Roosevelt police kill gunman

So this story has very little to do with this site, except perhaps as an example that even in a rural, pro-RKBA area of a pro-RKBA State, a man walking around with a gun in hand is going to raise eyebrows.

At the end of the day, turns out the now deceased suspect was a convicted felon and prohibited person (for the record I don't agree with lifetime bans on RKBA). One felony was an aggravated assault in a DV case. The others were financial fraud.

What few details are known have been reported at the Deseret News.

Not enough information yet to determine whether the shooting was truly justified or not. But notice that even gun owning residents were concerned about the man's conduct prior to the police making contact.

Some excerpts:

Deseret News said:

Police shot and killed a man Sunday that they say was wielding a handgun and acting erratically near the Uintah Basin Medical Center.

... [Police] made contact with him at 12:38 p.m. and determined that he had a gun, according to Duchesne County Sheriff's Lt. Jeremy Curry.

After negotiations and non-lethal attempts to disarm Kevin Vance Norton, a Roosevelt police officer shot him at 1:27 p.m., Curry said. Officers immediately put Norton into the back of a patrol truck and drove him to the hospital, reaching the emergency room in three minutes, the lieutenant said.

Norton died about 30 minutes later.

Gabriel Burnham, who lives in the area, said he stopped his car when he saw a man wearing a T-shirt and jeans walking up the road with a gun in his hand. The man's truck was parked on the side of the road, he said.

"I thought what is he doing," Burnham said. "My first thought was do I need to go back and grab my gun."

Burnham had seen an off-duty officer. Several uniformed officers quickly joined the off-duty officer with their guns drawn and were looking into a culvert, he said. At the point, Burnham said, he turned around and drove away.

"If there was going to be shooting," he said, "I didn't want to be around."

...

Norton, 36, was on probation for a felony at the time of his death, meaning he was prohibited from possessing firearms, Curry said.

Court records show he was convicted of aggravated assault and fraudulently obtaining employment compensation, both third-degree felonies, in September 2012 and sentenced to 36 months probation. The assault incident involved domestic violence, according to court records.

The Utah Bureau of Investigations is investigating the shooting and the Uintah County Attorney's Office will determine whether the officer's use of force was justified, Curry said.

Roosevelt police officers are equipped with body-mounted cameras; however, authorities would not say Sunday if the shooting was recorded.

...

Click to expand...

Charles

Well, that was a fair, balanced, and informative story. (/sarcasm).

Lots of derogatory information about the deceased. Nothing about the shooter--not even his name. Nothing about how many times he's been accused of excessive force, how many other shootings he's been involved in.

Big wide gaping hole in the story about why the trigger was pulled.

By all means, being a convicted felon gives the police special privilege to kill people. (sarcasm)

Next step would be to eradicate their family so they cannot breed. (more sarcasm)

Citizen said:

Well, that was a fair, balanced, and informative story. (/sarcasm).

Lots of derogatory information about the deceased. Nothing about the shooter--not even his name. Nothing about how many times he's been accused of excessive force, how many other shootings he's been involved in.

Big wide gaping hole in the story about why the trigger was pulled.

Click to expand...

You missed it, the trigger was pulled because he was a convicted felon...

Obviously, the police may not have even known the man's identity when he was confronted and ultimately shot. So they likely didn't know his record either....though in a town as small as Roosevelt it is possible at least one officer recognized him on sight.

No, the information about the man's criminal record (including aggravated assault in a domestic violence case) simply helps placate us about whether the deceased was likely to engage in some conduct to justify the police shooting him. Past behavior, while no guarantee, is the most likely indicator of future conduct we generally get. Now, on the topic of his record, let me just say again, very clearly, that I oppose lifetime loss of rights. That goes double when the crime doesn't even apparently warrant jail time. 36 months of probation but the guy can never touch a gun again?!?!?!

Roosevelt is not some liberal, east-coast, anti-gun big city. Most Utahns have to look it up on a map. Rural area. Gun owners who don't generally carry a gun because there is no need kind of a place. But something about the deceased caught the attention of and worried even local gun owners. Walking up the road with a handgun in hand seems to be a big part of that.

I will await further details before presuming to form an opinion about whether the shooting was justified or not.

Sadly, I have to contemplate the possibility that the police may have used deadly force sooner than as a last resort. And this ignores the effects of the law. A prohibited person with a gun in hand is looking at a long prison sentence even if he had no ill intent at all. Maybe it is time to just commit suicide by cop.

But that means I also need to reserve judgment against the officers in the moment who may have acted entirely appropriately in defense of their own lives.

I think the most germane topic for this board, at this point, is to contemplate whether any would be willing to chalk this up as an "OC incident." The fellow was openly carrying a firearm...though in violation of at least one law that many of us believe is unjust. OTOH, how many are willing to accept as "one of our own" a convicted felon on probation who is legally (however unjustly) prohibited from touching a firearm.

Thoughts?

Charles

utbagpiper said:

SNIP I think the most germane topic for this board, at this point, is to contemplate whether any would be willing to chalk this up as an "OC incident." The fellow was openly carrying a firearm...though in violation of at least one law that many of us believe is unjust. OTOH, how many are willing to accept as "one of our own" a convicted felon on probation who is legally (however unjustly) prohibited from touching a firearm.

Click to expand...

Excuse me? When did carrying a handgun in the hand or wielding a handgun (both conditions appear in the article) become OC in the context of OCDO?

It has been a long-established guideline on this forum that, "This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life." (emphasis mine)(see forum rule about long gun carry)

Who are these "our" to who your refer in "one of our own?" And, why would there be any question about it in the context of OCDO since the gun was not carried properly holstered?

Citizen said:

Excuse me? When did carrying a handgun in the hand or wielding a handgun (both conditions appear in the article) become OC in the context of OCDO?

Click to expand...

During the protests at the Washington State capital in January or so.

See http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...se-bars-openly-carried-guns-in-public-gallery

and especially the photo in the first post at

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...te-bans-openly-carried-guns-in-public-gallery

We had no shortage of regulars here who made their case that carrying a gun in hand was a perfectly legitimate form of OCing. In those threads, the firearms were mostly long guns to boot. Certainly a handgun along a road in rural Utah is no more concerning than a long gun in the Washington State capital Senate and House galleries.

But funny how asking whether any are willing to accept this convicted felon as a fellow "OCer" changes the tone of the discussion.

The first three comments appeared to be attacking the cops (or media reports) and/or defending the deceased.

Now suddenly you accept that he was "wielding" the gun...which puts a slightly different spin on what initial impression one might have of the police using deadly force when negotiations and non-lethal efforts to disarm him failed.

I'm still reserving judgment until we get some additional details.

Citizen said:

It has been a long-established guideline on this forum that, "This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life." (emphasis mine)(see forum rule about long gun carry)

Click to expand...

You are, of course, absolutely correct. And I'm pleased to see your devotion to abiding to forum rules.

Obviously, my question about whether this felon was a fellow OCer was grossly misplaced and you may consider this my apology for asking the question, even rhetorically.

I look forward to your continued devotion to these rules the next time any of our fellow forum members decide to defend conduct such as took place in the Washington State capital on the part of those who were wielding firearms and carrying guns in hand, rather than confining their conduct to properly holstered handguns.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

SNIP During the protests at the Washington State capital...

Click to expand...

Here's what the article said:

Police shot and killed a man Sunday that they say was wielding a handgun and acting erratically near the Uintah Basin Medical Center.

Click to expand...

Are you really trying to compare gun-rights protests equivalently to that?

Also, you seem to have not answered my question about who this "our" is that you referred to.

Citizen said:

Here's what the article said:

Police shot and killed a man Sunday that they say was wielding a handgun and acting erratically near the Uintah Basin Medical Center.

Click to expand...

Are you really trying to compare gun-rights protests equivalently to that?

Click to expand...

Are you going to believe the police when they say a man they shot acted "erratically"?

I will accept objective observations like "gun in hand".

But "erratically" is much more subjective, wouldn't you agree?

From the photos of the "protestors" wielding long guns in hand in the Washington legislative galleries I see guns beyond waved overhead. I recall some discussion/debate/allegations about bolts being charged and other handling.

My point in posting this article is cause some introspection about what is or is not legitimately accepted as proper, safe, or peaceful gun possession/handling vs where do lines get crossed such that reasonable men (LAC or agents of the state) can legitimately and reasonably conclude that the possession is no longer peaceful, but now poses a danger and threat to the rights of others.

The limited responses (and non responses) so far, have been fascinating. Thank you.

Citizen said:

Also, you seem to have not answered my question about who this "our" is that you referred to.

Click to expand...

I thought that was clear from the context of my first post, Citizen.

"One of our own" in the context of the question "how many are willing to accept this man as 'one of our own'" clearly refers to each of us individually as we view ourselves as part of the OC/RKBA community. When an OCer stops a crime and saves innocent lives, we have no shortage of individuals who are willing to align themselves with that person. When people carry guns in hand into a State capital, we have plenty of folks who defend such conduct.

How many want to align themselves with this fellow? And what is the material, objective difference (thus far) between his possession of a firearm and what happened in Washington (other than the cops didn't shoot the folks in Washington)?

For the record, I agree with your implication that a firearm carried in hand crosses a line and moves from OC to something else: maybe civil disobedience, maybe just somewhat provocative, maybe overtly threatening. I also agree with your assessment of the rules of the forum on this topic.

Sadly, there are some who disagree as evidenced by the vigorous defense of the conduct in Washington State.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

So this story has very little to do with this site, SNIP...

Charles

Click to expand...

piper, please make sure you understand this is my personal opinion and not in any way meant to lead you to personally chastise me...

since it has little to do with this site...who truly cares...

and to watch you expand this issue which has little to do with this site...who truly cares to read your pontifications on something that has little to do with this site!

ipse

solus said:

piper, please make sure you understand this is my personal opinion and not in any way meant to lead you to personally chastise me...

since it has little to do with this site...who truly cares...

and to watch you expand this issue which has little to do with this site...who truly cares to read your pontifications on something that has little to do with this site!

Click to expand...

So you insult me but you don't want that to lead me to be unhappy about that? Gotcha.

Who is to say this has little to do with this site. Citizen and WalkingWolf are long-standing and respected members of this site. They have certainly drawn out concerns about how the police handled this and how the media reported on it. And there are clearly many on this site who believe it perfectly appropriate to "OC" a firearm in hand. I personally disagree, but who am I to chastise them over their believes despite forum rules about properly holstered handguns and all that?

But since you truly don't care to read my "pontifications", you may want to just avoid my posts and the entire Utah section as I do tend to post on issues within my State of residence. Limit yourself to reading those things that you find useful rather than reading and then posting needlessly offensive comments about things you claim nobody would care about.

Charles

No, he is not one of "ours". OCDO is about the responsible carry of firearm for self-defense and by extension the larger question of 2A rights, infringement, political action to regain 2A rights, etc.

Wandering around in public with a loaded handgun in hand with its inherent dangers of a negligent discharge wounding or killing an innocent is not responsible carry of a firearm.

Long gun carry is another issue, not the focus of OCDO. However, having missed the WA thread about people racking their long guns and screwing around with loaded mags all in a very public and populated area then building (thanks for the link - I was somewhat stunned by the entire incident) is also not responsible carry of a firearm.

solus said:

piper, please make sure you understand this is my personal opinion and not in any way meant to lead you to personally chastise me...

since it has little to do with this site...who truly cares...

and to watch you expand this issue which has little to do with this site...who truly cares to read your pontifications on something that has little to do with this site!

ipse

Click to expand...

+1

For myself, I was thinking more along the lines of why would anybody on OCDO align themselves ("one of own") with someone "wielding a gun erratically", and that OC, as OCDO has traditionally viewed it, is carrying in a holster. Not with emphasis on forum rules as rules, but just that's kinda been the mission for years.

I happen to agree with Utbagpiper that FIPF (felon in possession of a firearm) is a nutty law. But, I woulda found a different example than the OP article. And, I darn sure wouldn't have tried to connect the article example to OCDO by asking about making him "one of our own".

ROF....are you truly serious...insulted you...oh my...

further, you divert my post of pointing out, as you stated in the first sentence, belong on OCDO, by saying what you posted was appropriate cuz WW and Citizen responded to your invalid post therefore life is good cuz of their blessing...

did you miss WW first post was full of sarcasm while his second was challenging Citizen's comments

oh my goodness...I just can't stop laughing...

ipse...

So he was trolling to see who would take his bait?

So far nada did.

Citizen please read those links he posted, they are good for a laugh.

And, lets not forget that he himself set the tone for his own thread by titling it "Roosevelt Police Kill Gunman". He didn't title the thread, "Roosevelt Police Kill OCer". And, he didn't title the thread, "Roosevelt Police Kill One of Our Own." He titled it, "Roosevelt Police Kill Gunman."

So this guy, at the time of the call to the STATE, was just walking down the road simply carrying a gun, doing as he pleased.

Waving it around and acting erratically is a different matter. And legally, they are both a no go. But....

Still interesting...

Connecting this incident, handgun in hand, to the WA Statehouse incident, LGs in hand (to my knowledge nobody was arrested in the WA incident), is a reiteration of the Op's distaste for those who peaceably exercise their 2A right in a manner distasteful to the OP. The links to the WA thread contain the OP's views on the peaceable carry of LG's depicted in that thread.

The perp failed to yield to the requests of LE and the inevitable result was manifest.

After negotiations and non-lethal attempts to disarm Kevin Vance Norton, a Roosevelt police officer shot him at 1:27 p.m., Curry said.

Click to expand...

If the ex-perp was a threat, why did he not engage the cops with his firearm?

Based on the facts available at this time the cop was justified. I do not believe that a contrary conclusion will be reached after the investigation has been completed.

OC for ME said:

Connecting this incident, handgun in hand, to the WA Statehouse incident, LGs in hand (to my knowledge nobody was arrested in the WA incident), is a reiteration of the Op's distaste for those who peaceably exercise their 2A right in a manner distasteful to the OP. The links to the WA thread contain the OP's views on the peaceable carry of LG's depicted in that thread.

The perp failed to yield to the requests of LE and the inevitable result was manifest.If the ex-perp was a threat, why did he not engage the cops with his firearm?

Based on the facts available at this time the cop was justified. I do not believe that a contrary conclusion will be reached after the investigation has been completed.

Click to expand...

Too bad we only have one side of the story. I have learned never to trust what the cops report.

Could be the cops got tired of dealing with him and like a cop in Everett Washington they decided to "just end this".

sudden valley gunner said:

Too bad we only have one side of the story. I have learned never to trust what the cops report.

Could be the cops got tired of dealing with him and like a cop in Everett Washington they decided to "just end this".

Click to expand...

Technically we have two sides of the story, the cop's side and the citizen's, who called the ex-perp in, side. Obviously, the ex-perp's side don't count at this juncture.