Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sheriff Doug Gillespie responds to a question during a news conference at Metro Police Headquarters on Monday, Dec. 12, 2011. Gillespie called the news conference after an officer shot and killed a man at a condominium complex in the northwest valley.
By Jackie Valley (contact) 
, Gregan Wingert
Published Monday, Dec. 12, 2011 | 7:42 a.m.
Updated Monday, Dec. 12, 2011 | 5:20 p.m.
Metro officer shoots, kills suspect
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV coverage of Metro police shooting and killing a man outside a condominium complex in the northwest valley, Dec. 12, 2011.
Sheriff Doug Gillespie addresses reporters during a news conference at Metro Police Headquarters on Monday, Dec. 12, 2011. Gillespie called the news conference after an officer shot and killed a man at a condominium complex in the northwest valley.
Fatal police shooting
A man shot to death by a Metro Police officer early Monday was unarmed and in a car that had been pinned between at least two unoccupied patrol cars, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie said.
Gillespie, who conducted a press briefing Monday afternoon, said the investigation into the incident is ongoing and did not speculate about why the officer opened fire.
He said he wanted the community to know he is there to ask the “tough questions” about what happened.
Police said they encountered the man after responding to a call of a person trying to get into a northwest valley home.
“A suspect was shot and killed by one of my officers,” Gillespie said. “Any time we have a fatal use of law enforcement, it’s a sad day.”
MyNews3.com identified the man as Stanley Gibson, whose wife, Rondha, said he was battling post-traumatic stress disorder and brain cancer from serving in the Gulf War.
"He would go into paranoid delusions, thinking people were after him," she said. "He would get scared. He would get severe anxiety."
The man was shot after police initially responded to a report about 11:30 p.m. Sunday of a man trying to get into a unit at the Alondra Condos, 2451 N. Rainbow Blvd, near Smoke Ranch Road, Metro spokesman Bill Cassell said.
The man had fled by the time officers arrived, but the caller gave police a description of him and his vehicle, Cassell said.
The man returned shortly before 1 a.m. Monday, while police were still there, and there was an altercation when officers approached him, Cassell said.
The man refused to surrender and rammed his vehicle into at least one patrol car, Cassell said. Officers continued trying to get the man to give up, but he refused, Cassell said.
At least one officer fired several rounds, which struck and killed the man, Cassell said.
It’s unclear what prompted police to shoot. No officers were injured during the altercation, Cassell said.
Rondha Gibson said her husband had been unable to get his medication to control his anxiety and that he called her in a state of confusion Sunday night, thinking he was home while he was at the neighboring condominium complex. She also said Metro was supposed to have him under a three-day psychiatric watch this past weekend, but police have not confirmed that.
The officers involved in the shooting will be placed on paid administrative leave, which is standard procedure. Their identities will be released within 48 hours.
Within 72 hours, the officer who opened fired will give a statement about the incident, Gillespie said.
The shooting was the 18th officer-involved shooting in Metro's jurisdiction this year.
yet another civilian killed by cops...
"yet another civilian killed by cops..."
Under those circumstances, I would have shot him too.
"The man refused to surrender and rammed his vehicle into at least one patrol car"
------------------------
Sounds like "Suicide by LV Metro cop" to me.
Ramming police vehicles is never a good life choice.
"yet another civilian killed by cops...
I can't call people like this "civilians." Ramming a police vehicle?
It's not difficult to avoid police altercation in life.. Just don't do anything stupid or illegal like breaking and entering.
What a happy ending!
Metro has never and will never kill an innocent person without cause. Everything we say is fact. We are law enforcement.
Sincerely,
- Metro.
If you ram a police car you sorta got it coming, especially now a days.
However, ramming a police car should not be a death sentence.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Thank you Metro. In this city you have a tough job that apparently, as noted by some posters on this site, can be done by anyone. The majority of citizens know this is not the case and support you.
Blind support for law enforcement is so out of control people will support a sarcastic Metro comment.
Truly flabbergasting.
A vehicle is considered a deadly weapon when used with the intent to inflict serious bodily harm to another person. The Officers are allowed to equally use deadly force in response.
The article mentions that the suspect used his vehicle to ram a police car. That may not be the the only thing the suspect attempted to run over!
I have confidence that the Officers response was justified in the situation presented..
Whether you are pro-police and think killing this guy was OK or you are against the police because you think killing this guy was not OK, maybe everyone should wait for more information to come out. The latest news release doesn't look so good for the police. My question about police shootings is, Why does Metro always have to kill the suspects? Remember the guy at Costco? Why did the police officer have to shoot him in the back while he lay on the ground? Could it be that Metro doesn't want police officers to testify in a trial? Was the officers life in danger? Doesn't appear to be the case here.
The details of this officer involved shooting at this point are sketchy at best. However, most times when a vehicle is being used against a police officer in a situation, the subject vehicle is determined in most cases to be that of a deadly weapon. The officer, whose cruiser was under siege from the subject had full right to declare that his life was in imminent danger, and therefore, deploy use of deadly force.
Personally, in my eyes, I would have preferred that the officer when discharging his weapon would have used measures in, "shooting to stop", rather than that of, "shooting to kill". But, in being fair and just to the police officer, what real options did the police officer have available to him? The suspect was behind the wheel of his car. The officer's target was extremely limited of the suspect. The areas of the suspect's body that were exposed for the officer to target was, that of a 95% chance that the impact of a bullet would in fact, take the suspects life.
Based on the limited information available at this juncture, the officer does well deserve the support of the community in the actions that he took in the situation.
officers are not trained to shoot to stop, or just maim someone.. when their own lives usually depend on it, the only response is shoot to kill.
This situation is sad, and I doubt this troubled man wanted to see his life end like this. He was obviously not in his right mind. Unfortunately he may be more at peace now, if only that he doesn't have to deal with his sickness any longer. Condolences to his family.
I agree with the wait and see attitude regarding this shooting.
It does highlight that the police are called in when a mentally disturbed person is causing a problem when if there was early intervention it could have been avoided.
I had a family member who needed help and no agency would help because they said they couldn't because my family member wasn't an imminent threat to themselves or others. It wasn't until they almost died in an attempted suicide that help could be compelled. It shouldn't have to get to that point but that's the way the law is now. It's a shame too because the vast majority of families just want to help their loved one but can't because you would be violating the loved ones rights. Thank you ACLU.
@unlv702...
"Blind support for law enforcement is so out of control people will support a sarcastic Metro comment.
Truly flabbergasting."
Yup!
If you've lived in this burg for any length of time, by now you have come to the conclusion that Metro shoots A LOT of 'suspects'...
Whether they are (individually) justified, OR NOT, this is way out of whack with the norm in other, similarly situated communities.
It is part & parcel of the Metro M.O...no way around that.
I'm really shocked that nobody understands what PTSD is or does.
If the wife's allegations are true, then Metro should have had a handle on his 3 day Pysch watch. They should have known who he was by looking up his plate and identifying him.
There are no winners here. Plenty of places to point blame to. War, effects of the war, doctor not providing the medication etc.
At least do some research though... I have had several relatives with PTSD and the flashbacks are so realistic it'll throw them into a situation where they think they are at work again. On Meds, no problem, off meds another story.
This guy served our country, to fight for YOUR freedom. It's a shame he is dead. I don't necessarily blame LVMPD, he wasn't following their orders, but under the circumstances who knows if he even really understood those orders. He was clearly confused.
To everyone saying Good for cleaning up the street. What had this guy done? Be reasonable people. Every situation is unique. Including this story, and the tragedy of it.
These news updates have totally changed my initial perspective on this incident. If it is true that the suspect was ramming police cruisers while no officers were in these subject cruisers, the officer(s) employing use of deadly force will certainly have problems justifying this. If it also comes to be true that this suspect was under a a three-day psychiatric watch, and Metro was aware of this, it does not look good for Metro having any type of community support. Justifiably so.
Nothing like serving your country in combat. Then, in the aftermath, suffering from all the wounds and scars, the final result of a veterans life is being gunned down due to his declining mental health state from that of a once sound mind. Sad. Very tragic. Again, all the more reason I have been preaching in this forum for Metro to exercise restraint in firing their weapons when not 110% in compliance with the laws governing the employment of deadly use of force.
There is something wrong with this picture! If the guy wasn't armed, he didn't have to die! Its becoming more and more apparent that people are placing less value on another persons life today. Its just to easy to end. This could be any one of us! Back in in the old days when we truly respected life, we would of used our weapons to disable the man or even shoot out the tires before taking his life. Sure! there would of been collateral damage. The guy deserved a good beaten! He would of gotten it, given this situation was handled differently. But at least his parents and possibly his children would not have to receive to news that daddy is gone forever. Maybe he couldn't afford his medication. We don't know! And although there is "a silent majority" I will not say that this most of us are thinking, only that this is just my humble opinion!
I'm curious if someone can describe to me, how some people like Mitzy above, relate foreign wars with fighting for our freedom? I've just never understood how they are relating the two. What does a war like Iraq or Afghanistan have to do with freedom, like the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. What does Iraq or Afghanistan have to do with the American Constitution?
only 18 so far this year..I bet we hit 20 before new years eve..
War is never pretty @westvegas. What would you call it?
Fighting for no reason? Look at any war, there are plenty of ways to try and discount the need for them. They will always exist.
Specifically Iraq and Afghanistan were to fight back against Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I fully support fighting the terrorist to protect our country.
Therefore protecting our freedom.
Not sure how you missed the tie in, and doubtful you'll agree either.
gmag39 wrote:
"Whether they are (individually) justified, OR NOT, this is way out of whack with the norm in other, similarly situated communities."
Please name another community that is similar to Las Vegas. I have never seen one or been to one.
"Sad. Very tragic."
BChap -- you said it all. Seems the officers were justified, for a change.
I was driving down Rancho yesterday and passed that new VA clinic. Having a brother who was a Marine in Desert Storm, I have to wonder how well or not-well the VA is handling the walking wounded it sends back to us from the wars our country is aggressing on. Gibson's demons seems to have escaped their attention.
"To different minds, the same world is a hell, and a heaven." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson (from "Metamorphosis"?)
As long that I have lived, I have never put myself in a possision to be shot at by any Policeman. Don't want. Don't need it. You can bet if I was ever in that position, I would do as I was told. One, I damn sure wouldn't try running them over with a car, or reach into my waistband and produce a phone, lighter, chapstick, gun, knife etc.. The one's that do, get shot and rightfully so. Tell me, why does it seem that most of the people the police come in contact with, are LOSERS. Others have broken the law but do as they are told. The ones that do, what they are told, go home or lock-up. The others go to the Hospital or Morgue. Some make a good choice, some....well... not so good.
I hope the unoccupied police cruisers are okay.
You do the same thing to me, and I will shoot you and ask questions later too !!!
People need to learn, if you have a problem do not call the police in Las Vegas, unless you want to get shot.
You are better off trying to handle it yourself.
Sad but true.
An officer has the right to wait 72 hours before providing a formal report/statement on the use of deadly force? In all my years as a peace officer and a training instructor, I have never heard of such a thing. This is outrageous!!! Sheriff Gillespie, who is in control of your law enforcement agency? You, or the police officers union?
Secondly, it is verified that the suspect was in fact, unarmed. It is also verified that no Metro officer was in the police cruisers that were being rammed by the suspect. Coupled this with, if any portion of the statement from the wife of the deceased is true, and I personally believe she is telling the truth, every Metro supervisor on scene should be immediately placed on administrative leave pending a criminal investigation. Further, the officer who employed the use of deadly force against the mentally ill Iraq war veteran should be immediately arrested, and booked into the Clark County Detention Center on charges of no less than manslaughter. Sheriff Gillespie, please, do what is proper, and restore some type of credibility to your law enforcement agency that you oversee.
Metro seems to have a difficult time identifying and dealing with people who are having a mental-health crisis. I think maybe some CIT training (crisis intervention team) should be made available to all officers.
This is, I think, the 5th OIS that I have heard about recently where the dead person did not have a criminal record and was having a "mental moment". Considering the high level of mental illness in this town, officers need special training, IMHO.
Thank you metro, you are the reason I wear body armor and am getting my CCW.
The subject was armed with a 2000 pound car and mentally unstable. A dangerous mixture, no matter what his past service with the US Military. I will wait for the details from the force investigation team.
Las Vegas police have had a strict policy against shooting into moving vehicles for at least a decade. The policy prohibits the action "unless it is absolutely necessary to do so to protect against imminent threat to life of the member or others" and instructs officers to move out of the path of the vehicle and not to shoot at fleeing drivers. Early this year, the department strengthened the policy, adding, "The imminent threat must be by means other than the vehicle itself."
The policy, which meets national recommended standards, is intended to limit the threat posed by a moving vehicle. Shooting a driver can turn the vehicle into an unguided missile.
But the Review-Journal's investigation found that the department routinely cleared its officers for such shootings. Since 2001, its officers have had 21 shootings into moving vehicles, but only twice did the department's Use of Force Review Board rule against those officers. In a third case, a supervisor who did not fire his weapon was found to be out of policy.
If the victim was ramming cars and trying to get away, the police can shot him before he becomes a threat to the public, just like they can shoot a armed person running from them in the back.
The fact we do know for sure is if there were security cameras in the parking lot and if they were purchased from COSTCO, they would have malfunctioned.
Congratulations Metro, you've succeeded where the nation's enemies have failed -- killing an unarmed warrior of combat -- an American soldier -- a cancer suffering veteran -- spilling the patriotic tears of a compassionate widow upon the toughest of questions.
: {
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aSJgcpqe...
I am a vietnam vet. I served 3 years with recon batallion and 4 years in the corp. At that time I thought we were the best military force in the country. That was before I decided to move to las Vegas. Then I found out that the police in Las Vegas were far more expienrced than myself.They seem to shoot to kill then ask.You guys are trained so much better than I was yet you seem to take the kill shot without remorse. I enlisted in the Marine Corp as you sighned up for the lvpd.That does'nt give you the right to blow away everyone that you come into what your feeble mind may perceive as a threat. When a guy runs away from you because you want to question him and you shoot him in the back.There's a problem.Then you corner a Iraqi war vet who you've corned in with no police in any vehicle and decide to kill the guy who is unarmed, we have yet another problem. Since you guys feel that the witnesses in these cases have no say and the police rule,than you police ratbastards should should sleep in peace while the surviving victims have so many Questions. SIEG HIEL
The fact that the Sheriff is holding a press conference and is making one of the officers issue a public statement indicates to me that the PR Machine is up and running for what potentially could be a another Federal case.
If in fact the police did know who this man was, or had any knowledge whatsoever that this man was mentally ill prior to the confrontation then there are going to be some heads rolling. Because the Department and the DA are already under intense scrutiny for the handling of previous high profile cases, expect a full blown all out assault on the victims character.
I am reminded of the high profile case... you know which one I'm talking about... where during the Inquest the DA spent several days going over testimony and evidence to paint the picture that "the bad guy" deserved what he had coming to him. After all, it's not what happened at the time of the shooting that matters right? It's about whether the "bad guy" deserved what he had coming to him. That was the inherent flaw of the prior Inquest system. It spent little time focusing on police procedure and more time on who the "bad guy" was and if he deserved to die based on his history.
Why do you think that jurors are not allowed to hear about previous convictions of a defendant during a criminal trial? Because they are irrelevant to the current case and will most likely sway the jury's decision towards a guilty verdict. And yet, we had an Inquest process that was inherently poisoned from the outset. During an Inquest it should not matter who or what the decedent was, but rather... what did the police do at the time of the shooting? Anything beyond that smacks of prejudice. That's one of the reasons that some of these cases are going Federal.
Look, I am a law and order kind of guy... but that does not mean every shoot is a clean one. In fact, sometimes we have to close our eyes to a few that we know are on the fence, if for nothing more than to maintain some thin line between living in a civilized society versus all out mayhem. I do understand the stakes. I do understand that careers are on the line. But let me pose this question to those who blindly accept every action of a police force. If we blindly accept every shoot as justified, which many do, how in the hell are we ever going to make any progress in decreasing the number of officer involved shootings? Particularly the ones that leave a bad taste in the mouths of the most casual observers? I will wait for more information on this one to render my own opinion on what should happen, but as of now, there are many questions that need answering.
I want to make a correction in my last post. I used the term "victim" but meant decedent.
The police are allowed 72 hours to make a statement after a shooting?
Well, since I'm sure they see nothing wrong in providing the officer three days to get his story together, METRO will allow suspects three days to make any statement, too. Of course, if the dead guy was given three days he might not be so dead.
+++++
Mitzy17 said:
"Specifically Iraq and Afghanistan were to fight back against Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I fully support fighting the terrorist to protect our country."
Mitzy, apparently you didn't get the memo. By all accounts, particularly the 911 Commission, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 911 attack, Al Qaeda, or any of the other reasons given by the Bush administration for invading and occupying Iraq, and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children.
It seems disproportionate that, considering the military and CIA say there are less than 400 AQ members, Americans have watched the erosion of civil rights protections.
The majority does not support metro. The majority is scared to death of metro. Obviously these officers are scared to death of everyone. That's why they shoot first and ask questions later. Chickens, cowards. They have no business in the business of law enforcement.
The other paper is reporting that a miscommunication between supervisors and the officer who fired caused this. Apparently they were going to use a beanbag rifle to shoot out a car window and the firing officer reacted to the sound of the beanbag shots. Also, Metro did have prior knowledge of this guy's mental state. He was in custody on Saturday.
Further, there is footage of the incident (car wasn't moving) over on channel 3's site. Break out the checkbook, taxpayers.
A Metro cop's way to get paid time off and not have to use vacation or sick leave time, kill someone.
The Sherrif stated that the officers had 72 hours to make a formal report to him about the incident. Do the officers get together to make sure their stories are the same? Are these sworn statements? As a citizen, would I have the same right?