Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Washington Post
The suicidal man with the gun was later shot by two other police officers who arrived at the scene. The gun was not loaded.
Last edited:
West Virginia cop fired for not shooting a civilian
- Thread starter Xelebes
- Start date
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Washington Post
The suicidal man with the gun was later shot by two other police officers who arrived at the scene. The gun was not loaded.
I grew up across the river from Weirton, W.Va., in Steubenville, OH. I am not the least surprised to read this. Sad, but not surprised.
Not nearly as sad, though, as the blind eye that has been turned to rape culture at the high school I attended.
Although, I wonder. What happens to police officers who have been fired? If a police officer has been terminated, can he sue and receive financial compensation if the termination was unwarranted? This might be a good new-bad news story for the officer. Maybe this is Mr. Mader's chance to get away from the area and to a saner place to live.
Not nearly as sad, though, as the blind eye that has been turned to rape culture at the high school I attended.
Although, I wonder. What happens to police officers who have been fired? If a police officer has been terminated, can he sue and receive financial compensation if the termination was unwarranted? This might be a good new-bad news story for the officer. Maybe this is Mr. Mader's chance to get away from the area and to a saner place to live.
If I lived there, I'd start making noise heard to the heavens. The man did the best thing and is being fired for not doing the worst.
I hope he doesn't lose his job, and that this incident points at the root of the problem.
I hope he doesn't lose his job, and that this incident points at the root of the problem.
"Failing to eliminate a threat" really doesn't sound like police terminology. Like, they aren't mercenaries or soldiers in enemy territory. It shouldn't be based on eliminating people.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 8,582
- Reaction score
- 8,525
- Location
- The Seattle suburbs
- Website
- www.reneedominick.com
I keep opening this thread and clicking away. I can't even fathom this. He's the police officer everyone wants! Thoughtful, observant, calm and confident enough in his skills to take the time to assess a situation. Screw that police department. I hope being fired from there will be the best thing that could happen to him.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,965
- Reaction score
- 433
- Location
- Godalming, England
- Website
- www.will-once.com
We have been here before many times. Disgruntled ex-employee goes to the press to complain that they were sacked for an unfair reason. And when we get more information it usually turns out to be more complicated than we are first told. In this case, the first link under the article suggests that the shooting incident was not the only reason for his dismissal and allegedly not the main reason.
Maybe we shouldn't jump into outrage before we've got the full facts.
Maybe we shouldn't jump into outrage before we've got the full facts.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,778
- Reaction score
- 4,982
- Location
- Green Country
- Website
- www.bobmuellerwriter.com
I said on Facebook,
I considered adding, "The best possible thing Mader could do right now, since the story is already going public, is to release a statement concerning the two other incidents being referred to.
And before we go all hero-worshiping on the guy, I'll point out this comment from the PPG story:
Really wish there was video from the situation. I'd like to see how/if Mader tried to warn the other officers about anything.
But yeah, this looks terrible at first glance.
ETA: Did anyone else catch that the other two officers in Mr. Williams' death were also involved in one of the incidents cited in Mader's termination letter? I found that extremely coincidental.
I considered adding, "The best possible thing Mader could do right now, since the story is already going public, is to release a statement concerning the two other incidents being referred to.
And before we go all hero-worshiping on the guy, I'll point out this comment from the PPG story:
Really wish there was video from the situation. I'd like to see how/if Mader tried to warn the other officers about anything.
But yeah, this looks terrible at first glance.
ETA: Did anyone else catch that the other two officers in Mr. Williams' death were also involved in one of the incidents cited in Mader's termination letter? I found that extremely coincidental.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- 590
- Location
- Washington State
- Website
- shaunhorton.blogspot.com
I dunno. Given the stories that shower the internet these days, neither of those two previous incidents seem like something worthy of terminating a PO.
I mean, being rude to a woman while you're arresting her husband?
The other incident seems like a non-story as well. It appeared the older lady had a stroke and died in her home, but they didn't report it as 'suspicious'?
I also don't take issue with the comment you bolded. He figured out the guy was trying for suicide by cop, but he didn't know at the time whether or not the gun was loaded. He couldn't exactly call the other two over for a pow-wow when they arrived to tell them what he knew. So, yes, while tragic, the other two officers made a call based on the information they had available to them. I'd be interested to know how long it was between their arrival and them firing though.
I mean, being rude to a woman while you're arresting her husband?
The other incident seems like a non-story as well. It appeared the older lady had a stroke and died in her home, but they didn't report it as 'suspicious'?
I also don't take issue with the comment you bolded. He figured out the guy was trying for suicide by cop, but he didn't know at the time whether or not the gun was loaded. He couldn't exactly call the other two over for a pow-wow when they arrived to tell them what he knew. So, yes, while tragic, the other two officers made a call based on the information they had available to them. I'd be interested to know how long it was between their arrival and them firing though.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
Bad police officers often ignore proper procedure. Good police officers often, assessing a specific situation, deviate from proper procedure.
Given that we have nothing but news reports, I have no idea if this guy is a really good cop, a really bad cop, or something in between.
I can say with absolute certainty that if a suspect has a gun in his hand pointed toward the ground and refuses to drop it, he has the ability to raise it and shoot you before you can react. That is simple fact.
However, being aware of that fact, it's possible to make a decision to put your own life in jeopardy rather than kill the person if you believe he's not going to shoot you. That may not be proper policy, but it's a decision an individual officer is justified in making.
When you have other officers present who then are put in harms way because of your decision, that makes it a bit more tricky. You may be willing to risk your life, but is it appropriate to risk the life of other officers who may not feel the same way?
I often ignored procedure. During domestic disputes, I would sometimes sit on the steps outside the home with one of the participants sitting beside me while I talked to him. I found that tended to make it easier for the guy to relate to me, defused situations, and made it seem like I was a friendly voice giving advice rather than a police officer in uniform interfering with his rights.
However, it was definitely not a safe position. ( Although I made sure that he was sitting next to me on the side away from my gun) People involved in domestic disputes are volatile and sometimes aggressive, and you want to keep a safe distance away from them, and be in a superior position to react in case they decide to attack.
So quite definitely I was taking a risk and breaking proper procedure. It worked for me; I never had any problem. Maybe I was just lucky. The point is, this was a conscious choice on my part not a lack of understanding about approved procedure.
But if another officer had been injured coming to my assistance if things went sideways, I can see people wondering what the hell could that officer have been thinking? Why wasn't he following basic procedure?
Given that we have nothing but news reports, I have no idea if this guy is a really good cop, a really bad cop, or something in between.
I can say with absolute certainty that if a suspect has a gun in his hand pointed toward the ground and refuses to drop it, he has the ability to raise it and shoot you before you can react. That is simple fact.
However, being aware of that fact, it's possible to make a decision to put your own life in jeopardy rather than kill the person if you believe he's not going to shoot you. That may not be proper policy, but it's a decision an individual officer is justified in making.
When you have other officers present who then are put in harms way because of your decision, that makes it a bit more tricky. You may be willing to risk your life, but is it appropriate to risk the life of other officers who may not feel the same way?
I often ignored procedure. During domestic disputes, I would sometimes sit on the steps outside the home with one of the participants sitting beside me while I talked to him. I found that tended to make it easier for the guy to relate to me, defused situations, and made it seem like I was a friendly voice giving advice rather than a police officer in uniform interfering with his rights.
However, it was definitely not a safe position. ( Although I made sure that he was sitting next to me on the side away from my gun) People involved in domestic disputes are volatile and sometimes aggressive, and you want to keep a safe distance away from them, and be in a superior position to react in case they decide to attack.
So quite definitely I was taking a risk and breaking proper procedure. It worked for me; I never had any problem. Maybe I was just lucky. The point is, this was a conscious choice on my part not a lack of understanding about approved procedure.
But if another officer had been injured coming to my assistance if things went sideways, I can see people wondering what the hell could that officer have been thinking? Why wasn't he following basic procedure?
This is actually kind of a tough one to assess, simply on the basis of this story. The other officers, who did shoot the man, only discovered that his gun wasn't loaded afterward. No sane cop EVER assumes that a gun carried by somebody ISN'T loaded. EVER. As in NEVER EVER ever ever ever.
So this officer actually managed to place two of his colleagues in potential hazard by acting the way he did.
I can see some administrative angst about this.
caw
So this officer actually managed to place two of his colleagues in potential hazard by acting the way he did.
I can see some administrative angst about this.
caw
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,965
- Reaction score
- 433
- Location
- Godalming, England
- Website
- www.will-once.com
Thinking about this some more, there is something about this man's attitude which is niggling me. Nothing conclusive. Just a niggle or two.
He's a probationary cop faced with an armed man. Somehow he decides that this armed man isn't a threat and is trying for suicide by cop. So he doesn't shoot him and tries to talk him down. Later on it transpires that the man's gun wasn't loaded.
Okay, so in this instance he was right. The man with the gun wasn't a threat. But how did he know that? Did he use the force? Intuition? Did his marine training give him powers to tell when someone is definitely a threat or not? He's a rookie cop, so he hardly has years of police experience behind him. Or was he simply lucky? He played a hunch and - this time - it paid off. Would he be so lucky next time?
There's something about his attitude which is ringing alarm bells for me. He seems to have a strong sense of self-belief. He can't see where he did anything wrong in any of the three incidents which led to his contract being terminated.
A strong sense of self-belief can be an asset. It can help us to be decisive, to have the courage of our convictions, to see things through. But self belief can also be a weakness. It can blind us to other points of view. Being decisive can sometimes be a liability if we take a poor decision. This time he "got it right" because he had a hunch that the suspect wasn't dangerous. Next time he might get it wrong because of a hunch that someone is a threat. Or a suspect that he deemed to be safe turned out to be a maniac and many people get hurt.
The police department would have had far more information than we have when deciding whether to confirm his probation or let him go. They will have interviewed him and taken testimony from more experienced cops who worked with him in his probationary period. My guess is that they decided that he wasn't cut out for police work, quite possibly because of this self belief/ hunch trait. The "suicide by cop" incident would have been only one of the bits of evidence that they looked at. The fact that he didn't turn up to an investigative hearing would not have helped.
He's a probationary cop faced with an armed man. Somehow he decides that this armed man isn't a threat and is trying for suicide by cop. So he doesn't shoot him and tries to talk him down. Later on it transpires that the man's gun wasn't loaded.
Okay, so in this instance he was right. The man with the gun wasn't a threat. But how did he know that? Did he use the force? Intuition? Did his marine training give him powers to tell when someone is definitely a threat or not? He's a rookie cop, so he hardly has years of police experience behind him. Or was he simply lucky? He played a hunch and - this time - it paid off. Would he be so lucky next time?
There's something about his attitude which is ringing alarm bells for me. He seems to have a strong sense of self-belief. He can't see where he did anything wrong in any of the three incidents which led to his contract being terminated.
A strong sense of self-belief can be an asset. It can help us to be decisive, to have the courage of our convictions, to see things through. But self belief can also be a weakness. It can blind us to other points of view. Being decisive can sometimes be a liability if we take a poor decision. This time he "got it right" because he had a hunch that the suspect wasn't dangerous. Next time he might get it wrong because of a hunch that someone is a threat. Or a suspect that he deemed to be safe turned out to be a maniac and many people get hurt.
The police department would have had far more information than we have when deciding whether to confirm his probation or let him go. They will have interviewed him and taken testimony from more experienced cops who worked with him in his probationary period. My guess is that they decided that he wasn't cut out for police work, quite possibly because of this self belief/ hunch trait. The "suicide by cop" incident would have been only one of the bits of evidence that they looked at. The fact that he didn't turn up to an investigative hearing would not have helped.
Isn't it a good thing that police try to not shoot people if they don't absolutely have to? 
I think that officers should be trusted to do their job and think for themselves - just because something is "text book" doesn't mean that there isn't another way to do it. If this man was clearly a menace to others besides himself, then of course the police should do what's necessary, but in this instance, wouldn't it be a case for a mediator? Someone who could talk this man down, and deescalate the situation - which was what this policeman was trying to do.
I think that officers should be trusted to do their job and think for themselves - just because something is "text book" doesn't mean that there isn't another way to do it. If this man was clearly a menace to others besides himself, then of course the police should do what's necessary, but in this instance, wouldn't it be a case for a mediator? Someone who could talk this man down, and deescalate the situation - which was what this policeman was trying to do.
The reason why he didn't think he was in danger was because he was applying "Rules of Engagement" used by the Marines. In the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, soldiers were taught to not shoot anyone who was not deemed to be a threat. This was being done because the soldiers were also acting as police officers in those wars and struggled to be seen as the good guys. So if the gun is not being pointed at him, the man with the gun is not a threat. You don't shoot. Period.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,965
- Reaction score
- 433
- Location
- Godalming, England
- Website
- www.will-once.com
Interesting take on the situation. So are we now saying that he was taking the Rules of Engagement which apply in a theatre of war and then using those rules of engagement in a civilian situation? Because that doesn't help his case. Had he forgotten that he was a cop, and not a marine any more?
And do the rules of engagement really say that an armed man isn't a threat if he isn't pointing the gun at you? That's not my understanding.
The bottom line is that we don't know because we weren't there. But based on what I've seen and heard about this case, I can see why the police department decided that he hadn't passed his probation.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
That statement is factually incorrect, and quite frankly, shows a complete ignorance of realities of armed confrontations.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
That's what I was thinking in reading this. It all turned out okay, and the gun wasn't loaded. (No way for him to have known that. It was clearly a suicide by cop attempt.)
The cop in question clearly was going by an instinct that he felt the guy didn't want to harm anyone, but himself. What if that instinct had been wrong?
If the gun had been loaded and he started to fire? It all could have gone very differently and we'd be having a different conversation. Or maybe none at all.
I don't think we have enough facts to really know. If there were other cops there, and their assessment was different, why didn't they shoot if they were in the line of fire?
I don't think it's as clear cut as people say, but having said that, I don't feel like firing him was correct either.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
You ever play cops and robbers as a kid, where you used your hand as a fake gun? Do that with you hand down. Now, as quickly as possible, bring it up and pull your finger back like you're pulling a trigger. How long does that take? About a quarter of a second, right? That's how quickly an threatening situation turns deadly.
Imagine you have your kid and you're walking down the street. You see a man with a gun out, but it's pointed down. Are you comfortable keeping your kid there, or would you see that gun as a threat.
Why would this situation be different?
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
Again, it's always a judgment call.
You see someone with a gun. Where is the gun? Is the guy facing you or facing away? Are you alone or with back-up? Are there civilians around who are in danger? Are there civilians in the line of fire who would be in danger from you? Are you sure it's a real gun?
You have to make a split second decision. If you make the wrong decision, you can die. If you make the wrong decision the other way, a man can die needlessly. (And you can become a national pariah as well.)
The fact is, police confront armed individuals more often than they would like. Anyone holding a firearm is a potential and immediate deadly threat, whether or not the gun is pointed at you.
But despite what some might have you believe, police don't automatically shoot someone holding a gun. They scream "Drop it! Drop the gun!"
Almost all the time, the guy drops the gun. When he doesn't that's when tough decisions have to be made. There is seldom a "right" answer. That's one of the reasons cops are hesitant to criticize other cops. An officer may shoot when you would not have, or held fire when you would not have. Doesn't mean either action was wrong, regardless of the outcome.
As far as firing goes, there's a reason cops have probationary periods. Sometimes it's obvious to everyone a particular individual should not be working as a police officer. Too aggressive without cause. Too timid, endangering others. Too unstable. Multiple instances of bad judgement.
A lot of that is hard to quantify, and even if it's obvious to everyone, hard to prove. How do you "prove" someone has a bad attitude? That's why it's so difficult to get a cop fired once they're on the force, absent egregious misconduct.
Far better to dump the bad probationary cop while it's still possible. And that's not done lightly; if nothing else there's a whole lot of money and training invested. I seriously doubt this officer was fired over this one incident. It may have been more of an excuse for someone they wanted to get rid of anyway than anything else.
You see someone with a gun. Where is the gun? Is the guy facing you or facing away? Are you alone or with back-up? Are there civilians around who are in danger? Are there civilians in the line of fire who would be in danger from you? Are you sure it's a real gun?
You have to make a split second decision. If you make the wrong decision, you can die. If you make the wrong decision the other way, a man can die needlessly. (And you can become a national pariah as well.)
The fact is, police confront armed individuals more often than they would like. Anyone holding a firearm is a potential and immediate deadly threat, whether or not the gun is pointed at you.
But despite what some might have you believe, police don't automatically shoot someone holding a gun. They scream "Drop it! Drop the gun!"
Almost all the time, the guy drops the gun. When he doesn't that's when tough decisions have to be made. There is seldom a "right" answer. That's one of the reasons cops are hesitant to criticize other cops. An officer may shoot when you would not have, or held fire when you would not have. Doesn't mean either action was wrong, regardless of the outcome.
As far as firing goes, there's a reason cops have probationary periods. Sometimes it's obvious to everyone a particular individual should not be working as a police officer. Too aggressive without cause. Too timid, endangering others. Too unstable. Multiple instances of bad judgement.
A lot of that is hard to quantify, and even if it's obvious to everyone, hard to prove. How do you "prove" someone has a bad attitude? That's why it's so difficult to get a cop fired once they're on the force, absent egregious misconduct.
Far better to dump the bad probationary cop while it's still possible. And that's not done lightly; if nothing else there's a whole lot of money and training invested. I seriously doubt this officer was fired over this one incident. It may have been more of an excuse for someone they wanted to get rid of anyway than anything else.