clgustaveson
Sharpshooter
- Sep 21, 2010
- 590
- 16
On a scale of ugly...it's a Hi-Point.
Yeah! A Hi- Point looks as close to a gun as that does.
On a scale of ugly...it's a Hi-Point.
What if the neighbor saw the "supposed" trespasser in his neighbor's yard, who was "supposedly" armed, picked up a gun and went over and shot him? Is the mere perception of seeing an armed person enough cause to draw on them?
What if the neighbor saw a "supposed" trespasser and went over to talk to him, and the guy used a two-handed grip to raise and point an object at the neighbor that looked like a gun? So the neighbor draws his own gun and shoots the guy.
I'd still call it self-defense.
That picture is of the actual hose nozzle... now here is a tiny six shooter:
Now, you can judge the situation how you want to but I think with a concealing two handed pistol grip it is likely even you would think it was a gun when handled as a gun would be handled.
If that part is true -- then do I agree. It just seems so weird. Was he at an IPSC match earlier? Who would do that? Did they really hear "gun like noises" from him, or is that just a convenient addition to the story after the fact? We'll never know, unfortunately. The only thing left to debate is if it is practical for police to hide for 5-10 minutes before announcing their presence. That technique clearly leaves room for error.
As to waiting the ten minutes, who knows what that was about. That sounds like a training issue, and I don't know enough to know whether that was a good idea or not.
As to waiting the ten minutes, who knows what that was about. That sounds like a training issue, and I don't know enough to know whether that was a good idea or not.
HAHA whats it called godfreys law? Nobody was comparing anyone to hitler or a Nazi, in fact I was doing quite the opposite.
we need to make sure that the law gives the CITIZEN the benefit of the doubt and puts a very heavy burden of proof on the cops so that its a very very big deal when anyone especially a gun owner gets shot....
the burden of proof is always on the government to show it is right,,,not benefit of the doubt on the people to presume the government is right... when you mix up this way of doing things,,,youve just said sayonara to a free country...
You are operating with the knowledge that the item was a water hose, the officers were operating with the [STRIKE]knowledge[/STRIKE] ASSUMPTION there was a drunk man trespassing with a gun...
There doesn't even need to be a discussion of the bar at all. Proof is proof and bias is bias. Whether the man had a gun or not the officers reacted based on their perception of the situation, which was painted by the citizens call. The fault is truly on the citizen that called, why can that guy get away with thinking it's a gun but the police cant?
If I were in the same situation I would err on the side of safety. People can't just go around breaking laws acting like idiots. The man that was shot was breaking the law,
I am not going to err on his side at all.
No, there is no bar here. This man was trespassing, aparently with a deadly weapon. There are witnesses that he was trespassing, and there is evidently a member of the public that thought this was a gun. What more proof do you need?
I sure as hell am not going to approach the situation broad face when someone else even thinks it is a gun. And yes, I am going to be extremely cautious. My perception of sounds, and movements of that individual WILL be painted by the "fact" they have a gun.
This isn't a matter of right and wrong, its a matter of the LEOs reacting to a situation of someone breaking the law with a weapon. After they discover it wasn't a weapon, you better believe they felt pretty bad.
BUT how else should they have gone about it? There is almost no safe alternative. What if it had been a gun? This thread would be pointless.
I think it's a valid point but there is a trespassing man with a gun. IMO announcing LE presence is a good way to escalate a non-threat into something bad for the people in the house.
Your analogies have no semitry... a stopped and surrendered drunk driver advising he is not drunk is not a viable leathal threat to the officer. Facts should be verified, but situations cannot be compromised while doing so.
clgustaveson;1556804In this situation the police should have JUST AS MUCH freedom as private citizen.[/quote said:
You think they don’t? You need to look out your window into the real world sometime. How many times has a LEO been convicted of a crime when a non-LEO would have easily been convicted of the same crime under similar circumstances? Rarely.
Do you have a legal authority to shoot someone who is fleeing just because you THINK they MIGHT be a danger to you or someone else? No. A cop does by law, though.
Like I said, the system bends over backwards to accommodate & give the BOD to the police.
I’ve said this before: I don’t want to see anybody dead or injured but I would much rather see 10 cops dead at the hands of BG’s than 1 innocent person killed at the hands of overzealous cops. The cops volunteered to be in that situation. The innocent guy didn’t. The cops are backed by the power & authority of the state. The innocent guy is completely on his own. The system will believe the cops over the innocent guy almost every time (if he happens to be lucky enough to live) without some pretty overwhelming evidence.
If a cop dies because he’s being cautious enough to be sure the guy needs shot before he mistakenly kills an innocent person then so be it. If they don’t like the requirements then quit. We expect our soldiers to put their lives on the line everyday to protect innocent people. Sometimes they get killed because they have to do what they have to do. If troop safety was the biggest concern we would NEVER win a battle.
Both cops & soldiers are representatives of the states power over its citizens. Once they put their safety as the overarching priority over everything else it’s very easy to justify ANY action as necessary for “officer safety”. We see it all the time.
If you make the choice to be a drunk in public with a hose nozzle, you live or die with the end result.
Really? You really think it’s reasonable for a person to be killed for being “drunk in public with a hose nozzle” & it doesn’t AT LEAST make you raise an eyebrow?
we need personal responsbility in our actions, and this one is the falls on the head of the perp. He wants to play with guns in public and scare people then what does he expect. dont drink and you will go farther in life
No. He wanted to play with a garden hose nozzle in public. The “public” got scared for no reason & now the guy is dead. The police didn’t try to investigate.
He walked there drunk. He didn't just magically appear on his friends porch. What did he do between the bar and porch? Obviously he got the attention of a few people. like I said I know the area WELL.
Likely he had already broken laws, like public intoxication and stealing the damn hose nozzle. If not, why did he carry a pistol like hose nozzle to and from the bar, in Long Beach noless? Do you really beleive he carried it and owned it?
So what? Walking in public after drinking is not grounds for the death penalty. Stealing a garden hose nozzle is not grounds for the death penalty. Who cares why he was walking around with it & playing with it?
If I was carrying around a gun shaped lighter it doesn’t mean the cops can just sneak up on me & shoot me without saying a word. And if I’m drunk it doesn’t make it any more justifiable. I don’t care how many non-gun people I happen to scare (you know, the ones who describe a “revolver” as “a six shooter kind – I think” ). If I’m not actually threatening them the police don’t have the required probable cause to think that I am an imminent threat to anybody to justify use of deadly force.
You WANT it to be "man shot while sitting on a porch and minding his own business".
It WAS that. The guy was sitting on someone’s porch (his friend’s, not just some random strangers) minding his own business playing with a hose nozzle…until some idiot got involved & called the cops because he was scared of a guy sitting on a porch playing with a hose nozzle. Then the police didn’t have the common sense to verify that the guy was, in fact, a threat to ANYBODY instead of some guy just sitting on a porch playing with a hose nozzle. All of this because of the unreasonable fear of “guns” & putting officer safety as more important than anything, even the lives of potentially innocent victims.
Oh yeah. I forgot. He was drunk. That justifies everything.
Would just like to point out that the police are not required to give any verbal commands to a person who is suspected to have a weapon before they shoot.
Most agencies have a policy that states "Verbal commands are encouraged when, possible to do so without endangering the public or other officers." However, they are not required before deadly force is used.
Try this:
IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
Please note section 3(b)(2).
The police are required by law to give a warning before using deadly force. The IC unfortunately does use the weasel words “if feasible” but I’m fairly sure that the law isn’t intended to be just a suggestion. I think it’s a good assumption that the law is a requirement but includes the common sense to allow an exemption in extreme/rare circumstances.
Just because a department flouts the law & doesn’t require its officers to follow the law every time doesn’t mean the law isn’t the law.
They did make a decision... probably VERY rapidly.
I’m not sure what your definition of the word “rapidly” is (especially the “very” kind) but if they were on the scene for several minutes (up to 10 minutes) then I wouldn’t consider that a “very rapid” decision.
Yep.
There. IFIFY.
Because the police are the “trained professionals” & have the state-backed power of life & death. Even people just like you will give the police the BOD. Very rarely does the benefit of the doubt AUTOMATICALLY go to the non-LEO. Most often the prosecutor will send a questionable shoot to a jury – after the requisite arrest, incarceration, bail, attorneys fees, etc.
The system is designed to be on the side of the police. Aided & abetted by people like you.
That’s true but the last I heard the penalty for trespassing or public intoxication wasn’t the death penalty. Don’t try to act like the police can do whatever they want & justify it by stating that “well, he was a criminal so he deserved whatever he got”. The 8A says otherwise…unless you don’t happen to agree with that particular Amendment.
Great. Just what we need. Another LEO wanna-be who holds even the smallest violator in contempt.
Way more proof than an untrained member of the public in a highly anti-gun state saying that they think they have a “six-shooter thingy”. But that’s just me.
So, you’ll be a cop with a “shoot first & ask questions later” mindset?
There were several safer alternatives offered right here on this forum by fairly untrained non-LEO’s. Just because the LEO’s failed to think of them doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Poor training? Maybe. Poor judgment? Yes.
There you go with that “shoot first…” mentality.
Announcing LE presence is a good way to try to keep a “non-threat” from turning into “someone dead for no reason at all”.
Trespassing is a misdemeanor. It doesn’t make any difference if the trespasser has a gun or another weapon if they aren’t threatening anybody with it. Approaching with guns drawn & not even attempting to communicate with the “trespasser” was just irresponsible.
& neither is a guy just standing/sitting on a porch even if they have a gun until a threat of the use of the gun is communicated. Until then attempting to talk to the guy is the correct thing to do.
You think they don’t? You need to look out your window into the real world sometime. How many times has a LEO been convicted of a crime when a non-LEO would have easily been convicted of the same crime under similar circumstances? Rarely.
Do you have a legal authority to shoot someone who is fleeing just because you THINK they MIGHT be a danger to you or someone else? No. A cop does by law, though.
Like I said, the system bends over backwards to accommodate & give the BOD to the police.
I’ve said this before: I don’t want to see anybody dead or injured but I would much rather see 10 cops dead at the hands of BG’s than 1 innocent person killed at the hands of overzealous cops. The cops volunteered to be in that situation. The innocent guy didn’t. The cops are backed by the power & authority of the state. The innocent guy is completely on his own. The system will believe the cops over the innocent guy almost every time (if he happens to be lucky enough to live) without some pretty overwhelming evidence.
If a cop dies because he’s being cautious enough to be sure the guy needs shot before he mistakenly kills an innocent person then so be it. If they don’t like the requirements then quit. We expect our soldiers to put their lives on the line everyday to protect innocent people. Sometimes they get killed because they have to do what they have to do. If troop safety was the biggest concern we would NEVER win a battle.
Both cops & soldiers are representatives of the states power over its citizens. Once they put their safety as the overarching priority over everything else it’s very easy to justify ANY action as necessary for “officer safety”. We see it all the time.
Really? You really think it’s reasonable for a person to be killed for being “drunk in public with a hose nozzle” & it doesn’t AT LEAST make you raise an eyebrow?
No. He wanted to play with a garden hose nozzle in public. The “public” got scared for no reason & now the guy is dead. The police didn’t try to investigate.
So what? Walking in public after drinking is not grounds for the death penalty. Stealing a garden hose nozzle is not grounds for the death penalty. Who cares why he was walking around with it & playing with it?
If I was carrying around a gun shaped lighter it doesn’t mean the cops can just sneak up on me & shoot me without saying a word. And if I’m drunk it doesn’t make it any more justifiable. I don’t care how many non-gun people I happen to scare (you know, the ones who describe a “revolver” as “a six shooter kind – I think” ). If I’m not actually threatening them the police don’t have the required probable cause to think that I am an imminent threat to anybody to justify use of deadly force.
It WAS that. The guy was sitting on someone’s porch (his friend’s, not just some random strangers) minding his own business playing with a hose nozzle…until some idiot got involved & called the cops because he was scared of a guy sitting on a porch playing with a hose nozzle. Then the police didn’t have the common sense to verify that the guy was, in fact, a threat to ANYBODY instead of some guy just sitting on a porch playing with a hose nozzle. All of this because of the unreasonable fear of “guns” & putting officer safety as more important than anything, even the lives of potentially innocent victims.
Oh yeah. I forgot. He was drunk. That justifies everything.
Try this:
[/size]
Please note section 3(b)(2).
The police are required by law to give a warning before using deadly force. The IC unfortunately does use the weasel words “if feasible” but I’m fairly sure that the law isn’t intended to be just a suggestion. I think it’s a good assumption that the law is a requirement but includes the common sense to allow an exemption in extreme/rare circumstances.
Just because a department flouts the law & doesn’t require its officers to follow the law every time doesn’t mean the law isn’t the law.
I’m not sure what your definition of the word “rapidly” is (especially the “very” kind) but if they were on the scene for several minutes (up to 10 minutes) then I wouldn’t consider that a “very rapid” decision.
The other problem was the amount of time on scene without making their presence known, yes it is odd but it likely had nothing to do with the decision to shoot.
These officers would most likely be justified in their decision based on the IC you posted.
Im not gonna weed through all your post, Ill just reply based on what I read.
Being on scene for 10 minutes does not mean they were on scene making a decision for 10 minutes. Their response to his action is what was rapid.
What is evident is these officers did not feel they were able to get any closer to determine what was going on, so they called for backup and a birds eye view. During their wait for their support, they were faced with the need to make a quick decision.
No, their cognition about the gun is not an assumption, it is not based on other details, it is based on the call stating the gun had been seen and identified. The police did not assume anything at all, an assumption is an extrapelation of data, they used visible evidence of what was seen and conveyed to them. No assumption was made.
as·sump·tion (-smpshn)
n. 1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
5. Presumption; arrogance.
6. Logic A minor premise.
7. Assumption a. Christianity The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
b. A feast celebrating this event.
c. August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.
You say that he was killed for trespassing or public intox, this is not the case. He died because of his actions while doing those things. He was by all accounts of those present acting as if it was a gun, there was no way for those there to verify it was not a gun, so he was shot.
As you so kindly posted the IC states that you must give warning if feasible. They did not sit on scene for 10 minutes with the intent to destroy this guy, the action was likely a split second decision when the man raised the gun in their direction, making it not feasible.
The moral of the story is not that police are stupid or not responsible, the moral of the story is that if you are going to act like you have a gun, have a gun.
If this man were to do this to any one of us, and we could not identify that it was not, in fact a gun, we would have done the same thing. Let's say for instance your neighbor has an object that you can determine was not a gun, and was behaving as if he was going to shoot you and his motions made it appear to be a gun... you would probably protect yourself.
The problem in this situation is not that they shot him, it is that most believe they killed a man knowing it was not a gun. This is hard to believe.
The other problem was the amount of time on scene without making their presence known, yes it is odd but it likely had nothing to do with the decision to shoot.
Wait! The code is that you must give notice if force is to be used. They did not plan to use force they did not need to give notice, in fac there was no reason for them to use force.
They ended up using force out of reaction.
10 minutes has nothing to do with the use of force at all.
Personally I believe the officers should have made their presence clear, but there may have been other circumstances that made them choose to not do so. I don't like to speculate but one such reason could be that they were not completely aware of the situation (indicates by the request for a birds eye view).
I really miss when LEO viewed themselves as Peace Officers instead of Law Enforcers...
Next time give your daughters a shot of adrenaline and have the neighbors call them and tell them your drunk with a gun...
I really miss when LEO viewed themselves as Peace Officers instead of Law Enforcers...
Would you like to explain your intent with this comment? Sounds like you wish me harm! Or you were... Leave the children out of your sarcastic comments IT IS NOT THE WAY MEN CONDUCT THEMSELVES!
Quite the mentality you have for someone wishing to become a LEO. Good luck with the psych exam! Your gonna need it!