Latest C.O.P.S. episode

[PetrucciFan]

First off, I apologize if this is posted in the wrong category....seemed like the best fit to me.

Did anybody watch that latest COPS episode on Fox last Saturday night? The second segment in that episode involved a CHL holder from Nevada that seemed to end very strange to me. I'll try to give a quick recap for those that didn't see it.

Basically, the LEO gets a call about a man who has just been shot and is walking away from the scene. The LEO finds the gentleman walking with another person down the street. They don't appear to be going to the hospital although he has definitely been shot in the arm and stomach. The two men tell the LEO that he was shot for no reason. The LEO then gets a call that the shooter has been caught so he goes to interview him. When they get there, you can clearly see that the shooter has been hit repeatedly in the face (bloody face, black eye). He tells the LEOs that he was hit repeatedly by the the other man and eventually pulled out his firearm and shot the man twice in self defense. The LEO says, "What happened after you shot him?" The shooter replied, "He stopped hitting me." Then the LEO's supervisor shows up and says, "Why did you have a gun?" He replies, "I have a concealed license." The LEO supervisor says, "I'm fine with that, but why were you carrying a gun? Were you expecting something to happen?" The shooter says, "No, I carry everywhere." The segment then ends with the original LEO saying that they have the shooter, the weapon and three eye-witnesses saying that he was the shooter so he is "being booked on attempted homicide."

I completely understand that this was probably a two hour event that was edited down to 8 minutes, but there seems to be a lot of the story missing. First, if the man who was shot was actually a victim, why didn't he call the police and try to get to the hospital?!?! Secondly, the shooter was clearly beaten. I doubt that he shot the person first and then that person beat him after the fact. Third, he admits that he shot the person. Why did they have to get three eye-witnesses to "identify him as the shooter."

I also had an issue with the conversation between the shooter and the LEO supervisor. He clearly implies that the only reason he was carrying a gun was because he was expecting to shoot someone. It was a very strange segment on that episode. I'm sure you can watch it on FOX's website.

Anyway, if any of you saw that episode, I would love to hear if you came away with the same opinion as me.

[joe817]

Oh for crying out loud! Could they not see he was defending himself, and could have been beaten to death had he not shot in self defense? Stories like this go all over me. But I'll bet we don't have the whole story.

Can we do a follow up by searching the local newspaper? Where did it happen?

[Commander]

I agree with your take on it. The Sgt did seem to imply that the CHL holder was only carrying because he expected to use it. He said he had no problem with the license, but at the same time it sure sounded like he had a problem with the holder actually carrying. I thought it strange to say the least. The episode seemed to cast the CHL holder as being guilty until proved innocent.

[seamusTX]

First off, if you expect any TV show to make sense, I have some beach property in Arizona for you.

I have observed that newspapers and TV stations have an inherent bias against non-LEO self-defense shooters (and also against LEOs quite often). Fox is no exception to this.

Assuming the facts were as stated in this thread, there are several possibilities:

• When someone is shot and does not seek help, it is often because the person was engaged in criminal activity, has warrants hanging over his head, or is on probation or parole.
• This could have been a drug deal or other criminal activity that went from bad to worse, and neither party wanted the police to be involved.
• The shooter could have provoked the situation, and then shot when he was losing the fight.

I doubt the police will ever say, Oh, this guy has a CHL so he must be in the right.

The police are trained to collect as much evidence as they can, including questioning all witnesses separately. Often this procedure turns up facts that were not obvious in the beginning.

Confessions are weak evidence. They are easily impeached or excluded from evidence by a good defense attorney. It is better for the prosecution to have them backed up with forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony.

If the COPS story has any credibility at all, it shows that the police are going to treat a shooting between two men on the street as an aggravated assault or homicide and proceed accordingly. After all, more than 99% of such shootings are crimes with no justification.

They may be more inclined to consider a shooting as self defense if the defender is a woman or there is an obvious disparity, such as an elderly man versus multiple attackers wearing gang insignia.

- Jim

[USA1]

yep , saw it .

the shooter/CHL holder should not have given a statement other than ..
" i'll be happy to answer all your questions after i've talked to my attorney "

[Skipper5]

Agree....saw that episode...and yes, thought that really stupid abbreviated segment. The Victim was clearly attacked the other guys did not appear they were there for a tea party! Could not believe Sgt's comments ...shooter in custody for attempted homicide..... pulled my jaw off the floor. Give me a break on that one. Don't know what State that was....but line would have been that I want to speak with my attorney.

If police ask if you feel guilty...is that why you want to speak with your atty.....just tell him...no I want to talk with my atty for the same reason (Mr. Sgt) you would have your Police Union's atty present when you are questioned!
This last part shared by Dallas PD 30 year Sgt...former SWAT leader, etc....and now firearm instructor with DPD.

Perhaps a note to the producers of COPS...?
John

[The Annoyed Man]

We have to also remember that this was in Nevada — the same state that keeps re-electing Harry Reid. They may have more liberal gun laws than say, California, but that doesn't mean that law enforcement there has the same attitude towards firearms in civilian hands that we have in here in Texas, or as in Arizona or Alaska. We also don't know what footage was left on the cutting room floor so that an individual television producer/editor could make his own political point at the expense of whatever truth was extant in the story.

[joe817]

Ahhhh I see now. It happened in Nevada! That's a horse of a different color, as TAM pointed out. Thanks TAM for pointing that out.