We are watching the still-developing story about the police shooting following a chase from Four Seasons Town Centre.
Here's what we do know, according to the News & Record's coverage:
An off-duty police officer who has been working at the mall shot and killed a man on Wednesday night. The man was suspected of running off with an engagement ring from a mall jewelry store.
Police today identified the man as Emile Baptist Williams of Raleigh but did not release his age.
A car chase along I-40 East. The officer, W.M. Symmes, was driving a police-issued unmarked SUV and Williams was driving a Honda Accord. The chase approached speeds of nearly 100 mph.
Here's what we need to know:
Did the officer seek approval from a supervisor to engage in the chase?
Why was the use of deadly force necessary? Did Williams shoot first? Did he shoot at all?
All we can say definitively at this point is that we appreciate the officer's sense of duty and initiative, but we question the need for a high-speed chase, which can place other motorists and bystanders in harm's way.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
While sitting in the lobby waiting for an appointment. I overheard comments made by other people regarding this event.
They were "assessing" the report of the who, the why, the how come, and why didn't they.
Their tone was of mistrust of how the police did their job. Their accusations of racism played many thoughts in their discussion.
Because in their minds, they have gathered the thought that the media (both news print and broadcasting) has given them the unknown facts of what really happen.
So, far be it from me, will this be another public lynching of our police department, as far as what is being reported regarding this case? Will we have to go back to the city council to have them release all of the information, because our police department was doing their job in apprehending a person who committed a crime, and unfortunately, it became a fatal one?
Sometimes, reading and/or watching what kind of news is released to the public, can be so controversial, that we don't know who or whom
to "believe."
Posted on January 25, 2008 1:35 PM
Why was the use of deadly force necessary? Did Williams shoot first? Did he shoot at all?
************
Okay, let's review the facts:
1. Williams robs a jewelry store, taking $36,000 in jewelry. That's felony #1 right there.
2. Williams leads police on a high-speed chase in his stolen car. Felonies #2 and #3.
4. After wrecking, Williams gets out and assaults the police officer trying to arrest him. That's at least one more felony (#4), maybe two or three.
5. Williams attempts to steal the cop's car (felony #5) and drags the police officer with him, which could have killed or seriously wounded officer Symmes (felony #6).
6. Then - and only then - Officer Symmes shot Williams in self-defense.
After reviewing those facts, it is clear that Officer Symmes deserves our sympathy - and possibly a medal for protecting the public from this criminal. William's fate is completely his own fault. If he hadn't wanted to get shot, he shouldn't have robbed the store, fled from police, assaulted the officer, etc.
I sincerely hope you don't make our brave men and women in law enforcement into the villains of this tale, because there's just one bad guy in this scenario -- Emile Williams.
Posted on January 25, 2008 2:45 PM
The thief is in the off-duty-policeman's car. The off-duty-policeman is outside the car - and shoots the thief in the neck. Sounds like to me, the policeman had tried to subdue the thief - and the thief was about to get away with the goods and the officer's car.
The thief took his life into his own hands when he decided to do the crime. The officer appears to have tried to avoid shooting the thief - and to have tried many things to capture him as safely as he could. Having failed and reached the end of his rope - the thief was shot by the officer.
Would you rather the officer had let the thief get away with his vehicle?
Posted on January 25, 2008 3:43 PM
It's sad the see immediate media focus turn on the policeman for doing his job. Maybe the media should tell us how the police officer needs to do his job, and what he can and can not do. What if the robber had gone to another location and did another robbery? At what point will it be okay to chase and apprehend him before he commits a carjacking, or leaves a victim behind?
Posted on January 25, 2008 4:49 PM
It's sad to see the media focus on the officer trying to do his job, rather than on the robber. If the robber had not been pursued, but stopped to make another robbery, possibly engage in a carjacking or assualt on a store employee, when would it be okay for the policeman to intercede and do the job he was hired for?
Posted on January 25, 2008 4:53 PM