom line is, if you have never been in those shoes then don't for a second comment on what you think they should or could have done. For those that hav been there........they wont Monday morning quarterback because they have been there and know better.

Thank you for sharing this.

I'm concerned that the officers involved in this are going to be sacrificed in an act of appeasement. These officers had to make a split second decision that people will take months to analyze. Again, they had a split second.

I also think it speaks volumes that all the officers fired. Obviously they all felt the same threat.

 

[1032JBT]

Well put.

Thank you for the rep and I will reply to it on here where everyone can read it.

Like you, I too am tired of the "I woulda/They shoulda" comments, wether its in relationship to a story about an LEO or Joe Blow off the street. Most of the comments about what they would have done or what the person question should have done are being made by people that have never been in that situation or a similer situation. What I think what is funny is a lot of the people saying they would have done this or that would actually do nothing and only show themselves as "internet warriors" by their own posts. IMO, those that need to comment like that are only try to show how big their set is.......those that have been in that situation have no need to show off the set because they already know.

I am not trying to say I'm a hard core bad*** because I'm not, I'm an average guy that does what I have to do depending on the situation. I have no desire to show off the boys because to those that matter to me already know that I would not walk through the Gates of Hell for the but I would RUN. To anyone that would doubt that.......dont worry about it because you aint on that list anyway.


Now to those who have been in a lethal force encounter before.....by all means your opinion means something to me because you have been there.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

That's what we where taught in the service. You fire until they are no longer a threat! If that means a whole mag, then that's what it takes. It's your life or theirs. I do not know about you, but I wanted to go home every night. Now alcohol or not, 59 shots sounds a little over kill to me.

 

[BloodEclipse]

How many shots are you going to fire when your life is in danger? Maybe they should have sent you to deal with this intoxicated man who was ranting and waving a .44 magnum rifle around, instead of the police, since you seem to have it all figured out.

Bullets don't instantly stop people, especially when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and mentally unstable (suicidal). Unless you were there and know the exact circumstances of this incident, STFU. Let someone point a rifle at you and see if you carefully count your shots, or if you shoot them to the ground to save your life.

Amanda Counts, Heyward's girlfriend, and neighbor Darrell Turner said they witnessed the shooting. They said Heyward was lying on the porch on top of the rifle when officers opened fire.
"Before the first shot was fired he was down," Counts said. "Not one time did he threaten anyone."
'Why are you shooting me?'
Citing the ongoing investigation, police declined to answer questions about Heyward's position when officers started shooting.
Counts and Turner both said that during the first brief interruption in the barrage of police gunshots, they heard Heyward ask, "Why are you shooting me?"
That cannot be heard in the recording provided by police.

If this is true how do you threaten someone while laying on top of it?
Granted if he is waving it around, sweeping then I too would have taken as many shots as possible to end the threat. The question here is, was there a threat?

 

[1032JBT]

If this is true how do you threaten someone while laying on top of it?
Granted if he is waving it around, sweeping then I too would have taken as many shots as possible to end the threat. The question here is, was there a threat?

I for one doubt any testimony given by the girlfriend or neighbor. If only 1 or 2 officers fired it MIGHT have some credence in some peoples eyes (prob not mine but some peoples)......but they ALL fired. Sympethetic fire......yada yada yada, he was shot in the chest and groin, kinda hard to do if he was laying down.

 

[fpdshooter]

What, you didn't get issued the magic bullets that go wherever you want them to go, including up through a patio?

Boy you sure missed out!

 

[1032JBT]

What, you didn't get issued the magic bullets that go wherever you want them to go, including up through a patio?

Boy you sure missed out!

No.......I gott'em, just used them all............

 

[BloodEclipse]

I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit here. I don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion.
It also said there was a failed taser attempt.
I know there is more to the story and it did say he put the gun under his own chin.
From the sounds of it at 4 a.m. the police respond to the call. They find a man with a rifle on his own porch.

Police said the officers tried but failed to disarm Heyward with a stun gun. Weary said Heyward ignored repeated commands to drop the rifle and officers fired when they felt threatened by the way he moved it.

It never says he actually vocalized any threat.
So if I'm sitting on my porch with a rifle and a neighbor sees me and calls the police, I have to follow any and all orders they give me even though I've broken no laws? I'm plan on walking down a street in Indy soon with a rifle, will I be subjected to police confronting me?

 

[Bigum1969]

This story also has a video in it that shows a community forum held after the shooting...

Dad: Suicidal son shot 59 times by cops was "just depressed" | News | theGrio

 

[Joe Williams]

It has been documented on more than one occasion that in high-stress situations like this, officers experience tunnel vision and are not able to count how many rounds have been fired. At least one officer has been interviewed afterwards and (incorrectly) recalled that he fired "3 or 4 shots" when in reality he emptied the magazine... Food for thought...

Documented on more than one occasion. There have been several studies that show officers involved remember firing however many shots they were trained to fire. No matter how many they actually fired.

I know one girl who fired 16 rounds at a driver who tried several times to run her down at the gate. She never did remember firing more than 2.

 

[Joe Williams]

They DO teach you to wound in the military, but they don't try to enforce such nonsense
YES, we ARE all responsible for our own actions, but try walking a mile in that man's shoes before you start criticizing his gait!

I was never taught to shoot to wound. We fired into COM.

 

[Joe Williams]

"Some of the gunshots ripped through the unoccupied front room of the house Heyward was renting from"

So this concerns no one? You can't count bullets, true but what if there had been someone in there? Using unlimited force endangers a lot in an urban setting and have injured many.

snip.

They hit 73%... that's actually outstanding shooting compared to most real world shooting incidents.

 

[kevinj110]

I am not faulting the police for anything they did. That being said the first thought in my head was what if the police where my five buddiesand I ? The suicidal guy was someone threatening us, a group of armed civillians. I just get this feeling that we would have our manhoods on the good ole chopping block. I may be wrong but I think that would try so hard to get us all for some kind of excessive force thing. I just hope I am wrong and it would be the same for and officer as it would be for a civi.
I dunno good night

 

[Joe Williams]

i can see the point about stopping the threat but im not sure the use of 40+ that hit the threat might have been a little much but i was not there so just my 2 cents

Betcha all that shooting took less than 3 seconds.

 

[fpdshooter]

Somehow, I don't think civilians can be sued for excessive force issues, that is generally reserved for LE.

Don't get me wrong...you gonna get sued by the family, just not for excessive force.

 

[RCB]

Some of the police officers only shot a few rounds. Some put in a second clip.

You wouldn't be sued for excessive force, but I would say in an urban setting anyone who put in a second clip would be charged with reckless endangerment. You would also be stripped of your LTCH more than likely.

Much like this argument, it's not about your right to protect yourself, but rather the danger you put others in just by the sheer number of rounds.

It's situational management. I still think many departments are well off to consider sniper team training for some in their departments for exactly this reason.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
I still think many departments are well off to consider sniper team training for some in their departments for exactly this reason.

I think many are better off going back to revolvers for this reason. There never was any practical need to change to hi-cap semi-autos for general issue to people with, for the most part, only basic qualifications with sidearms, and little interest in getting more training with them. The changeover to hi-cap semi-autos, whatever reasons were given, was largely driven by "style." "Firepower" issues are best addressed with carbines or shotguns.

 

[Indy317]

"Some of the gunshots ripped through the unoccupied front room of the house Heyward was renting from"

So this concerns no one? You can't count bullets, true but what if there had been someone in there? Using unlimited force endangers a lot in an urban setting and have injured many.

Physics happens, nothing is going to change.. The idea that police are going to be 100%, 90%, or even 50% is not feasible. These are just basic facts of how things work currently. Right now, there is a big push on using weapon sights. Maybe in the future, a handgun will be invented with a laser/light aiming system that is 100%, and thus this could help.

Also, what is "unlimited force?" We had six cops on the scene. They fired 59 bullets. Lets say that each of them carry the usual three magazines with 12 bullets each, plus one in the chamber. That is 222 rounds of ammo. If there magazines held 15 rounds, that is 276 rounds. Either way, they shot around 1/4th of their available ammunition, yet we call that "unlimited force?"

I think many are better off going back to revolvers for this reason. There never was any practical need to change to hi-cap semi-autos for general issue to people with, for the most part, only basic qualifications with sidearms, and little interest in getting more training with them. The changeover to hi-cap semi-autos, whatever reasons were given, was largely driven by "style." "Firepower" issues are best addressed with carbines or shotguns.

Yea, because the bad guys _never_ use those evil "hi cap semi-autos." Also, I guess you are in favor of banning the use of these "hi cap semi-autos" from civilians as well? I mean if the cops are just using them for style, isn't that likely what the general population are using them for...style? Maybe we could ban the "hi" part of the equation, just have lower capacity magazines?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
Yea, because the bad guys _never_ use those evil "hi cap semi-autos." Also, I guess you are in favor of banning the use of these "hi cap semi-autos" from civilians as well? I mean if the cops are just using them for style, isn't that likely what the general population are using them for...style? Maybe we could ban the "hi" part of the equation, just have lower capacity magazines?

Sure, the bad guys use hi cap guns... and miss a lot, too. Street officers were not dying as a result of using revolvers then, and they would not be now. They would simply not be doing the human thing and emptying 10-16 round magazines down city streets. They'd only be firing 6 - 8 rounds, depending on the revolver, and with .357 Magnums they'd be carrying the most effective ammo to boot.

And yes, most civilians would also be at least as well served, if not better served, with a revolver as they are with hi-cap guns. Yes, most of the general population is, in fact, carrying hi-cap semi-autos for "style." Actual gunfights simply don't reveal an actual need for all that ammo in the gun. What carrying a 16 round mag DOES often do, though, is cause the carrier to leave their spare at home, thereby leaving their gun solely dependant on it's most unreliable part with no backup.

As for "banning" guns, you are being facetious, I hope. I do challenge you, however, to show where I've said we should ban any guns.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

i can see the point about stopping the threat but im not sure the use of 40+ that hit the threat might have been a little much but i was not there so just my 2 cents

Newton County Sheriff Department had a case where they had to shoot a guy 20 something times (23 , I think) before he would drop .

It takes what it takes I guess , I can't fault a LEO for that .