Page 1 of 3

Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:50 pm
by TomV
https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter ... B7o5zaslCs


I really am at a loss of words for this one

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:57 pm
by philip964
What has Oklahoma turned blue.

This is insane.

What kind of State AG do they have?

Says he is a Republican.

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:49 am
by LDP
Wow, just wow.
This country is going down the toilet fast. If libtard morons can twist the law so bad that they send LEOs to jail for protecting our lives, that is beyond insane.
One day, a LEO will save a libtard's life and the same moron will send the LEO to jail for hurting a criminal in the process of killing a libtard.

Hey, I have an idea. Could we build a huge wall, let's say between us the the blue morons? Then tell criminals: "our half is heavily defended with smart and trained people with guns, the half behind the wall is full of defenseless idiots and with no police - choose wisely!"
Doesn't that sound like a great utopian society?

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:28 pm
by OneGun
philip964 wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:57 pm
What has Oklahoma turned blue.

This is insane.

What kind of State AG do they have?

Says he is a Republican.
Lt. Mitchell was indicted DA Jason Hicks, also Republican.

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:51 pm
by joe817
Unbelievable! He very well could have saved many lives for doing what he did and he got indicted for it?? Insanity. Pure insanity. I pray he gets no billed. He should be given a medal for what he did.

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:43 pm
by glock27
I assume since he was indicted it has already been thru the grand jury. But “a grand jury can indict a ham sandwhich”. I’m sure he will get off, any decent attorney should overturn this before it makes it very far. This is ridiculous. Im sure they had a liberal filled grand jury.

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:01 pm
by LDP
glock27 wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:43 pm
But “a grand jury can indict a ham sandwhich”.
Agree.
However, if we naturally expand this to "any jury can provide a guilty verdict", I would not see the Sheriff's fate in exactly a positive light.
I am a skeptic when it comes to humans. "A jury of your peers" always makes me scared. For a good reason. That's a lie. We are statistically much more likely to see a jury of easily influenced liberal fear mongers. Those people do not follow logic or the letter of the law, they prefer their feelings and emotions. Not the smartest move when deciding another human's fate.
I fear the day when this verdict will become binding "given the good moral character of the defendant and the lack of any evidence, your honor, we, the almighty jury, feel that the defendant is guilty".
Did I mention I do not have faith in humankind?

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:36 pm
by bbhack
Soros is meddling in local elections, and that means DAs too.

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:15 pm
by glock27
LDP wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:01 pm
glock27 wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:43 pm
But “a grand jury can indict a ham sandwhich”.
Agree.
However, if we naturally expand this to "any jury can provide a guilty verdict", I would not see the Sheriff's fate in exactly a positive light.
I am a skeptic when it comes to humans. "A jury of your peers" always makes me scared. For a good reason. That's a lie. We are statistically much more likely to see a jury of easily influenced liberal fear mongers. Those people do not follow logic or the letter of the law, they prefer their feelings and emotions. Not the smartest move when deciding another human's fate.
I fear the day when this verdict will become binding "given the good moral character of the defendant and the lack of any evidence, your honor, we, the almighty jury, feel that the defendant is guilty".
Did I mention I do not have faith in humankind?




I agree and see your point. If my research is correct. Then a judge can overcome and wash out an jury’s guilty verdict. However the opposite cannot happen.

Not sure how often this takes place. But hopefully his judge will have common sense. And I agree. The pool or jurors could be a crap shoot.

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:34 pm
by carlson1
If there is not more to this story this is a sad day in America.

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:15 am
by chasfm11
I've come to believe that the Republican label means nothing. Most of the people running in Texas in red districts know that they cannot be elected if they run as a Democrat so they select to represent the party through which a victory is possible. If anyone has any doubts about the extent of the problem, you only have to look at the track records of the elected officials on the Republican platform that they were supposed to be supporting. I'm guessing that Oklahoma is not different. It is only when a difficult situation arises and the elected official decides in a way that isn't consistent with their pre-election promises that we recognize the depth of their betrayal. District Attorney candidates seem per-disposed to a Liberal mind set. Conversely, I cannot remember a single example of someone running as a Democrat and ending up acting like a Conservative.

One has to question exactly what the "crime" was here. Was it using the rifle in the first place? Given the current bias against all things AR-15, that wouldn't be surprising. Was it the number of rounds? If 30 rounds had been fired or maybe 10-15, would it still have been a criminal act? Was it even engaging an active shooter? I've listened to the lament of family members after their loved one was killed in an armed robbery attempt say that the perpetrator of the original crime meant no harm. The woman shooter probably wouldn't have actually hurt anyone if the police had just let her run out of ammo.

But perhaps even more heinous than any of that is my chief concern with District Attorneys. They seem to file cases based on whether those matters will advance their careers rather than to serve justice. I get it. You don't want to file cases that you don't that you can will but I feel sometimes that they do exactly that. The odds of a "win" on this one seem pretty long. Whatever happened to mens rea? It was a stretch for me on that subject with that Amber Geiger case. This one goes far beyond that. Is the implication that all police officers have a latent homicidal bent and take a law enforcement job to be injected into situations where they can carry it out? Shouldn't that have to be something that has to be proved in order to convict in a matter like this? The officer would not have been there except for the actions of shooter. Unless he was just waiting to use deadly force, there can be nothing criminal about the described events, at least for me. Perhaps there are additional circumstances but even my vivid imagination cannot come up with anything that would tip the description of this matter in a different direction.

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:06 pm
by baseballguy2001
If you took the time to read the story, "a state grand jury determined that Lt. Mitchell engaged in “imminently dangerous conduct” without excusable or justifiable cause by firing approximately 60 rounds during the gun battle". Even if the officer fired only 30 rounds at the suspect when (she?) was cornered, that's a ton of lead flying around. He's not being indicted for stopping an active shooter, he's being indicted, correctly if you ask me, for basically continuing to shoot after the threat had been stopped and endangering fellow officers and the community.

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:07 pm
by LDP
chasfm11 wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:15 am
One has to question exactly what the "crime" was here.
Agreed. From the limited news coverage, there does not seem to be any new evidence of any wrongdoing.
Does anyone have any more information? I am really curious what kind of stuff the DA has pulled out of his behind if there is no public evidence. Or does he have a secret ace up the sleeve, one that he shared only with the grand jury?

chasfm11 wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:15 am
But perhaps even more heinous than any of that is my chief concern with District Attorneys. They seem to file cases based on whether those matters will advance their careers rather than to serve justice. I get it.
I don't (get it).
Yes, I agree with you 100%. But I do not get why we have a fundamentally flawed system in which public servants (such as DAs, senators, congressmen) serve themselves and not their constituents.
This should have never happened but the change crept up on us and now the new system is established and has a very solid foundation and is not going anywhere. So much for the "government of the people, by the people, FOR the people".
Are our founding fathers turning in their graves? :banghead:

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:10 pm
by LDP
baseballguy2001 wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:06 pm
If you took the time to read the story, "a state grand jury determined that Lt. Mitchell engaged in “imminently dangerous conduct” without excusable or justifiable cause by firing approximately 60 rounds during the gun battle". Even if the officer fired only 30 rounds at the suspect when (she?) was cornered, that's a ton of lead flying around. He's not being indicted for stopping an active shooter, he's being indicted, correctly if you ask me, for basically continuing to shoot after the threat had been stopped and endangering fellow officers and the community.
Understood.
But I don't get why they slapped him with "2nd degree murder" then instead of something like "reckless endangerment". That's what puzzles me.
Is this just some silly vindication to begin with?

From reading the (limited) story, it seems like they kept shooting until they stopped the truck/threat. It took 60 rounds. Okay. It could have taken 59 or 61, it is hard to tell. But they stopped the threat and ceased fire. Unless there is more evidence that is not published in the story.
Got a link to a more detailed story?

Re: Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:32 pm
by K.Mooneyham
LDP wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:10 pm
baseballguy2001 wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:06 pm
If you took the time to read the story, "a state grand jury determined that Lt. Mitchell engaged in “imminently dangerous conduct” without excusable or justifiable cause by firing approximately 60 rounds during the gun battle". Even if the officer fired only 30 rounds at the suspect when (she?) was cornered, that's a ton of lead flying around. He's not being indicted for stopping an active shooter, he's being indicted, correctly if you ask me, for basically continuing to shoot after the threat had been stopped and endangering fellow officers and the community.
Understood.
But I don't get why they slapped him with "2nd degree murder" then instead of something like "reckless endangerment". That's what puzzles me.
Is this just some silly vindication to begin with?

From reading the (limited) story, it seems like they kept shooting until they stopped the truck/threat. It took 60 rounds. Okay. It could have taken 59 or 61, it is hard to tell. But they stopped the threat and ceased fire. Unless there is more evidence that is not published in the story.
Got a link to a more detailed story?
Yes, the charge would seem to indicate that this is about the officer killing the fleeing suspect versus how many rounds he fired to do so. So the charge would seem to indicate that an officer would not be allowed to kill a fleeing suspect despite the fleeing suspect having used deadly force against several other people. I believe that DA has overcharged and I hope the officer will win the case. As you stated, if they had a problem with him shooting too much, then they could have found a charge more appropriate to that.