-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Grandpa-shooting Arizona officer has five previous kills under his belt
- Thread starter ThatOneChick
- Start date
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
pathetic. i fear police more than i fear criminals. at least i am legally able to shoot back at criminals.
Kirbinator
Regular Member
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....
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
You can shoot back at police IF their actions are clearly criminal and you are in fear of serious bodily harm or worse.
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.
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.
09jisaac
Regular Member
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.
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.
ThatOneChick
Regular Member
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?
OC for ME
Regular Member
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.
hermannr
Regular Member
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.
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.
09jisaac
Regular Member
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.
ThatOneChick
Regular Member
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.
Gil223
Regular Member
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 :uhoh:. Pax...
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 :uhoh:. Pax...
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
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'.
ncwabbit
Regular Member
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
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
Gil223
Regular Member
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...
OC for ME
Regular Member
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.
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.
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
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
Gunslinger
Regular Member
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.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Of course it should, and it would be admitted in court under "pattern of behavior."
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
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: