Tacoma officer fatally shoots driver near Purdy

[amlevin]

I think it's more broken translations of it. Sometimes a direct word for word translation just doesn't convey a message the same. If someone were to translate it, it may have a completely different message when someone else who believes something else translates it.

Though that's just my understanding of it and he may have had something completely different in mind for the language difference.

The same is true for our Bible. The original texts were written in archaic languages and each "translation" seems to create more arguments. And then you have the various "cults" that make up their own versions as they go.

 

[randian]

I think it's more broken translations of it. Sometimes a direct word for word translation just doesn't convey a message the same. If someone were to translate it, it may have a completely different message when someone else who believes something else translates it.

Most Muslims can't read classical Arabic, even actual Arabs, and most Muslims can't read modern Arabic either. Somehow, they get by.

Since the Quran essentially makes Arabic Islam's holy language, claiming you can't understand the Quran unless you read classical Arabic is a statement of Islamic supremacism. It would be like claiming you can't understand the Bible unless you read classical Greek and Aramaic.

Fortunately, I don't need to read the Quran in Arabic to know what it means. I just need to read Reliance of the Traveler (A Sacred Manual of Islamic Law), whose English translation was certified by al-Azhar University (the closest thing to Papal pronouncement you'll get in Islam) as conforming to Orthodox Sunni practice. It covers every part of the Quran and what it allows, mandates, and forbids, along with with supporting information from reliable Hadith (words and acts of Muhammad). According to Muslims themselves, Reliance of the Traveler is one of the most authoritative works on Islam ever written. It cannot be dismissed as a non-believers misunderstanding.

Just so you know, most English translations (like Pickthall's, a European convert to Islam) are watered-down from the Arabic, so as not to scare off potential reverts. As violent and intolerant as the English translations show Islam to be, the original Arabic is even worse.

 

[Citizen]

The driver was coherent enough to understand to pull over at 2am because of the lights of a police vehicle. The driver made the intentional decision to get out of their vehicle at 2am and turn towards the police officer. The driver made the intentional decision to have a pistol in their had during these other actions.

Are you saying that the officer should not take that as intent to do harm? How long does it take to bring a semi automatic handgun to point and shoot at that point? How long should the officer wait before, upholstering their firearm, seek cover, return fire?

(p.s. I am leaving out the fact that 2am is the time the bars close in Washington. I am leaving out that the officers query of the vehicle would of shown a repeat DUI offender. I am leaving out that the driver smelled of intoxicants. I am leaving out the fact that the driver was a postal worker...ok well the postal worker thing just has to be a coincidence.)

Postal worker remark:

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.

First, let me draw a distinction. Cops is government--hard, strict standards need to apply. Plus, cops is trained. If Mrs. Nervous-nellie Neurotic shot the same man at her back door with a gun in his hand hanging at his side, I'd take into account her lack of training and Justice Holmes admonition that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife. However, police do training precisely to fill in where there will be no time for detached reflection.

Back to the question. Gun-at-side in this context is not intent. Insofar as it can transition to intent in less than a second, immediate action is highly advisable--draw, move to cover, while giving commands to drop the gun, etc. But, its still not time to shoot.

We've all heard the stories about the citizen who announced to the cop, "I have a gun" intending to be courteous. Some have heard about the citizen who offered his gun to the cop at the driver window, and was shot and killed by the cop at the passenger side who only saw the driver reaching for a gun in the glove box at the driver-side cop's request. Thus, just because we cannot imagine possible innocent explanations for exiting a car with a gun in hand, does not mean they don't exist. But, we don't have to imagine innocent explanations if just apply AOJ/I strictly. Pointing the gun at the cop is intent. Hanging at the side is intent of...well, having the gun in his hand.

A quick example comes to mind. Remember the youtube video of the suicidal guy who sits in a lawn chair on a sidewalk in town. SWAT sniper shoots the gun out of his hand. Gun in hand. Suicidal people are by definition homicidal. Police have learned, or maybe are learning, that suicidal people can turn their hostility from themselves to the cop in an instant. Yet, they tend not to go around shooting these people just because they have a gun in their hand. The police in the lawn-chair incident moved or stayed near cover and worked to de-escalate the situation, rather than just shoot him.

We have to be conscious that we're talking about a citizen's life here, in danger from government. We want to be very, very careful about the standards, about the justifications we accept, about the (excuses?) we accept.

 

[BigDave]

With all things considered and come together at that point in time, there was intent to cause undue alarm and threatening to say the least.
Seeing those trying to justify handling a gun in hand outside/inside during a police stop is absurd and ignorance and will likely follow some of the advice here at it not or should not make a difference it bad, bad advice.

I am glad there are a few here with good common sense and promote the concept not to handle a firearm when making contact with law enforcement of a citizen unless you plan to use it.

 

[Citizen]

With all things considered and come together at that point in time, there was intent to cause undue alarm and threatening to say the least.
Seeing those trying to justify handling a gun in hand outside/inside during a police stop is absurd and ignorance and will likely follow some of the advice here at it not or should not make a difference it bad, bad advice.

I am glad there are a few here with good common sense and promote the concept not to handle a firearm when making contact with law enforcement of a citizen unless you plan to use it.

Discussing whether gun-in-hand is AOJ/I is not the same as advice to do so. The two are not equivalent. Who said, promoted, advised, or justified the idea that it was OK, wise, smart to handle a firearm during a police encounter? Or, is this something you injected yourself?

 

[BigDave]

Discussing whether gun-in-hand is AOJ/I is not the same as advice to do so. The two are not equivalent. Who said, promoted, advised, or justified the idea that it was OK, wise, smart to handle a firearm during a police encounter? Or, is this something you injected yourself?

As has been stated when the sum of items (time, place, circumstances, actions ...) come together manifest Jeopardy.
Remember the Gun was in hand during a legal police stop, plain and simple stupid.

When you have some who read bits and pieces of these threads, as all do not read the entire thread can walk away the the concept of your ideas he was not presenting a threat and that he should not have been shot for handling a firearm in that matter, which is utterly irresponsible.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP When you have some who read bits and pieces of these threads, as all do not read the entire thread can walk away the the concept of your ideas he was not presenting a threat and that he should not have been shot for handling a firearm in that matter, which is utterly irresponsible.

Wait a minute. Which is utterly irresponsible, me or holding a gun in the way discussed in the context discussed?

If holding the gun in the way discussed is irresponsible, then its not Jeopardy/Intent. Earlier in the quoted posted, you used the word stupid, also. Irresponsible and stupid are not a license to be killed.

On the other hand, if you are calling me irresponsible...let me make sure I've got this straight. By discussing a subject, analyzing it into its parts, I am the one who is stupid because someone else may not read the entire discussion and take away an incorrect idea? I'm responsible for that reader's failure to look carefully at what is being said? So, we're limited to a couple one-liners? And, that's the limit of the depth of the discussion or analysis? Yeah, right. Suuuuure. I guess we'll just stop posting links to SCOTUS cases. No more quoting entire SCOTUS paragraphs. Good heavens, somebody might come away with a wrong idea!! Just quote the one sentence that applies. Suuuure.

 

[Citizen]

As has been stated when the sum of items (time, place, circumstances, actions ...) come together manifest Jeopardy.
Remember the Gun was in hand during a legal police stop, plain and simple stupid.

Huh!?! Where did you get your definition of Jeopardy/Intent? Are you making it up as you go along?

Time and place relate to Opportunity. For example, if he is in the same place, but at a different time, Opportunity is absent.

Jeopardy/Intent are the third element, not the sum of the other elements. Now whose giving out incorrect information?

As to AOJ/I in the incident under discussion, so far, some other posters seem to think that just up and declaring that justification existed is enough and everybody should just accept it. The nearest anybody has come to an explanation is to say or imply that since the deceased could get his gun into action quickly, Jeopardy/Intent was established. Which is nuts. Some have hinted, yourself included, that there is some magic in the fact that a traffic stop occurred at night. I say magic because nobody actually explained how those items made for Jeopardy/Intent.

So, get off your high horse where those who disagree are stupid, irresponsible, or otherwise deserving of criticism. If it is so obvious, it should be real easy to explain. Besides, you wouldn't want a skim-reader to come away with a wrong idea, would you? Better explain it clearly for those readers, too.

 

[gogodawgs]

Postal worker remark:

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.

First, let me draw a distinction. Cops is government--hard, strict standards need to apply. Plus, cops is trained. If Mrs. Nervous-nellie Neurotic shot the same man at her back door with a gun in his hand hanging at his side, I'd take into account her lack of training and Justice Holmes admonition that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife. However, police do training precisely to fill in where there will be no time for detached reflection.

Back to the question. Gun-at-side in this context is not intent. Insofar as it can transition to intent in less than a second, immediate action is highly advisable--draw, move to cover, while giving commands to drop the gun, etc. But, its still not time to shoot.

We've all heard the stories about the citizen who announced to the cop, "I have a gun" intending to be courteous. Some have heard about the citizen who offered his gun to the cop at the driver window, and was shot and killed by the cop at the passenger side who only saw the driver reaching for a gun in the glove box at the driver-side cop's request. Thus, just because we cannot imagine possible innocent explanations for exiting a car with a gun in hand, does not mean they don't exist. But, we don't have to imagine innocent explanations if just apply AOJ/I strictly. Pointing the gun at the cop is intent. Hanging at the side is intent of...well, having the gun in his hand.

A quick example comes to mind. Remember the youtube video of the suicidal guy who sits in a lawn chair on a sidewalk in town. SWAT sniper shoots the gun out of his hand. Gun in hand. Suicidal people are by definition homicidal. Police have learned, or maybe are learning, that suicidal people can turn their hostility from themselves to the cop in an instant. Yet, they tend not to go around shooting these people just because they have a gun in their hand. The police in the lawn-chair incident moved or stayed near cover and worked to de-escalate the situation, rather than just shoot him.

We have to be conscious that we're talking about a citizen's life here, in danger from government. We want to be very, very careful about the standards, about the justifications we accept, about the (excuses?) we accept.

Where did you decide that the gun is at the side?

Gun is in the hand.

Do you not think a jury (I choose this specifically and not a police inquiry board) would not find that the successive choices I had outlined before would be considered intent?

 

[Citizen]

Where did you decide that the gun is at the side?

Gun is in the hand.

I know. I only used that phrasing to distinguish from gun pointing at cop.

 

[gogodawgs]

I know. I only used that phrasing to distinguish from gun pointing at cop.

That is quite the leap from the story at hand. In two accounts the new source and police department have used "brandishing" and "wielding".

Again, the series of events/choices and the definition provided as the two choices above, it is clear to the 'reasonable man' that intent culminates in the event. (Even if he was a postal worker)

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Do you not think a jury (I choose this specifically and not a police inquiry board) would not find that the successive choices I had outlined before would be considered intent?

(I had to go back and look again, thus the separation in replies to the same post).

What's a jury got to do with it? I know you know better than to pull a conversational tactic like that. What's going on here?

We're talking about whether it is or isn't justification, not what a jury would decide. A jury is just twelve more people discussing whether it is or isn't, their view no more or less valid than yours or mine, excepting the outcome of a legal proceeding.

I only hope a jury is 1) given proper and full instruction in the law on justified lethal force, and 2) spends a little more time comparing the circumstances of the shooting to the law than the some of my fellow forum members here.

 

[BigDave]

Citizen here is a good website that maybe just may help you in understanding AOJ as There is no way you will know their intent, so we are dealing with Ability Opportunity and Jeopardy and the website I am directing you to also included preponderance with all things considered.

http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Jeopardy

The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.

In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)

On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.

It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.

The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.

Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.

It is clear you are in and from VA not WA and we are discussing Washington State Law and there are different provisions in our State Laws that cover an Officer in this situation.

RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

 

[gogodawgs]

(I had to go back and look again, thus the separation in replies to the same post).

What's a jury got to do with it? I know you know better than to pull a conversational tactic like that. What's going on here?

We're talking about whether it is or isn't justification, not what a jury would decide. A jury is just twelve more people discussing whether it is or isn't, their view no more or less valid than yours or mine, excepting the outcome of a legal proceeding.

I only hope a jury is 1) given proper and full instruction in the law on justified lethal force, and 2) spends a little more time comparing the circumstances of the shooting to the law than the some of my fellow forum members here.

Who is to decide intent? You? The dictionary? or a jury? or perhaps an inquiry board? Quit hiding behind verbal gymnastics and answer a question. You are the only one pulling 'conversational tactic (s)'.

You do not seriously hope the jury is given proper instruction, you have spoken too jury nullification in the past, so don't try and pull that either.

You are the one that invented the pistol at the side in this debate, which is false. False, pretense. False, facts. False, results.

 

[Citizen]

That is quite the leap from the story at hand. In two accounts the new source and police department have used "brandishing" and "wielding".

Again, the series of events/choices and the definition provided as the two choices above, it is clear to the 'reasonable man' that intent culminates in the event. (Even if he was a postal worker)

Wait a minute! Where did the brandishing and wielding come into it? I have been talking about a person exiting a vehicle holding a gun in his hand down at his side.

***damit! If you'all want to argue about something, specify what you are arguing about!

Don't tell me the last two pages of argument have been two sides arguing about different things!

DamndamndamndamndamndamnDAMMIT!!!!

Oooooooooooooooo! ***damit is that frustrating!

OK! You guys win. I quit. I am not about to go back and start all over by trying to figure out where this went off the rails. And start all over again re-evaluating things in light of brandishing and wielding. I'm done.

(No offense intended. I'm just so frickin frustrated I can't think straight.)

 

[Trigger Dr]

(No offense intended. I'm just so frickin frustrated I can't think straight.)

I'm not so sure you thinking straight to begin with.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I understand what you are saying Citizen. I have had police surprise me with guns pointed at my head, I guess I would have been justified in shooting them. After all when they are pointing it at your head it is intent.

 

[gogodawgs]

Wait a minute! Where did the brandishing and wielding come into it? I have been talking about a person exiting a vehicle holding a gun in his hand down at his side.

***damit! If you'all want to argue about something, specify what you are arguing about!

Don't tell me the last two pages of argument have been two sides arguing about different things!

DamndamndamndamndamndamnDAMMIT!!!!

Oooooooooooooooo! ***damit is that frustrating!

OK! You guys win. I quit. I am not about to go back and start all over by trying to figure out where this went off the rails. And start all over again re-evaluating things in light of brandishing and wielding. I'm done.

(No offense intended. I'm just so frickin frustrated I can't think straight.)

No offense taken.

Post #3:

The officer got out of her patrol car. The driver reportedly got out of his truck and brandished a semi-automatic handgun, Troyer said.

Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crim...-traffic-stop-on-key-peninsula/#ixzz1PNJnFXei

Citizen, with all due respect you wanted to argue about a situation with a man holding a gun down at his side. I have tried to point to the 'facts' as relayed in the articles attached. Starting with my link in post #3 to the local newspaper in this particular story and geographical situation.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

Just had to throw something in there. It is unbelievably easy to buy and rebuild a police cruiser. I bought my Crown Victoria for about $2,000 from a guy who has at least 6 Crown Vic/ Caprices from different times from the 90s to current. He has at least 3 that have everything sans the top light bar. They have the push bars, cages, rifle/ shotgun racks, rear light bar, radio, laptop, etc. He even wears a jacket and cap that says police. I don't know if he commits crimes or just belongs to a club for the restoration of emergency vehicles, but if he can easily have at least 6 retired police cars and 3 of them fully built, then it would be easy for anyone.

Privately owned cars don't need to be equipped with anything.

It's one thing to buy one for a purpose, say, amateur radio, because of their large roof and upgraded power system. But putting on a shirt/jacket and driving the car is ASKING for trouble,and completely immoral.

state law requires 'an act' intentionally designed to mislead someone into making them believe you're an officer. Anyone in their right mind would say buying an old police car and wearing a jacket that says 'police' on it fulfills that requirement.

I've even seen someone spray paint a kleenex box red/blue and put it in their rear deck, or put a big red cup on their dash.... Everyone knows what they're trying to do. I try to mess with them every chance I get.

As someone who sells/has sold emergency lighting & communications equipment, I can tell you I've definitely seen some nutjobs.

When I first met BooBoo, there were huge red flags.

I know what vehicles are agency owned and which ones are privately owned, but only because my experience as a FF and installer. The average public doesn't have that experience, and can be easily confused (that, and a lot of people are just plain dumb).

 

[amlevin]

I know what vehicles are agency owned and which ones are privately owned, but only because my experience as a FF and installer. The average public doesn't have that experience, and can be easily confused (that, and a lot of people are just plain dumb).

Quite often the license plate is a clue.