‘We would have shot him more...’

noel · Post by **noel** » October 1, 2006, 7:04 pm

I'm not normally in favor of police playing judge, jury and exectutioner, but in this case I fully support it.

Accused of killing deputy, suspect shot 68 times
‘We would have shot him more,’ sheriff says of SWAT team’s actions

Updated: 8:07 a.m. PT Oct 1, 2006

MIAMI - A fugitive gunman accused of killing a Florida sheriff’s deputy was shot 68 times by SWAT team officers who found him hiding in the woods, according to autopsy results.

Police fired 110 shots at Angilo Freeland, 27, the target of a massive manhunt in central Florida following the shooting death of Polk County Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Williams Thursday.

“That’s all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more,” Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel newspaper.

Judd said Williams was “executed” after Freeland was pulled over in a routine traffic stop on Thursday. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.

Williams, 39, was shot eight times—one bullet fired at close range behind the deputy’s right ear and another in his right temple, according to autopsy results released on Saturday by the sheriff’s office.

Sheriff’s officials said SWAT team members found Freeland on Friday hiding under a fallen oak tree in a wooded area near where the deputies were shot, and began firing when they saw a gun in his hand.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2006, 8:33 pm

“That’s all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more”

Saved him a life of beatings in prison.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2006, 8:54 pm

68 times?

That's a bit fucking unnecessary

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 1, 2006, 9:01 pm

Overachievers.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 1, 2006, 9:25 pm

Nick wrote:68 times?

That's a bit fucking unnecessary

well if you really think about it, its a swat team which carry m4's/m16's and mp5s and the first 2 probably fire in 3 round bursts and you multiply that by something like 5 people a squad and maybe 2 squads of swat members and an armed guy under cover

noel · Post by **noel** » October 1, 2006, 9:40 pm

Nick wrote:68 times?

That's a bit fucking unnecessary

The dude shot two police officers and killed one of them. He also shot and killed a police dog. If you try to kill two people and a dog, I personally stop caring what happens to you.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2006, 10:10 pm

Don't get me wrong, ultimately the tragedy is with the death of the cop, but shooting someone 68 times makes you no better than him.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 1, 2006, 10:40 pm

Stragi actually has a point. 15 would not (in my mind) equal a massive manhunt, but 15 people firing a three round burst would be 45 right there...almost half of the 110 total shots fired by police.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 1, 2006, 11:18 pm

Boogahz wrote:Stragi actually has a point. 15 would not (in my mind) equal a massive manhunt, but 15 people firing a three round burst would be 45 right there...almost half of the 110 total shots fired by police.

that and the guy has cover under a log or whatever so they aren't going to walk up to make sure they hit him after each shot and swat usually uses 30 round magazines in their m4/m16's so it was probably just a lot of spraying bullets in his general direction

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2006, 11:26 pm

You'd think that... oh fuck it. Good riddance!

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 2, 2006, 12:31 am

Nick wrote:Don't get me wrong, ultimately the tragedy is with the death of the cop, but shooting someone 68 times makes you no better than him.

WTF are you talking about? Who the fuck cares how many times they shot him? He deserved to die, he died.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 2, 2006, 12:43 am

I was mostly upset about the police dog.

It was the one innocent in all of that.

Breagen · Post by **Breagen** » October 2, 2006, 12:44 am

I don't see how many times the guy was shot makes the SWAT team as bad as someone who killed a cop and injured another. Their job is to deal with threats like this, would you have prefered if they only emptied one clip at a time and than walked over and checked on the guy? He's still dead if he takes 5 bullets or 50, the SWAT team is just making sure none of them end up dead like the cop the guy already killed.

It's not like the guy was standing in the open and they were just unloading into him over and over. I'm sure they stopped firing when there was no reasonable level of doubt over the threat the guy posed anymore.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2006, 1:02 am

noel wrote:I was mostly upset about the police dog.

It was the one innocent in all of that.

youre more upset over a fucking dog than a sherriff's deputy?

sarlen · Post by **sarlen** » October 2, 2006, 1:55 am

I laughed a bit when I herd about the 60+ shots? Not like it really mattered past the second or third shot, the rest were just for good measure.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 2, 2006, 2:01 am

kyoukan wrote:
noel wrote:I was mostly upset about the police dog.

It was the one innocent in all of that.
youre more upset over a fucking dog than a sherriff's deputy?

I not only said that, I gave a reason as well. Was there something unclear that I'm not seeing?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 2, 2006, 3:00 am

Lets not get carried away with animal love here.

Noel,

Are you saying that, for example, if you were trapped in a room who's ceiling was slowly moving down to crush you and the only way you could stop it's progress was to stuff your dog into the large gears of the machinery (meaning death for the dog) to disable the machine, you wouldn't and would let yourself die?

I ask this because you seem more concerned about a dog's life than your own. What would you do? Stuff yourself into the gears?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2006, 3:31 am

the deputy was not an innocent victim? did he deserve to get shot? do you hate cops or something?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 2, 2006, 7:22 am

The sad thing is that he crossed the line between Self Defence and Unnecessary force at about bullet #6 and will probably get dismissed from the force at a minimum and serve some time at worst.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 2, 2006, 9:21 am

kyoukan wrote:the deputy was not an innocent victim? did he deserve to get shot? do you hate cops or something?

Where did I say the deputy wasn't? I have no idea if the deputy was truly innocent. I don't know all of the details of the case or the deputy's entire life. I'm sure he's a wonderful person and it's horrible that he died.

I do know that the dog was innocent, just doing it's job and definitely didn't deserve what happened to it. At least the deputy's knew the risks. I doubt the dog did.

I would have shot him more too.

Al · Post by Al » October 2, 2006, 10:06 am

Winnow wrote:Lets not get carried away with animal love here.

Noel,

Are you saying that, for example, if you were trapped in a room who's ceiling was slowly moving down to crush you and the only way you could stop it's progress was to stuff your dog into the large gears of the machinery (meaning death for the dog) to disable the machine, you wouldn't and would let yourself die?

I ask this because you seem more concerned about a dog's life than your own. What would you do? Stuff yourself into the gears?

One question. If I die will it save my dog? The way it sounds, it is both of us or one of us. In that case, I would allow my dog to sacrifice itself through my actions, then stalk and slaughter the twisted fucksack who made me do that. I would take him into the desert and torture him for weeks. I would kill his family in front of him, and I would cut his eyelids off so he had to watch. Then I would shove him slowly through a chipper-shredder feet first until his legs were gone. Then I would cauterize the wounds with a propane grill. I would chop off his arms and make him eat them. THEN I would get crazy on the sick bastard.

Of course, I would kill myself to save my dog, who I consider a family member, no less (and sometimes more) than my own sister or brother. Believe me, though, I would find a way around it if I could. I'm not one for throwing away a life that didn't need to sacrificed.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » October 2, 2006, 11:38 am

68 bullets isn't that many. In real life, one bullet usually isn't enough to kill a man unless it hits him in the head. How many of those bullets just grazed him? A determined man can continue to fight after taking 10 bullets in the stomach. He isn't likely to survive but it isn't like the movies and TV where one bullet in the stomach instantly kills someone. Even a shot in the neck area (avoiding the spine) will cause a lot of blood but death is still at least a minute away. If this guy was undercover, there is no way of knowing whether he was still mobile or not.

In some of the war exercises I did in the miltary with blanks, a squad of men could go through hundreds of rounds really quick.

Al · Post by Al » October 2, 2006, 11:46 am

Deward wrote:68 bullets isn't that many. In real life, one bullet usually isn't enough to kill a man unless it hits him in the head. How many of those bullets just grazed him? A determined man can continue to fight after taking 10 bullets in the stomach. He isn't likely to survive but it isn't like the movies and TV where one bullet in the stomach instantly kills someone. Even a shot in the neck area (avoiding the spine) will cause a lot of blood but death is still at least a minute away. If this guy was undercover, there is no way of knowing whether he was still mobile or not.

In some of the war exercises I did in the miltary with blanks, a squad of men could go through hundreds of rounds really quick.

I'll second that. If there are numerous people standing around with automatic rifles in their hands, 100 rounds would take almost no time to squeeze off. By the time a cease fire command was given, this guy could have 75 bullet holes in his face. It all depends on the number of people firing at him and the type of weapons they are firing.

Al · Post by Al » October 2, 2006, 12:10 pm

And in response to police innocence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Bailo_Diallo

Four officers fired 41 shots into the stairway at an unarmed man. He was struck 19 times.

Anyone can make a mistake. Police officers making mistakes lead to disgruntled citizens... at best.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 2, 2006, 12:46 pm

sarlen wrote:I laughed a bit when I herd about the 60+ shots? Not like it really mattered past the second or third shot, the rest were just for good measure.

reed thred lkool.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 2, 2006, 12:47 pm

Animalor wrote:The sad thing is that he crossed the line between Self Defence and Unnecessary force at about bullet #6 and will probably get dismissed from the force at a minimum and serve some time at worst.

um it wasnt 1 guy doing the shooting

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 2, 2006, 12:49 pm

also a lot of police officers are terrible shots and have some alarmingly bad firearm safety

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 2, 2006, 3:11 pm

Winnow wrote:Lets not get carried away with animal love here.

Noel,

Are you saying that, for example, if you were trapped in a room who's ceiling was slowly moving down to crush you and the only way you could stop it's progress was to stuff your dog into the large gears of the machinery (meaning death for the dog) to disable the machine, you wouldn't and would let yourself die?

I ask this because you seem more concerned about a dog's life than your own. What would you do? Stuff yourself into the gears?

was this supposed to be some kind of linear scenario? if so, i dont get it.

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » October 2, 2006, 3:22 pm

The world would be such a better place if SWAT teams would learn how to regulate their fire and shoot their targets only 20-30 times instead of nearly 70. I'm so offended right now. How dare they make a dead murderer... more dead?

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 2, 2006, 3:24 pm

I think the officers need to hit the range and get some practice in. They missed a lot.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 2, 2006, 3:40 pm

Drinsic I'll take your signature as permission to go straight ahead and call you an asshole.

I just so happened to think 68 times was a bit ott however I made the fatal mistake of forgetting I was posting in a forum full of Americans. I'm not offended by their actions, I just think they are blood hungry fuckers.

Breagen · Post by **Breagen** » October 2, 2006, 5:13 pm

I think you are failing to fully understand the situation as it has been described.

You have an armed man under the cover of a fallen tree that can most likely absorb the majority of bullets that hit it. You have a squad of SWAT members with automatic rifles that have twenty or thirty round clips and can empty them at very high speeds. A fully automatic M-16 for instance can empty a twenty round clip in ~2.1 seconds, it's why they stopped using fully auto ones in the military because it's just too easy to pull the trigger and run out of ammunition. If there were as few as five SWAT members that all fired at once and than stopped they could easily have shot over one hundred rounds in just a couple of seconds.

I'm just curious what you think would have been a more reasonable outcome. So far all you've said is that you think the number of times he was shot is overkill but nothing about an alternative solution. Would it been preferable if they had only fired five rounds at the guy and hit him twice but one of the SWAT guys had been killed while checking on him because he wasn't dead yet? I fail to see how the number of times someone was shot has any importance so long as I said before he wasn't obviously down already and just being shot for no reason.

*Edit* 110 rounds fired by nine SWAT members after the suspect began waving the gun from the deputy he killed above the fallen tree. Sounds like getting hit 68 times was more a byproduct of accurate shooting than just firing over a protracted time at him under cover.

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » October 2, 2006, 5:14 pm

Nick wrote:Drinsic I'll take your signature as permission to go straight ahead and call you an asshole.

I just so happened to think 68 times was a bit ott however I made the fatal mistake of forgetting I was posting in a forum full of Americans. I'm not offended by their actions, I just think they are blood hungry fuckers.

Feel free to call me an asshole. I just fail to see how you can remotely compare shooting a dead murderer a few more times to murdering a cop. You're comparing taking a life to bitching some dead guy's face up. Like I give a shit how he looks when he's buried?

These guys had a fellow law enforcement agent killed, so they knew the guy meant business. They encountered him with a gun in hand. I'd light his ass up too. Maybe give him a few kicks for good measure.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 2, 2006, 5:28 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:I think the officers need to hit the range and get some practice in. They missed a lot.

eh 60 percent hit rate with automatic weapons at an armed murderer hidden under a log doesn't seem too bad

edit: they are mag's not clips breagan!!!

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Nick wrote:Drinsic I'll take your signature as permission to go straight ahead and call you an asshole.

I just so happened to think 68 times was a bit ott however I made the fatal mistake of forgetting I was posting in a forum full of Americans. I'm not offended by their actions, I just think they are blood hungry fuckers.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 2, 2006, 5:34 pm

Drinsic Darkwood wrote: I just fail to see how you can remotely compare shooting a dead murderer a few more times to murdering a cop.

Um...except I didn't compare that. Feel free to go read over my posts again.

I'm just curious what you think would have been a more reasonable outcome. So far all you've said is that you think the number of times he was shot is overkill but nothing about an alternative solution.

Shoot him less than 68 times and then don't go "lol wish we had more bullets!" - There's a pretty obvious alternative.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve to die, I'm just saying shooting someone 68 times and then gunghoing it up by talking about how wish you'd had more bullets is not the sort of thing you want to hear from anyone, least of all a fucking professional soldier (or whatever swat are).

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » October 2, 2006, 5:37 pm

Nick wrote:Don't get me wrong, ultimately the tragedy is with the death of the cop, but shooting someone 68 times makes you no better than him.

If you are not referring to the murderer when you say "him", who are you actually referring to? Maybe I'm seriously misreading this - if I am, correct me.

Tuddi2 · Post by **Tuddi2** » October 2, 2006, 5:47 pm

Nick wrote: least of all a fucking professional soldier (or whatever swat are).

blood hungry fuckers ??

cid · Post by **cid** » October 2, 2006, 6:19 pm

Tuddi2 wrote:
Nick wrote: least of all a fucking professional soldier (or whatever swat are).
blood hungry American fuckers ??

Fixed

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 2, 2006, 6:27 pm

Nick wrote:
Drinsic Darkwood wrote: I just fail to see how you can remotely compare shooting a dead murderer a few more times to murdering a cop.
Um...except I didn't compare that. Feel free to go read over my posts again.

I'm just curious what you think would have been a more reasonable outcome. So far all you've said is that you think the number of times he was shot is overkill but nothing about an alternative solution.
Shoot him less than 68 times and then don't go "lol wish we had more bullets!" - There's a pretty obvious alternative.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve to die, I'm just saying shooting someone 68 times and then gunghoing it up by talking about how wish you'd had more bullets is not the sort of thing you want to hear from anyone, least of all a fucking professional soldier (or whatever swat are).

Why? It makes me happy to know that his family (assuming he has one that cares enough to arrange a funeral) will have to have a closed casket. Then again, according to most people here I am the lowest form of asshole so that may have something to do with why I think that way!

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 2, 2006, 6:47 pm

you should keep posting about getting shot 68 times ignoring the logical explanation as to why

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » October 2, 2006, 6:55 pm

I got shot 68 times once. I forgot, is that enough street cred to afford me the ability to successfully produce a rap album? Help me Funk. Is it one shot per unit of street cred or two?!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 2, 2006, 7:10 pm

Leonaerd wrote:I got shot 68 times once. I forgot, is that enough street cred to afford me the ability to successfully produce a rap album? Help me Funk. Is it one shot per unit of street cred or two?!

Dude where have you been, its 1/4 unit per shot putting you at appx 17 points. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Gamei · Post by **Gamei** » October 2, 2006, 8:32 pm

I, for one, am incensed at this frivolous use of taxpayer bullets.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 2, 2006, 9:05 pm

Gamei wrote:I, for one, am incensed at this frivolous use of taxpayer bullets.

There's a far more frivolous use of taxpayer bullets going on that would make more sense to be incensed about.

Breagen · Post by **Breagen** » October 2, 2006, 9:44 pm

Nick wrote:I'm not saying he didn't deserve to die, I'm just saying shooting someone 68 times and then gunghoing it up by talking about how wish you'd had more bullets is not the sort of thing you want to hear from anyone, least of all a fucking professional soldier (or whatever swat are).

Well if you read the piece it was the local sheriff that was saying he wished they had more bullets, not the SWAT members involved in the actual shootout. I've seen zero information that any of the actual SWAT members made any comments or inappropriate actions during or after the shooting, although they have all been placed on paid administrative leave which is normal for any shooting.

As I think has been explained fairly well in this thread the fact that he was shot so many times has less to do with any SWAT members desire to 'gungho' it up and more to do with the fact they are using rapid fire weapons against an armed suspect under cover who has already demonstrated his willingness to kill police officers.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 2, 2006, 9:47 pm

Nick wrote: Shoot him less than 68 times and then don't go "lol wish we had more bullets!" - There's a pretty obvious alternative.

Can you please provide the VV readers with the number of times he should have been shot? 67? 66? 65? I'm curious. Would you have been happier if 118 bullets were fired and only one hit him?

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » October 2, 2006, 10:27 pm

hey now! bullets cost tax-payer dollars!

clearly, by using those extra bullets they will have to take more money out of education, thus turning more kids into potential criminals, which of course will lead to more cop dogs and cops being killed.

also this waste of money takes away from investments toward the research and development of more humane technologies, such as happylove-tipped bullets which could spread peace and prosperity to the entire world. instead we allow these trigger happy cops to waste bullets and take part in this vicious cycle which will only lead to more and more puppy-murdering cop-killers. for shame!!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 3, 2006, 8:43 am

Winnow wrote:
Nick wrote: Shoot him less than 68 times and then don't go "lol wish we had more bullets!" - There's a pretty obvious alternative.
Can you please provide the VV readers with the number of times he should have been shot? 67? 66? 65? I'm curious. Would you have been happier if 118 bullets were fired and only one hit him?

When the SAS identified an Iranian terrorist trying to sneak out with the hostages from the Embassy Siege of 1981 they fired 49 bullets and hit with all of them.
Aloowing for inflation, spray & pray, and the relative cluelessness of law enforcement officers compared to l33t special forces, 68 seems ok.

If they fired 118 and only hit with one THEN I would be concerned. They may has well have called in artillery fire.

Al · Post by Al » October 3, 2006, 9:30 am

Personally, I think they did it this way to preserve the anonymity of the actual person who fired the killing shot. If they all fired 30 rounds, it is possible for one to empty ones magazine without landing even a grazing wound. Thus even crazed, gun totin', lunatic coppers can sleep easy knowing they aren't murderer murderers.