imported post
mrbiggles wrote:
sorry, a man standing in a doorway of his own house doesn't deserve to be killed. i think those facts are enough.
This was more than a man standing in his doorway. Don't over simplify the situation to try and prove your point. You can't toss half the "Facts" and then claim the ones you keep are "enough".
This was a man standing in a doorway of his own house,
with a shotgun, that was refusing to comply with multiple uniformed officers. He may even have pointed the gun at the officers.
In the ACTUAL situation, given ALL of the facts, he very well may may deserved to be killed.
mrbiggles wrote:
LEOs are not our masters, if you're standing in your house and they come and give you orders for no reason you think you should have to obey them? You should ignore unlawful orders by LEOs its your duty as an american per out founding fathers.
For LEOs they defiantly need a ask questions first shoot later approach. does this make thier job more dangerous? maybe. if they didn't want a dangerous job don't become a LEO.
Actually, if you are standing armed in your doorway and multiple police officers are telling you to put the gun down, yes you should. Do you HAVE to? No, I guess not. If you choose not to though don't be too surprised if it doesn't end the way you expect it to.
The officers DID have a reason, they were responding to a report of a burglary in progress I believe. At the time they did not know who the person was or whose house it was. What they KNEW was they had a person with a gun refusing to disarm so they could sort it all out.
Just because you don't THINK there is a legitimate reason, that doesn't mean there isn't one. Unless you are some all-knowing God, you probably don't have all the information.
Cops are generally MORE than happy to ask questions before shooitng, but I don't think it is too much to ask that the person they want to ask questions to puts the gun down first so they can ask questions while being assured of their safety. Generally that makes it safer for the person they are asking questions to as well.
If this was a single undercover cop or some reason to believe an impersonator that is one thing, but when you have 3 uniformed cops with o-fficial Po-lice cars and everything, that is the time to do as they ask and put your gun down, even if you have done nothing wrong and are in your own house.
If cops had to deal with rules like you can't shoot until AFTER someone else shoots first, it wouldn't just make it a "dangerous job". Hell it is already a dangerous job, that kind of rule would make it a kamikaze position.
mrbiggles wrote:
One innocent man dying is too much, if all it took was for those LEO clowns to step back or take cover and start asking questions, rather than drawing down and giving orders to avoid this innocent person dying. its well worth it.
Its nice the govt thinks (in a lot of states) we should attempt to run away or hide first, but agents of the govt (LEOs) should shoot to kill first and figure out what happened later. its ok, the sheep will pick up the tab on any lawsuits.
to protect and serve :?
And you know he is "innocent" how? Why can't people accept personal responsibility for their actions anymore? I'll flip it around on you- All it would have taken for him to stay alive was to comply. He choose not to, he choose his own outcome. Sounds like a "suicide by cop" scenario to me. Got what he wanted maybe... Pretty good "service" in that case.
Lets stick to the facts of THIS case. WA is not a "must retreat" state, you have no duty to avoid confrontation and we have pretty strong protections for the right of self-defense. The flip side of that is you DO have an obligation to do as you are told by the police under certain circumstances (such as an armed stand-off).
While you may have every right to be in your own home, and every right to keep and bear arms, you do NOT have the right to hold officers at bay with a gun because you think they are wrong. You do as you are told and then if they are in fact wrong, you avail yourself of the process to correct that AFTER the situation is resolved.
suntzu wrote:
It was contagious--one started shooting and so did the rest--essentially--they panicked. Clowns? We don't really know that--it obviously appears that they were clowns. Time will tell.
I don't see multiple officers opening fire as "panic". There was a threat that appears to have escalated at some point to possibly warrant lethal force. Once lethal force is warranted there should be no question how many officers can shoot, how many rounds they can shoot, or any other "measure" of what is appropriate.
Dead is dead, lethal is lethal. If it goes to the point where lethal force is warranted I don't care if they use a bazooka or call in an air strike.
If you and your brothers were facing down someone with a gun who may be getting ready to kill your mother, are you all going to take a vote on who will shoot to stop him? Maybe you'll each take turns until one of you stops the threat?
No your not going to do any of that, if it appears the only chance to save your mother is to shoot the bad guy, I am betting you
all will shoot at the bad guy.
You see "Panicked" behavior, I see continuity of training. Three individuals who came to the same conclusion in their assessment of the threat. You see "clowns", I see teamwork. Three individuals who, working together, stopped a threat. I see skilled split second decision making where numerous rounds were fired with no injuries to uninvolved persons.
You'll probably accuse me of offering biased support for the police and I admit I am biased towards them. On the other hand those who are so quick to call for lynching are just as biased as they look at it from the rose colored glasses of those who are always against cops in general.
suntzu wrote:
How do we know it was not a crime? They shot a man standing in his own doorway-in his own home no less. The fact he was armed was not an open invitation to open fire--unless he was pointing the gun at them. Self-defense statutes should apply in this if that was the case. They should not be on leave with pay while this is investigated--we would get no such luxury. It should not be the local dept. who investigates this--and it should be as thourough an investigation on them as it would be for the average person.
Yes, from our lofty perch looking at information AFTER the fact, in the stark light of day. We now know it was a person in his own home. We have the luxury of making our judgments with lots of time to examine the information at our leisure and without someone waving a gun at us.
I think it is a little retarded to judge the cops actions and decisions as though they had the same opportunity to assess the situation that we have had. They were responding to a report of a burglary, in the dark, facing an uncooperative armed subject, without the luxury of no time limit.
Try to understand what they were given to look at and judge them on their decisions based on what they had to work with. Responding to a report of a burglary, they find a person armed with a gun. They are clearly police officers and they order the man to put the gun down so they can talk to him. He doesn't put the gun down after repeated requests to do so. He may or may not be waving the gun about, he may or may not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He may or may not at some point end up point the shotgun at one of the officers.
Until you have ACTUALLY been in such a situation, you really have no business second guessing those who have been.
Certainly, if after the investigation is complete, it is found that the officers acted inappropriately, broke rules, planted evidence, or whatever, then certainly feel free to call for their badges, jail time, tar and feathering or whatever is appropriate. BUT how about we give them the same assumption of innocence until
proof of guilt that we all expect from the system?
Yes, they SHOULD be on leave with pay while this is sorted out. That is the way it works EVERYWHERE. While they are on "Leave" they will be cooperating with the investigators, seeing a department shrink, dealing with having had to take a person's life, them and their families will be assaulted by the media, they will be ridiculed and scorned by you and the likes of others who have posted similar replies, and a whole host of other things that is going to turn their life upside down. All of this for quite possibly doing their job RIGHT. Wow, who
wouldn't want that job??? :rolling eyes:
This isn't going to be a paid vacation, they weren't high-fiving themselves afterwards and they won't be going to Disneyland. Would "We" get such a "luxury"? I think "We" would. If I shot and killed someone and the initial impression suggested that it was a lawful use of force, I likely wouldn't be arrested. I would still be able to go to work and collect my paycheck while the investigation was done. If the circumstances changed, I might end up being arrested later, being charged, and possibly even going to trial. So it seems to me that yes, "We"
DO get the same "luxury".
It has already been reported that EPD will NOT be doing the investigation. Sno. Co. S.O. will be handling that. I guarentee it will be a thorough one, probably a hell of a lot
more so than if you or I capped some guy in an SD situation.