Salem detective injures man in I-5

[coyoteman5]

Salem detective injures man in I-5 traffic stop shooting
Updated 6 minutes ago
By The Associated Press


Oregon State Police say a Salem police detective driving south on Interstate 5 near Albany with a federal investigator shot and wounded a driver that the two officers stopped for reckless driving.

State police said late Thursday night the wounded man was taken to a nearby hospital and is expected to survive.

The detective and the U.S. Justice Department investigator were on their way to a Lane County assignment at about 8 p.m. Thursday when a speeding pickup passed their unmarked vehicle.

State police say the two officers tried to stop the truck. The driver first failed to stop, then halted suddenly and quickly got out. That's when police say he was shot. A state police statement didn't provide any details on what prompted the detective to fire.

The detective will be placed on administrative leave. He was not identified.

State police and Linn County major crime team detectives are investigating.

Read More

 

[wayoutwest]

Oregon State Police news via FlashAlert.Net


Update: Inter-agency Investigation into Officer-Involved Shooting on Interstate 5 in Linn County - 12/06/13

An investigation is ongoing following Thursday night's officer-involved shooting during a traffic contact on Interstate 5 near Halsey in Linn County. The shooting involved a Salem police detective assigned to an interagency task force from outside the Linn County area.

Updated information approved for release indicates on December 5, 2013 at approximately 7:50 p.m., Salem Police Detective Angus "Scott" Emmons and a Department of Justice investigator were traveling southbound on Interstate 5 south of Albany enroute to an assignment as part of an active investigation. Near Brownsville, a pickup passed their unmarked vehicle recklessly at a high rate of speed operated in an erratic and dangerous manner.

Detective Emmons attempted to stop the pickup with the emergency lights in his vehicle, but the pickup's driver failed to pull over. As Detective Emmons was calling for further assistance, the pickup suddenly stopped and the driver confronted Detective Emmons while armed with a firearm. Detective Emmons fired and hit the male suspect with his duty firearm.

Detective Emmons and the other investigator administered first aid to the suspect until other officers and medical personnel arrived. The suspect was transported to a local hospital for treatment. The injured man's condition is not being released at this time but information indicates he is expected to survive. There were no other injuries.

Detectives from Oregon State Police Criminal Investigations Division and Linn County Major Crime Team were called out to investigate. Other agencies responding include Linn County Sheriff's Office, Albany Police Department, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem Police Department, Albany Fire Department, and Linn County District Attorney's Office.

Detective Emmons will be placed on administrative leave, a standard procedure following an incident of this nature.

Investigators are asking to speak with any witnesses who were passing the scene at the time of the shooting. Anyone with information about this investigation is asked to contact OSP Detective Kyle Wilson at (503) 934-0355.

Future release of information related to this investigation will come from the Linn County District Attorney's Office.

### State of Oregon: Oregon State Police ###
Inter-agency Investigation into Officer-Involved Shooting along Interstate 5 in Linn County - 12/05/13
An investigation is beginning following Thursday night's officer-involved shooting during a traffic contact on Interstate 5 near Halsey in Linn County. The shooting involved a Salem police detective assigned to an interagency task force from outside of the Linn County area.

Preliminary information indicates on December 5, 2013 at approximately 7:50 p.m., the Salem police detective and a Department of Justice investigator were traveling southbound on Interstate 5 south of Albany enroute to an assignment in Lane County. A pickup passed their unmarked vehicle recklessly at a high rate of speed. They tried to initiate a traffic stop and the driver failed to yield for an unspecified distance before it suddenly stopped.

After a male subject quickly exited, he was shot and injured by the Salem police detective.

After the shooting, area law enforcement agencies were notified and responded to the scene. Emergency medical care was started on the wounded man and then he was transported to an area hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound. The injured man's condition is not being released at this time but information indicates he is expected to survive.

Detectives from Oregon State Police and Linn County Major Crime Team have been called out to investigate. The involved agency and names are not being released at this time.

The detective will be placed on administrative leave, a standard procedure following an incident of this nature

Other details will be released when approved by the Linn County District Attorney's Office.

### State of Oregon: Oregon State Police ###

 

[rick benjamin]

Reads like the recent I-84 shooting.

 

[41Slinger]

At this point it sounds like a job well done Det. Emmons.

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

Seems to be a good defensive shoot by the officer. The officer may have save a life or two as well. KUDO'S for an apparent job well done.

 

[CJ1089]

At this point it sounds like a job well done Det. Emmons.

Seems to be a good defensive shoot by the officer. The officer may have save a life or two as well. KUDO'S for an apparent job well done.

Put down the Kool-Aid boys. As I read the press release, an unmarked car w/ 2 non-uniformed men attempt to stop a speeding (allegedly but I accept that as fact) blue Toyota pickup on I-5 using the vehicle emergency lights.
To the Toyota driver there is no indication of LEO presence.
They chase the guy flashing their lights, speeding to keep up w/ him. He pulls over suddenly and 'confronts w/ firearm'. Then Det Emmons confronts with bullets from a firearm.
How the hell is this a good job or a clean shoot?
If they followed and called for a marked car and the driver produced a firearm then it could have been clean.
There was nothing in the OSP authorized account that even called out Det Emmons as identifying himself as a LEO.
I could be convinced that this was a road rage shooting based on the details stated.

 

[Working 4 U]

Put down the Kool-Aid boys. As I read the press release, an unmarked car w/ 2 non-uniformed men attempt to stop a speeding (allegedly but I accept that as fact) blue Toyota pickup on I-5 using the vehicle emergency lights.
To the Toyota driver there is no indication of LEO presence.
They chase the guy flashing their lights, speeding to keep up w/ him. He pulls over suddenly and 'confronts w/ firearm'. Then Det Emmons confronts with bullets from a firearm.
How the hell is this a good job or a clean shoot?
If they followed and called for a marked car and the driver produced a firearm then it could have been clean.
There was nothing in the OSP authorized account that even called out Det Emmons as identifying himself as a LEO.
I could be convinced that this was a road rage shooting based on the details stated.

Interesting take on this, Yes plausible. But lets say your following him because of what ever reason and he pulls over and you get out and then he gets out and presents a firearm. What you gonna do? If it were anything else other than road rage I think the guy would getting out would announce he was heading to an emergency or what ever. But to jump out and pull your firearm sounds like he wasn't all there. But I will say all I know is what I have read here about the case.

 

[CJ1089]

Interesting take on this, Yes plausible. But lets say your following him because of what ever reason and he pulls over and you get out and then he gets out and presents a firearm. What you gonna do? If it were anything else other than road rage I think the guy would getting out would announce he was heading to an emergency or what ever. But to jump out and pull your firearm sounds like he wasn't all there. But I will say all I know is what I have read here about the case.

First, I am not stating the shooting a bad one, just calling BS on it being a GOOD one. The fact that the OSP investigator is still calling for witnesses shows that it is not cut and dried from the OSP perspective.
Going to your example, the reason for following and the manner in which it is conducted will help determine how much force can be justified from both parties perspectives. As mere readers of an abstract of a second hand account of the incident, we really talk out our behinds when we start making judgments about the necessity of a shooting. The most salient single fact reported is that the Victim did not discharge his firearm at an unknown and unidentified vehicle that had been chasing him, just doesn't sound like some maniac killer to me.

 

[DieselScout]

No OSP is doing what they are suppose to do and investigating the occurrence. It doesn't matter how cut and dried it seems to anyone it had to be investigated and that is why they are asking for witnesses. Its called due diligence.

 

[CJ1089]

No OSP is doing what they are suppose to do and investigating the occurrence. It doesn't matter how cut and dried it seems to anyone it had to be investigated and that is why they are asking for witnesses. Its called due diligence.

So then you are agreeing with me. It is too early to call this a job well done and give Det Emmons a KUDOs for potentially saving one or two lives, as a couple of other members suggested. (posts #4-6)
Maybe you misunderstood my central message; the press release does not contain enough verified details to pass judgment on the incident. It is called suspension of judgement.

 

[DieselScout]

So then you are agreeing with me. It is too early to call this a job well done and give Det Emmons a KUDOs for potentially saving one or two lives, as a couple of other members suggested. (posts #4-6)
Maybe you misunderstood my central message; the press release does not contain enough verified details to pass judgment on the incident. It is called suspension of judgement.

Not really. You stated the reason they OSP is investigating is its not cut and dried from OSP perspective. I am saying this isn't true, as regardless of how anyone felt, it would be investigated. OSP could feel it is cut and dried but they are still going to investigate it, as it will go to the DA and possibly grand jury to decide if there are charges to be filed against the shooting LEO.

People can make whatever judgment they want, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

[CJ1089]

Not really. You stated the reason they OSP is investigating is its not cut and dried from OSP perspective. I am saying this isn't true, as regardless of how anyone felt, it would be investigated. OSP could feel it is cut and dried but they are still going to investigate it, as it will go to the DA and possibly grand jury to decide if there are charges to be filed against the shooting LEO.

People can make whatever judgment they want, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

So you want to split hairs, okay.
Your first sentence: You disagree with me. Got it.
Your second sentence: This is a misquote, I did not write that, try again. When you start a sentence with "You stated..." it would be best if you ACTUALLY QUOTED ME. I have not made any statement concerning the reason they are investigating.
Your third sentence: Since I never used the words feel or felt, you are just stating a position. You have yet to disagree with any thing I actually said.
Your fourth sentence: First part is a statement of fact that no one has contended otherwise. The second part might be a statement of fact eventually but since I did not reference the DA, a grand jury or charges I fail to see how it applies.

Obviously the term "cut and dried" is throwing you, replace it with "conclusive through substantial and verifiable evidence". Yes it has been announced that OSP is completing a full investigation. The LEO involved has been placed on Admin leave per dept procedure.

I contend therefore it follows that the quality of his performance has not yet been adjudicated by those responsible.
If they have decided already then the investigation and subsequent review are just shams to placate the masses.

 

[DieselScout]

The fact that the OSP investigator is still calling for witnesses shows that it is not cut and dried from the OSP perspective.

I have not made any statement concerning the reason they are investigating.

Okay I quoted you and in fact I quoted your statement regarding why they are investigating. You made the statement

...that it is not cut and dried from the OSP perspective.

See I quoted you again.

So to recap from your quote in your opinion OSP is investigating because its not cut and dried from their perspective.

My point was their perspective is irrelevant as they investigate regardless. When I used the term "felt" I was speaking about OSP not you. I used felt instead of perspective.

I am done with this.

 

[Flopsweat]

Because after all, semantics are the most important part. You're both really smart, now can we move on?

I've never been a big fan of police using unmarked cars to pull people over or allowing non-uniformed (is that a term?) officers to attempt an arrest without a uniformed officer present. Maybe in extreme cases, but not for speeding or even reckless driving. It's just begging for trouble. I won't blame anyone for not pulling over for an unmarked car. Call 911 and tell them what's going on, then drive to the nearest Police station. But don't get out of your car and point a gun at them.

 

[CJ1089]

Okay I quoted you and in fact I quoted your statement regarding why they are investigating. You made the statement

Quote Originally Posted by CJ1089 View Post

The fact that the OSP investigator is still calling for witnesses shows that it is not cut and dried from the OSP perspective.

See I quoted you again.

Quote Originally Posted by CJ1089 View Post

I have not made any statement concerning the reason they are investigating.

So to recap from your quote in your opinion OSP is investigating because its not cut and dried from their perspective.

My point was their perspective is irrelevant as they investigate regardless.

My first quoted sentence makes no claim as to the impetus for an investigation (why an investigation was started).
My second quoted sentence spells out that I made no claim as to the impetus for an investigation (why an investigation was started).
The reason the investigation was opened is not referenced. I made no statements about it so you cannot disagree with me. There is nothing to disagree about on that issue.

The first sentence uses the fact that the investigation is on-going to deduce that a decision has not been reached by the OSP investigating officer concerning the legality of the Det's actions.

Can we agree on that?

Your recap sentence is pure hogwash. From your posts here, today, I can only conclude that either you cannot think critically with the American dialect of the English language or you are choosing to misread the language in order to troll me.

Either option leads me to end our conversation. You hooked me once, I won't go for a second baiting. Ugh, smells like old herring!

 

[CamoDeafie]

from what I've heard' "plainclothes" (undercover ) must still use a POLICE windbreaker when on duty or answering a call; and I've been seeing those OSP unmarked Chargers and Mustangs everywhere now.....there's even a race-striped Mustang that has NO police markings, except the YELLOW plates, the laptop in the passenger seat, the spot light, additional radio masts and the extra gear in the cabin...along with with supposedly hidden red/blue lights behind the front grill and in the rear lights....

it is entirely possible the person in the truck NEVER saw the police lights come on in the unmarked car, and only saw an aggressive tailgater that needed to be dealt with....
EDIT 2;
from what it reads... I think the officer in question could/should have called for back-up first, and stayed IN THE CAR instead of getting out and risk being shot....
Also, every unmarked car I've seen on the road always have an uniformed officer in the driver's seat... at least from where I could ID them..... seems there is more to this story we are not getting.
(also, who is NOT going to mistake a tough-book laptop in the passenger, a spotlight where there's normally none, and a YELLOW license plate for not being a cop!?)

 

[Darknight]

I read what was posted on here about the incident; I still can't find where it says that the guy in the truck drew his firearm and pointed it at the Officers or just had it drawn and in his hand or how he was carrying it at all. All i could find was that it says he was armed and just because you have a gun doesn't mean it's open season. I will suspend judgement on that point until more information is available.


i am cusrious as to why the guy stopped if he didn't think it was a police officer due to the unmarked status of the vehicle the officers were in. I realize that the article didn't say whether the guy thought it was a police officer pulling him over or not, but why else would a person stop when a vehicle with flashing emergency lights is following them? I personally would never stop for anyone if I thought they were not a police officer and following me. Having blue lights on your vehicle is illegal if it is not an emergency vehicle; and even if you are driving an emergency vehicle with blue lights if you are not a police officer then you can not pull someone over with them.

Like flopsweat I am not a fan of unmarked police cars pulling people over either. If the police want people to slow down and drive in a safe manner more often, then they should put more cruisers on the road that are brightly colored so as to be easily identified. How many of us will slow way down and drive like perfect angels when we see a marked police cruiser? To prove the point some police departments have put cruisers with a dummy in the drivers seat along a stretch of raod they want people to slow down on; and it works.

In the police state that we live in, it is my opinion that regardless of the circumstances the officer will be cleared because the guy had a gun, period.

 

[Darknight]

[

=CamoDeafie;1010742]from what I've heard' "plainclothes" (undercover ) must still use a POLICE windbreaker when on duty or answering a call;

Hearsay and maybe a policy, but not a law that requires it.

and I've been seeing those OSP unmarked Chargers and Mustangs everywhere now.....there's even a race-striped Mustang that has NO police markings, except the YELLOW plates, the laptop in the passenger seat, the spot light, additional radio masts and the extra gear in the cabin...along with with supposedly hidden red/blue lights behind the front grill and in the rear lights....

They don't always have yellow plates a laptop and a flood light. There are a lot of detectives that drive unmarked vehicles all the time. I have also recently seen a state trooper wearing a coverup in an unmarked with no flood light, laptop and had a white license plate.

it is entirely possible the person in the truck NEVER saw the police lights come on in the unmarked car, and only saw an aggressive tailgater that needed to be dealt with....

The number one thing to do while carrying a firearm in public is avoid confrontational situations if possible, not confront them. The last thing you want is someone taking a video of you getting out of your vehicle with a firearm to confront someone for tailgating you. Then of course there is the getting shot thing too. What would most of us on this forum do if someone got out of their vehicle in front of us and started approaching our vehicle and was armed and maybe a little upset.


EDIT 2;

from what it reads... I think the officer in question could/should have called for back-up first, and stayed IN THE CAR instead of getting out and risk being shot....

He did call for back-up according to the report so far. I don't know about you, but I have never seen nor heard of any police training that would teach an officer to pull someone over and then sit in their car while an armed person got out of the vehicle and approached them.

Also, every unmarked car I've seen on the road always have an uniformed officer in the driver's seat... at least from where I could ID them..... seems there is more to this story we are not getting.

Not in this case.