Corrections officer shoots boy
The Baltimore Sun's Gus Sentementes just posted a breaking story on a off-duty corrections officer who shot and wounded a 15-year-old boy who police say tried to rob him with a toy gun this morning at a convenience store.
Police have not released the officer's name (it's still very early in the investigation), but I'm guessing that because of their new policy of not naming officers who fire their weapons, they won't release the name at all. Police are considering revising the policy but haven't said much about it lately.
Anthony Guglielmi, the Baltimore Police Department's chief spokesman, took issue with my statements and said withholding the name of this corrections officer has nothing to do with the policy but is being done because he's a victim of a crime. Police used to release all victims' names; now they are far more reluctant, and given the climate of retaliation it's hard to blame them. Two others involved in the holdup have not yet been arrested.
Guglielmi also argued that the corrections officer is a civilian and not a cop; in this case, he was off-duty and using his personal weapon (corrections officers have to forfeit their guns when they go off duty). It's also a valid point -- while city cops are always "on duty" even when their off, as in they are expected to intervene in crimes that are in progress and do carry their guns even when not on the job -- it's different for corrections officers.
I still believe that given an appropriate amount of time, the names of everyone who shoot people, whether it be civilians or law enforcement officers, should be made public. I don't like the city police policy, and I believe eveyone should be held to the same standard.
Ironically, police union lawyers were in court today to argue that a trial for a city cop charged with manslaughter in a duty-related shooting last year should be moved out of the city because the policy prohibiting the release of names of officers who shoot has created so much controversy. The police commissioner has said that he will release names of officers in questionable or bad shooitngs; this officer was named and his lawyers are now saying the department has publicly convicted him before trial.
The real story is that the officer's name was released before the policy was introduced and that it would've been released anyway upon indictment. The irony is that the union supports not naming cops who shoot but will argue the opposite in court. It just shows the confusion this new policy has brought. The judge said he would make a ruling within a week.
Comments
At least the boy was not killed (which I think officers need to learn to use their weapon to cease the crime not kill the perpetrator- the c.o. probably doesnt know how to shoot that well...(a good thing)) and I hope fully that the boy recovers.
On the other hand I pray that this boy learns a lesson and utilizes his momentary lapse of reason, the consequence and the rest of his life to make right what so many kids are getting wrong.
what is this the Wild Wild West? What if this wasnt someone with a weapon to defend themselves?
As my friend says ALL the time (a cop)...if citizens were allowed to carry a weapon little punks like these would think 2x's before committing a crime (with or without a fake gun)!!.
Posted by: 2cents | May 4, 2009 10:29 AM
Are you serious? What does it matter if his name is withheld or not? I think it is importaint to protect the confidentiality of the officer. It was an alleged robbery try for petes sake!!! It's not like he shot the youth and he wasn't doing anything. 9 times out of 10 the officer didn't use his duty weapon because those are strictly controlled. He probably had a concealed carry permit and he used the weapon as he saw fit. The kid tried to rob him! Why would be not have a chance to defend himself. Yes, it's sad that the youth had to get shot as a result but the saying goes, you reap what you sow. He tried to comit a bad crime and as a result he got harmed. Who's fault is that? People do not realize how many minors are sitting in the juvinile detention center for adult crimes such as murder and you are upset because a youth tryint to comit a crime that some people get killed as a result of got shot? The media always tries to cast officers in such a negative light. True, the are a few bad apples, but that does not give people the right to judge based on the actions of prior cops. I would have done the same thing that this officer did If someone tried to rob me...I don't care what age you are. Lets use a similar example...if you are in Iraq and you are a soldier on patrol and you encounter a youth with a gun, do tyou shoot to protect your life or do you not shoot just bacause this is a youth. I would shoot to protect the life of me and my fellow comrades. It's reasons like this that I rally for more relaxed gun laws regarding out legal concealed carry permit. And as a background check for myself Im a correctional officer on Military leave because I'm currently active duty in the U.S military and I'm an advocate of concealed carry permits.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2009 10:45 AM
2CENTS: Are you trying to insinuate that the CO should have shot the ROBBER without the intent to kill? "Cease the crime, not kill"?!?!?
If that's the case, you are sorely misinformed. When law enforcement use their weapon, it's with deadly force. It's not meant to maim or just injure. How was this CO supposed to know if the gun was a toy or not? Wait for the kid to pull the trigger? Here's a tip smart guy/girl; go to the firing range, get your adrenaline pumping, then try to shoot acurately at a moving appendage. Betcha you won't hit squat.
The idiotic comments never cease to amaze me.
Posted by: Dave | May 4, 2009 11:35 AM
No sympathy for the kid who was shot - Ill leave that up to the ACLU and numerous other civil rights groups if the CO was white and the kid was black.
Law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves. When criminals like these thugs give up their weapons, we'll give up ours!
Posted by: AT | May 4, 2009 12:39 PM
This is yet another example of why we need right to carry for the citizens of Baltimore. We need more, not less, of these idiot criminals shot and/or killed to clean up the streets. The police, can't protect you, the courts won't convict them, and the judges let them back on the streets. The citizens need to be armed in order to protect ourselves. What is the difference between this case and the Zack Sowers case? The difference is the victim in this crime was armed and could protect himself. Baltimore needs to wake up and see that we are prey as long as our idiotic leaders keep guns in the hands of criminals and out of the hands of the law abiding citizen. The only tragedy in this case was the officer didn't shoot all three of the juvenile delinquents.
Posted by: Bob | May 4, 2009 12:47 PM
As a Corrections Officer myself, let me clarify a few things. First we DO NOT have to forfeit our weapons when we aren't on duty because WE DON'T have duty weapons. The only exception to this are officers that escort detainees to court or to public hospitals and these weapons are turned over to the relieving officer. The weapon used in this case was a personal legal weapon that cannot be carried unless we obtain a "permit to carry" from the Maryland State Police. (which is hard as hell to get)You have to provide proof that you have been threatened or assaulted inside the institution. The criminal population that are released back into the streets (Thanks Jessamy!) will attack or assault a CO first as opposed to a Police Officer simply because they have a firearm with them whether they are on or off duty. We don't have the same given unless we purchase our own weapon which run between $200-600 and obtain the permit which is $121.
and YES the officers name needs to be withheld not just because he is a victim of a crime but because the Division will do absolutely NOTHING to ensure the safety of this officer while on/off duty.
Posted by: Eli | May 4, 2009 5:07 PM
2cents obviously doesn't know the first thing about firearms. You NEVER use a gun unless your life or the life of someone around you is in danger, and if you do use it you do so with the intent to kill. A gun is not a non-lethal weapon and should never be used as such.
I have no sympathy for the hoodlum in this case either. Armed robbery is a very serious violent crime, and it can have terrible consequences. I'm just glad it was the perpetrator who suffered the consequences and not a law-abiding citizen.
Posted by: Pascal Patin | May 5, 2009 8:39 AM
until you are police officer or have one in the family, you have no clue what withholding a name can mean. My brother was involved in a shooting where a fugitive was shot and killed, the wife got his name from the news and was constantly driving by our house and stalking us. The fear of what these people could do in retaliation is scary. Our officers risk their lives everyday out on the street, should a criminal do something that gets the hurt by an officer trying to protect himself and the community then so be it, they bring it on them selfs!!! You are so ignorant in what you say, why dont you fear for your life then speak! And my husband is a ex correction officer and a balt city police officer, as a CO it is not hard at all the get a gun permit to carry a weapon. CO's are in much closer contact with criminals and face more threats than you could ever no. You do not need to provide evidence you have been threatened. working around inmates everyday they learn things about you and it is very easy for them to arrange someone to follow a CO home from work, which is why it is advised CO's carry offduty weapons and why evidence of threat is not needed. there is a constant threat!!! Come on now people
Posted by: shell | May 10, 2009 1:22 AM