| Author | Post |
|---|
LEO 229
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | NOVA, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 6750 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 12:04 am |
|
http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/sheriffs_deputies_cleared_in_shooting_death_of_area_man/20453/
Published: August 28, 2008
Four Stafford County Sheriff’s Office deputies have been cleared of any wrongdoing in the shooting death of a Falmouth man.
A letter signed by Stafford sheriff Charles Jett states that the department has completed its investigation into the June 29 shooting death of David Gandy, 49, of 14 Myrtle Lane. The review found that the four deputies involved in the incident followed proper procedure when a deputy shot Gandy in his back yard.
“Our investigation uncovered no action, by the deputies involved that failed to conform to the policy of this office. We, therefore, have determined that the deputies acted within the scope of their duties and policy of the sheriff’s office,” said Sheriff Charles Jett in a signed letter to the family.
The sheriff’s department today would not immediately comment on the letter or the closed investigation, but said a statement from the department could be expected at anytime.
The sheriff’s department revealed earlier this month that two of the four deputies involved with the shooting had been put on modified duty. There is no word if the two deputies have now been returned to regular duty.
Police were called to Gandy’s home June 29 after reports were made that he had a gun and was threatening his life. When police arrived Gandy reportedly ignored commands to raise his hands in the air and drop his weapon. Police said they fired two Taser weapons that were ineffective. Police then shot and killed him.
Witnesses there at the time of the shooting said police stormed the back yard patio where Gandy was seated. They say as soon as police entered Gandy ran less than six yards to the back door of his home, prompting police to fire. Witnesses said they heard three shots fired at close range, killing Gandy instantly.
Police said Gandy pointed his gun at them, however accounts from witnesses said the entire incident happened so fast, Gandy’s gun was concealed and was never visible to police.
Police say Gandy had been drinking the night of the shooting. Gandy’s family said they are awaiting a copy of his autopsy report and toxicology report from the state, which will detail how much alcohol Gandy had in his system at the time of the shooting.
|
Armed
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 12:57 am |
|
http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/2008/082008/0829stafford/index_html?page=1
Longer news article here with a little more detail. Apparently his dipstick neighbor handed him a loaded gun when he was drunk, on meds, and disturbed. Now that's a neighborely thing to do...
I do have one question tho... How is it the Sheriff's Office can run an internal investigation and manage to determine guilt or innocence in a matter of just 60 days? If this was you or me - it would take at least 9 months to get us in front of a jury, and the trial would probably last 2, maybe 3 days.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 05:29 am |
|
Armed wrote: http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/2008/082008/0829stafford/index_html?page=1
Longer news article here with a little more detail. Apparently his dipstick neighbor handed him a loaded gun when he was drunk, on meds, and disturbed. Now that's a neighborely thing to do...
I do have one question tho... How is it the Sheriff's Office can run an internal investigation and manage to determine guilt or innocence in a matter of just 60 days? If this was you or me - it would take at least 9 months to get us in front of a jury, and the trial would probably last 2, maybe 3 days.
The internal investigation would not have determined "guilt or innocence" but rather whether or not department guidleines/procedures and policies had been followed. Is this not the present situation LEO 229?
Officers have been found to be in compliance with their department regs and still find themselves in court facing charges - sometimes right along side their dept.
Yata hey
|
Armed
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 08:45 pm |
|
Grapeshot wrote: The internal investigation would not have determined "guilt or innocence" but rather whether or not department guidleines/procedures and policies had been followed. Is this not the present situation LEO 229?
Officers have been found to be in compliance with their department regs and still find themselves in court facing charges - sometimes right along side their dept.
Yata hey
Good point and poor choice of terms on my behalf. Will be interesting to see what, if anything comes from this. I realize the news never has all of the facts to begin with, and screw up about 80% of the facts they did have.
On another note - sorry I missed you at IHOP this morning. I was heading that way when I got called back to work. Maybe next time.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 09:04 pm |
|
| I hate to say it, but it sounds kind of fishy to me...
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 09:58 pm |
|
marshaul wrote: I hate to say it, but it sounds kind of fishy to me...
You may very well be right. We shall see.
Yata hey
|
longwatch
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 10:07 pm |
|
| Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
Neplusultra
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 10:48 pm |
|
longwatch wrote: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Smart ass, ok, what does it mean....?
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 3841 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:14 am |
|
 Agreeing that the thread about an assistant chief of police getting a DUI is at best obliquely related to OC and just lends itself to an "us vs them" discussion, how does a news story about LEOs being cleared for shooting a drunk, suicidal guy who had been taking anti-depressants and was brandishing a firearm do anything besides potentially baiting certain members into an "us vs them" discussion, especially considering that witnesses are now disputing the version of events as reported by LEO.
I'm very confused, LEO229. You strongly stated the opinion that the other story doesn't belong on OCDO. Yet now you post this story which seems no more related and likely to lead to the same type of discussion. I guess I'm missing something.
Assuming the facts are accurately stated by the LEOs sounds like a justified shooting.
|
DrMark
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:27 am |
|
Cops shot a guy. It was ruled a good shoot. Swell.
What does this have to do with open carry?
|
matt605
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 80 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:41 am |
|
"the Taser had no apparent effect on Gandy, whose blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit."
Twice the legal limit for driving, or for being in a public place. What law is violated when a homeowner is intoxicated while on his own property?
Deputies were invited onto the property by the property owner's grown son, not a minor for whom the drunk man had a responsibility, and let's just assume that the property owner was in fact intoxicated.
Did the property owner ask the deputies to leave? Did he indicate they were unwelcomed and that it was his drunken desire that they go immediately? That's a crucial question that the investigation did not address.
Some states require that people flee from their own homes to avoid a confrontation with a burglar. At the other extreme, Florida permits you to shoot dead anyone on your property who doesn't leave. What's the rule in Virginia when a homeowner demands that four unwelcomed visitors refuse to leave and repeatedly demand that he drop his own gun?
Drunk homeowner tells deputies to go to hell, gets bullet in the back.
|
marine2000
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 01:08 am |
|
| Government 1- People's Public 0
|
LEO 229
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | NOVA, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 6750 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 01:11 am |
|
I am truly amazed at the ignorance that some members show here.
They refuse to read and fully comprehend what is being provided and instead question and rant on the purpose.
I am not wanting to pick on anyone... But I really fail to understand at times how people can be so blind.
Please take a look at the thread description.... I will make it easy for you.. look below....
"Gandy ignored commands to raise his hands and drop his weapon."
OK... How is this related to open carry.....??
Well, recently we have been talking about refusal to disarm. Many members here do open carry and with the combination of a few that have boasted they would refuse to be disarmed.. I wanted you to be aware of one person that allegedly decided to not be disarmed.
He was shot and killed for his refusal and the officers were cleared.
Now... this is NOT about the officers being cleared or any wrong doing on their part. It is about what the expected outcome was.
The man was shot!
Please take off your blinders when you see me post something. Stop the nitpicking and the bitching.
I am not the enemy. Many of you really have to stop thinking that way. Do not read into what I write as some secret motive. I am providing you with information and I get nothing in return but complaints.
|
Nelson_Muntz
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 01:12 am |
|
Threatening his own life on his own property, so they shot him dead. Glad they didn't give the poor guy the chance to do it himself. That's real Public Service!!
|
peter nap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1047 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 01:12 am |
|
DrMark wrote: Cops shot a guy. It was ruled a good shoot. Swell.
What does this have to do with open carry?
It's hard to follow but the discussion has touched on the officer having PC to shoot someone that will not surrender his weapon.
|
peter nap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1047 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 01:32 am |
|
LEO 229 wrote: I am truly amazed at the ignorance that some members show here.
They refuse to read and fully comprehend what is being provided and instead question and rant on the purpose.
I am not wanting to pick on anyone... But I really fail to understand at times how people can be so blind.
Please take a look at the thread description.... I will make it easy for you.. look below....
"Gandy ignored commands to raise his hands and drop his weapon."
OK... How is this related to open carry.....??
Well, recently we have been talking about refusal to disarm. Many members here do open carry and with the combination of a few that have boasted they would refuse to be disarmed.. I wanted you to be aware of one person that allegedly decided to not be disarmed.
He was shot and killed for his refusal and the officers were cleared.
Now... this is NOT about the officers being cleared or any wrong doing on their part. It is about what the expected outcome was.
The man was shot!
Please take off your blinders when you see me post something. Stop the nitpicking and the bitching.
I am not the enemy. Many of you really have to stop thinking that way. Do not read into what I write as some secret motive. I am providing you with information and I get nothing in return but complaints.
The biggest strength of this board is the factual and in depth information given here. Much case law is brought out that would take endless hours of research for one person.
Leo229 just gave one of many examples where law enforcement shot and killed a person who was not cooperating.....and walked.
His post was just....this is what could happen, make up your own mind.
I didn't see any special joy he goy out of the LEO being exonerated. He didn't say Good Guys 1, Lizards 0.
Whhat he posted is just one side of the coin we have to flip when we do not surrender the weapon.
|
matt605
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 80 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 01:54 am |
|
Yeah, missing is all the dialogue.
Remember that old film Resevoir Dogs? At the end they're all pointing guns at each other and shouting demands, and not resolving things. That's the missing part of the shooting in question.
Were the deputites asked or directed to leave by the drunken property owner?
Was the homeowner in violation of any law when the uninvited deputies encroached his property and began demanding that he disarm himself?
Were any steps taken to diffuse the situation? Like the sheriff in Mothman Prophecies who asks the homeowner to point the shotgun just a foot to the left of the intruder's head to prevent an accidental shooting.
I just watch too many movies I guess.
|
doug23838
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 163 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 02:24 am |
|
LEO 229 wrote: http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/sheriffs_deputies_cleared_in_shooting_death_of_area_man/20453/
Published: August 28, 2008
Four Stafford County Sheriff’s Office deputies have been cleared of any wrongdoing in the shooting death of a Falmouth man.
A letter signed by Stafford sheriff Charles Jett states that the department has completed its investigation into the June 29 shooting death of David Gandy, 49, of 14 Myrtle Lane. The review found that the four deputies involved in the incident followed proper procedure when a deputy shot Gandy in his back yard.
“Our investigation uncovered no action, by the deputies involved that failed to conform to the policy of this office. We, therefore, have determined that the deputies acted within the scope of their duties and policy of the sheriff’s office,” said Sheriff Charles Jett in a signed letter to the family.
The sheriff’s department today would not immediately comment on the letter or the closed investigation, but said a statement from the department could be expected at anytime.
The sheriff’s department revealed earlier this month that two of the four deputies involved with the shooting had been put on modified duty. There is no word if the two deputies have now been returned to regular duty.
Police were called to Gandy’s home June 29 after reports were made that he had a gun and was threatening his life. When police arrived Gandy reportedly ignored commands to raise his hands in the air and drop his weapon. Police said they fired two Taser weapons that were ineffective. Police then shot and killed him.
Witnesses there at the time of the shooting said police stormed the back yard patio where Gandy was seated. They say as soon as police entered Gandy ran less than six yards to the back door of his home, prompting police to fire. Witnesses said they heard three shots fired at close range, killing Gandy instantly.
Police said Gandy pointed his gun at them, however accounts from witnesses said the entire incident happened so fast, Gandy’s gun was concealed and was never visible to police.
Police say Gandy had been drinking the night of the shooting. Gandy’s family said they are awaiting a copy of his autopsy report and toxicology report from the state, which will detail how much alcohol Gandy had in his system at the time of the shooting.
Folks: Notice how quickly, this story like so many others, quickly casts aspersions on the subject/victim's behavior, temperment, character, etc. The news reports immediately grab onto anything that makes the person "different" from you and I. You've seen stories with: "He was behaving erraticly." "He was intoxicated." "He had a fight with his girlfriend." This helps make the shooting more justified in the vacuous minds of the readers. They read and think "Well, if he didn't obey the police, then he deserved what was coming." Because we're all such good subjects we bend our knee so quickly when commanded by authority. In this story the victim was shot twice with the Taser. Read here; "They hit him twice with the taser and he still wouldn't go down, so they had to go to somthing more powerful."
So their investigation "uncovered no action, by the deputies involved that failed to conform to the policy of this office. We, therefore, have determined that the deputies acted within the scope of their duties and policy of the sheriff’s office,” Therefore, you can be murdered under color of law when you refuse to obey a command.
I'm deeply sorry the family's loss and I hope they secure good attorneys and prosecute those responsible.
|
LEO 229
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | NOVA, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 6750 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 03:06 am |
|
doug23838 wrote:
Folks: Notice how quickly, this story like so many others, quickly casts aspersions on the subject/victim's behavior, temperment, character, etc. The news reports immediately grab onto anything that makes the person "different" from you and I. You've seen stories with: "He was behaving erraticly." "He was intoxicated." "He had a fight with his girlfriend." This helps make the shooting more justified in the vacuous minds of the readers. They read and think "Well, if he didn't obey the police, then he deserved what was coming." Because we're all such good subjects we bend our knee so quickly when commanded by authority. In this story the victim was shot twice with the Taser. Read here; "They hit him twice with the taser and he still wouldn't go down, so they had to go to somthing more powerful."
So their investigation "uncovered no action, by the deputies involved that failed to conform to the policy of this office. We, therefore, have determined that the deputies acted within the scope of their duties and policy of the sheriff’s office,” Therefore, you can be murdered under color of law when you refuse to obey a command.
I'm deeply sorry the family's loss and I hope they secure good attorneys and prosecute those responsible.
The story was not drafted to back the police. They posted factual information so that the reader could better understand why the man did what he did.
They did not justify anything the police did and simply posted what happened.
A drunk man armed with a gun refused to drop it and the police tried to use less lethal force to prevent him from using that gun to harm anyone.
The taser failed twice and the man allegedly pointed the gun at the police.
If you are going to point a gun at the police.... you can expect to be shot.
There is no "murder" here. You should be ashamed for even posting that. You obviously have a problem with the government, the police, or any level of authority.
Knowing the guy refused commands and they tried to use less lethal to get the gun away.... sounds right in my book. You may not like it.. but when the police are telling you to drop your gun and you refuse..... you might just get shot.
Not sure why anyone would want to test the waters in this area. It is just plain dumb.
|
JSK333
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 03:30 am |
|
I've read that "a man with a gun call" is not considered PC to detain a person matching the description, according to recent case law. Isn't that right?
How does that compare with this? Is a mere call of someone threatening suicide enough for PC to enter the property and demand his submission to LEOs?
|
Current time is 07:44 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
