Charleston man accused of shooting at police officersBy Andy Paras (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Monday, August 18, 2008
A Charleston man is accused of shooting at police officers while trying to run away from them early Sunday. Police charged John Buster Wilson, 21, of Isabella Street with two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill and the use of a deadly weapon during the commission of a violent crime. One officer returned fire, but no one was hurt, said Charles Francis, police public information officer. He said two officers have been put on administrative leave with pay, which is normal procedure in investigations involving deadly force. Francis declined to name the officers. He said both were working a saturation detail targeting drug and weapon violators based on crime patterns. A police report says the officers responded to the intersection of King and Grove streets after a Shot Spotter gunfire detection system indicated shots had been fired in the area. The officers tried to talk to two men, but they ran away in different directions. The officers ran after them and saw one of the men pull a handgun from his waistband and fire his gun as he ran away. One of the officers unholstered his gun and returned fire at the suspect, the report says. Officers caught the suspect near the intersection of Addison and Meeting streets. Officers found the gun in front of 2 Addison Street. Francis said the department is investigating the incident. Reach Andy Paras at 745-5891 or aparas@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 17 comment(s)
Posted by clc0427sc on August 18, 2008 at 5:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Too bad the officers didnt hit him when returning fire. Damn thugs.
Posted by mf105 on August 18, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
looks like the officer needs to spend more time on the shooting range. he could have save the tax payers alot of money with a well placed shot.
Posted by lillycollette on August 18, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm just glad the officers were not shot.
Posted by jeff61 on August 18, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This guy should not get out on bail.
Posted by mf105
looks like the officer needs to spend more time on the shooting range.
There are some that would argue that point but I look back on the Burris case where they shot something like 80 rounds at the guy sitting in the stolen car and only hit him 5 times? Maybe some training in those type situation would be helpful
Posted by clc0427sc on August 18, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For those of you who are saying the officer needs to "spend more time on the range", you have no clue under what circumstances the officer was under. First of all, it was at night, and shooting at someone who is running is very difficult. Maybe you should step in his shoes before you sound like a no-it-all idiot who has no clue how to be a police officer.
Posted by Weeeee on August 18, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh look. It's yet another post where the poster "expresses his/her opinion" and tries to start an argument in the process. Gawd. STFU.
And yes, the officer in this story probably should get some more practice in.
Posted by jeff61 on August 18, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Morning Tripsa,,
It appears the gangsters might be a better shot in some cases judging by the way they gun each other down on a daily bases. Not sure how many shots it takes them to hit their mark though. The gangster has no regard as to where their bullets wind up where the office is under that pressure. I may be trying to compare apples to oranges here.
Posted by DoaMM on August 18, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
" I weren't tryin' to hit the poe-leece man...I was jus' tryin' a scare him so he stop chasin' me! Y'all ain't got nothin' on me! Nothin'!"
I'm sure he was law-abiding and had a CWP on him for the pistol.
Stupid is as stupid does...
Posted by JLWDALFAN on August 18, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
what a stupid idiot. another day, another waste of life walking the streets of charleston. i hope he meets his soul mate in prison. YOU ####### IDIOT!!!!
Posted by BulldogTLC on August 18, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does make you wonder if the officer should have been shooting if he was not certain that he could hit his target. Could have turned out bad if he had injured an innocent person.
Posted by ms_lady2u on August 18, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This jack-ass doesn't have any respect for Reno 911, lock the fool up & throw the keys over the "Arthur Ravenel" !
Posted by Rggr on August 18, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So they shouldn't shoot back at someone shooting at them unless they can be sure they will not miss - essentially point blank range? That means the officer has to wait until the person pulls the gun on them and until they're close enough to the guy with the gun pulled to ensure they would hit him. Good luck out there, guys.
Posted by BulldogTLC on August 18, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not saying that at all Rggr. Just saying it sure would be a shame if someone would have been hit by a stray bullet fired from the officer's gun. Hunting safety says that you should not fire until you are certain of the target and what lies beyond it. Should always be the rule when firing a weapon.
Posted by Rggr on August 18, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, ColdBeer. Maybe the idiot that started firing should be held accountable and should think about who's in the area. The police are careful to minimize any danger to civilians, even while someone is shooting at them. In this case, the chances of hitting an innocent bystander were pretty slim.
Posted by SCPDBLUE on August 18, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
clc0427sc Thank you.
Posted by truefolly on August 18, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These Officers had a reason to shoot back, once being fired upon or even if the guy presented a gun. The guy they were chasing was a danger to their safety and the safety of the public! Sounds to me they are justified and should be cleared! Good job guys!!!
These officers did not place themselves and the public in the situation, the bad guy did. Unlike the Folly Beach officer did last week when he tried to stop a speeding car with his hand before opening fire in a residential area.
My question still is if proper procedure is to place the officers involved in a shooting on paid administrative leave during the investigation then why was the Officer on Folly Beach not placed on leave? Why has there not been a follow up on the Folly Beach incident P&C? I guess Folly doesn’t have to follow procedures properly or be accountable!
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/aug/...
Posted by clc0427sc on August 19, 2008 at 4:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SCPDBLUE-you're welcome. Fellow LEO here. Stay safe.