Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by D-Zum, Jan 20, 2019.
Nope. You're not even close.
It's clear he wasn't armed? You drunk?
What exactly was he armed with?
The two airsoft guns he left laying in the front seat of the truck? Per the article Jase linked or the Airsoft gun the first article SAID he had on his person? That is my sole area of discontention with it. If the kid had ACTUALLY had a gun it would be a different story. The kid had not done anything to show him being a threat to anyone. He made a really bad decision in running, but from the information we have that may be the only thing he did wrong. Its all situational to me. The cop pulled up to a kid sitting in the truck with no knowledge to why he was there, saw him messing with what looked like a gun but was actually a toy and ended up shooting him. I beleive if you are going to pump someone full of lead youd better damn well know they have a firearm and they need to have shown intent to use it.
Any time that I leave my residence with a firearm in my possession I am a potential threat to the public. The only point of contention is at what point I may be considered an imminent threat and be dealt with by lethal force. With no frame of reference, if I am running down an apparently vacant alley with what a reasonable person might assume to be a weapon in my hand, should I be shot for failing to stop when confronted? You have seen no evidence of violent intent from me, I am facing away from you as is the perceived weapon, and I am quickly gaining distance on you. Do you shoot me? Why or why not? As I have already said, there are two losers in this case. The cop will be found culpable to some degree, and the boy's family will receive a settlement. Contrary to some attempts to paint me as a cop hating extremist, I am actually fairly representative of the public as a whole. In a majority of the cases discussed here, the legal system's findings have been in accord with my own thoughts.
OK, let's dismiss the rumors and myth's regarding what we know about the Tempe shooting.
1) The involved officer was RESPONDING to a call of a suspicious vehicle in the alley and/or may be involved in a burglary. So enough with the stupid BS that this could have been the owners kid sitting in the truck or some equally dumb scenario. This wasn't some random stop.
2) The Officer SAW the kid holding the gun while still seated inside the truck....that is WHEN he knew what he was dealing with. The video either began or was edited to when he took cover near the dumpster. Even IF the kid left the gun in the truck, there's no way the officer could have known that, it doesn't change the good faith he committed to stopping a potentially armed person from getting away.
3) The video CLEARLY has the officer calling in that the subject was ARMED.....waaayyyy before he ever caught up to the body, which we don't see.
4) Even though they rightfully chose to leave out the footage showing a dead suspect, the Chief has gone on record stating they have UNINTERRUPTED body cam footage of all the officers who responded and the video CLEARLY shows the gun on the ground beside the suspect. It would be unbelievably stupid of the Chief to make such a damning statement of FACT if not true.
It's posts like this one that puts you in the same category as Mike and the rest of the diehard FTP'ers in here.
Let's change your silly story of events, if we're trying to make it similar to the above incident, to you having enough bad luck that immediately before your running in the alley, there was a bank robbery just around the corner......OK?
My point is, we're NOT talking about random people getting shot by the police. I don't know of one incident of a PIS that didn't have a claim of a crime or traffic violation. Life really doesn't have to be that hard, when someone in position of authority, especially an armed one, shouts out a command, you follow it if you don't want to get shot.....it's really THAT simple.
If a cop points a gun at me, you can believe that I will be compliant. If I were a scared 14 year old Latino boy, I'm not so sure. Perhaps I would have run. Admittedly, the cop saw what appeared to be a firearm through the truck window. I'm sure the adrenaline was kicking. What he did not see was any evidence of an actual crime being committed or any indication of violent intent from the boy. Here is the grey area. Did he have reason to believe that the fleeing boy was an imminent risk to himself or others? He was responding to a suspicious vehicle call, not a violent crime. As I have said repeatedly, I am not the one who was placed in that high pressure situation through no fault of his own. If I had been, I don't believe I would have pulled the trigger. Let's not fool ourselves. There will be negative consequences for the officer regardless of culpability.
Why even bring up race? What does his Hispanic background have to do with his actions???
Uh NO, he saw a firearm, called out a firearm to HQ to warn officers who might be heading there and per the Chief one was recovered beside the suspect.
See, this is where you're poorly informed. And with all due respect, very reminiscent of jailhouse wanna-be lawyers who try to interpret laws and/or LE guideline to the actual 'letter of the law'. What do you think minimal requirement of your so called "violent intent" actually is?
JC, I don't know how many times I have to say it. The degree or type of criminal law that is being violated is NOT the sole determining factor of using deadly force, it is the possession of a WEAPON, handgun in this case, and the failure to COMPLY.
Earlier I shared a real life incident of a burglary with two suspects, one armed who shot dead a LEO.....you conveniently ignored that case. But but but, it wasn't a VIOLENT crime and a LEO is still dead. It's like talking to a wall.
This. It was a blank key from the hardware store, and 45 years, but same story.
A blank key. WHY??!!??
Sprinting full-speed away with your back to a cop is *not* a death situation. This cop is in deep doo-doo.
The officer saw a weapon...the officer saw a suspect that had the weapon..the officer issues a lawful order the suspect doesn't comply with...the suspect runs. At that point, there is an armed suspect at large, failing to comply with a lawful order from Law Enforcement. That is an imminent danger to public safety. The weapon and failure to comply changes the rules of engagement and the severity of the overall situation.
There's no neon sign over the suspect that says, "I'm only 14 and it's just an air pistol".
The cop should be cleared of any charges. He did his job in a difficult situation. It's unfortunate that a young man lost his life because that young man made a couple poor choices.
The Monday morning quarterbacking from the FTP people is amazing in this thread.
Okay, so devil’s advocate here:
Open carry 2A proponent gets the cops called on him bebcause he’s walking down the street with a gun on his hip or a rifle slung over his shoulder. Cops respond. Guy “does not comply” because he’s broken no law. Can they shoot and kill him?
Is he a white guy or????
If he goes for his weapon of course. Standing there verbally arguing in a non threatening way, no. They would more than likely get the sweet end of a tazer if the weapon is slung or holstered. Either way, the end results will be rested completely in the hands of 2A person. LEO's must take control of any situation they are presented with. Some people see this as them acting like assholes, too bad.
I guess I can understand people trying to argue about a speeding ticket or something of the like. What I don't get is the resisting arrest. At no point, in any attempted apprehension that I am aware of, have the cops said "fuck it, we'll let this one go".
Why would you be arrested for lawfully carrying a weapon and telling an aggressive cop to get bent when he harasses you for it?
Why would you argue the point in the first place? Cops show up, sort the situation out, you go on your merry way. Now you want to move the goal posts with "aggressive cop" and now "arrested"? Pick a hypothetical scenario and stick with it please.
If you're pulled over for speeding and you weren't, do you argue the fact that you weren't? By aggressive, I mean "roll up with guns drawn", which is now common place on a "man with a gun" call (there were some 2A people in a small town near here that went to a walmart while carrying and literally the ENTIRE police dept showed up!).
But the point is, you're not breaking any law by carrying a gun. You shouldn't be treated any differently just because you are. So what I'm trying to say is, this acceptance that possession of a firearm in the presence of police means an automatic death sentence is a pretty significant infringement on our 2A rights.
Arguing with a cop is a lose lose. If the cop is wrong, deal with it after the encounter is over. Being right and dead is only valid for suicide by LEO.
Does he un-holster his weapon and point it at the cops?
Eventually, he will have to comply with a command from the officers. Part of being a responsible gun owner is following commands from LEO to ensure your safety as well as theirs.
I could argue with the officer that I wasn't speeding but I know it's not going to get me anywhere so what's the point. I also know acting like an asshole on the side of the road will 100% guarantee that I get a ticket.
That's a Stretch Armstrong statement you have going there.
Did the "man with a gun" get mowed down at Wal-Mart? I'm guessing not since you surely would have included that. If the police are called because of a "man with a gun" they are going to respond to it accordingly. Would you rather them not?
Guy here in Canton last night caught a guy in his driveway going thru his truck... chased the guy with a baseball bat.. that was great right up to the point the burglar pulled out his gun and started shooting... lucky the guy was a shit shooter.
To quote the truck owner.. "dont bring a bat, to a gunfight"
Separate names with a comma.