When thugs arn't thugs, or are they?

imported post

I'm not really good at linking stuff. I ran across this on Xaviers site, and thought it really did bring up some good points concerning carrying a firearm either open or concealed. How do you know the person(s) who is/are approaching you with guns exposed really are bad guys? How do you prevent something like this happening?

Someone who is more computer literate than I am please link this. It was found on

http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/ Titled New Years Blood.

It was NOLO's first homicide of 2009. An individual was approached by numerous individuals with guns exposed. Allegedly the victim fired at the individuals who turned out to be undercover NOLO police officers who then returned fire striking the victim 14 times(12 in the back).
A total of 48 rounds were fired by the police officers.

Whether this turns out justified:what: or not, the question remains. How do you know the person approaching you with weapon drawn is a bad guy? I CC most of the time in the winter but OC alot in the summer. I can see that a uniform officer approaching me with weapon drawn is a good guy and might have a reason unknown to me to approach me. I can live with that until we sort things out. But what about the scruffy looking hairbag approaching me with a weapon drawn. I mean they are not undercover because they look like cops right.

I'm not cop bashing, nor do I want this thread to evolve into that. If you want to cop bash do it somewhere else. I'm just looking for discussion on the problem of identifying good and bad guys. Remember take your ritalin and stay focused.

imported post

Okay, I'm really frustrated now. I can't get that link to work when I click on it, although that is what is showing on my address bar when I'm on the site. It was also on CNN site under their videos, but again I can't link anything:banghead: If anybody can find it and is smarter than me, please link it. Thanks.

imported post

This seems to work. I don't understand why... it's the same as the link you posted, which did not open for me either. I did a search for Xavier Thoughts on Blogspot and pulled it up. This link seems to open correctly.

http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/

imported post

There's an extra space at the end of the originally posted link goobering things up.

Is "goobering" a real word?

~ Boyd

P.S. Xavier's specific post can be found at http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-year-blood-in-new-orleans.html .

imported post

Okay - now that we have the link issue worked out...

This case really brings to light the "show-down" that has been brewing for quite some time. That of the armed citizen defending him/herself against a perceived threat, which turns out to be plain-clothes cops.

In this particular case, NOLA PD says the narcotic officers were looking for nearbyarmed subject with a similar vehicle. Personally, I'd FOIA that to see if that scenario was indeed true. But for the sake of discussion - let's assume that is true and correct.

Now we have the officers approaching a subject with weapons in hand. Protocol / procedure comes into question here. Is that "normal' for NOLA PD? If so, under what circumstances, etc. Regardless, the armed citizen quite understandably recognizing the immediate threat, pulls his sidearm and naturally "points" in the direction of the threat - quite probably with the intent to shoot.

The officers are now, also justifiably threatened and fire. The citizen / subject was obviously overwhelmed by superior firepower.

The article states the citizen / subject was shot 14 times in the back. Again, for the moment, we'll assume that's true. Next question... WHY? I can understand one, maybe two shots in the back as the "target" turns from the fire at the last second... but 14?? I'd like to know the number of shots that went into his front side.

I find this very disturbing. It would appear that NOLA PD threat assessment policies do not take into account the potential of a legally armed citizen. I would seriously question to the procedure of approaching a suspected armed subject with weapons drawn, and in hand. Even if he was the guy they were looking for, are they not provoking a fire fight?

If it turns out that there was no "armed subject" nearby... I hope the family sues the city into bankruptcy, and the officers face criminal charges. I'm afraid it will take a landmark case to get more police departments to review their policies, and to take into consideration the legally armed citizen.

imported post

This actually just highlights an issue that no one here seems to want to talk about very much. LEOs DO have the same right to self defense that the rest of th population has. If they are actively seeking an armed suspect, under certain conditions an armed law abiding citizen could get caught up in the situation.

If the LEO sees an armed person draw, (s)he is GOING to react, and a fire fight is the logical outcome.

This is one of the serious risks of carrying a firearm and attempting to use it without all the fact of a situation. In most cases you do not have to option of getting all the facts first.

The risk is even higher if an armed citizen attempts to aid a LEO who is already engaged in a fire fight.


I am not saying don't get involved, I'm just saying it comes with risks.

imported post

You cannot afford to be wrong. This is why some advocate being a good witness if that is possible. Life and liberty are full of risks. Good luck all.

Yata hey

imported post

It was NOLO's first homicide of 2009. An individual was approached by numerous individuals with guns exposed. Allegedly the victim fired at the individuals

Click to expand...

Good shoot or bad shoot I don't know but you really have to question someone pulling their gun and shooting at a group of armed men. At first I read that the LEO had guns drawn then reread it and it just said exposed. Just say that the "victim" fired first. Plainly that was an overreaction and he paid the ultimate price for it. What if they were thugs and were just approaching him but did not have their guns drawn. Maybe we could gt into all the legalities that they weren't supposed to have guns but they were just defending themselves. Hasn't that been beated to death on here about even criminal should be allowed to defend themselves.

Some other posts have been made that before you pull your gun and fire you better know the situation. This is a prime example of that.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

It was NOLO's first homicide of 2009. An individual was approached by numerous individuals with guns exposed. Allegedly the victim fired at the individuals

Click to expand...

Good shoot or bad shoot I don't know but you really have to question someone pulling their gun and shooting at a group of armed men. At first I read that the LEO had guns drawn then reread it and it just said exposed. Just say that the "victim" fired first. Plainly that was an overreaction and he paid the ultimate price for it. What if they were thugs and were just approaching him but did not have their guns drawn. Maybe we could gt into all the legalities that they weren't supposed to have guns but they were just defending themselves. Hasn't that been beated to death on here about even criminal should be allowed to defend themselves.

Some other posts have been made that before you pull your gun and fire you better know the situation. This is a prime example of that.

Click to expand...

why would you open fire on people coming your direction with guns holstered? makes me scared to participate in the trash pick up day, we might run into someone like the guy in the story

imported post

Armed wrote:

The article states the citizen / subject was shot 14 times in the back. Again, for the moment, we'll assume that's true. Next question... WHY? I can understand one, maybe two shots in the back as the "target" turns from the fire at the last second... but 14?? I'd like to know the number of shots that went into his front side.

Click to expand...

/snip...
NOLO police officers who then returned fire striking the victim 14 times(12 in the back).A total of 48 rounds were fired by the police officers.

Click to expand...

I would assume that he was hit from the front twice and then turned, maybe to run. The LEO kept firing until he was down.

imported post

One more reason to make shure you next of kin know where the voice recorder is.
At least she will be a rich widow. Might need to get a police scanner next,
so I will know when calls are out looking for cars like mine.
Why would you sit there in a parked car with an armed mob approaching? You
drive off, and the heck with any local ordinences about no right turns, and red lights.

From what I hear about NO, my best bet is they pulled the piece out after the fact to
justify thier mistake. Probably congradulating themselves for not having
to waste a throw away piece stolen during katrina.
How do you get 12 shots in the back when the person is in a car?
This one stinks to much to be self defense.

imported post

I'll wait.

Yata hey

imported post

A few observations -

1 - there is nothing saying the cops did or did not announce themselves as cops. Nothing saying they had badges displayed or not. SOP is for cops to announce and to be wearing badges or other indica of officialdom.

2 - Force Science Institute http://www.forcescience.org/has several articles about how shots fired when the subject was facing ended up entering the side or back of the subject. I'm not going to say getting shot in the back always means you were facing away when the trigger was pulled.

3 - This story just lacks too much information for any conclusion to be made except it is probably a sad thing.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

A few observations -
/snip.....

3 - This story just lacks too much information for any conclusion to be made except it is probably a sad thing.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

Agree totally. I reread the blog and still a lot of information missing. One thing that whether or not anyone agrees with me on this is that if I am approached by 9 men with guns drawn (which the article seemed to imply) is that I am not going to try and pull my gun. Doesn't matter if they are thugs or LEO, that is a losing proposition. Still a lot of missing information in the article and definitely written to incite pro-gun readers.