A Carson City man who threatened suicide and who also issued a threat to anyone who entered his apartment, thereby triggering a big police response including the Carson City SWAT team, has been identified.
He was Frank Bindley, 55, a former police officer with the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. The report came into the 9-1-1 dispatch center that a gunshot had been heard coming from an apartment off So. Carson Street. There had also been a report that the shooting may have been a homicide. First arriving deputies set up a perimeter around the complex to intercept anyone fleeing the area. None was seen or heard.
Deputies were told that a man with a gun was barricaded inside apartment 68 and had threatened anyone who came in after him. At that point the SWAT team was activated. In the meantime, two deputies, who belong to the SWAT team, managed to gain entry to the apartment and found Bindley sitting in a chair with a serious wound to his chest. They say he was still holding the gun. They retrieved the weapon and summoned paramedics who were staged just down the driveway. They quickly rushed in to try to save Bindley’s life. They called for a Careflight chopper. But within ten minutes they cancelled it. Bindley had died.
Normally the news media doesn’t identify suicide victims. But in this case, the flurry of police activity and a threat to responding officers triggered the public’s right to know what their first line responders were going through while protecting life and property. It’s often a difficult and dangerous job indeed.
This story has another tragic element in that Bindley’s sons are both entering law enforcement themselves, perhaps inspired by their father’s service in the Las Vegas area. Bindley’s older son, who lived with his father at the apartment, had recently become a Carson City Sheriff’s Deputy and has won wide praise and demonstrated great promise even as a rookie law enforcement officer. One deputy on scene last evening commented to NewsCarsonCity.com that Bindley’s son is a rare example of an up-and-coming professional lawman, and that “the department is blessed to have him” as part of the Carson City Sheriff’s Office. The officer’s younger brother is a Sheriff’s Explorer, a common launching pad for entering law enforcement.
Frank Bindley had been with the Las Vegas Metro Police Department for a number of years, and had been forced to retire after suffering an injury in an accident. Bindley’s wife died in 2007.
#1 by alysonh7 on February 25, 2010 - 7:51 pm
As i read this article i was very upset with the way that it was written, i am sure that the family of this sad story would not appricate the way that this story was written as well. I personally do not believe that any names should be released about situations of this nature, how would you feel if it was you? i know that i wouldnt like it if something like this happened to me. I dont see why this website would even allow the writer to put the address in the article especially since there is a cop involved. I also dont like how it is mentioned multiple times that he worked in vegas, i understand that the writer is trying to make the article loner but this article is poorly written and discloses to much person information about the family. I completely understand that its the public’s right to know why the public heard a gun shot but i do not believe that it is ok at all to put all this person information. Finally i do not believe that the way that he just mentioned bluntly about his wife dieing, i believe that it a writer should have some compassion about situations like this. To me i believe that this article is rude and totally unprofessional.
#2 by DROCK on February 26, 2010 - 8:14 am
I must agree with most of the above. It’s a mystery as to what names are revealed and what names remain a secret. In our local newspaper, some crimes offer names and ages while others offer ages only. Maybe Dave can reveal the “rules of the road” in this regard.
#3 by Kowalski on February 26, 2010 - 8:39 pm
I agree… A little more discretion could’ve been used here. I know it wasnt intentional, but some respect should have been showed to the family. I’m sure they are going through the worst thing imaginable right now and didnt need their names broadcasted over the internet. Especially since the son is out in the public everyday… This crossed the line and its dissapointing.
#4 by Dave Morgan on February 26, 2010 - 11:45 pm
I don’t believe it crossed the line. If it was someone who simply took their own life quietly and with no threat or danger to anyone but themselves then they shoiuld be allowed to die in peace, and not be identified (unless they’re a public figure or public official). However, the person who took their life in this case had threatened deadly force toward anyone who might try to intervene. Because of that, the SWAT team was called out. That’s newsworthy. The public has the right to know what their law enforcement officers do and how they do it. In addition, the bullet was fired in an apartment building. Apartment walls are thin and bullets can hit other people in adjoining units. It was no different than somebody intending to take their own life by driving a car at 100 mph down Carson Street. In this case, we got lucky. Suicides are almost ALWAYS not covered in the news. But sometimes they are, for the aforementioned reasons. You may also take note that we did not divulge the name of the man’s son who is a sheriff’s deputy. We did, however, reveal the high praise he’s received from his colleagues for being an exceptional rookie.
#5 by anon on February 27, 2010 - 2:14 pm
Dave,
I understand you making a story and that’s ok. I also agree about the transparency of a law enforcement officer’s duties. Furthermore, I agree with your statement about the bullet’s potential trajectory and possibly endangering neighbors.
I think it is an insult to the family to say “We got lucky.” What type of statement is that? It sounds like an ignorant one to the public and even inflammatory to the family and loved ones of the deceased. As far as the man’s identity and his son’s; you should call the Carson City Sheriff’s Office and ask how many “Bindley’s” they have working for them. Let me know if you find out which Deputy it is at that point. I’m sure he would appreciate the praise of his career, but not at the expense of his family’s safety.
On that note, you listed his full address in the initial article; just to reduce it to still an apartment number and apartment complex in the second in the revision. I’m sure any person of reasonable intelligence could now figure out where that Deputy lives. Was it necessary for the story?
To agree with “Kowalski’s” comment, I think a little more discretion could have been used here.
#6 by Kowalski on February 27, 2010 - 3:02 pm
Well I think it is obvious that if you put out the name of the victim in this case and you mention his son his a Deputy Sheriff, then people are obviously going to know who the Deputy is. The allegation you have made is that he threatened to shoot anyone who came in the apartment. How can he do this if he is dead and how could you take baseless rumor as fact? I’m sure if there was an incident at a family member of yours you would not include the address and other sensitive information. Because of your article I’m sure the Deputy is at risk. If something happens to the Deputy I guess you can sit back and say you have washed your hands of the situation… In addition maybe the Deputy you have put at risk is going to be on a call soon where you request special access to. Maybe your request will go ignored because it is obvious you are not interested in anything but headlines… As I sit here and write this I realize you will probably not post this to the site because it doest make you or your policies look very good in this case. Wouldnt want you to look foolish. Now when you erase this post because it would be beneficial to you. Put yourself in this family’s shoes… Bet they would like some respect and privacy in their shoes, because it is beneficial to them. So compassion is due to this family just like other families who endure such tragedies.
#7 by Dave Morgan on February 27, 2010 - 10:43 pm
The fact that the victim threatened anyone who tried to interfere is undisputed. The activation of SWAT proves that. The family has telegraphed to me through trusted others that they are fine with the story, minus the address, which was deleted from the story. Listing the address in the first place occurred at a time that the full circumstances about who was involved wasn’t revealed to the media. The fact that I kept it in the story after those circumstances were known was a clear error on my part. I don’t dispute your honorable intentions but it’s time to accept there is no reconciling perceptions. Time to move on.
#8 by alysonh7 on February 27, 2010 - 11:13 pm
Dave,
As you can tell eveyone besides yourself who commented on this article dusagres with you about this article! I think that you should at least put in your comments that your sorry to the family involved that you did step over the line at least a little! You can’t say that you disagree with me beacuse you went in and revised the article and removed some names. This was obvisously a suicide and I am sure that the family is griveing and is now have to worry about thier saftey due to the nature of the sons career based simply on your article!!!
#9 by Dave Morgan on February 27, 2010 - 11:41 pm
I don’t confuse a few people who comment on news stories with “everybody” who reads the articles. We have tens of thousands of readers. Less than ten commented on the suicide. As I stated before, we don’t usually write about suicides. But when there are unique circumstances most news outlets cover them. The initial mentioning of the address was normal procedure in which somebody was barricaded inside an apartment and was threatening anyone who would intervene. SWAT was activated. Cop cars, fire engines and paramedics were amassed in plain view of South Carson Street travelers, not to mention the neighbors. They have a right to know what’s going on. It’s part of letting the public know what their first responders do for a living and the scale of resources deployed for various calls. As I’ve stated in other replies, when I learned the identity of the victim and the special circumstances surrounding his death, I merely added that information on to the former body of the story. I didn’t even think about the address aspect. Leaving the address in the story at that point was a very clear mistake on my part. Habit over paying attention. I’ve already apologized to the family for the error, which I corrected by quickly by eliminating the address.