For the FTP's amongst us

I've never seen or heard of this. Beyond disgusting in my eyes. After watching this, I read a little bit about the events. This to me was the most important and painful part,

"Dinkheller is survived by his wife, daughter, and son. His wife gave birth to their son in September 1998."

For the FTP'ers this is the part that you refuse to accept as reality. They are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, husbands, and wives. They are no different than you and I, doing something for you and I. Like them or not, they are doing the job while you hide behind bullshit excuses and point fingers from the sidelines.

 

FTFY.

Oh, and even assholes can have a wife & kids. I mean, look at me.

 

Say she DIDN'T have criminal intent or intent to kill anyone. But say your family is watching TV on the 2nd floor of your house and all the sudden some drunk bitch is random firing and a few rounds goes in your house and into your family...

Would that change your opinion... Personally, if I get shit faced, walk in public with a gun and don't follow instructions, ill accept getting shot dead.

At what point do we stop blaming those trying to actually help us?

Sorry, my innocent family is more important than a drunk bitch with a gun...

 

Obviously shooting a gun in a way that is likely to harm people, or even waving/gesturing/posturing with one in a threatening manner is one thing, but I'm not very fond of this general acceptance that anyone that is in possession of a gun in the presence of police deserves a death sentence.

It wasn't that long ago that nearly everyone carried a gun. People didn't run screaming when they saw one, and certainly the police weren't called unless there really was a problem.

So, nothing against your family, but their rights aren't really any more important than those of a drunk bitch with a gun, at least until she does something threatening with it.


And something I just thought of - in the case with this woman, she was probably much more lethal behind the wheel than she was holding the pistol. Why was it not acceptable to just shoot her in the first place instead of pulling her over?

 

Um, I learned in fun safety class to not be impaired and use good judgement while in possession of a firearm.

You're really ok with a totally drunk person carrying in public? Much less waving it around??

I'm all for gun rights, but with that right comes responsibility. She obviously was too drunk to understand that.

So, yes I feel an innocent families rights trump that of a drunk person breaking the law with a gun.

 

So, cliffs notes is a drunk lady was waving a weapon around in public and she was shot by police? And this is getting second guessed with assumptions that maybe there was no criminal intent? OMFG.......

News flash, being drunk in public and displaying (I'm assuming) a handgun IS criminal....

 

No! Police are always wrong!! A drunk person could never fire a gun and kill innocent people!!

Being drunk in public is not a crime!! Oh wait...

Being drunk and carrying a gun in public isn't a crime!!! Oh wait....

Being drunk in public and waving a gun around is not a crime!! Oh wait....

 

No. Lady got pulled over, was drunk. Had gun in lap, cop saw it, shot her. Watching the video it seems obvious to me that if she'd had the intent (or ability) to shoot him she had plenty of time before he could retreat, draw, and fire. There was nobody else around - late at night, deserted rural highway.

 

Inside a minivan on a lonely stretch of highway at night isn't exactly a crowded shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon.

 

I don't want to file thru all the bitching on this thread for the link. Can someone post it again?

 

And it's still criminal.

 

Here's the article but the link to the video is dead

http://articles.ky3.com/2011-11-15/keatts_30403520

video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6e_1321462066

 

She's displaying evidence of being intoxicated and refusing commands to exit the vehicle and then according to the article:

Keatts says Robinette then raised a pink handled, silver barreled
handgun and, as he retreated, he heard a click.

Based on what I just read and saw, I would hope I would have done the same thing. I would venture to guess that suicide by cop could have been her intent, which is a selfish way to go.

A couple of months ago I was presented with a similar situation. Drunk guy is leaving a bar, bartender sees him get his gun out, puts it in his lap and drives away. Bartender calls police and we get into a pursuit.

Three cities later stop sticks are used and drunk guy gets out if his car with the gun in his hand. Throughout the 20 minute stand off he just holds the gun down to his side. At one point, very briefly, he nonchalantly slightly raises it. My weapon was off safe and the slack was out of the trigger.

He was finally talked into putting the gun down and we took him into custody. But... I can tell you this, he was NOT going to get back into the car with that gun. Nope, no way, no how. It's a shitty shitty situation to be in.

 

And you don't think that if her gun was already raised and cocked, she would have had time to shoot at him while he was turning, running away, drawing, turning back around, aiming, and then shooting if that was her intent? Even the highway patrolman who was first on the scene seemed to initially assume she'd shot herself, since she was sitting in the driver's seat, still buckled in.

The other thing that bothers me about this particular incident is that the deputy was aware that she was armed, drunk, and potentially suicidal, yet he treated it like a run of the mill dwi stop. If he'd been more proactive, let her know that he knew she was armed, demanded she toss the gun, waited for backup, etc, etc, etc it could have ended without her getting shot.

There's also the likelihood that she was going to kill herself. I think this is the assumption and probably the reason this incident hasn't been pursued any further by the family.

 

Based on the article, the deputy knew she might be armed. Yes, I may have handled it differently by conducting a high risk stop the way I'm trained to do it. But the deputy made the choice to walk up to the van and she made the choice to raise the gun. I have no idea what training that officer received regarding a situation like this one.

It still does not preclude the fact that she made the choice to raise a weapon with the officer standing there.

And I'm not going to what if her intent. She had been drinking and obviously disturbed. She probably didn't know what her intent was. Still doesn't mean she gets a pass cause she was suicidal and possibly drunk.

 

A pass from what? Trial, conviction, sentence, and execution by Judge Dredd on the side of the highway? He never even told her to drop the gun. The only command he made after seeing the gun was to yell "show me your hands" after he'd blown her head off.

 

Quick question. I may be misjudging your comments, but why do you seem to think that an LEO has any less right to defend themselves than an ordinary citizen?

Its easy to second guess via 20/20 hindsight and claim that he might not have been at risk or should "shoot to wound". If placed in the same circumstances what would you do?

I feel blessed that the area I live in have excellent police departments and when the occasional negative event happens its generally pretty obviously bullshit. I live within 5 minutes of 6 different juristictions and I can only think of 1 "bad cop" scenerio in my area. I believe he is still locked up.

 

I don't. But I also don't think they have MORE of a right either. If I'd shot this lady I'd be in prison.

And going back to the earlier discussion about duty, there is a school of thought that says people that take on a job such as police work should expect to be put in situations of risk. Part of this job is to put yourself in harm's way in order to protect the public from danger (including danger from themselves). There seems to be a growing trend of police going the other direction - using excessive force in order to protect themselves, and doing harm to the public in the process. Examples would include this incident, the guy that was shot 50 times for holding a knife, SWAT teams raiding houses/killing dogs/finding nothing.

The ROE in Afghanistan are more strict than those of police on the streets here

 

Ah, yes.....when the facts make it look like you're talking out of your ass (again), fall back on hyperbole, embellishment and exaggeration.

 

Facts? Did you watch the video?

There was plenty of opportunity for that entire situation to have been handled differently. That woman didn't need to die. The deputy acted irresponsibly by not taking the stop seriously until it was too late. He KNEW she had a gun, he knew she was drinking, and he knew she was potentially suicidal. Was he cautious? NO. Did he wait for backup? NO. When he saw a gun in her hand he turned and ran. If she'd wanted to shoot him, she had more than enough time to do so. She never moved towards him, she never exited the vehicle. All he had to do was move to the rear of the car and wait. If she'd got out and moved towards him her intent would have been obvious.

I'll say it again:

Was it technically a justifiable shooting? Yes, it seems to fit the bill via the currently accepted standards (bad guy had gun, police felt threatened).

Was it the best course of action? No, she did not seem to be an immediate threat, nor did she seem to be in any condition to behave in an aggressive manner.

Could it have been handled differently? Yes, he had the information, the time, and the available help to handle the situation in a much safer, controlled manner.