officer who shot cop killer clemmons, likely was being set up for assassination

[paulsby]

this is just my opinion, but the fact pattern is this. the SPD cop happens upon the vehicle on the side of the road WITH THE HOOD UP AND THE ENGINE RUNNING at 2:45 am. this is a screaming beacon to any cop saying - CHECK ME OUT. the cop did. he found the car unoccupied and the plates/vin return as stolen. as he is sitting in his car doing the paperwork to process the recovered stolen, he sees clemmons, who is probably the most recognizable man on earth the pacific NW cops, approaching him from behind. what other POSSIBLE reason would Clemmons have of approaching the police officer , especially based on what happened Sunday, after leaving the stolen car WITH THE HOOD UP AND ENGINE RUNNING as bait. this is just my opinion, but i would bet 10:1 odds on it, if possible. fortunately, the SPD cop wasn't hurt during a brief foot chase around the vehicle and managed to shoot Clemmons . if he hadn't been constantly scanning his rear view mirror and side view mirror as he processed the car, he would (imo) certainly be dead. i strongly doubt this was suicide by cop. suicide by cop are the guys who pull unloaded guns on cops. this guy already shot 4 of them, and i strongly doubt his intention was anything other than to shoot another. he had ample opportunity to surrender, but didn't. my analysis, but i think it;'s sound

here's an excerpt from an article and i give the seattle times props for actually printing the laws regarding deadly force, which are very misunderstood by lay people (for instance most people believe it's always illegal to shoot a fleeing person in the back, not true. that's not what happened here, as far as i know, of course)...


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010393433_webarrest01m.html
The officer was on routine patrol when he saw a car with the hood up and the engine running, police officials said. The officer ran the license plate and determined the car had been stolen, said Seattle Assistant Chief Jim Pugel. The car had been reported stolen from the 4800 block of South Chicago Street about 12:45 a.m., a law enforcement source said. As the officer sat in his patrol car doing paperwork on the stolen car, he noticed a man was approaching the driver's side of the patrol car from behind. The officer immediately recognized the man as matching the description of Clemmons and got out of his patrol car, Pugel said.

"He ordered the person to stop. He ordered the person to show his hands, that person would not show his hands, and also began to run away counterclockwise around the vehicle," Pugel said.

The officer again told him to stop and he didn't comply, Pugel said. As the officer drew his gun, the man "reached into his waist area and moved," the department said in a written statement. The officer then fired several shots at the man, striking him at least twice, the statement said. The man was pronounced dead at the scene. The man collapsed near some bushes on the north side of the street, the statement said. The man has been tentatively identified as Clemmons based on his description and other information, Pugel said. A check of the serial number on the handgun found on Clemmons showed that it belonged to one of the Lakewood police officers, Pugel said. Troyer did not identify the officer whose gun was taken.

According to state law, a police officer is justified in using deadly force when it is necessary "to arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony." In making that decision, the officer must have probable cause to believe the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer, or to others. That might include displaying a weapon, or knowledge the person has committed or threatened violence.

An officer may use deadly force to prevent escape, "where, if feasible, some warning is given."

[villager]

1. not to take the murderer's part, but wouldn't his gun already be drawn

...if that's what he was doing in this particular circumstance?

[paulsby]

3. that's certainly a consideration,

but considering the guy was doing all sorts of psychotic stuff recently (as per numerous account of neighbors, family members, etc.) i'm not sure what to make of it. maybe he was overconfident and wasn't going to draw his gun till he got close to the officer's car, but the officer saw him and jumped out. it is certainly an interesting aspect to consider. i don't have an answer, just speculation

[seabeyond]

5. i can see him not pulling gun in case cop noticed him

but not recognize him. then he could keep walking.

[paulsby]

8. right but

in keeping walking the ONLY reason he had to approach the car at all was to shoot the cop. i mean the cop car was sitting there , and he certainly knew he was a wanted man. maybe he thought the cop wouldn't recognize him. that's a BIT hard to believe, but it was dark, and he was psychotic and he was also injured and probably not thinking totally straight from blood loss or shock.

but the hood up, engine running thang was a PERFECT trap. most cops would think "routine stolen vehicle". heck, i had one of those yesterday.

[benEzra]

21. He'd probably open the car door and begin to exit the car before initiating the draw, I'd think. n/t

[seabeyond]

2. thanks paulsby. hadnt even thought about it like that.

but you are probably right on.

i have been on threads today listening to people mad at the cop that shot. this one.... i am all on the cops side. i cant see how someone would suggest otherwise.

[MadMaddie]

4. Why would they be mad at the cop?

This guy has already proven he was willing to kill, the fact that he was sneaking up on the cop was justification enough. This cop has every right to defend his life.

I guess in some peoples view that we all should just lay down and die without a fight. WTF?

Your analysis is probably pretty close to what happened!

[seabeyond]

7. i felt i was in a topsy turvey world with some posters. i agree with you of course. nt

[paulsby]

6. i must have missed those threads

considering what clemmons had just done, not to mention his extremely violent past history, no cop was going to take ANY chances with the guy.

for example, if i was drawn down on him and he kept advancing on me (i'd be giving him orders to stop and drop etc.) and he got within 25 ft, i would have shot, no hesitation.

and if he turned and ran away, and there was ANY chance he was going to escape i would have shot him too.

both those shootings would have been easily justifiable under WA case law, and federal case law. not even a question.

[seabeyond]

9. agreed. nt

[TexasObserver]

10. No doubt about it.

I don't think there's any chance this perp was giving up.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. That's the way I figured it too.

I wonder if they determined if the vehicle was truly disabled in any way. Or was it in perfect running order?

THAT would cinch it.

Even if the car wasn't an intentional set-up, approaching the cop from behind could have only had one outcome and Clemmons HAD to know that.

[paulsby]

12. probably the biggest gut check moment

of the guy's career. you look in your rear view mirror and clemmons is approaching you.

put yourself in THAT guy's mind.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. I gotta think his training kicked in the second he realized it was Clemmons.

Not to mention the fight or flight instinct.

To me, a gut check would be deciding whether to chase the guy down a dark alley - maybe we think of the term differently. I'll defer to your opinion on that.

Me? I would have been happy not to pull a Fredo and drop my weapon while exiting the car and end up on a slab.

Anyway. Sorry for your loss - I know this must have hit close to home for you.

[paulsby]

17. i appreciate that

it sucks. but we are much happier today than we were when this guy was still out there.

i'm calling it a gut check, just because i can guarantee you that guy's stomach was up to his lower cranium when he saw clemons approaching. also, as a firearms instructor, that's a scenario i've never seen taught or practiced. exiting your car as an armed killer approaches. we do building approaches, and all sorts of other stuff, but this is different.

i see what you mean about the dark alley thang, though.

[KT2000]

13. I believe that was the case

he wanted to kill the cop and take his car.
The owner of the car said it was an unreliable car that they only used for short trips.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. I'm convinced that that's exactly what was happening

The cop was alert, and saved his own life in the bargain.

[Princess Turandot]

16. Another possibility is that if the car was actually having problems, he was hoping another driver..

would stop, so he could relieve he or she of their working car. It makes no sense whatsoever to me that someone trying to evade capture would remain for any time at all in the vicinity of a conked out car (which he had previously stolen), much less that he would have opened the hood to check out the engine - wtf?- if the car had stopped running properly.

[Hekate]

18. Thanks for the info, Paulsby. I'm glad this officer is okay, and you too....

Condolences to you and all your brother officers on the terrible loss of the four who were ambushed.

Hekate

[paulsby]

20. thanks nt

[ConsAreLiars]

19. FWIW, that was my immediate hunch when I first saw the news report.

I suspect that the cop was functioning in a very heightened mode of "situational awareness," and saw this odd situation as having the potential for being bait. He wasn't out checking for school zone speeders on a slow day. It is certain that every cop in the region was aware that there was someone gunning for them.

[laughingliberal]

22. I'm completely in agreement with the actions of this officer

Clemmons represents the precise definition of "suspect should be considered armed and dangerous."