"...shooting was not justified.....stripped of his gun and badge."

[cam911]

Please reread my first post.

Lets try not to use derogatory terms like "pigs". There are more then a few officers on this forum respect them and what they do.

Hi Mikhail

Please re-read my post. I did/do not disagree with anything you posted and I certainly did not refer to anyone as "pig". I am not even saying the officer involved is guilty of a "bad shoot". I merely pointed out that the facts we do have are mitigating against him. He absolutely deserves his day in court. But, I'll say it again, he is going to need a good lawyer if that video is admitted into evidence.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Guantes]

Here is the evidence supporting guilt. Or not.

1) Guy walked down the street in a non-aggressive manner. Not in doubt.

** Displaying a knife of indeterminate length. Seattle had a 3.5" blade length limit.

2) Officer exited patrol car in an aggressive manner with gun drawn. with no obvious reason for that. Not in doubt.

** Contact to determine if the knife was within legal limits. Subject is displaying an instrument capable of GBI or death. Drawn weapon is not excessive.

3) Officer starts shouting but never identifies himself as an officer. Not in doubt.

** Officer is in uniform, during daylight, out in the open. Identification is pretty obvious.

4) Knife on ground closed. Not in doubt.

** If the knife was in hand, open or closed is a matter of 1/4 second.

5) Witness is heard to say, "he didn't do anything." Not in doubt.

**Witness opinion, possibly valid, possibly not.

It would seem that you think that anything you post should be taken as gospel and anything anyone else posts is spin.

[Hopyard]

Here is the evidence supporting guilt. Or not.

1) Guy walked down the street in a non-aggressive manner. Not in doubt.

** Displaying a knife of indeterminate length. Seattle had a 3.5" blade length limit.

2) Officer exited patrol car in an aggressive manner with gun drawn. with no obvious reason for that. Not in doubt.

** Contact to determine if the knife was within legal limits. Subject is displaying an instrument capable of GBI or death. Drawn weapon is not excessive.

3) Officer starts shouting but never identifies himself as an officer. Not in doubt.

** Officer is in uniform, during daylight, out in the open. Identification is pretty obvious.

4) Knife on ground closed. Not in doubt.

** If the knife was in hand, open or closed is a matter of 1/4 second.

5) Witness is heard to say, "he didn't do anything." Not in doubt.

**Witness opinion, possibly valid, possibly not.

It would seem that you think that anything you post should be taken as gospel and anything anyone else posts is spin.

OK, next time you walk down the street with a knife on your belt or clipped to a pocket-- it only takes half a second to draw, and it is of indeterminate length to the observer at a distance, according to you an LEO can just go ahead and draw on you and shoot you because .... Are you sure you really believe what you are writing and not just playing devil's advocate, not that there is anything wrong with that role. It is important to cause looking at stuff deeply.

Let's take your rebuts from the top one by one:


1) ** Displaying a knife of indeterminate length. Seattle had a 3.5" blade length limit.

Is that a reason to draw? What about everyone here who carries one on a belt, on an ankle. Does that fact by itself with nothing else supporting, give legal cause for a cop to draw on them?

Now go to the pic. Take a look at the total size. Indeterminate? Not really. It is a small pocket knife and nothing more. No chance that could be mistaken for an illegal knife, unless the mechanism was in question. But then, the department had the knife and made their determination. I'd like to think they would have taken the mechanics of the knife into their decision before opening their city to the liability which will come their way from their decision to call this shooting unjustified.

2) ** Contact to determine if the knife was within legal limits. Subject is displaying an instrument capable of GBI or death. Drawn weapon is not excessive.

In what universe? I don't know the laws where this happened or where you live. But, even if you were allowed to draw you need quite an imagination to see that knife as excessive.

3) ** Officer is in uniform, during daylight, out in the open. Identification is pretty obvious.

Not when your back it turned the other way. And not if you are shot in the side while turning to look.


4) ** If the knife was in hand, open or closed is a matter of 1/4 second.

It all depends. I have pocket knives that take many seconds to open. This is more mere speculation and not fact on your part. You don't shoot people based on an assumption.

Again, the gun isn't the only option. Don't close the distance. Use a baton. But of course these weren't attempted, because there was nothing going on and no threat. Even the officer involved never stated that there was a threat, only that the man didn't put the knife down when commanded; by whom? Someone unidentified in back of him shouting like a maniac, and perhaps shouting at some other party?

5) **Witness opinion, possibly valid, possibly not.

Cops opinion possibly valid, possibly not. There are circumstances here which make the officer's opinion, his judgment, highly highly questionable. Whereas the witness has no dog in the fight and so her opinion carries more weight with me-- as it will with various jurors, I think.

IMO, at best really really poor judgment was used. At worst, its murder 1. No one but the officer will ever really know for sure, and maybe not even he himself knows. However, one way or another this is going to grind through the inquest, the grand jury process, a criminal trial and a civil trial. All unnecessary if a cooler head had been used.

[Guantes]

OK, next time you walk down the street with a knife on your belt or clipped to a pocket-- it only takes half a second to draw, and it is of indeterminate length to the observer at a distance, according to you an LEO can just go ahead and draw on you and shoot you because .... Are you sure you really believe what you are writing and not just playing devil's advocate, not that there is anything wrong with that role. It is important to cause looking at stuff deeply.

Let's take your rebuts from the top one by one:


1) ** Displaying a knife of indeterminate length. Seattle had a 3.5" blade length limit.

Is that a reason to draw? What about everyone here who carries one on a belt, on an ankle. Does that fact by itself with nothing else supporting, give legal cause for a cop to draw on them?

Now go to the pic. Take a look at the total size. Indeterminate? Not really. It is a small pocket knife and nothing more. No chance that could be mistaken for an illegal knife, unless the mechanism was in question. But then, the department had the knife and made their determination. I'd like to think they would have taken the mechanics of the knife into their decision before opening their city to the liability which will come their way from their decision to call this shooting unjustified.

2) ** Contact to determine if the knife was within legal limits. Subject is displaying an instrument capable of GBI or death. Drawn weapon is not excessive.

In what universe? I don't know the laws where this happened or where you live. But, even if you were allowed to draw you need quite an imagination to see that knife as excessive.

3) ** Officer is in uniform, during daylight, out in the open. Identification is pretty obvious.

Not when your back it turned the other way. And not if you are shot in the side while turning to look.


4) ** If the knife was in hand, open or closed is a matter of 1/4 second.

It all depends. I have pocket knives that take many seconds to open. This is more mere speculation and not fact on your part. You don't shoot people based on an assumption.

Again, the gun isn't the only option. Don't close the distance. Use a baton. But of course these weren't attempted, because there was nothing going on and no threat. Even the officer involved never stated that there was a threat, only that the man didn't put the knife down when commanded; by whom? Someone unidentified in back of him shouting like a maniac, and perhaps shouting at some other party?

5) **Witness opinion, possibly valid, possibly not.

Cops opinion possibly valid, possibly not. There are circumstances here which make the officer's opinion, his judgment, highly highly questionable. Whereas the witness has no dog in the fight and so her opinion carries more weight with me-- as it will with various jurors, I think.

IMO, at best really really poor judgment was used. At worst, its murder 1. No one but the officer will ever really know for sure, and maybe not even he himself knows. However, one way or another this is going to grind through the inquest, the grand jury process, a criminal trial and a civil trial. All unnecessary if a cooler head had been used.

There is a difference between on a belt or clipped in a pocket and in hand, open. I made no mention of shooting, only drawing.
I'm merely pointing out a different point of view.

1. Belt or in pocket is not the same as in hand, open. In hand, open is sufficient reason to draw. If the knife was in hand that eliminates the possibility of viewing the handle as a possible means of determining the length of the blade.

2. I did not mention that the knife was excessive, just that it was capable of GBI or death.

3. The question of identification and the point that shots fired will undoubtedly be a point of contention.

4. No it is not speculation. I can open virtually any folding knife I own in less than a second. The choice to use less than lethal weapons by officers against lethal weapons is normally left to the discretion of the officer. There are questions that need to be answered, I have not disputed that.

5. The witness was an acquaintance/friend of the subject. I see it as a toss up on opinions until further information is available.

There are many unanswered questions. It is up to the legal process to obtain answers to those questions and determine the amount of blame and where it lies.

[HahnsXD]

As for Tueller---not misinterpreted. It is a factual description of what can happen with an aggressive knife wielder at 21 feet. IIRC the officer was 9-10 feet from the subject, one half the distance of Tueller. The 21 feet thing, actually half that, combined with a refusal to drop the knife, "could" be a justification for shooting someone depending on the totality of the circumstances.

The officer put HIMSELF that close to the victim

You don't approach a man with a weapon that you've determined is dangerous without backup or some kind of barrier between. Everything this officer did was wrong, from beginning to end.

[slave]

True. Then we get into interpretation of "threatening", which will probably be decided by a jury. With a knife in hand, how long does it take to open it, about a quarter of a second.

Well, since you keep using this man's name, I figured you should at least know what you are talking about: http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/the-...rill-revisited

21 feet is an arbitrary number. The concept was recognizing what was to close, for the individual. He said he wouldn't use 21 feet now. It has made up a defense mechanism with no actual basis in fact.

Even if you do apply this rule, which you have, an incorrectly at that, that still has nothing to do with the fact that this pig didn't announce himself as a LEO, he just yelled: HEY HEY HEY PUT THE KNIFE DOWN!

The man appeared to be doing nothing illegal, and witnesses back this fact up.

Guentes, this cop is scum, he had better get what is coming to him, if anything in this world ever worked correct.

[gottabkiddin]

I'm sorry. and I agree, IMO the officer is wrong in this situation, but the derogatory term "PIG" is the wrong way to refer to the officer.... JM .02

[Guantes]

slave, Note: At least I spelled your moniker correctly.

I am familiar with the man, the concept and his writings on it.

Would you care to explain how the rule/concept/whatever was applied incorrectly by me.

[Hopyard]

There is a difference between on a belt or clipped in a pocket and in hand, open. I made no mention of shooting, only drawing.
I'm merely pointing out a different point of view.

1. Belt or in pocket is not the same as in hand, open. In hand, open is sufficient reason to draw. If the knife was in hand that eliminates the possibility of viewing the handle as a possible means of determining the length of the blade.

2. I did not mention that the knife was excessive, just that it was capable of GBI or death.

3. The question of identification and the point that shots fired will undoubtedly be a point of contention.

4. No it is not speculation. I can open virtually any folding knife I own in less than a second. The choice to use less than lethal weapons by officers against lethal weapons is normally left to the discretion of the officer. There are questions that need to be answered, I have not disputed that.

5. The witness was an acquaintance/friend of the subject. I see it as a toss up on opinions until further information is available.

There are many unanswered questions. It is up to the legal process to obtain answers to those questions and determine the amount of blame and where it lies.

O.K. Since you are just pointing out a different point of view, let's look at a radically different point of view.

This is the law here (at least it is what is black letter law):

" The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search

when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's attempted use of greater force than necessary."

For discussion sake, (and I realize this is probably not the law in Oregon where this happened) I'd say the dead guy would have been justified in turning and throwing the knife right at that officer.

Much greater force than necessary was used before the dead guy offered any resistance (fits part 1 of our law here) , that is, the gun was drawn before any resistance was offered. A gun pointed at you in this circumstance could arguable fit both of these criteria of our law.

I'm not suggesting that what I described is what happened. I am suggesting that even if the dead guy knew it was a peace officer pointing the gun at him, under these circumstances he may have been legally allowed to defend himself.

Again, just for a different point of view G.

[Guantes]

OK, a different view.
The officer was not making an arrest or a search, he was confronting an individual displaying a potentially lethal instrument.

By you narrative, then would all those subjects in a "felony stop" be justified in shooting at the officers involved?

[slave]

OK, a different view.
The officer was not making an arrest or a search, he was confronting an individual displaying a potentially lethal instrument.

By you narrative, then would all those subjects in a "felony stop" be justified in shooting at the officers involved?

I apologize for spelling your name incorrectly, no offense intended.

Even with your different view, a LEO is supposed to announce themselves as such, as to have proper authority. Even when officers kick in the door of a drug bust, they announce themselves.

If a person doesn't know they are dealing with a LEO, then what reason do they have to stop in the first place?

The simple facts that he left this step out, and shot a man in the back shows that he is wrong. The next thing that must happen, this man should be found guilty of at least negligent homicide.

[Hopyard]

OK, a different view.
The officer was not making an arrest or a search, he was confronting an individual displaying a potentially lethal instrument.

By you narrative, then would all those subjects in a "felony stop" be justified in shooting at the officers involved?

Since we are looking at different points of view, I guess we'd not really know how a judge or jury or a DA would interpret this circumstance. Technically, you are right that no arrest was being made. So for discussion, can we call it an unlawful assault?

As for the second comment starting, "By your narrative:" I quoted our law. That isn't narrative. Anyone would be justified if excessive force is being used. I doubt the judge would pay any attention though if a real felon was the one apprehended. That is why I emphasized that what I was quoting was black letter. How it plays in the real world is another matter and resisting an officer is almost always going to be a losing proposition. I'm just saying that this dead guy may (here) have had a right to resist. I'm not sure the finer points of what is detention, what is a Terry stop, what is an investigative stop, what constitutes an arrest were really on the minds of the writers of that particular piece of law. I think they wrote it with a plain English common sense understanding of the word "arrest" in mind. A Texas criminal defense lawyer who knows the relevant case law would need to expand on this as we are now way ahead of my limited knowledge.

[Guantes]

Slave,
Apology accepted. I have never stated that there do not appear to be problems with this incident. I was merely trying to expose all possibilities.

Hopyard,
I think we have taken this about as far as it can go as far as a discussion. I appreciate your civility throughout.

[deafdave3]

I have followed this story closely on the news and other forums. The woodcarver is not partially deaf; he's fully deaf. I am fully deaf. I have been for all my 38 years. The woodcarver most likely saw people around him turning around to look at the officer and that's when he realized he should turn around, too. Upon doing so, he turn around with a knife in his hand, and was shot. He never knew there was a police officer there.

I have been scared of this exact incident all my life. If anything would ever happen, I have no way of knowing that a police officer is trying to get my attention, unless I see him. Granted, my situational awareness has improved considerably since I got my CHL, but there still a possibility of not hearing an officer. If I cannot hear, they will assume I am ignoring them, which is understandable.

[mlr1m]

The Tueller drill should only be used in training for what might happen in different situations. It should never be used to justify harming someone who is not actually threatening or attacking you. I'd still like to know the reason for the officers initial response. If the victim was within his rights to do what he was doing I believe that the police must be held responsible to prove that what they did was legal. He looked dangerous or he might be a criminal is not enough. Throwing out charges and hoping one will stick is not good police work.

Michael