TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Excaliber wrote: One factor that bears consideration is that the deceased may have been in an agitated state immediately after shooting an attacking dog, and that may have contributed to the officer's perception of a threat to his safety.

I have a bias. It involves LEOs shooting individuals with no prior history of law breaking. I do understand that good guys can "snap" and if the deceased pointed a gun a the officer, your assessment of an agitated state following the dog attack seems like the most plausible.

Then I see the great lengths that LE goes to in situations like the one where the man shot a school bus driver and kidnapped a child. While ultimately, the outcome was the same as this one, the situation was given time to develop into a different outcome.

The recent prisoner escape that ended fatally for the escapee in Grapevine was probably as it needed to be. The BG involved had already proved that he was a danger to LE and that he had no intention of going back to prison. That is in sharp contrast to this incident, however. I think every time an otherwise GG is killed by police, the incident should be carefully dissected to see if there wasn't a way to come up with a better outcome. If the deceased was in an agitated state, it would seem better to withdraw, call for backup and attempt to descalate the matter than to rush in and invade the man's personal space. To me, the matter went South there. Maybe I'm too naive, but I don't see the urgency in the investigation of a dog shooting that was worth a man's life.

It's looking more and more like reasonable caution, not paranoia, to follow some advice that was posted on this forum in the past. First, don't talk to the police except for a rehearsed script. Let your lawyer say anything else that needs to be said. Second, if possible, get to a barricaded position before the police arrive, and don't leave the safety of your position until your lawyer is there. In some cities, friendly witnesses with video cameras are a good idea, in case there's a mysterious malfunction with other videos.

longtooth wrote:Had a class yesterday & in last night about 9:00 so I am late to this party.
When you start this from square 1 & the basic simplest points that cannot be argued or oppinionated this is pretty cut/dried to me.

1. The law says nothing about a LEO having the right to disarm. It says they have the authority to disarm. For the officer to ASK for the weapon was a great show of trust in itself.
2 As soon as he refused that is an offence in itself. Refusing to obey the LAWFUL order of a Piece Officer.
Whether anyone agrees or not w/ him reaching for the gun, I still see that as a last gesture of trust.
He could have drawn his own weapon of taser & called for all backup. Roughly put the guy on the ground & taken the weapon.
If a person refuses ANY lawful order & the officer "lets it go" then from that time on the person is in control & not the officer.

Great points.

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.

I don't think any of us know enough to declare either party guilty or innocent. At the end of the day, I bet both parties made mistakes and it may have had a lot to do with both of them getting caught up on principal.

This is a lose - lose scenario. This gentleman ended up dead, the officer in the incident has shot and killed someone and will have to live with that for the rest of his life. Reading a thread like this with all the various thoughts, opinions and observations is really interesting. But, I'm still stuck on the fact that a man who has lived 70 years as a decent citizen and an officer who's been trained at our expense is facing a whole bunch of trouble, not the least of which are the internal consequences of his action, and there isn't anything good coming from this.

It seems that the main result of this incident and any news coverage it gets will be to push those in Law Enforcement and those who are either concerned with their rights or becoming concerned about those rights , further apart and more skeptical and suspicious of the intent of the other (LEO or citizen) no matter the circumstance. Given the events, political developments and societal issues concerning firearms, I think the last thing we all need is for law enforcement to become aggressive "on weapons" whilst a significant segment of society is getting really nervous about the topic. I will say that I'd sure prefer to be reading that Mr. Schaefer was going to appear in court on such and such a charge and so forth...

Jeff B.

mojo84 wrote:I don't think any of us know enough to declare either party guilty or innocent. At the end of the day, I bet both parties made mistakes and it may have had a lot to do with both of them getting caught up on principal.

Jeff B. wrote:This is a lose - lose scenario. This gentleman ended up dead, the officer in the incident has shot and killed someone and will have to live with that for the rest of his life. Reading a thread like this with all the various thoughts, opinions and observations is really interesting. But, I'm still stuck on the fact that a man who has lived 70 years as a decent citizen and an officer who's been trained at our expense is facing a whole bunch of trouble, not the least of which are the internal consequences of his action, and there isn't anything coming from this.

It seems that the main result of this incident and any news coverage it gets will be to push those in Law Enforcement and those who are either concerned with their rights or becoming concerned about those rights , further apart and more skeptical and suspicious of the intent of the other (LEO or citizen) no matter the circumstance. Given the events, political developments and societal issues concerning firearms, I think the last thing we all need is for law enforcement to become aggressive "on weapons" whilst a significant segment of society is getting really nervous about the topic. I will say that I'd sure prefer to be reading that Mr. Schaefer was going to appear in court on such and such a charge and so forth...

Jeff B.

Good points, both. Only caveat - "there isn't anything coming of this" ... this JUST happened, give it time.

Well you caught a typo, which I'll fix. I meant to say, "anything good".



I was doin' alot of thinkin' on that topic, so I'll just say it tapped out my main processor!

Jeff B.

In my reading this and all, my question is: how did the officer request to disarm the person or go about disarming him?

Bloggers posting else where that the deceased is a chl holder and instructor. Unknown if that is true or not, but we'll find out.

A-R wrote:

longtooth wrote:Had a class yesterday & in last night about 9:00 so I am late to this party.
When you start this from square 1 & the basic simplest points that cannot be argued or oppinionated this is pretty cut/dried to me.

1. The law says nothing about a LEO having the right to disarm. It says they have the authority to disarm. For the officer to ASK for the weapon was a great show of trust in itself.
2 As soon as he refused that is an offence in itself. Refusing to obey the LAWFUL order of a Piece Officer.
Whether anyone agrees or not w/ him reaching for the gun, I still see that as a last gesture of trust.
He could have drawn his own weapon of taser & called for all backup. Roughly put the guy on the ground & taken the weapon.
If a person refuses ANY lawful order & the officer "lets it go" then from that time on the person is in control & not the officer.

Great points.

Totally agree. Lesson to be learned assuming it went down as the officer said. If an officer asks you for your gun whether you think he's right or not at this point in time you need to act like he's right and take it up in court or you could be taking up with your maker as the man in this story unfortunately is. There is no arguing w/a police officer. You will never win. Best to do what they say and work it out later.

pcgizzmo wrote:

A-R wrote:

longtooth wrote:Had a class yesterday & in last night about 9:00 so I am late to this party.
When you start this from square 1 & the basic simplest points that cannot be argued or oppinionated this is pretty cut/dried to me.

1. The law says nothing about a LEO having the right to disarm. It says they have the authority to disarm. For the officer to ASK for the weapon was a great show of trust in itself.
2 As soon as he refused that is an offence in itself. Refusing to obey the LAWFUL order of a Piece Officer.
Whether anyone agrees or not w/ him reaching for the gun, I still see that as a last gesture of trust.
He could have drawn his own weapon of taser & called for all backup. Roughly put the guy on the ground & taken the weapon.
If a person refuses ANY lawful order & the officer "lets it go" then from that time on the person is in control & not the officer.

Great points.

Totally agree. Lesson to be learned assuming it went down as the officer said. If an officer asks you for your gun whether you think he's right or not at this point in time you need to act like he's right and take it up in court or you could be taking up with your maker as the man in this story unfortunately is. There is no arguing w/a police officer. You will never win. Best to do what they say and work it out later.

I have to disagree with you on principle. Now, let me preface that by saying I personally would have "surrendered" the firearm when asked, I do not want to be shot or go to jail. That being said, a good many of us do not have money to run to court over any little thing. If I were pressed to come up with the money because it was something serious, then I would. But it would hurt my family, for certain. Human beings make mistakes, it is impossible not to make mistakes. And if said mistake leads to interaction with an improperly or under-informed LEO that we aren't even allowed to question on the subject, then are we automatically in the wrong? Isn't that tantamount to guilty until proven innocent, unless you can afford to go to court to prove otherwise? I'm sorry, but that seems like a bad thing. I am not advocating for criminals; I have not, and do not plan on doing bad stuff to others, in fact I've had exactly one speeding ticket in my life to this point, in Sherman in 1993. I'm not talking of belligerently arguing with law enforcement, but simply about asking questions, etc. And, I do not want this taken as an attack on LEOs because I am not doing so. I am speaking about a mindset, a overall viewpoint.

I really, really want to see the dashcam video.

I simply don't understand how a guy has a gun 'in his waistband' equates to an officer having his gun out and shooting him.

A witness mentioned that both the officer and the elderly guy were pointing weapons at each other. If this is the case I tend to lean in the direction of the officer, but wonder what prompted the 'victim' to pull out his weapon. Who drew first?

I was thinking on this subject after I last posted. We have what appears to be a great stand up guy that is now deceased after a very tragic incident. My concern is that we have a govt that is going after our guns in the media and by passing laws. That seems to be all you hear and read about. I can see that causing somebody that should have known better to possibly become irrational when asked to surrender their gun during a criminal investigation. I sure hope this doesn't become the new trend as many have stated nobody wins.