All those what if SCENARIO'S

Gunslinger · Mar 29, 2011

PT111 said:
We have to look at a couple of things here. One it was not a no knock warrant so they did knock on the door and supposedly announce that they were police and were in uniform. That is good. They were there to arrest someone for shooting at police so I am sure that made them very very tense and ready to do battle figuring that whoever came to the door would be the person that did the shooting. They also probably figured that if that person had already fired shots at police that he would probably do it again and I'll bet they figured that no one would answer the door.

All that figuring went wrong when the grandfather answered the door and they saw the gun. Since they were already prepared to do battle when they saw a gun they started shooting not even looking at who was holding the gun. A royal screw-up by the police. I don't see any reason to arrest the grandfather, in fact the city should be responsible for his medical bills and the officers involved should go back for some more shoot-don't-shoot training. As for the grandson that was the cause of all this needs his butt whupped by grandpa.

"An unfortunate accident" yet they arrested a man for having a legal gun in his own home after attempting to murder him. What BS! Surprised the hero cops didn't shoot his wheelchair bound wife too. After all, she may have had an Uzi under her blanket. The old guy must not have seen the SS armbands on the hero stormtroopers. When I open the door to someone I don't know, I have my right hand behind the door--with a Hi-Power in it.

Gunslinger · Mar 29, 2011

eye95 said:
Based upon the scant information presented in the article, any judgment being passed now is woefully premature.

Critical questions remaining to be answered from other sources:

1. Did the officers announce that they were police?

2. Did the officers provide a reasonable amount of time for the door to be answered?

3. Who opened the door?

4. Did the homeowner have the gun in a holster or in his hand?

5. Did the homeowner point the gun at the officers?

6. Did the homeowner say anything leading the officers to believe that they were in danger?

7. Did the homeowner resist the execution of the warrant?

The officers were trying to arrest a person who already showed no compunction against shooting at them. They were understandably in a hyper-ready state. Unless we learn more details, reasonable judgments could range from, "These cops wanted to exact their revenge, went to this home fully intending to get into a shoot-out, were on a hair-trigger, and used the slightest (unjustifiable) excuse to open fire," to, "These cops, who knew that they were serving a very dangerous warrant and knew that the suspect was predisposed to shooting officers, announced themselves as officers, found an armed man (gun in hand) at the door when he opened it, and reacted to his verbal resistance, combined with his dangerous handling of his weapon, reasonably believing that he was about to stop the execution of the warrant by using deadly force."

Anyone who claims to know which of the above (or any other scenario) happened based on the scant details provided by the article is just blowing so much smoke.

My current inclination is to think that the officers were probably too ready to mix it up, but, like I have not yet heard in this thread, I don't know.

At least at this point, unusual as it may seem, I agree with Eye--in general. However, the warrant was not for an 86 year old man. It the cops were so stupid that they couldn't tell he wasn't the suspect, and they had authority only against the supect, they shouldn't be wearing a badge. I have no doubt they were expecting possible trouble. What they found was an innocent man completely within his right to have a weapon in his hand in HIS home and they gunned him down. While more facts are indeed needed, this case at present reeks of out of control, trigger happy moronic cops. And who said there was "verbal resistence"? Or that they identified themselves as cops or clowns from the local circus? I will say the prosecutor will quickly drop the charges and I see a big payday for this guy.

Gunslinger · Mar 29, 2011

PT111 said:
Do you mean to say that if someone can't serve an arrest warrant on someone they know has already attempeted to kill policement with the same calm, cool demeanor that they would approaching a jaywalker then they shouldn't ba a cop? With that requirement there is going to eb a lot of job openings in LEO. I suppose a soldier riding down a road in Iraq shouldn't be any more alert than riding around on bace back here in the states either. When you know there is someone right around the orner waiting to kill you then most people will get a little more excited.

Does that justify the officer's overreaction. No it doesn't but I don't know the details and I doubt that you do either but to say that they shouldn't be more on guard while serving an arrest warrant on someone for trying to kill cops is going to make everyone involved more tense and quicker on the trigger. That is exactly what I think happened here.

The point is the man they gunned down was guilty of NOTHING. In his own home, legally holding a pistol for self protection of himself and his wheel chair bound wife. He was not a threat to anyone as of right now's information. In combat, it's a different story, so the metaphor doesn't work. Soldiers deal with enemies; cops, what a ******* joke, "serve and protect." "Quicker on the trigger" is a sign of incompetence or cowardice. If either applied, then " With that requirement there is going to eb a lot of job openings in LEO" I hope becomes true. And I would judge both did.

Jeff Hayes · Mar 29, 2011

eye95 said:
Let me fill in your blank. Sort of.

IMO, one is given respect because he is a person. Until he, as an individual, not as a member of a given profession, demonstrates that does not deserve my respect, he gets it. Period.

Eye I disagree, respect can not be given until you know that person. How can you respect someone when you dont know what there is to respect.

All persons I meet no matter whom they are start out just above neutral and as I get to know them the respect comes or there is no respect. The people that my life crosses paths with range all the way from great respect to downright distain but they all start out about the same.

Gunslinger · Mar 29, 2011

jdholmes said:
I think Eye95 said it well. There is very little information provided, and we were not there.

I have been shocked with how many people on this forum seem to be so quick to jump to a rash judgment against the police.

Yes, I understand we have been privy to some shocking video in the past few years that show some officers behaving badly...but those cases do not represent every police officer and are not a prime example of the average encounter.

My father was an officer for twenty years, my grandfather was an officer for over forty, and I have an uncle that currently serves. I have respect for every police officer until they give me reason not to. We want them to treat us with respect...let's give them a little and give them the same benefit of the doubt as we give the citizen in these encounters.

We don't know what really happened here.

We are talking about an instant case. Not all cops, but these who gunned down an 86 year old man in his home. No one is bashing all cops, but to give THESE cops the same benefit of the doubt is difficult with an 86 year old man lying in a pool of his own blood for doing nothing wrong. Cops should be held to a higher standard. If they are successful in this measure, they deserve our thanks and respect. If they are not, they deserve our contempt. I've said it before many times: good cops, unless they do something extraordinary, get no press. Bad ones always do. So, it does appear to be disproportionate, many more bad than good. I don't believe that, but when talking about ostensibly 'bad' cops, I don't cut them any slack. The burden of justifying their actions is solely on them. And the likelihood of the usual coverup is rampant.

Gunslinger · Mar 29, 2011

PT111 said:
There was a time when both ploicemen and judges were given discretion on how to enforce laws and could make decisions on what they did or didn't do. Most of us long for those days because we were on the side that benefited from it if we are old enough or imagine that we would be on that side if we had been around during that time. I remember the times when if the highway patrolman found out about two guys wanting to race their cars he would carry them out to a deserted highway, block it off and fire his revolver to start the race. Can you even think about such a thing happening today? What changed? For one thing those that did not benefit from it started to complain and file lawsuits. those that felt they didn't benefit filed lawsuits. Those that did benefit but felt they didn't benefit enough filed lawsuits.

Leo no longer have any discretion in enforcing laws and judges no longer have discretion in setencing. Everything is supposedly cut and dried with all being treated equal. But we cannot take human nature out of it and when someone sees a friend shot down he is going to react differently than if it is a perfect stranger whether he is a cop, a citizen or a soldier. That is unless they are a sociopath who was born without the ability to feel emotions. (Some claim that it is the psychopath who is born that way, not the sociopath) Either way unless you are Mr. Spock or Data you will want to use discretion in everything you do and expect others to also use it when dealing with you but not with what you consider BG's. As Paul Harvey said we long for the good old days because we weren't old and probably weren't good.

You've made some very good points. I will add one thing which is significant, imo. When I was a boy in the '60s, we read the "Chicago Tribune." And news on TV was primarily local. If a rogue cop did something in Utah, or a cop killer took one out in GA, we never heard about it. We had parochial attitudes about police based on where we lived--whether in the Chicago suburbs or rural SC. Now, the internet tells it all, tells it fast and tells it with its own spin. As I said above, rarely is it the story of a good cop doing his job well. That won't get many hits. A dirty cop? Let's see what it says.

since9 · Apr 1, 2011

jdholmes said:
I think Eye95 said it well. There is very little information provided, and we were not there.

I have been shocked...

SHOCKED, I tell you!!!

Facts:

1. Warrant was being served on the grandson, not grandpa.

2. Grandpa answered the door armed, well within his right to do so.

3. He was shot, the police admitted it was "an unfortunate accident" yet they arrested him anyway.

The question at large is whether he answered the door brandishing or holstered. I can't imagine the latter resulting in policemen drawing and firing. I can, however, imagine officers popping off if he was brandishing. Even so, unless he drew on them, it was wrong. Why is he under arrest? Regardless, since he was in his own home, and he wasn't the one being served, it was indeed "an unfortunate accident."

Word to the wise, if you see law enforcement through the peephold, it might be best to slide that heater back in it's holster.

...with how many people on this forum seem to be so quick to jump to a rash judgment against the police.

I don't care what kind of warrent they're serving. If it's not for me, they knock on MY door and shoot ME, I think that crosses the line so far it's not even close to being funny.

We want them to treat us with respect...let's give them a little and give them the same benefit of the doubt as we give the citizen in these encounters.

Well, here's a hint: Don't knock on my door then shoot me when I answer the door armed in accordance with my 2A rights.

Thanks.

We don't know what really happened here.

That is true. Holstered? Unholstered? Brandishing? Still, even if the latter, shooting him is EXTREMELY way over the line. How about a take-down, instead? You mean to tell me Detroit Police officers aren't training in those techniques? If the man actually pointed a weapon at the officers, all bets are off. Is there any proof this actually happened, however? Or is this just a possible CYA cover story?

PT111 · Apr 1, 2011

Gunslinger said:
You've made some very good points. I will add one thing which is significant, imo. When I was a boy in the '60s, we read the "Chicago Tribune." And news on TV was primarily local. If a rogue cop did something in Utah, or a cop killer took one out in GA, we never heard about it. We had parochial attitudes about police based on where we lived--whether in the Chicago suburbs or rural SC. Now, the internet tells it all, tells it fast and tells it with its own spin. As I said above, rarely is it the story of a good cop doing his job well. That won't get many hits. A dirty cop? Let's see what it says.

You are very correct about the communications media and 'Bad Cops" or "Bad Politicians" being reported and very little about the good ones. This definitely shapes our attitudes. I remember when the "questionable actions" of certain people was kept from the public. For instance the little "affairs" of JFK. Not long after that Watergate came along and our world was changed. No longer could anyone in power do anything and it not be reported. This has changed our life.

I am not defending or excusing the actions of the two cops at all just pointing out a reason for their actions. There is a big difference between reason and excuse. I have an opinion of what happened but I do not condone it nor excuse it. Merely say that in this case they made a very bad mistake in judgement and to say that they intentionally shot him or should be able to not even feel differently when approaching this situation vs. some other one is to proclaim that they are superhuman.

jdholmes · Apr 1, 2011

I guess we will each have and form our own opinions on everything but I have no reason to believe that the cops are in the wrong any more than the old guy.

Take his age out of the equation, because if you are going to look at it objectively we have to. The information given us, whether true or not, does declare that the cops announced themselves. If they announced themselves and he opened the door with a weapon...what leads us to believe that he didn't brandish it or even open it with the weapon pointing at the officers...that does change things. I have no reason to believe they were in the wrong with their actions as of yet.

I don't know about you but I've met some pretty cantankerous old folks...you just never know until real facts are released.

ChiangShih · Apr 2, 2011

Well, normally I'd say we do not have enough evidence to jump to the defense of either side; however, the police admit it was an "unfortunate" incident, and there was no acknowledgement of the gun being pointed at them.
Don't you think if the officer just shot an old man with a gun, he would make it clear that he felt his life was in danger and the gun was pointed at him in a threatening manner?
This is just speculation, but it seems to me if there man did point the gun at the officers, that little detail would not go unreported or left to question.

jdholmes · Apr 2, 2011

ChiangShih said:
Well, normally I'd say we do not have enough evidence to jump to the defense of either side; however, the police admit it was an "unfortunate" incident, and there was no acknowledgement of the gun being pointed at them.
Don't you think if the officer just shot an old man with a gun, he would make it clear that he felt his life was in danger and the gun was pointed at him in a threatening manner?
This is just speculation, but it seems to me if there man did point the gun at the officers, that little detail would not go unreported or left to question.

The person speaking at that point was not one of the officers involved...judging by the fact that ambulance crews were still on hand it was most likely very shortly following the incident. The officers in question could have easily still been giving their official reports at that time The guy talking to the cameras is making a very general initial statement.

Of course it's an unfortunate incident...no matter who is at fault it is an unfortunate incident. 'Unfortunate' does not indicate who bears legal fault.

Have there been any more official updates on the case?

PT111 · Apr 2, 2011

ChiangShih said:
Well, normally I'd say we do not have enough evidence to jump to the defense of either side; however, the police admit it was an "unfortunate" incident, and there was no acknowledgement of the gun being pointed at them.
Don't you think if the officer just shot an old man with a gun, he would make it clear that he felt his life was in danger and the gun was pointed at him in a threatening manner?
This is just speculation, but it seems to me if there man did point the gun at the officers, that little detail would not go unreported or left to question.

Not to chide you at all but just to point out how dependent we are on the news media for keeping us informed of all the sorid details no matter whether they are any of our business or related at all. You may be correct about your assumptions of what was left our or put in but does it really matter what a third party said about what happened just minutes afterwards? Isn't that why the keep your mouth shut and ask for a lawyer advice is quoted in every third thread on here. We want to know all the details and we want to know them right now so we can make a judgement on who was right or wrong. It is just human nature being fed and promoted by people like Nancy Grace and Geraldo. Although there is one case that you better not talk about on here and maybe that same courtesy should extend to a lot more.

All those what if SCENARIO'S

Gunslinger

Regular Member

Gunslinger

Regular Member

Gunslinger

Regular Member

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member

Gunslinger

Regular Member

Gunslinger

Regular Member

since9

Campaign Veteran

PT111

Regular Member

jdholmes

Regular Member

ChiangShih

Regular Member

jdholmes

Regular Member

PT111

Regular Member