Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleCoroner cites ‘administrative error,’ says officer shot man in back
Published Tuesday, July 7, 2009 | 3:49 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, July 7, 2009 | 4:46 p.m.
The Clark County Coroner's Office today is blaming "an administrative error" in identifying the wrong cause of death for a man shot by police last week.
The coroner's office said Monday the cause of death for John Paul Hambleton, 32, of Las Vegas, was a perforating gunshot wound to the chest. In a statement today, the coroner's office identified the cause of death as a perforating gunshot wound to the back.
"Upon discovering the discrepancy, we immediately took action to correct it," the coroner's office said. "We deeply regret the error."
Metro Police spokesman Officer Bill Cassell said the department already knew Hambleton’s correct manner of death.
“We understand. They’re human and they make errors,” Cassell said of the coroner’s office. “They got things turned around but they caught the mistake and fixed it.”
Clark County spokeswoman Jennifer Knight said the error occurred when the autopsy report was handed off to someone doing data entry, and that person listed the wrong cause of death on a sheet containing information that was given to the media, Knight said.
When the coroner was asked to recheck the cause of death on the official autopsy report -- which contained the correct information -- the error was found, Knight said.
Officer Jeremy Hendricks, 30, fired at the man after he and another detective tried to question him in connection with another case they were working. Hambleton was fatally wounded after getting into an altercation with police, authorities have said.
The detectives, in plain clothes, were questioning Hambleton near the El Jen Convalescent Center, 5538 Duncan Drive, which is near Alexander Drive, Helen Street and Rancho Drive, police said. The case in question involved domestic violence battery and sexual assault with a child under the age of 14, authorities said.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Clint Holmes is a big deal at Cabaret Jazz and 'The Carlyle!'; Playboy's furry-ous closing; Elvis is a 'Legend'
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack (1 Comment)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Glad he was stopped before he could molest more children. I don't really care where he was shot.
and apparently you do not care about Due process or anything else.
Want to know why the United States is going down the drain? Too many morons like skemp311 who absolutely hate what this country and our Constitution stand for.
The man is innocent until proven guilty. If guilty, I hope he would have been locked up for a long stretch. But I am tired of lies coming from the law enforcement side. Shooting an unarmed man in the back is not police work, it is murder. Perhaps Stuart Bowman will come forward now and tell us about the lights and sirens being on as well.
At this point I am more than willing to take a serious look at Bisch, who is going to oppose Dougie next election. This kind of crap is completely unacceptable. Metro MUST be reigned in and Sheriff Doug simply isn't doing the job.
And just how do you have a "clerical error" like this? Is the staff doing drugs found on the bodies? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that this was the start of a cover-up that turned out to be impossible. Those pesky eye-witnesses, right Doug?
skemp, I'm with you. Let's face it, the guy is probably a pedophile, ran from the cops, physically fought with the officers, and got shot. I won't be shedding any tears for this loser either.
I know it's not exactly the way it's supposed to happen - we're supposed to make the little girl testify in court, send the creep to jail for a few years, let him out, he can start raping again, send him back to jail, let him out, he rapes more kids, put his face on a website, send him back to jail, etc. etc.
I like this way better.
Being shot in the chest is one thing,and a totally different case should that person be shot in "the back ". Thought Metro already knows that.They know it well,very well.
Even if the man was guilty, how is it justifiable for Metro and the coroner's office to cite one resolution and then to cite an "administrative error" to correct the erroneous resolution? Two wrongs don't make a right....
Let me ask you all a question (unk, mike geena). If he wasn't guilty, why did he have a reason to fight with cops? Why did he try to get away?
As Vegas residents, we know how Metro operates. Right, wrong, indifferent, it is what it is and we all have differing viewpoints. However, this is their Modus Operandi.
Did you forget Chester Stiles? All the taxpayer dollars that were spent on that trial, and having the girl who was raped testify again? I understand your "innocent until proven guilty" concept and I'm all for that. But, if you know you're caught and try to evade our cops, you get what you deserve.
And Unk, there's no need for personal attacks. No need to be an internet toughguy.
You guys who convict on the basis of a newspaper headline are amazing.
These cops are out of control period. They are releasing their inner Nazi.
Wait until it happens to you or someone you know.
You say Constitution be damned and this country deserves what it gets.
skemp311 -- Stiles left evidence, you moron! In no Sun article so far is there more than a hint why the cops were talking to this guy at all. Anyone can accuse, like you and your ilk so freely do here. That's what a lynch mob does, focuses on execution and fills in the facts with their own fantasies along the way.
henderson -- "Let's face it, the guy is probably a pedophile..." Pray you don't face any similar accusation and find out what it's like to be accused of "probably" committing some heinous crime. You painted a scenario here out of your head. Now we'll never know, thanks to Hendricks' itchy trigger finger.
You two fall into the same trap the lynch mob does -- slap a label on someone, in this instance "pedophile," and no trial, no facts are needed to find him guilty, just execute him! I see locally anyone can even accuse someone like this dead man anonymously with a phone tip. What if that happened here? I hope some reporter digs hard enough to get the truth out to us.
Hambleton was executed by Metro detective Hendricks, shot in the back at seven or eight feet, with no other details except the vague details there was an "altercation" and he ran. If you paid attention you'd see this is hardly an isolated incident in Vegas or elsewhere -- like that transit cop in the Bay area recently. Hendricks should get the same treatment.
Unk - I believe in due process. I'm sure Metro would have much preferred Hambleton was arrested and tried for his accused crimes. But face it, Hambleton had 2 choices, let them arrest him or run. He elected to run, then he elected to get into an altercation with a fatal ending. If you truly believe in due process, you will let this entire matter run it's course though the inquest before making a decision. I understand so far in this article you've not taken a position, but you have in the other articles.
mikenyc - what lie has Metro told in this matter? None.
KillerB - this is at least the second time you have belitted those who believe in the system. You think the fall in the same trap as a lynch mob, yet you do the same. You are so closed minded that you can't accept the fact there may be details that haven't been released with will show why and how this incident took place. You've alredy tried and convicted Detective Hendricks, but you don't have a clue.
Talk about your slippery slopes.
You go down that road, you are back in the old west. Unfortunately, there is a lot of the "Old West" mentality in Nevada.
Hangmen's Noose on the strip, anyone?
VOR -- apparently you need to be repeatedly reminded how clueless you are beyond your naked opinion.
Pay attention, you should have learned this in high school civics.
Hendricks is US -- the Metro Police, the law enforcement arm of Vegas/Clark County incorporated by and for the People. We collectively are where Hendricks's authority to wear a badge and gun comes from, nowhere else. He swore an oath to support the Constitutions, and so on. He made a decision to become not only an investigator but also the courts and the executioner. He betrayed everything his oath promised us he would be and do. It's the nature of non-military, community-level police.
The facts as presented, particularly with this correction from the coroner, does not cut Hendricks any slack whatsoever. The man was running away from any "altercation" he may or may not have caused. The only logical conclusion was he was executed by the cop who pulled the trigger who was under no threat at that time. No due process, no equality before the law, no civil liberties, no Constitutional protections he swore his cop's oath to support, defend, protect, etc. To me Hendricks is clearly the criminal.
Class dismissed.
KillerB - you're calling Hendricks the "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" of Hambleton. Do you understand that you and others are doing the same thing, convicting Hendricks before all of the facts are known?
You say Hendricks didn't allow Hambleton to have due process. Yet you're doing the same to Hendricks, not giving him a chance to tell his side of the story.
You believe Hambleton was innocent until proven guilty. (I'm not saying he was guilty.) Yet you're saying Hendricks is guilty.
Once all of the facts are in, if you can open your mind, you may find out you were wrong. Will you be able to admit it?
No one ever has to talk to any detective. If a detective walks up to you on the street & wants to talk with you-you refuse & you walk away. You don't have to run from a detective & if a detective wants to talk with you-give him your lawyers phone number. End of story.
Who's to say that there wasn't an admistrative error in the case involving domestic violence battery and sexual assault with a child under the age of 14.
And where does it say that the child was a female.
Let's look at this a different way. The story says that Metro knew the true facts but that the Coroner's Office made the mistake. Why did Metro leave it up to the CO to give details of the shooting a week after the fact? Yes, the CO usually gives out the identities, but details of an event are usually given by Metro to the press.
On the surface, Metro knew this wasn't going to play well. It's all too easy to think that Metro allowed the CO to have a handy "clerical error" when someone outside the system (a witness?) called them on it.
VoR, you have valid points, in principle, but Metro has lost most of the trust and respect that it should have. The most recent debacle with Manor demonstrated that Metro will cover-up first if at all possible. We can no longer afford to take Metro at its word.
If Sheriff Doug can't or won't rectify this situation, then we need someone who will. Let's take a solid look at Bisch when she runs next year.
"Let me ask you all a question (unk, mike geena). If he wasn't guilty, why did he have a reason to fight with cops? Why did he try to get away"?
Ummmm.....skemp....did you actually read what I posted or just glance and make your own conclusion? Read it again.
I criticized the way the news handling of the outcome was handled by the Coroner's office and Metro. Read it again.
Who knows if we will ever get the true story here. I wish I could say that I had faith in our police, but recent events have given me serious concerns.
Shooting anyone in the back usually doesnt sound good though.
There have been quite a few law enforcement people arrested for sex with minors over the last few years, therefore it should be acceptable to shoot police officers because the might be child molesters? and it would stop them committing future molestations.???
News of police shootings and deaths of suspects in custody gets picked up by the international press in Europe, Asia, Middle East etc. No wonder tourism in down.
I still believe in Metro and I also believe they made a hard choice when presented with an altercation with a man suspected of domestic abuse and sexually abusing a minor under the age 14.
All this man had to do was stop and talk to the detectives, that's it! He brought this on himself through his own stupidity. If and I mean if, he was innocent then it should not have been a big deal to stop and talk to the detectives. By running and acting like an idiot, he brought the actions on himself.
I am sure if he did comment the crimes of beating up a woman and sexually abusing a young minor under the age 14 that he knew that a good lawyer would be able to get him off and he would be out violating children and beating women, once again.
Maybe we wouldn't have so many sex offenders and sex predators in Nevada if we set tougher penalties and kept them off the streets for longer than a minute.
The bottom line is the detectives made a tough call and I stand behind them 100 % We don't walk in their boots, and we don't know how they feel when they make the hard calls like this one.
I will be forever grateful for the law keeping Nevada safe. If you don't want to be shot in the back, then try stopping and talking to the detectives! Very simple.
Vulcan, how do you determine what the true story is?
For me, I know the media can only publish what they have been given. I, like others, wish Metro would just release all the details now instead of keeping them close to the "vest". By not doing so, it leads to great speculation, most times erroneous speculation.
When the inquest is held, Metro will give their version of events and the Coroner will give the forensic results. If the forensic results support the Metro version, will the Metro version be accepted as the truth?
If there are witnesses and it can be shown they did not see the entire event, but only bits and pieces, will their testimony be accepted as the truth or will it be discounted?
I know Metro lost a lot of credibility with the Manor investigation, the Sheriff released information that he wanted to be true instead of waiting for the investigation to be completed. So in that case they erred by rushing to "judgement" and in this case the appear to be much more cautious in what they release. Such a fine line to walk!
Given that the facts released so far appear to indicate that Hambleton was unarmed and fleeing from the officer, it would seem that Tennessee v. Garner would apply here.
The full text of the decision can be found here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge...
The most important part of the 6 - 3 decision, as it applies here, is from Section II, Sub-section A, third paragraph:
"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects."
It will be interesting to get the results from the Coroner's Inquest, and I hope the full transcript will be available for public review.
boftx,
The Clark County Coroner is responsible for the release of name and cause of death. Metro never releases those facts to the media.
The reason there's a delay in the release is because the Coroner's Office doesn't give out any details to the media until a family notification has been made.
what's wrong with the 'old west'?...and we need a new sheriff to understand/install communicable discipline
Capt, I realize that it is always the Coroner who gives out the identity of the deceased, and the official ruling of manner of death. However, Metro usually gives out the initial facts surrounding an incident. In this case, while Metro says they were aware of the true location of the wounds, they only stated that the suspect had been shot and did not bother to correct the Coroner's "clerical error", but rather relied upon the CO to issue a correction a day later. I think they wanted to run this one up the flagpole and see if it would fly. I call "Bullsh!t".
Anyone posting odds on the Coroner's Kangaroo Court justifying THIS particular backshot?
Ok guys, take a deep breath and relax. Let's give the suspect a fair trial and then hang em..lol.
This is even worse than Henderson cop Adam Morrison shooting the 5' Ice Cream lady center-mass because she was carrying a butter knife in the middle of the day. How does that criminal Morrison sleep at night? I'm sure his wife doesn't give him any grief. The kids, too.
Shooting a guy running away is just as bad. We're living in a military/redneck hell, and it's only getting worse...
Speculations, even though some of us do not care about the due process of law, they would probably change their mind if this had happened to a friend or relative of theirs.
United States citizens deserve better than what this man got. Are we going to accept shooting a man in the back because the detectives couldn't restrain him? This type of police activity should stop immediately. Carrying a badge doesn't allow an inforcement officer to shoot and kill a person when it is convenient for his situation.
No one has answered this question....
if he had nothing to hide, why fight and try to escape from the law?
Whats the difference between "administrative error" and "negligence"?
Skemp311, let me answer that question that is troubling you.
He ran because there is NO JUSTICE in Nevada. Innocent people are convicted regularly by our courts. Whether they go to trial, or plead out.
In our state, if you are arrested you are convicted. If they don't have solid evidence against you, they will either manufacture it or just have a trial of character assasignation and you will be incarcerated.
The facts of a case don't matter to our DA's office. All that truly matters is getting a conviction at all costs. The truth is not what they are after.
Seems to me [anyway] that the "perp" was found guilty IF we apply the rule of AUTO DE FEY to the situation.
The cops went to the man's place of work to question him? Knowing he would be fired, if his boss found out about him being an ex-sex offender. Then to shoot him in the back, because he was running away. Sounds like murder.
boftx: the article just stated "Metro Police spokesman Officer Bill Cassell said the department already knew Hambleton's correct manner of death."
The manner of death is homicide, it does not refer to the location of injury.
Don't worry Metro will conduct a full investigation of "themselves" again!
I'm not saying it's right to shoot a man in the back. I'm also not saying I'm sorry it happened. It probably spared the victim more shame, humiliation, and the terror of having to testify at trial. Depending on your beliefs, both the officer and the accused pedophile/convicted felon will each have to answer for what they did or did not do. I'm at peace with that.
The officer was ascribing the rule; "better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"
Where do I send my donation for more bullets?
The system is packed with whiners and ultra-libs while the carnage on the streets continues.
OK, let's find this guy guilty and pay to house him for the rest of his life. Excellent, my taxpayers dollars hard at work.
Heaven forbid he get the worthless and meaningless death penalty; then the costs of over-manipulating a broken system really start to add up.
I am not advocating vigilante justice but at what point do the hard working citizens have a viable means of protection from the miscreants of society.
Here is a tip for all you lib anti-cop metalities out there; if a police officer wants to question you, answer his questions, if you are guilty, put up a fight and deal with consequences. If you are innocent answer the questions and get on with your life.
Metro deserves more respect than is given. They are doing a tough job with ever constricting parameters.
I guess all the posters here are new to the Valley and don't know how Sheriff Lamb got things done.
The last thing that needs to be said about this is this.....everyone of you who are downing the whole of Metro for mistakes a single individual on the force made are the same ones who if they were in trouble Metro couldn't get there fast enough.
The guys and gals in Metro go out day after day and put their lives on the line reguardless of how the people they are protecting and serving feel about them, so do our men and women of the armed forces.
I agree that everyone has a the freedom to express their opinions, but until you are willing to put your lives on the line for someone who could careless, be quiet.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him in the back, you can be charged and convicted of Manslaughter because the intruder ceased to be a threat to you. How is it okay for a cop to shoot an unarmed man in the back? I don't care if there was an altercation. I'm beginning to think that might be a made up story by Metro to justify the shooting, especially now that we know he was shot in the back. Two cops, two guns and tasers, who is this suspect, Brock Lesner? Can't these cops simply beat the guy into submission?
LPN4LIFE, You are an idealist. The real world doesn't quite work that way.
The truth is that there are three kinds of cops:
First, the kind you speak of... The kind that's a friend to the public and public service is their motivation.
Second, the kind which are motivated by the power the badge gives. They get off on the power. If they are not careful, the power can be very easily abused.
Third, deadbeat cops who would rather give an old lady a ticket than bust a crack dealer... Anything to make it to retirement and produce enough tickets to show they are doing something.
Cops are not unlike the general population in most respects. They have problems in their ranks too.
Lastly, so far as danger is concerned their are lots of dangerous occupations. Not to diminish the job cops do, but statistically there are other occupations that are just as dangerous. Heck, its more dangerous to work construction at City Center.
Nonetheless, we appreciate the job they do... However, the police need to be policed too. They aren't all the prototype police officer which we respect and honor.
I'm pretty sure you have the right to shoot an intruder in your home under any circumstances. I have yet to hear of anyone convicted of shooting an intruder in Nevada. There have also been plenty of intruders shot while coming in a window or door with no charges against the homeowners.
The TN v Garner is pushed in CCW courses. Metro does not seem to have to worry about it. If John Q. Public shot someone in the back, they would be in jail from the get go.
I like this crap. "I believe in Metro." Like its a religion or deity? It's a government agency, like the IRS or the highway department. Does good things, bad things and makes mistakes.
Metro seems to be frightened of the public, cowering behind their car doors, and now Gilesspee is hiding for the media.
Henderson, you cannot shot an intruder in the back if they are trying to leave your home. If you shoot the intruder while he/she is running towards you, it's considered justifiable homicide. If the intruder is trying to run out your door after discovering you have a weapon, and you shoot him/her in the back, it's murder.
If you run from Metro, it by your actions it gives them the power to be judge, jury and executioner. Due process is a moot issue.
JSpence07, I am trying to find information on our self defense laws or at least find court cases that might show precedence. I'm not able to find much. I know our Castle Doctrine never made it through, but I'm not sure what laws exist regarding home invasions/self defense.
I agree w/getalife's last posting, the people that help run this town have been doing things basically the same way (Lightened up on ALOT actually) ever since the inception of Las Vegas in the early 50s and, as long as I've lived in town one learns to get used to how things are done here or move somewhere else because it ain't gonna change much just because you think it should, and for the most part, the people that survive this town are generally OK with it....
And to comment on how things are now and back when Sheriff Ralph Lamb was in charge, just think of that Sheriff Joe Apaio in Maricopa County AZ, X 3 and you got the right picture of Sheriff R. Lamb ran his office,Vegas has always been pretty rough town on several levels, get used to it...
A guilty sexual deviant perp running away from arresting officers is going to be shot where?
You got it. In the back unless he can run backwards.
remember back when cops could actually fight and didn't have to resort to shooting people all the time?
I heard that somebody shot the sheriff but not the deputy.
Hey BonyFish, that was only on TV.
Reading many of the comments here, it seems Las Vegas has exactly the kind of police it deserves.
canis canem edit
Judging from the Latin you're using, I'm not surprised you feel that way.
If you shoot someone in the back within your home during the commission of a Felony (by the other person) it would NEVER be considered Murder! Plus there are a million different scenarios that could be present making such a thing justifiable. None of us were there when it happened so it is all pure speculation anyway. Where are you getting your facts?? At the most it would be considered justifiable homocide , & no matter what the method or reason, one human killing another human is considered Homocide. Sounds really funny to me though! Funny as in strangely funny, wierd & screaming with hidden agendas....hmmmmm...
Henderson and David have the best comments. If you don't like the cops here, move away. Nothings gonna change, no matter how much you bloviate about the cops.
SgtRock, you made a funny!
As most of your speculations and assumptions, and even the headline are incorrect, I might point out the the man was shot in the *front* yard of a house...the bullet entered his *back*. It could have ricocheted off the pavement for all anyone knows.
The 'Coroner *DID NOT* say officer shot man in back', as the headline reads...he said, "the cause of death (w)as a perforating gunshot wound to the back."
How it hit him in the back is TBD...and as far as the Tennessee law goes, if this were Tennessee, it might apply.
The cops in Vegas have always been proactive and assertive, and keep most of us safe. Kudos to them...
Two things stand out:
#1. The suspect was unarmed.
#2. The suspect was shot in the back.
It has been stated that the suspect had an altercation with the detective, then attempted to run away.
I have witnessed an altercation where a person was being 'questioned' by detectives who were slapping the suspect around, then they claimed that that the suspect assaulted them and initiated the confrontation.
If that person had attempted to run away and got shot in the back, it appears that more than half of you would have lauded the officer's conduct.
I've seen this more than once, in more than one city. It's an not uncommon event.
The key here is why did the officer shoot the suspect? I think it should be reviewed by a jury, but I'm willing to agree that there can be a entirely justifiable explanation.
People get more than a little stupid where sex and sexual offenses are concerned. Note some of the people willing to write off what may have been anything from a bad spur of the moment decision to an outrageous execution of 'street justice' by a law enforcement agent.
Why? Nobody knows, based on the statements made, that the person shot was even the accused individual? The detectives were investigating, might have been asking about a brother or uncle or sister or aunt, and the person being questioned lost his temper when he felt the detectives were out of line.
If you blind side me with accusations of being a child molester - I would be shocked and probably respond angrily, and if you lay your hands on me or start shoving me around, who knows where it would lead to?
We should reserve our judgements and condemnation of the police and also of the person being questioneed until we know a whole lot more about what we are discussing.
The problem here is the Police have this mentality they are above the Law and everybody is out to get them. They have no honor. Most of them do not even know the Laws or follow policies put in place to stop the very juvenile unprofessional police work so common with Metro.
These people Lie as default. They kill citizens and make-up stories why they had to kill an unarmed man shooting him in the back. Oh boy the perp dared struggle with an officer. So what shake it off and be professional. There was no justification to kill this person as they did, NONE. They killed him because Metro sees the public as subhuman and we are all guilty.
Sexual criminals are probably the highest flight risk I bet.
The guy fleeing was to be expected. Let him go, chase him, call in back-up, fresh legs will win. Guy would have likely given up crying when he realized there was no more running from his problem.
henderson -- "...probably spared the victim more shame, humiliation, and the terror of having to testify at trial." So far the only victim is the dead man. Whoever caused the cops to make the fatal call are accusers, nothing more.
For self defense -- and this is amazing you need it explained to you -- start with Blackstone. It's a natural right that's been with us since the beginning.
It's also acknowledged (not given) in Nevada's Declaration of Rights: "Section. 1. Inalienable rights. All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]"
One more thing Hambleton no longer may enjoy.
KillerB, thanks but I don't need a lesson from you. While I don't think it's right to shoot a man in the back, I'm not sorry it happended. I think the man knew full well that he was taking that chance when he fled. Am I going to shed tears for a convicted felon and an accused pedophile/domestic abuser? No I'm not. As I said, both he and the police officer will have to answer for what they did or did not do.
I also think you lose certain rights once you become a convicted felon, which Hambleton was.
Even if he wasn't a pedophile/domestic abuser, he was definitely a criminal. I despise criminals, they make this world a dangerous place for the rest of us.
henderson, I think you are badly mistaken here. I have read all four articles on this and none of them say anything other than Hambleton was being questioned in connection with a case. No where does it say he was a convicted felon.
Also, considering that one of the elements involved was domestic abuse, it is not beyond reason to question the truth of the sexual assualt on a minor charge. We've all heard storys how a pissed off girlfriend or ex has made a false child abuse charge against the man. Child abusers/molesters are rightly considered the worst of offenders, which why any such charge MUST be substantiated before being accepted.
Simply put, unless Hambleton presented a clear and preset danger to the officer or someone else, this was an un-justified shooting. Tennessee v Garner couldn't be more clear or on point for this incident.
boftx:
This isn't Tennessee...we don't abide by Tennessee law...the articles you've read are hearsay and opinion, not fact...you make a declaratory statement, i.e. this is an unjustified shooting and you have no facts to back you up...see my earlier post...the *bullet* hit him in the back, or to put it succinctly, there was a perforating wound to the back, which does not prove he was *shot* in the back...the projectile could have very well ricocheted off the pavement while the officer was falling to the ground with the gun going off, as was mentioned in the earlier articles...quit jumping to conclusions...it illustrates your ready, fire aim approach to your comments regarding these incidents...you DON'T know what happened, unless you were there...
elgato,
Tennessee v Garner is a US Supreme Court decision that was decided in 1985, and as such, it is the law of the land. I posted the link to the full text of the case opinion earlier. Do you play poker? I'm always looking for more donors to my retirement fund.
boftx,
Did you read the other citations? The footnotes? On its face it involves a 4th Amendment issue, but common law (and common sense) also prevail in other situations...
Now as far as poker, did you read the rest of my post(s)...in re: the ricocheting bullet? The *fact* that he received a perforating GSW to his back, was not shot in the back, an incorrect presumption made by the author of this story and the majority of the people who've read it...you're pretty smug and self-righteous but you don't have the cards; one citation you found to bolster your speculation and your pre-determined conclusion does not win the pot...prudence, reasoning, consideration and deliberation of the facts IN THIS CASE will prevail...so with that in mind, I call...
"Even if he wasn't a pedophile/domestic abuser, he was definitely a criminal. I despise criminals, they make this world a dangerous place for the rest of us."
henderson -- I see someone else has already taken you to task on your insistence our fellow citizen, now a corpse, was a criminal.
It's apparent you haven't been caught in the machine we've allowed criminal justice to become. Someone close to me is a convicted felon and I was there from arraignment to sentencing. People like you need an education on what the process is really like -- the Constitution, the Rule of Law, justice and even truth are the last things the courts are concerned with, despite their oaths. One is not tried, one is processed for their benefit. "Justice" has become "just us."
The point: if you knew how easy it really is to become a felon you'd change your tune.
As for Hambleton, RIP, we'll never know what the full story is.
Respect is a two way street. I have never run away from a policeman, never been arrested.
That does not mean that I give respect to anyone who doesn't treat me respectfully.
Police are doing a job, and serve at the grace of the citzenry. They owe each and every person common courtesy and respect. Not everyone is a criminal.
I will never ascribe to the notion that you just "do whatever the nice policeman tells you to do".
Their are many good policeman. There are also many who are rude, break the law regularly, and many who are power hungry and think the badge they wear puts them above the law.
Yes, they put their lives on the line each day. If they don't like that aspect of their job, they should quit and find a new job. No one forced them to take it, and they took the job knowing that that was part of it.
No that it really matters in the "grand scheme" of things, the the following sentence came from the LVRJ:
"According to Clark County court records, Hambleton pleaded guilty to a felony charge of attempted theft in 2003."
http://www.lvrj.com/news/50118577.html
Based upon that information, which because it's in the paper it must be true, Hambleton was a convicted felon.
KillerB,
While I have sincere doubts about your statements that it's easy for someone who did not commit a crime to be convicted of a felony, it's irrelevant. I don't think it would be very likely that an innocent person would plead guilty to a felony, which Hambleton did.
Did you hear that Boftx - You can't rely on the Sun for all of your news, you will be sorely underinformed. He plead guilty to a felony in 2003.
henderson,
I stand corrected based on the info provided by VoR as to Hambleton being a convicted felon. Be that as it may, the rest of my comments stand on their own.
I tend to avoid the LVRJ nowadays.
Yes, elgato, I read the full decision and checked some of the footnotes for it. The underlying reasoning was that deadly force is not effective as a deterent anymore and therefore is not justified in non-dangerous sitiuations and the State's interest in capturing a fleeing felon did not trump that person's 4th rights in that circumstance. The Court's decision is very clear on this and set new precedent, over-riding the past citations.
As for the ricochet theory, while it might be possible, I would not expect it to have actually occured.
Let's just suppose for a moment that the detectives let Hambleton flee. What if he went and killed his accuser before they were able to apprehend him again? I for one would be blaming Metro for letting him escape. Just another viewpoint.
The accuser isn't under 14 as the propagandist wouold like the public to believe. The accuser is closer to 18 and she had worked at target for many months. The situation isn't as bad as the police and there friends want everyone to believe. They are covering up for this officers incompetent. When will Doug Gillespie be arrested for domestic battery? Oh, I forgot he can get away with it because he is above the law.
FACT: the accuser had many pasts incidents of lying about her age to have sex with older men. The police are trying to make it look like Hambleton was hanging out a playgrounds and nursery schools. The police know how old she really is, but you will never know this from them. Hambleton got caught in an ugly situation facing an ignorant and crooked system and ran for it. For this he was exicuted.
QUESTION: Was the man ARMED with any thing at all could be construed as a lethal weapon and therefore posed a PRESENT danger to the public?
Is there more to this than was written? There would have to be because "possible" suspect (in another crime)doesn't cut it.
The coroner's findings were that he was shot in the back?.. but the report given to press was that he was shot in the chest?? and that was an administrative error? What does "administrative error" mean exactly?
I am the Queen of Typos and even I couldn't cause the word back to read as chest! Someone , without any ax to grind or a personal interest in anything but TRUTH needs to investigate this. The man is DEAD, not "possibley" dead..
D E A D.. nothing is going to change that fact.
If he was not armed... and running away on foot.. then pursue.. call it in?.. call for back up.. but shoot an unarmed man in the back?? Don't think so!
There would need to be a lot more to what I have read than has been told for that to be acceptable in any way , shape or form. A LOT!
I'm still so glad we've removed another convicted felon off the streets. Plus we have saved so much in tax dollars. Great job Metro, keep up the good work.
I'd love to have all these Metro naysayers say the same thing about our police force when they're awoken at 4am when some armed perp breaks into their house. Would you take back some of your insults about Metro then?!
skemp311 says:
"I'd love to have all these Metro naysayers say the same thing about our police force when they're awoken at 4am when some armed perp breaks into their house. Would you take back some of your insults about Metro then?!"
No! If anything I would be compalining even more that they are essentially over-paid trash collectors who are only there to clean up after citizens protect themselves. The fact that someone entered my house at 4AM just proves that the police do not prevent crime. And I would not be reaching for a phone until it was safe to do so.
I'll leave it to your imagination as to what I would be reaching for first if my dogs alerted me to an intruder.
Boftx,
So the fact that Metro didn't stop someone from coming into your house at 4AM means they're failed at their job? You're hilarious.
Get out your straw hat, get your spittoon, and put on your copy of Deliverance. You're a lost cause pal.
If the job of the police is to protect the public, yes, that would be a failure. Police generally delay crime, not prevent it. Honest people aren't going to commit those crimes to begin with, and the people who want to will wait until the right chance comes up.
The best protection from crime is to be able to protect yourself and not rely on a 3rd party who shows up after the fact.
This is shaping up to look like Metro's Manor tragedy all over again -- it all started with a lying female.
boftx is right about that. The best line of defense is self-defense.
Metro hasn't disclosed the Detective's version of events, they will do so at the inquest. I'm sure there will be information that changes the initial complexion of this matter.
There is no comparison with the Manor incident.
"There is no comparison with the Manor incident."
Sure there is, we have Metro Brass covering-up and intentionally spreading lies to the Public.
Just one shot - I'm impressed...the adreneline didn't cause the accused to get peppered with .40 holes...
Unk - What is the cover-up? What is the lie?