The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

You know, lost in all of this is one question that must be answered FIRST by the "Off Duty" Officer. Proper Police procedures in MOST U.S. Cities (I'm sure San Diego would be one, though I'm not certain), is that this off duty Cop fired a "warning" shot at the guy. Police Training is almost universal in the use of warning shots, in that they are NOT permitted. There are only TWO scenarios where even an ON duty Office, much less an off duty Officer are authorized to fire warning shots.

1- If the Suspect poses an immediate threat, on foot, to the lives of other people. In other words, if the suspect was running away with a gun in his hand, his back to the cop, and saying he was going to kill everybody. Cops are simply not allowed use warning shots as a practice, unless lives of the public are in danger. If the life of the Cop is in danger, then he'd better shoot to kill!!!

2- When employing crowd control measures where the appropriate Chain of Command has issued an order to begin using "warning shots" as a way to disburse unruly crowds.

I just don't get why this Cop fired a "warning" shot when he should know the restrictions of them. I'm eager to find out, but I do believe the Cop deserves a certain sense of the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known.

Skinsfan55 wrote:..I need to get my facts straight?

I think so too, but I'm just not on the same level as some others!!

... I would expect this woman who tried to run over the policeman will be charged with attempted murder of a police officer.....

Again I have to be careful in asking this question because you seem to be VERY well informed. How do you know that? Isn't this all alleged or are you getting some really "inside" information like some other pessimistic fans here at THN with their mystery sources of doom and gloom?

Foley stopped three times, including at a red light after he got off the freeway. Mansker ordered him to pull over, but Foley drove away.

Brugos said Tuesday that while Mansker was wearing his police badge on the right side of his belt, he didn't believe he showed it to Foley from his car.

Asked if Foley saw the badge, Brugos said he didn't know.

Based on this. Why should Foley have stoped? Would you stop for any clown telling you he was a cop?

JPFair wrote:You know, lost in all of this is one question that must be answered FIRST by the "Off Duty" Officer. Proper Police procedures in MOST U.S. Cities (I'm sure San Diego would be one, though I'm not certain), is that this off duty Cop fired a "warning" shot at the guy. Police Training is almost universal in the use of warning shots, in that they are NOT permitted. There are only TWO scenarios where even an ON duty Office, much less an off duty Officer are authorized to fire warning shots.

1- If the Suspect poses an immediate threat, on foot, to the lives of other people. In other words, if the suspect was running away with a gun in his hand, his back to the cop, and saying he was going to kill everybody. Cops are simply not allowed use warning shots as a practice, unless lives of the public are in danger. If the life of the Cop is in danger, then he'd better shoot to kill!!!

2- When employing crowd control measures where the appropriate Chain of Command has issued an order to begin using "warning shots" as a way to disburse unruly crowds.

I just don't get why this Cop fired a "warning" shot when he should know the restrictions of them. I'm eager to find out, but I do believe the Cop deserves a certain sense of the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known.

According to the papers he fired a shot downward into a nearby bush. Not AT Foley as you claim.

Foley said to the officer that he believed his duty weapon was a "bb gun" and advanced towards him. If it's just you with no backup against a 250 pound NFL linebacker... I would like for him to know what's coming to him if he takes another step.

But you're right, he shouldn't haven given a warning shot, he should have shot Foley first, without anything other than a verbal warning because of the situation and Foley's behavior.

Skinsfan55 wrote:

JPFair wrote:You know, lost in all of this is one question that must be answered FIRST by the "Off Duty" Officer. Proper Police procedures in MOST U.S. Cities (I'm sure San Diego would be one, though I'm not certain), is that this off duty Cop fired a "warning" shot at the guy. Police Training is almost universal in the use of warning shots, in that they are NOT permitted. There are only TWO scenarios where even an ON duty Office, much less an off duty Officer are authorized to fire warning shots.

1- If the Suspect poses an immediate threat, on foot, to the lives of other people. In other words, if the suspect was running away with a gun in his hand, his back to the cop, and saying he was going to kill everybody. Cops are simply not allowed use warning shots as a practice, unless lives of the public are in danger. If the life of the Cop is in danger, then he'd better shoot to kill!!!

2- When employing crowd control measures where the appropriate Chain of Command has issued an order to begin using "warning shots" as a way to disburse unruly crowds.

I just don't get why this Cop fired a "warning" shot when he should know the restrictions of them. I'm eager to find out, but I do believe the Cop deserves a certain sense of the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known.

According to the papers he fired a shot downward into a nearby bush. Not AT Foley as you claim.

Foley said to the officer that he believed his duty weapon was a "bb gun" and advanced towards him. If it's just you with no backup against a 250 pound NFL linebacker... I would like for him to know what's coming to him if he takes another step.

But you're right, he shouldn't haven given a warning shot, he should have shot Foley first, without anything other than a verbal warning because of the situation and Foley's behavior.

They have a word for that. Murder. Foley had no way of knowing that the guy was a cop.

Skinsfan55 wrote:

JPFair wrote:You know, lost in all of this is one question that must be answered FIRST by the "Off Duty" Officer. Proper Police procedures in MOST U.S. Cities (I'm sure San Diego would be one, though I'm not certain), is that this off duty Cop fired a "warning" shot at the guy. Police Training is almost universal in the use of warning shots, in that they are NOT permitted. There are only TWO scenarios where even an ON duty Office, much less an off duty Officer are authorized to fire warning shots.

1- If the Suspect poses an immediate threat, on foot, to the lives of other people. In other words, if the suspect was running away with a gun in his hand, his back to the cop, and saying he was going to kill everybody. Cops are simply not allowed use warning shots as a practice, unless lives of the public are in danger. If the life of the Cop is in danger, then he'd better shoot to kill!!!

2- When employing crowd control measures where the appropriate Chain of Command has issued an order to begin using "warning shots" as a way to disburse unruly crowds.

I just don't get why this Cop fired a "warning" shot when he should know the restrictions of them. I'm eager to find out, but I do believe the Cop deserves a certain sense of the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known.

According to the papers he fired a shot downward into a nearby bush. Not AT Foley as you claim.

Foley said to the officer that he believed his duty weapon was a "bb gun" and advanced towards him. If it's just you with no backup against a 250 pound NFL linebacker... I would like for him to know what's coming to him if he takes another step.

But you're right, he shouldn't haven given a warning shot, he should have shot Foley first, without anything other than a verbal warning because of the situation and Foley's behavior.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my point, or I just should have worded it otherwise. What I meant, was that the off-duty Officer is not permitted, by procedure, to fire a "warning" shot under ANY circumstances unless lives of the public are in danger, and or the Official chain-of-command approves it in advance of Crowd Control measures.

My point is this, whether the cop fired a "warning" shot at a bush or up in the sky, it's contrary to Police procedures at EVERY Major Police Force in the United States. While it may sound like a good idea to fire a "warning" shot, stray bullets kill innocent people. It's simply NOT allowed, and no matter the circumstances are, he is not permitted to fire a warning shot. If he's going to fire his weapon at all, it must be at it's intended target. That's standard Police training.

Speaking of standard police procedures, is it common to allow an officer to fire his weapon without visual confirmation that the suspect is carrying a weapon of his own? They say that Foley had his hands in his pockets. Is that justification for shooting him (twice)? I'm asking out of ignorance, not taking sides.

joebagadonuts wrote:Speaking of standard police procedures, is it common to allow an officer to fire his weapon without visual confirmation that the suspect is carrying a weapon of his own? They say that Foley had his hands in his pockets. Is that justification for shooting him (twice)? I'm asking out of ignorance, not taking sides.

It's not so much that the suspech as his hands in his pockets or not, but it's whether the cop feels his own life or anyone elses is in immediate jeapordy. If a guy is being agressive, the cop should issue him/her with the instructions to show him his hands. If an aggressive guy refuses to show his hands, then the cop has every reason to believe that the guy may be carrying a weapon in one of his unseen hands. But, it's not the green light to shoot a guy just cuz he has his hands in his pockets. Something had to have happened for the cop to feel like his life was in danger, and shooting the person will stop that threat. Lethal Force is a "last resort" when dealing with this type of situation, this is why I think the off duty Officer deviated from proper procedures by not bringing in On duty Officers. On duty Officers carry both mace and batons which would have been the primary, and secondary method to subdue this person before resorting to lethal force. So, this off duty cop, who apparently had time to follow proper procedures, had only one option, the firearm, as opposed to the three options (1. mace 2. baton 3. pistol) that On duty Officers would have had at their disposal.

The officer apparently attempted to call for backup and no one responded (though officers arrived to the scene a minute after the shooting...so maybe he was just a bit too eager?). Article here. But it really begs the question why he resorted to lethal force to subdue Foley? He should have used non-lethal (stun-gun, mace, etc) first...pulling a pistol on a traffic stop is a bit extreme, unless you have some kind of evidence the defendant is armed & dangerous.

But really, the officer sounds stupid. I mean, he stopped the guy finally on the block he lives on? Just let the guy go home at that point. Why force a confrontation then? What purpose does it serve?

Though Foley, walking up to an agitated police officer with his hands in his pocket, didn't exactly help matters. Same with his lady friend driving the car at the officer. Sounds like a fubar situation all over...but the police officer should have acted with more professionalism.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Also, I would expect this woman who tried to run over the policeman will be charged with attempted murder of a police officer soon

You think they can prove she was driving the car at the officer with the specific intent to kill him? Not just maybe hit him, but to actually kill him?

I'm 100% sure they can reach that level of mens rea. But what do I know?

I'm just a lawyer.

In any case, it looks like they charged her with assault, which is much more appropriate.

But really, the officer sounds stupid. I mean, he stopped the guy finally on the block he lives on? Just let the guy go home at that point. Why force a confrontation then? What purpose does it serve?

To me, this is what is most fishy about the whole story. What's so dangerous about a guy that's on his own street and about to go home? Maybe the officer wanted to make the point that if a police officer (undercover or not) decides that he's going to stop you, well then by golly you'd better comply. . .

If the officer thought that shooting would be the only way to protect his life that's one thing, but why was it necessary to force the confrontation?

Irn-Bru wrote:

But really, the officer sounds stupid. I mean, he stopped the guy finally on the block he lives on? Just let the guy go home at that point. Why force a confrontation then? What purpose does it serve?

To me, this is what is most fishy about the whole story. What's so dangerous about a guy that's on his own street and about to go home? Maybe the officer wanted to make the point that if a police officer (undercover or not) decides that he's going to stop you, well then by golly you'd better comply. . .

If the officer thought that shooting would be the only way to protect his life that's one thing, but why was it necessary to force the confrontation?

Caught doing 70 in a 25mph zone, my wife was on the our balcony looking down at us as they put me in the squadcar and took my lawbreaking tail off to jail.
It was the middle of the day (back in the day when I was proud to be young & dumb), maybe that's why I didn't get shot.

BTW: I didn't stop until I got home either (I had stuff burning that I didn't want burning with a officer of the law walking up on me), but I also stayed in the car, and this Trooper was on duty




The law is the law... but something wasn't right with this.

The law is the law... but something wasn't right with this.

Right, and that's all I was trying to say, really.

Irn-Bru wrote:

The law is the law... but something wasn't right with this.

Right, and that's all I was trying to say, really.

And the more we heard about it the weirder it got

1niksder wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

But really, the officer sounds stupid. I mean, he stopped the guy finally on the block he lives on? Just let the guy go home at that point. Why force a confrontation then? What purpose does it serve?

To me, this is what is most fishy about the whole story. What's so dangerous about a guy that's on his own street and about to go home? Maybe the officer wanted to make the point that if a police officer (undercover or not) decides that he's going to stop you, well then by golly you'd better comply. . .

If the officer thought that shooting would be the only way to protect his life that's one thing, but why was it necessary to force the confrontation?

Caught doing 70 in a 25mph zone, my wife was on the our balcony looking down at us as they put me in the squadcar and took my lawbreaking tail off to jail.
It was the middle of the day (back in the day when I was proud to be young & dumb), maybe that's why I didn't get shot.

BTW: I didn't stop until I got home either (I had stuff burning that I didn't want burning with a officer of the law walking up on me), but I also stayed in the car, and this Trooper was on duty




The law is the law... but something wasn't right with this.

Yes, everyone is obligated to obey the law. This includes cops.

It is pretty idiotic to say that the officer should have just let Foley go home after endagering lives of innocent people on the freeway and refusing to stop on several seperate occasions.

Are you serious?

"Mr. Jenkins, you pointed a loaded weapon at 8 people while running down main street, your behavior was dangerous, aggressive and irresponsible, but... you got home before the police could apprehend you, I have no choice but to dismiss this case."

This is not a board game, you aren't "safe" because you reached home base.

Anyway, prosecutors believe they have proof (in the form of a blood test) that Foley had a BAC of 0.233, three times over the legal limit. They also believe that Foley may have been using performance enhancing drugs which gave him a form of "roid rage" which caused him to act to violently.

You can read the latest here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2587718

Since 1999 Foley has been arrested like 5 times, he has shown a lack of respect for the law, and he has problems with alcohol.

I for one am glad that Foley is being taken off the streets. He's on unpaid "vacation" and Aaron Mansker, the policeman involved, is on paid administrative leave, standard for most police departments when any shooting is involved.

His police department is probably going to investigate any wrongdoing, but I wouldn't be shocked at all to see him get a medal.

I'm just curious to see why he was shot twice in the BACK of the leg as has been reported? Also, all three shots were in the leg? Doesn't this seem to correspond with Foley's statement while he was being shot by the cop "your trying to end my career"? Since when does a cop shoot to maime? Isn't it typical that if you feel that there is enough danger of your life that you deem it neccessary to fire your weapon that you shoot to kill and not put a 3 shot grouping around a persons knee?

This story is so wierd. Foley was followed by this cop for 30 MILES! You mean to tell me that in a half an hour through the city this cop could not get on duty backup or get Foley to stop? Followed him to his home without backup and engaged him in the driveway with a drawn weapon.

What would you think if you were a wealthy and well known man who was followed for a half an hour by an unmarked car to your home early in the morning? Then a guy gets out with a gun and claims he is a cop without any backup whatsover and fires a shot at you? (warning shot) He is not in a police car or is he uniformed. Anyone can flash any badge at night from 30 ft away.

I would try and protect my life, not lay on the ground face down with my hands behind my head.

What would you think if you were a wealthy and well known man who was followed for a half an hour by an unmarked car to your home early in the morning? Then a guy gets out with a gun and claims he is a cop without any backup whatsover and fires a shot at you? (warning shot)

Exactly. Now, I'm not following the case that closely (so I don't have the latest details and won't put too much weight behind this), but didn't the first reports say that the cop failed to identify himself properly?

That's still the thing that bothers me about this case. It still seems to me like fishy activity by the cop. . .at least from what I've read.


Forget about Foley's history of being arrested, as it has nothing to do with the cops behavior (vs. protocol). I hope the facts of what happened get fleshed out for whoever is going to make a judgement call in this case.

Irn-Bru wrote:

What would you think if you were a wealthy and well known man who was followed for a half an hour by an unmarked car to your home early in the morning? Then a guy gets out with a gun and claims he is a cop without any backup whatsover and fires a shot at you? (warning shot)

Exactly. Now, I'm not following the case that closely (so I don't have the latest details and won't put too much weight behind this), but didn't the first reports say that the cop failed to identify himself properly?

That's still the thing that bothers me about this case. It still seems to me like fishy activity by the cop. . .at least from what I've read.


Forget about Foley's history of being arrested, as it has nothing to do with the cops behavior (vs. protocol). I hope the facts of what happened get fleshed out for whoever is going to make a judgement call in this case.

The cop had a badge clipped to his belt, says he doesn't know if Foley saw it or not. So as far as i can tell he still hasn't shown the man his badge