Polk County, Florida sheriff's department needs more bullets

[Char Ell]

From msnbc.com

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. (emphasis added)

Hmmm... Sounds like overkill to me.

 

Seriously. I understand that the suspect had a gun in hand when the SWAT team found him but I'm guessing after the first 20-30 shots the guy wasn't moving anymore. And then to have the sheriff of the county say they would have shot him more if they would have had more bullets? Seems to me that the Polk County Sheriff's Department went vigilante there for a bit.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It depends where you shoot him and with what kind of weapon but SWAT teams don't carry BB guns so yeah, 68 sounds like a lot to take down one guy. Unless its a Terminator or something...

 

From this tidbit of information, it does sound like they didn't want to catch the guy, just kill him on the spot.

[The Doctor]

He's a cop killer. Cop's tend to get worked up about those guys for some reason. As if someone who kills a cop is worse than someone who kills a lawyer, or a construction worker.

[lukeiamyourdad]

He's a cop killer. Cop's tend to get worked up about those guys for some reason. As if someone who kills a cop is worse than someone who kills a lawyer, or a construction worker.

 

It's abnormal? He killed one of their own, I can understand their anger.

It's true that cops don't get as worked up when it's a lawyer or construction worker that gets killed and that's natural. You care less when you don't know him or when he's not part of "the brotherhood".

They also have guns and lawyers and construction workers don't have very good vengeance capabilities.

 

When I think about it, it's a bit strange that if I kill my coworker's murderer, I'm a murderer myself, but if I'm a cop in this particular situation, I can get away with it.

[Jae Onasi]

I'll be the first to say police brutality should be stomped.

However, my crap detector redlined when I read that story on msnbc.com, since I know quite a few cops. I could see 1 cop going vigilante, but 10 SWAT team members that are supposed to have excellent control? I smelled a pile of BS. So I checked a different site and found this additional information:

 

Ten SWAT officers surrounded Freeland on Friday as he hid beneath brush and a fallen tree in a rural area. Authorities say he raised the gun belonging to the deputy he had killed, prompting nine officers to fire.

 

"I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back."

 

 

I hate, despise, and otherwise bear negative sentiments for news organizations of any kind, conservative or liberal, that leave things out to intentionally slant a story. I think msnbc.com was out of line for leaving some information out and the journalist (or editor) was irresponsible for reporting incomplete information for some agenda (I assume anti-police brutality in this case). This is why I'll often read both Foxnews _and_ CNN (or the equivalent on the radio) to try to get the full story in case one of them is playing fast and loose with the facts.

 

The fact that the perp raised his gun at the cops is extremely important information in the decision on why they shot the guy and should not have been left out of the msnbc article. You raise a gun at a cop, it is assumed you are intending to kill the cop. That is standard everywhere in the US and I imagine pretty much everywhere in the world. And since this guy had already killed one cop, I'm sure the Swat team wasn't thinking the perp was there to have a tea party.

 

While I think 110 rounds for guys who are supposed to be sharpshooters might be excessive, if they had semi-automatic or automatic weapons, they would have gone through that much ammo in a few seconds or even less. When I checked on some sites for firing rates for some weapons, I found many of the modern weapons used in police work discharge at 900 rounds/minute or more, or about 15 rounds/second. Military weapons can go even higher (I saw one of the newer ones listed at 4000 rounds/minute). What that means is if you tap your gun for even a second, a lot of rounds are going to come out if you have it set for automatic. You have 9 cops and 110 rounds--that works out to about 12 rounds per cop--a very small amount, actually, if you're talking about semi-automatic weapons. So, assuming 15 rounds/second firing rate for each cop, they all shot for under a second. I don't know about you, but I can't do many things in under a second.

 

Just adding a little perspective, fwiw.

[Q]

This reminds me of that incident a while back where three cops shot this guy about 45 times for reaching for his wallet. Different situation, similar overkill.

[Emperor Devon]

They also have guns and lawyers and construction workers don't have very good vengeance capabilities.

 

I can almost hear Darth333 swooping down on you...

 

My on-topic thoughts: good riddance. I'm glad there's one less person like him in the world.

[Char Ell]

I hate, despise, and otherwise bear negative sentiments for news organizations of any kind, conservative or liberal, that leave things out to intentionally slant a story. I think msnbc.com was out of line for leaving some information out and the journalist (or editor) was irresponsible for reporting incomplete information for some agenda (I assume anti-police brutality in this case). This is why I'll often read both Foxnews _and_ CNN (or the equivalent on the radio) to try to get the full story in case one of them is playing fast and loose with the facts.

Good point. *sigh* I too find it difficult to trust the media in general to get their facts straight.

 

I'm glad you pointed out the report on Fox News about this. Getting a different perspective is almost always a good thing to do. The whole accuracy of the media debate is worthy of a thread all on its own (though probably better suited to the Senate Chambers).

"I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back." -FOXNews.com

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

Comes off somewhat differently, these two statements do. Were they different quotes? Did Sheriff Judd make both statements but at different times to different media organizations? Or perhaps the good sheriff was misquoted. That wouldn't surpise me either.

 

My first mistake was to not realize that a SWAT team uses automatic firearms. Hypothetically speaking if each of those 9 officers carried an automatic firearm with a 20-round magazine then that is 180 potential shots that could have been fired. Of course Sheriff Judd's statement seems to indicate that the SWAT team expended all their ammunition so 110 rounds divided by 9 officers is approximately 12.2 rounds per firing officer. That seems like an odd number of course and without knowing the type of firearms used by the 9 officers then we can only speculate about whether or not Sheriff Judd made an accurate statement.

 

If the suspect raised his gun in front of police as has been reported then I completely understand why they fired at him and have no quarrel with that. However I still question the number of shots fired though. Were all 9 officers in a position to see the suspect brandishing the gun and thus responded by opening fire?

 

What I really need is more and accurate details to make a full and proper assessment. I don't think it's likely that kind of info will be made available to the general public.

[Jae Onasi]

SWAT has more training than the average cop--I'm betting a number of them had a bead on him without any problem.

I don't know what they had weapon-wise, either, so I can't guess how many rounds it can shoot. I assumed (semi-) automatic because of the sheer number of rounds expended. Also, SWAT usually gets the biggest/best/bad-a** stuff. Of course, they're also the guys who run around busting drugdealers on the dealers' turfs, so they're at higher risk than the average cop.

Yeah, I'll be interested in seeing what comes out of this, too.

[Q]

You're quite right, Jae. If the cops had automatic weapons (like M4 carbines or MP5 submachine guns) as SWAT usually does, it would only take a second or two to squeeze off 110 rounds, even if there were just a few of them. And you're right about the spin.

[stoffe]

When I think about it, it's a bit strange that if I kill my coworker's murderer, I'm a murderer myself, but if I'm a cop in this particular situation, I can get away with it.

 

If they do get away with it depends a bit on what part of the world they are. Over here it's over the top in the other direction: If a police officer shoots a known violent criminal (who was threatening him with a weapon) once in the leg he might get prosecuted for it. It's happened a few times recently, from what I've heard on the news.

 

In general though someone tasked with law enforcement is usually empowered to "break" some laws without consequences in order to effectively be able to do their job. Therefore it's generally more acceptable if police shoots a criminal than if a construction worker or a lawyer does it.

[swphreak]

I'm pretty sure the law allows you to defend yourself from lethal force with lethal force. If the cops feared for their lives, they were well within their rights to defend themselves.

 

Although, 110 shots seem like overkill, but was the suspect wearing body armor? Still not enough info for me.

 

Perhaps I'll hear about it on the radio on my way to work.

[RC-1162]

what? were they using machine guns and get their triggers stuck? isnt one sniper shot into the head enough to take down one guy? whats up with all of this? and they wonder how come they always run out of bullets at the most inopportune moment.

[Mace MacLeod]

I can see the cops being frisky to nail a cop killer, but this does strike me as being a teensy, weensy bit like overkill.

[lukeiamyourdad]

According to the calculations made by cutmeister and the statement made by the sheriff about the number of bullets they had, it would be clear that they didn't have automatic weapons.

12 bullets each, for a total of 110, if that's all the bullets they had, would mean they had a semi-automatic pistol. No submachine gun or automatic rifle has only 12 bullet clips. If that's the case, they really pumped on the trigger to empty their clips. That would be no accident.

It applies to a case involving a semi-automatic weapon of any kind or a weapon in semi-automatic mode.

 

Now comes full automatic weapons. Which is weird to me. I won't pretend to know SWAT tactics, but if you were seeking someone to capture him, would you put your weapon on automatic mode? Especially when you surround him, have body armor and are 10 elites vs 1 bum? Wouldn't it be dangerous for your colleagues in case of collateral damage? A stray bullet or a ricochet for example?

If he was cornered, it would make better sense.

 

Then comes the weird hit rate. 68 shots out of 110 landed. That's 62%. Did they fire their weapons from the hip or something? In both semi and full automatic modes, I'd expect expert marksmen to do better then that.

[Char Ell]

According to the calculations made by cutmeister and the statement made by the sheriff about the number of bullets they had, it would be clear that they didn't have automatic weapons.

Not necessarily. The SWAT team could have been using a mix of firearms with varying ammunition capacities and semi-automatic/automatic capabilities. Also maybe Sheriff Judd's statement was more off-the-cuff and as a result wasn't accurate to begin with. If all nine shooting officers did expend all of their ammunition as Sheriff Judd says though I find it hard to believe that any of the SWAT team members were using a weapon with less than 10 rounds. Using my admittedly limited knowledge of police firearms I still can't come up with a mix of 9 weapons with a combined capacity of 110 rounds that makes tactical sense in that situation.

Then comes the weird hit rate. 68 shots out of 110 landed. That's 62%. Did they fire their weapons from the hip or something? In both semi and full automatic modes, I'd expect expert marksmen to do better then that.

IMO I think this is actually a pretty good hit-to-shot ratio. Shooting accuracy in a live environment is almost always much lower than in a controlled environment like a target range.

 

Just to be clear on this issue, my concern isn't really with the fact that the suspect was killed by the police. If someone said that the guy was trying to surrender and police unloaded on him then I would be very concerned about that. By all accounts I've reviewed though the suspect raised a gun in front of police so I assume the guy was stupid or had a deathwish. It was the manner in which he was killed that concerns me. If I lived in Polk County I would want to hear the sheriff clearly explain why it was necessary to fire 110 shots at the suspect because this comes off as using excessive force to me.

[Jae Onasi]

Mix of firearms could explain that weird 110 number, I agree.

If the guy was moving or running towards the cops, I could understand the hit rate. It also depends on how close or far they were to him, their skill (which I assume was pretty good or they wouldn't be on SWAT), weather/terrain/other field conditions, etc., etc., etc. And it matters where they hit him and if he had body armor on. He might not have dropped right away unless he got hit in the head. You'd be surprise at what kinds of injuries someone can take and actually still function to some degree.

 

Jimbo says it's actually harder to hit something on full automatic, but I'll let him elaborate since he's the one who's fired the weapons and not me.

 

I'm not saying what they did was right, either, but I do want folks to consider that there are many different options instead of jumping to the obvious 'excessive force' conclusion.

 

And Sheriff Judd is obviously a PR nightmare. His media person, if he had one, probably cringed at some of his statements.

 

At least this guy's not out on the street to kill anyone else.

[Hannibal]

Definitely not a fan of brutality but I don't see these police man as standing over a dead body and continuously shooting it.

 

110 bulltets by 3 cops is a lot. 110 by 15-20 cops sounds more reasonable.

[RC-1162]

either that or Order 66 got to their heads. aayla secuera, anyone?

the question here is, did the guy die after the first few shots? or did he go down only after the last one?

[mimartin]

I would like to know about the circumstances before passing any kind of judgment. I wonder if they even knew they hit him so many times. Was it in heavy brush or woods, what was the weather conditions (wind, rain or fog) was there anything else affecting their vision? I mean they could have shot and killed him, but not been able to see the body clearly. How many police officers were involved? How far were they from the subject? How long was the engagement?

 

If his hands were still near a weapon and there was any movement (wind), they would and should keep firing. I’d rather them error in shooting to much than too little and another police officer end up dead. A hundred and ten shots sound excessive, but without knowing the facts it is all guess work.

[HerbieZ]

Isnt this just corpse mutilation.

[Darth333]

"I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back."

 

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

 

Comes off somewhat differently, these two statements do. Were they different quotes? Did Sheriff Judd make both statements but at different times to different media organizations? Or perhaps the good sheriff was misquoted. That wouldn't surpise me either.

That doesn't surprise me but we don't have the whole context. It's like any legal news. The only thing I trust is the judgment itself. Journalist tend to quote things out of context a bit too often for my taste (speaking of experience ). I'd really like to know which statement was made first and if that sheriff talked to someone in between.

 

As for the whole thing, sounds like overkill to me but then again the facts are not clear and everything is subject to some interpretation.

 

They also have guns and lawyers and construction workers don't have very good vengeance capabilities.

We have more "civilized" vengeance capabilities...at least for lawyers (I'll let RJM comment on construction workers! )

 

My on-topic thoughts: good riddance. I'm glad there's one less person like him in the world.

I tend to avoid those statements, especially when we don't know much about the person. I spent a lot of time working with people who had done terrible things , including several murderers in non-protected environments and in all the people I've met, I believe that none deserved to die. While some are better kept inside, some others turned out very well and even helped their community a lot afterwards.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

Thank you D, I will.

 

In the case of someone murdering a co-worker (or anyone for that matter), If I'm there and a law enforcement officer isn't I'll do whatever I can to kill the attacker (if non-lethal is not an option and attacks may continue on others), got a knife...I'll stab them, got a swingable object...I'll break it on them, whatever it takes to stop them.

Of course you want to incapacitate them, but if that isn't possible then I really don't have a problem with crossing that line. If trying to subdue someone will take more time than killing them, and they can kill someone else in that time then there isn't really a choice.

 

In the case of me not being at the crime event vigilantiism comes into play, and unless I was engaged in lethal combat I would avoid interfering with law enforcement officers.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Not necessarily. The SWAT team could have been using a mix of firearms with varying ammunition capacities and semi-automatic/automatic capabilities. Also maybe Sheriff Judd's statement was more off-the-cuff and as a result wasn't accurate to begin with. If all nine shooting officers did expend all of their ammunition as Sheriff Judd says though I find it hard to believe that any of the SWAT team members were using a weapon with less than 10 rounds. Using my admittedly limited knowledge of police firearms I still can't come up with a mix of 9 weapons with a combined capacity of 110 rounds that makes tactical sense in that situation.

 

Except that through your own calculations, it was indeed more then 10 rounds, 12.2 for 9 officers to be exact. 12 rounds for a pistol is very plausible and SWAT teams do use handguns. Even under 10 rounds, they could use a Desert Eagle .50 though when you get hit by one of those 68 times, they're picking you up with a little spoon.

 

Back on handguns, it is not at all unusual for SWAT teams to use them. I remember my father watching a documentary on SWAT tactics and they said it offered them good flexibility. It always is among their weapon choices.

I also was really careful to write in a conditional tone.

 

A mix of various firearms could possibly explain the odd number, but it would be interesting to know the RPM of their weapons. If it was indeed a mix and all 9 officers shot, some would have pumped out more rounds and some would have pumped out one or two. It would bring the semi-auto users to maybe 2-3 shots, while the full-auto users to an insane amount, considering the RPM of their weapons.

 

IMO I think this is actually a pretty good hit-to-shot ratio. Shooting accuracy in a live environment is almost always much lower than in a controlled environment like a target range.

 

It would depend on their range, but yes, it would be lower then in a control environment.

I just can't imagine a SWAT team surrounding someone and still missing that often.

 

If the guy was moving or running towards the cops, I could understand the hit rate. It also depends on how close or far they were to him, their skill (which I assume was pretty good or they wouldn't be on SWAT), weather/terrain/other field conditions, etc., etc., etc. And it matters where they hit him and if he had body armor on. He might not have dropped right away unless he got hit in the head. You'd be surprise at what kinds of injuries someone can take and actually still function to some degree.

 

According to the FOX NEWS article, he was surrounded. So that rules out running away, so 110 rounds because he ran isn't among the possibility, especially as he was hit 68 times.

I have indeed heard of stories, mostly from WWII, of people able to function with a lung pierced or many other injuries, but certainly not even close to 68 bullet holes.

As for body armor, I doubt he had any. What would he do with it? Where did he get it? Was it planned? You don't just walk around with body armor. More information would be needed, but body armor seems pretty unlikely.

 

 

I would like to know about the circumstances before passing any kind of judgment. I wonder if they even knew they hit him so many times. Was it in heavy brush or woods, what was the weather conditions (wind, rain or fog) was there anything else affecting their vision? I mean they could have shot and killed him, but not been able to see the body clearly. How many police officers were involved? How far were they from the subject? How long was the engagement?

 

That would be unlikely. If they couldn't see what they were shooting, how did they know he was pointing a gun at them? Such kind of thick fog happens once in a lifetime, or never, and if that was the case, the cop would have to think 10 times before pulling the trigger, in case it was a friendly target.

[Emperor Devon]

I tend to avoid those statements, especially when we don't know much about the person.

 

Good point.

 

But better one person gone than several more he could've killed later. I however believe that taking a life can only be repaid by something equal on the murderer's part, whether it's the life sentence or doing something to better someone else.