The email bringing it to Rawles attention is entitled "Observations on a Gunfight in Montana."
Jim:
Take a look at a one-minute a video of a routine nighttime DUI stop in Hamilton, Montana that turned ugly. Listen for the first “click” as the suspect attempts to fire his .41 Magnum revolver about two inches from the officer’s nose. The “click” is the hammer dropping on an expended round in the cylinder. The second round was live, but Officer Jessop had by then recovered and made a strategic move to the rear of the vehicle, buying more time and a much more advantageous position for a firefight. He tossed his flashlight so he could use both hands for better gun control, and opened fire on the suspect as he sped away. His aim looked very controlled, and was obviously very much in the ballpark. The suspect was hit at least once, crashed into a power pole, and was declared dead at the scene. Don’t know what the officer was carrying, but he fired 14 rounds in return and they were bigger than a 9mm. Probably Glock .40s. And then he casually picked his flashlight up as he was returning to his car and notifying dispatch. While you can always Monday morning quarterback someone’s technique, how many of us would have done this well under these circumstances? All things considered, this officer did the basics, did them fast, and did them well. I’d ride with him anytime.
Final score: Officer Ross Jessop, 1; Raymond Thane Davis, 0
A jury ruled on April 13, 2010 that Hamilton Police Officer Ross Jessop was justified in shooting Raymond Thane Davis.
The oft-quoted Sun Tzu recognized the value of training centuries ago when he wrote: "Victorious warriors win first, and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first, and then seek to win."
Learning to win occurs in training.
JWR Replies: Thanks for sharing that video link. I have just one observation. Did you see the officer reload? From what I saw, he re-holstered a pistol that had been shot dry. But, all in all, I'd say that he did well, given the extremely stressful circumstances.
12 comments:
nice guardian of the Constitution pulls guy over for no probable cause and incompetent freedom lover makes himself dead. Pig shot as person was attempting to flee and no longer an imminent peril justified shooting unless you are a government goon "Only Ones " with the right to violate anyone for no reason needed.And you so called Constitutionalist Freedom Lovers really Love your Communist Bondage and lick their Boots,Buddy........see pigscum in action at injustice everywhere.com if you can stomach a bit of Truth.
I like the bright flash signaling the crash "into a telephone pole".
And while I approve the outcome, I do have to ask: what would have happened to a non-badged civilian firing at a fleeing assailant who was trying to, say, run him over?
DJMoore and Anon:
I too question...
Actually, I DON'T. **ONLY** an "only one" is allowed to shoot at a fleeing suspect. We "normals" are supposed to be able to turn off our fight-or-flight instincts and let him go if he wants -- even if he started the altercation by trying to shoot us in the face from 2" away.
The highly-trained "only ones" on the other hand are entitled to keep shooting until their mags are empty, even if at an unarmed man.
Now that we've got **THAT** straight...
The linked article shows that his initial report said nothing of a shooting - only attempted theft - which is frankly STUPID.
NEVER talk to police without your lawyer, NEVER make a statement without your lawyer, NEVER lie to the cops -- which should be easy since if you're not speaking, you can't be lying ...
NEVER, NEVER NEVER.
**NEVER**!!
REMEMBER: We live in a POLICE STATE. They are **NOT** your friend, no matter how much they may pretend. If they can lock YOU up along with the real miscreants, well that's a "two-fer" and a **VERY** good day -- for them, anyway!
Had this guy followed this basic rule -- NEVER TALK TO POLICE -- he'd likely not be having these problems now.
Yes, I hate to see the real criminals walk, but the "victim" here is **MOSTLY** a victim of his own stupidity.
DD
If you look carefully at the video, the guy fired through the back window at the cop.
I've got no problem with the law. The driver gets pulled over for a DUI and tries to kill a cop. There is nothing justifiable about that. My only problem is the shooting after the cop is no longer in danger. But, when looking at the events that would have followed had the officer not fired, I would say this happened the best possible way given the senario. A high speed chase, this guy being drunk, and shooting... I'd say this was a justifiable shooting for sure. To make the claim that he wouldn't have been a further danger to society after pulling away doesn't make sense.
Notice how the dash cam failed to "malfunction" though. Funny how they only do that when the legitimacy is in question. Lol. All in all though, I'd say this officer did a good job. I hope he's an oathkeeper!
I looked him up, said he had a long violent criminal history and had just returned to the valley after a long absence. I'm guessing that was prison.
One commenter adds in:
If you do a little research, you'll find that Davis was seeking revenge that night, and had it not been for officer Jessop, that night most likely would have gone a lot different. Davis had told a friend earlier "it's been nice knowing you, you won't be seeing me for a long time" and revealed to the friend that he was carrying a gun. Davis had already decided he was going to use the gun that night and by the grace of God it wasn't Officer Jessop who was killed. I'm sorry Davis chose that route that night, but I thank God that a law enforcement officer who was doing his job, got to go home that night. So many times it goes the other way. Officer Jessop most likely saved the lives of one or more people that night.
I personally don't have anything against what the officer did and if somebody had tried to shoot me like that I'd likely do a mag dump into them as well.
He sounds intoxicated on the recording, the camera got a good picture of the truck and everything that happened. Even if he had managed to shoot the officer, I've got ZERO idea how he expected to get away with it. He'd been stopped previously in the evening for an investigation of criminal mischief and the local police KNEW HIS TRUCK. Looks like he was out to commit some homicides and suicide by cop, but he only managed to get the last part of it accomplished.
Mechanic in Texas shot a fleeing person who had broken into his GF's truck DRT. He was no-billed. So I wouldn't say there's always a double standard as a friend of mine is a local Deputy who had to shoot a crackhead that was trying to kill him and he had as many legal hassles, if not more, than the mechanic that got no-billed. Same county.
I wouldn't say there is a blanket double standard on only ones vs citizens in shooting fleeing people, but Texas has pretty good laws in that regard.
As much as I don't like police and their misdeeds, I just don't see the fault in this. Maybe I'm wrong. Some of you are coming hard out against this. I see that. But I think this was justified because of the further threat this person would have been to others as the police tried to apprehend him.
Know which way your revolver's cylinder turns. It could save your life.
The actions of police in places as disparate as New Orleans, Daytona and Oakland CA lead to distrust and actual disgust and hatred of LEOs. It doesn't come out of nowhere.
Just because they're Police State pigs, doesn't mean they aren't more dangerous.
Essentially, I agree with EMWONAY; I think this was a righteous shooting; my only problem is that shootings like it should be righteous for non-badged shooters as well.
And I also concur with our host that the officer involved did well under the circumstances. But he was not perfect, given that he couldn't guarantee his backstop in the dark. I just want the same benefit of the doubt extended to the non-badged. (And frankly, even if a bystander had been hit, I'd want the blame to accrue to the original offender, not the defender.)
And let me make it clear: I'm glad this cop was on the streets that night, and that he pulled the drunk over. I'm not a fan of running blockades or pulling people over for no reason just to give them a breath test, but it's pretty clear that that guy was going to be causing trouble for somebody sooner or later. If he was willing to pull a gun on a cop during a routine traffic stop, who else would he have drawn on?
It's the double standard for badged and unbadged citizens that's getting under everybody's skin, and rightfully so.
From a comment at the link:
"Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)The Use of Force to Prevent the Escape of a Dangerous Suspect. 1) Officer must have probable cause (pc) to believe the fleeing suspect is dangerous, that is, posing a threat of death/serious physical harm to someone (someone being him/others, which is quite evident). 2) The use of deadly force must be necessary to affect the seizure."
Compare Peel: "The police are the people and the people are the police."
When any citizen is attacked, put in fear of his life, that citizen in my mind immediately acquires police powers necessary to apprehend or stop the perpetrator. Not to hunt him down for revenge; that would indeed be "vigilantism".
But to halt an imminent threat to the community.
That said: One thing that's not a double standard: Officer Jessup was acquitted by a jury rather than being returned to duty from two weeks of paid administrative leave after being cleared by an internal investigation. That is as it should be, too. I want to see both things be more common: Cops going on trial for shootings, and defense shooters, badged or unbadged, being acquitted.
For clarity, my previous post referred to the article linked by "DJMoore."
As to the vid - which I've discusses ad-nauseum elsewhere -
I still can't figure out how the miscreant managed to burn 2 rounds earlier in the evening and reset his revolver so the 2 dead chambers were the ones next under the hammer.
This cop should thank G*d for every day of his life.
Though I have plenty of objections to the blatant hassling usually excused by "traffic enforcement" I'm glad this scumbag is dead.
DD
I'm siding with the cops on this one.
Post a Comment