User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:19:09 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where do you live? Breaking into other people's houses is definitely against the law where I live. the guy with only, “USA,” listed as his location is asking another member where they live. how ironic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:20:34 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's considered under the present standard. Whether someone reasonable would believe the force was necessary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not arguing legalities, or what a cop can technically get away with after investigating themselves and finding no evidence of wrongdoing. Like I said above, when you gamble without the benefit of even basic first-hand information (such as maybe verifying who you're trying to kill before you start blasting away at a handcuffed and innocent man) then in my perfect world you should face some kind of consequences when the facts don't justify the insert-adjective-here actions you took. That's all. That's considered under the present standard. Whether someone reasonable would believe the force was necessary. I'm talking about the higher standard I wish I could expect out of armed agents of the government. You're not wrong. We're just talking about different concepts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:22:35 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the guy with only, "USA," listed as his location is asking another member where they live. how ironic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:22:49 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If not "reckless", what word would you use to describe trying to kill an innocent man who has his hands cuffed behind him? In your police car. Where you put him. After searching him for weapons. And who has said and done nothing threatening whatsoever. Yeah she had no reason to doubt, because she never even saw the guy she was trying to kill lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:25:33 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where do you live? Breaking into other people's houses is definitely against the law where I live. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:27:11 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, the standard isn't what was objectively true, it's reasonable belief under the circumstances. You need to read the report, because the guy indeed made threats including stealing her car, sending pictures of a suppressed handgun pointed at her car, and wasn't compliant when the cops found him. The deputy screwed the pooch, but her actions were justifiable under the circumstances. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If not "reckless", what word would you use to describe trying to kill an innocent man who has his hands cuffed behind him? In your police car. Where you put him. After searching him for weapons. And who has said and done nothing threatening whatsoever. Yeah she had no reason to doubt, because she never even saw the guy she was trying to kill lol  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:30:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I read the reports, but you're not reading my posts Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If not "reckless", what word would you use to describe trying to kill an innocent man who has his hands cuffed behind him? In your police car. Where you put him. After searching him for weapons. And who has said and done nothing threatening whatsoever. Yeah she had no reason to doubt, because she never even saw the guy she was trying to kill lol I'm reading your posts, I just reject your framing and am articulating why your argument rightfully isn't the standard used for these cases. She isn't legally or morally culpable because she acted reasonably given what she perceived at that moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:33:40 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She didn't know her target. She shouldn't have shot. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There was indeed a reasonable basis for her belief and actions, but not for his. Report https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7885-3129158.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg Listen, even that comes back to exactly what I posted: shooting at noises. The difference is that the department's brass seems to think that shooting, mag-dumping really, is a reasonable response to a noise, and apparently you agree. Did you take note that these LE professionals evidently can't proofread well enough to catch "interrupted" where they presumably meant to use "interpreted"? Color me skeptical about their conclusions in general. She didn't know her target. She shouldn't have shot. He said "Over there". No other description for where, or who the shooter was. And at the end of the the day they both opened fire on an unarmed handcuffed person who was also locked inside of a patrol vehicle. Zero justification for that shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:35:32 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He said "Over there". No other description for where, or who the shooter was. And at the end of the the day they both opened fire on an unarmed handcuffed person who was also locked inside of a patrol vehicle. Zero justification for that shit.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:40:20 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He specifically said the subject they had just detained and placed in the back of the vehicle shot him, and the subject had also sent threats and a picture of a gun to the woman whose car he stole. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He said "Over there". No other description for where, or who the shooter was. And at the end of the the day they both opened fire on an unarmed handcuffed person who was also locked inside of a patrol vehicle. Zero justification for that shit. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg What a fucking joke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:45:34 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He specifically said the subject they had just detained and placed in the back of the vehicle shot him, and the subject had also sent threats and a picture of a gun to the woman whose car he stole. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He said "Over there". No other description for where, or who the shooter was. And at the end of the the day they both opened fire on an unarmed handcuffed person who was also locked inside of a patrol vehicle. Zero justification for that shit. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg No he did not lolololol. You are flat out LYING you are a liar! He said "In the car" per the report. He did not say it was the subject they just detained. Stop the apologetics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:45:36 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He specifically said the subject they had just detained and placed in the back of the vehicle shot him, and the subject had also sent threats and a picture of a gun to the woman whose car he stole. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg Good grief. Is there no limit to the hoop jumping for just being wrong? I don't disagree with any of your posts as they most clearly show the problem. Sympathetic fire justified just because of a uniform? This didn't happen in a vacuum. Nut bar had shown signs well before the acorn dropped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:51:22 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No he did not lolololol. You are flat out LYING you are a liar! He said "In the car" per the report. He did not say it was the subject they just detained. Stop the apologetics. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: He said "Over there". No other description for where, or who the shooter was. And at the end of the the day they both opened fire on an unarmed handcuffed person who was also locked inside of a patrol vehicle. Zero justification for that shit. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg No he did not lolololol. You are flat out LYING you are a liar! He said "In the car" per the report. He did not say it was the subject they just detained. Stop the apologetics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 12:56:01 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good grief. Is there no limit to the hoop jumping for just being wrong? I don't disagree with any of your posts as they most clearly show the problem. Sympathetic fire justified just because of a uniform? This didn't happen in a vacuum. Nut bar had shown signs well before the acorn dropped. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He specifically said the subject they had just detained and placed in the back of the vehicle shot him, and the subject had also sent threats and a picture of a gun to the woman whose car he stole. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg Good grief. Is there no limit to the hoop jumping for just being wrong? I don't disagree with any of your posts as they most clearly show the problem. Sympathetic fire justified just because of a uniform? This didn't happen in a vacuum. Nut bar had shown signs well before the acorn dropped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:01:37 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Look at the first line. There was only one person in the vehicle, the subject they had detained and whose weapon they were searching for because he was known to be armed. When he says "in the car" there's only one person he could be referring to. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He said "Over there". No other description for where, or who the shooter was. And at the end of the the day they both opened fire on an unarmed handcuffed person who was also locked inside of a patrol vehicle. Zero justification for that shit. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg No he did not lolololol. You are flat out LYING you are a liar! He said "In the car" per the report. He did not say it was the subject they just detained. Stop the apologetics. Which "car". The cruiser was not the only vehicle on the street. They fucked up. This is what DEI gets you in local governments ETA: if she could not clearly see the target she should not have fired. That is a basic firearm rule. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:07:46 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She acted reasonably, given what she knew and was told in the moment. That doesn't change the fact the deputy completely lost it, it just makes it tragic that his spaghetti-spilling hysterics were enough to convince someone else to join in. She filmed the search. A silenced firearm with suppressor attached just must have gotten missed and used by the suspect we handcuffed ourselves? That is what your are saying on a gunboard with owners of these highly concealable weapons? Really? Do please continue on how your search procedures are so inept that this could have happened. In the old days it was just excusing the inexcusable. Your taking it to a new level, as well as the department that puts these nut bars out on the street with me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:12:24 AM EDT
[#17]
That's so bad that it could be part of a South Park episode with Officer Barbrady doing that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:19:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which "car". The cruiser was not the only vehicle on the street. They fucked up. This is what DEI gets you in local governments Quote HistoryQuoted: Which "car". The cruiser was not the only vehicle on the street. They fucked up. This is what DEI gets you in local governments The locked cruiser in which the arrestee had been placed and which the deputy was standing next to before falling down and shooting into it, which narrowed it down. ETA: if she could not clearly see the target she should not have fired. That is a basic firearm rule. This is a square range/hunting rule where nothing else is at stake, and there’s no downside to not taking a shot. It’s completely defensible to shoot at a target you can’t make out clearly if you have a reasonable belief that target is an active threat to someone else’s life, because the stakes are different. In this case there was only one person in the car, she reasonably believed the person was actively trying to kill another officer, she had a general idea of where in the vehicle the subject likely was, and the vehicle itself would catch most of the rounds and/or there were closed businesses behind the vehicle, there’s nothing wrong with shooting into the car under those circumstances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:23:18 AM EDT
[#19]
If they added a few more dozen pathetic excuses to those bullet points to overwhelm poor quality of reasoning with quantity, it would be a compelling argument.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:26:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The locked cruiser in which the arrestee had been placed and which the deputy was standing next to before falling down and shooting into it, which narrowed it down. This is a square range/hunting rule where nothing else is at stake, and there’s no downside to not taking a shot. It’s completely defensible to shoot at a target you can’t make out clearly if you have a reasonable belief that target is an active threat to someone else’s life, because the stakes are different. In this case there was only one person in the car, she reasonably believed the person was actively trying to kill another officer, she had a general idea of where in the vehicle the subject likely was, and the vehicle itself would catch most of the rounds and/or there were closed businesses behind the vehicle, there’s nothing wrong with shooting into the car under those circumstances. If you believe that shit you need to quit before you hurt someone. You just defined what the problem is when we see these isolated incidents of total stupidity. Don't bother with training as I doubt it would help. You just justified a free fire zone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:27:24 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She filmed the search. A silenced firearm with suppressor attached just must have gotten missed and used by the suspect we handcuffed ourselves? That is what your are saying on a gunboard with owners of these highly concealable weapons? Really? Do please continue on how your search procedures are so inept that this could have happened. In the old days it was just excusing the inexcusable. Your taking it to a new level, as well as the department that puts these nut bars out on the street with me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: She acted reasonably, given what she knew and was told in the moment. That doesn't change the fact the deputy completely lost it, it just makes it tragic that his spaghetti-spilling hysterics were enough to convince someone else to join in. She filmed the search. A silenced firearm with suppressor attached just must have gotten missed and used by the suspect we handcuffed ourselves? That is what your are saying on a gunboard with owners of these highly concealable weapons? Really? Do please continue on how your search procedures are so inept that this could have happened. In the old days it was just excusing the inexcusable. Your taking it to a new level, as well as the department that puts these nut bars out on the street with me. The deputy should rightfully be hammered, but with what the sergeant perceived and was told under the circumstances she acted reasonably. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:33:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you believe that shit you need to quit before you hurt someone. You just defined what the problem is when we see these isolated incidents of total stupidity. Don't bother with training as I doubt it would help. You just justified a free fire zone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:41:50 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She didn't do the search, they went back to redo it more closely because things do get missed and they were trying to find the gun. In her respect this is a rare case where hoofbeats turned out to be zebras, her partner just completely lost his marbles with no warning. She was watching. That is how the search got filmed. But we are now to believe that because her coworkers are so incompetent a firearm and silencer reasonably got missed and that is considered perfectly reasonable by yourself and other highly trained professional investigative peers? Those straws your team grabbed are not even remotely reasonable and defy belief. So they searched again for the gun that never was. Did they find it? Integrity is painful sometimes. A total shame it is so lacking. But thanks for making it clear that any and all not on your team are expendable in your pursuit of protecting the unqualified,. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:49:43 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She was watching. That is how the search got filmed. But we are now to believe that because her coworkers are so incompetent a firearm and silencer reasonably got missed and that is considered perfectly reasonable by yourself and other highly trained professional investigative peers? Those straws your team grabbed are not even remotely reasonable and defy belief. So they searched again for the gun that never was. Did they find it? Integrity is painful sometimes. A total shame it is so lacking. But thanks for making it clear that any and all not on your team are expendable in your pursuit of protecting the unqualified,. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: She didn't do the search, they went back to redo it more closely because things do get missed and they were trying to find the gun. In her respect this is a rare case where hoofbeats turned out to be zebras, her partner just completely lost his marbles with no warning. She was watching. That is how the search got filmed. But we are now to believe that because her coworkers are so incompetent a firearm and silencer reasonably got missed and that is considered perfectly reasonable by yourself and other highly trained professional investigative peers? Those straws your team grabbed are not even remotely reasonable and defy belief. So they searched again for the gun that never was. Did they find it? Integrity is painful sometimes. A total shame it is so lacking. But thanks for making it clear that any and all not on your team are expendable in your pursuit of protecting the unqualified,. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 1:59:41 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let me put it this way: if the subject had in fact managed to hide a gun and small suppressor, then actually shoot the deputy, would you have issues then with her shooting into the vehicle? Not playing the what if game. What the officer believed at the time is the game. Nothing on video with her filming justifies what she did. At the very least it was classic sympathetic fire in a total pure panic. Unacceptable for an officer period. The whole investigation exonerating this pile of shit is simply because the team failed to find the gun that never was on the guy before he was handcuffed. So its perfectly reasonable to believe that he had a gun and silencer. Totally reasonable in section 4 of the nut farm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 2:10:19 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not playing the what if game. What the officer believed at the time is the game. Nothing on video with her filming justifies what she did. At the very least it was classic sympathetic fire in a total pure panic. Unacceptable for an officer period. The whole investigation exonerating this pile of shit is simply because the team failed to find the gun that never was on the guy before he was handcuffed. So its perfectly reasonable to believe that he had a gun and silencer. Totally reasonable in section 4 of the nut farm. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Let me put it this way: if the subject had in fact managed to hide a gun and small suppressor, then actually shoot the deputy, would you have issues then with her shooting into the vehicle? Not playing the what if game. What the officer believed at the time is the game. Nothing on video with her filming justifies what she did. At the very least it was classic sympathetic fire in a total pure panic. Unacceptable for an officer period. The whole investigation exonerating this pile of shit is simply because the team failed to find the gun that never was on the guy before he was handcuffed. So its perfectly reasonable to believe that he had a gun and silencer. Totally reasonable in section 4 of the nut farm. It's reasonable to believe because he had sent photos of him holding a suppressed handgun to his ex shortly before the police showed up, and those things have been missed in patdowns before. So it's worth double checking just in case. "What the officer believed at the time is the game" Yes, precisely the point I've been making. A deputy she had found to be trustworthy and reliable before told her he had just been shot by the subject they had placed into the patrol car, she knew the subject was the only one in the vehicle, and she could see that the deputy was in a vulnerable position and apparently injured/disabled and in a position where the subject could still shoot him if he was indeed armed, which she had no reason to doubt at that point in time. This is why the sergeant was exonerated for her actions, while the deputy was not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 2:44:40 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's reasonable to believe because he had sent photos of him holding a suppressed handgun to his ex shortly before the police showed up, and those things have been missed in patdowns before. So it's worth double checking just in case. "What the officer believed at the time is the game" Yes, precisely the point I've been making. A deputy she had found to be trustworthy and reliable before told her he had just been shot by the subject they had placed into the patrol car, she knew the subject was the only one in the vehicle, and she could see that the deputy was in a vulnerable position and apparently injured/disabled and in a position where the subject could still shoot him if he was indeed armed, which she had no reason to doubt at that point in time. This is why the sergeant was exonerated for her actions, while the deputy was not. She believed whatever conveniently covered her ass after the fact. But at least I know the ROE and established free fire zone now too! She also better search suspects herself from now on. None of the other teammates can be trusted. Thanks for sharing a glimpse of the mentality inside your profession. The optics are just totally epic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 2:47:44 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She believed whatever conveniently covered her ass after the fact. But at least I know the ROE and established free fire zone now too! She also better search suspects herself from now on. None of the other teammates can be trusted. Thanks for sharing a glimpse of the mentality inside your profession. The optics are just totally epic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's reasonable to believe because he had sent photos of him holding a suppressed handgun to his ex shortly before the police showed up, and those things have been missed in patdowns before. So it's worth double checking just in case. "What the officer believed at the time is the game" Yes, precisely the point I've been making. A deputy she had found to be trustworthy and reliable before told her he had just been shot by the subject they had placed into the patrol car, she knew the subject was the only one in the vehicle, and she could see that the deputy was in a vulnerable position and apparently injured/disabled and in a position where the subject could still shoot him if he was indeed armed, which she had no reason to doubt at that point in time. This is why the sergeant was exonerated for her actions, while the deputy was not. She believed whatever conveniently covered her ass after the fact. But at least I know the ROE and established free fire zone now too! She also better search suspects herself from now on. None of the other teammates can be trusted. Thanks for sharing a glimpse of the mentality inside your profession. The optics are just totally epic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 2:48:42 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not my profession lol. It should be. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 2:54:14 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have found plenty of weapons on people that were searched. Field searched isn't always a 100% weapon free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 2:57:26 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Step one: identify your target. Anybody see that happen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 3:14:23 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There was a video from 20 years ago of a suspect in an interview room pulling out a handgun that wasn't found during the initial search and killing himself. I remember that very well and the discussion on it by many LEOs on this site. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The suspect is cuffed, presumably behind his back, no glass is broken, no bullet holes in the body of the vehicle, nothing audible on either of the body cams. And the suspect had been searched. I'm not seeing anything that would lead one to a reasonable belief of a deadly threat. I have found plenty of weapons on people that were searched. Field searched isn't always a 100% weapon free. There was a video from 20 years ago of a suspect in an interview room pulling out a handgun that wasn't found during the initial search and killing himself. I remember that very well and the discussion on it by many LEOs on this site. I often wonder if the fixation on these rare events actually gets more cops killed in the long run. You spend all day looking up at the sky afraid you'll be hit by lighting and your extremely likely to fall in a hole and break your neck. How real is the threat of an undetected weapon in a guy handcuffed in the back of a squadcar vs the threat of friendly fire from Mr Roll-and-Shoot? How many officers die from suicide? From speeding? From drinking themselves to death a few years after retirement? If the public as a whole turns against the cops and cops end up with zero good will because they are scared of everything and in the process treat good people like shit is it really the safest thing long term to do? Look at George Floyd. He was held down the way he was for what reason? As a punishment? Because it was too dangerous to society as a whole to have a guy passing fake $20 bills around town? Or because they feared 'if we let him up he might attack us'. How many cops got hurt physically in the civil unrest that followed? How many cops got hurt mentally and went out on PTSD? Did the cops really protect themselves best by refusing to 'fall for' the 'trick' of a guy claiming he can't breath so he can fool the cops into letting up pressure giving him the advantage and allowing him to pull some hidden weapon and defeat all 4? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 3:17:54 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agencies aren't getting cream-of-the-crop applicants; a lot of smart people don't want to be cops in this defund/prosecute/free hugs era. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Un fucking real. We need to unwind the shit show that LE has become with the influx of retards who have no business being cops. Not sure if I could do it or not - but clearly, these two can't. or maybe with all these cameras running we are learning that in PDs there have always been way too many retards, and way too many others covering for these retards. What if this guy is a 5+ year veteran? Doesn't that give credence to the idea that way too many totally unfit cops are protected by the union etc and that system needs to be reworked? Does anyone know how long this cop was a cop? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 3:26:02 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder what kind of treatment any of us normal plebs would receive if we suddenly mag dumped a car because an acorn fell on the hood or some other equally absurd reasoning? I agree but let's put it in a little bit of a more similar light. Let's say you were a CCWer walking through the alley when some thugs jumped out and threatened your life, you pulled your gun but at the sight of it they ran. You are amped up, your lizard brain is still saying 'warning there could be another attack at any second' your senses are in emergency mode straining to hear any sound, scent, or sight of these enemies circling back around, or fresh enemies. And then BANG. I think it's still totally out of line, this guy needs to face charges or reckless endangerment or something but it's not calmly walking down the aisle at walmart totally oblivious to any danger then hear an old lady drop a soup can causing you to mag-dump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 3:43:45 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Screaming females. They seem to carryon endlessly and there is no shortage of them. Screaming solves nothing and some people would like to be justified in taping your mouth shut and binding your hands with tape so you’re quiet and not adding to the problem. Right. The problem here is the screaming females. Nothing else to see. Move along. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 7:16:49 AM EDT
[#36]
This guy breaks the video down JFK style & shows the acorn bouncing off the hood of the car.
 Cops Get In Shootout With Squirrel & Shoots Up Their Own Police Car With Suspect Inside & Miss - SMH |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 7:21:29 AM EDT
[#37]
Lucky he didn't kill the guy in the back seat.
And did they arrest the acorn? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 7:47:23 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a rhetorical question. With respect to this discussion I have no real interest in anyone else's state of residence. fair enough. understood, my apologies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 7:47:53 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She didn't do the search, they went back to redo it more closely because things do get missed and they were trying to find the gun. In her respect this is a rare case where hoofbeats turned out to be zebras, her partner just completely lost his marbles with no warning. The deputy should rightfully be hammered, but with what the sergeant perceived and was told under the circumstances she acted reasonably. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: She acted reasonably, given what she knew and was told in the moment. That doesn't change the fact the deputy completely lost it, it just makes it tragic that his spaghetti-spilling hysterics were enough to convince someone else to join in. She filmed the search. A silenced firearm with suppressor attached just must have gotten missed and used by the suspect we handcuffed ourselves? That is what your are saying on a gunboard with owners of these highly concealable weapons? Really? Do please continue on how your search procedures are so inept that this could have happened. In the old days it was just excusing the inexcusable. Your taking it to a new level, as well as the department that puts these nut bars out on the street with me. The deputy should rightfully be hammered, but with what the sergeant perceived and was told under the circumstances she acted reasonably. Acorn isn't getting hammered, his boss already said he didn't do anything illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 7:51:27 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I often wonder if the fixation on these rare events actually gets more cops killed in the long run. You spend all day looking up at the sky afraid you'll be hit by lighting and your extremely likely to fall in a hole and break your neck. How real is the threat of an undetected weapon in a guy handcuffed in the back of a squadcar vs the threat of friendly fire from Mr Roll-and-Shoot? How many officers die from suicide? From speeding? From drinking themselves to death a few years after retirement? If the public as a whole turns against the cops and cops end up with zero good will because they are scared of everything and in the process treat good people like shit is it really the safest thing long term to do? Look at George Floyd. He was held down the way he was for what reason? As a punishment? Because it was too dangerous to society as a whole to have a guy passing fake $20 bills around town? Or because they feared 'if we let him up he might attack us'. How many cops got hurt physically in the civil unrest that followed? How many cops got hurt mentally and went out on PTSD? Did the cops really protect themselves best by refusing to 'fall for' the 'trick' of a guy claiming he can't breath so he can fool the cops into letting up pressure giving him the advantage and allowing him to pull some hidden weapon and defeat all 4? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The suspect is cuffed, presumably behind his back, no glass is broken, no bullet holes in the body of the vehicle, nothing audible on either of the body cams. And the suspect had been searched. I'm not seeing anything that would lead one to a reasonable belief of a deadly threat. I have found plenty of weapons on people that were searched. Field searched isn't always a 100% weapon free. There was a video from 20 years ago of a suspect in an interview room pulling out a handgun that wasn't found during the initial search and killing himself. I remember that very well and the discussion on it by many LEOs on this site. I often wonder if the fixation on these rare events actually gets more cops killed in the long run. You spend all day looking up at the sky afraid you'll be hit by lighting and your extremely likely to fall in a hole and break your neck. How real is the threat of an undetected weapon in a guy handcuffed in the back of a squadcar vs the threat of friendly fire from Mr Roll-and-Shoot? How many officers die from suicide? From speeding? From drinking themselves to death a few years after retirement? If the public as a whole turns against the cops and cops end up with zero good will because they are scared of everything and in the process treat good people like shit is it really the safest thing long term to do? Look at George Floyd. He was held down the way he was for what reason? As a punishment? Because it was too dangerous to society as a whole to have a guy passing fake $20 bills around town? Or because they feared 'if we let him up he might attack us'. How many cops got hurt physically in the civil unrest that followed? How many cops got hurt mentally and went out on PTSD? Did the cops really protect themselves best by refusing to 'fall for' the 'trick' of a guy claiming he can't breath so he can fool the cops into letting up pressure giving him the advantage and allowing him to pull some hidden weapon and defeat all 4? Try bringing up putting an electronic governor tied to lights and siren on cop cars and see how many become unconcerned about officer safety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 7:53:53 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree but let's put it in a little bit of a more similar light. Let's say you were a CCWer walking through the alley when some thugs jumped out and threatened your life, you pulled your gun but at the sight of it they ran. You are amped up, your lizard brain is still saying 'warning there could be another attack at any second' your senses are in emergency mode straining to hear any sound, scent, or sight of these enemies circling back around, or fresh enemies. And then BANG. I think it's still totally out of line, this guy needs to face charges or reckless endangerment or something but it's not calmly walking down the aisle at walmart totally oblivious to any danger then hear an old lady drop a soup can causing you to mag-dump. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I wonder what kind of treatment any of us normal plebs would receive if we suddenly mag dumped a car because an acorn fell on the hood or some other equally absurd reasoning? I agree but let's put it in a little bit of a more similar light. Let's say you were a CCWer walking through the alley when some thugs jumped out and threatened your life, you pulled your gun but at the sight of it they ran. You are amped up, your lizard brain is still saying 'warning there could be another attack at any second' your senses are in emergency mode straining to hear any sound, scent, or sight of these enemies circling back around, or fresh enemies. And then BANG. I think it's still totally out of line, this guy needs to face charges or reckless endangerment or something but it's not calmly walking down the aisle at walmart totally oblivious to any danger then hear an old lady drop a soup can causing you to mag-dump. Amber Guyger defenders thought she should get away with murdering Botham Jean because she really believed she was entering her apartment when she was entering his |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 8:01:31 AM EDT
[#42]
I have four oak trees that produce untold thousands of acorns.
They are on duty 24/7, so watch yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 8:44:16 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't believe you actually read it, because you're making provably false statements about what happened. I'm reading your posts, I just reject your framing and am articulating why your argument rightfully isn't the standard used for these cases. She isn't legally or morally culpable because she acted reasonably given what she perceived at that moment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If not "reckless", what word would you use to describe trying to kill an innocent man who has his hands cuffed behind him? In your police car. Where you put him. After searching him for weapons. And who has said and done nothing threatening whatsoever. Yeah she had no reason to doubt, because she never even saw the guy she was trying to kill lol I'm reading your posts, I just reject your framing and am articulating why your argument rightfully isn't the standard used for these cases. She isn't legally or morally culpable because she acted reasonably given what she perceived at that moment. And you clearly didn't read mine because I've said multiple times that you're viewing is as "whats the most can she technically get away with under the current law?" while I'm saying that in my perfect world cops should get eyes on before they try to kill someone. Failing that and if the series of assumptions turns out to be all factually incorrect, then you gotta pay up. Gamble and lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 8:45:15 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have found plenty of weapons on people that were searched. Field searched isn't always a 100% weapon free. There was the video that went around a few years ago withe guy the offed himself in the interrogation room with the 1911 from his pants. Iirc at the time it was said he had been searched 3 times before that Click To View Spoiler That's the one, murder suspect iirc and nobody managed to find a full size gun on him |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 9:12:41 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She was reasonable. Shooting into a vehicle can be justified. He was not. Separate issue and why he’s done with law enforcement. I doubt he's done. What are the odds he actually gets any certifications pulled, and won't just pop up shooting at acorns at the next department down the road? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 9:19:03 AM EDT
[#46]
I’m not reading all seven pages, but let this be a good reminder to you, when the cops pull you over, never stop underneath an oak tree, or a hickory tree, between Labor Day and January 1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 9:30:48 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She knew her target, which was an apparent armed suspect concealed behind tinted glass in the rear of the patrol car that her partner told her had just shot him and was still an active threat. That it turned out not to be the facts of the case is separate from what she reasonably knew at the time, given the circumstances. He fucked up tremendously, but she reacted appropriately to the information she had at hand. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There was indeed a reasonable basis for her belief and actions, but not for his. Report https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7885-3129158.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg Listen, even that comes back to exactly what I posted: shooting at noises. The difference is that the department's brass seems to think that shooting, mag-dumping really, is a reasonable response to a noise, and apparently you agree. Did you take note that these LE professionals evidently can't proofread well enough to catch "interrupted" where they presumably meant to use "interpreted"? Color me skeptical about their conclusions in general. She didn't know her target. She shouldn't have shot. Tactically she did well. My concern is when one cop makes a mistake they all go full in and extreme all the damn time.....it's a danger to all. Would your position be different if she killed the guy? How did she determine lethal force was necessary, blindly? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 10:18:18 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tactically she did well. My concern is when one cop makes a mistake they all go full in and extreme all the damn time.....it's a danger to all. Would your position be different if she killed the guy? How did she determine lethal force was necessary, blindly? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There was indeed a reasonable basis for her belief and actions, but not for his. Report https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7885-3129158.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg Listen, even that comes back to exactly what I posted: shooting at noises. The difference is that the department's brass seems to think that shooting, mag-dumping really, is a reasonable response to a noise, and apparently you agree. Did you take note that these LE professionals evidently can't proofread well enough to catch "interrupted" where they presumably meant to use "interpreted"? Color me skeptical about their conclusions in general. She didn't know her target. She shouldn't have shot. Tactically she did well. My concern is when one cop makes a mistake they all go full in and extreme all the damn time.....it's a danger to all. Would your position be different if she killed the guy? How did she determine lethal force was necessary, blindly? If the officer skittish gets to shoulder criminal responsibility for every bullet fired by both officers, then I'll accept nothing happening to the female officer. But he departed the department and will likely just show up to another one. So we all know what kind of accountability there is likely to end up being. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 10:27:28 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the officer skittish gets to shoulder criminal responsibility for every bullet fired by both officers, then I'll accept nothing happening to the female officer. But he departed the department and will likely just show up to another one. So we all know what kind of accountability there is likely to end up being. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There was indeed a reasonable basis for her belief and actions, but not for his. Report https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7885-3129158.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/214740/IMG_7886-3129159.jpg Listen, even that comes back to exactly what I posted: shooting at noises. The difference is that the department's brass seems to think that shooting, mag-dumping really, is a reasonable response to a noise, and apparently you agree. Did you take note that these LE professionals evidently can't proofread well enough to catch "interrupted" where they presumably meant to use "interpreted"? Color me skeptical about their conclusions in general. She didn't know her target. She shouldn't have shot. Tactically she did well. My concern is when one cop makes a mistake they all go full in and extreme all the damn time.....it's a danger to all. Would your position be different if she killed the guy? How did she determine lethal force was necessary, blindly? If the officer skittish gets to shoulder criminal responsibility for every bullet fired by both officers, then I'll accept nothing happening to the female officer. But he departed the department and will likely just show up to another one. So we all know what kind of accountability there is likely to end up being. Ultimately Officer Skittish created the situation. So yes I agree he's culpable for the whole event. However, I also accept responsibility for every bullet I fire...... shouldn't we all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2024 10:34:32 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That dudes composure is shit under duress. Late to this thread, but did that guy actually say, "I'm hit!?" 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
