“So where was the Tazzer gun? Why was it not used if the cop knew the gun was not loaded?”

I’m not a cop, but if I WERE a cop, I wouldn’t take Dad’s word that the gun wasn’t loaded. Sorry, but if a drug-addled teenager was rushing me with a rifle/bayonet, my instinct would be to drop the punk.

The whole thing has been hashed and re-hashed ad nauseam. It’s a tragedy from start to finish. Obviously tragic for the kid’s family, but sad for the cop as well. Hopefully some policies and procedures can be improved to avoid a similar situation in the future.

I agree with The Guardian that Murphy did his job well in this case. And that a civilian Police Commission is an idea whose time has come.

Talk about threading a needle. Hats off to the ombudsman for his professionalism and skill. He de-fused an obviously divisive issue in our community and suggested attainable methods to avoid a similar tragedy. I hope his suggestions are implemented.

Now bikeboy I must again quibble. The officer knew there was a “drug addled teenager” with an assault weapon. Yet he didn’t wait for backup and instead insinuated himself alone into a volatile situation. The actions of a “drug addled teenager” can’t always be anticipated but I’m thinking that one forseeable consequence is that he is going to rush you with the weapon. Swaggering into the situation like John Wayne and “drop[ping] the punk” is the level of law enforcement I might expect in small towns fifty years ago but as the ombudsman observed there are non-lethal options available that could have been employed.

Now the Guardian raises an excellent point what to do about the kangaroo court, er, coroners inquest. There needs to be a method by which the obvious and inherent conflict of interest can be addressed and destroyed. It should also be made adversarial so opposing viewpoints can be heard. Interested parties should be allowed to participate so they may ask questions to assure that one side’s version of the truth doesn’t become the truth.

Some people just don’t get it.

The current wails of indignation from the armchair polices officers in this town make but a fraction of the noise that ordinary citizens would make if Officer Johnson chose to wait for backup while Matthew Jones stuck a bayonet through the ribs of friendly neighborhood jogger or little kid that happened by. Nobody with a heart disagrees that the Jones shooting was a tragedy for all involved. But let’s be clear, the incident was not caused by Officer Johnson. He acted reasonably and appropriately under a very difficult circumstance. Was he perfect? Of course not. Only an ignorant fool would expect a police officer – even a highly trained and experience police officer – to act perfectly under such a difficult circumstance. Frankly, I take comfort knowing that people like Officer Johnson are willing to put their life in that kind of danger to protect me and my family.

The assertion that Officer Johnson should have used a Taser gun or other non-lethal instrument in this situation is utterly and completely ridiculous. I dare any Taser gun believer (i.e., those of you whose knowledge of the Taser gun comes from Hollywood) to stand with a Taser gun as close as Officer Johnson did to a drug-crazed teen with an “unloaded” rifle with a bayonet. I’ll place my bet on the kid. Then multiply the odds of this situation by the number of times that an officer in America is faced with a similar situation. Then calculate how many police widows and orphans your Hollywood-induced belief in Taser guns would create. Anybody who believes that police officers should take those kinds of risks with their lives does not deserve the protection that officers like Officer Johnson provide.

I have read all of Ombudsman Murphy’s report, but the published reports indicate that he did a very thoughtful investigation that first (and foremost) cleared Officer Johnson of wrongdoing. Second, the report appears to contain some good suggestions for helping officers, like Officer Johnson, do better in these difficult situations. Not everyone appears to agree with Mr. Murphy’s findings and suggestions. That’s OK. Not everyone agrees that Elvis is dead. It’s a wonderful thing that we have an ombudsman with the guts and ability to make the findings and suggestions that he did in this case. It is even better that we have officers, like Officer Johnson, who are willing to continue to improve their skills and abilities in these difficult circumstances through good training.

As to Mr. Fraiser’s idea of a police commission: It is an idea worthy of consideration, but I don’t think he has come anywhere close to meeting the burden necessary for creating a new level of government bureaucracy. A police department is a not an airport or parks department. We need much better oversight and management of our police force than we could get through an appointed volunteer board. Also, I don’t think I want the Mayor and City Council – who make the real decisions in this town – to have an excuse to shove real problems off to unrepresentative committee.

Well I didn’t hear that there was a “friendly nieghborhood jogger or little kid” that were being threatened and that would certainly change the fact pattern, Common Sense. Indeed the father gave every indication to the police that it was a situation that required the corralling of his son, not the shooting. To further the Western analogy, we would never consider shooting a bronc we were trying to break even though it presented a danger to those around it.

You state: “Anybody who believes that police officers should take those kinds of risks with their lives does not deserve the protection that officers like Officer Johnson provide.” I submit that Officer Johnson was quite safe in his vehicle and no exigency existed for him to exit the vehicle before backup arrived. It is the second part of your sentence that all of us with kids have concerns over, whether we “deserve” or desire that level of “protection”. I do appreciate your defense of Officer Jones and the very difficult job all officers have. But some of us have children the age of Matthew Jones and if we have a problem with our child violent or otherwise this incident will certainly make us think twice about asking for help from the local constabulatory. I’m sure the local police force does not want the reputation that the community they are sworn to protect and to serve doesn’t trust them.

Everyone on the post agrees that the Ombudsman did an excellent job and his recommendations should be implemented. While there may be no legal culpability (something the family never sought) the Ombusdman acknowledged we can do better.