Alonzo Heyward

The decision by any officer to use deadly force and pull the trigger is a split second one probably supported by adrenalin and a blur. Whether it is one or fifteen shots may be the difference between life or death to the officer or bystanders.

I am almost always amazed at the speed with which the media jumps on the infrequent 'overkill' type of situations the police are sometimes confronted with.

If my memory serves me correctly, the original article stated the subject was "suicidal". So would this not be a simple case of "suicide by cop" as has been the case many times before?

Excessive? Was the man shot at and hit many times? Yes.

However, I can't remember the last time I saw the word excessive used in an article published by this or any other newspaper when describing the aftermath of a multiple murder scene when more than one weapon, or some larger than normal ammo clip type of weapon had been used to slaughter more than one innocent individual.

I don't wish to speculate on what kind of carnage this man might have been party to had the situation not begun and ended the way it did. However, at the same time, I would only like to remind some, only those at 'the scene' know what took place, how it all came about, and why it ended the way it did.

Second-guessing, undue criticism, and rush to judgment can be nearly as deadly as all those bullets. Be sure of your target before you fire.

Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

Looks excessive to me. The man depicted only has 21 shots in him, the poor soul who was actually shot had twice as many (43). Why was that necessary?

Why, sandy? Because he didn't fall down or drop his gun, perhaps, and still presented a threat to themselves and others. Were you there?

The Chatt police need to re-evaluate the performance of the ammo they use and/or the caliber. Obviously it failed to do its job here...examination of the fired bullets is indicated to determine expansion, penetration, etc.

In the context of this shooting, forty-three rounds fired seems excessive...but only so far as the failure of the ammo to perform. What if Heyward has been shooting at innocents all that time?

Were you there, rolando? Bystanders have a different account than the cops.

The man was drunk, distraught and suicidal. Yet, it took six cops, 59 shots, and 43 wounds (over half of them to the back side of his body) to resolve the situation.

I'm sorry, but this case stinks to the high hills. If firing 43 bullets into a man who never got off a shot is not excessive force, I don't know what is.

There were actually 59 rounds fired. Yes, he had 43 wounds but that was enterence and exit wounds.

I agree with OllieH- this is bad police work.

The man was shot 43 TIMES, in two distinctly different volleys of gunfire. You can hear that on the police video, which is here-

http://tinyurl.com/nfcot6

Here's the medical examiner's report (look at page 3 for some reference on today's cartoon). The report is here-

http://tinyurl.com/nqwnmf

Notice that the medical examiner used the letters of the alphabet to denote each distinct gunshot wound on Heyward's body. Unfortunately when they went through the entire alphabet they still had 17 more bullet holes to go. At that point, they started using double letters.

I respect what the police have to do, and appreciate the dangers they face every day, but that doesn't excuse this kind of excessive force.

I don't think it's wrong for the community to question the police in this matter. Nor do I think it's wrong for the TFP or Clay Bennett to focus attention on this.

However, some people are drawing damning conclusions based on fairly limited information right now. I think it will be important to know how many are entrance and exit wounds and how many, if any, shots were fired when he was down.

Was this suicide by cop or homicide by cop?

No matter what conclusions are derived by internal or external reviews, there will be dissatisfied individuals.

If he had been shot 12 times, people would have claimed excessive use of force. This was a bad outcome and is now virtually a no-win for police.

I think Mayor Littlefield is taking the right approach. Let the investigation play out.

Hey toonfan, thanks for the links...

Am I hearing things, or right before the second volley, the cops were yelling "drop the weapon"?

At any rate. I'll await more info.

Eyewitness accounts confirm that heyward did not release his weapon, so yes, you may well have heard the police shouting that command. The eyewitnesses also say, however, that Heyward was not aiming the rifle at the police.

Look, I'm not proposing that we hang the police out to dry on this case, but we shouldn't reflexively jump to their defense either.

I'm amazed at how anyone can defend a case where a man was shot 43 times (without returning fire), so unambiguously.

Maybe the cops over responded. If only two cops had shown up and defended themselves by killing the guy then maybe there wouldn't be an issue or maybe the six cops should have taken a vote on who would be a shooter and who would be a witness while the guy was pointing the gun at them.

No one has said if Heyward did or did not fire. Police have only said all the ballistics information -- on their guns and his -- is pending.

rolando wrote,

"The Chatt police need to re-evaluate the performance of the ammo they use and/or the caliber. Obviously it failed to do its job here...examination of the fired bullets is indicated to determine expansion, penetration, etc"

I, too, would be interested in knowing the caliber and type of ammunition used by CPD. Surely in this day and age they are not using ball ammo, though, if they did, you would likely get a large wound count as it would pass through intact with relatively low chance of a "knock-down".

Are they using 9mm, .40S&W, or .45's, or something off the wall. Anyone here have access to this info?

I'll not jump into the fray over whether the police over-reacted or not. I don't have the info to make an informed decision. At first blush, I'll say something went very wrong to require that many shots.

I'll agree with SCOTTYM on this and reserve my criticism for the police until an investigation is complete.

While so many rounds fired seems excessive, I know gunfire is contageous. In a tense situation where guns are drawn and ready, one shot fired can lead the others to empty their magazines in the heat of the moment (Ask Bonnie & Clyde how that works).

I would hope no one continued firing after he was on the ground however. If nothing else, that's very unprofessional.

I, too, will wait for more details in this case... from what I have heard to this point, he DID point a rifle at the police. That is NEVER acceptable, and it is not going to end well for the perpetrator.

From all i've ever heard about the police policy in which shooting is involved is to fire until empty; that would be about ten rounds per officer for them to have fired over fifty times. Any other comment will wait until all the facts are in. I believe they use 9mm's.

You point a weapon at cops you get shot. People know this, if nothing else by just watching crime dramas on TV. You point a weapon at a cop you get shot. If there are a lot of cops there, you get shot by a lot of cops. My problem is that there were so many shots that didn't hit the target.

I'm not going to comment right or wrong until there is complete information.

I am curious to know if the victim"s gun was loaded, or if any shots were fired by him.

No, OllieH, I wasn't there; never said I was. Were you there?

Hollow point bullets are not always sure. To get rather graphic, research shows the hollows can become solidly packed with fabric upon entry [provided it is several layers]. Then they won't expand and deliver their energy but pass all the way through. These could be some of the "extra" bullet holes that "missed" as well as perhaps doubling the number of "entry" holes.

Any count available of rounds expended by the officers? Or bullets in the body? Normally, rounds are counted after a shooting to determine who fired how many.

My question remains -- how many innocents would Heyward have shot had he not been brought down? The officers acted in the heat of combat and properly ended the confrontation. As with the CHA officer recently, that is their job and it is what we pay them for.

Not enough info.

What i find so appalling is the fact that there are actually people defending the police actions against this disallusioned young man. So he had a gun. The training of these officers should incorporate common sense into any and all situations including disarming disturbed and depressed citizens. Sounds to me like the po-po f'ed up. God's blessings be upon all who love Alonzo.

While none of us were on the scene, the simple fact of the matter is that one carefully placed shot would have resulted in the same result. The man would be dead.

If the man had fired upon anyone prior to these officers discharging their weapons, then there might be some way to justify some, but not all of the rounds that were fired.

The man had a rifle. One officer should have been ready to fire fatal shot(s) if he raised that rifle in a threatening manner towards anyone. That would have been a justifiable use of force.

Six officers firing at the same time, and discharging that many rounds at once, cannot be justified. It was absolute pandemonium.

Did anyone notice that the majority of the shots that did hit the man landed in the groin area of his body? Only two shots landed in the chest.

It appears that many of the shots fired were not meant to kill him, which is commendable, but the sheer number fired tells me that there were six officers on the scene who were either woefully inexperienced, hideously unorganized, or who lacked the training to deal with a lone suicidal, albeit armed subject.

I go out of my way to defend members of law enforcement most of the time because they do have a tough and dangerous job.

Something went horribly wrong in this case and maybe we will all learn what that was in time.

Most men and women in law enforcement spend entire careers never discharging a weapon while on-duty. Here he have six officers who doggone near emptied their service weapons on one man in a few seconds. This incident is right on the heels of another incident where an officer apparently shot and killed a 15 year old boy in the back just a few weeks ago.

Given that witnesses have repeatedly stated that Alonzo Heyward never raised that rifle towards anyone other than himself, and especially not towards one of those officers, I'm really having trouble with this one.

Excessive Force? Are you kidding me? I was a cop for 6 years. These officers followed the law and city protocol in this situation. You are taught to shoot until the person is no longer a threat. This man did not respond to officer demands, he brandished a weapon in a threating manner at all 6 officers and was told to drop the weapon repeatedly. None of which he did. He was justifiably shot. Most of the responses on here are from people who have never been a police officer, have never had their life threatened by another person and have never had a gun pointed at them. You are making blind accusations based off of emotion rather than intelect or research. If you want to find out what it is like to be in any police officers shoes, contact the city PD about the ride along program. Experience it yourself and stop judging these officers unless you are willing to go out and experience what they do every day.

One calm, cool, accurate cop puts a bullet in Alonzo Heyward's head. Result: Heyward dead.

Six stressed, inaccurate cops put 59 bullets in the vicinity of Alonzo Heyward, somewhere between 22 and 43 of them hitting him (allowing for entry and exit wounds). Result: Heyward dead.

What's the difference? Either way, dead is dead. He's not more dead because they shot him more times. The only way it can be excessive force to shoot him 43 times is if it was excessive force to shoot him at all.

As a permit holder I am aware that there is no such thing as "shoot to kill" or "shoot to wound." You shoot to end the threat. If you are not faced with immediate danger to life and limb, you are not justified in shooting at all. If you are justified in shooting, you continue shooting until the threat is ended, or until you run out of ammo, whichever comes first.

I wasn't there, but if the officers still perceived a credible threat after the initial volley of shots, then they were justified in continuing to shoot. Personally, I would err on the side of assuming there was still a threat. But that's just because I would want to live and go home to my family. Many a wounded, even mortally wounded, person has lived just long enough to get off one last shot and take the "victor" in the gunfight down with him.

As usual alprova has written a thoughtful, well considered entry. Alprova has consistently shown good judgement in the past, and this post today very likely will be no exception.

I will also admit that my first reaction upon hearing about this shooting was that this was excessive. While my gut is more often right than wrong there are other factors we should consider.

I would be surprised if any of these 6 officers were very seasoned. Even if there were experienced officers, a group is often only as competent as it's least competent member.

We don't yet know what, if any, was the threat perceived by the officer who fired the first rounds.

I have not been trained in policework, but I imagine that the other officers will likely fire at the sound of gunfire because they trust one of their fellow officers has seen a threat.

Alprova says a well-placed shot would have ended this with a single bullet. While that is true, we do not know where the first shots were aimed or what the intent of the officers was. From what I've read, we don't even know how many shots were actually fired. It was at least 59 shots, but there may have been even more.

The TFP editorial and most of these entries are focused on the event in total, and that is not unjustified. Mr. Heyward is 100% dead and that is a complete event.

Hiwever, to get a full understanding and a final judgement on what really happened, we must break this down into component parts.

What was the role of Mr. Heyward, each policer and the witnesses?

On the video released by the police department it sounds like there was a lot of chaos prior to the shooting. Were those police officers shouting at Mr. Heyward, witnesses shouting at Mr. Heyward, or were people shouting at the police? With chaos, it is more difficult to make sound judgements. I'm not trying to excuse bad judgement. But this is not the last time officers will be confronted with a situation like this and at the very least it should be instructive.

What did each officer see and do? A minimum of 59 shots does seem excessive. But was it excessive for one officer to shoot 10 shots? 5 shots? 1 shot?

I'm not saying it wasn't excessive. I'm not saying it was.

I do know this: it was a bad outcome and less than ideal.

Mr. Heyward has lost his life. I think it's too early to destroy the careers of 6 officers, too. There is still time for that. We simply don't have to rush to judgement.

He was not shot 43 times. He has 43 wounds. That is enterence and exit wounds. That is what they said on the news. So please stop saying he was shot 43 times.

I would like to commend the officers on their training, under the stress of the situation no citizens were injured no officers were harmed and they maintained a 73% strike rate. Job well done.

I assume that the "well placed single round" tha alprova mentioned would have been fired by the sniper, right? Or was it by some action figure and that the shot could just as easily knocked the rifle right out of the suicidal mans hands. Fantasy, meet reality. How many of those hits were in areas that would cause immediate incapacitation? Do you know what the term "time of relative consciousness" means? It's the time between a body being fatally wounded and the time where it no longer functions and can be a threat. Some of you may remember The Miami FBI shootout in the early 80's, where one of the bad guys was shot through the heart and still managed to get off enough shots to hit 7 FBI agents, several of them fatally.

The threat is not over until it's over. Thats not excessive, it's reality. It isn't shooting a paper target on the range. You don't lose points when you miss, you risk being killed. So those of you who have never faced a life threatening event should ask yourselves why no one in this "poor man's" family got him the help he needed before the police had to come and try to neutralize the threat.

Were the cops supposed to draw straws to see who would shoot? Should they have sat around and figured if the guy went this way this cop would shoot, or if he went that way the other cop would shoot? Situations like this can change in a split second. Cops are trying to contain a tough situation and they can't plan on just one guy shooting. This line of thought is ridiculous. Again, if you have a gun, are causing a situation that the police must respond to and point that gun at a police officer you should expect to be shot. Shot to death. We the citizens task the police with enforcing our laws and keeping us safe. I have no problem with what has happened.

Here we see the two types of people in any given situation. This one has those who support our police and those who see them as action-crazed incompetents. [Plus a few who withhold judgment...]

Anybody here tried to shoot a moving man in the head with a handgun? How about aiming at and hitting his rifle as a couple suggested? Get real, folks!

They must think TV CSI/NCIS shows are reality. I always said in any combat situation, you keep shooting [and hitting] your target 'til they fall or the gun goes "click". Then reload, just in case. That way you get to see the wife and kiddies again.

Here's a link to a 16 minute dash cam video with full audio of the female officer on the scene. I'm going to have to retreat quite a bit after hearing the audio. I suspect it is why this video was released to the media.

http://wdef.com/video/complete_police_dashcam_recording_in_alonzo_heyward_shooting/08/2009

Let me digest it for you;

2:48 - Two officers arrive on scene. One male. One female. They are told by a "friend" of Alonzo Heyward that "he has been threatening suicide all night. He had wrecked his girlfriend's car earlier.

3:37 - Both officers have walked up to the scene. Several voices are heard. Neither officer is heard addressing Mr. Heyward. Several people are right there, talking loudly. Some of the voices appear to be other officers, but it is unclear. They may be residents inside the house.

3:42 - You hear the male officer say, "it's too late."

3:44 - The subject is tasered. You hear him moan.

3:47 - The female officer utters an expletive. The male officer follows with the same expletive. The female officer says utters it again.

3:50 - The first rounds of gunfire ensue. The barrage lasts 6 seconds. The female officer is heard saying, "okay....okay."

4:01 - The male officer is heard yelling at the man to drop his gun. Then a second round of massive gun fire is heard. This lasts for a full nine seconds.

4:12 - More unintelligible yelling is heard, the female officer starts yelling again in expletives, and an amazing THIRD round of gunfire ensues, lasting 10 full seconds.

4:23 - The female officer is heard yelling one more time "drop the gun." Then she is heard to start yelling at people who were on the scene to "back up!!...back up!!!" Clearly there are people upset that Mr. Heyward had been shot. For 50 seconds, she is yelling at others to move away from her.

For more than two agonizing minutes, you hear the man who first encountered the officers, crying and wailing while being told by the female officer to clear the scene.

6:31 - The man declares, "You killed my friend," The female officer replies with, "Maaan...Man get out of here!!...get out of here...back up...git!!" For another full minute, the man elevates his voice repeatedly accusing the officers of killing Alonzo Heyward. The female officer is heard saying in between static, "I don't care!!!....he was drunk!!!"

8:49 - The female officer is heard asking "is he alive or...? A male officer responds, "He's still breathing." She responds with, "I know he's still breathing."

(to be continued)

10:52 - The female officer states, "I don't know how many I let...(unintelligible)."

12:17 - She states, "he just wouldn't put down the gun."

12:33 - The male officer states, "I tried to stay on the radio as much as I could....unintelligible...he said...man you're gonna have to shoot me....I'm like dadgum I'm gonna do it..."

14:35 - Male officer heard to say, "Dude, I had to reload...he reloaded"

14:41 - Female officer heard saying, " I don't know how many I shot off...I just put it back..in here...yeah...he kept coming up..."

I think the best way to clear this up would be to release to the audio of the male officer's dash cam, to prove whether or not Alonzo Heyward did offer words to any effect, suggesting that a "suicide by cop" scenario did exist.

I'm going to have to back off part of my previous statements that excessive use of force was used, BUT...I question whether or not they might have been able to simply talk the man into putting his weapon down had they taken a little time. About ONE minute passed from arrival time to gunfire time. Clearly, not much effort was made to simply talk to the man into putting the weapon down. They instead tried to taser him into submission.

According to the Bryan Hoss, the Attorney representing the six officers, "He had the gun up under his chin and his finger on the trigger and when the Taser hit him, which it's unclear whether it actually worked or not. That's when he turned around and he lowered the gun and swept it around at their direction. And that's what caused the first volley."

Was the lowering of the gun and his turning around intentional or was it due to the man had losing a great deal of his muscular control?

I'm VERY bothered by the male officer's statement quoted above. "Suicide by cop" does happen, but it dictates a little evidence to support the charge when it does happen. An eventual release of his dash cam audio should clear up any doubts.

There is no question that it's a dangerous world out here, and members of law enforcement are faced with dangers that we often do not comprehend.

If gunning down a man in a severe state of anxiety is "justified and [the] officers acted in-line with their training" as has been alleged by Attorney Hoss, then it's clear to me at least, if anyone has any desire to end their life, then all you have to do is to simply dial 911.

Your wish may be granted in about a minute.

Cops are not psyhcologists,doctors, mental health specialists, or the suicide hotline. They are trained to protect citizens. If someone has a gun and they are threatining themselves or anyone else, they become a clear and present danger to the community. At that point, the suspect has an opportunity to obey officer commands. If they don't they risk bodily harm including death. There is no law requireing cops to wait for someone to shoot at them first. Threaten a cop and they are allowed to use force one level higher than you are. Alonzo had an opportunity to comply but made a bad choice. If you want to blame someone, blame the state for cutting mental health funding and facilities for the past 15 years. This could have been prevented, but not by the police.

The Chatt police need to re-evaluate the performance of the ammo they use and/or the caliber. Obviously it failed to do its job here...examination of the fired bullets is indicated to determine expansion, penetration, etc. Username: rolando | On: August 6, 2009 at 8:06 a.m.

Duh...no they don't other wise Alonzo would still be walking around today without 43 bullet hole marks in his body.

The ammo did the job alright and he's not around to prove it did'nt.

That was over kill plain and simple.