TexasCHLforum.com

Redneck_Buddha wrote:Bottom line is that neither you nor anyone but God and the physical witnesses know what really happened.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall.

Keith B wrote:If I am involved in a stand-off with someone that has a gun pointed at me, I am gonna pull the trigger. In this case, the deceased apprently made a very poor decision to pull his weapon and fight with an officer.

It sounds like the deceased made a very poor decision to pull his weapon and not pull the trigger.

hillfighter wrote:It sounds like the deceased made a very poor decision to pull his weapon and not pull the trigger.

Sounds to me like pulling the weapon was a poor decision. Pulling the trigger on the LEO would have been a worse decision.

Jumping Frog wrote:

hillfighter wrote:It sounds like the deceased made a very poor decision to pull his weapon and not pull the trigger.

Sounds to me like pulling the weapon was a poor decision. Pulling the trigger on the LEO would have been a worse decision.

I actually have to disagree with this. Once he already made the clearly bad decision of pulling the gun it seems that pulling the trigger would have actually been one of the better things he could have done. It's certainly better than not pulling the trigger, which we see resulted in his death. Shooting first may have saved his life, so to say that it would have been worse doesn't make much sense. The determination of whether either of the individual choices, pulling the weapon and firing the weapon, is good or bad is independent of the other choice. Though i agree that as a whole his choice of actions were bad.

I find that I have to echo sentiment already expressed in this thread, and that is that the "take it up later in court/with their superiors" way of thinking is a perfectly rational plan, but execution of this plan is likely impossible for most or prone to failure. Most people do not have the monetary means to take these issues up in court. Furthermore, the LEO are aware of this fact; they get "you'll hear from my lawyer" talk and know that most of it is hot air. I feel that the knowledge that most of the people you interact with literally can't challenge your actions in court would affect your behaviour. My other issue with this relates to reporting behaviour to superior officers. The code of silence is real and there is a lot of video evidence out there that shows LEOs obstrtucting citizens from lawfully filing complaints against officers when they feel mistreated. If you don't have the ability to go to court, can't file a complaint without exposing yourself to harassment, and can't be sure that your complaint will even be cared, what can you do to ensure that LEOs are held accountable for their actions? Pulling your gun on them on the side of the street clearly isn't the answer, but I do think something needs to be done.

A-R wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:On one side we have someone who apparently got through 70 years without major problems until Friday. On the other side, we have APD which can't seem to make it through a single year without allegations of excessive force.

I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see a video of the shooting, but if I have to pick a side, I'll play the odds.

So this one officer is guilty by association with and membership in APD? I sure am glad the antis don't treat all gun owners and NRA members the same way.

While gringo is taking guilty by association to a bit of an extreme, I can understand his point and think it helps no one to dismiss it outright. In fact, many members of this forum often trumpet how educated profiling can be one of your best observational/awareness tools and potentially save yourself. It's irrational to think that this tool has great value when it comes to youths, minorities, and other people who can often be seen as acting like criminals/thugs but that it's inappropriate when considering police officers. In fact, I'd take gringos thoughts to another place. I've meet lots of LEOs in my short life thanks to my god mother, who's a detective for HPD, and so far my next door neighbour, who is retired, is the the only certifiably bad cop I've met. However, most of these "good" cops, my god mother included, have freely admitted to knowing about other bad cops and doing nothing or letting other officers get away with breaking the law once they found out they were also LEOs. If the "good" cops are turning a blind eye to the rotten apples, what are we to do? Though they aren't the only ones, I'm sure we all work with some incompetent person who shouldn't have his job but say nothing because "he has a family" or "we still get by with him here", etc. But now i'm just off topic.

KingofChaos wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

hillfighter wrote:It sounds like the deceased made a very poor decision to pull his weapon and not pull the trigger.

Sounds to me like pulling the weapon was a poor decision. Pulling the trigger on the LEO would have been a worse decision.

I actually have to disagree with this. Once he already made the clearly bad decision of pulling the gun it seems that pulling the trigger would have actually been one of the better things he could have done. It's certainly better than not pulling the trigger, which we see resulted in his death. Shooting first may have saved his life, so to say that it would have been worse doesn't make much sense. The determination of whether either of the individual choices, pulling the weapon and firing the weapon, is good or bad is independent of the other choice

I am looking at it from a different perspective. If he had pulled the trigger, he would have conceivably killed an LEO who did not deserve killin'. By not pulling he trigger, the one who deserved killin' was the one reaping the consequences.

bizarrenormality wrote:

Redneck_Buddha wrote:Bottom line is that neither you nor anyone but God and the physical witnesses know what really happened.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall.

I am I supposed to be an expert in decrypting cryptic responses?

Ok, so now we are advocating killing an LEO who has done nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral?

I am shocked some cops have an "us vs them" mentality...

gigag04 wrote:Ok, so now we are advocating killing an LEO who has done nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral?

I am shocked some cops have an "us vs them" mentality...

I think it is crystal clear that I was opposing that notion. Agreed?

Jumping Frog wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Ok, so now we are advocating killing an LEO who has done nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral?

I am shocked some cops have an "us vs them" mentality...

I think it is crystal clear that I was opposing that notion. Agreed?

I certainly wouldn't either and especially in this case where the man's life was not in danger. I do believe that this officer acted appropriately and as probably any one of us would have if someone pointed a gun at us. The only part I was curious about was if the attempt to disarmed and then to handcuff him was legal or not under the circumstances.

Jumping Frog wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Ok, so now we are advocating killing an LEO who has done nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral?

I am shocked some cops have an "us vs them" mentality...

I think it is crystal clear that I was opposing that notion. Agreed?

Yeah - my response wasn't from your comments.

Keith B wrote: He might not have even had to have left it inside, just not had it visible. Had it been properly concealed it might not even have become an issue.

Pretty much what I had said in my earlier post on page 2.

If this person had kept his concealed, he could have retained his weapon while chatting with the officer. If I call the police to my house, I'm not going to be strutting around with a weapon openly visible. To me, that's just inviting problems. Concealed is concealed.

He would have been even better off if he stayed inside with his gun and let his lawyer handle the cop's questions. I will be using this example in my classes.

mojo84 wrote:I just can't get my mind around the idea of one defending themselves against an attacking dog on the person's property being considered a crime.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
This may vary from city to city, but it is my understanding that discharging a firearm within the city limit is a crime. That crime may later be determined to be justified by circumstances such as defending oneself.
So yes, as I understand it, the man had already told the 911 operator that he had committed a crime and an officer was sent to invetigate. So despite whatever may have happened, the officer was certainly justified in disarming a person he was sent to investigate for a crime involving shot(s) fired.
Even though the idea that the guy committed the crime of discharging a firearm within city limits may be minor compared to the main story of him defending himself against a dog attack, from the LEO perspective - Man fired a gun. Man may be violent. May have been defending himself or may have been on a rampage against neighbor's dog. Don't know. DO know, man fired a gun and here he is with a gun.

I don't like police disarming citizens for no apparent reason. But in this case, I can find no fault with the officer attempting to disarm this man.
Could it have been handled better? By the officer? Maybe, probably. By the home owner? Certainly.

I do not believe that 911 operator telling him anything, such as leaving the gun inside, is the same as a lawful order from an LEO. It may be good advice, but not something someone must follow. [Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.]
The officer asking for the firearm was a lawful order. Different thing. Maybe not relevant here, but just sayin'.

This brings up some questions I have about when an LEO may disarm you on your property, but this thread is already long and rather than go off on a tangent, perhaps I should start a new thread. Stay tuned.

gigag04 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Ok, so now we are advocating killing an LEO who has done nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral?

I am shocked some cops have an "us vs them" mentality...

I think it is crystal clear that I was opposing that notion. Agreed?

Yeah - my response wasn't from your comments.

Was it to mine? I was simply pointing out that saying pulling the trigger would have been a worse decision for the deceased to make simply isn't true. It would have been in the old guys best interest, right or wrong. In fact, since we after the fact know that the alternative was dying, it would have been the best possible decision he could have made after making the profoundly stupid decision to draw the weapon.

mgood wrote: I do not believe that 911 operator telling him anything, such as leaving the gun inside, is the same as a lawful order from an LEO. It may be good advice, but not something someone must follow. [Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.]
The officer asking for the firearm was a lawful order. Different thing. Maybe not relevant here, but just sayin'.

I often give instructions to a reporting party through the dispatcher, but they let me know if the reporting party is being uncooperative. I'm not very patient with uncooperative RPs. I sort of figure you called me here, now tell me what you need. Many times, people are alternatively excited about telling me what to do.