About . . . . . . Classes . . . . . . Books . . . . . . Vita . . . . . . . Links. . . . . . Blog

by Peter Moskos

December 1, 2009

Maurice Clemmons shot dead

Good shooting. Good riddance. Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper has a good analysis:
Clemmons, nursing a two-day old bullet wound to the stomach, having killed four cops already and facing at least life in prison, frantically searching for a way out of the state if not the country, and packing one of the dead officers' sidearms, would have beyond a shadow of doubt murdered again. There and then.

He was denied that chance. Whether Clemmons was seeking cover to pull the gun and fire, or about to flee, the officer did precisely the right thing. It was not a "cold-blooded murder," as at least one reader has asserted. It was a courageous and necessary act.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PCM said...

Police always keep details of crimes away from the media. This is standard operating procedure. Knowledge is power.

In this case, if somebody says they recently saw Clemens, how do you know if the guy isn't bullshitting you? You know because he tells you info about the gun he was showing off. The police didn't know much about Clemens. If the public knows about the stolen gun, they the police might have nothing to go on.

And there was no greater public risk, since it was already known he was armed and dangerous.

And think about it, there was no need for a drop gun here. And if police were so quick to use drop guns, why wasn't a gun found on Sean Bell, Diallo, Zongo (and all the other names I'm sure you know)?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PCM said...

You tell the public he's shot because it's a pretty damn good way of identifying a suspect! That's something the public needs to know. And it aids in apprehension.

Anonymous said...

But then so is a description of the weapon he is supposedly carrying.

m.a.d. said...

Hey PCM, don't bother debating with someone who obviously has a bias against the Police and is probably one of those, "I got stopped and searched by the f-ing Cops for no reason" people.

In this situation we had a murderer of 4 innocent Police Officers and some feeble minded person has the audacity to say, "why didn't they release the info on the gun?"

Absolutely pathetic. And people wonder why Cops have disdain for most of the general public. How much blood do we have to shed to receive a little gratitude or respect for the job that we do?

Oh yeah, the Judge who pushed for his clemency, who also married him after he got out, also didn't believe he shot any of the Cops. Seems there's loads of people who dislike Cops and like murdering child rapists a lot more.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
m.a.d. said...

IMAGINE THAT OFFICER KELLY SAID THE FOLLOWING:

If I'm going to imagine anything, it's that a career criminal who has spent most of his life abusing others by committing heinous crimes would not "surrender" or act appropriately when confronted by a Uniformed Cop. He hadn't acted in a "nice" manner to Cops in the past, so why would I IMAGINE that he would change?

Oh wait, you're right, he did write those letters to Huckabee and the Parole Board that he changed his ways and wanted to lead a good Christian life again. But then there are those little stumbles he made by "allegedly" raping a young girl and "allegedly" murdering 4 Police Officers.

You're prejudices against the Police and for murderous rapists totally destroy the validity of any argument you may put forth.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

If a dog killed four people we would just shoot it on sight. I don't see, for the life of me, what the difference his here. Can anyone explain?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I loved that last dialogue. It shows exactly how ridiculous and improbable the planted weapon scenario really is. It reeks of tinfoil hats all around. Gounding news helicopters to cover up misconduct, foresaking the sanctity of the crime scene and chain of evidence in a police murder case for the unobserved hypothetical that the perp might be shot, unarmed, later on, somehere, in some place that they could get a planted weapon to in time. Assuming that the cop who shot him either knew a plant weapon was available, or sought one out when nobody would have given an F that Clemmons was unarmed, and moreover was cool with the corruption. This is not quite 9/11 grade nonsense, but comes close.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Using that judge's article about bad BS drug cases as a relevant example about how the police would in turn corruptly investigate a quadruple police homicide just proves the point that the above poster has gaping inadequacies when it comes to her understanding of police culture.

And as mentioned before, since everyone in the US from pre-school through the nursing homes would have been fine with the police just opening fire on Clemmons in the street, wherever he was found, armed or not, that cops "would like to burn a little vacation time and go help 'locate [winking smilie]'' Clemmons so that they could then kill him has no bearing on the need to flake a gun onto him, which, as said, simply wouldn't be necessary.

Clemmons, simply by doing what he did--killing four innocent police officers in broad daylight, in a public place filled with innocent citizens, at random--and remaining unapprehended, constitutes a imminenent lethal threat to all other citizens wherever he happens to be, whether he is armed or not. He could be shot on sight as a felon fleeing apprehension for this reason alone, and he was. Why do I say this? Because the Supreme Court has stated as much. Silly me.

So whatever, one person who seems to have the sensibilities of a grad student in sociology thinks the cops in Lakewood willingly destroyed the integrity of a quadruple police homicide crime scene and chain of evidence process so they could have a police gun handy to flake on Clemmons' dead body. It speaks volumes about the self-created world some people live in. They just can't stand it when the cops kill a man, he deserved it, it's a good thing, and what bothers them the most is that the average law-abiding citizen thinks it was a good thing as well.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"Hey my NW Brothers and Sisters, watch your six and bring this skel back one piece at a time."

All you are saying is that the police were hoping to kill him, as a mass-murdering felon in flight, and I am agreeing with you, and saying it was legal, and saying it was good, and saying it worked out well. So we agree about that the cops wanted to do, and what they did. I guess that's that.

PCM said...

Well said. End of discussion.