|
|
Post by Ralph on Jul 30, 2011 0:46:57 GMT -5
From a tactical standpoint, this was a disaster.
They could have waited him out at the very least.
Antagonizing someone that is on a suicide attempt is as big a "no no" as antagonizing someone armed with a hostage.
And firing anything at him went wayyyy beyond the limits.
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jul 30, 2011 4:03:56 GMT -5
Exactly Ralph, Patterson may not be without fault in this but it doesn't make him a Cop Murderer. Self defense is self defense in this country even if your defending yourself from a police officer. This was an unprovoked offensive with intent to inflict harm to the property owner! Any charges must deal with his intent, I dont think his intent was to kill a cop, I do believe he was just trying to survive the shootout.
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jul 30, 2011 4:59:14 GMT -5
In the Infantry, we were trained to know what Offensive and Defensive tactics would provoke what types of responses. If your trying to end a standoff, two options exist. Stay back and wait it out or move in fast with maximum firepower placed on the target. Moving in danger close is for the kill, not anything else, thats exactly what Patterson believed, he was going to die. The second the Enemy feels cornered, they will respond with anything and everything they have to include deadly force.
I can't believe this isn't 101 level training at Police academies. I feel confident the Knoxboro Shootout and the Young Man from Canastota would have had completely diff outcomes if a safe standoff and Noriega capture tactics were employed instead of the Blitzkrieg.
Think about it, who is going to be crazy enough to follow the Enemy down a Dead End road without being sure its not an ambush? Maybe a cop, not a Cowboy or Infantry guy! In Knoxboro, the Enemy was in his own "Castle" in an improved "Defensive Posture" and they were invading from less advantageous Offensive position, no Grunt would move on that without mitigating the substantial risks first. The answer would be to wait for nightfall, keep the enemy from sleeping, resting, refreshing their position or replenishing their supplies and ammo and make sure they cannot escape. Time is on the side of those in the overwatch not those being watched.
Proven Combat and Riot Control Tactics not the urge to be home on time for dinner should have prevailed in both of these cases! These were both tragic and preventable in my opinion, (for what its worth!).
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jul 30, 2011 10:34:35 GMT -5
Being outside, even with limitted light on their side, law enforcement was at the disadvantage from a person inside who has some semblence of cover. Not only that, but the outside and exposed personnel needed a light source shone into the garage in order to target Patterson in the first place. Wyman was the one holding the light that gave others his position. It made the most sense to take out the light source. And this is me rationalizing not under the duress of what occurred that night. So for Patterson to have reacted as quickly as he did, in the manner that he did tells me he's had some kind of training and the LEO's underestimated him or simply were not trained properly in these kinds of situations. I have to believe his first shot was fired at the spotlight and not specifically to hit Wyman himself.
As tragic as this is, I still stand behind my position that the Sheriff's Office and poor decisions in this situation are what got Kurt Wyman killed. Whether or not he was under orders to be out in the open with a spotlight is moot when you consider a chain of command and a tactical situation existed for hours. The bigger question is was he ever ordered NOT to be participating in the manner he was? And since he was not a trained member of the ERT he never should have been allowed to remain in that position.
I was glad to see Patterson plead not guilty yesterday and hope he does not take any plea deals because if he does, we will never get a better accounting of what happened. Even if this goes to trial, which I hope it does, we still might not get a full picture, but guaranteed Maciol and the Sheriffs Office will be under a microscope, as they need to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jul 30, 2011 10:36:06 GMT -5
From a tactical standpoint, this was a disaster. They could have waited him out at the very least. Antagonizing someone that is on a suicide attempt is as big a "no no" as antagonizing someone armed with a hostage. And firing anything at him went wayyyy beyond the limits. Exactly. Firing on a suicidal person may just be enough to push them to finish the job. Or in this case, return fire. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jul 30, 2011 11:12:57 GMT -5
 Senseless tragedy but will state this.........Patterson knew exactly who he was shooting at. It sure as hell wasn't the bogeyman. He definitely knew the officers were there for six hours trying to talk him into surrendering, so as far as I'm concerned he is guilty of shooting the officer as charged.  Having mental problems does not and should not excuse anyone from committing a crime. If that is allowed as a defense then I'm afraid most all of us would get away with murder. 
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jul 30, 2011 12:49:16 GMT -5
But at no time did he ever have intention of committing a crime during the 6 hours, not until he was provoked. Mental illness is an affirmative defense of a crime. You cannot absolve law enforcement for their bad handling of this situation.
Yes, he did know these were cops out there. The entire time they'd been trying to convince him not to harm himself. Don't you see the mixed signals when they did start firing on him, causing him harm?
Also, it is practically a certain fact that he did shoot Wyman. Barring ballistics that confirm his bullet was the fatal shot, we are under the premise he shot and killed Wyman. BUT, that is far from stating he is guilty of a crime under the circumstances. Far from it. Self defense is a very appropriate defense in this instance as would also be an emotional disturbance defense, and both are allowable under law. This case is going to hinge on whether officers were justified in using the force to which they did. It is also going to hinge on Patterson's perception that they were firing live rounds at him. Given as fact per Mc Namara, Patterson never threatened to harm any member of law enforcement so he had no reasonable expectation they'd start shooting. Would you?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jul 30, 2011 18:52:00 GMT -5
But at no time did he ever have intention of committing a crime during the 6 hours, not until he was provoked. Mental illness is an affirmative defense of a crime. You cannot absolve law enforcement for their bad handling of this situation. Yes, he did know these were cops out there. The entire time they'd been trying to convince him not to harm himself. Don't you see the mixed signals when they did start firing on him, causing him harm? Also, it is practically a certain fact that he did shoot Wyman. Barring ballistics that confirm his bullet was the fatal shot, we are under the premise he shot and killed Wyman. BUT, that is far from stating he is guilty of a crime under the circumstances. Far from it. Self defense is a very appropriate defense in this instance as would also be an emotional disturbance defense, and both are allowable under law. This case is going to hinge on whether officers were justified in using the force to which they did. It is also going to hinge on Patterson's perception that they were firing live rounds at him. Given as fact per Mc Namara, Patterson never threatened to harm any member of law enforcement so he had no reasonable expectation they'd start shooting. Would you? Would I? Not a question I would have to worry about because I wouldn't put myself in the position Patterson put himself in. I have enough common sense to know if I had a gun and police officers were involved anything can happen. Self defense? Patterson was the one doing wrong right from the very start. This is a man who made a woman ran for her life in fear who in turned called the police to protect her. There is no way you, McNamara or anyone else for that matter to know if Patterson had any intentions of not harming anyone. You are assuming that. It is not a fact. Only Patterson knows and I'm sure at this point he will not be stupid enough to tell the truth, especially now that he is lawyered up with the advice of keeping his mouth shut. I have read numerous cases of people committing suicide and taking other innocent lives with them. Not uncommon and happens way too often. Self defense? Hell no! No one held a gun to his head. Patterson brought everything on himself. He was the man holding a gun with no one knowing what the hell his next move would be. |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Aug 1, 2011 8:51:52 GMT -5
So if the police shot and killed him in the process of trying to stop him from killing himself, he brought it on himself?
Mind you the only charge from the domestic is only a violation of second degree harassment.
Also keep in mind you are looking at this in the view of a rationally thinking person when you say you'd not be in such situation. Patterson obviously was not of same mental reasoning to end up in this situation to begin with.
BTW, the woman who ran for her life wasn't the one that called the police and Mc Namara did state as a matter of fact in his press conference that Patterson made no threats against law enforcement at any time that night.
And since you did bring up the point that nobody knew what his next move would be, why was Wyman standing out in the open with the spotlight in front of the garage? Seems as though the sheriffs on scene didn't prepare very well since he was not in a place providing him cover.
Self defense. They shot at him first with no justification to do so. Them shooting at him could have been enough to provoke him to actually kill himself, and then who's fault would it have been?
I respect the fact that you have friends and family in law enforcement, BZ, as do I, but this was mishandled very badly. A friend of mine in the Sheriff's Office told me as much a few days after. It was about all he could say since they were under an unofficial gag order. Why so hush hush if they didn't do anything wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Aug 1, 2011 10:05:08 GMT -5
I have to agree with you FA. It is a very sad and tragic story, but it was caused by a seriously flawed tactical decision, and whoever made that decision will have to answer for it eventually. It will probably come out in the trial, and there will be some . I was originally abhorred by the idea that the man shot and killed a cop, but the more I read and the more that comes out as time goes on, the more I am inclined to believe that he shot at the light and not at Wyman.
It seems that he was shooting at the light, seeing as how he hit the deputy in the neck, rather than shooting at the center of his body mass. It is doubtful that the intent was to kill. Probably just wanted to shoot the light out.
I am puzzled as to why Wyman was standing in the open without cover. It doesn't make sense with an armed man in an emotional state sitting in a garage with a shotgun in his lap.
While we kick it around on discussion forums, it will hopefully be clarified in the trial process and lessons will be learned to prevent it from happening again. Whoever was to blame it was a mistake that will forever affect the lives of all that knew Deputy Wyman, especially his widow and two small children.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Aug 1, 2011 10:39:16 GMT -5
I, too, at first was abhorred that a cop was killed and initial reports made it seem like Patterson shot first. If that were truly the case, I'd be singing a different tune completely. Even in that instance, it still does not absolve the Sheriff's office for Wyman being exposed.
But given what facts they have allowed us to know, they shot first, they provoked the response that ensued. And up until the gun battle began, Patterson wasn't even suspected of committing any serious crime. No, I am not trying to imply a domestic dispute is not serious, but in terms of criminal charges, 2nd degree harassment is not serious at all. Hell, I faced that charge once years ago after an arguement with a then girlfriend when she didn't like what I had to say when I asked her to leave. Once she calmed down later, she dropped the charge. I wasn't even arrested, handed an appearance ticket.
No doubt that domestics can take a serious turn, unexpectedly in many instances. But in this case, the woman and minor had already fled the house. There were no hostages nor any other member of the public harm's way. The man, the suspect, was cornered in his garage showing signs of being suicidal. Am I saying LEO's shouldn't take a defensive position simply because he hasn't threatened them? Absolutely not, he still has a gun in his hands and acting in an unpredictable manner. By all means you take protective action, which is why I am still scratching my head why Wyman was exposed with a spotlight that made him a sitting duck. He was contained so there was no reason to fire on him nor rush in on him. There were no lives in danger other than Patterson's at that point. And I can say with near certainly that Patterson didn't stop after being shot with foam rounds "Gee, they really don't want me to kill myself so maybe now I should surrender". Nope, he was hit with rounds, and returned fire.
There is no telling how that night could have turned out if things went differently. Perhaps Patterson would have shot himself before police ever arrived. Maybe he would have sat in the garage and calmed down, dropping any notion of suicide. Maybe, after long hours of sitting in a hot garage during the following day, he'd have given up. There was no reason to force his hand.
I'd also like to say that it is hard for any of us to make statements about Patterson based on what we think we would and would not do. Here we are conversing this tragic situation in a rational state of mind. All of us can say, well I'd never put myself in that situation. But none of us are in an emotional state where one ends up in that situation. Some of the gossip I have heard is that the wife/girlfriend (marital status has been conflicting) was cheating and that is what sparked this domestic. I don't know if for fact because I don't know any parties directly involved. But in any event, a stressful situation preceeded this. Does it make it ok? Nope, but it simply explains partly what happened. People all have a breaking point. There'd been times I'd contemplated suicide over the years when the pressures around me were too much to bear. Just a few years ago was the most recent, but eventually I moved away from those thoughts and instead started going back to church to help find the peace in my life that was missing. It is very tough, nearly impossible for the sane to rationalize the actions of the insane and unstable mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Aug 1, 2011 13:15:13 GMT -5
So if the police shot and killed him in the process of trying to stop him from killing himself, he brought it on himself? Mind you the only charge from the domestic is only a violation of second degree harassment. Also keep in mind you are looking at this in the view of a rationally thinking person when you say you'd not be in such situation. Patterson obviously was not of same mental reasoning to end up in this situation to begin with. BTW, the woman who ran for her life wasn't the one that called the police and Mc Namara did state as a matter of fact in his press conference that Patterson made no threats against law enforcement at any time that night. And since you did bring up the point that nobody knew what his next move would be, why was Wyman standing out in the open with the spotlight in front of the garage? Seems as though the sheriffs on scene didn't prepare very well since he was not in a place providing him cover. Self defense. They shot at him first with no justification to do so. Them shooting at him could have been enough to provoke him to actually kill himself, and then who's fault would it have been? I respect the fact that you have friends and family in law enforcement, BZ, as do I, but this was mishandled very badly. A friend of mine in the Sheriff's Office told me as much a few days after. It was about all he could say since they were under an unofficial gag order. Why so hush hush if they didn't do anything wrong? FA, let me make one thing very loud and clear and I have said this many times before. Just because I have family in the law enforcement field has nothing to do with the with way I think as an individual. That my friend has been proved in the newspapers when a few years ago at a CC meeting I publicly attacked the UPD for many things. That was not the first time I put them on notice and probably won't be the last. Ya don't want to be in any of our families arguments concerning police work and my boys will be the first to tell you that. I bring up the points on both sides but more so from the private individual's side since that is what I am and also working as being Street Commander of my Neighborhood group. I have also learned not to listen to any rumors coming from law enforcement people because most are not the facts and they too feed out the wrong info. I have also learned that "hush, hush" means the investigation is still on going. When it comes to the mentally unbalanced and unstable minds I have plenty of experience with that because I have a cousin who is a schizophrenic and is severely unstable when not on his meds. At present I am working with the UPD concerning my cousin who has been arrested three times because of his behavior. He has been institutionalized off and on most of his life only for the mental health department to keep releasing him back on our streets without proper supervision where he is a danger to himself and to others. Let me point out also he still once released from under the mental health care has to serve jail time for the crimes he has committed. In fact his last recent charge was for assaulting another inmate while he was at OCJ awaiting his court date on another charge. In my cousin's case as in Patterson's case if he killed himself it would be no one's fault but his own. Nothing anyone can do to stop that. Eventually, if that is what they want to do, they will accomplish it one way or another. Pretty harsh of you to even consider the what ifs and then point the finger at any law enforcement agency. Even though as you stated Patterson was contained I don't feel this agency rushed anything. Six hours of a stand off is not rushing things, especially since as you stated....."it is very tough, nearly impossible for the sane (which includes you and McNamara) to rationalize the actions of the insane and unstable mind." The only fact known at the time was that Patterson had a gun. Allow me to also state if my cousin is killed by law enforcement during a crime it will not be me or other members of his family to put the blame on them. We know what he is capable of doing to others. I don't know or either do you what actually took place. I am not defending anyones actions at this point. Will have to wait till the investigation is over to determine that. I only thing I know at present is that it is a very sad tragedy for all involved and no outcome is going to change that fact.  |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Aug 1, 2011 13:33:38 GMT -5
But law enforcement did rush to end this. Six hours is a long time but it was still not resolved. They had time on their side and there was no reason to force a resolution. That is what they did, try to force an ending. Why try to force someone like that? It is tactically the wrong decision.
Besides that, they also stated after they fired on Patterson to stun him, Wyman moved toward the garage with his taser. Right there you know he was not in a place of cover, he was out in the open in the line of fire. The sheriffs handled this badly, very badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Aug 1, 2011 13:45:05 GMT -5
It is very sad that the state police didn't send one of their expert negotiators, experienced in that sort of situation. I found it strange right from the first stories that came out in the media that such a situation with an armed man pinned down would not even warrant a trooper going to the scene. Nothing against the Oneida County Sheriff's Dept. I have friends that are deputies. They are well trained, but there are some areas where they are not expert. Even with the Sheriff himself in command of the scene, he hardly has any vast amount of experience in this sort of matter. Not much of this sort of thing happening in the bustling metropolis of NY Mills on a regular basis. Truth be known, most of the deputies that have any seniority at all, probably have more experience in law enforcement than the Sheriff.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Aug 1, 2011 14:07:49 GMT -5
Besides that, they also stated after they fired on Patterson to stun him, Wyman moved toward the garage with his taser. Right there you know he was not in a place of cover, he was out in the open in the line of fire. The sheriffs handled this badly, very badly. Very interesting since Deputy Wyman's own father publicly stated at his son's funeral that he had no doubts his son's action and decision was what he expected of his young son. |
|
Senseless tragedy but will state this.........Patterson knew exactly who he was shooting at. It sure as hell wasn't the bogeyman. He definitely knew the officers were there for six hours trying to talk him into surrendering, so as far as I'm concerned he is guilty of shooting the officer as charged. 
