« Animal rights group criticizes state DEM's decision | Today | Paz charged with simple assault, disorderly conduct »

July 30, 2007

Pawtucket police discuss fatal shootings / Photo

POLICE SHOOTING MM 1.JPG
Journal photo / Mary Murphy
Det. Sgt. Roberto DaSilva of the Pawtucket Police Dept., lead investigator into the shooting last Friday by the police on Coyle Avenue, describes what happened.

After two killings in one week, the Pawtucket police chief today offered his condolences to the families of two people who were shot and killed by officers.

An Attleboro woman was shot on Thursday when she allegedly tried to run down a Pawtucket officer with a stolen car. A little over 24 hours later, a 34-year-old Pawtucket man was shot when he allegedly pointed a loaded semi-automatic at officers called to investigate a break-in at a tenement on Coyle Avenue.

“What I think everybody has to realize is that the person they know is not the person the police encountered,” Police Chief George L. Kelley III said.

On Friday, the police were responding to a 911 call about a man with a gun trying to break into a house on Coyle Avenue. As the officers ran to cover both entrances, Officer Donna Joyal ran around the house and slammed right into an armed Jason Audette in the driveway, the chief said.

Chief Kelley said officer Joyal shoved Audette away. Audette, the chief said, then pulled a loaded .32 caliber semi-automatic gun on the police officers.

Officers David Holden, 26, Mark Ramos, 31, and Christopher LeFort, 37, all fired about a dozen shots at Audette, killing him.

The incident happened within seconds. The chief couldn’t say whether Audette had fired any shots.

-- Journal staff writer Amanda Milkovits

Audette’s family listened to these details from a back bench in the Municipal Court as the police held a press conference. Some gasped as the chief said the officers fired between 10 to 12 shots. Two women bolted from the room.

These three officers are on administrative duty, as is Officer Derrick Smith, who shot and killed Bridget DeGrafft, 49, when the Attleboro woman allegedly pinned him with a stolen car in a separate incident early Thursday. Smith is on crutches from the incident, Kelley said.

Both officer-involved shootings are being investigated separately by a multi-agency task force under the attorney general’s office. The chief said the Pawtucket Police Department will conduct its own investigation as well.

Posted by Kate Bramson  at 3:10 PM | Permalink

Comments

I do not think it is sad to lose another career drug addict criminal. I would have been sad if those officers hesitated and had been shot or killed by this scum. Oh, and to those who say shoot him in the leg, cut the Monday morning quarterbck routine. It's not even an option it's live or die....

bill | July 30, 2007 3:28 PM link

People need to know that the police have a tough job and putting thier lives on the line everyday. They do not need to be put in the position of shoot or die. These people brought death on themselves by putting the police lives at stake.

James A | July 30, 2007 4:50 PM link

This was a LOADED semi-automatic gun in the hands of a disturbed, irrational person who intended to use it. These officers did what they are trained to do. I'm proud of them and grateful we didn't loose any of them.

jean c | July 30, 2007 7:40 PM link

Cops murder people, it IS true. These cases were not murder. They were pretty darned justified.

cynical | July 30, 2007 7:45 PM link

The general public needs to look at the big picture. What was a convicted person doing with a handgun ? Was it stolen ? Comments made by the public as to shooting the suspect in the legs is totally Holywood stuff. The police shoot to stop the threat. If a police officer had gotten shot and died the public would have wanted to have the suspect nailed to the cross. Its a win or lose situation that has to be decided in split seconds. I am glad I do not have to go to another police funeral.

john piluso | July 30, 2007 8:17 PM link

Police shouldn't have to apologize for doing their jobs ie:protecting the public and themselves. shooting armed criminals isn't something to second guess should they wound or kill.

Bob | July 30, 2007 8:53 PM link

i think the cops didnt have to shoot the man so many times. just once or twice on his legs would have been good enough.

jenney | July 30, 2007 9:29 PM link

Jason Audette was not scum. He really was a loving and caring person. The system never helped him to be a productive member of society. I only wish he could of had the chance to live the life he was trying to live before he came back from Florida, except he never did. He was denied that privilege from the courts. We all love you very much and hope you rest in peace.

Related | July 30, 2007 9:42 PM link

What the community must know is that police are trained to shoot for center mass(torso), not because they want to kill someone, but because 1) it is the largest target and 2) one wants to immediately stop the threat presented (i.e. man with a gun trying to KILL you). A shot to a limb(leg, arm) may not totally incapacitate a suspect, leading him/her to have the ability to shoot the officer or innocent civilian.
Understand police training is always for the stomach/chest because it has statistically and scientifically the most incapacitating effect (with very rare exceptions). Put yourself in the shoes with the knowledge you have less than a HALF-SECOND choice of whether to shoot or not when you have a gun or car bearing down on you with the intent to end your life.

Dave | July 30, 2007 9:50 PM link

First, the officers were justified in this shooting - shooting in the leg is not a viable alternative, as one poster suggested, as it would not "neutralize" the threat and could result in further injury or death to the officers and possibly civilians. You have about 1/2 second to make a decision and follow through in order to protect yourself (and others). Also, this person leveled a loaded firearm at another person - the first thing you are taught when you learn about guns is "do not aim that gun at anyone or annything unless you plan to use it".

Second, I am sick to death of hearing how "the system" fails these people. The choice to get involved in drugs was his; I doubt very much that someone held him down and forced it on him. When you make that choice you need to face the consequences attached, especially when you decide to make your living by breaking and entering and other illegal acts. Instead of blaming the system why don't all of you that use this as an excuse when someone gets into this situation band together and change "the system" ratherthan whine about how it failed your loved one - if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Do something positive to make a change in someone else's life so that maybe another family won't face this.

Jo | July 31, 2007 3:24 PM link

I don't understand. We pay our tax dollars to train authority to learn effective tactics to conquer the criminal without harming them. There has been many cases where cops are in the same situation, but use the methods they are taught. That is why they are cops and we the public are not. An unexperienced person would just aim and shoot several times out of fear. The cops lives were in danger. Well in my opinion it is there decision when they become cops they are aware that it is a dangerous career move. Addicts believe it or not do NOT choose to be addicts. We have a disease. Some of use seek help, some fall back in old habits, but some of us change into productive members of society. Jason was getting help and he slipped after 8 months. Our disease enables us to do things we are not proud of so all you people that criticize Jason, do your research and get educated, then maybe your opinion will be valid.

Marci | August 1, 2007 3:09 PM link

I've got no interest in giving addicts slack for committing crimes because they 'have no choice'. This scum got what he deserved.

Greg | August 2, 2007 8:43 AM link

R.I.P uncle jay i miss you

Kayla | December 21, 2007 9:24 PM link

Post a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

ADVERTISING



ProJo 7 to 7
Jun « Jul 2007 » Aug
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Archived headlines

Archived
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006