Hero shot by cops after disarming hostage taker - Page 7

Hero shot by cops after disarming hostage taker

This is a discussion on Hero shot by cops after disarming hostage taker within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by WildRose In both cases the dispatchers had information from callers that the guns were not real but the dispatchers failed to relay ...

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 131
Like Tree208Likes

Thread: Hero shot by cops after disarming hostage taker

  1. #91
    Distinguished Member Array RedSafety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post

    In both cases the dispatchers had information from callers that the guns were not real but the dispatchers failed to relay that message to the officers.

    In the Rice case, the dispatcher had also been told by one caller that she thought it was just a kid playing with a toy gun and she failed to inform them of that as well.
    Unless it's obviously not a toy gun (clear plastic, nerf gun), the officer must assume it is real, especially if being handled in a threatening manner. In both instances the weapon was a replica of a real gun. Therefore, in both cases, the shootings were thoroughly justified, assuming the suspects were indeed failing to comply with LE and were handling the weapons in a threatening manner.
    When seconds count, help is only 18+ minutes away!

  2. #92
    Distinguished Member
    Array StevePVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    The only things the cops should see when they roll up is gun-free hands held high...
    Agreed. But in reading the report it doesn't indicate if the student even knew the police had arrived.

  3. #93
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,638
    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
    An officer may only use deadly force when there is the threat of immediate unlawful deadly force, or in the case of an armed fleeing violent felon or escapee from custody, to prevent escape from custody, or when it is necessary to effect an arrest. See section 9-21.

    PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

    The gun was pointed at the ground and they burst into the sanctuary and shot him immediately from what the witnesses told me.

    I'll have to see more from the shooting report but they are going to have an awfully hard time justifying his being shot. So far the APD isn't saying much.
    And witnesses also stated that Michael Brown had his hands up and was gunned down in cold blood didn't they? Witnesses also said he never tried to grab the officers weapon. Didn't they?

    But the forensics proved the eye witnesses statements to be factually incorrect, didn't they?

    The standard for use of deadly force that you describe as applying to LEO's is no different than the standard that applies to anyone else in the state is it? Nowhere does it specifically say that it must be the LEO's life that is threatened does it? A LEO can use deadly force in defense of others as defined by 9.33 just like anyone else can't they?

    Without knowing the exact layout of the room and the distances and angles involved we have nowhere near the information to determine if the shoot was justified or not under law. Distances and perspectives are very important aren't they? If you have a person laying on the floor three feet in front of a person pointing a gun straight down between their own feet, and it is viewed by two other people, one fifty feet away in a straight line with the first two subjects and a second ten feet away at a ninety degree angle, are they going to see the same thing?

    I am not saying the officer was correct in their actions. What I am saying is that the legal standard under chapter nine hinges on the actors "reasonable belief". Not every bad thing that happens to someone is necessarily a crime. It is quite possible that the "bad shoot" was legal. It could be that it just sucks to be them that night.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #94
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,749
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePVB View Post
    Agreed. But in reading the report it doesn't indicate if the student even knew the police had arrived.
    Solve the problem and lose the gun as soon as possible. Even then, things can still go even further south.
    paulinsf likes this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  6. #95
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    882
    Good thread. I have a couple comments with regard to the intent of the post - being a good guy with a gun when the cops arrive.

    1. You don't have to be armed to be considered a threat. We saw this recently with the incident in my city (Wichita) that made the news. A man was the victim of a swatting attempt and was killed by one of the responding officers. While the police thought they were responding to a legitimate man with a gun scenario, the occupant had no clue why the officers were there. We (those of us in this forum) through our conversations here and other shared experience would likely have fared better. I struggle with the reality that while cops train for these types of situations so they don't make mistakes, the people they are dealing with have no training for such a high-stress, life and death scenario and a mistake leads to them being killed.

    2. I wonder what would be the outcome if a police officer was to fire at a GG with a gun and that person, fearing for their life, returned fire. Well, I really don't wonder, I have a pretty good idea of what would happen.

    What this all underscores is that using deadly force is an extreme response. Because of the risks in the initial threat and potential subsequent risks, it should only be utilized when we are in fear for our lives. Can we potentially be shot/killed by responding officers. Possibly, but if we have an immediate threat we need to take action until that threat is over. Then, yes, we need to consider what will immediately follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    It is getting easier and easier for officers to be charged with crimes after what is later proved to be a good shoot.
    I would disagree with that statement. Being found "not guilty" of a crime is not the same as an incident being proved to be a good shoot.
    Mjolnir likes this.

  7. #96
    Member Array Mjolnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
    That isn't true.

    In the Tamir Rice case the officer was within ten feet of him and Rice was attempting to draw the weapon.

    In the case of John Crawford, it had been reported to them that Crawford was threatening customers in the store with a weapon and as they approached him he was swinging it back and forth. The officers successfully convinced the GJ that prior to the first shot he was swinging it towards the officer and prior to the subsequent shots he appeared to be trying to reach for it after having dropped it and he was being commanded not to move.

    Under the law because of the deadly threat reasonably percieved by the officers the shootings were legally justifiable.

    I could write volumes though on what was done wrong in both cases and how the shootings reasonably could have been avoided.

    Under the law shooting doesn't have to be the right choice, or the only choice to be justifiable and the police always get the benefit of the doubt.

    In the first case the dispatcher and driver were responsible for the conditions that led to Tamir's shooting.

    In the second, the 9-11 caller that was still on the line as they approached was responsible for grossly exaggerating what he was doing with what proved to be an airsoft gun rather than a real gun.

    In Rice's case they had absolutely no way to determine it was a toy and because of the driver crashing in right on top of him the officer who fired was really left with no choice.

    In both cases the dispatchers had information from callers that the guns were not real but the dispatchers failed to relay that message to the officers.

    In the Rice case, the dispatcher had also been told by one caller that she thought it was just a kid playing with a toy gun and she failed to inform them of that as well.
    From the video He was not "trying to draw the weapon"...

    He responded to an automobile roaring up to his position and the driver slamming on his brakes.

    If any commands were given (I'm sure there were) the officer opened fire in what looked to be, maybe, less than 1/2 second.

    There was no time provided for Tamir to even respond.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #97
    Member Array rkammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    16
    Without having to go back and read the entire thread.............did the good samaritan survive?

  9. #98
    VIP Member Array paulinsf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    SW Washington state
    Posts
    2,218
    He did live. Thank goodness it was not a fatal wound.

  10. #99
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho41 View Post
    I would disagree with that statement. Being found "not guilty" of a crime is not the same as an incident being proved to be a good shoot.
    I hear this from several people here at times. If you are charged with, say manslaughter in a homicide case, and the jury finds you not guilty, as far as the justice system is concerned you did not commit a crime. Being found not guilty means the facts and testimony failed to meet the standard necessary for the jury to convict you of the charges filed. In effect the jury said it was not proven to be a “bad shoot.” If you were the one so adjudicated, what would you say your status was regarding the law?

    Maybe it is just semantics. We use the term “good shoot” to denote you acted in accordance with the law. “Bad shoot” would mean you acted in a manner that broke the law. Nothing moral is implied in those terms. Maybe it means something different to others?

  11. #100
    Ex Member Array WildRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjolnir View Post
    From the video He was not "trying to draw the weapon"...

    He responded to an automobile roaring up to his position and the driver slamming on his brakes.

    If any commands were given (I'm sure there were) the officer opened fire in what looked to be, maybe, less than 1/2 second.

    There was no time provided for Tamir to even respond.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    He reaches with one hand pulling up his hoodie and with the other grabs the weapon while quickly approaching the car.

    To any reasonable person in the same circumstance it appears he is drawing the weapon to shoot them.

    There was no time for the officer who shot to do anything other than draw and fire. He didn't put himself in that position the driver did.

    If anyone was guilty of a crime here it was the driver who put him in that position.

  12. #101
    Ex Member Array WildRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by rkammer View Post
    Without having to go back and read the entire thread.............did the good samaritan survive?
    Last I heard he's recovering nicely.

  13. #102
    Ex Member Array WildRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho41 View Post
    Good thread. I have a couple comments with regard to the intent of the post - being a good guy with a gun when the cops arrive.

    1. You don't have to be armed to be considered a threat. We saw this recently with the incident in my city (Wichita) that made the news. A man was the victim of a swatting attempt and was killed by one of the responding officers. While the police thought they were responding to a legitimate man with a gun scenario, the occupant had no clue why the officers were there. We (those of us in this forum) through our conversations here and other shared experience would likely have fared better. I struggle with the reality that while cops train for these types of situations so they don't make mistakes, the people they are dealing with have no training for such a high-stress, life and death scenario and a mistake leads to them being killed.

    2. I wonder what would be the outcome if a police officer was to fire at a GG with a gun and that person, fearing for their life, returned fire. Well, I really don't wonder, I have a pretty good idea of what would happen.

    What this all underscores is that using deadly force is an extreme response. Because of the risks in the initial threat and potential subsequent risks, it should only be utilized when we are in fear for our lives. Can we potentially be shot/killed by responding officers. Possibly, but if we have an immediate threat we need to take action until that threat is over. Then, yes, we need to consider what will immediately follow.


    I would disagree with that statement. Being found "not guilty" of a crime is not the same as an incident being proved to be a good shoot.
    Shootings generally are ruled on by the investigating agency.

    A grand jury looks at the case the prosecutor presents and decides whether or not to indict. The first requirement of handing down an indictment is that the prosecution must prove first that a crime has been committed and that the person he wants charged most likely committed it.

    No crime, no indictment.

    If a shooting is ruled justified it's very difficult to claim it was a crime.

    On rare occasions even with such a ruling by the investigating agency you can conceivably be charged and then it falls to the prosecution proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime being charged.

  14. #103
    Ex Member Array WildRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjolnir View Post
    From the video He was not "trying to draw the weapon"...

    He responded to an automobile roaring up to his position and the driver slamming on his brakes.

    If any commands were given (I'm sure there were) the officer opened fire in what looked to be, maybe, less than 1/2 second.

    There was no time provided for Tamir to even respond.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm sorry but that's just not accurate.

    Start at about 6:55 if you want.
    Mjolnir likes this.

  15. #104
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    I hear this from several people here at times. If you are charged with, say manslaughter in a homicide case, and the jury finds you not guilty, as far as the justice system is concerned you did not commit a crime. Being found not guilty means the facts and testimony failed to meet the standard necessary for the jury to convict you of the charges filed. In effect the jury said it was not proven to be a “bad shoot.” If you were the one so adjudicated, what would you say your status was regarding the law?

    Maybe it is just semantics. We use the term “good shoot” to denote you acted in accordance with the law. “Bad shoot” would mean you acted in a manner that broke the law. Nothing moral is implied in those terms. Maybe it means something different to others?
    To your own words if an LEO shoots an innocent person because they erroneously thought the person had a gun, as long as they are not convicted, it is a "good shoot". Got it. And I'm sure your position would hold when the positions are reversed:
    Ray Shetler Jr. not guilty in deadly police officer shooting
    No murder charge for man who fatally shot Texas deputy

    Good shoots, right?

  16. #105
    Member Array Mjolnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
    I'm sorry but that's just not accurate.

    Start at about 6:55 if you want.
    Could it have been him reacting to the first shot that had him move in a manner that DOES look as if he is drawing a firearm?

    The driver placed the car far too closely in my estimation - admittedly it's easy to QB these types of incidents AFTER THE FACT.

    Thanks for the video link!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •