City issues release regarding Arvest Bank robbery and shooting
Matthew L. Anderson Andersen, 29, of Elkins was shot and killed by a Fayetteville police officer Wednesday during an attempted robbery at an Arvest Bank, according to a news release issued by city staff this morning.
Fayetteville Police Chief Greg Tabor said officers responded to a report of a robbery at the bank located at 1113 N. Garland Ave. at approximately 3:29 pm.
According to Tabor, the subject, while in a white passenger car in the bank’s drive through, presented a note to the employee demanding money. Upon the officers’ arrival they located the suspect near the drive-through window and announced their presence.
The release goes on to state that the suspect began backing away from an officer blocking the front side of his vehicle and by doing so, nearly struck two other officers who had responded to the scene. Despite officers’ warnings to stop and show his hands, the suspect then began ramming an occupied vehicle behind his car several times in an apparent attempt to escape.
Tabor says that due to the suspect’s reckless actions with seemingly no regard for the safety of those around him, an officer fired his service weapon at the suspect to stop the threat. The suspect was wounded as a result of the shooting and his injuries proved fatal.
No officers were injured during the altercation.
The Washington County Sheriff’s Office is conducting the criminal investigation into the shooting incident at the Tabor’s request. Per departmental policy, one officer has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the results of the investigation.
Update: December 3, 2009, 5:18pm
Fayetteville Police Chief Greg Tabor released additional information this afternoon regarding the officer-involved shooting.
There were four officers on the scene at the time of the shooting; Sergeant Shannon Gabbard, Sergeant Chris Moad, Detective David Williams, and Officer Thomas Reed. There were a total of three shots fired, all by Corporal David Williams.
The Washington County Sheriff’s Office is conducting an independent criminal investigation while the Fayetteville Police Department is conducting an investigation of the attempted robbery and an internal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the shooting incident. Per departmental policy, Detective David Williams has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the results of the internal investigation.
The suspect’s body has been transferred to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory Medical Examiner’s Office for a formal autopsy.
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
Innarested Observer
December 3, 2009
Cops ‘sho like to shoot people up here…
seb
December 3, 2009
Jeez, I was there at exactly that time the day before.
T-Pain
December 3, 2009
Cops are always shooting to kill here! Don’t rob banks, shoplift, walk down highways, yell loudly in a threatning manner or you will die in Fayetteville. No jailtime served, instant death.
burgerboy
December 3, 2009
While its terrible that someone was killed, this could have been avoided.
The guy was robbing a fricking bank and threatening violence to others. He wasn’t just minding his own business.
I don’t have a problem with the police erring on the side of caution on this one. He expressed his intention to harm the employees there unless they met his conditions. Thats just another form of denying the employees of their basic right to live and work peacefully without being harmed by others.
Try to deprive me of my rights with a legitimate threat of violence, and you will recieve violence in return, either from me, or those paid with my taxes to protect my rights.
Its actually very American.
burgerboy
December 3, 2009
Another example:
I’m sitting here peacefully minding my own business in my home in Fayetteville. I am sitting within 20 feet of a number of firearms.
Should someone kick down my door, or start climbing in one of my windows, I won’t politely inquire as to whether they possess a firearm or other weapon.
I’ll shoot to kill.
Urk
December 3, 2009
BB, I have no brief for the guy who tried to rob the bank. While I haven’t seen any mention of him having a gun, his actions with the car seem to amount to suicide-by-cop. Once you start ramming bystander’s cars while the police are yelling at you to surrender, you’ve pretty much accepted a good chance of being shot. so we’re in some agreement there. but your macho posturing RE: your home full of munitions is pretty sad, IMHO.
Veronica
December 3, 2009
Cops like to do their JOBS!!! The guy was robbing a bank!
Innarested Observer
December 4, 2009
Very American, indeed. “That’s the problem.”
Was pretty sure the gun-nut voice would surface. Thanks! Secondly, cops “doing their jobs” shouldn’t be shooting people. Cops shoot more people up here than they do in major cities. Those police are very professional and measured in their use of deadly force. The cops up here are trigger-happy.
Me
December 4, 2009
I say if the guy was robbing a bank and ramming police cars, the police were perfectly within their rights to shoot. At that point, they don’t know if he is armed or not and his aggression merited their action. It is almost always a shame when someone is killed, but anyone doing what he did runs that risk. Would it be better if the cops tried to pull him out of his moving car and got shot themselves? I know there are times when cops cross the line, but put yourself in their position on this one.
Zapp Brannigan
December 4, 2009
It’s a miracle nobody was tazed.
Mark_Landry
December 4, 2009
If the robber was a 10-year-old girl, then, and only then, would he have been tasered.
burgerboy
December 4, 2009
I own two handguns, a shotgun, a rifle. I have paid professionals to train me in their proper use. I rarely hunt, but occasionally take them with me if I’m going to be in the woods for a long time.
I stated my intentions to defend myself with force in my home if necessary.
I can understand how to some that qualifies as “macho posturing”, but to me its just common sense, and one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment. I bet that girl who was sliced up in her apartment over the summer while she waited for the cops to arrive wished she’d had some method of self defense.
On the flip, I knew I’d see the ultra-liberal anti-gun people pop up here.
Guns are guaranteed to us because the founding fathers knew that we would need to use force to defend our inalienable rights.
Our police use tazers and guns to stop people, not for fun, not out of spite, not because they’re a bunch of “macho” a-holes. They use them to stop people who are violating the rights of others. The bank robber being shot is a simple example of that.
If the guy hadn’t chosen to violate the rights of the bank employees, customers and owners, he’d still be alive. While its tragic and stupid, I don’t see any injustice in that.
jesse
December 4, 2009
The purpose of the police is to uphold the law, prevent crime, and protect the public. Insofar as they do these things, they preserve the rights of others, but this preservation IS NOT their ultimate function. (Criminals have rights, too, after all.)
burgerboy
December 4, 2009
I know its tempting for some to view a guy robbing a bank as a guy “sticking it to the man” or as some kind of poor-man, Robin Hood hero. Afterall, Arvest is a big company with lots of money.
That’s because of all the Hollywood bull**** we’ve all been exposed to.
Think about the tellers who essentially were threatened with murder by this man.
If you have never been robbed by a person with a weapon, or threatened by a stranger in a manner that makes you believe they are going to murder you, then you don’t really understand this situation.
When a stranger either pulls a gun, or makes you believe they have one, and threatens to end your life if you don’t hand over your possessions, it’s a very frightening experience. It’s a moment of terror, and it’s a moment wherein you realize that everything you take for granted, all of your rights as a human being, are gone. You are powerless. Whatever the person with the gun says, you have to comply. Otherwise, you die.
That’s a very, very bad thing to do to your fellow man. I said that its “very American” because being American is about having rights that no one can take away. When someone holds you at gunpoint, or threatens your life, they are taking away your rights. When someone has a gun to your face, you realize you are powerless. I have felt that. It’s one of the worst feelings you can ever experience.
Think about that the next time you hear about some robber being shot.
jesse
December 4, 2009
No one is denying it’s bad to commit crimes. That’s why there are laws prohibiting those acts and police to enforce laws. But there are consequences for ALL actions and victims on both “sides” making measured consideration necessary and crucial before taking the life of another. Knee-jerk vigil ante-ism, is against the law, too.
burgerboy
December 4, 2009
I agree that there are victims on both sides. The relatives of the robber aren’t a victim of the actions of the police. They are victims of the bad decision their relative made.
A police officer shooting a suspect who is threatening human lives isn’t “knee-jerk-vigilante-ism”. Neither is using force to protect one’s domicile from intruders in the middle of the night.
Both are necessary evils in a civilized society.
I agree that it would be better if all people would respect the rights of others by not stealing, raping or murdering.
Human nature dictates that force is sometimes necessary to protect the rights of innocents.
The key here is that the suspect threatened the lives of others with his actions. The very act of robbing a bank, and passing a threatening note to the tellers equals threatening their lives. By threatening their lives, he communicated that he had the capability and intent to harm them.
People don’t just hand over their money because someone asks them to. They do it because they are threatened with death or harm.
Its not the same as someone breaking into my garage in the middle of the night to steal my weedeater, or breaking into my car to steal my stereo. That isn’t a threat to my life and would not justify the use of deadly force.
If that same person enters my home, or pulls a gun on me personally, then his intent becomes personal.
Had the robber busted into Harps in the middle of the night when no one was present, then deadly force would not have been justified, unless he threatened the lives of the police officers on the scene.
Robbing a bank full of employees and customers is a different ballgame altogether.
It is a fine line, but this guy crossed it and paid with his life.
Bud
December 4, 2009
The bank robber is obviously wrong and needed to be punished. This was a very stupid young man who did a very stupid thing, but listen to this:
If it is at all possible can you put yourself in the shoes of the bank robbers father or mother or brother? They are saying to themselves… what he did was crazy and wrong.. but did he have to die?
When we were young and ignorant we all did stupid things… most of us did not do anything on this level but we all did something…
If this happened to YOU! If your brother or cousin or close friend did something crazy like this you would think Man! Did they really need to kill him? Could they have handled it any other way??
Me
December 4, 2009
Young and ignorant? He was 29 so that is not an excuse for his actions. Did they need to kill him? What might have happened if they didn’t? If he was ramming their cars and refusing to surrender, he would not have hesitated to run them over or pull a gun on them if he had one (which he may have as far as the cops knew). Put youself in the shoes of the cop’s mother or brother… if that encounter had ended up in a cop being shot. Cops put their lives on the line here and didn’t have time to hesitate when they felt their lives were in danger. There is a fine line between self defence and murder, but given the facts in this article, the cops did not cross that line. How far should they have let him go before shooting?
jesse
December 4, 2009
He didn’t rob the bank, though. He passed a threatening note to one person and tried to flee. Did he even have a weapon? In this case intent to harm exists only if there was a weapon with which to do so. (Was he gonna beat the teller to death from behind his steering wheel with a building between him and her?) In the absence of a weapon and, therefore, intent, this was, at best, a tragic error in judgment on both sides. Even witnesses report hasty use of deadly force.
Urk
December 4, 2009
Bud, I do find myself thinking “did they really need to kill him”? but I think it’s at least arguable that it was justified given the report that he was ramming bystander’s (occupied) cars with alot of force. I don’t think I know enough to come to a full conclusion, but I _think_ it’s a tragedy that the guy largely brought upon himself, not just by robbing the bank but by how he reacted when confronted by police. It’s also very possible that the officer shot too quickly when it wasn’t justified, but that’s not where my incomplete reading of the facts takes me. Mostly tho, I think it’s an expectable outcome. if I go and rob a bank, and then start ramming occupied cars in the lot while police have their guns pointed at me, I am thinking that the chances of me being shot are going way, way up. When the robber starts endangering the lives of people in the parking lot, and refuses to stop, then he’s very likely crossed a line where protecting those people’s lives becomes the primary issue for the cops, and preserving his becomes a secondary issue.
BB, I want to be clear: I don’t think that you owning a gun is necessarily macho posturing at all. It was the discourse, the i-have-guns-and-i’m-not afraid-to-use-them and-i’m-damn-proud-of-not-being-afraid-to-use-them-and-I’m going-to-tell-you-how-much-i’m-not-afraid-to-use-them-even-tho-that’s-not-what-we-were-really-talking-about”-tone of what you said that I read as posturing. On the other hand, noting that you’ve taken professional training in the use and care and safety of the weapons you own, that’s great. I just wish more gun owners would get invested in that kind of rhetoric, and be as proud of that as they are of their willingness to pull the trigger on intruders. To some degree I was responding more to a strain of macho posturing that I hear in public rhetoric from gun owners generally than I was to your individual comment. apologies for being uncivil.
Bud
December 4, 2009
Obvioulsy you cannot put your self in their shoes…
You will find out he did not have a gun.. and the Police did not see a gun, so he had to have threatened them with his car. He did not ram the police cars trying to hurt a policeman he was hitting another car trying to flea the scene..
I can however put myself in both the Policemans and their families shoes:
I know being a policeman is a dangerous job that requires snap decisions that mean life and death. If I were the relative of a cop (which I am) I would always want them to be safe and when it came down to their life or a criminals.. please do not hesitate to choose yours. If I were a policeman (which I am not) I would as best I can preserve my life over the life of a criminal – no doubt! That being said i believe that the judgment of the shooter (policeman) was not the best in this scenario. Besides preserving the lives of the public (people at the bank) and his own life. A policeman also has the responibility, beleive it or not, to protect the life of the criminal!
He must truely believe that someones life is in danger before he discharges his weapon….
Offcamber
December 4, 2009
An automobile can be used as a deadly weapon. Guns are not the only threat that might need to be immobilized when lives have been threatened. Andersen made dangerous moves against both police officers and civilians. Had he lived, he could have been charged with attempted murder. Not child’s play.
FPD acted quickly to neutralize a situation that had very real potential to get worse. Damn fine work, given the slim timing and known dangers posed to themselves and civilians in the area.
Andersen had the opportunity to surrender unharmed, but he fought back and played a dangerous gambit. Don’t feel sorry for him. Feel sorry for officers under the stress of real-time decisions to use force when the public good demands it.
burgerboy
December 4, 2009
I can definitely understand people being devastated by the loss of their family member or friend.
I also acknowledge that its possible the suspect was not armed.
Passing a threatening note to a teller at a bank is interpreted as intent to rob the bank. From what I have read, the content of his note included threats to physically harm the teller.
A situation like that requires a split second decision by law enforcement.
A man makes clear his intent to rob a bank and cause harm if his wishes are not carried out. Upon seeing law enforcement, he attempts to flee by ramming his car into other cars waiting in line.
So first, we have a person who has expressed the intent to hurt others who do not follow his wishes, at a bank, which is an aggravating circumstance. Kind of like how yelling “Fire!” in an open field is not the same as yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Second, we have a person who is threating others with physical harm using his vehicle.
What potentially happens next is up for interpretation by those on scene. Does the bank robber produce a gun and shoot at the other people in line? Does he fire a weapon at the bank teller? Does he injure or kill others, including pedestrians, with his car?
Considering that he was in a car, the police didn’t have a clear picture of him, his hands, and what kind, if any, weapon he had on him. They could not tell that he was armed. They also could not determine that he wasn’t armed. They had to make a decision to prevent this man from harming others. All they had to go on was what the bank teller had told them. And that was probably something like “This man is robbing the bank”.
At this point, the robber should have surrendered to police to prevent them from shooting. He didn’t.
I do see how others can interpret this instance as the police acting too swiftly with firearms. There are instances locally where I agree that happened, although not in Fayetteville.
I think making generalizations about law enforcment based on this particular instance doesn’t make sense. Its reasonable to see how they reacted in a manner that they thought was necessary to prevent a criminal from harming other residents. Police are human, and will make mistakes. I don’t view this particular circumstance as a glaring example of that.
As for firearms ownership, I understand why some people don’t have guns. Most of the people I know don’t have guns. I used to be anti-gun. A few life experiences and a little contemplation led me to the personal conclusion that guns themselves aren’t inherently bad. I own several, like I said. I haven’t shot one in several months. I don’t carry one around town with me. But, if I am going on a long trip, or camping, I find it comforting to carry one in my vehicle for my own personal safety. I am very much in favor of intelligent, trained citizens having them. I take gun ownership and firearm safety very seriously. I admit that when I see news reports of a woman being overpowered and stabbed in her home, one of the things I think about is, “If only she had invested in a home defense weapon…”. I’m just as enthusiastic about pepper spray for personal defense, but in some cases, it may not be enough.
jesse
December 4, 2009
Was he, in fact, using his vehicle as a weapon, or was he just trying to get away? Seems this would be apparent to police/witnesses. Even if in the course of his escape attempt, he employed his vehicle in such a way as to become a weapon, no one could claim intent. I’m having a hard time supporting the death penalty for attempted robbery/attempted involuntary manslaughter.
Bud
December 4, 2009
Officer Camber – I understand that you being a police officer would render you incapable of any kind of empathy for the bank robber or his family. I believe that the only way for you to see the scenario any differently unfortunately, is if you were put into that position. If your son, nephew, relative attempted this incredibly ignorant crime and was killed for it…
Sardon
December 4, 2009
At least the cop didn’t shoot the tellers like they did the victim in the last attempted murder by boyfriend on Dead Girl Crick. I’m also glad nobody had a cane, which Fayetteville police call ” pistol grip shotguns,” like the one Benny Spears had but we never saw a photo of it. That’s the only time I can remember when the cops took somebody’s gun and didn’t take a picture of it. If Burger Boy gets busted for a joint, I promise you we’ll see all his guns on TV.
Innarested Observer
December 4, 2009
Umm, BTW, the “robber” was in the DRIVE-THROUGH LANE! So the idea that he was going to actually be able to hurt a teller is ridiculous. But the cops and the gun nuts up here will use any excuse to get their rocks off by shooting someone. Primitive but not unexpected.
The only thing we agree on is the 2nd Amendment. You’d better believe that with these trigger-happy wackos running around, I want to be able to defend myself against them.
Offcamber
December 4, 2009
I don’t have to imagine Matt Andersen being my relative or friend. Even without any connection, him not dying would have been the better outcome.
What’s irrefutable is that Andersen had a criminal history, and just performed yet another foolish act that he actively knew could have brought an armed response. I could not find this defensible even if he were my flesh and blood. A person has to know threatening a life puts you at odds with society, and police must work to remove that threat. He told a teller that if authorities were alerted, “you will be in for a painful experience.”
It didn’t matter if he a deranged blood lust or just panicked in fear (more likely). The action of ramming cars in close quarters with people was the same. The *danger to others* was the same. Either way, Anderson was completely out of control and behaving with no regard for public safety. He knew the risks, initiated the robbery, and brought the consequences upon himself.
The police had to react to the combination of teller harm he threatened and the act of using his car as a battering ram. That is the information they had, and it was a perfectly credible assumption that he presented a public danger. It would have been grossly negligent to allow a possibly armed robber to make a high-speed escape on public roads, followed by the very dangerous search and apprehension process. FPD neutralized the danger at first opportunity, and that was the safe and fair call.
You’re trying to put me in the cops’ shoes, now try and put yourself in the shoes of every single other person in the area, and their family. Make that case.
Bud
December 4, 2009
Multiple witnesses at the scene expressed their shock at the excessive use of violence…
yrfuneralmytrial
December 4, 2009
As thankful as I am that I was not there, this one almost reads like a “you had to have been there” scenario to really judge. I do think everyone knows that attempted bank robbery, fleeing and crashing up cars could very definitely get you killed. We all make our choices.
Wesley
December 4, 2009
I heard someone who knew the man talking about them, apparently he had a form of schizophrenia and was seeing a therapist and on medications.
It was possible he went of them, or had some kind of episode.
None the less he did not deserve to lose his life over this event, and it’s quite possible there’s a perfectly valid defense of mental illness for his actions.
Sadly despite his attempts to get better, he is now dead.
Chalk another one up to the local police officers.
They’ve killed unarmed people with downs-syndrome before, now another person with possible mental illness.
There’s no defense for their actions, they shot a unarmed man driving a car, when other methods to disable the car could have easily been used.
They killed a person. And every single instant leading up to that death need to be investigated. Shooting a unarmed man is no small deal. It’s a big deal.
Had to be there
December 5, 2009
If you were not there, you can not judge. I won’t go anywhere near second-guessing the officer on the scene who had to make the decision. Other qualified people will investigate and make that determination. I know this officer personally. He is not a trigger-happy, macho poseur. He is one of the most dedicated public servants I have every known and we are damn lucky to have him in Fayetteville.
A police officer is authorized to use deadly force in circumstances which present an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to themselves or others. This was established by the United States Supreme Court. A vehicle is a deadly weapon. This has also been established through case law. What Mr. Andersen did was utilize his vehicle as a deadly weapon, placing several people in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. That should not be in dispute. What he *intended* doesn’t matter. What he *did* is what matters. Our police are charged with protecting the public (us) from dangerous individuals. Mr. Andersen proved himself a dangerous individual…dangerous enough in this circumstance that deadly force had to be employed. Is it a tragedy that Mr. Andersen lost his life? Of course it is. Could it have been prevented? Yes, if *Mr. Andersen*, not the police officer, had chosen a different course of action.
While I truly hate that fact that Mr. Andersen lost his life, I will continue to be grateful to the men and women of the Fayetteville Police Department for what they do for our community, and me as a citizen, every day.
private
December 5, 2009
I too, am grateful for the FPD, especially Detective Williams. I know Detective Williams, and I am certain he exercised proper judgment and police procedure when accessing this situation. He is a wonderful person, police officer, and a true pillar of our community. Being a police officer has to be one on the hardest jobs out there. I’m not going to feel sorry for a man to attempted to rob a bank and run over people. I support Detective Williams. He made the right decision and possibly saved the life of a citizen or fellow officer. Hang in there, Dave!
private
December 5, 2009
Oh, and do people not realize he was attempting to use his vehicle as a deadly weapon? So, yes, he was “armed”.
Bud
December 5, 2009
private – He was not using the car as a weapon, he was trying to get away… I am sure the cop even has second thoughts whether or not to kill the guy trying to flea the scene…
He knows “now” whether or not he really had to kill him, but do not expect any comment on that……
yrfuneralmytrial
December 5, 2009
Look guys, he was attempting to rob a bank. He refused to surrender and started crashing up occupied cars trying to escape. 10 out 10 people know that doing this CAN get you killed. You can’t taze a guy in a moving vehicle. Especially not knowing whether he may be capable of blowing your (or someone else’s) head off. Were they supposed to wait until he opened fire or ran someone over? Like I said before, we all make our choices. This guy made his.
T-Pain
December 5, 2009
So if our only solution to stopping cars that are trying to flee that could be a potential danger to other is to kill the driver then police might as well use bazookas to take out cars on the highway that try to flee from the Police.
There should be an alternative plan to stop cars that try to flee besides firing 3 shots that apparently were shot to kill into the person driving the car.
The guy was obviously mentally ill. Anyone who tries to rob a bank via a note through the drive-thru has to have problems.
I think the Police were the ones who put the bystanders in danger in the first place by surrounding him. If surrounded, the subject will attempt to flee via away from the police rather than towards the police.
If this was a one time incident of a situation where the police killed an unarmed suspect then that is one thing, but there seems to be a consistent pattern that if you resist the police, guilty or innocent, they shoot to kill. That should be alarming to others as well.
El Duderino
December 5, 2009
I totally agree that the police were just trying to do their job and if you commit a crime it is a definite risk you will get shot. But on the other hand this seems like a pretty peaceful town. I would like to see the numbers of police deadly force deaths vs. deaths caused by fayetteville civilians with deadly force. It does tend to look a little like Dirty Harry in Mayberry, lately.
Had to be there
December 5, 2009
Bud,
If a person uses a gun on someone “trying to flea (sic) the scene”, or a knife or a bat, etc. do they get a pass because they are trying to get away? That’s as bad as saying it’s OK to hurt or kill someone because “I didn’t mean to! Waaahhhh!” What makes it any different if they use a car–also a deadly weapon? This individual put people in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.
So let’s say he gets away and goes speeding out of the parking lot…just “trying to flea (sic) the scene”…and hits someone crossing the street and kills them. Is that OK? He’s already proven he has no regard for the safety or well-being of others.
He had to be stopped. Not let go.
Had to be there
December 5, 2009
BTW, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a former police officer (disability retired). Until any of you spend the years and go through the training and deal with what these men and women deal with every day, please do not try to second guess actions you were not present to witness.
Look at it this way. Do you go to work every day prepared to be murdered? That’s what every cop everywhere has to do. NOT ready to kill someone, but ready to give their life. And they do. All over this country. Every day.
Are YOU ready, REALLY ready, to make truly life and death decisions? Unless you are a doctor or a police officer, I’m going to bet it is not something you have had, nor ever will have to do.
Urk
December 5, 2009
@Had to Be there: I’ve been arguing that absent full knowledge of the incident it looked to me that the officer might have been justified. the description of him ramming other cars with people in them, not just trying to flee seems to me the most pertinent detail here. it seems like some people are ignoring this detail as they formulate their opinions.
That said, citizens from all walks of life, all social stations, all positions HAVE to have the right and be taken seriously as they review and question the actions of police officers. I’ve been arguing provisionally in this officer’s favor, but I know, both personally and through reading, of many, many incidents (not speaking just of northwest Arkansas here) where officers have acted wrongly and have abused and killed citizens. There is a long and ugly history of police brutality, especially towards poor people and minorities, in this country, just as there is a long and noble history of police sacrifice and heroism. The skepticism that many are showing here is an indication of the fact that people, even people in the socio-economic & racial mainstream, worry that police authority can and will be turned against them wrongly. those kinds of worries make it hard to decide things on a case-by-case basis, which i’d guess some here might not be doing.
In other words, you don’t have to have been there to question this decision.
El Duderino
December 5, 2009
Yes police have a very hard job with very tough decisions. Yes whenever something goes down they have to be the ones to deal with it. On the other hand we all risk our lives in some way everyday just pulling out of the drive way. I have known many police officers, it is a thankless, risky job, but so is being a roofer. People of all walks of life have to make tough life and death decisions everyday, medical staff, counselors, teachers, truck drivers. It is a tough world and it is important to see all sides not just our one polarized view. I own a gun and would not brag about or even mention it and if someone was stealing my stuff I probably would not use it on them unless they were activly threatening my life because my stuff is just stuff. However in the heat of the moment it is hard to think things out from A to Dead. Police are paid to risk their life to protect the quality of ours, maybe I still think this is a small town world and I am deluding myself, but it seems that law enforcement is getting to the mentality that every place in the U.S. is equivalent to Compton which is not really the case. I think everyone has watched way too much TV. We love our guns. I can see why most other developed nations think we are so violent. Increase the peace all around people. Guns don’t kill people but they sure make it a hell of a lot easier.
Had to be there
December 5, 2009
Urk, El Duderino, and all–
These are great insights and perspectives you all express. One of the greatest things about our society in this country is we DO have not only the right, but also the ability and means to express our opinions and have discourse about our diverse points of view. Like my momma always said, “You can disagree without being disagreeable.” I appreciate the respect you show my opinions, even though you may not agree with them. I hope I do the same.
Yes, there are bad cops out there. (Unfortunately) No, we don’t live in Mayberry, as much as we would like. (Unfortunately) We have all the same problems and issues of any big city, just scaled down. (or theirs is scaled up) It does sadden me, though, to read some opinions that express generalizations and condemnations without a full examination of the circumstances. (i.e. “trigger-happy”; “knee-jerk vigilante-ism”; “Cops ’sho like to shoot people up here…”, etc.)
As Urk said, “…citizens from all walks of life, all social stations, all positions HAVE to have the right and be taken seriously as they review and question the actions of police officers.”
Absolutely. Let us please allow it to be a serious and considered examination.
Thank you.
burgerboy
December 5, 2009
I think police probably experience a number of situations that make them think differently than the average citizen. Its possible that they are constantly confronted with crime, murder, assault, etc which makes them quicker to “judge” than most of us.
I know that just being robbed at gunpoint once permanently changed my outlook a lot. It made me a much more suspicious person when walking out in public, and much more ready to deal with danger. When someone does that, you don’t KNOW that they won’t kill you on the spot, regardless of your level of compliance with their request. Your body, your mind, and everything in you assumes you are about to be killed or seriously injured. It is extremely frightening. Having experienced that wipes out ANY compassion I may have previously had for people who use weapons or threats to steal from others.
Crime in Fayetteville has increased in the past ten years. I don’t have statistics to back up that statement; its just my perception. We have bank robberies, convenience store robberies, rapes, even murders fairly regularly now. Things like that used to be very rare. Thankfully, our local law enforcement has a pretty good record of catching criminals, and our local courts have provided swift and appropriate justice for the victims.
burgerboy
December 5, 2009
I also agree that our law enforcement NEEDS to be scrutinized. We give them great trust when we allow them to use force to protect us. That requires vigilance to ensure that they do not abuse their power.
private
December 5, 2009
TRUST me, Detective Williams is no “Dirty Harry”. He was a paramedic for over 10 years, he started a helicopter rescue squad, he does EXTENSIVE work with the Peace at Home Family Shelter, he is a leading advocate against domestic abuse and crimes against children, he has been instrumental in changing domestic abuse laws here in Arkansas, he even teaches officers how to deal with handicap people…I can go on! All I’m saying is he’s not some “trigger happy rogue cop” like some have suggested. He is the kindest person I’ve ever known. Of course this is hard, but unless you are put in his situation, you can’t judge him or his actions. He felt there was an immediate danger and he followed proper police protocol. I agree…At least the good guys came home safe!
wesley
December 6, 2009
I don’t need to be there to judge. A unarmed man was killed. There doesn’t need to be a judgement for that. There is no judgement neccesary. There is no excuse for what happened. Period.
OutOfAR
December 6, 2009
Burgerboy, you seem preoccupied with home invasion. Why is this? What sorts of treasures do you own? And, more importantly, where do you keep them? Are you a heavy sleeper?
yrfuneralmytrial
December 6, 2009
@wesley: How would the police know he was unarmed? Are the police supposed to wait until he shoots someone or runs over a pedestrian etc…? If he had broken free and then shot or ran over an innocent, everyone would be wondering why the police didn’t stop him when they had the opportunity.
burgerboy
December 6, 2009
@OutOfAr:
LOL. I guess I am a little bit.
I was never a firearms person, even after I was robbed at gunpoint several years ago. I found myself living in an inner city (the nice kind, not the bad kind) neighborhood, when a serial robber/mugger began terrorizing my neighborhood. A couple was robbed at gunpoint in the alley behind my home. Several more people were robbed within 3-4 blocks of my home. There was a shooting in broad daylight literally steps from my front door.
I suddenly became aware of how vulnerable I was, and how unprepared I was if someone chose to break in. Up to that point, I’d never considered what I would do if someone tried to break into my house. I always assumed I would just “call the cops”. At the suggestion of a friend, I went to a shooting range and did a day-shoot kind of “taste test” where for a fee, I was allowed to shoot several different hand guns.
I really enjoyed the feeling of empowerment I had when handling a handgun, and decided to take a full training course to learn how to safely handle and care for a weapon for home defense.
During my personal firearms training, we watched several “scare videos” that showed actual instances of people being victimized in their place of business and in their homes. That really opened my eyes to how quickly those things happen, and how useless “calling the cops” really would be if someone decided to break in.
I don’t think I am pre-occupied, but rather that in place of my previous belief in “calling the cops”, I now have a strong belief that I am the first line of defense if a criminal chooses to break in. Part of it is sharing that with other people who may not have considered it before.
I hate to hear about people who are killed or victimized by crime because I have experienced that first hand. Its terrible. So, I share in the hope that I can encourage other rational, civic-minded people that they can and should prepare themselves for an emergency.
I click my seatbelt thousands of times per year. It has never saved my life, and I hope that it never has to save my life. But I continue to do that habitually, several times a day, just in case I need it someday.
I view personal self defense the same way.
burgerboy
December 6, 2009
Also, having several guns really takes the sting out of being born with a small penis.
Mark_Landry
December 6, 2009
AHhhh! You just made coffee come out my nose!
just a regular joe
December 6, 2009
This was a none justified shooting. There were three armed officers close enough to the car so they could touch it. They did not feel a need to shoot so why did someone much farther away fire. The guy was not armed and he was hemmed in at the teller window. There was no reason to shoot him, though I agree his actions were dumb.
just a regular joe
December 6, 2009
Oops. I made a typo in that last post. I mean to say it was not a justified shooting. This officer will probably lose his badge. I feel sorry for him and his family and the family of the fellow who was shot.
Morgan Dooley
December 6, 2009
I am curious. How were the bank tellers and/or the police supposed to discern the bank robber had no gun? Do the Fayetteville Police Officers have Superman xray vision? ESP? A good psychic on standby? They arrived on scene to a report of a bank robbery in progress. They found the bank robber in his car. They drew weapons and ordered him to stop. Bank robber then began ramming occupied cars with his car. Fayetteville police officers shot and killed him. Someone says that the bank robber had mental problems. Again I ask, how were the Fayetteville police officers to determine that? Were they supposed to ask him for his medical records before taking any action? Pull his school records? Call his parents? Get real, people. The dude was a bank robber. He threatened deadly physical violence in the course of the bank robbery. He then started smashing his car into other occupied vehicles. The police acted appropriately.
The notion of the police officers getting off on shooting and killing someone is ridiculous. They do a service for all of us that puts their lives in jeopardy every day. They do it for damn little pay and practically no thanks from the community they serve. Props and gratitude to all of you, men and women in blue.
Innarested Observer
December 6, 2009
That’s right, y’all: Our cops should have a “shoot first and ask questions later” mentality. That’ll show those criminals. And retarded kids. And women being attacked.
Innarested Observer
December 6, 2009
Ya know, searches to find hard data on use of deadly force has not been as productive as I had hoped. A Justice Bureau report cited lethal force ratios at 0.9 incidents per 1,000 officers. I doubt there are 1,000 officers around here. But statistics or not, anyone who has ever lived in a larger city with a more professional police force knows that the ratio of deadly force incidents is way higher here than it should be. When the cops in LA, NY, etc are not blowing people away… our cops shouldn’t be either.
All I know is if I’m ever pulled over, the first thing I’m gonna do is throw my hands out the window and yell “don’t shoot!”
yeah_right
December 6, 2009
look back at the reports, when the cops shot the owner of Herman’s on his front porch, look at the number of shots fired, versus the number of wounds on the ( innocent) guy that died, and tell me this was a good decision?
anyone within a mile radius of that bank on that day, is lucky to be alive.
FPD are Killers
December 6, 2009
I keep seeing people referring to how Mr. Anderson was “ramming” the vehicle behind him. How fast could he have been going when he hit the car that was behind him in line at the drive-thru? Have any of you who are claiming he was using his car as a weapon seen the video interview with the woman who was driving the car behind him? It shows the “damage” to her car, which appears to be a small scrape on her bumper, not even a dent. That doesn’t sound like much intent to cause bodily harm to me.
I think the only time anyone was in danger of bodily harm is when the officer drew his gun. If his intent was really to stop Mr. Anderson from injuring or killing someone else, as opposed to outright killing him, why was it necessary to fire three rounds into him? It would seem that one round would probably do the trick. Maybe fire one round and see what happens, maybe then the guy would have a chance at surviving. The report states that he was “injured” at the scene. Bull. He was dead at the scene. Watch the video from KNWA, they show the paramedics performing CPR on him in the ambulance on the scene.
A previous commenter asked “How did they know he didn’t have a gun?” Gee, maybe because they had not seen one? They had no reason to believe that he had one. There had been absolutely no indication that he had a gun. I am scared to be pulled over for speeding in Fayetteville. They might see me reach into my glove box to get my insurance information and shoot me on the spot. I plan on sticking both hands out the window if I get pulled over. In my opinion, they need to SEE THE GUN before they make any decisions.
Mr. Anderson was obviously committing a crime, and obviously a crime that is more important to our police force than crimes against individuals. It was a crime against a bank, and they had a record response time. But as far as I know, Robbery does not carry a penalty of death. Fleeing does not carry a penalty of death. Causing a collision between two automobiles does not carry a penalty of death. Officer Williams, though he may have an excellent reputation, acted as judge, jury and executioner in this case.
This is just one killing in a series of killings by the Fayetteville Police. I am not saying that Officer Williams did not follow policy (that is yet to be determined), I am saying the policy is WRONG. LETHAL FORCE SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS A LAST RESORT.
Fayetteville Police, please stop killing us!
FPD are Killers
December 6, 2009
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the guy chose the least violent way possible to attempt this robbery. Yes, it was still wrong, but think about it. For those who have suggested “suicide by cop”, why would he have chosen a completely non-violent way of committing a crime?
yeah_right
December 6, 2009
If he was out for a suicide by cop scenario, he chose the right town to carry it out in.
long history of this sort of thing, with FPD, and wash co sheriffs here.
a few years back, was co sheriffs shot a man dead in his bed asleep in his home in wheeler.
this is not an isolated incident, in my opinion the FPD guys need more training on non lethal apprehensions, and likely time on the range to improve the aim as well.
yrfuneralmytrial
December 7, 2009
“Gee, maybe because they had not seen one? They had no reason to believe that he had one.”
-I just don’t get this sentiment. He was attempting to rob a bank. Historically, this involves some kind of force. Otherwise, it’s a loan application. Refusing to surrender followed by attempted fleeing would lead me to believe that mowing over a pedestrian in a panic could easily happen. I’m not saying he deserved to die… just that he created a bad situation and unfortunately, it ended badly. You’ll never convince me that he should’ve been allowed the opportunity to hurt/kill someone before this was stopped.
And, don’t get me wrong, I’ve personally seen FPD WAY overreact with their tazers, pepperball guns and physicality. So, I’m definitely not “cops are always in the right” guy. I just think that if you’re busted trying to rob a bank, told to “freeze” and your next move is to flee, you’re accepting that all hell is about to rain down on you.
T-Pain
December 7, 2009
If a guy attempts to rob a bank via a drive-thru window. It doesn’t take a psychology major to tell you that he probably has mental issues.
He attempted to rob a bank by sending a note. That’s it. The cops shot him dead for backing up into the car behind him. A mentally handicapped guy sent a note that was threatning, and then backed into the car behind them and he was killed for it. Why does that sound justified?
yrfuneralmytrial
December 7, 2009
ANYONE that attempts to rob a bank in any manner has mental issues, is stupid or has nothing left to lose. You’re presenting this like the cops knew all this upfront… mental issues, harmless note passing, unarmed etc… Again, I’m very sorry this guy isn’t around to learn from this mistake. Having said that, is the arguement that the cops should’ve played chase on public streets with a mentally ill person who obviously isn’t responding to being arrested? I wasn’t there so perhaps I’m imagining the wrong scenario but from here, I’m having a hard time placing blame on anyone but him.
FPD are Killers
December 7, 2009
yrfuneralmytrial – “He was attempting to rob a bank. Historically, this involves some kind of force.”
So we are going to shoot people based on what has happened with other, totally separate situations in the past? They HAVE TO SEE THE GUN. There cannot be any assumptions when someone’s life is hanging in the balance. Of course, there are those that say “the officers’ lives were in the balance too”, and they are correct, but those officers are paid to put their lives on the line and they understand those risks when they sign up for the job in the first place. When you take a person’s life you have taken everything that can be taken in this world. There is nothing more to give, no more final punishment. The people that are paid to protect us seem to have lost sight of that fact.
yrfuneralmytrial – “You’ll never convince me that he should’ve been allowed the opportunity to hurt/kill someone before this was stopped.”
How many bullets count as “stopped”? Did he have to make sure the guy was dead before he stopped?
FPD are Killers
December 7, 2009
yrfuneralmytrial – “obviously isn’t responding to being arrested”
How long did they give him to realize that he was boxed in before they shot him? From what I understand, there were three officers closer to the car than the officer that did the shooting, and he had just arrived on the scene. The guy had not done any real damage to the vehicle behind him (basically none). If you know anything about that parking lot, there wasn’t anywhere for him to go. There was no reason to take the guy’s life, it was a total overreaction.
Offcamber
December 7, 2009
So, reading two opposing viewpoints:
1. Pragmatic understanding that Williams was an experienced local servant who used available information, training, and norms to quickly prevent further escalation and danger to the community. Andersen willingly participated in a dangerous activity with an established history of violent outcomes. Andersen, a repeat offender, was the architect of his own fate by being criminally provocative: threatening harm to others, claiming he had cohorts at the exits, and attempting a reckless escape.
2. Armchair detective work that takes a lot of variables into consideration not available to police when action was necessary. Blanket statements about police without expressing any sympathy or understanding of the pressures, decisions, tools, and timeframes involved in responding to threatening and violent acts. No respect for the difference in circumstances between last week’s attempted robbery, and say, the rightful conviction of negligent homicide against state trooper Larry Norman several years ago.
No one disagrees about life having value, and that Andersen should be alive today. However, many of you negect that it was Andersen’s responsibility for triggering an armed response to the dangerous situation he created. Play with fire, and you can get burned. FPD arrived with the alarm necessary and consistent with training, protocol, and knowledge of hundreds of years of bank robberies. Anderson acted the violent criminal (regardless of whatever we know now), yet Detective Williams is made the villain?
I hope that’s not the understanding we give for men and women who rush to danger that would put most of you in a bowel-emptying panic.
Innarested Observer
December 7, 2009
It takes a lot more bravery to not pull the trigger at the first sign of trouble. Period.
Innarested Observer
December 7, 2009
Because it sounds like to me that those with the “bowel-emptying panic” are those gunning down people as a blanket enforcement tactic.
FullTilt
December 7, 2009
Offcamber, I assume from your comments that you are a police officer. Thus is it not surprising that you would side with the officer in this situation. Police are loyal to their own to a fault. I’m betting you thought Larry Norman was completely justified in his murder of that young man a few years ago, at least publicly, right up until the moment he was convicted. And yes it was murder, not negligent homicide – he had every intention of killing that young man. “Negligence” implies there was no intent to kill.
You make a lot of assumptions in your comments while chastising others for making assumptions about what should be expected from our law enforcement officers. You speak about the pressures, tools, and timeframes that we should take into consideration when reviewing the actions of this officer. Should we not also afford the same consideration to the man whose life was taken? Of course not, right? He is a criminal, so he should not have any rights or human traits. He’s just an animal that needs to be put down. He doesn’t have the right to be scared and confused and have the police take that into consideration before they murder him.
Offcamber
December 7, 2009
If you want to make this personal with me, I work in an office, don’t own a gun (fired a few), and have zero friends or relatives in law enforcement.
What I DO possess is the clarity that reality is often chilly, and Matt Andersen willfully put himself at odds with society in a way that invited harm. Sure, he had many failings, having been arrested for drug possession, for one. Possible mental issues, as well. Either one could have provoked his outburst, but they were not excuses.
Whatever his hard luck story, Andersen had the faculties to plan and execute a bank robbery plan. He had no right to threaten anyone, nor did he have the right to put an officer in the position of having to stop him before he did any more harm. He behaved like an animal, outside the bounds of safe reason, thus abandoning some of his humanity and ability to be dealt with at a human level.
He didn’t have to attempt a robbery in the first place, but when given the opportunity to surrender, he shrugged that, as well. He also denied officers the opportunity to halt him by taser or mace. Remember, an enclosed 3,000lb car is a weapon, too. Bound to protect us from him, police had slim choices. Also remember that no one had the luxury of knowing his background, intentions, or armaments. Had he done the same thing in any other town, the result could have been the same. Andersen knowingly pushed the limits, and paid dearly for his folly.
I’m pushing understanding for Williams because I respect that police officers have to make difficult choices on the spot, and that this was a case where – at that critical moment – force was consistent and justified with the way Andersen behaved.
FullTilt
December 7, 2009
Williams was the last officer on the scene. The other three officers involved in the situation had not chosen to shoot the suspect, but suddenly Williams pulls up, jumps out of his car (not in uniform) and shoots Andersen not once, not twice, but three times to make sure he was dead. I guess he thought his judgment of the situation was better than the other officers who had been at the scene longer and knew what was happening. Sounds awfully similar to the Larry Norman murder. He drove up and killed somebody without knowing what was going on too.
Regarding Andersen’s “criminal history”, he was apparently arrested for marijuana possession a decade ago when he was 19 or 20. And nobody has ever smoked pot in college, right? So you think that means 10 years later he is gonna get all hopped up in a marijuana frenzy and hurt some people?
I must disagree with your statement that “force was consistent and justified with the way Andersen behaved”. He had not placed anyone’s life in imminent danger, regardless of the spin put on the situation by the police. His killing was absolutely not justified or necessary.
Michael
December 7, 2009
2 to the chest, 1 to the head is consistent with most firearms training, so Anderson having 3 GSWs is not surprising. Also firing through windshields deflect the path of the bullet, so you’ll always have more shots fired at a target within a vehicle than if that target had not been in a vehicle.
Big Mike
December 7, 2009
As an 18 year veteran of the California Highway Patrol now living in Northwest Arkansas, I am shocked by the level of force that is commonly used by locals here. If your local guys worked in California the way they do here and saw a weapon in every hand they would shoot somebody every day. We were trained to have patience with situations, respect life and use lethal force only as a last resort. I’m not saying we would just stand by and let people be hurt, but there must be some restraint shown. Without really knowing the details of this situation it is difficult to say whether the shooting was justified or not. I have seen several situations here where I thought the officers involved were far too quick to make that decision to pull the trigger. There are a fairly limited number of violent incidents here, so I am surprised at how often they end in tragedy. As far as how many times he was shot, I am not surprised about that. We were trained to shoot to kill if we shoot someone at all.
Innarested Observer
December 7, 2009
@Big Mike Thank you for your input and your service to others.
Big Mike FTW
Sardon
December 7, 2009
The teller was behind bulletproof glass. Did Andersen send his gun through the pneumatic tube with his note? “Put this gun to your head. If you don’t give me all the money, shoot yourself.”
George
December 7, 2009
I think Big Mike hit it on the head. There is not a lot of violent crime in NWA so the police tend to overreact. The guy wasn’t ramming the car behind him. Look at the pictures. Yes, a car can and should be considered a deadly weapon…but only if it’s being used in a deadly manner.
Do me a favor, officers. If you’re trying to protect me don’t shoot the suspect unless you are damn sure my life is in danger. I don’t exactly trust your aim. Look at the Jill Ulmer tragedy earlier this year. The cops unload 9 rounds while she’s getting attacked and miss the (very large) assailant entirely, but hit the victim in the head. I know they were trying to do the right thing, but that is an obvious training issue.
I’m not hating on the police. I appreciate the job they do. A little more restraint/training seems to be in order. That’s all.
Morgan Dooley
December 7, 2009
Accusing this police officer of murder is unspeakable. No one here has all the facts and details. No one. Until you know all the facts no one has should be accusing the officer of murder. Flip the situation around; if people were accusing a citizen of murder within hours of an incident, without benefit of all the facts and before the citizen was tried by a jury, you all would be howling. Rightfully so.
Do any of you really truly believe this officer just shot and killed this bank robber for kicks? To prove his manhood? Because he gets off on taking someone’s life? Really? I know for a fact that the officer in question is devastated over what has happened. He has spent his career protecting YOUR lives and property, at the risk of his own. The _very least_ you all owe him is the chance to let the facts come out before you cast him as a murderer. I would go further and say you also owe him at least the courtesy of putting your name to your accusations but I understand that is asking far and away too much for the likes of most of you. At best you are ignorant cowards. We won’t even go into the worst possibilities.
@Big Mike – I was born and raised in the Bay Area. I am not sure what California you are talking about, but there was plenty of deadly force used when I was there.
Innarested Observer
December 7, 2009
Dooley: I’m an ignorant coward? Way over the line. You need to stifle. I pay these cops. I don’t owe them a damn thing else.
Hank
December 7, 2009
@Morgan Dooley – That’s a great idea to put names next to everyone. Let me go put that “I Hate Cops” bumper sticker on my car, too. It would have about the same effect. You’re a jackass.
FullTilt
December 7, 2009
@Morgan Dooley: The police are essentially accusing a citizen of attempted murder in order to justify their overzealous actions and they have already imposed a sentence before a jury could be summoned. Where is your outrage at that? You also make a point of stating that “No one here has all the facts and details” yet you are clear in an earlier comment in stating “The police acted appropriately”. So you somehow know better than the rest of us what all the facts are? From an unbiased source (police obviously do not count)?
Nobody thinks Williams killed Andersen for kicks, and you insult everyone’s intelligence by implying that we do. He is rightfully devastated over what happened. In my opinion, he made a bad decision that resulted in the death of another human being. I think I agree with the person who said something above about the problem being with the training the police receive and the policies of the department as a whole.
Michael
December 7, 2009
@George – The round that hit Ulmer in the head deflected off the frame of the couch. Quit making it sound like the police were trying to shoot her. Never mind the fact she’d already suffered numerous fatal stab wounds.
And it’s not just the PD around here that are poor shots. In a study done in 2006 or 2007 it was found NYPD officers on average hit their intended target less than 33% of the time despite most shootings happening at a range of 15 feet or less.
roger
December 7, 2009
3 shots seems like the officer was definitely trying to kill the suspect instead of arresting him. anyone could have done that, police are supposedly paid/trained not to kill people unless they have to save a life.
Michael
December 7, 2009
@Roger – Despite what you may see on TV and in movies you do NOT shoot to wound. If you shoot, you shoot to kill or in a more PC phrase till the threat is neutralized.
Innarested Observer
December 7, 2009
@Michael — We’ve got the point: the cops here shoot to kill. And often.
Michael
December 7, 2009
Not just cops here; cops anywhere along with anyone who has taken a defensive firearm course and paid attention.
But please don’t let reality get in the way of your crusade.
JP
December 7, 2009
Unfortunately the world is full of ignorant people. Some try to rob banks via the drive-through and some jump to coclusions without knowing the facts!
Yeah_right
December 7, 2009
put our names with our posts?
yeah, so the FPD can shoot us?
I think not.
Yeah_right
December 7, 2009
we dont want the local police to shoot us, on the street, in our homes, or anywhere else , including an arvest drive-thru this is why we dont use real names Morgan.
Big Mac
December 8, 2009
I have had 7 years of live fire training with with conventional and unconventional military units. I have also been in many deadly situations in combat overseas. Any military or police unit especially police are required to quickly be able to determine if someone is a deadly threat. If there were officers on the scene already why was Mr. Andersen not already dead when Mr. Williams arrived? Sounds to me like someone showed up and didnt know how to handle the adrenaline and got trigger happy. I would really like to see all the video footage of this scene.
you people are funny
December 8, 2009
no matter how slow or fast the guy was ramming the person behind him, that person could have had their neck snapped just as easy. then when that person was paralyzed or dead then I think there would be no question about the robber being shot.
George
December 8, 2009
@Michael – I made no implication that the cops intended to shoot Jill Ulmer. Of course they didn’t. That’s ridiculous. I was just saying they were bad shots.
@Morgan Dooley – If I send a letter to the IRS with my name and address telling them how sh&%ty I think they are, I might not go on a “list”….but I don’t want to find out.
Infidel
December 8, 2009
First of all, RIP Matt. He was a Fayetteville guy I’ve known since jr. high and one hell of a guy. Just saw him 2 weeks ago and can’t believe he’s gone now. I miss him a lot and know a lot of other people that feel the same. It should not have ended this way.
Second, why couldn’t the cop shoot out the tires? Wouldn’t that have been just as effective?
Third, f*** the police. This was utterly ridiculous. I hope Wash Co Sheriff will have the balls to really investigate Williams, as opposed to whatever the hell the city did.
Michael
December 8, 2009
@Infidel – Maybe you haven’t seen Cops or similar shows, but you can drive on shot out tires…
@George – Bad shots because a bullet deflected? That hardly qualifies them as being bad shots.
Innarested Observer
December 8, 2009
What qualifies them as bad shots is nine shots fired, none hit assailant, one hits victim and kills her.
FullTilt
December 8, 2009
@you people are funny – show me one example of someone having their “neck snapped” from a 10mph collision and I will eat my car.
Todd Gill
December 8, 2009
FYI, the city has completed its internal investigation and has cleared the detective who shot and killed the suspect. Here’s our story.
Michael
December 8, 2009
@Innarested Observer – Agreed, not hitting your target once in 9 shots does qualify them. However she’d already suffered fatal stab wounds so saying the deflected bullet killed her is disingenuous.
FullTilt
December 8, 2009
Is anyone really surprised that the city cleared the detective after its internal investigation? I know I am not. I fully expected it, and I fully expect the Washington County Sheriff’s Office to do the same. How can they not protect one of their own?
Infidel
December 8, 2009
@ Michael, this cops show you speak of…is it still on tv? Yeah, I’m aware you can drive on rims. But it seems like the logical place to start shooting if you feel like you need to shoot. You can drive on blown out tires, but not real well. AT least it would have appeared like Williams wasn’t just going for the kill shot right off the bat.
private
December 8, 2009
Oh yes, Dave was cleared by the FPD! I knew he would be! Thank you, Detective Williams and THANK YOU to all of the members of our FPD!
Urk
December 9, 2009
I don’t know why I’m sticking up for the same police department that stungunned me during the 1994 NCAA basketball championship “riot” on Dickson Street, but the assumption that the detective must have been wrong seems willfully uniformed, so I guess I feel like reason demands it. so, RE: shooting out the tires, yeah, that might be sensible if you alreeaduy know absolutely and unequivocally that the driver is not armed, and if you aren’t so concerned about stopping him from ramming the other car.
Look, i’m not necessarily saying that the cop was right, but you need something more than “he was a cop and the guy turned out to not be armed” to indict him. Me, if I’m unarmed and the cops tell me to surrender or they’re going to shoot, then i surrender. I don’t start ramming occupied cars with my car. I’m very very sorry for this guy’s friends and family that this isn’t the choice he made.
CAK
December 9, 2009
Too bad in Arkansas, we don’t have the services we need for the Mentally Ill(oh, yeah, there are a few beds in LR and in the hospital). Instead we send them to jail or just shoot them.
Matt Andersen’s memorial will be held at the First United Presbyterian Church this Saturday, December 12th at 1:00pm with a reception following.
The family would like any donations to go to the South Dakota Wildlife Parks Foundation http://www.parkswildlifefoundation.org/default.aspx
Laurie
December 10, 2009
Actually, CAK, there are several very good mental health facilities in Arkansas, including Vista Health here in Fayetteville. But the facilities cannot help anyone who is not willing to get help. I’m not implying that Mr. Anderson fits that description – just saying that the services are available for those who seek them out.
I’m sorry for the loss of your friend.
CAK
December 10, 2009
Yes, Laurie, but these facilities are usually for people with money and insurance. Most don’t have the luxury, especially the mentally ill. Their families are at a loss too, not just the patient. Before they opened what few beds are available a couple of months ago, there were literally 6 patient beds in Little Rock,AR. We had a family friend who had a daughter with mental issues who ended up having to send her to Colorado to get help, and it cost thousands of dollars.
This person was not a personal friend but it could happen to anyone we know at any time. If you are mentally disabled, that would mean NOT being able to help yourself! That is the point, now isn’t it?
burgerboy
December 10, 2009
I don’t like taxes, but mental health services for those in need is one area I do support our money being spent. I see it as an extension of the “teach a man to fish” parable.
Teach a troubled man to live, cope, feel, understand, and heal, and the whole community benefits.
Innarested Observer
December 10, 2009
Careful, burgerboy, you’re endangering your status as an unfeeling curmudgeon…
Offcamber
December 10, 2009
If Matt Andersen was unstable and untreated, he was a public threat ripe for an outburst.
Who would have known about his condition? Family and friends.
Who would have NOT known about his condition? The bank staff and police responders.
Those closest to Andersen were best equipped to drive him towards help if he was not mentally sound. His stepfather was quoted in the newspaper as the police giving Andersen “a raw deal.” What a sham play that public servants following protocol are vilified when the family – the last line of defense – might have done more to aid an unwell man’s plight.
David Franks
December 10, 2009
I have always found burgerboy to be a very feeling curmudgeon.
roger
December 10, 2009
poor cops shooting poor people. the banks win.
everyone else loses, let the debate continue.