Home invasion suspect died of gunshots to back
VANCOUVER, Wash. (AP) - Autopsy results show a 16-year-old home invasion suspect killed by a Vancouver officer was shot in the back.
The Clark County medical examiner's office said Monday that Douglas E. Combs of Vancouver died of the gunshot wounds.
He was called a suspect in a home invasion shooting Friday that sent a man to the hospital with serious injuries, and he was also suspected in two armed robberies the same day.
Almost 23 hours after the crimes started, police confronted Combs and another 16-year-old Vancouver boy as they left a concert.
The alleged accomplice is to be arraigned Wednesday on accusations of unlawful possession of a firearm.
The office who shot Combs was identified as 44-year-old Cpl. Marshal Henderson, a 15-year veteran of the department.
He's on paid leave during the investigation.
The Clark County medical examiner's office said Monday that Douglas E. Combs of Vancouver died of the gunshot wounds.
He was called a suspect in a home invasion shooting Friday that sent a man to the hospital with serious injuries, and he was also suspected in two armed robberies the same day.
Almost 23 hours after the crimes started, police confronted Combs and another 16-year-old Vancouver boy as they left a concert.
The alleged accomplice is to be arraigned Wednesday on accusations of unlawful possession of a firearm.
The office who shot Combs was identified as 44-year-old Cpl. Marshal Henderson, a 15-year veteran of the department.
He's on paid leave during the investigation.
Have your home invaded-be held at gun point-lets see how blood thristy you might become. These criminal young or old have one thing in mind and that's to rob you blind. They don't break into to your home to get a warm fuzzy-they'll kill you if they feel you're a threat.
Good.Â
It might have been an entirely different situation if the victims of the break in would have
been armed. The police might still had to investigate one or more of the perpetrator's
deaths, but it would not have been because any of their officers were involved in the
shooting.
Don't be a victim of a home break in, be prepared.
Damn, I cannot believe all the blood thirsty comments I'm reading here... and all from upstanding members of the community I'm sure.
@K. Coleman I am an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, and yes I am bloodthirsty when it comes to hearing about those cancerous elements of society that get removed due to their own actions.
@K. Coleman Blood thirsty or people tired of all the criminals running around due to our soft on crime cities and state?
 Keep shooting the idiots!
Dead at 16. Â I hope his friends let that sink in real deep. Â If they are on the same path that he *was*, hopefully they will get smart and turn their lives around. Â HOPEFULLY some good can come out of this.
Awe. ):
Â
This officer was completely in the wrong. He let one of these punks live.
Nice to see a criminal lifestyle catch up with a punk before he's had an entire lifetime to terrorize the community.
Don't want to get shot by a Cop? Don't run around with guns robbing people. If you do and you get shot, too damn bad for you. You got just what you deserved.
Oh well. Crime solved... move on
Sadly the officer was "legally" in the wrong to shoot him in the back. However, if on the jury I would only not convict the officer, I would shake his hand for a job well done. Too bad the current laws are being made by criminal minded lawyers.
@I am in Tacoma Actually the officer was not legally in the wrong. I am not posting the whole law but what is applicable: RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding. (1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases: (i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony; (2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following: (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given. (3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.
Shoot em in the front, shoot them in the back but just shoot them and let them know that if the invade my house they will end up dead. This crap of busting into someones house to robe, rape or steal from people has gone beyond limits so now they should feel the pain instead of those whom they pray on. It is conceivable that one shot spun the perp and this officers shot took him in the back. So What??? He is dead and we no longer need to deal with him again. If we put more of these crazies in the ground we won't have so many in the jails then.
This article leaves out the fact that he was reaching for his gun when he was shot. Also exactly what do they mean by "back"? Most likely he was turned sideways and the bullet hit his back but he was in the act of getting ready to shoot at the officers and this is what happens.
Don't commit crimes and you won't have to worry about getting shot.
The KATU article has more information.
Â
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Officer-involved-Teen-died-of-gunshots-to-back-autopsy-shows-188764151.html
I don't care if it was in the back, he got him before that little hoodlum had a chance to kill someone.
 @izwideopen Agreed. And before I had to support him with 3 squares and cot for who knows how long.
There needs to be  tougher penalties for these kids earlier in there "Criminal Careers". Maybe that would wake them up a little. We let them get away with this kind of stuff ,over and over, and over again and never inflict any  kind of harsh penalties. Theft  amongst other crimes at an early age should be met with "Hard Labor" sentences. Everyone says that that  would be unconstitutional to do to a child. No it's not Unconstitutional , What's unconstitutional is not teaching that child what his parents should have taught him in the first place. Hard Labor is a great punishment for youth because none of them want to work hard for anything, especially when their forced to do it by our legal system. Wake them up at 4am every morning and work them for 14hrs a day  digging holes and then refilling them once they've dug those holes.  then do that over and over until their sentence is served.Â
Â
This would be a good start . They may not like the hard work and they may endure blisters and pain, but at least they won't get shot in the back robbing someone, and maybe they'll learn something in the process................... Like Crime doesn't pay.Â
Â
Were just to passive with children anymore and they need to be disciplined wether they like it or not.Â
I completely agree. So how do we make it happen????
We need to completely eliminate the minor/juvenile get out of jail free card.Â
no one mentioned THEY had a gun, which means they would use at some point.
16 years old. So young... these kids think they're immortal and can do and get away with anything. Hard way to learn the truth.
Only if this were the mandatory result for this crime being committed.... I would hope that criminals would consider the consequences. But it won't... Break into my house and the outcome will be very similar. Remember you bleeding heart fools... it was the criminal that instigated the situation. Celebrating death? No, not really. Celebrating justice perhaps.
@d_2 I am a liberal who has to agree with you in principle, though shooting in the back is not right.
@Hagar It is legal RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding. (1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases: (i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony; (2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following: (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given. (3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.
 @Hagar  @d_2 I'm going to speculate here and say that this little dirtbag was both running away like the coward he was, as well as turning towards the police to fire his gun. I would guess it happened extremely quickly and the kid never got the gun out, but was reaching for it. Just a guess of course.Â
@d_2 - applause
...So the thief was shot in the back honestly the cost of bullets these days it was too wasteful to shoot him in the leg until they turned around.... People feeling this was murder or anything but the execution of a criminal need to have their morals checked.. having been the victim of a thief myself the first one I get the upper hand on you can bet I am going to make them wish they were never born!
 @Freespeech He was a suspect, he wasn't convicted.
 @quidproquoAs the "not yet convicted suspect" reached for a weapon,
the police officer wouldn't have cared on way. or the other before firing to
defend themselves. When the young reached for a weapon, he decided
his own fate right then and there.
Â
Yes he was. convicted and executed. Died from being a dumb ash. Running and drawing a cop makes him  judge ,jury + executioner
 @quidproquo uidproquo .... and he was running because of what.. he just felt like LOLA in Run Lola Run? ... and a suspect as well in two other robberies the same day... Yeah... he sounds like a real boy scout...
 @quidproquo  @Freespeech "shooting someone in the back isn't ok in anyone's book."
Not true, apparently it is ok in most peoples book according to the comments here.
Â
 @Freespeech  @quidproquo Yes because cases of mistaken identity have never happened, ever!  And the kid could have been doing something minor like smoking weed and that's why he ran. We don't know, we can only speculate but shooting someone in the back isn't ok in anyone's book.
One, this is a horribly written article.
Â
Two, shooting in the back. Hm... That may not go well for the officer.
@TheBronze and what if he was running and pointing the gun at the same time?
 @TheBronze Some departments have a fleeing felon type policy.
It's a crime punishable in Hell to shoot someone in the front, top, back, bottom that kills them. God said thou shall not kill, period.
 @BuddyHolly The commandment is sometimes translated as "murder", sometimes as "kill." Given the context, most modern translations say "murder," which is the *unlawful* taking of a life, not simply *kill,* which would rule out self defense in many cases, capital punishment, and war, all of which appear to be sanctioned in the Bible in certain circumstances.
Â
So I'd go with "thou shall not MURDER," and shoot to stop to protect my self or family if I had no choice.
 @RN1  @BuddyHolly God himself kills hundreds if not thousands of people in the Bible anyway...
 @BuddyHolly Who cares what a fictional god supposedly says.
 @m9078jk3 well fictional or not can you or I prove that? .... I cannot - but if you ask me I would like to think 'if *blank* exists they would agree justice was dispatched...
 @BuddyHolly Where is thou shall not defend one self? Thou shall not steal... therefore thou shall not take responsibility and suffer the consequences? As mentioned.... shot in the back, not good in Washington State.
@BuddyHolly The Verse says, Thou shall not murder, which is different than thou shall not kill. We know that because of the rest of the book when it outlined justified reason to take the life of another human; ie self defense, accidental, when that person commits a capital offense such as murder. Murder is defined as the taking of a life without justification. God gives the justification to man when to kill. We are not to take away or add to it.
 @freedomwarrior Well if you get technical about it though shall not murder comes before though shall not steal... if you ask me violation of either one regardless of ORDER is enough to get you... if you are taking things literally | However, I can say if I held myself up against these rules and their meaning literally I am already SOL ... so in the mean time I will applaud the officer saving the taxpayer dollars for defending this POS and the cost of imprisonment..
I don't care what the circumstances were, I think it's disgusting to celebrate the death of a human being. Scum is scum, but I find it detestable that anyone could get any kind of morbid sense of gratification from the death of another.
 @jowsuf Just wait till you're the one getting robbed and beat up, we'll see how you feel then.
 @ValleyBronco That's all based on knee-jerk emotional response. I don't let unchecked emotion rule my sensibilities. Some people simply don't celebrate death. Period.Â
 @northwestsurfer  @ValleyBronco Of course it is. I by no means am saying this man shouldn't have been shot. What must be done must be done to protect ourselves and others. However, it is still no small thing to take the life of another. Do you really think a homeowner shoots and kills an intruder then goes around high-fiving everyone? This isn't the movies. Death isn't a positive experience for ANYONE involved, and should never be celebrated. It's a very big deal to take the life of another, especially for an innocent, non-violent, morally sound individual. There can be, and usually are, serious psychological ramifications for the person who was forced to kill. Why do you think police officers have counseling services for instances where they must use deadly force? It is an experience no one should have to go through or witness, and it is a tragedy every time that it happens at the had of another, justified or not.Â
@jowsuf @ValleyBronco I'm not celebrating death, however if you dont commit robbery, your chances of being shot in the back by an officer or homeowner are drastically reduced. This is something that could have been avoided.