Rastoff
US Veteran
Pocket carry?
CHL holder trying to break up a fight loses pistol, is killed by police
- Thread starter TAROMAN
- Start date
Doug M.
Member
Maybe, if he was not using a good holster and had trousers not suited to the method. My suits are custom tailored for that; I haven't worn jeans in years, and only one of my pairs of cargo pants is iffy. Whatever happened here, I'd say the behavior and results are consistent with a person not serious about carrying and the lifestyle decisions forced by being armed.
wingriderz
Member
Yes indeed , same can be said for bars too. And I ole school firearms never mix where Booze is around
Last edited:
No argument .just ?????s .... but looks like they shot him in the back..... no threat!!!
AJ
US Veteran
Being in a bar and carrying a gun are not conducive to good things happening. If you think you'll need a gun at the bar then don't go! Stay out of other peoples business, breaking up fights at a bar is the job for the bouncers and the police, not somebody who has probably been drinking too. Just another case where alcohol and guns don't mix. To bad for the family, and others concerned.
As an outsider I find it a little puzzling as to why someone would spend up to $1000 on a quality handgun, several hundred dollars in training and certification for a CWP and not spend a little more on a decent holster/spare mag carrier.
As a police officer I am wondering why the PSU police did not move in as soon as the pistol became visible in his pocket. Is Oregon an open carry state?
As for the tasers, well here we use them to overcome manual assaultative force. Once a weapon, edged or even blunt force, comes into play it is time to call on the services of Mr Glock. And that is a policy that some in our country just do not understand.
As a police officer I am wondering why the PSU police did not move in as soon as the pistol became visible in his pocket. Is Oregon an open carry state?
As for the tasers, well here we use them to overcome manual assaultative force. Once a weapon, edged or even blunt force, comes into play it is time to call on the services of Mr Glock. And that is a policy that some in our country just do not understand.
AJ
US Veteran
"Escalation of Force", always use one step of force higher than the bad guys.
OP
Oregon has open carry.
Alk8944
US Veteran
You have watched too many WAY too many old "B" westerns. If the individual will apparently be a danger to anyone if he gains possession of the pistol he dropped, and his insistence on continuing to gain possession of it in spite of lawful orders of an armed officer acting "under color of authority", the officers present had no choice but to use lethal force, even if the individual was facing away from him at the time!If a person appears to be am imminent threat to anyone, any officer has the right to engage the threat, regardless of orientation.
If you have not spent time "On the street" you have absolutely no right to pass judgement on any sworn officer taking necessary action in such a situation, especially if you only have the news media's account of the situation! BTDT, I can guarantee the officer felt there was no choice.
Last edited:
pittpa
Member
Why do people think someone with access to a gun is not a threat simply because they turn their back to you? Same for a knife. I'm no LEO but it appears obvious to me.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
jhnttrpp
Member
AJ, I agree with everything you said except "If you think you'll need a gun at the bar then don't go" I carry every where I can. Not because I think I'll need a gun but because I might need a gun. I don't drink and it's very seldom if I'm going to be in a bar late at night. So I will continue to carry as often as I can.
Now as to what happened. I wear hearing aids and could easily lose one or the battery could go dead.. If that were to happen I might not hear some commands given in a loud, noisy situation. I don't pocket carry. I hope I don't get shot in the back. My last comment is not a judgement on the choice of the officer to use lethal force. Just my own hopes and or fears.
Last edited:
fredj338
Member
Except the dead guy wasn't using his gun but the cops were. Yes follow directions, but unless the gun is in my hand & pointed at you, not a threat. Same for cell phone or anything else. Today though, assume the cops will be fast on tne trigger. When you are unsure of your skill, you want to be sooner than later Imo.
Last edited:
You have watched too many WAY too many old "B" westerns. If the individual will apparently be a danger to anyone if he gains possession of the pistol he dropped, and his insistence on continuing to gain possession of it in spite of lawful orders of an armed officer acting "under color of authority", the officers present had no choice but to use lethal force, even if the individual was facing away from him at the time!If a person appears to be am imminent threat to anyone, any officer has the right to engage the threat, regardless of orientation.
If you have not spent time "On the street" you have absolutely no right to pass judgement on any sworn officer taking necessary action in such a situation, especially if you only have the news media's account of the situation! BTDT, I can guarantee the officer felt there was no choice.
As I stated I only saw 31 seconds of a video....It's not clear to me they had no choice.....what was the imminent threat????
Did the officer have a choice..... I didn't see enough video to make a reasonable decision....
Was he shot in the back... how far away was the officer.....could he have just body slammed the guy into the ground..... at one point it appeared he was <3-4 ft from the guy...faster than drawing and firing 6-8 rounds.
Was lethal force his only option.......???????? Was it justified???????
In the end a jury of 12 who have never "been on the street" will comprise the Grand Jury and if an indictment is handed down another 12 will decide if the action was reasonable..... not 12 guys "on the street".......
I'm not making any judgement on 31 seconds of video,,,, I'm asking questions......
Every officer has the right; and the obligation to his or her family, to go home at the end of the shift........ doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong..... micro second decisions aren't always right or wrong.
With 20/20 hindsight and knowledge we know the guy was no threat.....for trying to do the right thing he lost his life....... for trying to do the right thing the officer took one.......... no I've never taken a life on the street but I've seen lots of mistakes in simulation training....... life's a B----
Doug M.
Member
*
Simply not correct, and not even close. You are apparently unaware of all of the research on action/reaction. There is a substantial amount of academic research and AARs of LE incidents that completely destroys that position.
At a minimum, anyone interested in the topic needs to buy and read, and then re-read, this book: CAP - In Defense of Self and Others . . .: Issues, Facts & Fallacies -- The Realities of Law Enforcement's Use of Deadly Force, Third Edition (9781611636826). Authors: Urey W. Patrick, John C. Hall. Carolina Academic Press As for cell phones and other items - it is not going to be the item, but the action with the item. If the item is wielded or displayed in a manner consistent with using a firearm, only a fool will not think it is a threat. What is learned later is not relevant as a matter of law or ethics.
In this case, the officers simply can't tell why this person is not following the lawful commands, as to which the decedent had no discretion. The time in which he could have gone from picking up the dropped gun to presenting a potentially lethal threat to the cops or others is measured in hundredths of seconds, and self defense is preemptive. If one waits until the threat is ACTUAL, it is too late. There is nothing in law, ethics, or tactics that leads to a different conclusion. The law is clear: one must be reasonable, the test for defensive use of force LONG before the 4th amendment case law such as Graham v. Connor. This is a "seizure" as a matter of fourth amendment law, but only because it was LE. It is just a simple matter of self-defense.
Last edited:
Doug M.
Member
*
Let's look at this from the proper lens of law, ethics, and tactics.
From the bottom up: 20/20 hindsight is not the test, and not allowed, in either the 4th Amendment case law, or the far older legal standards applicable to self-defense. This is regularly breached by dishonest plaintiff's lawyers and tolerated by judges who are simply too uninformed to address it correctly (dismissal of the action; brutal frivolous pleading terms under CR11B, and a Bar complaint that should result in disbarment). That does not make the standard wrong, or different.
I don't off the top of my head know if Oregon uses a Grand Jury system, but any prosecutor who filed in a case like this is as dirty as Nifong, Mosby in Baltimore (note that the cops who have sued her for malicious prosecution have prevailed at every step, and that is one heck of a hard case on which to prevail against a government prosecutor), Kunzweiler in Tulsa and his knowingly frivolous prosecution of Officer Shelby (for which he has a pending bar complaint, as does Mosby), and others. As a long time prosecutor with criminal and civil experience, they don't merely offend me - they horrify me, and are by no stretch of the imagination of my tribe or family. There have been more frivolous prosecutions of cops in the last 3 or so years than there have been unlawful killings by cops, no matter what the moonbats like Balko and Wexler say. (American LE kills at most 5% of the offenders it should based on the number of violent assaults on cops.)
The threat was imminent - the decedent was picking up a firearm when told not to by a cop - and cops are in absolute control of any non-consensual encounter as a matter of both Constitutional and statutory law. The decedent acted like a violent criminal offender - and that's all that matters. The time period for action/reaction is measured in hundredths of seconds, and as I said above, self-defense is preemptive. Whether or not some other tactic would or would not work is not the standard and cannot be considered - it is solely whether the tactic uses was reasonable.
Yes, in hindsight, this is unfortunate from all we can tell. However, that does not make the officer "wrong" or his actions unlawful. One of my duties as a civil prosecutor is LE legal advising. I research, write, and teach on topics like this, and have for well over 30 years. While most people (including most lawyers, and even worse, most LE command officers) don't know this are of the law well, I do. There is no action that can or should be lawfully taken against the officer. It would not surprise me that in today's crazed political environment, especially as a University Police officer, he could be scapegoated and abused as Darren Wilson was when he was forced the use lethal force against a violent criminal, that does not even come close to making that a proper course of action.
Art Doc
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
I am not a cop. I do not attempt to do cop stuff. I am armed for self defense...SELF defense. Not defense of strangers. Not to stop crime. Not to break up fights. Sorry, I am NOT getting involved in a domestic dispute or a gang fight outside a bar. See first sentence. I am not a cop.
ALWAYS do exactly what a cop says on the scene. I was involved in a shooting many years ago and when I heard the sirens I put the gun down and raised my hands before they reached the scene. I didn't move a muscle until told to do so. That's how to avoid getting shot.
ALWAYS do exactly what a cop says on the scene. I was involved in a shooting many years ago and when I heard the sirens I put the gun down and raised my hands before they reached the scene. I didn't move a muscle until told to do so. That's how to avoid getting shot.
Rastoff
US Veteran
If you watch the video closely, it looks like it fell out of his pocket.
Among the usual admonishments issued when stupid games are played and stupid prizes won--when the police show up, STOP and put your dumb hands up. Don't keep fighting.
That's amazing! I mean, all I could see in the last half a second of the video was the cop's backs. That's like, YouTube X-Ray Specs there.
Here's what the video shows:
*Idiots fighting.
*Cops yell "Drop the gun"
*Bang-bang.
Those are the only relevant pieces of information you can glean from that. About all you can see of the dead guy from the time the police issued a verbal command to the time he was shot, is a flash of red shirt.
Hah. You funny NZ coppers and your crazy ideas about guns.
I'd also point out that in America, people buy expensive pieces of garbage all the time.
BAM-BAM said:
That's amazing! I mean, all I could see in the last half a second of the video was the cop's backs. That's like, YouTube X-Ray Specs there.
Here's what the video shows:
*Idiots fighting.
*Cops yell "Drop the gun"
*Bang-bang.
Those are the only relevant pieces of information you can glean from that. About all you can see of the dead guy from the time the police issued a verbal command to the time he was shot, is a flash of red shirt.
Hah. You funny NZ coppers and your crazy ideas about guns.
I'd also point out that in America, people buy expensive pieces of garbage all the time.
Let me be clear...... I never said the cop(s) were wrong... I was asking questions.
I thought the bald guy in the gray t-shirt was the one shot .... last seen in the video getting up off the ground with his back to the officers...
From those 31 seconds of video as seen on my computer ..... "I" cannot reach a conclusion that the "tactics were reasonable"...... or not.
I thought the bald guy in the gray t-shirt was the one shot .... last seen in the video getting up off the ground with his back to the officers...
From those 31 seconds of video as seen on my computer ..... "I" cannot reach a conclusion that the "tactics were reasonable"...... or not.
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,249
Just from what I read and see on the news, the default legal standard (IANAA) for police shootings is to consider them reasonable unless there's overwhelming evidence otherwise.
LEO's need lots of latitude with use of force. It's a dangerous business. I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt, but ... there's been some very public, questionable UoF cases recently to the point where some of that benefit of the doubt seems to be eroding with the public. Time will tell if this is another one.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
