Deputy Wyman's killer indicted

[Clipper]

The fact that his father says it is the action he would expect from his son doesn't make it the CORRECT action. Courage and good judgment are sometimes worlds apart. Nobody would dispute the fact that Deputy Wyman was doing what he thought right at the time, nor would they dispute his intent to end the situation peacefully. It is just sad that the sequence of events "went south" in a hurry.

This kid was a former Marine and an Iraq Veteran. His bravery is unquestioned. If he acted on his own, his judgment may have been the cause of his death. If someone else made the decision to put into action the scenario that resulted in the tragedy, then there are questions to be asked and answered. Period.

[firstamendment]

And that is perfectly fine they stand by their son's actions and intentions.

Clip, you're former military. Where is the chain of command here? Wyman wasn't a ranking officer here so who was in charge that allowed him to be on scene in the first place? Perhaps he were acting on his own instincts and decisionmaking abilities when he approached the garage, but he wasn't a trained member of the ERT so someone in charge screwed up by allowing him to be part of this event. Just because he was a marine does not automatically make him qualified to handle that sort of situation.

Believe me, BZ, Wyman didnt deserve this, no one really does. I am not trying to make a mockery or lessen his death in any way here. But law enforcement does share some blame here. Look at the situation they've told us. Wyman was exposed in front of the garage. The two other officers there they say were nearly hit when Patterson returned fire. Where were they that they were almost hit? Were they out in the open with no cover? The whole situation turned into a mess that didn't need to be.

I'd like to ask you what justification you feel they had to shoot at him? What justification they had to attempt to end it the way they did? Simply because they are the law and he was a suspect in a garage is not an answer. To be clear, Patterson was wrong for the situation that lead to him ending up in the garage, but he was right in defending himself from what he perceived as an attempt to take his life.

[Ralph]

Responsibility lies with the Commander on the scene, who in this instance should have brought in a negotiator or two to start the process and stepped back to control the defensive perimeter in case Patterson freaked out and started shooting.

We may never know all of what went through everyone’s heads at that time.

6 hours is not a long time; resolved situations of the like typically take 10 -12+ hours to work through. As soon as the first responders realized the situation they were in they should have established a perimeter, hunkered down and called in trained negotiators.
If you are not trained for negotiations, you should not be negotiating…..period. As long as time is passing and no one is being harmed, then progress is being made, despite the look of nothing going on. SWAT, ERT, etc. should not be negotiating, they are supposed to be there for tactical control and to secure the surrender arrest, which is the most dangerous aspect of the entire ordeal.

Wyman should never have been exposed, for any reason…..there was no need, no danger, and no rush. To push the issue with no cause and try advancing on the subject, for whatever reason, when no one was in any danger, was just plain bad, bad, BAD judgment.

Regardless how it plays out at trial, we lost a good man and we never should have. It does not take anything away from Deputy Wyman, nor does it absolve Patterson from the “event”, and it will be a quagmire of a trial to pin guilt of anything on anyone. I am sure this will be researched for years! But it does lay doubt to the command and control of the situation.

Obviously there wasn’t much of that.

[bobbbiez]

Aug 1, 2011 14:48:10 GMT -5 Clipper said:

The fact that his father says it is the action he would expect from his son doesn't make it the CORRECT action. Courage and good judgment are sometimes worlds apart. Nobody would dispute the fact that Deputy Wyman was doing what he thought right at the time, nor would they dispute his intent to end the situation peacefully. It is just sad that the sequence of events "went south" in a hurry.

This kid was a former Marine and an Iraq Veteran. His bravery is unquestioned. If he acted on his own, his judgment may have been the cause of his death. If someone else made the decision to put into action the scenario that resulted in the tragedy, then there are questions to be asked and answered. Period.

HELLO!!!!!! That is exactly what I am saying. We weren't there and don't know exactly what happened and whose decision it was so I'm not making any comments at present on the action that got Deputy Wyman killed.

[Clipper]

Huh? NO comments? What is all that stuff you posted so far? Anyone who has any sort of tactical training or has faced anyone with a weapon is asking questions, and someone will be answering them eventually. That is a fact. SOMEONE will have to answer for what happened, and if it turns out that Wyman acted on his own accord, it is sad and lessons will be learned about how to control such a scene and how to prevent it from happening again.

Command and control are absolutely critical in a situation such as that, and somehow things damn sure got out of control. It becomes necessary to find out who was in command in order to prevent a repetition.

Even police officers make bad judgment calls on occasion. They are human.

[bobbbiez]

Aug 1, 2011 16:47:38 GMT -5 Clipper said:

Huh? NO comments? What is all that stuff you posted so far? Anyone who has any sort of tactical training or has faced anyone with a weapon is asking questions, and someone will be answering them eventually. That is a fact. SOMEONE will have to answer for what happened, and if it turns out that Wyman acted on his own accord, it is sad and lessons will be learned about how to control such a scene and how to prevent it from happening again.

Command and control are absolutely critical in a situation such as that, and somehow things damn sure got out of control. It becomes necessary to find out who was in command in order to prevent a repetition.

Even police officers make bad judgment calls on occasion. They are human.

I certainly am not making any determination on whose fault Deputy Wyman got killed. Where the hell did you read that in my comments?

[bobbbiez]

[quote author=firstamendment board=discussion thread=4718 post=75268 time=1312231117) To be clear, Patterson was wrong for the situation that lead to him ending up in the garage, but he was right in defending himself from what he perceived as an attempt to take his life.[/quote]

FA, you are a much bigger man ( ;D) then I am. I have absolutely no sympathy or will I accept Patterson's self defense plea. To me, that is just a defense attorney's words to get his client a lesser sentence. My reasoning is that here is a man right from the start that supposedly wanted to take his own life but yet shoots at others because he thinks they're trying to kill him. OMG! All bull sh*t in my book.

[JGRobinson]

BZ, your rightfully defensive of the Police, you've a long and respectful relationship with law enforcement as well as many members of your family that have served. Thats great for you but thats not everyones experiences with Law Enforcement, they make mistakes just like the rest of us.

I spent 21 years serving the greatest Nation in the world in the US Army, in the greatest fighting force of all time. My respect goes deep for the Military but I know they make mistakes large and small and have for centuries! Just like the job they have and I had, Dangerous, snap and inappropriate judgments happen and cost lives unnecessarily on both ends of both Barrels.

It doesn't sound like he wanted to take his own life. I cant say but I'm pretty sure he was always about 2 seconds from being able to kill himself at any point in the showdown but for 6 hours all he did was talk. A negotiator could have likely ended this peacefully, we will never know because they felt compelled to storm this guys safe zone with pellet guns that looked and sounded like real ones. The use of plastic bullets for an assault if they considered him armed and dangerous was a life ending mistake. This wasn't a riot control situation, he hadn't fired on them, he posed no imminent threat to anyone other than himself and he hadn't injured himself at all.

Did they know that they were dealing with a US Government Issue trained Executioner? Maybe they should have found out before they tried an Amateur full frontal assault with BB Guns and flashlights. I am so very sorry whenever we loose a Warrior Domestically or Abroad, Its even worse when you tell their family it should have been preventable. If they had only just followed sound doctrine and Force Protection Procedures, nobody would be dead right now and Patterson Might be getting some serious Psychological treatment for his temporary loss of self control instead of Life without the chance of parole.

Police have standing orders for defense but the police fired first. All we really need to know right now is who ordered the Assault? Those orders had to come from a much higher authority than those who conducted the attack. What was their viewpoint and what immediate tragedy were they trying to avert by a poorly equipt storm trooper attack? They will have to answer why this coarse of action was chosen over other less lethal methods.

I hope that Mr Patterson gets a fair trial and I pray that our Law Enforcement Personnel get some training in these crucial Drills for their sake and ours both.

[firstamendment]

But if he never threatened any member of law enforcement, why wouldn't he have the right to self defense against what he took as them firing lethal rounds at him? Just because they are the police does not mean they are 100% correct in their actions 100% of the time. And like I said, I've heard from a member in the sherrif's office that there are a lot of people not happy with the way this was handled. With as much manpower as they had there, there's no way it should have concluded this way.

Intent is still the key element for a murder and attempted murder charge. Up until they provoked him, all of his intent was directed at taking his life, not theirs. It wasn't until what was construed as deadly force taken against him did he act. Question for you is, if he intended on ever shooting at law enforcement, he had six hours to do so but didn't. It's been issued as a matter of fact the sheriffs are the ones who started shooting first. The law states a person can use necessary force to try preventing someone from committing suicide, so LEO's may have acted lawfully. But self defense is going to boil down to what Patterson felt when he was shot, and that would be that they were live rounds.

Also in line with intent is I believe he first shot at Wyman because he was the one holding the spotlight shining on him. I can say with a reasonable certainty that he shot to knock out the light not the man. Because after taking out the light, then he shot in the direction of where the rounds came from that hit him.

Prior to this incident, there is nothing to indicate this Patterson guy is a bad apple. I haven't heard of any prior arrest record although some domestic issues of late. So really, do you honestly think he wanted to kill anyone that day? I think the guy is getting villified when it is Sheriff Maciol and staff who should be taking the hit for poor tactical decisions. And just because he was contemplating killing himself does not mean his survival instincts won't kick when he is suddenly shot.

I don't think this defense will get him a lesser sentence, it will get him acquitted. This trial is going to expose what happened that night and rest assured Maciol will press Mc Namara to make a deal because he doesn't want this getting out there.

[firstamendment]

Aug 1, 2011 16:47:38 GMT -5 Clipper said:

Huh? NO comments? What is all that stuff you posted so far? Anyone who has any sort of tactical training or has faced anyone with a weapon is asking questions, and someone will be answering them eventually. That is a fact. SOMEONE will have to answer for what happened, and if it turns out that Wyman acted on his own accord, it is sad and lessons will be learned about how to control such a scene and how to prevent it from happening again.

Command and control are absolutely critical in a situation such as that, and somehow things damn sure got out of control. It becomes necessary to find out who was in command in order to prevent a repetition.

Even police officers make bad judgment calls on occasion. They are human.

point is, Wyman shouldn't have been still on scene in the role he was. Where was the command and why was he not told to get out of there? We are talking about a Marine here who its been drilled into his head chain of command. That is why I'm not buying that crap that he acted on his own. Perhaps at that last few seconds when he attempted to enter and taze Patterson he did. But he did not nor should have been allowed to act on his own by remaining at the scene. Maciol and his undersheriff were both there that night. This is a disgrace of leadership here.

I'm spot on with Ralph here. This was bungled, a total FUBAR. We did lose a good man who not only defended this community but this country as well. And in the process, another man who merely snapped under the pressures of life is now branded a cop killer when in all likelyhood he never meant to kill anybody at all. This is tragic all the way around.

I have to feel terrible for the Wyman family that their son, husband and father was killed because his superiors botched the entire thing.

[dgriffin]

So .... the police fired on Patterson for one of three reasons: 1. by mistake, I suppose, or 2. because he pointed the weapon at an officer, possibly when the officer tried to approach him for some reason, or 3. to disable him ... either physically or emotionally or both ... so they could disarm him. I'm thinking we're mostly in favor of No. 3?

Having been told to disarm myself, a lawful order by a policeman, and having not complied, what was his responsibility when shot by the officer? (Assuming he believed he was shot at and or hit by real bullets.) I don't think the law grants him the right to shoot back. Otherwise, a person would not be guilty in a real firefight when he shot and killed an officer.

Patterson will probably be found guilty. Possibly with extenuating circumstances, because the situation does not seem to have been handled well.

Regarding that last point, of course we don't know for sure how it was handled. But even if our current imagination of the event is mostly correct, we surely couldn't have expected the police to leave an armed man in a garage forever. Patterson caused the event and Patterson should have ended it by surrendering, I'm thinking. Even with mistakes made by the police, Patterson appears to be legally responsible for everything that happened.

[firstamendment]

The law does not allow a person to use force to prevent from being arrested. however, was this a situation where they were trying to arrest or trying to prevent him from harming himself? When they arrived on the scene for the domestic, at that point he was only suspected of a crime to which they did not necessarily have enough to arrest him for.

Another aspect that could be introduced is an extreme emotional disturbance defense. Someone sitting in a garage contemplating killing oneself with a shotgun doesn't seem emotionally stable. There are a few avenues for the defense to look at.

[dgriffin]

I think we can assume he was under arrest ... or they were attempting to put him physically under arrest, for not complying with a lawful order to surrender and put down the gun. This was a dangerous situation, created by Patterson and he refused to stand down. It doesn't matter so much which way the gun was initially pointed, or so I would argue if I were the D.A. And whether he was emotionally upset or not, he willfully caused a series of events to take place that ended in the killing of a police officer by the pulling of the trigger of his gun by his hand. He is logically responsible and the D.A. will say he is equally guilty of the crime.

[bobbbiez]

Aug 1, 2011 18:01:20 GMT -5 JGRobinson said:

BZ, your rightfully defensive of the Police, you've a long and respectful relationship with law enforcement as well as many members of your family that have served. Thats great for you but thats not everyones experiences with Law Enforcement, they make mistakes just like the rest of us.

What the hell!!!!! Must be a guy thing. Don't any of you read what I write. I am not going to keep repeating myself.

I am not defending anyone in my comments. Not like all you professionals I was not there, I don't know what took place so I am not going to assume anything until the facts come out.

Now JR, "that's great for you but that's not everyone's experiences with Law Enforcement, they make mistakes just like the rest of us." I ain't no freakin kid and I know that better then you. Before my boys got on the force (I was 45 yrs old then) and even now I have had more experiences then you and others put together on bad experiences. I guess I just learned how to handle those situations better so I can help, as a member of my Neighborhood Watch group, to improve the relationship between the public and the police. I just got through commenting to Swimmy on another post on these situations.

If any of you have any doubts about where I stand you have my permission to contact UPD's Chief of Police, Mark Williams, and he will verify I am their worse critic and nightmare. If former Chief Rotundo was still alive he would also tell you the same exact thing. I comment as a private citizen who lived in a target area having more contact with the police then normal, not as a law enforcement family member, so knock it off. I also have a son who works in the correctional field and I don't defend them either when at fault. I also have a daughter who is a paralegal but that doesn't mean I defend lawyers if they are in the wrong. All mentioned make grave errors also just as in any other profession.

If you want to hear only opinions of those who agree with you then so be it, but don't assume you know where I am coming from or why. None of you know me that well. If anything a few of you know me as just the opposite as you stated.

[firstamendment]

Aug 1, 2011 19:38:08 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

I think we can assume he was under arrest ... or they were attempting to put him physically under arrest, for not complying with a lawful order to surrender and put down the gun. This was a dangerous situation, created by Patterson and he refused to stand down. It doesn't matter so much which way the gun was initially pointed, or so I would argue if I were the D.A. And whether he was emotionally upset or not, he willfully caused a series of events to take place that ended in the killing of a police officer by the pulling of the trigger of his gun by his hand. He is logically responsible and the D.A. will say he is equally guilty of the crime.

Ahh, but it does matter who he did and didn't point the gun at. Matters very much actually.

And what crime would we assume he was being placed under arrest for? Complying with a lawful order assumes the police have just cause to issue a lawful order. Simply because a cop tells someone to do something does not necessarily mean it is a correct course of action to follow it. There are situations where police will issue an order to someone with no basis for their orders. A lawful order is considered when there is just basis for issuing it.

As far as we know, Patterson was under no obligation to leave his own property to talk to police if he chose not to. Now, if they showed up there to arrest him for a crime, that is a different situation. However, they responded to a domestic complaint called in by the neighbor. They probably did get a chance to talk to the wife/girlfriend that night, but never got the chance to talk to Patterson for his version of events because of the situation in the garage. So until they had reasonable cause to arrest him, he was at his leisure to remain in his house. Whether or not they were at a point to reasonably effect an arrest for the domestic charge will also be a hinging point in a trial.

Swimmy should chime in on some of the legalities of this stuff.