Sheriff’s deputies cleared in shooting death of area man

longwatch wrote:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Click to expand...

Smart ass, ok, what does it mean....?

Click to expand...

Neplusultra wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Click to expand...

Smart ass, ok, what does it mean....?

Click to expand...

Off topic, but...

Per Wiki: Who watches the watchmen

Click to expand...

The story was not drafted to back the police. They posted factual information so that the reader could better understand why the man did what he did.

They did not justify anything the police did and simply posted what happened.

A drunk man armed with a gun refused to drop it and the police tried to use less lethal force to prevent him from using that gun to harm anyone.

The taser failed twice and the man allegedly pointed the gun at the police.

If you are going to point a gun at the police.... you can expect to be shot.

There is no "murder" here. You should be ashamed for even posting that. You obviously have a problem with the government, the police, or any level of authority.

Knowing the guy refused commands and they tried to use less lethal to get the gun away.... sounds right in my book. You may not like it.. but when the police are telling you to drop your gun and you refuse..... you might just get shot.

Not sure why anyone would want to test the waters in this area. It is just plain dumb.

Click to expand...

SpringerXDacp wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Click to expand...

Smart ass, ok, what does it mean....?

Click to expand...

Off topic, but...

Per Wiki: Who watches the watchmen

Click to expand...

Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

[font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"](Who shall keep watch over the guardians? Wer aber bewacht jene Wachen?)
[/font]
[font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"]The quote above is from a satire by Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenalis [/font][font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"]55-127 AD[/font][font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"]).
He served as a tribune far from home, but failed to gain advancement and grew embittered.[/font]

[font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"] I always hear the advice of my old friends -"Put on a lock and keep your wife indoors."
[/font][font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"] [/font][font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"]Yes, but who shall keep watch over these guardians?
[/font][font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"] [/font][font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"]The wife arranges accordingly and begins with them.
[/font][font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"] [/font][font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"]High or low their passions are all the same.[/font]

Click to expand...

You should be ashamed for even posting that. You obviously have a problem with the government, the police, or any level of authority.

Knowing the guy refused commands and they tried to use less lethal to get the gun away.... sounds right in my book. You may not like it.. but when the police are telling you to drop your gun and you refuse..... you might just get shot.

Not sure why anyone would want to test the waters in this area. It is just plain dumb.

Click to expand...

• The homeowner didn't invite the deputies onto his property.
• The homeowner had no reason to disarm.
• The homeowner fired no shots.
• The homeowner never pointed the gun at anyone.
• The homeowner died of gunshot wounds that entered his back.
• The investigation concludedthat the deputies acted lawfully.
• <== bullets

Remember the facts: Some assumptions mixed in also.

• The homeowner didn't invite the deputies onto his property. And? Somebody placed a call that warranted being checked out.

• The homeowner had no reason to disarm. Yes he did. He was lawfully ordered to do so.

• The homeowner fired no shots. You don't have to actually pull the trigger to be considered a deadly threat.

• The homeowner never pointed the gun at anyone. Would you wait until the weapon was center of mass on you before responding?

• The homeowner died of gunshot wounds that entered his back. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that a person can turn in the fraction of a second before the trigger is squeezed - even multiply shots.

• The investigation concludedthat the deputies acted lawfully. And until proven otherwise (court of law) this will stand.

• <== bullets Childish and inflammatory.
  

:dude:

Click to expand...

I live here and have been following this case. The deputies were called to the house by the man's son...who was advised to call the police by a neighbor (who was an off-duty LEO). To be clear...the police were called to deal with a drunk with a gun.

The family (i.e. the son) figured they would talk to his dad...but they couldn't do that until the guy dropped the gun. Instead, the guy raised his gun hand, causing the deputy to fear for his partner's life.

This was a good shoot.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree that it was a good shoot. I guess it depends on your standards. It IS however a legal one, at least until a jury says different.

This was posted as an example of what could happen and it is a good example.

If anyone is to blame for that mans death, it's his son. I just don't understand the idiotic mentality that the police are babysitters. Parents calling the cops on their kids, kids calling the cops on their parents, husband and wife calling the cops on each other.

Stupid SOBS don't have any place on this earth!

Click to expand...

peter nap wrote:

I wouldn't agree that it was a good shoot. I guess it depends on your standards. It IS however a legal one, at least until a jury says different.

This was posted as an example of what could happen and it is a good example.

If anyone is to blame for that mans death, it's his son. I just don't understand the idiotic mentality that the police are babysitters. Parents calling the cops on their kids, kids calling the cops on their parents, husband and wife calling the cops on each other.

Stupid SOBS don't have any place on this earth!

Click to expand...

I think the other 229 was saying it was a "good shoot" in that it was proper and justified.

No shooting is really good for anyone. The officer has to live the rest of his life knowing he took a life. The family is without a father. The department is going to be questioned and crucified by the people and the media.

Yes.. families do call the police on each other and it is the police that often times play mediator. Theywork out the problem and not take sides. A family at odds with each other are too heated to listen and understand what is being said.

Just the other day I have a mom and child going at it. I leaned what the problems where and sat the two down where I identified the disconnect. They are good to go now and better understand each other.

Had I not been there... they would have beat on each other eventually.

Click to expand...

You'll never convince me of that 229.
The order of things is God, Family and way down the list is community.

God can take care of himself.
I'll take care of my family
and the community is all yours with my blessing.

If you need help with your family....you don't have one!

Click to expand...

peter nap wrote:

You'll never convince me of that 229.
The order of things is God, Family and way down the list is community.

God can take care of himself.
I'll take care of my family
and the community is all yours with my blessing.

If you need help with your family....you don't have one!

Click to expand...

Not wishing to go off topic on family..... but all families have problems... just like the one in the posted story.

In many interactions between people.... you may need someone to get involved that is not emotionally connected so they can remain calm and keep a clear head. You do not want the person who is supposed to help getting emotional and taking sides.

So Peter.. in your family it may work out... but others are not so fortunate.

Click to expand...

Sorry fellas but I just did a training practical where the suicidal man took the gun form his head and he started pointing it in my direction. I popped him 3 times in the chest before he had a chance to get harm me.

I did not wait to see if he was serious or try and talk him out of it. I knew in my mind that this is wherehe crossed the line and deadly force is necessary.

Click to expand...

• The homeowner didn't invite the deputies onto his property. And? Somebody placed a call that warranted being checked out. The man's grown son invited deputies onto a homestead that was not his -- not a minor like in the Yearning for Zion case. Not a pool party of minors where the homeowners are out of town and alcohol containers are seen.

• The homeowner had no reason to disarm. Yes he did. He was lawfully ordered to do so. The man was on his own property, was not in violation of any laws, was faced with four individuals whom he did not invite there, and was not pointing his gun at anyone.

• The homeowner fired no shots. You don't have to actually pull the trigger to be considered a deadly threat. The homeowner didn't fire his gun, which is a misdemeanor in some suburban localities. The homeowner was on his patio in his own back yard.

• The homeowner never pointed the gun at anyone. Would you wait until the weapon was center of mass on you before responding? The homeowner never pointed the gun at anyone. Of course, a center mass shot on a deputy would only break his ribs through the kevlar vest, but the homeowner did not point his gun at anyone, including himself.

• The homeowner died of gunshot wounds that entered his back. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that a person can turn in the fraction of a second before the trigger is squeezed - even multiply shots. The deputies opened fire as the man was attempting to enter his house and after they fired tasers into him. All manner of possibilities exist as to how the bullets entered the homeowner's back, but the homeowner was retreating into his home from the confrontation with the uninvited deputies when the gunfire began.

• The investigation concludedthat the deputies acted lawfully. And until proven otherwise (court of law) this will stand. I agree that the locality will assert that the deputies acted lawfully, but I believe it will continue with this assertion even if it costs them $10 million in a wrongful death lawsuit.

• <== bullets Childish and inflammatory. Your opinion -- as valid as mine.

I am truly amazed at the ignorance that some members show here.

Snip

Click to expand...

"Gandy ignored commands to raise his hands and drop his weapon."

OK... How is this related to open carry.....??

Well, recently we have been talking about refusal to disarm. Many members here do open carry and with the combination of a few that have boasted they would refuse to be disarmed.. I wanted you to be aware of one person that allegedly decided to not be disarmed.

He was shot and killed for his refusal and the officers were cleared.

Snip

Click to expand...

229,

Iagree you are not the enemy. You are however adding to the general adversarial nature (although I strongly suspect you don't realize you are doing such.)

The previous thread you comment upon had these factors as pertains to refusal to disarm:

Individual was calm, sober, coherent.

Individual was not A C1 or S1 (Complainant 1 or Suspect 1)

Individual was asked to hand over weapon verbally; there was never a need for escalation of force to disarm the individual.

Individual’s weapon was holstered; had a lawful permit to conceal.

Now in this thread you put forward, you have these factors as refusal to disarm in which:

Individual was allegedly intoxicated

Individual was allegedly combative

Individual allegedly attempted to flee on foot.

Individual allegedly had firearm in hand (although this is disputed)

If you want to defend “officer safety” and refute comments towards one instance, you should give an example of LIKE INSTANCE. It’s akin to saying that John Advocate who follows all laws and was firm but polite to responding officers that he doesn’t want to disarm; should comply because a drunk and disorderly guy one time got shot for (allegedly) waving a firearm around and threatening to kill himself.

You are defending the request to disarm for “officer safety” using an example that has no relation to the previous example you referred to. However, if your assertion is pointed towards drunk backwater rummys who handle firearms while intoxicated, and further suggest they disarm by order of police while “sauced” to avoid a fatal situation, then I would agree with you.

There is a world of difference between A loud mouth suicidal drunk with a firearm and a calm and sober clean cut citizen who prefers to stand up for his rights.

Click to expand...

...stuff...

Click to expand...