Wednesday, January 19, 2005
No Bill for Officer Shooting at Niagara Falls
I've said before that the easiest
way to secure a no bill, if you shoot someone, is to be a police officer. In this situation it seems to be a clear cut case of the officer using appropriate force.
Gee, along with Falls Police officers Charles Fink and Todd Faddoul, had responded to a report of a home invasion robbery in the 2200 block of Pierce Avenue on the evening of Nov. 29. When they arrived, three suspects were seen running from the home. One of them, 21-year-old Jamar Mack of Buffalo, wheeled and fired a blast from a sawed-off shotgun.
One officer was hit by the shot. Gee fired seven shots that killed one suspect and wounded another. It is unclear whether the third suspect, who escaped, was hit by one of the unaccounted for shots.
The only thing that is odd to me is that Officer Gee was apparently a firearms instructor: "Gee, a former firearms instructor, fired seven shots from his handgun."
Why, if this is the case, did he fire at least three rounds, if not five, which did not come close to hitting the targets?
One of the shots hit Mack, killing him. The second suspect was hit in the buttocks by a bullet, while three other rounds struck the house from which the suspects were running.
Investigators have been unable to locate the remaining two rounds and believe they could have hit the third suspect.
It seems that Niagara Falls might want a new firearms instructor.
-x-
6 Comments:
How accurate do you think handguns are at anything but very short range? At night? With adrenalin pumping, and a running target? And how does hitting the house indicate they "did not come close"?
Posted by Dylan
1. I am pretty accurate with handguns.
2. If they aren't accurate at anything beyond a short range then I change my mind about the no bill being appropriate. If they are not accurate than the officer had absolutely no business firing an inaccurate weapon willy nilly into the night sky.
3. I disagree with you, so I still agree with the no bill in this situation. I just think that it's ironic that this guy is a firearms instructor.
4. I'll be that when the police department pays for repairs to the house they will agree that the shots did not hit the correct target.
Posted by Curtis
I doubt you'd be as accurate after someone had shot at you with a shotgun and hit your partner.
Why should the police department pay for the repairs? I think negligence would be hard to prove; their remedy is against the perps, unless the department is in the habit of fixing such things for PR purposes.
Posted by Dylan
No sense in arguing things that can't ever be proven. I'm on the officers side anyhow, so I don't get what the argument is about.
Posted by Curtis
As someone who has rarely fired guns, I thought you were being overly harsh (perhaps "snippy" is a better word) on the fellow's marksmanship, that's all.
Posted by Dylan
hello pot...
Posted by Kettle
Post a Comment
