Developing: One dead after shots fired on Fry Street

[rcade]

The Daily has obtained video of McMillan leaving a parking garage with something in his hand:

 

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Acting this irrational while drunk is definitely partly genetic, he probably hadn't drank much before this and did the whole Fry street crawl deal + probably has alcoholism in the family somewhere. However, I wonder his state of mind that night as well. If he went into the night with something going on, possibly girl related (all speculation), combined with 21st birthday and his genetics, that's a bad combo. Even more heightened if he took anything else. 

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

There are two witnesses stating on social media that he was attacking people and had stated several times that he had wanted to die: "first 2 shots hardly phased him. His pupils were huge, idk what he was on, when he attacked me and my friends he said 'just shoot me in the head.'" 

[UNTpolitico]

The best argument I have ever seen to the need to use deadly force was also one of the simplest. 3 of us were sitting their myself the officer and the Mr. Expert giving the usual arguments over a beer. The officer asked all of us to take any pictures out of our wallets and we did. He then said if I show up in a given situation and its 50/50 the suspect hurts them or that you don't go home do you want me to be apprehensive with the use of force. He then pulled the picture of his kids out of his wallet put it down and said any chance I don't go home to them I'm pulling the trigger. The officer deserves the benefit of the doubt every time unless the facts contradict. This is a horrible tragedy possibly alcohol related but every officer has the right to go home to the people in the picture in his wallet.

[Christopher Walker]

He faced death because of HIS actions.  

And this is where we diverge. You deem his actions worthy of death. I don't. Full resolute justice under law, yes. Death, no.

And there are many societies internationally who have learned to deal with this better, accepting that some loss of property is far more preferable to loss of life.

[Rudy]

So, what the hell were they supposed to do? Let's see your expert opinion on police work.

 

And you speak of loss of life. That's what they were trying to prevent. The serious bodily injury or death to themselves or the public. He wasn't shot because he was smashing windows. He was shot because he had a weapon.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rudy

[Cr1028]

How so? It's a similar scenario.

And they're able to bring him down alive with shields rather than dead with bullets. I really don't see how ya'll find the latter outcome to be preferable.

 

That + no one having to face their death.

Chris, your heart is in the right place but realistically how many UNT and Denton police officers are on duty at one time? How long would it take a force of thirty officers to show up in riot gear? My guess is at least an hour plus this situation was at night which heightens the danger. If they had waited for a force like that, this axe wielding man surely would've hurt several innocent people.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Cr1028

[Rudy]

 

Chris, your heart is in the right place but realistically how many UNT and Denton police officers are on duty at one time? How long would it take a force of thirty officers to show up in riot gear? My guess is at least an hour plus this situation was at night which heightens the danger. If they had waited for a force like that, this axe wielding man surely would've hurt several innocent people.

He means well, but he doesn't understand the reality of the situation. The standard patrol officer doesn't carry riot gear, unless he bought it on his own dime. Even then, he'd have to get clearance from administration to carry it. That gear is expensive, and it's not practical to spend money for gear that you won't use. 

 

My agency takes care of us. They issued active shooter bags and put quite a bit of gear in it. Even still, I am adding things to it, and have over $100 worth of gear, tools, and first aid supplies to it. And I'm researching an external carrier to carry more gear in the event there is an active shooter.

 

My point is, that we only have so much gear. The notion that we can roll out in riot gear or swat gear at the snap of your fingers is a load of crap. All that fancy shield and helmet and such is either for specialized units, or comes out of the officer's pocket. There are a lot more practical items that an officer needs to purchase. 

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rudy

[rcade]

The officer deserves the benefit of the doubt every time unless the facts contradict.

I don't think cops deserve benefit of the doubt in a shooting. The facts should be the only thing that matters.

Yes, they deserve to go home to their loved ones. But if someone is not presenting a lethal threat, that person deserves to survive too.

I don't think we know enough yet to assess whether this shooting was justified. The news coverage doesn't say anything about how far away the cop and McMillan were when shots were fired.

[Rudy]

I don't think cops deserve benefit of the doubt in a shooting. The facts should be the only thing that matters.

Yes, they deserve to go home to their loved ones. But if someone is not presenting a lethal threat, that person deserves to survive too.

I don't think we know enough yet to assess whether this shooting was justified. The news coverage doesn't say anything about how far away the cop and McMillan were when shots were fired.

He. Had. A. Deadly. Weapon. 

 

But, OK. We'll play your game. How close, in your opinion, would he have to have been to the officer, for deadly force to have been justified? Is the subject capable of throwing the axe, and at what skill level? Does the subject have any other weapons?

If the subject gets away, does he pose an immediate threat to the public?

[Christopher Walker]

Chris, your heart is in the right place but realistically how many UNT and Denton police officers are on duty at one time? How long would it take a force of thirty officers to show up in riot gear? My guess is at least an hour plus this situation was at night which heightens the danger. If they had waited for a force like that, this axe wielding man surely would've hurt several innocent people.

This is kind of the broader point I'm trying to make. I'd much, much rather police forces invest more in equipment that pacifies or effectively de-escalates a situation rather than deadly force be the go-to.

To the bit in bold, he had lots of opportunities to harm people but only committed property damage. Everyone who interacted with him indicated that he was making suicidal statements and outbursts. He sought suicide by cop and got his wish.

My wife and I along with several friends over for a Christmas party heard the shots from our backyard last night. It's just frustrating and sad when this can actually be handled differently if there were legitimate focal shifts in our policing.

[Rudy]

You'd be surprised how much research and effort there is into less than lethal tools. The problem is, that those aren't perfect. Not even the taser, which many think is the be all end all, is perfect. To be honest, many officers rely too much on the taser when it's not practical or safe. I would still like to hear someone answer my question about what they'd do if they were the officer on scene. 

[Cr1028]

This is kind of the broader point I'm trying to make. I'd much, much rather police forces invest more in equipment that pacifies or effectively de-escalates a situation rather than deadly force be the go-to.

To the bit in bold, he had lots of opportunities to harm people but only committed property damage. Everyone who interacted with him indicated that he was making suicidal statements and outbursts. He sought suicide by cop and got his wish.

My wife and I along with several friends over for a Christmas party heard the shots from our backyard last night. It's just frustrating and sad when this can actually be handled differently if there were legitimate focal shifts in our policing.

I guess I misunderstood. I was basing it on the quote below. The problem with less-lethal weaponry used by police is that almost all of them require you to be in the attacker's strike zone. If this method fails to take down the suspect, the officer is the one who ends up in the hospital or morgue. Remember, this was one man with an axe advancing at one police officer. The officer can't just run away until several backup cars show up. The officer has to stand their ground to prevent the suspect from doing more harm.

There are two witnesses stating on social media that he was attacking people and had stated several times that he had wanted to die: "first 2 shots hardly phased him. His pupils were huge, idk what he was on, when he attacked me and my friends he said 'just shoot me in the head.'" 

 

[rcade]

How close, in your opinion, would he have to have been to the officer, for deadly force to have been justified?

Two can play that game: How far away, in your opinion, would he have to be from the officer for deadly force to not be justified?

I'm not presuming the officer was wrong to shoot. I just think we need more facts. Unless I'm mistaken, there hasn't been a story where police give the officer's account of what happened: When he got out of the car, what words (if any) were exchanged, what McMillan was doing with the axe and how far away he was when he shot. All we've been told is that he "advanced."

Edited December 14, 2015 by rcade

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

 

I guess I misunderstood. I was basing it on the quote below. The problem with less-lethal weaponry used by police is that almost all of them require you to be in the attacker's strike zone. If this method fails to take down the suspect, the officer is the one who ends up in the hospital or morgue. Remember, this was one man with an axe advancing at one police officer. The officer can't just run away until several backup cars show up. The officer has to stand their ground to prevent the suspect from doing more harm.

 

 

My quote was taken directly off a Facebook comment from someone who stated they were a witness. I don't know exactly what she meant by "attacking" as I haven't heard of any injuries. In this instance, I agree, it is very difficult for a police officer to gauge what a suspect is capable of. Not only do they have to protect themselves from his "lunging radius" they also have to consider whether or not he can or will throw the axe towards them. Unfortunately, when people are attempting suicide by cop they will make it appear as though they are going to attack the police officers, whether or not that is really their intention. They can't stand around and assume he is just trying to get them to shot him. Tough situation for all parties involved. 

Edited December 14, 2015 by ChristopherRyanWilkes

[FirefightnRick]

Brian,.. your arguing with cubicle dwellers.  99.9 percent of them have zero concept of violence, much less to have actually ever seen it.  The faint of heart cannot handle this reality.  I doubt anyone of them have ever seen what a so called..."kid"...that is deranged out of his mind can do to the human skull with a large blunt or sharp object.   No matter what you say these good and well intentioned office workers are going to second guess the cops no matter what you post.

Save yourself the morning and let it go.

 

Rick

 

[Rudy]

I think it's interesting how no one has answered my questions, but now want me to answer the very same question. Maybe it's because they realize they don't have an answer? I'll answer you, however. First, we're not going to hear the officer's account, because he has the right to remain silent. The fifth amendment applies to law enforcement as well. They are entitled to due process the same as anyone else. Many don't realize that an officer is investigated after a shooting the same as any other suspect. That along with the other information is considered evidence in the investigation. Now, as to "when the officer got out of the car," he likely exited the vehicle upon arrival.   You have to confront the suspect.

 

As to your question on the required distance, the standard is the 21 foot rule. However, it's not law. If he was advancing towards the officer, he's advancing. That's it. If you want to look at what less than lethal options were available, the two likely options were OC spray and taser. First, not every officer has both. Some agencies don't like OC. Some agencies don't like the taser.

If you're going to use OC, you have to get close enough to the suspect for the stream to hit where you aim, so maybe 10 feet. Way too close when facing an armed person. If the OC is effective, there is a large possibility the subject will begin to run around and/or wave his arms wildly in the air. Not good if the person has a knife and you're practically in arm's reach. Also, if are deploying OC, you will probably get residue or some of the OC on you. Therefore it's ideal to have backup on scene.

If you deploy taser, you have to be close enoigh for the probes to reach, so about 21 feet. The taser is not a guarantee to work. If the subject is armed with a bladed weapon, you are well within their striking range. If the taser is ineffective or there is a misfire/bad cartridge (yes, they happen), you have to be able to transition to your firearm, draw and fire before he gets to you.  

If the person is on drugs, which I suspect Mr. McMillan was, it is a toss up if less than lethal options will work. I sprayed a person on PCP, and it had no effect. Drugs can cause a person to fight through the taser. And you can't use both, because the person could catch fire.

[LongJim]

21 foot rule.

[rcade]

First, we're not going to hear the officer's account, because he has the right to remain silent.

Yes, he does. But why should we assume an officer is in the right if he does not give an account of what happened? You seem to be asking for the public to support a cop after a shooting no questions asked.

Police ask people questions all the time and they choose not to remain silent. The cop could make the same choice. If he did the right thing, there should be little risk for him in explaining what happened. He could give a simple statement to police that covers the basic facts of what occurred and that could be related to the public.

If McMillan was within 21 feet of the officer and charged the cop holding the axe -- a camping hatchet, by some accounts -- I think most people would reasonably conclude that the officer acted justifiably. But to assume that happened before the cop explains what occurred is not appropriate. It's jumping to a conclusion to suit an agenda, just like the people who already are convinced he did the wrong thing.

Edited December 14, 2015 by rcade

[Rudy]

He's likely made a statement by now, with the consultation of his attorney. However, the investigation is still ongoing. And I do put faith in the officer. In not going to hide that fact. I know what he goes through and the training he has. So I'm going to have faith in him. I would think the public should have faith in him that he knows how to do his job and be did it well, just like any other professional, you have faith that they did their job until you have reason to believe otherwise.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rudy

[EagleMBA]

Based on careful watching of that video, the weapon looks like an axe, relatively large head, with a handle of 18 - 24". Definitely more than a hatchet, less than a fuul-blown woodsman's axe. Short enough to be thrown accurately. Long enough when extended by a man already moving to cover 21' PDQ.

[Withers940]

Its a Sad situation but lets count the RED Flags:

1) 1 AM

2) Man Carry around a hatchet (AX)

3) Smashing cars with that AX

4) Charging officer with said weapon

No one will know what happens until the video is release from his dash cam, if there is a good view of the incident. This is why the Denton Police Department is starting to wear shoulder cameras to catch ever aspect of what the cop sees. Non the less, police are taught to shoot in life threatening situations and when shooting, they are taught to shoot at the biggest part of the body which is the chest area. So if a man carrying a hatchet makes an aggressive move towards a police officer, they will shoot. If anyone wants to argue with police teachings, lets view it from another angle. What if you (A Citizen, that holds a CHL) walked up on a man holding an ax, that man notices you and starts aggressively walking towards you...What do you do? Do you want to make it back to your wife and kids or take a chance and talk this wacko down not knowing what might be wrong with this said person and not knowing what he could be on (Drugs/Alcohol). I am a Denton resident and UNT alumni, this is a sad event but with not knowing all the facts, no one can pre judge.

[greenit]

 

I guess I misunderstood. I was basing it on the quote below. The problem with less-lethal weaponry used by police is that almost all of them require you to be in the attacker's strike zone. If this method fails to take down the suspect, the officer is the one who ends up in the hospital or morgue. Remember, this was one man with an axe advancing at one police officer. The officer can't just run away until several backup cars show up. The officer has to stand their ground to prevent the suspect from doing more harm.

 

 

What we spending dollars on things like tasers if they aren't going to be used in situations like this?

Do the facts show that non lethal tactics were attempted?  If so, great. If not, then that is the crux of the issue. 

[Rudy]

So I guess you didn't read the breakdown of the less than lethal tools that I posted?

[EagleMBA]

What we spending dollars on things like tasers if they aren't going to be used in situations like this?

Do the facts show that non lethal tactics were attempted?  If so, great. If not, then that is the crux of the issue. 

That seems logical...but you don't get a do-over. If you don't stop the threat on the first attempt, he's on you and you are dead. I would go to the most reliable option I had at my disposal.