The "newspaper" here in Daytona Beach had only a little 3 sentence paragraph about this on page 4 below a florist shop ad. If this had been a civilian, someone with a CCW, or at a school, I guess there might be some more coverage.
This is a discussion on Officer shooting/Rampage? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The "newspaper" here in Daytona Beach had only a little 3 sentence paragraph about this on page 4 below a florist shop ad. If this ...
The "newspaper" here in Daytona Beach had only a little 3 sentence paragraph about this on page 4 below a florist shop ad. If this had been a civilian, someone with a CCW, or at a school, I guess there might be some more coverage.
Yep...couldn't agree more (except the gun control bit). The fact that he was a LEO (and I'm not totally sure in what capacity he was) really has nothing to do with it. Apparently a jealous lover...who took out his hormones on innocents. I am a bit surprised, as reported, that a sniper (LEO on LEO) took him out.
But these kind of stories do play into the hands of the anti-Vet bills, PTS, and young coming back from combat snapping fears. For us over the hill bunch...and those that do not deal with the youth of this generation...one must look at and where much of their education eminates...X-box, gameboy, internet to name a few. The make believe...shoot them up...then reset and play again. As one matures, the separation between reality and make believe is clearer...but much harder if X-box was your father/mother.
the first news report I saw on this had the mayor saying a "sniper" shot the suspect, now that story is being investigated, possibly done by a "regular" citizen
....and I agree with the above posts, its horrible
and I guess McCarthy, Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton, Obama and the rest will start demanding disarming the police forces, I mean it works in the U.K. right? (yes sarcasm)
Certified Glock Armorer
"I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?
I'm sure--absolutely sure--- that when I was 18 I thought kids should vote, drink, smoke, and enlist if they wanted. I ain't so sure about any of that now.
In fact, I don't even think our med schools, which traditionally let some fairly young smart people attend, should even let someone under 25 and unmarried through the door. Same with hiring officers. It takes some life experience and maturity to handle emotionally charged situations with solid judgment.
At 64, I don't yet have solid judgment, but whatever I do have in that department it is a hell of a lot more so than most 18-21 year old kids do.
Under 21 is too young to be employed as a police officer. We can differ agreably on whether or not the cut-off should be 23, or 25.
CRANDON, Wis. - As police investigated why a sheriff's deputy killed six young people, the family of the killer said Monday that they felt "a tremendous amount of guilt and shame" and had no insight into why he went on the Sunday rampage.
While a friend of one victim said Tyler Peterson, 20, was angry because his ex-girlfriend was with the group, police said that Peterson and the others had gotten into "some kind of dispute" late Saturday night at an apartment where a group had gathered.
Peterson, off-duty from his full-time job as a Forest County deputy sheriff, then left to get his rifle, police said. A few minutes later, he forced his way back into the apartment and fired 30 rounds, said J.B. Van Hollen, the state’s attorney general.
Killed in the rampage were six people who were either students or graduates of Crandon High School. They were at the house to share pizza and watch movies during the school’s homecoming weekend. A seventh victim survived but was in critical condition.
Police did confirm that Peterson's ex-girlfriend was among the victims.
Peterson, who was also a part-time Crandon police officer, fled. He was later found at a residence in the nearby town of Argonne. In phone conversations with law enforcement after he fled, he identified himself as the shooter, officials said.
Though he exchanged gunfire with officers, it was not clear how he was killed, Van Hollen said. An autopsy was being conducted Monday, and authorities hoped it would tell them more.
The rifle used in the shootings is the type used by the sheriff’s department, but investigators have not confirmed that the rifle he used came from law enforcement.
I heard reports on the radio today that said it was a AR-15, (Evil Black Rifle). What a sad story.
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier
and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the
service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the
love and thanks of man and woman."
-- Thomas Paine (The American Crisis, No. 1, 19 December 1776)
As reported via CNN:
CRANDON, Wisconsin (CNN) -- An off-duty sheriff's deputy used a police-style AR-15 rifle to kill six people at an early morning party in a small Wisconsin town, officials said Monday.
Twenty-year-old sheriff's deputy Tyler Peterson went to an apartment where a group of high school students and recent graduates were watching movies and eating pizza early Sunday, authorities said at a Monday news conference.
Peterson got in an argument with someone, got a rifle from his truck, forced his way back into the apartment and fired about 30 rounds at about 2:45 a.m. (3:45 a.m. ET). Six people were killed; one person survived and is hospitalized, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said.
Peterson was killed in a shootout with law officers Sunday afternoon after negotiations for his surrender failed, officials said. The town's mayor said Tyler was killed by a SWAT team sniper...
The full story can be found at; http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/08/wis...ing/index.html
That would be very tough firing on one of your own, knowing that it had to be done.
Somebody hit the right triggers on the kid. Personally, I think that anyone can go on a rampage,anyone can become a mass murderer undert the right circumstances. Vocation has nothing to do with it.The fact that he was a Deputy and a part timer didnt really matter exept that it was "news worthy" and we all know how the media loves a good story.
A tragedy andyway you look at it. Not only for the victims family, his family and even his freinds and the Depts. that he worked for. Its a tragedy for the guy that shot him and its a tragedy for the town in which it happened.
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
The situation is terrible for all. Yep, a lawman doesn't make it any easier or better. Sadly, it could have been anyone, Dr. Lawyer, Mechanic, but you hope that a policeman would be able to restrain themselves from allowing this type of rage to take hold. The senceless deaths are horrific,..... the lack of a Psychological as part of his preemployment is not unheard of but I would venture a guese that it will be done from this point forward. It will not change the present but hopefully, in the future, it may avoid such a situation.
I don't not buy that this was his first violent outburst. If the media doesn't bury this, as is likely to happen, you are going to here more about this guy. I guarantee that there are things he has done or said already to indicate his instability.
Somebody does not empty 30 rounds into a crowd of people just because he was called a pig. Such capability for violence does not reveal itself out of nowhere.
After these types of incidents you always hear at first how "he seemed like such a nice guy" and other "out of the blue" statements. Given time things ALWAYS reveal themselves, just nobody cared to pay attention.
Also be aware that in some areas of the country you can be a police officer and sent out onto the road for up to a year before being sent to a police academy. It doesn't happen in the NorthEast frenquently, if at all, but in the South and Midwest I've heard examples of it happening.
Excerpt RE: the officer involved in the arrest which was the underlying event of this case:
It is important to note some pertinent background facts relating to Burns. At the time of the incident, Burns was only twenty-one years old. He was also inexperienced. He had been on the force for a matter of weeks. He had no experience as a law enforcement officer before beginning work as a reserve deputy for the County. His educational background consisted of a high school diploma and a few semesters of college. Although purporting to have majored in criminal justice, Burns testified that he had not taken any law enforcement courses. His work experience consisted of general delivery and sales--"kind of a 'go-fer'"--for two furniture companies.
His record of having engaged in some inappropriate conduct before joining the force is undisputed. Within the two-year period before his hire, Burns had been arrested for assault and battery, resisting arrest, public drunkenness, driving while intoxicated, possession of false identification, driving with a suspended license, and nine moving traffic violations.(4) At the time he was hired, Burns was in violation of the terms of his probation; for that reason, he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest.(5)
Finally, his conduct for the short time that he had been on the force also suggested a problem. Specifically, the jury reasonably could have concluded that he had an excessive number of "takedown" arrests, similar to the one in which Jill Brown was injured.
We also note several relevant background facts with respect to operation of the sheriff's department. Here, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, showed the County to have a policy of providing no training itself for its regular officers and reserve deputies. The record indicates that the County's practice was to hire individuals for full-time positions who had already received training from Oklahoma's Commission on Law Enforcement Education and Training ("CLEET") program.(6) With respect to reserve deputies of Bryan County, the record is not entirely clear whether CLEET is mandatory. The County also made available television training programs through the Law Enforcement Training Network ("LETN")(although Sheriff Moore testified that there is no requirement that the programming actually be watched), and there remained the possibility that an officer could receive ad hoc on-the-job training.
Sheriff Moore acknowledged that the County itself does not train its officers. Confirming this admission, Sheriff Moore further testified that there were no funds to train personnel.(7)
Both the plaintiff's expert and the defendants' expert corroborated this lack of training, and it was stressed to the jury during the plaintiff's closing argument. Further substantiating Sheriff Moore's testimony about the absence of County-provided training, Officer Morrison, Burns's partner during the incident, testified that, although he completed CLEET training before joining the County's force (through working in another county), he had received no training from the County.
The County's handling of Burns also reflects its lack of a training program. At his deposition, Burns testified that he had received no training through Bryan County. Specifically, he testified that he received "no formal training." He did not even receive any "written documentation from Bryan County as to [his] duties as a reserve officer."
Burns did testify, however, that he received several months of training at CLEET, had gone on "ride-alongs" with his grandfather (a special deputy) and another officer, and watched police training videos via the LETN network. The jury, however, reasonably could have rejected these claims. Particularly noteworthy is the strong evidence, which the jury could reasonably have believed, showing that Burns never attended CLEET. First, he could not remember any dates on which he would have attended this program. The evidence showed that he did not apply for CLEET training until May 6, 1991, only six days before the Brown incident although he had been serving as a reserve deputy for four or five weeks. Given that CLEET classes are held only three days per week, he could not have attended more than three classes. Other evidence shows, however, that he attended no classes before the Brown incident. Burns's Employment Status Sheet, which must be filed with CLEET within ten days of hire, is dated June 12, 1991, thirty days after the Brown incident, or in excess of two months after his hire. Another form that had to be completed before Burns could be accepted into the CLEET program was dated May 30, 1991, eighteen days after the Brown incident. With respect to the "ride-alongs" and LETN, the jury could have discredited, or at least minimized, Burns's claims in the light of his often contradicted testimony. Although there is some evidence that Special Deputy Joe Calclazier, his grandfather, provided some ad hoc training to Burns, the record suggests that this training was minimal at best and included no training on arrest situations.(8)
Closely connected to its practice of providing no training, the evidence reasonably supported a conclusion that the County also failed to provide formal, and very little effective, supervision for its reserve deputies who were "on the street." Moore acknowledged that he gave no explicit instructions to any deputy about his responsibilities to supervise a reserve deputy. The officer accompanying Burns during the incident testified that he received none. The County's own expert testified that such supervision of an "inexperienced, untrained" officer is required. The County's expert also testified that a reasonable police chief would have provided these guidelines to his regular deputies and to reserve deputies.
Discussion of the officer and the department's knowing of his lack of training:
Based on the way the parties present and argue this case on appeal, we focus on whether the failure to provide Burns training as an individual, and not whether the County had a policy of not training its deputies generally.(10) We ask whether there was a decision by a policymaker that can satisfy the first element of ultimately imposing Monell liability. In other words, if Monell liability is to be imposed, it must be done on the grounds of the single decision by Sheriff Moore to require no training of Burns before placing him on the street to make arrests.
Given our standard of review, we think that the jury could have found that the failure to train Burns was a decision that amounted to a County "policy." First, Sheriff Moore was a policy maker who either could require training for Burns or not. Furthermore, Moore's awareness of Burns's youth, inexperience, personal background, and ongoing arrest activities while with the department, along with the highly predictable risk of injury from the improper use of force by an untrained officer, provided sufficient notice to Moore of the need to train Burns so as to make his failure to require training a conscious decision.
Our conclusion in this respect stems from the following evidence. First, the jury reasonably could have attached some significance to the fact that Burns was kin to Sheriff Moore. This relationship, along with the fact that the sheriff's department had relatively few officers, makes it highly unlikely that Burns was "lost in the crowd," and his training simply neglected. Second, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Moore knew of Burns's immature background. This is a point on which all courts, including the Supreme Court, have overwhelmingly agreed. See Bryan County, 520 U.S. at 414 (majority opinion) and 427-28 and n.6 (Souter, J., dissenting). The jury could conclude that this background alerted Sheriff Moore that there was an especially pressing need to train Burns, especially with respect to when and how to use force. Third, Sheriff Moore did not comply with the formal steps necessary to enroll Burns in CLEET training until after the incident, despite statutory requirements mandating him to do so. Thus, the jury could infer that Sheriff Moore knew that Burns was not attending CLEET, and conclude that Sheriff Moore was aware that Burns was all-the-more in need for some training, yet decided not to require training for him. Fourth, despite availability of non-CLEET training options (e.g., the television training network), Sheriff Moore knew that no requirements or enforcement mechanisms existed to ensure that Burns availed himself of these alternatives. Fifth, Sheriff Moore had authorized Burns to engage in a wide latitude of conduct, with restrictions applied only to his driving and to his ability to carry a gun, knowing he had no training for the duties he might encounter. Sixth, Moore knew Burns had already arrested some individuals, i.e., he was engaging in conduct with the potential for harm and that required training. Burns testified he was authorized by Moore to make arrests. He had participated in twelve arrests prior to the Brown incident. Seventh, Moore knew that there were no formal departmental policies regarding supervision of junior officers to assist Burns or to limit his conduct. Moore admitted that he did not instruct deputies about their responsibilities to supervise a reserve deputy. In sum, we think on this evidence the jury reasonably could have concluded that Sheriff Moore made a conscious decision not to train Burns, yet still allowed him to make arrests.
Having concluded that the evidence supports a finding that Sheriff Moore consciously failed to train Burns, and having concluded that such a policy decision was the result of deliberate indifference to the rights secured under the Fourth Amendment, we now turn to consider whether there is sufficient causation between the policy decision and the injuries Jill Brown suffered to hold the County liable for those injuries.
Our review of the record convinces us that the jury had before it substantial testimony that much of the officers' conduct, and Burns's conduct in particular, during the incident was contrary to professional standards. According to the expert testimony, Burns violated basic standards of police conduct, standards that would have been taught Burns in any basic police training. The jury could have drawn inferences that the failure to have trained Burns to follow professional police standards was the moving force causing Brown's injuries. Specifically, on the evidence before it, the jury could have concluded that the County, abetted by its policy of failing to supervise untrained deputies, allowed Burns to participate in the pursuit and arrest of Brown and that his lack of training in safety precautions and in arrest situations and in actually making the arrest, was the "moving force" that caused the injuries inflicted upon her.
As a preliminary matter, the jury heard expert testimony that the pursuit across state lines and the method of the stop were extraordinary and contrary to professional standards when the officers had no reason to suspect a felony violation. Indeed, the defendants admitted that they did not suspect any felonious behavior. Next, the testimony showed that the positioning of the patrol car vis-á-vis the Browns' pickup truck after the stop was highly unusual. Instead of positioning themselves in front of or behind the Browns' truck, Officer Morrison pulled alongside of it, a position labeled by the County's own expert as improper because it placed the officers in peril.
There was further expert testimony that Burns's subsequent actions demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic police tactics. First, without pause and without ascertaining the Browns' intent, Burns immediately exited the patrol car and approached the Browns' vehicle. Instead of moving behind the truck, he crossed in front of the truck. In doing so, not only did he cross through Officer Morrison's line of fire, but during his approach to the passenger side of the Browns' truck he exposed himself to any risk the Browns may have posed. Third, testimony suggested that, despite the lack of light, Burns may not have used his flashlight to illuminate Ms. Brown. Thus, he could not see with any clarity what she was doing in the truck cab.(14) Officer Morrison, however, testified that the Browns both raised their hands when so instructed. Fourth, Ms. Brown testified that Burns exposed himself to further danger by reaching across her to unbuckle her seat belt. Fifth, the risk Burns posed to Brown was aggravated by the officers' perception of a high-speed chase, when the danger of harm to officer and citizen as a result of lack of training is especially grave.(15)
Indeed, the experts implied that the combination of a potentially dangerous situation and Burns's lack of a firearm may have led to his overreaction if Burns felt at risk, but did not have the proper tools to protect himself. The jury could reasonably have inferred that all of these enumerated professional failures on Burns's part, errors that were inconsistent with police training, created a situation that provoked a degree of fear for his safety, which prompted him to overreact. The jury reasonably could have inferred from the testimony, that with proper training Burns would have suggested that legitimate reasons existed to explain why an individual may be slow to exit a vehicle and thus Burns would not spontaneously have felt compelled to use force on someone who was offering no resistance. Finally, the absence of training is reflected in the injury that resulted to Brown, an injury that stemmed from what the testimony suggested is an extraction technique involving, properly applied, a minimum use of force. The jury could have reasonably concluded that, with training, Burns would have used the "arm bar" technique in a manner so as not to inflict injury.
The jury could have also concluded that the County's policy of not providing proper supervision, a component of the County's policy of no training (beyond the possible availability of CLEET), contributed to the causal force behind the constitutional deprivation suffered by Jill Brown. The evidence supports a conclusion that Burns was unsupervised and unarmed throughout the incident. His decision to join Morrison was his personal decision, made without supervisory approval. Officer Morrison himself stated that he was not in charge of Burns that evening. Morrison admits he gave Burns no explicit instructions before or during the episode. Burns testified that he received none. Given Burns's lack of training and lack of protection in the form of a sidearm, Ms. Brown's expert testified that Burns should never have been permitted to leave the vehicle. Morrison allowed Burns to exit the vehicle, even though Morrison testified that he himself was in "great fear," and drew his weapon. Morrison knew that Burns did not have a gun. If there was a training program, according to the expert testimony that the jury could have believed, Morrison likely would have ordered Burns to remain in the patrol car. Finally, according to Brown's expert, the discovery record indicates a total absence of any communication or coordination between Morrison and Burns during the entire incident. The County's expert found fundamental fault in the supervisory relationship during the incident, a fault that contributes to the consequences of the lack of training.
In sum, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the County's decision not to train Burns, compounded by its policy of not requiring proper supervision, was the "moving force" behind the unconstitutional use of excessive force, which caused Brown's injury.
Summary of the part about training:
We sum up. Given our standard of review, we conclude that the evidence in the record allowed the jury reasonably to find that Sheriff Moore made a conscious decision not to train Burns, that because the need to train Burns was obvious, the failure to train him constituted "deliberate indifference" to the constitutional rights of the citizens of Bryan County, and that this decision was the "moving force" behind Brown's injuries. We therefore conclude that the decision not to train Burns was a policy choice on which § 1983 liability can lie. Thus, the district court properly denied the County's motion for judgment as a matter of law.(16)
Tell me again, whats the price of tea in China?
"Just blame Sixto"
The worlds worst shooting spree was actually committed by a police officer.
When someone snaps, they snap. It doesn't really matter what they do for a living. Cops are just human beings like the rest of us.
As reported today by The Milwaukee Journal -Sentinel:
Shooter sought refuge with friend's family
By RAQUEL RUTLEDGE
Posted: Oct. 8, 2007
Tyler Peterson showed up at Mike Kegley's door at 7:30 Sunday morning as the rest of Crandon awoke to the grisly news of a mass slaying.
With blood on his pants, his semiautomatic rifle in hand and pistol under the back of his shirt, Peterson started talking about how he lost control. How he went to his on-again, off-again girlfriend's house in the middle of the night and instead of patching up their relationship, argued with her. How others, gathered at her home for a movie-and-pizza party, called him a "worthless pig."
The Forest County sheriff's deputy and part-time Crandon police officer said he was sorry, that he had just "lost it." He'd shot seven of his friends, including two of his best childhood buddies.
Kegley's wife, Mary, discreetly called 911. She and her son, a lifelong friend of Peterson's, coaxed the work-issued assault rifle he had proudly shown off just days earlier from his hand. He wouldn't part with his police-issued pistol, though.
He assured the Kegleys he wouldn't hurt them.
After talking with the Kegleys for a little while, Peterson said he wanted to see his mom and his grandmother. He arranged to meet them on a rural highway.
He promised the Kegleys he'd come right back, and then left, pistol still down the back of his pants.
Kegley thought about taking his family and leaving, but his son refused.
"He wanted to be his friend and try to help," Kegley said.
So Kegley hid several guns around his property, just in case he needed them to defend himself.
Again, they called 911.
Calm and lucid
About an hour later, Kegley estimated, Peterson returned to the house. He said he had met with his mom and grandmother and that his mom spoke softly to him.
"She told him she loved him, no matter what happened," Kegley said.
Peterson said he had called all the victims' families to say how sorry he was. He talked about what he should do, how he would surrender only to his boss, Crandon Police Chief John Dennee, and how he wanted to speak with District Attorney Leon Stenz.
The Kegleys again quietly called 911.
Mary Kegley arranged for Peterson to speak with an attorney. She fed him and gave him coffee.
Mike Kegley talked with him about school, life on the police force.
"Every time we started talking about what happened, he got kind of hyper," Kegley said.
But otherwise he was fairly calm and lucid and didn't seem to be afraid.
"He wasn't running around crazy or anything," Kegley said. "He was very, very sorry for what he did."
Kegley owns a construction and roofing company housed on his property. Three of his workers were at the house, and as Peterson lingered, they called 911 "as many as 20 times," Kegley said.
Sometime around 10:30 a.m. when there was still no apparent sign of police, Mike Kegley left the house to "find out where the hell they were," he said.
His wife followed him a little while later. His son still refused to leave.
Kegley met up with law enforcement agents down the road from his home, drew them maps of his property, the buildings and where Peterson had been talking to his son. Kegley and his wife were told they could not return to the house.
Law enforcement agents, by the dozens, fanned out around his property - but apparently made no attempt to actually get Peterson.
Authorities said Monday they established contact with Peterson, and Dennee did talk to him.
At some point, Peterson climbed into the back of his pickup truck and went to sleep.
Kegley's workers again called 911. Still no law enforcement officers tried to apprehend him.
Kegley said his workers estimated Peterson slept for about 45 minutes and then was awakened by a call from Stenz, the district attorney.
Stenz said the two talked for five to 10 minutes about a possible surrender. Stenz wouldn't discuss specifics, but said he anticipated talking to Peterson again.
After the call, around 2 p.m. by Kegley's estimation, Peterson walked off toward the woods. He didn't say anything to Kegley's son or any of the workers nearby, Kegley said.
He got about 50 yards from the house and gunfire erupted.
Kegley said he heard the gunfire from down the road, but that authorities wouldn't tell him what had happened or whether his son was safe.
He and his wife waited, hysterical, for an hour before they told him in a roundabout way that their son was alive.
Peterson was dead.
The article including further details toward the six deceased victims can be found at; http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=672136
- Janq is completely stunned by the reactions and actions of Mike Kegley and his son who rebuked his father toward leaving for safety in favor of staying with his armed and off balance 'friend' who confessed to him that he had moments prior just shot up a house full of people who also were his 'friends' (?!)