# San Jose Police shoot and wound man sitting on tracks



## Texan Eagle (Oct 5, 2012)

Caltrain shooting left 29 year old wounded

This happened yesterday evening. Basically one guy sat across the tracks and when cops came to get him off the tracks, he apparently started running and throwing "rocks" (ballast from the tracks) at the cops at which the cops fired a gunshot at him and wounded him. While all this was happening, Caltrain service in and out of San Jose was thrown completely out of gear for over an hour in peak office commute time and I know this because I was stuck in this chaos, it was absolute mayhem with cancelled trains and harried commuters.

Made me wonder, was it really necessary to use such force on an unarmed guy who was basically just sitting on the train tracks. I mean, how difficult would it possibly be for a bunch of cops to surround him, grab him and lift him off the tracks? They cordoned off a huge area, brought in choppers that were seen hovering for a couple of hours and I don't know how many police cars and cops got involved turning a minor event into a huge spectacle.


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 5, 2012)

Keep in mind this is California were talking about... The State of unnecessary force...


----------



## fairviewroad (Oct 5, 2012)

He wasn't "unarmed" if he was throwing ballast rocks. Then again, I don't think I'd consider those a deadly weapon (a larger one, if aimed properly and with enough

force, probably could be, but that seems highly unlikely in this situation.)

So it seems like a logical option would be to let the guy either leave the tracks or let him keep running until he tires out. So yeah, I'd agree that based on the available

evidence, peppering the guy with bullets seemed a bit rash. I guess the cop didn't appreciate having rocks thrown at him. (Note to self: Don't throw rocks at San Mateo

County Sheriff's deputies.)

Of course, if a train had happened to come along, this guy might have ended up with a lot worse than "non life-threatening wounds."


----------



## SarahZ (Oct 5, 2012)

I'm not going to keep chasing a guy if he's throwing rocks at my face. hboy:

A better option would have been a taser or something like a rubber bullet that will put a hurt on someone but not wound them as much as a regular bullet; however, the officers may not have had those available at the time, so they shot to wound/stop him. I'm not sure where the bullet hit him, but if you shoot someone in the calf (for example), it doesn't cause permanent damage but will make them stop running. Police are trained in several ways to stop someone without permanent injury.

The article also said he was picking up train equipment. I'm not sure if that meant he was throwing things or charging at them with it, but yeah. The guy needed to be stopped, and sure they could have tried to tackle him, but again - he was throwing rocks and possibly larger items. I'm not taking a rock or piece of metal or a wooden tie to the face if I can help it.

**I'm not a police officer, so I'm just armchair quarterbacking with the rest of you.


----------



## NW cannonball (Oct 6, 2012)

Sorcha said:


> I'm not going to keep chasing a guy if he's throwing rocks at my face. hboy:
> 
> A better option would have been a taser or something like a rubber bullet that will put a hurt on someone but not wound them as much as a regular bullet; however, the officers may not have had those available at the time, so they shot to wound/stop him. I'm not sure where the bullet hit him, but if you shoot someone in the calf (for example), it doesn't cause permanent damage but will make them stop running. Police are trained in several ways to stop someone without permanent injury.
> 
> ...


"picking up train equipment" - what can that possibly mean.

Get the person off the tracks - well and good.

Delay lots of trains when the (presumably delusional) person is off the tracks - huh?

Call for support? yes. Shoot one lousy loony? Never. Strange story - but the true facts are likely never to be told.


----------



## SarahZ (Oct 6, 2012)

Precisely. The only people who know what happened are the moron on the tracks and the officers involved. I'm sure there will be an investigation, which happens any time an officer shoots a suspect. Until then, all we can do is speculate. It's kind of silly to point fingers this early in the game. In some circumstances, a rock can be considered a deadly weapon. The article didn't mention if any of the officers had already been hit in the face. Some of that ballast is pretty sharp along the edges. I can't even walk on it if I don't have thick soles on my shoes.


----------



## sechs (Oct 7, 2012)

Acela150 said:


> Keep in mind this is California were talking about... The State of unnecessary force...


Well, at least we're not trying to take away the ability of citizens to vote....


----------



## DET63 (Oct 27, 2012)

> I'm not sure where the bullet hit him, but if you shoot someone in the calf (for example), it doesn't cause permanent damage but will make them stop running. Police are trained in several ways to stop someone without permanent injury.


I remember when a deputy sheriff came and talked to us as part of our civics class in high school and said that when the police shoot, they shoot to kill, i.e., they don't "aim" for an arm or leg. Thus, they're usually reluctant to shoot unless they really believe they have to. Of course, any time that "believing" or "feeling" is involved, it becomes a judgment call with some emotion thrown into the mix.


----------



## leemell (Oct 29, 2012)

DET63 said:


> > I'm not sure where the bullet hit him, but if you shoot someone in the calf (for example), it doesn't cause permanent damage but will make them stop running. Police are trained in several ways to stop someone without permanent injury.
> 
> 
> I remember when a deputy sheriff came and talked to us as part of our civics class in high school and said that when the police shoot, they shoot to kill, i.e., they don't "aim" for an arm or leg. Thus, they're usually reluctant to shoot unless they really believe they have to. Of course, that any time that "believing" or "feeling" is involved, it becomes a judgment call with some emotion thrown into the mix.


They are actually shooting to "stop". They are NOT shooting to kill. The training mantra is --- is your life or another person's life threatened? If so fire two shots, evaluate, is he still a threat? In the heat of a fight, this can and is forgotten, that is the result of adrenline that is flooding the system.

Since the moving human body is a far more difficult target then you may realize, the target is the "center of mass" or about the bottom of the sternum.


----------



## BCL (Nov 19, 2012)

I would note that the article itself mentions that it was a San Mateo County Sheriff's deputy who did the shooting.

I've heard that Caltrain contracts with San Mateo County for police services, and their deputies are authorized to perform their duties along the entire Caltrain system. They probably don't want to create their own department (like BART) and don't divide their contract like AC Transit.


----------



## leemell (Nov 19, 2012)

BCL said:


> I would note that the article itself mentions that it was a San Mateo County Sheriff's deputy who did the shooting.
> 
> I've heard that Caltrain contracts with San Mateo County for police services, and their deputies are authorized to perform their duties along the entire Caltrain system. They probably don't want to create their own department (like BART) and don't divide their contract like AC Transit.


That is exactly what Metrolink does as well. The entire system is contracted to the LA County Sheriff's Department. The LASD TSB (Transportation Services Bureau) also patrols the Metro Rail.


----------

