A Las Vegas police officer reportedly received non-life-threatening injuries after a gunman approached his squad car on Sunday and began firing in an ‘ambush-style’ shooting.
A suspect is in custody in the incident, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department tweeted.
— LVMPD (@LVMPD) September 6, 2015
Two officers were leaving the scene of a disturbance call at a .99 Cents Only store when an individual walked up to their patrol car while it was stopped at a traffic light and fired three shots, striking one of the officers in the hand, KTNV reported.
Police did not return fire during the encounter, which occurred shortly after noon, local time. The officer who was shot has not yet been named.
The gunman used a semi-automatic handgun, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Police pursued the alleged shooter on foot until he dropped his weapon and surrendered, according to Metro Sgt. John Sheahan.
A witness at the scene of Sunday’s shooting told the Review-Journal that the alleged gunman….(read more)
Source: Fox News
UPDATE 6:54 p.m. PDT: More details emerge in the ambush-style shooting of the Las Vegas police officer. The suspect has been identified by police as a Hispanic male. News3LV reports both officers exited the vehicle when they determined they were taking fire. The passenger officer was struck in the right hand while exiting the vehicle. One of the officers was able to pull a citizen out of the line of fire and move them to a position of safety. Read the rest of this entry »
Using the video
A number of journalists have asked me if I thought it was ethical to use the video of the shooting on air and online. My answer is, “it all depends.” It depends on why you are using the video and how you will use it and how long you will use it.
We know now that the video itself is news — not just because it shows the shooting but also because it appears to show the shooter. That is reason enough to show the video in some way.
But consider alternatives. In the early hours after the shooting, the video (complete with horrific audio) was news because the “what” of the story was still unfolding. As the story turns to “why,” the graphic video becomes less newsworthy.
So you have a few options:
- Use the video unedited with audio.
- Use the video up to the moment that screaming begins and cut the audio but continue the video.
- Use the video with no audio.
- Use still frames and no video.
- Use none of the images.
What about the shooter’s video?
The shooter, Vester Flanagan, recorded his own actions and posted the video on social media while on the run from police.
That video is, once again, news because it is evidence.
Why air it? The extremely graphic video is a firsthand account of what happened. It shows how close the shooter stood while the crew was on the air. He pointed the semi-automatic pistol at Parker while she continued the interview. He backed off for a few seconds, then raised the weapon again and began firing point-blank.
And it is too graphic to use.
Journalists can be justified in airing or publishing graphic images when the images resolve disputes about what occurred. In shootings involving police, for example, when there is a question about the justifiable use of force, video, even graphic video, can clear or indict the shooter. There has to be a journalistic purpose to justify the graphic image’s use. Read the rest of this entry »
1. The Pearl High School shooting
Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother and went on to kill two students and injure seven others at his high school. Woodham was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander, who detained Woodham by using a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol he kept in his truck, until authorities could show up.
Myrick stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school.