Shooting

The news had a female telling how a deputy fired at/into a car with her in it along with her baby. They gave intensive coverage of the event on all three news hours. They even gave a half decent account of the facts that pertain to the case. My question is why hasn't the sheriff's office come out with the obvious: report of gun in car, hands where I can see them, one reaches under the seat, shot fired by one of us, oh, were we supposed to wait until he shot one of us? My only complaint might be why didn't the guy reaching under the seat not have the shot fired in his chest? This is a perfect opportunity for the front office to stand up immediately for the folks in the field.

Deputy-involved shooting probed
Three adults, toddler reportedly inside vehicle during incident
THYRIE BLAND • TBLAND@PNJ.COM • AUGUST 10, 2010
Comments (57) Recommend (1) Print this page E-mail this article Share
Type Size A A A
The Escambia County Sheriff's Office is investigating the circumstances surrounding a deputy firing his gun at a car with three unarmed adults and a 21-month-old boy inside.



"We were screaming and screaming, 'There is a baby in the car. There is a baby in the car. Don't shoot,' " said Heather Tharp, 22, the baby's mother, who was a passenger.

No one was injured in the incident that occurred Thursday night when Deputy Johnny Perkins and Deputy Jason Comans were called to a home in the 1200 block of Mazurek Boulevard near Olive Road and Cody Lane because the home owner feared a man was outside with a gun.

When the deputies arrived, they were told the man with the gun was in a Dodge Magnum.

The deputies drove to the nearby car, got out of their vehicles, drew their guns and ordered everyone to put their hands out the window of the Magnum.

Christopher Schroeder, 43, of Navarre was in the driver seat. Tharp's boyfriend, Justin Schroeder, 22, of Navarre was a passenger.

When Justin Schroeder did not put his hands out the window and instead reached under his seat, Perkins fired his gun, according to a Sheriff's Office report.

The doors on the car open like a Lamborghini's doors, rotating upward instead of swinging open. Justin Schroeder told deputies that he had reached down to get a better grip on the door to keep it from going up, according to the report.

When deputies searched the car, a weapon was not found.

The bullet that Perkins fired bounced off the hood of the Magnum, hit the windshield and cracked it, Tharp said.

"I haven't been able to sleep," Tharp said. "I am so exhausted. I have nightmares about what could have happened."

The incident was prompted by a 911 call from Greta Scott, 43, after the Schroeders and Tharp arrived at her home.

Tharp said she and the Schroeders went to the Mazurek Boulevard home to get Justin Schroeder's son. She said Christopher Schroeder also was concerned about his daughter, Jessica Schroeder, 18, staying at the house.

Scott told the Sheriff's Office that Christopher Schroeder called her home cussing and threatened to beat up her husband. She said Jessica Schroeder later told her that her father was coming over and would probably have a gun.

After the Schroeders and Tharp arrived, Scott said she ran outside and hid under a bush. She told deputies she could see Christopher Schroeder trying to get into the home through the front door.

Christopher Schroeder was arrested on assault and burglary charges. He is free on $10,250 bond.

The Sheriff's Office is continuing to investigate the shooting, Sheriff's Office spokesman Chris Welborn said.

Perkins has not been placed on administrative leave, but he is not working, Welborn said.

He already had planned to take some time off, Welborn said.

The news had a female telling how a deputy fired at/into a car with her in it along with her baby. They gave intensive coverage of the event on all three news hours. They even gave a half decent account of the facts that pertain to the case. My question is why hasn't the sheriff's office come out with the obvious: report of gun in car, hands where I can see them, one reaches under the seat, shot fired by one of us, oh, were we supposed to wait until he shot one of us? My only complaint might be why didn't the guy reaching under the seat not have the shot fired in his chest? This is a perfect opportunity for the front office to stand up immediately for the folks in the field.

I wasn't there! But by your comment I am to believe that that we can shoot anyone when the following occurs: "report of gun in car, hands where I can see them, one reaches under the seat, shot fired by one of us." Is it just me or is there something missing?

Thank God that the guy who was reaching under the seat didn't, "have the shot fired in his chest." Because if this happened the new paper article would be titled, "Deputy Shoots UnArmed Man!"

I think the perfect opportunity for Sheriff Morgan to stand up for "the folks in the field" is once the investigation is complete. Not day one when non of us know the facts!

We aren't allowed to fire warning shots for furtive movements??? Man, I am really going to have to re-think how I do business... Jeesh

We aren't allowed to fire warning shots for furtive movements??? Man, I am really going to have to re-think how I do business... Jeesh

furtive

attempting to avoid notice or attention, typically because of guilt or a belief that discovery would lead to trouble;

secretive : they spent a furtive day together | he stole a furtive glance at her. See note at secret .

• suggestive of guilty nervousness : the look in his eyes became furtive.

when a officer tells you to put your hands out the window thats what you do, no he is reaching under the seat ,and the officer has a split second does he die or do i thats the question.

when a officer tells you to put your hands out the window thats what you do, no he is reaching under the seat ,and the officer has a split second does he die or do i thats the question.

I hope this is not what is being taught to new recruits! All I have read is that he was reaching under the seat. Was he reaching for a gun, a cell phone, or to hide his dope? What about the act of reaching gives a LEO the right to use deadly force? Please articulate this for me!

Uhhh... Officers perception of a threat there mr. Monday morning quarterback.

Uhhh... Officers perception of a threat there mr. Monday morning quarterback.
Officers dont have the luxury of second guessing a person who was given a direct order , he was told put your hands out the window ,instead he reaches under the set, you say he may have been reaching for his cell phone, well just out the outside chance he had a gun under the seat , what now?

I'm on your side. My post was meant to support jp. He had a strong perceptiion of a threat and reacted accordingly. He went home to his wife and kids. I don't like the others who second guess the situation when they weren't there.

Uhhh... Officers perception of a threat there mr. Monday morning quarterback.
Officers dont have the luxury of second guessing a person who was given a direct order , he was told put your hands out the window ,instead he reaches under the set, you say he may have been reaching for his cell phone, well just out the outside chance he had a gun under the seat , what now?

When you SEE a firearm then you FIRE. Wasn't there, but it was a bad decision. Sorry, always 100% behind the badge but this was a classic mistake plain and simple. Oh yeah, 30 years of being on the job.

[quote="20+ years":2kila494]Uhhh... Officers perception of a threat there mr. Monday morning quarterback.
Officers dont have the luxury of second guessing a person who was given a direct order , he was told put your hands out the window ,instead he reaches under the set, you say he may have been reaching for his cell phone, well just out the outside chance he had a gun under the seat , what now?

When you SEE a firearm then you FIRE. Wasn't there, but it was a bad decision. Sorry, always 100% behind the badge but this was a classic mistake plain and simple. Oh yeah, 30 years of being on the job.[/quote:2kila494]
Then you know better then what you said , once you see the gun its too late for you.

Based on the details that were provided prior to JP firing, I support his decision and don't see anything wrong with it. Details were armed suspect in a car at a particular address. JP gets there, there is the car at the address with subject in car. Subject is told to show hands and reaches under seat. If he had a gun it might have been too late for JP. Shame on the bad guy for not doing as he is told.

If there were not details about the subj being armed prior to firing, it may be a different situation. Anyone who cannot see this is a danger to themselves.

Remember, I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.....

Based on the details that were provided prior to JP firing, I support his decision and don't see anything wrong with it. Details were armed suspect in a car at a particular address. JP gets there, there is the car at the address with subject in car. Subject is told to show hands and reaches under seat. If he had a gun it might have been too late for JP. Shame on the bad guy for not doing as he is told.

If there were not details about the subj being armed prior to firing, it may be a different situation. Anyone who cannot see this is a danger to themselves.

Remember, I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.....

You assume this person is not deaf. You assume this person speaks English. You assume that he is reaching for a FIREARM so you crank off a round before seeing said FIREARM. We all know what happens when we ASSUME. This is exactly how tragedies happen and an unarmed person gets killed.

you are saying you would rather have one of your brothers killed , than a punk who and probably . never has done what he was told

Based on the details that were provided prior to JP firing, I support his decision and don't see anything wrong with it. Details were armed suspect in a car at a particular address. JP gets there, there is the car at the address with subject in car. Subject is told to show hands and reaches under seat. If he had a gun it might have been too late for JP. Shame on the bad guy for not doing as he is told.

If there were not details about the subj being armed prior to firing, it may be a different situation. Anyone who cannot see this is a danger to themselves.

Remember, I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.....

You assume this person is not deaf. You assume this person speaks English. You assume that he is reaching for a FIREARM so you crank off a round before seeing said FIREARM. We all know what happens when we ASSUME. This is exactly how tragedies happen and an unarmed person gets killed.

I would, and I believe a jury would assume that EVERYONE knows that when a cop is pointing a gun at you the best thing to do is to show your hands. English, deaf, stupid, doesnt matter, cop pointing gun at you means hands up....Do what you want, I'm going home at the end of the night...

you are saying you would rather have one of your brothers killed , than a punk who and probably . never has done what he was told

What I'm saying is he over-reacted and could have killed an unarmed person that may have had him charged with manslaughter and maybe even do time. No i don't want a brother killed, I don't want a brother injured. You just have to see things for what they are. We have a tough job and do have to make decisions on our actions in a fraction of a second. Sometimes that decision is a wrong one. Shooting at a "reaching" suspect is one of those decisions which could possibly land you in prison if you are wrong and there is no weapon like in this case.

20 and 30 years on the job, you would not even get out of your car or leave Waffle House. You did a good job JP

In a perfect world this would not have occurred. However, we are not in a perfect world. Each encounter has elements that cause a reaction. If anyone person on this blog believes that they can make a matter of fact statement about the decision that was made they are wrong. The information here should be made to make us think about what to do not judge what was done.

None of us know what the feeling of the officer was at the time. I understand the law to be that if I can articulate a well founded fear I can use reasonable force to meet that fear. Now.........what facts were there to cause fear for the officer? Only he can answer that. Until I hear his reason and find it to be out of line...............Great job Johnny!

EVERY TIME someone reaches I assume they MAY be coming up with a firearm but I don't shoot at them. If that were the case I would have tallied about 100 shootings by now. Great job alright....that Johnny missed. You guys keep thinking the way you do and I'll bring you cigarettes to Raiford.

EVERY TIME someone reaches I assume they MAY be coming up with a firearm but I don't shoot at them. If that were the case I would have tallied about 100 shootings by now. Great job alright....that Johnny missed. You guys keep thinking the way you do and I'll bring you cigarettes to Raiford.

Its about perception and WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH THE OFFICERS MIND. I love the monday morning quarterback and all of these "super cops" we have. Being the dumbarse DIDN'T have a gun, I am too glad that he wasn't shot but given the circumstances, suppose he came up with an object in his hand like a cell phone? How many people have been shot for doing the same thing? If people were smart enough to keep their hands up in the dam air like we command, we wouldn't be put in that situation.

I will bet you that if we were do that scenario during training and I was a passenger in the car, I would be able to get rounds off at you before you fired a shot. I base this on the fact (even with your weapon drawn and you MUST wait too see my weapon before you fire) that action is faster than reaction and by the time you see the threat, perceive it as a threat and make a decision to shoot or move to cover, that could take between 3/4 and 1.5 seconds, I would have already shot at you. Take this out of a training scenario and add darkness, strangers (no simunition rounds) and a female screaming about a small child being in the car and you also would be on edge. You have been given information from a neighbor that someone in the vehicle IS armed with a gun and the car, occupants and events are about to be set in motion. If you think that every single one of you critics would have always done the right thing, then YOU are a tradegy waiting too happen.

I wish all of us to have a safe and long career. We must learn from out experiences, good and bad, move forward and protect each other.

JFX

It's a dam tradegy.

It's a dam tradegy.
Didn't the Gee Bees have a song named Tradegy?? :devil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-G8IcSi6qo

1. Suspect obviously understood commands because he put his hands up to begin with.
2. There is a woman outside yelling "They have a gun"
3. Suspect called and said "He was going back to prison, tonight!"
4. Suspect tried to force his way into the house prior to deputies arrival.
5. You can't see what passenger reaches for, due to lighting and tinted windows.
6. By the time you see a gun, and positively identify it as such, you are taking rounds.
7. There were multiple occupants in the car, who else is armed?
8. The furtive movement was sudden and deliberate.
9. JP was in the open with no cover.
10. JP had about .3 tenths of a second to make a decision.
11. If he would have any mistakes the administration would have hammered him.

JP, you can back me up anytime! Good job!

Now that the video is out, where are all the useless deputies that wanted to hate and Monday morning quarterback? Probably busy trying to avoid doing work...

Now that the video is out, where are all the useless deputies that wanted to hate and Monday morning quarterback? Probably busy trying to avoid doing work...

Are you really daring someone to give their opinion? Let this die! Please don't egg them on just to see JP get drug through the mud some more.

So how did the video get on You-Tube???

So how did the video get on You-Tube???
The office released it to the media, someone downloaded it to their computer and then uploaded it to YouTube. Simple.

Based on the details that were provided prior to JP firing, I support his decision and don't see anything wrong with it. Details were armed suspect in a car at a particular address. JP gets there, there is the car at the address with subject in car. Subject is told to show hands and reaches under seat. If he had a gun it might have been too late for JP. Shame on the bad guy for not doing as he is told.

If there were not details about the subj being armed prior to firing, it may be a different situation. Anyone who cannot see this is a danger to themselves.

Remember, I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.....

You assume this person is not deaf. You assume this person speaks English. You assume that he is reaching for a FIREARM so you crank off a round before seeing said FIREARM. We all know what happens when we ASSUME. This is exactly how tragedies happen and an unarmed person gets killed.


You must remember your talking to an "Escambia County Deputy!" From the things I've personally witnessed them do, and the things I've heard about them, you don't stand a chance. Good luck arguing with a brick wall.

Based on the details that were provided prior to JP firing, I support his decision and don't see anything wrong with it. Details were armed suspect in a car at a particular address. JP gets there, there is the car at the address with subject in car. Subject is told to show hands and reaches under seat. If he had a gun it might have been too late for JP. Shame on the bad guy for not doing as he is told.

If there were not details about the subj being armed prior to firing, it may be a different situation. Anyone who cannot see this is a danger to themselves.

Remember, I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.....

You assume this person is not deaf. You assume this person speaks English. You assume that he is reaching for a FIREARM so you crank off a round before seeing said FIREARM. We all know what happens when we ASSUME. This is exactly how tragedies happen and an unarmed person gets killed.


You must remember your talking to an "Escambia County Deputy!" From the things I've personally witnessed them do, and the things I've heard about them, you don't stand a chance. Good luck arguing with a brick wall.

You're just a wealth of knowledge and experience USMC. You critisize our SWAT team for a slow speed video demo for the news and now you offer to us that based on "all the things I've personally witnessed them do, and things I've heard about them", you must really have alot of time dealing with our department. So what exactly have you "personally witnessed us do"? I think your stero-typing should be great since I have personally dealt with over 100+ USMC military members during criminal investigations but I don't assume ALL USMC members fall in that category. So please share with us all of your great knowledge and experience about our men and women that are like "talking to a brick wall" as you say?

So, I guess it's OK for me to judge all Marines based upon the drunk, immoral, poorly educated jarheads that visit Pensacola Beach every weekend? Cool.