2 possible burglars shot by Pensacola police

2seaoat wrote:http://www.pnj.com/article/20121206/NEWS01/121206006/Two-burglary-suspects-shot-after-fleeing-police-

I read the comments to the article. Interesting. I need more facts and I am certainly not in a position to make any judgment from the facts reported by the PNJ......nothing new there......but something is not sitting right with me on this incident. I hope more information and facts become available.

Sal wrote:Cops don't shoot tires out.

When they pull their firearms they shoot to kill.

2seaoat wrote:I want to ask just this question......If you were an 18 year old burglar......would you use your vehicle to try to hit a police officer if you had been involved in any criminal activity, or would be trying to become a rabbit? I am pleased as punch that a possible burglar was caught in the alleged act, I am concerned with the idea that a fleeing vehicle can become a weapon which in and of itself allows an officer to fire a weapon into that vehicle. Any LEO understand what I am saying, and it is far too early to cast dispersions on anybody.......I simply have seen the car as a weapon once too often, where after a trial.......well......we must wait for more information.

In one business I owned we were burglarized four times in a year, and would have 14 year olds coming into the business asking to use our restroom and casing out the business. They would fire off the damn fire extinguishers and then you could see the size of the footprints.....kids.....lost computers, but worse was the dumbasz broke a hundred year old leaded glass window in the business which was irreplaceable.....I have no love loss for burglars.......but when using a firearm, and shooting a human being......I want to make sure the officer's were threatened, or felt that a member of the public was threatened before they resorted to deadly force....thats all.....I will celebrate with jonimaroni when we know that these individuals clearly threatened the officers, and were in fact involved in an active burglary........in due time we will know the facts.

riceme wrote:As much as I am in favor of getting baddies such as these off the streets, I find myself inclined to agree with you, SO.

Quoted from above linked article:

“Instead of listening to the officers they sped toward the officers," Simmons said. "The officers pulled their guns and they fired at the vehicle which was coming toward them.”

I am admittedly no expert in such matters, but the above statement brings some questions to mind:

1/ Why would they not shoot the tires out?? It stands to reason that shooting the tires out would be more effective in either bringing the vehicle to a halt or slowing it down to the point that the officers could give non high-speed chase and force the vehicle off the road in a safe manner and place. Am I wrong or missing something here??

2/ The statement above implies -- in fact, it outright states -- that the officers fired upon the vehicle while it was moving toward the officers. I have trouble reconciling how one of the baddies could have been shot in the leg by a forward shot toward the oncoming vehicle. Again, am I missing something or can someone here with expertise in such matters explain to me how this scenario could play-out as quoted above?

GR, you may be far better informed and have some expertise here. Maybe you could address my above concerns and questions.

All of that being said, I fully support LEOs doing what is necessary and appropriate to protect themselves and the communities they serve in such situations. But, those couple of questions are troubling me given information in the article.

Lurch wrote:These same punks went through my brothers truck last week..
His neighbor has it on a surveillance video and the FDLE will be there in the morning to look at it..

2seaoat wrote:This is the second time Roedel has been in an officer-involved shooting in recent years, though he was cleared of any wrongdoing during the previous incident.

In the last case, Roedel shot Anthony Smith seven times in November 2010 after Roedel approached Smith’s vehicle thinking it might be connected to a drive-by killing that happened 30 minutes earlier. Smith hid behind a tree and pointed a handgun at Roedel, investigators said.

Police shoot fleeing burglary suspects Headline of article


Lots of innuendo by the PNJ.............two obvious bullet holes in the front window.....easy to determine if exit or entry shots.....entry shots....no problem......exit shots......potential problems.

2seaoat wrote:Well, I for one, am glad Officer Roedel survived two dangerous gun-related situations. He did his job.

I hope you are correct in your conclusion, but I think a proper way to have said what you said would be that he survived two dangerous incidents....a gun related incident, and a vehicle incident. I do not believe any of the facts justify calling the second incident a "gun" incident unless your meaning is that Roedel is the one creating the danger......because he is the only one who used a gun in both incidents....and that certainly does not appear to be your meaning.

2seaoat wrote:I believe the PNJ put a great deal of innuendo in the article headline and talking about one of the officers previous shooting incidents. I have made no judgment in regards to this incident because I have no facts.......but sadly in the last eight years I have rarely had confidence that fair and impartial reviews of shooting incidents have been provided. If the alleged perps clearly tried to run the officers down in order to escape.....it is a no brainer. If some kids who probably were guilty as sin......decided to become rabbits and run and the officers shot into the back of the vehicle where they or the public were not in danger......Houston we have a problem.

I clearly saw two bullet holes in the windshield. If those are entry shots......and they do look like 90 degree entry.....but I am no expert except the years of accidentally putting a bb into a window the entry is clean and the exit simply explodes.....then it would appear that the officers were telling the truth, but the photo on the windshield is far from clear, and an investigator will nail that down in about two seconds.

2seaoat wrote:Well, I for one, am glad Officer Roedel survived two dangerous gun-related situations. He did his job.

I hope you are correct in your conclusion, but I think a proper way to have said what you said would be that he survived two dangerous incidents....a gun related incident, and a vehicle incident. I do not believe any of the facts justify calling the second incident a "gun" incident unless your meaning is that Roedel is the one creating the danger......because he is the only one who used a gun in both incidents....and that certainly does not appear to be your meaning.