johnnyb
Banned
imported post
all those officers deserve to be in jail for the rest of their lives (the OP case)
all those officers deserve to be in jail for the rest of their lives (the OP case)
-
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.
Father of 12 fatally shot by Akron Police officers...
- Thread starter Pauly
- Start date
johnnyb
Banned
imported post
PT111 wrote:
the guy was murdered.
its the LEOs job to take risk, they can't murder innocent people because they are scared.
they should never work again, and in actually should all be in jail for life
PT111 wrote:
quit making lame excuses.
the guy was murdered.
its the LEOs job to take risk, they can't murder innocent people because they are scared.
they should never work again, and in actually should all be in jail for life
Pauly
Regular Member
imported post
johnnyb wrote:
Nope. If I'm a cop and you point a gun at me you're getting shot to death. That simple.
johnnyb wrote:
Nope. If I'm a cop and you point a gun at me you're getting shot to death. That simple.
SWhetsel
Regular Member
imported post
I agree with Pauly, what makes one person’s life any less important than another? Cops have just as much of a right to defend themselves as anyone.
I’m an MP in the Army and there were times when I was overseas that yeah, the shoots where iffy, but are you saying I should have hoped a man with an AK standing on top of a building we just took fire from is innocent? Because there’s no way in hell I would wait around to find out. I guess I see where the officers are coming from, it’s called reasonable belief. Part of the Army's ROE and I'm sure most police dept.'s have similar policies.
HOWEVER, I do feel bad for the innocent man's family. It's sad and a shame that the "good guy" got killed, but on the same note, his own stupidity did get him killed. When an officer has his gun drawn and pointed at you telling you to get down, it's not the best time to ignore their commands.
Just my opinion.
I agree with Pauly, what makes one person’s life any less important than another? Cops have just as much of a right to defend themselves as anyone.
I’m an MP in the Army and there were times when I was overseas that yeah, the shoots where iffy, but are you saying I should have hoped a man with an AK standing on top of a building we just took fire from is innocent? Because there’s no way in hell I would wait around to find out. I guess I see where the officers are coming from, it’s called reasonable belief. Part of the Army's ROE and I'm sure most police dept.'s have similar policies.
HOWEVER, I do feel bad for the innocent man's family. It's sad and a shame that the "good guy" got killed, but on the same note, his own stupidity did get him killed. When an officer has his gun drawn and pointed at you telling you to get down, it's not the best time to ignore their commands.
Just my opinion.
asforme
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I just have a hard time believing that he drew on a group of cops that already had their guns on him.
How many here would not instinctively turn around to at least see who's yelling at you. The cops were jumpy because they saw a man with a gun. Perhaps the cops who had the advantage here should be using logic, what kind of bad guy is going to stuff his gun back in his pants OPENLY and be hanging around waiting for the cops?
It's not just soccer moms who we've got to condition to not panic at the sight of a gun, it is police officers too. I know not all are like this, but there sure are a lot of them who feel compelled to disarm a citizen during any confrontation. To me, this looks just like the unfounded fear we see from antis, just expressed differently.
I just have a hard time believing that he drew on a group of cops that already had their guns on him.
How many here would not instinctively turn around to at least see who's yelling at you. The cops were jumpy because they saw a man with a gun. Perhaps the cops who had the advantage here should be using logic, what kind of bad guy is going to stuff his gun back in his pants OPENLY and be hanging around waiting for the cops?
It's not just soccer moms who we've got to condition to not panic at the sight of a gun, it is police officers too. I know not all are like this, but there sure are a lot of them who feel compelled to disarm a citizen during any confrontation. To me, this looks just like the unfounded fear we see from antis, just expressed differently.
bobernet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
asforme wrote:
Exactly my point. The fact that there were, apparently, a number of neighborhood witnesses, and the only ones claiming he pulled a gun were the two LEO's who shot him 22 times is rather suspicious.
That some here would try to justify his murder by the mere fact that he did not throw himself to the ground fast enough to satisfy them is even more appalling.
asforme wrote:
Exactly my point. The fact that there were, apparently, a number of neighborhood witnesses, and the only ones claiming he pulled a gun were the two LEO's who shot him 22 times is rather suspicious.
That some here would try to justify his murder by the mere fact that he did not throw himself to the ground fast enough to satisfy them is even more appalling.
johnnyb
Banned
imported post
Pauly wrote:
Pauly wrote:
don't become a cop
johnnyb
Banned
imported post
SWhetsel wrote:
SWhetsel wrote:
our country isn't a ******* war zone. there is a huge difference. its beyond absurd to compare the two.
SWhetsel
Regular Member
imported post
Youre right its not a war zone, so cops shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves.
I don't know the whole story and no one does. Trigger happy or not, I stand with the police on this one. The guy was at someone elses house with a gun, right after a report of shots fired. They roll up and "hey look a dude with a gun at the scene of a shooting, lets ask him if hes the good guy." No thanks, either listen to commands and drop to the ground, or get dropped.
Youre right its not a war zone, so cops shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves.
I don't know the whole story and no one does. Trigger happy or not, I stand with the police on this one. The guy was at someone elses house with a gun, right after a report of shots fired. They roll up and "hey look a dude with a gun at the scene of a shooting, lets ask him if hes the good guy." No thanks, either listen to commands and drop to the ground, or get dropped.
bobernet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
SWhetsel wrote:
SWhetsel wrote:
Good to know where you stand. Murder is OK as long as a cop does it?
Um, no. He was at his own house, defending his own family from a criminal who was firing into the home where his wife and children were cowered in fear.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
bobernet wrote:
bobernet wrote:
I belive the reports say that he was not at his house but was walking down the street looking for who fired the shots. He was not on his property and the person who had been firing into the house was long gone.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
bobernet wrote:
bobernet wrote:
The police should be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Let a jury decide. Then they, the department and the City should be sued for wrongful death. Let another jury decide. To me, these cops are as low as any other murdering scum in the city of Akron. That they were incompetent idiots is not an excuse that will hold up in a jury trial.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
PT111 wrote:
"When officers arrived, they saw Stephens outside the house with a handgun in his waistband."
PT111
Regular Member
sjalterego
Regular Member
imported post
SWhetsel wrote:
SWhetsel wrote:
Of course we have no independent way to corroborate that. That may in fact be what happened but I always take such plice statements with a grain of salt. The police can often make after the fact statements that "justify" their use of force and since they are the only survivor witnesses what they say has to be believed. We all know how much a cell phone looks like a gun.
tarzan1888
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
Gunslinger...Take off your hate colored glasses for a moment and look at what we know.
Does the term"Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?
There are a lot of things we don't know...formost among then is that the police "murdered" anyone.
The more I read, the more it sounds like the 20 year old son, got all the brains in the family.
Tarzan
PT111 wrote:
Gunslinger...Take off your hate colored glasses for a moment and look at what we know.
Does the term"Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?
There are a lot of things we don't know...formost among then is that the police "murdered" anyone.
The more I read, the more it sounds like the 20 year old son, got all the brains in the family.
Tarzan
SWhetsel
Regular Member
imported post
Yes I understand that anything looks like a gun when you have your adrenalin pumping. I've been in situations like that and I know that when it comes down to it, judged by 12 is better than carried by 6.
MAYBE, they did "murder" this man by over reacting and firing when they saw him motion towards the pistol in his waist band.
But in the CCW law if you even MOTION towards your weapon it’s a felony, so why would this be different? He motioned towards a weapon that the officer clearly saw, and the man had on him. They told him to get down and he didn't even though his unarmed son did. IF he MOTIONED towards his weapon, even if he didn't draw it, then why aren't they within the law to fire? They have to wait to be fired upon?
That’s why with the info that has been written in papers, and said in statements, I side in saying that if a man pulls a gun on a officer, then the officer is within his means to shoot him. I lived in Akron for many years and now live in a surrounding suburb. I know the area and it's AGAIN a shame the man was killed in TRYING to defend his home. But he wasn't on his property, was brandishing a weapon (it was NOT in a holster, a waistband doesn’t count as a holder made for the purpose), and I don't have the exact quote, but did he not MOTION for his weapon, if not draw it?
Yes I understand that anything looks like a gun when you have your adrenalin pumping. I've been in situations like that and I know that when it comes down to it, judged by 12 is better than carried by 6.
MAYBE, they did "murder" this man by over reacting and firing when they saw him motion towards the pistol in his waist band.
But in the CCW law if you even MOTION towards your weapon it’s a felony, so why would this be different? He motioned towards a weapon that the officer clearly saw, and the man had on him. They told him to get down and he didn't even though his unarmed son did. IF he MOTIONED towards his weapon, even if he didn't draw it, then why aren't they within the law to fire? They have to wait to be fired upon?
That’s why with the info that has been written in papers, and said in statements, I side in saying that if a man pulls a gun on a officer, then the officer is within his means to shoot him. I lived in Akron for many years and now live in a surrounding suburb. I know the area and it's AGAIN a shame the man was killed in TRYING to defend his home. But he wasn't on his property, was brandishing a weapon (it was NOT in a holster, a waistband doesn’t count as a holder made for the purpose), and I don't have the exact quote, but did he not MOTION for his weapon, if not draw it?
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
tarzan1888 wrote:
I hate injustice. I hate those who would take away the rights brave men fought and died for. I hate bigotry, and I hate the arrogance that comes from unbridled power. No glasses needed. 22 shots into a man who did not pull a gun is probably not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. The cops who killed those scumbags in New York walked. I'll bet these do also. That, my friend, is something else I hate. Replace "murderers" with "executioners."
And you ask "Does the term"Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?" You're kidding, right? What was the executed man 'guilty' of?
tarzan1888 wrote:
I hate injustice. I hate those who would take away the rights brave men fought and died for. I hate bigotry, and I hate the arrogance that comes from unbridled power. No glasses needed. 22 shots into a man who did not pull a gun is probably not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. The cops who killed those scumbags in New York walked. I'll bet these do also. That, my friend, is something else I hate. Replace "murderers" with "executioners."
And you ask "Does the term"Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?" You're kidding, right? What was the executed man 'guilty' of?
SWhetsel
Regular Member
imported post
22 9mm shots, from two officers, that fired until they eliminated the threat. The man stood through the 22 bullets. You don’t stop shooting until you eliminate the threat. (Notice I said threat, not until the man is dead. However, sometimes these things coincide) Even if he was a dead man standing after only three shots, he was still standing there, keep firing.
And by the way, he was walking down the street LOOKING for the people that fired upon his house. Is that not illegal?
22 9mm shots, from two officers, that fired until they eliminated the threat. The man stood through the 22 bullets. You don’t stop shooting until you eliminate the threat. (Notice I said threat, not until the man is dead. However, sometimes these things coincide) Even if he was a dead man standing after only three shots, he was still standing there, keep firing.
And by the way, he was walking down the street LOOKING for the people that fired upon his house. Is that not illegal?
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
No. His intent was not established--nor can it be with him in the ground, and the last I heard "walking down the street" was still legal.
No. His intent was not established--nor can it be with him in the ground, and the last I heard "walking down the street" was still legal.