Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Grandpa-shooting Arizona officer has five previous kills under his belt

  1. #1
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118

    Grandpa-shooting Arizona officer has five previous kills under his belt

    KPNX reported that Peters has now been involved in seven shootings in the past 10 years, six of them fatal. The Arizona Republic reported Thursday that the city of Scottsdale agreed to a $75,000 settlement in 2009 with the family of one of the people Peters had killed; the city denied liability.
    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...under-his-belt
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    pathetic. i fear police more than i fear criminals. at least i am legally able to shoot back at criminals.
    Unfortunately, that's true in many states.

    OTOH, if you're a competitive shooter and you're reflexively able to shoot, does it mean that you'd be found guilty of shooting a police officer when your reptile brain merely saw that someone went for a weapon?

    1) Not committing a crime
    2) Someone walks up drawn or draws quickly.

    Two kinds... the quick and the dead....
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    pathetic. i fear police more than i fear criminals. at least i am legally able to shoot back at criminals.
    You can shoot back at police IF their actions are clearly criminal and you are in fear of serious bodily harm or worse.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    For the sake of argument, let us stipulate that all the behaviors reported to the police were absolutely accurate. Let us further stipulate that he did in fact have a weapon of any kind in his hand when he opened the door.

    How does merely holding a weapon threaten anybody? Unless the weapon is pointed at someone, or at least in their general vacinity, no actual threat exists. Yes, it's tough to wait until some bozo holding a pistol actually brings it up to bear before pulling the trigger on him. Especially if you are some police designated marksman holding him in your telescopic sight from many yards away from a relatively protected position of cover.

    The PD is going to need to give out a lot more detailed information before the public will be willing to accept that this Lon Horiuchi fan can get a "clean shoot" determination.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    What does the previous FOUR, he shot five and the 1st one survived, have anything to do with this? Should I lose my right to carry a gun and lose my job because I justifiably kill someone? He was investigated on all of the shooting and was found to have been acting within the law in each, according to the articles.

    Should an Iraqi veteran be treated any different because he shot 10 insurgents and then shot someone back in the states? No.

    So this one incident should be the only one that matters. I am not defending the LEO, I think that he did wrong, but his past shouldn't weight into this.

  6. #6
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    What does the previous FOUR, he shot five and the 1st one survived, have anything to do with this? Should I lose my right to carry a gun and lose my job because I justifiably kill someone? He was investigated on all of the shooting and was found to have been acting within the law in each, according to the articles.

    Should an Iraqi veteran be treated any different because he shot 10 insurgents and then shot someone back in the states? No.

    So this one incident should be the only one that matters. I am not defending the LEO, I think that he did wrong, but his past shouldn't weight into this.
    It shows a pattern of behavior. Is he quick on the trigger or just has really bad luck? Is he too aggressive in situations or is he hero of the day?
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Investigators say the officers on the scene thought Loxas was holding a gun.

    Detectives did not find a weapon on Loxas following the shooting, but did locate several firearms inside the home.
    http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/18...e-holding-baby
    Thought....typical.

    Why bring up the guns in the house? Setting the stage for Loxas to be a violent man, with a violent history....you know how thos gun owners are.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    That cop should be charged with reckless endangerment of a child and be thrown in jail, and homicide.

    Who give a sh@t if there were weapons in the house...totally irrelivant. I hope the person that made the 911 call suffers pangs of consience for being a busy body that cause an unnecessary death for the rest of her life...it obviously isn't going bother that cop.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    It shows a pattern of behavior. Is he quick on the trigger or just has really bad luck? Is he too aggressive in situations or is he hero of the day?
    I know a guy who shot people when he was in vietnam (or korea, I forget which one). He would always say something along the lines of "Well I shot at plenty of people, I would like to think I hit a few." Then he shot and killed someone, after he became a deputy. Are you implying that he was just out for blood? As long as he was justified in shooting then those shouldn't matter any on this.

    This cop shot 6 people and killed 5. That should ONLY should matter if any of them weren't justified. This last one, in my opinion, wasn't justified. So it should be investigated without the others.

  10. #10
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    I know a guy who shot people when he was in vietnam (or korea, I forget which one). He would always say something along the lines of "Well I shot at plenty of people, I would like to think I hit a few." Then he shot and killed someone, after he became a deputy. Are you implying that he was just out for blood? As long as he was justified in shooting then those shouldn't matter any on this.

    This cop shot 6 people and killed 5. That should ONLY should matter if any of them weren't justified. This last one, in my opinion, wasn't justified. So it should be investigated without the others.
    Justified or not, there may have been other means to end the situation without the death of anyone and that needs to be looked into. If there could have been other means such as talking the guy down then everyone would benefit from the officer taking some extra training.

    I absolutely do not agree with him taking the shot while the guy was holding an infant and, in my opinion, that's enough cause to warrant investigation. If that investigation deems necessary to look into his history then so be it because it may show behaviors that are escalating.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428

    The easiest job in the world...

    is that of the "Monday morning quarterback". When the smoke has cleared, our field of vision becomes much broader and in sharper focus. Should the officer have been psychologically evaluted after each of the shootings? No question about that. (After the second shooting, he probably should have been evaluated by a different mental health professional - or a board of shrinks - in case the first one was served a BS burger, and swallowed it all).

    LEO is one of the most stressful jobs in the world, and John Q. Public expects LEO's to be perfect in all that they think, say and do! Unfortunately, those that are selected to "Protect and Serve" are chosen from the same pool of fallibility in which we mere mortals swim. Some of the larger metropolitan PD's involve a psych eval as a part of their intake process, prior to employment, which helps minimize the acquisition of "sociopathic misfits". There are more variables involved than anybody here would care to read, so I will forego those.

    Officer Peters story sounds suspiciously weak at best. At worst, the "Blue Wall" is up, and one other officer is blindly supporting Peters claim. The article says that Loxas was unarmed! The officers may have arrived on-scene with the mindset that "the dispatcher said he is armed", and at least one of the responding LEO's - Peters - "saw" a weapon... perhaps only in his mind. OTOH, had he hesitated long enough to examine all the possible alternative ways to resolve the incident, the outcome could have been worse.

    Based upon the article alone (and totally dependent upon its accuracy) it sounds as if Peters is at least guilty of poor judgment and/or involuntary manslaughter. He should be evaluated by an independent psychiatrist prior to being restored to duty (if at all restored). At worst, his history would indicate that he may be a 'thrill killer', and should be prosecuted for homicide in this incident. Just my opinion . Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 02-18-2012 at 02:15 PM.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    A bunch of bush-league psych-out stuff. The only version of the story is the cop version. So, either the cop version is the truth or it is the 'truth'.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member ncwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    rural religious usa
    Posts
    670
    as already mentioned, the wall of blue will justify most events unless the public opinion reacts causing a slap to the 'individuals' involved. I also will cast dispersions on those accomplishing initial/follow up psych evaluations, and personal and professional organizational ethics notwithstanding, can you get a viable eval if those doing the eval work for the agency the evaluated work? finally, i am sure those accomplishing the evaluations are only using psychometric measurement instruments w/a small interjection of face to face conversation to determine fitness to return to duty. (like those entering the law enforcement field must accomplish)

    I truly wonder why most city/town entities have not set up a manditory public ombudsman group to unbiasly evalutate situations such as this. it would, of course, require the entities to abide by the ombudsman's reports which could entail loss of control but could instill confidence back into the review process.

    wabbit

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by ncwabbit View Post
    I truly wonder why most city/town entities have not set up a manditory public ombudsman group to unbiasly evalutate situations such as this
    I don't know about "most", but some of the larger cities have had SRB's for decades, and some even have - as a matter of POLICY - a civilian (as in: no police or city employment affiliations) majority on their board. (Townships and villages possibly may not have the resources to establish an SRB, or perhaps shootings by "Barney Fife" are so rare they don't feel a need for one.) Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    If a 'civilian' review component exists and has no legal authority to enact corrective actions or sanction officers regardless of what department/union policy/contracts state, then they are only window dressing. Mere lip-service instituted by the 'current regime' to give the semblance that they are concerned about thug cops amongst their ranks.

    Institute a statutory pay/benefits/job security package like the military has and ban cop unions. Would it be 'military lite', not in my view, because the best interests of the force would dictate that thug cops would be gotten rid of or the law will be changed that affects the cops pay/benefits. Citizens, outraged, can contact their elected reps to get rid of a thug cop. Citizens can not call a union thug to get rid of a thug cop. Calling the thug cop's boss does no good cuz the boss has got to suck-up to the cop union thugs.

    You'd be surprised how quickly rogue cops would be shown the door.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    If a 'civilian' review component exists and has no legal authority to enact corrective actions or sanction officers regardless of what department/union policy/contracts state, then they are only window dressing. Mere lip-service instituted by the 'current regime' to give the semblance that they are concerned about thug cops amongst their ranks.

    Yup.

    They have that in Seattle.

    Something like 90% of the findings of the citizen review board were dismissed, or suggested punishment ignored.

    Completely useless
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    This is second degree murder, period. Now the SS has decided that the penalty for kicking over a garbage can is death. Of course, it is a justifed shoot per the SS simply because they are above the law. This pos should have been in jail in the first place, not walking around with a badge. Ruby Ridge redux.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    What does the previous FOUR, he shot five and the 1st one survived, have anything to do with this? Should I lose my right to carry a gun and lose my job because I justifiably kill someone? He was investigated on all of the shooting and was found to have been acting within the law in each, according to the articles.

    Should an Iraqi veteran be treated any different because he shot 10 insurgents and then shot someone back in the states? No.

    So this one incident should be the only one that matters. I am not defending the LEO, I think that he did wrong, but his past shouldn't weight into this.
    Of course it should, and it would be admitted in court under "pattern of behavior."
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    I know a guy who shot people when he was in vietnam (or korea, I forget which one). He would always say something along the lines of "Well I shot at plenty of people, I would like to think I hit a few." Then he shot and killed someone, after he became a deputy. Are you implying that he was just out for blood? As long as he was justified in shooting then those shouldn't matter any on this.

    This cop shot 6 people and killed 5. That should ONLY should matter if any of them weren't justified. This last one, in my opinion, wasn't justified. So it should be investigated without the others.
    99.9999% of police never fire their weapon at someone. This guy kills 5 and shoots more. Statistically that stinks on ice. It's a red flag.

    Shooting unarmed people is a bad strategy.
    Last edited by Venator; 02-21-2012 at 12:26 PM.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Ruby Ridge .... and he'll get away with it just like they did back then.

    The grand-pa DID knock over a trash can .. what do you expect the cops to do?

    This is why I recommend all citizens to issue a notice of trespass to their towns ... that way you know if they are coming up your drive that they are there to arrest you & if not, they are coming for you to arrest them. Either way, someones getting arrested!
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-21-2012 at 12:31 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    99.9999% of police never fire their weapon at someone. This guy kills 5 and shoots more. Statistically that stinks on ice. It's a red flag.

    Shooting unarmed people is a bad strategy.
    jesus christ. more UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion stated as fact

    why does this not surprise me?

    what is true is stats are hard to come by, since they are voluntarily reported, spotty at best, etc. we are a democratic republic with thousands of police agencies

    that being said, i have seen various stats, SOMEWHAT consistent and obviously far more frequent than you believe

    iow, you have a prejudice, and you spout a bogus statistic to help "support it"

    there Is no official tracking #.

    btw, LAPD does excellent reports on their UOF's

    just as an example for a (somehwat) representative dept),

    here's 2009 report:http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf...eportFinal.pdf

    roughly 1% of their officers discharged a firearm at a person in 2009 (LAPD actually has, contrary to public image, pretty low deadly force rate compared to other large cities)

    again, given a 20 yr career, pretty decent chance an officer would discharge LOD

    here's SPD from 2010 http://www.seattle.gov/police/public...Report2010.pdf

    six shooting incidents. i couldn't find exact # of officers who fired, just how many incidents, but based on whether they say "officer" vs. "officers" and assuming for officers (for the sake of averages) 3 were involved in the plural incidents, that would give you 14 officers involved

    SPD is vague on how many OFFICERS they have, saying they have 1820 personnel, but their guild website has 1250 members, so again we have a little over 1% in any given year


    again, both SPD and LAPD have LOW use of force rates (comparatively speaking), and low deadly force rates. i think a national average of about 2% per year is probably about right.

    some agencies like oakland, baltimore, etc. are MUCH higher

    i think 2% is a reasonable ESTIMATE

    one police class i took said the best estimate they could get (DOJ) was an officer fired his gun AT A PERSON (obviously not looking at animal euthanasia, training stuff etc.) on duty about once for every 14 yrs of duty

    this was for all officers, so obviously some assignments would be less, others would be more, but it averaged out such that it was one every 14 yrs

    the "best" stat i could find was the average range in a given year for officer weapons discharge (at a person ) was 2 to 6 per 100

    anyway, i think the primary point is correct. anytime an officer has vastly different stats, iow a disparity, it needs to be looked into. our agency has a system that AUTOMATICALLY triggers inquiries and flags when various stats are out of balance - collision rate, shooting rate, complaint rate, UOF rate, etc


    the study did APPEAR to be biased urban, though
    assume 3 arguendo

    so, 3% of officers in a given year fire their gun

    i'm not a hyooge stats guy, but assuming a 25 yr career and a 3% chance in any given year, a cop will fire his gun... well, a lot more than .00001% of cops will ever fire their gun lod.

    but again, these stats are difficult to compile for the feds, or a national clearing house.

    5 previous homicides IS a lot. it could mena nothing, iow statistical anomaly OR it could be indicative of some issue

  22. #22
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    (snip)

    it could mena nothing, iow statistical anomaly OR it could be indicative of some issue
    Here's the problem I have (with you).

    You just went on some huge rant, just to end up with 'Well F#(&, I Don't know either!'....

    The way the situation was described, it's presumable that the officer already has his rifle out, and already had it aimed...in the first seconds of confrontation.

    To me, it says he's trigger happy. Not 'should I shoot?', but 'when can I get a clear shot?'

    The 'I saw something in his hand' is the always present ******** response that you always hear to justify ANY shooting of an unarmed suspect... Whether it be a cellphone, a key, or a friggin hersheys bar, it's always 'I saw something in his hand'...
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Here's the problem I have (with you).

    You just went on some huge rant, just to end up with 'Well F#(&, I Don't know either!'....

    The way the situation was described, it's presumable that the officer already has his rifle out, and already had it aimed...in the first seconds of confrontation.

    To me, it says he's trigger happy. Not 'should I shoot?', but 'when can I get a clear shot?'

    The 'I saw something in his hand' is the always present ******** response that you always hear to justify ANY shooting of an unarmed suspect... Whether it be a cellphone, a key, or a friggin hersheys bar, it's always 'I saw something in his hand'...
    except that's not remotely relevant to the point i was addressign (how utterly unshocking)

    1) i was not addressing the propriety of this shoot AT ALL. nor did i state or imply that i was
    2) i was addressing the fallacious "stat" that even if a purposeful exaggeration was just grossly not reflective of reality. iow, it was a self-serving false statement to support a conclusion. one could state a reasonable estimate of how often the average cop uses deadly force to give an ACCURATE picture of the disparity, which is what i did. or one could make some kind of "99.999..%" claim which evidences bias and disregard for facts
    3) the MAIN point is that a disparity is just that. it's a reason to look further. given sufficent "n", and any cop has lots of 'n' because they will get into literally thousands of contacts over the course of a career

    if an average officer needs to use deadly force in 1/20,000 (for sake of argument), but this officer turns out to be so vastly disproportionate that he used it in 1/3,000 (i made it a seven fold difference for the sake of argument) that RAISES QUESTIONS

    but that's ALL it does. given thousands of officers, and given how statistics work, even if all officers were perfectly diligent, you will necesasrily see such statsitical anomalies

    if you flip a coin 50,000 times, you WILL see some very long strings of heads or tails in a row.

    that's how probability works

    shootings are very rare. yet, it sometimes happens a cop gets into a shooting literally his FIRST day on his own after field training.

    kind of like shark attacks. rare, even for surfers (im a surfer) but i met a surfer once who had been attacked TWICE

    what are the chance of that?

    this i basic statistics. a statistical anomaly is cause to LOOK furhter, but it is not proof of wrongdoing.

    again, officers have THOUSANDS of "N". so, you WILL see officer disparities, just like you will with sufficient coin flips



    also, there is this GEM from you, that again shows (what you have already demonstrated) the holes in your analytical reasoning

    "The 'I saw something in his hand' is the always present ******** response that you always hear to justify ANY shooting of an unarmed suspect... Whether it be a cellphone, a key, or a friggin hersheys bar, it's always 'I saw something in his hand'.."

    well, yes. quite often you. and yet, officers see "something in people's hands" literally THOUSANDS OF INCIDENTS and DO NOT SHOOT for every one that they shoot.

    iow, you have to look at the totality of the circs.

    you are looking at a shooting, and saying "they always say in these shootings". well, of course they do. why do you think he shot? because he WANTED to? seriously? like he just said 'screw it. i'ma gonna shoot?"

    if you assume nefarious intent, you just bias your perception from the beginnng, for whatever "perception" you have

    of course you don't ALWAYS hear "i saw soemthing in his hand" to justify shooting an unarmed person btw. among other reasons, there are lots of situations where a cop (or anybody for that matter) can does legally shoot somebody without seeing anything in his hands. heck, there are situations where it's legal to shoot a person you know is unarmed and is running away from you.

    the point is, i am not discussing the facts of the instant case, or wasn't in this thread. i was addressign the specious logic and false statements made by a poster and then i am welcomed with your (typical) illogic.

    in brief, regarding the hands. the FBI comes out with guidelines and extensive reviews of incidents where officers get shot, shot at, and or killed. and there are certain things officers (and people who carry and who read this kind of literature) are trained ot look out for.

    and yes, there aren't a lot of people who are shot and killed by foot rifles. so, yes. we look at ... wait for it... THE HANDS

    my best friend was shot and killed by a gangster thug. i'll give you a hint as to where the gun was.

    i was in a shooting with a guy who missed my head by about two feet. where do you think the gun was?

    yes, we have these things called hands and they are the body part we generally use to hold weapons

    i am not opining on whether the shoot was justified or not. but when i see blatantly nonfactual rubbish, i respond to it. as i did here. and will continue to do

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    except that's not remotely relevant to the point i was addressign (how utterly unshocking)

    1) i was not addressing the propriety of this shoot AT ALL. nor did i state or imply that i was
    2) i was addressing the fallacious "stat" that even if a purposeful exaggeration was just grossly not reflective of reality. iow, it was a self-serving false statement to support a conclusion. one could state a reasonable estimate of how often the average cop uses deadly force to give an ACCURATE picture of the disparity, which is what i did. or one could make some kind of "99.999..%" claim which evidences bias and disregard for facts
    3) the MAIN point is that a disparity is just that. it's a reason to look further. given sufficent "n", and any cop has lots of 'n' because they will get into literally thousands of contacts over the course of a career

    if an average officer needs to use deadly force in 1/20,000 (for sake of argument), but this officer turns out to be so vastly disproportionate that he used it in 1/3,000 (i made it a seven fold difference for the sake of argument) that RAISES QUESTIONS

    but that's ALL it does. given thousands of officers, and given how statistics work, even if all officers were perfectly diligent, you will necesasrily see such statsitical anomalies

    if you flip a coin 50,000 times, you WILL see some very long strings of heads or tails in a row.

    that's how probability works

    shootings are very rare. yet, it sometimes happens a cop gets into a shooting literally his FIRST day on his own after field training.

    kind of like shark attacks. rare, even for surfers (im a surfer) but i met a surfer once who had been attacked TWICE

    what are the chance of that?

    this i basic statistics. a statistical anomaly is cause to LOOK furhter, but it is not proof of wrongdoing.

    again, officers have THOUSANDS of "N". so, you WILL see officer disparities, just like you will with sufficient coin flips



    also, there is this GEM from you, that again shows (what you have already demonstrated) the holes in your analytical reasoning

    "The 'I saw something in his hand' is the always present ******** response that you always hear to justify ANY shooting of an unarmed suspect... Whether it be a cellphone, a key, or a friggin hersheys bar, it's always 'I saw something in his hand'.."

    well, yes. quite often you. and yet, officers see "something in people's hands" literally THOUSANDS OF INCIDENTS and DO NOT SHOOT for every one that they shoot.

    iow, you have to look at the totality of the circs.

    you are looking at a shooting, and saying "they always say in these shootings". well, of course they do. why do you think he shot? because he WANTED to? seriously? like he just said 'screw it. i'ma gonna shoot?"

    if you assume nefarious intent, you just bias your perception from the beginnng, for whatever "perception" you have

    of course you don't ALWAYS hear "i saw soemthing in his hand" to justify shooting an unarmed person btw. among other reasons, there are lots of situations where a cop (or anybody for that matter) can does legally shoot somebody without seeing anything in his hands. heck, there are situations where it's legal to shoot a person you know is unarmed and is running away from you.

    the point is, i am not discussing the facts of the instant case, or wasn't in this thread. i was addressign the specious logic and false statements made by a poster and then i am welcomed with your (typical) illogic.

    in brief, regarding the hands. the FBI comes out with guidelines and extensive reviews of incidents where officers get shot, shot at, and or killed. and there are certain things officers (and people who carry and who read this kind of literature) are trained ot look out for.

    and yes, there aren't a lot of people who are shot and killed by foot rifles. so, yes. we look at ... wait for it... THE HANDS

    my best friend was shot and killed by a gangster thug. i'll give you a hint as to where the gun was.

    i was in a shooting with a guy who missed my head by about two feet. where do you think the gun was?

    yes, we have these things called hands and they are the body part we generally use to hold weapons

    i am not opining on whether the shoot was justified or not. but when i see blatantly nonfactual rubbish, i respond to it. as i did here. and will continue to do
    Being long-winded and condescending does not make you more correct.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    So, let me see if I have this straight. A cop shoots a citizen and there is no mandatory tracking/reporting of the shoot to a third party (FBI)?

    If I stub my big toe on the job site, OSHA and the Labor Dept. get a report for tracing purposes, but a cop guns down a citizen, nope not required. This is BS to the inth degree.

    Heck, cops will generate a report when no crime was committed....cough....OCer getting unlawfully hassled by a cop....cough....

    Anyone who thinks this is OK, or does not care one way or the other, especially a cop, is no friend of liberty. Just another reason to never cooperate with LE unless required to by law.

    As to
    heck, there are situations where it's legal to shoot a person you know is unarmed and is running away from you.
    Tennessee v. Garner. Qualification of this comment is paramount, especially a jurisdictional qualification. This 'it's legal' part will almost never ever be applied to a citizen outside their home. But, when it comes to cops gunning down citizens, claim officer safety and receive qualified immunity.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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