Hero or Felon? Police Officer Charged in Shooting That Won Him a Medal of Valor

Jeremy Durocher via Portsmouth’s Sheriff’s Office

In October of 2017, Officer Jeremy David Durocher of Portsmouth, Virginia, was named Officer of the Month for shooting an armed burglary suspect who was fleeing the scene of a break-in. He also received a medal of valor from his department.

“In recognition for your heroic response,” wrote Police Chief Tonya Chapman in the medal of valor commendation. “You took necessary steps to stop the threat that this suspect posed to the public and to your fellow officers at great personal risk.”

Now, Durocher is being prosecuted for felony offenses (aggravated malicious wounding and use of firearm in commission of a felony) for that very same shooting. The indictment alleges that Durocher unlawfully and maliciously intended to “maim, disfigure, disable, or kill” the now 19-year-old suspect, Deontrace Ward.

Below is the relevant body camera footage, in which you can hear Durocher saying, “He has a gun! He has a gun!” and “He came out the window, had a gun pointed at me!”

Following the shooting, investigators found a handgun on Ward’s person, but it was inside the bottom of his right pant leg. Ward was also in possession of about $1,500 worth of stolen jewelry and other property from the home he had been caught burglarizing while the homeowners were at Sunday church services.

Initially, Ward was charged with assault of a law enforcement officer, brandishing a firearm and destruction of property, but those three charges were dropped as part of the plea bargain when Ward pled guilty to armed burglary, grand larceny, conspiracy to commit armed burglary, conspiracy to commit larceny and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Ward received a 31-year prison sentence, but 25 of those years have been suspended. Now, he’s serving six years and has ten years of supervised probation ahead of him.

Ward and his lawyer think Durocher didn’t have the right to shoot him. As quoted by the Virginian-Pilot:

“I was just pretty much trying to get away. Showing no aggression,” said Ward, who still has a bullet in his abdomen. “I feel he shot for no reason. […] if I’m just running away, I shouldn’t get shot.”

Deontrace Ward via Hampton Roads Regional Jail

Durocher’s lawyer, Nicholas Renninger, disagrees, saying:

“[The shooting was] absolutely justified, no reservation. […] The suspect was armed, had burglarized a home and was clearly a danger and a threat in that regard. I have no qualms whatsoever in saying that my client’s actions in protecting himself and those around him were justified.”

This case will be a test of the fleeing felon rule, which permits the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspected felon if the “officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.”

You make the call: good shoot or bad shoot?

comments

  1. avatar MrBob says:

    Gee, ya think maybe he shoved it down his pants when he took off running?
    Too bad he didn’t shoot his winkie off.

    1. avatar JoeVK says:

      At 1:15 in the video, you can hear Durocher say “he had a gun in his waistband”. Given his baggy and loose fitting Jean’s hanging off his ass, the gun could have easily slid down into his pant leg while running and jumping fences.

      1. avatar Endlesspath says:

        Agree with you completely JoeVK! That is exactly what I see this as: perp didn’t want to get shot, didn’t want to toss the gun – so he put the gun at his waistline/pants and it slid down to his leg as he tried to take off running.

  2. avatar SupportTheBlue says:

    What a bunch of nonsense
    It’s like religious persecution

  3. avatar Mark N. says:

    Just exactly where was it that the officer saw the guy coming out a window? It looks to me that he first sees him in the yard when the cop came around the corner of the building,

    1. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

      Mark,

      In addition to your observation, I noticed the the first two shots the officer fired was into an area with tall vegetation and a wooden fence in back of the vegetation. Based on the view from the officer’s body cam, I doubt he could either see or have any idea what was on the other side of the vegetation and behind the fence he shot towards.

      Bottom line – if you can’t see what is in back of your taget, you should not be shooting.

      1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

        The body cam is likely 18-24″ below the officers line-of-sight, and it has a very distorting wide-angle lens. We would need additional footage with a comparable perspective and an eyesight-proportional lens to form any kind of educated opinion on what the officer could or could not see.

  4. avatar Joel says:

    Admittedly I haven’t watched the video but my opinion is if someone is caught in the act of stealing $1,500 worth of anything, and gets shot in the process than it was a good shoot. Being a career criminal should be a high risk profession.

    On the flip side of that coin, I think anyone who carries a gun on a regular basis should only pull the trigger if he/she believes beyond reasonable doubt that there is no better alternative. A responsible carrier uses their weapon only as a last resort.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      The shooting happens about 13 seconds into the body cam footage. He shoots 4 times at the fleeing kid because he saw a gun on him.

      It’s one of those situations where a cop will shoot on sight of a firearm regardless of the circumstance. Because he is a criminal, and has a gun, they will use that as all the justification they need. If you allow that, one day it might be you that gets shot at a traffic stop because you carry a gun.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Hey look, Amy Schumer is drunk and posting again.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          LMFAO.

          Good one, old man.

          I had to go look up who Amy Schumer is. Now I know what kind of women you are into.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Sure, sure you had to.

      2. avatar B.D. says:

        You are a moron.

  5. avatar CZJay says:

    I find it funny how the cops think he is so dreamy and awesome. Can’t wait to see how the public think.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Get real… you trying to equate someone carrying who tells a police officer for their safety and well being that they are carrying with a criminal running from the cops is laughable… actually, no, it’s not. It’s fucken sad.

      The public? Since when has the LIBERAL MAJORITY ever sided with a police shooting. The man could have had a knife at the officers throat and they would question why he didn’t grab the knife instead.

      Ya know what, just fuck off. You clearly don’t belong here. Go back to facebook, troll. All you do is post negative, and stupid shit.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Yeah, it very sad a lawful carrier was shot 7 times in front of a kid because he was getting his license as the cop ordered him to. The man even told the cop he was carrying, thinking that would help keep him safe. He didn’t run or threaten anyone. He was shot because he had a gun and the cop thought he was a criminal. They eventually cleared that cop any wrong doing, which doesn’t bring back the dead guy.

        A cop shooting someone who is fleeing without violence is morally wrong and would get a non government worker sent to prison for a very long time if they did so.

        When I say the public I mean the jury. You know they are part of the public?

        At least “liberals” are not calling for cops to shoot people dead in the streets like animals instead of using due process. When do Republicans care about due process of law? When one of their neo con judges is interviewing for the supreme court?

        You are no different than those two faced Democrats. Are you one of those national socialist boot lickers or an “anarchist” who wants survival of the fittest?

        1. avatar LOL GOP says:

          Reasonable people know you’re right, CZJay. Just don’t expect any validation from the hateful and unreasonable cowards that pollute this website.

        2. avatar Aleric says:

          No CZ, Liberals are calling for the banning of all guns and the cops to not shoot the poor minority DNC voters. If Felons were able to vote then it would increase the Leftist base by about 20% but then you found a way around that you simply import millions of Mexican criminals to take there place. The officer in the video told the guy SEVERAL TIMES not to move or go for his gun and the guy didn’t listen. How many times have cops been shot by people in cars on traffic stops?? A lot. So you take your feigned indignation, you don’t care about that person anymore than your POS buddy LOL who is a known PAID TROLL.

  6. avatar Kahlil says:

    The way the cops point with their guns is disturbing. What is also disturbing is the quote from the genius, “I feel he shot for no reason. […] if I’m just running away, I shouldn’t get shot.” Something else that disturbs me is how tatted up cops are these days. I have no issues with tattoos overall but they don’t scream respect or public service, esp. with the current state of politics and race issues.

    Slowing down the video footage doesn’t seem to show that the perp pointed at the cop or exactly where he came from, only that he was running like he was trying to avoid arrest for a crime.

    1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

      Not only tatted up like some pretend Maori warrior but many are now sporting the Hitler Youth haircut. Never thought I’d see that come back.

      1. avatar Oldshooter says:

        What does a Hitler Youth haircut look like?

        1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

          Google is your friend.

    2. avatar B.D. says:

      slowing down the video footage?

      lol… you are one of those…

      Maybe you are right. They should have given him the opportunity to evade even further and then hide, so that he can have time to grab his gun and shoot the first officer who finds him. Doesn’t matter if it’s a week from the incident, or 10 minutes in the woods behind the neighborhood. Right?

      Commit armed burglary inside a personal residence + evade police = win stupid prize.

      What more needs to be slowed down for you?

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Better 1000 dead cops than one citizen harmed by coward cops.

        This was a bad shoot and the cop should die in prison.

        Of course his buddy thugs are going to give him an award. They are thugs, it is what they do.

        1. avatar FCM says:

          Lolol Chris Mallory is such a hero!! Get fucked you sack of shit. You’re probably a fat mouth breathing neck bearded douchebag busting out often seams of your 5.11 pants thinking you’re a use of force expert because of shit you read on the internet.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        How about a convicted felon who is armed and committing a burglary when he is 18? WTF is that?

      3. avatar kahlil says:

        What I left unsaid is that there is likely more we may not have seen, the video footage available to us is limited. Based on the tats, the perp running (shot in back?), and no *apparent video* evidence of gun or gun being pointed at cop there is a lot left to be desired. The kid was a criminal and needed to be stopped. I am not going to shed a tear that he was shot during his evasion and capture, but I also am not happy he was shot nor am I going to elevate the cop to some level of sainthood in this matter either. Since NONE of us where there we are all going on what we’ve been presented and are just armchair lawyers and pundits in this matter.

  7. avatar VicRattlehead says:

    Absolutely no sympathy for a dirty, worthless thief, especially an ARMED, dirty, worthless thief. He should be thanking that officer for having the restraint to not mag-dump him to ovlivion, not wasting his time and the departments money with an idiotic lawsuit.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Because sending four bullets through the air in a neighborhood is so safe and couldn’t possibly lead to a lawsuit one day.

      Shoot every damn suspect especially if he be black. Carry ARs with 100 round mags to make sure the job is done. Teach those boys a lesson, you hear?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Your liberal is showing. Hoping for a blue wave today?

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          You are probably more “liberal” than I am.

          You sound like some white Californian male who thinks he isn’t libtarded like those minorities. I really hope you are not what you sound like. If you are, how does it feel to be surrounded by a sea of blue? Maybe if you want to find a way to truly win you don’t start by shooting yourself in the foot first.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Czjay, You shooting yourself in the dick would be a great way to improve this comments section.

      2. avatar B.D. says:

        The only one who needs to learn a lesson, is you.

        But whatever… it’s the internet, be a douchebag cuz your opinion gets shut down in person.

  8. avatar Michael says:

    If he goes up against a neo-lib/progressive type judge, his sleeve in the video might or might not work against him. That’s not right, it’s just how it is. I hope he gets excellent legal representation, he’s gonna need it. -30-

    1. avatar A O says:

      It might or might not work? What other options are you seeing, genius?

      1. avatar Michael says:

        Like the old judge said to the new judge, “…be just, and if you can’t be just, be arbitrary…” If it’s in any way a close call, leave room in the decision for judicial review and lawful reversal on appeal. “Let nothing stick to these Teflon® robes.” -30-

  9. avatar Kyle says:

    As I’ve said, ad nauseam, the “justifiable shooting laws” need to be drastically widened. “defense of property”, “loss of most civil rights while in commission of a crime”. Until we radically reconfigure these laws, these incidents are simply going to keep happening.

    Being shot at is no excuse to shoot back if they person can manage to fall in to exactly the right position so as to have the bullets hit at a litigiously correct spot.

    These arguments only work because we’ve allowed our legal system to defend the criminal at the expense of justice herself.

    She’s no longer just blind, she’s stupid too.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Don’t forget that protection of alleged criminals has been protected by the US Constitution since 1787. Things like presumption of evidence, right to remain silent, right to be tried by a jury of our peers, right to counsel, right to confront witnesses. “It is better that 9 guilty men should go free rather than that an innocent man should suffer unjustly.” (Or something like that.)

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Yea… it’s fucken dumb and outdated. They didn’t wear body cams back then… Not to mention, the crime rate was just a little bit different. Remember war? Let’s line up in straight lines and trade shots to see what side is forced to run first. Don’t forget your wig.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          If you don’t care for the protections our Founding Fathers left us, move. I am sure there is some diverse hellhole you would find more appealing.

  10. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    That’s not a good clean shoot. Popped him in the back as he ran away. This site is full of bad writers and commenters who think getting shot to death is an appropriate punishment for any and all crime.

    I don’t care for the kid at all, it’s about the police that shoot first ask questions later.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I am okay with the victim defending their property with lethal force if necessary. I am not a fan of government getting the protected privilege of being vigilantes while the victimized have to take it from both ends.

      vigilante

      done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.

      Police are part of the justice system, they are not the justice system. If we are going to allow a single person to hand out lethal justice when they want, it should be the victim.

      Democrats give no shits about due process when it comes to people they don’t like. Republicans do the same when it comes to situations like this. Democrats will ruin your life, Republicans will take it.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Ah, a closet anarchist I see. Allowing the people to take the law into their own hands is the first step on a steep slope to societal collapse.

        1. If government agents fail to obey the law, and other govt agents fail to indict/prosecute them, or if they do yet other govt agents fail to convict/punish them, then it is all those govt agents who are living in their own exclusive de facto and de jure anarchy. What’s a non-govt agent private citizen to do? Do you honestly want them to obey the laws imposed on them by people who don’t recognize that the laws apply to themselves, too?

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Running away or running to cover?

      Many have trained to due the latter. Can you tell one from the other? Can you tell and react before they can fire? Doubt it.

      Maybe you should’t be an armed burglar. If you are, maybe you should surrender upon being found by police and not depend on them being able to tell, at that moment, whether you are planning to shot them or not.

      1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

        Exactly.
        Because he was in possession of a deadly weapon, that cop would have been a fool to assume he wouldn’t use it. The fact that he was running away is irrelevant because it’s not unreasonable at all to assume he was running to a more strategic location.

        Without the gun this would have been 100% a bad shoot. I still wouldn’t feel much in the line of pity for him but I don’t believe burglary warrants death.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          Shhh…. You just popped CZJay’s bubble…

        2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          Americans have the right to be armed. Having a weapon should not give government employees the privilege to shoot you. There was no threat and the cop should not have even had his weapon out of his holster.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Chris, if you believe that, you can be the cop, I sure won’t. I’d rather go home tonite.

  11. avatar American Patriot says:

    If he was a white kid you wouldn’t hear a damn thing about this, but a poor Oppressed black criminal & it’s all over.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Remember all the talk about the guy who was shot while crawling in a hotel?

      A lot of crime is committed by black youth. So there is a large likelihood it’s going to be a black person that gets shots and is in the news.

      What’s wrong is wrong regardless of the skin color it happens to. Just don’t tell that to black lives only matter people.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        One comment you are a Black Panther hating on whitey and guessing where they live and the other you are admitting that affirmative action is racism?

        You are one confused fucken idiot.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          You telling me to pick a side? Sorry, man, I have my own principles. Sometimes I’m on your side, sometimes I’m on their side, it depends on the topic. I don’t toe the line of either party. I am an American, not a Republican or Democrat. I know that sounds like like magic to some people.

  12. avatar b725 says:

    The Commonwealth’s Attorney for Portsmouth is emulating the District Attorney in Baltimore. She can get re-elected by prosecuting police officers. This is the second one, the first being convicted even thought witnesses all testified the officer had no choice. Portsmouth has become the Virginia version of Baltimore/Detroit/Chicago. I work with liberal attorney’s, who even they think this is wrong. To understand who the attorney is, and what she’s about here is a link.

    Btw the original video is not posted anymore, the news doesn’t show how disgusting the video is, with her kids in it .

    https://wtkr.com/2018/09/18/booty-poppin-homemade-rap-video-shows-portsmouths-commonwealth-attorney-dancing-with-family/

    1. avatar Nemesis-Black says:

      It’s true…Stephanie Morales is the reason Portsmouth will never get better while she is there. She gives the criminals slap on wrist plea deals and will run over a cop with a bus then back over them if she thinks she can. I mean how can you charge not this cop but Stephen Rankin with 1st degree premeditated murder for his shooting of Chapman when Chapman was attacking him and witnesses agreed that’s how it went down. While I don’t work for Portsmouth PD I did do Law Enforcement in that area and did have Portsmouth as one of my areas I covered. Once that charge came out I stopped being proactive in that city and many others did the same. It truly is the Virginia Baltimore in that cops hands are tied and crime is out of control

  13. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    So just robbery, illegal possession of a firearm and resisting arrest. This guy gets a plea deal? Ridiculous, he should be rotting the whole 32 year stint. I find this shooting justified…

  14. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Good shoot. Too bad it didn’t save the tax payers any money. This loser will be back on the streets robbing your homes shortly.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Not before he gets training from his homies to be a better criminal… I mean, the chance to be rehabilitated. Yea… that’s what I meant…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I bet they have to give him his gun back, right?

  15. avatar Yarbles says:

    Better shooting would have put this worthless idiot away for good at no further cost to taxpayers.

  16. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    The officer first encounters the suspect at about :18. I cannot tell from the video, but if the suspect had a firearm out at this point, good shoot

    if not…..i’m not saying i’m worked up over it but …probably not necessary

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    The cop shot an armed burglar? He deserves a promotion.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      /end of comment section.

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    So shooting an armed felon caught in the act of burglary is a crime?!? Who knew? They gave that Van Dyke cop 2nd degree murder after he shot a young criminal in the act of committing property crimes. I’m OK with both shooting’s but I do think THIS cop is screwed…

  19. avatar DaveL says:

    Seems like a pretty clear-cut application of the Fleeing Felon Rule.

  20. avatar rosignol says:

    Running does not make the situation a trial-by-footrace.

    The only problem I see with the shoot is the quality of the marksmanship. If you’re committing armed burglary, the risk of getting shot is a part of your chosen profession.

  21. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    The shots fired at the first encounter, at the fence, I’m OK with. I didn’t see a gun, but there was one as was later determined. If the cop said he saw it at that point, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and allow those shots. That suspect could easily have fired through the fence, through the bushes, at that initial encounter. Anyone who just committed burglary and is now committing felony evasion is someone I would not trust not to fire on the police.

    …..sound of the other shoe dropping……

    The shots the cops subsequently fired over the fence as the suspect was obviously fleeing, and then on the ground facing away from the cop were illegal as Hell. Charge him for those shots. Sorry, buddy, heat of the moment overtook you, but that’s the job.

  22. avatar Timothy K. Toroian says:

    I was pretty much trying to get away. I’m a thief but you can’t hurt me? Crap!! He’s like the guy in Philly several years ago who claimed self-defense for shooting at a cop because the cop was “chasing” him. His lawyer even got chastised for that one. How much hell would he have caught if the clown had gotten away?

  23. avatar Enough with the nonsense says:

    Bad shoot. Had he killed the criminal we wouldn’t be having his discussion nor be wasting dollars or sense on this issue. More training for critical hits please!

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Perhaps we need a bigger caliber!

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        More likely we need to start disarming cops.
        Citizens should be armed, not government employees.

  24. avatar Xaun Loc says:

    From what is presented here, I see at least some wrongness on both sides. As others have pointed out, the bodycam footage doesn’t show the perp having a gun or pointing it at the officer, but the footage doesn’t give us a clear view of what happened. What I can say is that any non-LEO who fired in that situation would have been charged with attempted murder in most jurisdictions. The officer was clearly not shooting in response to any immediate threat or danger. The whole basis for this being a ‘good shoot’ is the so-called Fleeing Felon rule and I have to say that I have mixed feelings about the Fleeing Felon rule, especially in light of some jurisdictions that have made running from the police a felony.

    The one thing I will say with no hesitation is that his Medal of Valor appears to be total BS — if his actions in that case merited a Medal of Valor then every officer on the department should be issued the same medal upon completion of their first response to any call.

  25. avatar Sam I Am says:

    All these sorts of incidents would just about virtually disappear if there were no criminal laws. It is the law that makes people criminals, not the people (well…except for the people making laws). Let “the people” enforce responsibility for personal choices. Take something from someone, fine. But the victim is permitted to hunt you down and exact restoration or reimbursement. (BTW, “and eye for an eye” is a limit, not a permission for revenge/vendetta).

    As the man said, “An armed society is a polite society”.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      What if someone is too weak to hunt down those who have wronged them?
      Either you believe in the Individual, or you don’t. You don’t. You believe in the anarchy of might makes right. I believe in human rights and that (legitimate) governments are formed to protect them via application of the rule of law.

      That’s not to say that government alone is charged with your sole defense, denying you your human right to self-defense, but rather that government should provide a threshold of defense for those who cannot defend themselves.

  26. avatar Darkman says:

    Jury Nullification…Thug criminals deserve what they get. Doesn’t matter if it’s by a cop or a civie. It’s way past time to rid the nation of these low life thugs. We waste far to much money on criminals as it is. Money that should be spent on more worthwhile needs. Like schools,veterans and security for law abiding citizens. If you don’t want to get shot. Don’t be a thug criminal. Stop stealing,drug dealing and terrorizing law abiding folks and their neighborhoods. I don’t care who this offends. So save your breath and try being responsible for once in your life. Good men understand the difference between good and evil. All evil needs to win is for good men to stand aside and do nothing to stop it. Keep Your Powder Dry…Now does the editor of this site have the courage to let these comments be posted…Or are they the one that stands aside…

  27. avatar AndyinMA says:

    Only 6 years for those convictions, including felon in possession of a gun? What do the libs think of that? I guess we can’t punish the person, it’s the gun that is bad.

  28. avatar Hannibal says:

    This case isn’t testing the fleeing felon rule. The fleeing felon rule allowed police to shoot fleeing felons. That was eliminated decades ago in Tennessee v. Garner.

    The rule in this case is the same one in every other deadly force case: did the suspect pose an exigent\immediate threat of great bodily harm.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      You can easily argue that he was strategically maneuvering to achieve the advantage over the officer. Why else would you run? Evading is giving yourself the opportunity to have the upper hand next time.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Yes he did. And I hope a felon twice his size poses great bodily harm in his cell late at night when the moon is full.

  29. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

    Would a common citizen have gotten away with that shoot? If yes, then good shoot. If no, then bad shoot, and if you think otherwise, perhaps we should change the laws.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Would a common citizen be forced to wear a body cam?

      1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

        Immaterial.

        1. not all cops wear body cams. However, if you want me to wear a body cam while at work I don’t care. My employer can monitor my movements with office and plant cameras and my internet and computer activity can be monitored and recalled at any time. So while you are on “company time” whether at a private employer or a public employer you should always be considered under surveillance.
        2. oddly enough some cops who do wear body cams seem to have theirs malfunction during critical times
        3. oddly enough some cops’ dash cams seem to malfunction during critical times

        My point is the same: the standard is supposed to be identical, isn’t it? I feared for my life or the life of another (discounting sexual assault). If a regular citizen could have gotten away with this, then so should a cop.

        Or are you stating that cops have extra-legal authority?

        1. avatar Gralnok says:

          ^This. Very good argument. While I would love to shoot some punk for burglarizing a house, I’m not sure it would be a legal shot.

  30. avatar Warlocc says:

    Yes, the dude’s a criminal. No, I don’t feel sorry for him. Getting shot while committing crime… Doesn’t sound like a bad thing.

    That said, this cop is shooting (and missing) at a fleeing individual in a residential neighborhood. Those bullets don’t magically just vanish ’cause they missed, they’re gonna keep going and hit something. Like our homes and families. Any of us “normal people” would already be in prison for murder.

    This one’s a bad shoot.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      Murder?

      Did you miss the part where the perp survived being shot?

  31. avatar Gralnok says:

    Ideally, you should be able to demand a criminal stop running and get on the ground, before detaining him. In reality, plenty of young thugs make a mockery of armed law enforcement (not that they need the help) or armed civilians by turning around and either saying they are unarmed and we can’t shoot them, or just running anyway. While I am not always a friend of the police, I’m on their side in this case. How are you supposed to make them stop? Maybe shooting to wound, like at a foot, would be good. Shooting at the feet would certainly stop a fleeing criminal, if not from a direct hit, than from shrapnel, and with minimal risk to bystanders.

    Of course, I would still have a strong shovel and a good dump site in mind, just in case. Sadly, the justice system simply isn’t reliable anymore.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      “How are you supposed to make them stop? ”

      I don’t know, maybe lay off the steroids and do enough cardio to be able to chase the suspect down?
      And remember that citizens have the right to be armed, cops carry as a privilege.

      1. avatar Gralnok says:

        You have failed to answer the question. Please insert intelligence and try your reply again.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Once you have chased them down and discovered a very nice 6″ blade buried in your chest, what should you do now, cardio or weights?

  32. avatar DaveP. says:

    On the gripping hand…
    1- The cop would have gotten an award of some kind anyway. This is essentially standard practice for police officers involved in bad-news events. It’s a way for the police union or department to game the system if a civil suit comes around. “Our officer couldn’t be at fault-why, he won the Medal of Honor!” Remember, the police officer who handed Jeffrey Dahmer’s victim BACK to him was given “Cop of the Year” that year.

    And…
    2- The victim’s family would have sued anyway, and the (politically minded) DA would have fished for charges anyway. Police departments have deep pockets and (for the DA) there are no downsides to firming up your minority support by attacking the police.

    Short version: Saying that the officer who did the shoot was given an award… AND saying that the DA is fishing for charges… is like saying that if you drop a brick it will hit the ground.

  33. avatar Greg says:

    Burn him F the blue line!

  34. avatar GS650G says:

    As bad as it is for the cop its worse for the citizens. Not only will the ceiminal be out in time for supper but it emboldened other dirtbag and give ammo to the lawyers.
    I bet it’s tough to recruit cops. Look at the rules and oversight they have . Too bad criminals don’t have any.

    I’ll wait over here for the cop haters to chime in.

  35. avatar Dave says:

    I have my own opinions about this, which I will keep to myself, as I don’t know all the details nor does it seem that this is all the video. I don’t like to judge based on watching a few minutes of body cam footage.

    The one comment I do have is about the Sgt. pulling up and immediately taking the officer’s gun. I realize the reason to do so at some point but I don’t think it was necessary at that moment.

    Big thumbs up to the officer who came up and turned over his own gun to the officer. Be safe!

  36. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    The real news of course is that the perps 31 year sentence has had 25 years lopped off it so he can be back out in the community sooner & can carry on with his robbing career. Yay for the ‘justice’ system! It looks like Portsmouth VA is doing it’s d*amndest to be just like Chicago.

  37. avatar 22winmag says:

    TURKEY SHOOT

    I only shoot at people who shoot at me.

  38. avatar BB says:

    I don’t agree with this at all. Was this guy a criminal, yes. Did he have a gun, yes. Could he have been a threat to someone, possibly. Was he a threat at the moment he was shot, absolutely not. Criminal or not, if you shoot someone in the back, that is not an active threat to someone AT the moment you shoot them, it is nothing but cowardice. There’s a reason why every police department has physical fitness standards, to make sure every officer is fit enough to apprehend suspects should they flee or resist. There’s a reason why 99% of departments issue taser’s to every officer. To administer compliance should the suspect feel the need to not comply with lawful orders. I see people talking about this being 14 seconds in to the chase and the suspect could have pointed a gun at him. If that was the case, why did the officer not fire at him 14 seconds earlier? Why chase him more than 100 yards and then shoot? Officers like this and departments that hand out medals of valor commending their actions are the reason why all cops get bad names.

    Just my 2 cents

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Takes about 1/2 second to turn and fire a shot which might hit you between the eyes. If I was not going to shoot at him, I would be diving for cover, piss on you and trying to catch an armed punk while being “nice”. I said, STOP! Bang.

  39. avatar rt66paul says:

    How about a law where if a gun is out of holster, brandished or used in a crime, even to intimidate, there is NO plea bargaining. Typically, they take the gun charge off the table with a plea bargain. The original purpose of these laws was to lock up people who use firearms in crime – this isn’t a shoplifter, it is a violent felon.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Better idea, forget the “ifs”, no plea bargains, if prisons are too full to hold everybody, shoot the overage dead on the spot, make the survivors dig the graves.

      1. avatar John Galt says:

        Absolutely. America was a better place when felons were killed in the commision of their crimes.

        Also…….if a citizen shot a fleeing suspect in the back they would be charged with murder……..instead of the better option of giving them an award and replacing their expended ammo.

  40. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    ” . . .if I’m just running away, I shouldn’t get shot.”

    A new rule has emerged out of the ‘hood and is now gaining traction within the legal system.

  41. avatar raptor jesus says:

    Shouldn’t have stopped shooting.

  42. avatar craig says:

    So if a normal citizen shot a fleeing criminal in the back, what would the charges be…

  43. avatar John Galt says:

    If he had been a better shot this would not have been a problem.

  44. avatar K says:

    You 4th amendment absolutists don’t realize your flawed logic appeals to the progressive intention of anarchotyranny. When your being charged for murder for shooting some poor urban youth who broke into your home and is raping your family, just remember you helped pave the way for that flawed logic

  45. avatar joefoam says:

    I could go both ways on this one. What if there was a dead body on the floor inside the house? I would certainly want the cop to stop the thug from possibly killing more. What did the thief expect, harsh language? If he were able to elude the cop in the chase he’s the clear winner. Kind of like the car chases made so popular on TV. Criminals expose all the other motorists to real danger so they can evade the law. If they can get away they live to repeat the lawless behavior. If there are no consequences, the behavior will continue.

  46. avatar Bruce Barber says:

    Sad. Who’s bringing the charges? To be a criminal felony prosecution………somebody from the prosecutor’s office has to be willing to pursue the charges…………correct? Just because the guy has a lawyer….doesn’t mean the state will press any criminal charges. Civil can be filled by anyone…….but a criminal proceeding has to have someone in the criminal justice system pursuing the charges.
    What a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money. The public should be all over the prosecutors office about this.

  47. “or to others”. shooting justified. if he got away, who knows that in the future he would have shot someone, maybe while robbing the next house when the owner catches him, as written that phrase does not say that the “others” have to be there on that scene. and if he was armed, he had intent. and he might have even pulled it when he was ordered to surrender and drop to his knees. the officer saved someone, either at that time or in the near future. shooting justified. don’t rob houses, and if you have no intent to shoot anyone while committing a crime, don’t rob houses while armed with a gun.

  48. avatar Michael says:

    What a wide range of viewpoints. Free speech, baby! This is what we CANNOT allow the communists to destroy.
    Only in AMERICA, I love it. -30-

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email