Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Rifle bearing man shot and killed by SLC police

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Rifle bearing man shot and killed by SLC police

    Three officers shot in three days, the last one in downtown SLC today by a guy walking around in Cammo and toting some kind of rifle if media reports are to be believed.

    Charles

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50...-lake.html.csp

    and

    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=12175791

    Excerpts:
    ...

    A man was killed and a police officer injured in a shootout Friday afternoon in downtown Salt Lake City.

    The shootout happened just before 4 p.m. at 600 South and State Street after police received a call about a man with a gun walking back and forth along State Street in the vicinity of the Grand America Hotel.

    Within seconds of Salt Lake City officers arriving on scene, shots were fired. Witnesses reported hearing about 10 or 12 shots.

    The suspect, who was wearing military fatigues, was also shot. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

    The officer was also shot in the leg, but his injuries are not life-threatening.

    ...

    Police do not know who the man is or what he wanted. However, witnesses say they saw the man in full military fatigues, black combat boots and a mask, carrying an assault rifle.

    According to the Deseret News, the man told two witnesses in the parking lot of the hotel he was "in training."

    ...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    There is more to this than what at first meets the eye!

    First of all, this Man most probably had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so He probably Legitamatly thought He was training, as He put it.

    Second..., He may have thought that He was somehow 'helping', although in what sense-I can not be sure.

    Third, IF He shot first, and ONLY IF He shot first, then the Shooting would be Justified under Utah Code 76-2-404 AND 76-2-402.

    NOW..., I personally believe that if The Officer came up to the Man in a nicer manner, because He obviously was in OUR County Military Uniform, then, this may have been prevented altogether. After all..., there IS a chance that He may not have shot IF The Officer did not say the usual things such as, 'Put your Hands up!', or 'Do not move!, etc.. Something along the lines of (***IN A FRIENDLY MANNER***): ...' Hey Buddy... how are you today? Could you come over here to talk?/Can we come over there to talk with you? Everything is OK..., we are just here to make sure everything is OK. Are you going somewhere?/Do you need a Ride?

    In by doing this, the Shooting MAY have been prevented altogether.

    NOW..., if He were to lift up His Guns, aim them at the Officers (or other People), etc., then, all Bets are off.

    Every Law Enforcement Officer in this Country needs to thake Classes that teach the Officer to differentiate between someone who INTENDS on doing Harm, and someone who MAY do Harm, especially when dealing with someone who has 11 fully Loaded Clips for The AR-15, or someother type of so called 'Assualt Rifle'.

    After all, walking down the Road in Salt Lake City, Utah with a so called 'Assault Rifle', is not against the Law so as long as you are not a Prohibited Possessor, or the 'Assault Rifle' itself is not Loaded. The correct Utah Codes governing this situation are, in order: Utah State Code 76-10-500, Utah State Code 76-10-502, and Utah State Code 76-10-503.

    A possible Charge of Utah State Code 76-10-507, a Class A Misdemeanor, could potentially apply, but only after the initial conversation establishing His Intent was proven/given.

    I truely believe that this could have been, or may have been, entirely prevented. Now, Police, and the Public at large, although it is hard to do, I know, needs to give up the whole 'Columbine High' mentality, whenever they encounter someone who is Armed like this while in Public.

    Like I said.., I know that it would be a hard thing to do, but everyone needs to try.

    Again, Police Officers/Police Agencies need to take extra Classes on learning how to go about these potentially dangerous situations a little bit better. I DO NOT buy the whole..., 'We might have saved a lot of lives tonight...' [crap], BECAUSE; the Man had already talked to People at The Hotel with no Hostility or showing signs of Agression.

    He honestly thought He was Helping, in some fashion or another, and until anyone can prove me wrong, The Officer should be found Guilty of Utah State Code 76-8-201, BECAUSE; He probably intisgated the encounter, by NOT disfusing it, based on His demeanor, must probably, on how The Officer approached the Man. Case and point, if The Officer appraoched The Man, with a Service Pistol aimed at Him, due to His [The Uniformed Man] Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, His Disorder, which is a Legitimate one, clouded His Judgement, and probably, as crazy as it sounds, thought The Police were there to harm Him. Due to this..., He shot first, thinking His Life was in Jeopardy, but it never was, pending His actions.

    If you have Served in our Military, then, I trust that those Service Members will take up my Arguement in favor of that Man for the reasons listed above. If you have not Served in The Military, then, in all accounts, you will not better appreciate my Argument in The Uniformed Military Mans Defense, unless, or until, you either Serve, or know some with Post Traumatic Disorder who has.

    In short..., I think The Man really thought He was either 'Training', as He put it, or really was Helping, in some fashion or another. This Case is really sad...
    Last edited by aadvark; 08-28-2010 at 11:02 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    West Valley City, UT
    Posts
    2
    This is a sad story. I beleive the Police responded appropriately, because I beleive he was in violation of the law.

    Utah Code 76-10-505, reads in part.

    (1)unless otherwise authorized by law, a person may not carry a loaded firearm:...

    (b)on a public street...
    Last edited by tpc2001; 08-31-2010 at 04:26 PM. Reason: spelling

  4. #4
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716
    St John v Almogordo, and I believe Lund v Salt Lake city (don't quote me on lund) disagree with your statement tpc2001.

    Mere possession of a firearm is not RAS sufficient for a Terry stop.
    Last edited by thx997303; 09-01-2010 at 12:43 AM.

  5. #5
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313
    Quote Originally Posted by tpc2001 View Post
    This is a sad story. I beleive the Police responded appropriately, because I beleive he was in violation of the law.

    Utah Code 76-10-505, reads in part.

    (1)unless otherwise authorized by law, a person may not carry a loaded firearm:...

    (b)on a public street...
    Whether or not he had a permit from any state would be the deciding factor in the above law, but I do believe that THX is right.

    Lund v. Salt Lake City

    As articulated by the Utah Legislature, public policy in this State may fairly be read to condone and even encourage gun ownership and the lawful possession and carrying of firearms in public places. Salt Lake City’s asserted governmental interest in its police officers’ response to a report of a “man with a gun” in a public park cannot be weighed in isolation from this oft-emphasized public policy. In that context, there may well be more individual constitutional rights at stake than the Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
    Last edited by Kevin Jensen; 09-01-2010 at 02:06 PM.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    West Valley City, UT
    Posts
    2
    After further reading Lund v Salt Lake City. I agree with both thx and kevin, that I am mistaken(happens a lot). Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

    BTW thanks to everyone who uses this site. I am new to the site, and gun ownership in general. Thank you for supporting our 2A right.

  7. #7
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313
    Welcome to OCDO, tpc2001!
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6
    Guys let's be realistic here, someone carrying a long gun in camo walking around downtown was obviously out of the ordinary enough to generate an MWAG call. There is enough here that any reasonable cop is going to at least speculate that this guy has some kind of mental or emotional issues. It is insane to expect our peace officers to approach a man in this state who is carrying a long gun and not use some force. And I am sure the shooting would have been justified as soon as the man went to raise his muzzle in the direction of a civilian or officer.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    So. Let's indeed be a bit realistic about it.

    This guy very likely, and truly, was PTSD afflicted. I will not go into detail, but I know very well what this all entails.

    Some of you guys think there is some sort of infallible logic to "Man in camo with gun = danger!!".

    This is not true. In fact, it is not true in any sense of logic you could dream up.


    As veterans return, their minds have been subjected to a reality that most over here cannot even process. It is beyond your comprehension. You simply have never been subjected to it, and therefore cannot even beging to process a similar thought pattern.

    No. Trust me. You have no freaking clue what you are talking about, and you have no clue what it is like. So stop thinking you do.

    The standard day to day life in our country (and most others) is done with negligible fear for ones own life. An instinctual response to react as trained, compounded with a severely heightened sense of awareness over prolonged periods of time, changes your perception of existence forever.

    In my opinion, it is mostly a good thing.

    The best description I have ever heard of reactions that those afflicted with PTSD may bear, is that the reactions are truly "normal". It is merely the elevated state of awareness and embedded instinct to survive that is harnessed, and firmly with you as you proceed through life. It is pretty much impossible to deprogram the programing. In fact, why would one want to?

    I will do my best to give you a taste of the differences by offering some insight if possible.

    During the average course of the day, you are likely to put your pants on, slip on a shirt, grab your wallet and keys, and proceed to your car. You will clamber into your car as you wear off a bit of the fatigue from waking up so recently, and kick back in the seat. You will start the car, turn up the radio, and pull out of the driveway. During the day you may grab the kids, and go shopping. You fill up your cart, and casually look around as you cross the parking lot. You tell the kids to get in the car, and start throwing groceries in the back after popping the trunk.

    Guess what?

    PTSD you do the same exact things as everyone else, except, your senses are heightened, and your responses are likely to be different to other plebians in society as you move throughout your day. Exagerated startle responses are a normal part of PTSD, because they are truly normal responses to events occuring in areas of combat where a given sound, action, or activity closely mimics something experienced in theater.

    Let's not forget people. Combat vets deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have often deployed for multiple tours, some staying for over one and a half years.

    Their lives have acclimated, and "normalized" to that environment.

    PTSD afflicted vets get in their cars, and are probably pretty damn awake and aware first thing in the morning. They turn up the radio, but are constantly scanning the horizon and their environment. They pick up their kids and go to the store. Some stocker throws a pallet off of a shelf and you might see the vet eat concrete. A bit uncomfortable and "unusual" for "normal people", but completely proper for what his experiences have taught him. He collects himself and continues his shopping with the kids. He loves them just the same as anybody else. He trucks the cart out to the car and tells the kids to get in, but is constantly aware and focuses on not only his activities, but his surroundings as well.

    Life has trained Mr. PTSD to be this way. It has probably saved his life many times in the past.

    Combat vets are ALWAYS sheepdogs. They cannot live any other way. They wouldn't know how.

    In my opinion, this poor guy probably was experiencing an event that reminded him of some task or occurrence while he was in. It is EXTREMELY likely that if the officer did not draw his weapon, on a man with a mental focus specifically trained to respond instinctually to eliminating threats, that he would still be alive.

    I cannot see an instinctual response of forceful threat or even bringing weapon to the combat ready position simply by appearance of the officer. He would have had to provoke, in some way, shape, or form, the soldier. He may not have however, done anything specifically to constitute said threat.

    The soldier literally could have thought he was a Fedayeen, or some Taliban fighter based on many things. If he truly felt he was out on patrol, then he was already detached from reality and likely hallucinating as a result of something that kicked off a "flashback".

    I would be curious to know whether the officer immediately drew on him, or not.

    Being under direct threat would prompt retaliation. I have no doubt about that. That would absolutely be instigation on the officers behalf.

    At any rate it is a tragedy, and the soldier should still be remembered positively.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6
    I agree completely that this is a tragedy, that he probably did not know what he was doing, and that he should be remembered positively, but we cannot expect our peace officers to put themselves in harms way when dealing with someone of this nature. I've only worked in LE for a few years, but an MWAG call with a guy in full battle dress and a slung AR in downtown Salt Lake would be enough for me to assume he had some underlying mental issues, and would thus cause me to proceed with caution. Expecting our peace officers to approach a man in this condition without guns out, hoping that he is experiencing PTSD and that he will not harm them is absurd. This is a gamble that our peace officers should not have to take. You understand things form your point of view as former military, I understand things from my point of view as former LE.
    Last edited by JSN; 09-03-2010 at 01:10 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    jsn:

    That is not what was said...

    Again, PTSD does not '...give someone a free pass to shoot at Police...'.

    PTSD alone, even in an Legitimate Case, does not, and should not, arise PC to the point of an Armed Response pending Arrest.

    Salt Lake City Police acted Inappropiately, and their actions should Officially be condoned by The Utah Department of Public Safety.

    PC, here, in this circumstance, is not Valid, as neither: 1. Wearing Full Camo in Public, OR 2. Carrying a LongGun in Public (with 11 full Magazines to match); cite any Violation of The Code of Utah.

    As I, and others, have said before, one with PTSD will Conduct Himself differently than a 'Normal' Person, and the fact that PTSD is a circumstance of this Case, it should have effected the outcome much more favorably than a Shooting. This was explained to the best of my ability in my previous Post, but slowfiveoh did it much better than I did.

    aadvark
    Last edited by aadvark; 09-03-2010 at 01:03 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6
    When using PC I was referring to probable cause, not penal code. My LE experience was all in CA, which may be why my opinions here are different and my natural response would have been different. I know that in CA, given the same circumstances, I would have gotten out of the car with a long gun trained on the suspect, per my department's policy. I guess I did not account for the differences in state laws when formulating my first 2 posts.

    That being said, I think it is a little early to be pointing fingers at the officer when it has not even come out that he drew his weapon first. The details of the shooting aren't out yet and any finger pointing should wait until the reports have been published and all the details are in.

  13. #13
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313
    Quote Originally Posted by JSN View Post
    I think it is a little early to be pointing fingers at the officer when it has not even come out that he drew his weapon first.
    In my opinion, it is never too early to point fingers at law enforcement. They need to be held to a higher standard than the average citizen. Investigations into officer involved shootings should be conducted by a private, unbiased source, and not by other officers or "internal affairs". You know, "professional courtesy".

    I believe that absent any other unlawful action, that a man walking in downtown Salt Lake City dressed in camo and battle gear with a long gun, is not a crime. Therefore, I believe that this incident could have ended much differently had the police not responded to a "man with a gun" call.

    Of course, any speculation is just that until we hear the 911 call, and the information that was given to the dispatcher. Who knows, maybe the dispatcher is the one that escalated the issue.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by JSN View Post
    When using PC I was referring to probable cause, not penal code. My LE experience was all in CA, which may be why my opinions here are different and my natural response would have been different. I know that in CA, given the same circumstances, I would have gotten out of the car with a long gun trained on the suspect, per my department's policy. I guess I did not account for the differences in state laws when formulating my first 2 posts.

    That being said, I think it is a little early to be pointing fingers at the officer when it has not even come out that he drew his weapon first. The details of the shooting aren't out yet and any finger pointing should wait until the reports have been published and all the details are in.
    I am not trying to state that anything the officer did as a matter of policy or training, was inappropriate.

    What I AM trying to say is that the situation may have turned out a bit better if more of a "high road" approach was taken with the soldier as opposed to confrontation with a drawn firearm.

    Confrontation =/= War for a soldier or marine.
    The button is pushed, and the engagement is on.


    This is why many of us can exhibit such enormous patience with things, until something presses the right button, mimicking something we were trained to do instinctually. Then it is a violent ride down the curve of our adrenaline spike. Trained not to stop, so that's what we do. Ya don't stop.


    I would never advocate for a cop to not defend his/her life. However, the mere presence of a firearm, in the hand or not, does not equate to a necessity to approach someone, firearms drawn and at the ready or low-ready. This is VERY VEERRYY likely to be what flipped this guys "engage" switch.

    Just a "Hey sir...SLPD. Just wanted to talk to you for a minute." from the other side of the cruiser would have been acceptable.

    At that point, if the soldier raised his firearm, or went to retrieve it from the slung position, I could see an officer definitely feeling the need to defend him/herself.

    That would be when I would have to determine that he may not snap out of it. Maybe he really is "gone on patrol in Tikrit" or something...

    This reminds me of many meetings where you would come across a Bedouin with a slung or carried AK, and you could still have a totally peaceful interaction with this guy, and at no time did the aggressive posturing of combat ready firing positions become a necessity.

    It is my opinion, derived from my experiences, that the presence of a firearm induces far too much panic in our law enforcement and other communities. Ideally, we could have the true safety of everybody being armed with whatever they like and able to carry it anywhere, without the baseless and irrational fear that we have been brainwashed to believe is appropriate in our society.

    Just my .02


    Edit:

    I have an enormous problem with this -

    According to the Deseret News, Barrett told two witnesses in the parking lot of the hotel he was "in training."
    So he was compliant and conversational with people?
    Um?

    Why was he shot?

    Edit #2:

    What hell? This guy is in obvious, and correct, full battle rattle. The uniform looks correct from what I can see.
    So...cops just go around shooting soldiers now?

    He has a 2nd Infantry seminole and an ISAF patch, his nametape on his uniform...

    He better have initiated the contact with the officer first for this officer to ever sleep again without regret...
    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 09-03-2010 at 03:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  15. #15
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716
    This incident highlights so many things wrong with law enforcement today, but honestly, it skips the real issue.

    Is a police force even constitutional?

  16. #16
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313
    Quote Originally Posted by thx997303 View Post
    This incident highlights so many things wrong with law enforcement today, but honestly, it skips the real issue.

    Is a police force even constitutional?
    Here is a good read on the issue. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6
    So I talked to an eyewitness today and the story I heard was that the solider started firing on the officer before he was even completely out of his vehicle.

  18. #18
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Jensen View Post
    Here is a good read on the issue. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
    I had actually just finished reading that article. Very well researched.

  19. #19
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    This story is exactly the reason that OC is so important.

    When officers are trained in some states to automatically draw their firearms as they respond to a MWAG call, that is wrong. They have been trained to believe that they are the "only ones" that should be allowed to carry guns and all others are quite probably a threat.

    Instead of treating armed law abiding citizens as normal, they BEGIN the encounter as a confrontation because they have not only been conditioned by 30 years of anti-gun rhetoric in the media, but also their own departmental training that anyone with a gun is a threat.

    Gun owners have made progress, but much more is needed to turn this backwards way of thinking around.

    In this case, I wonder if there is any video from nearby businesses? Without that, we may never know exactly what happened because every witness will have a different perspective.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Murray, ,
    Posts
    99
    The amount of facepalm in this thread is nauseating. Are you so blind to your cause that the first thing is to assume the police are in the wrong.

    Aardvark...."If you have Served in our Military, then, I trust that those Service Members will take up my Arguement in favor of that Man for the reasons listed above"

    I have and sorry but I don't. To assume that all sufferers of PTSD have the exact same responses as you listed is just silly. I'd disagree with just about every single 'PTSD afflicted vets....' thing you listed as a generalization.

    What about the PTSD afflicted vet who believes he's outside the wire and the approaching officers are BG's?

    What about the PTSD afflicted vet who is so afflicted with nightmares, flashbacks and feelings that nobody understands so what better way to go out than like a soldier?

    I can go on alllll day long. What affected some of my friends didn't do the same to me. What screwed me up didn't affect those with me the same way. To give rash generalizations is nonsense and is a disservice to both the police and the unfortunate soldier.

    I realize this is an OC sight but really, reading blindingly biased threads and posts gets old. Does anyone else ever stop to wonder why this forum has absolutely died the past year? Might want to take a deep look at yourself because you may be a contributor to it. (the last directed at nobody in particular.)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6
    GenkiSudo +1

  22. #22
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716
    This Utah thread has largely died due to the more state specific Utah concealed carry.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by GenkiSudo View Post
    ...I can go on alllll day long. What affected some of my friends didn't do the same to me. What screwed me up didn't affect those with me the same way. To give rash generalizations is nonsense and is a disservice to both the police and the unfortunate soldier.
    This is very true.

    My only point was if he DID NOT make any aggressive movements or immediately assume the high ready, then it was not necessary to open fire.

    However, per one poster here, apparently he fired first, and specifically "Before the officer even got out of his cruiser".

    In that case, good job SLPD.

    To the soldier, rest in peace brother.
    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 09-07-2010 at 09:39 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Rest assured to all..., but if it is true that The Soldier fired first.., well.., then..., the Shooting would be Justified.

  25. #25
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313
    Word is, that the soldier began to fire at the officer before he even had a chance to stop his cruiser.

    If that's the case, then the officer is lucky to be alive, and a good shoot on the part of the police.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •