Officer Won't Face Charges in Shooting Death. Citizen ND that kills some one would be in jail? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Officer Won't Face Charges in Shooting Death. Citizen ND that kills some one would be in jail? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 4/3/2006 12:46:55 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
"Professional courtesy"

Heheheh. Yeup.

"I'll cover for you. We're all in this together."

Posted: 4/3/2006 12:47:21 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:

It's not the same scenario.

In one instance you have a homeowner protecting themselves against a criminal and a ND happens. The homeowner has a lower requirement on training to use a firearm. He is confronting, to him, a known criminal in commission of a crime.

In the case specified in the newspaper you have a police officer serving a search warrant on a citizen, when a ND kills the citizen. The citizen who was killed has not been charged or convicted of any crime, which the officer knew. The citizen didn't have violent priors or any priors, and had no criminal record (from what I remember of an article I posted here a few months ago). The search warrant was being served to gain information on a non-violent crime: gambling. It was not being served for the crime of murder, rape, or any other violent crime. By all accounts, the citizen was a business owner, doctor, and a good member of the community. LEO's are supposedly trained to a higher standard of firearms use then a citizen and are allowed more rights in carrying and using firearms then citizens. The officer was pointing a firearm at a citizen when he shouldn't have been.

The scenarios are not similiar at all.

Yes they are.

Homeowner - clearly justified to use force to stop a burglar.

Police - First your non-violent crime reasoning is nonsense. Secondly, search warrants have a different standard of force. Instead of "reasonably justified force", as in most police operations. Search warrants are to be served "with all neccesary force". Next, the "non-violent" stuff, the warrant was supposedly issued in connection with an organized crime investigation. We all know who runs the numbers racket, capeche? Also, the article here says they were arresting a FELONY SUSPECT, so your "no warrant, innocent person" is incorrect, FELONY SUSPECT. \

Police arresting felony suspect(s) are generally permitted to draw and aim guns at suspects who they are arresting for felonies.

So in both, the actual incident, and my scenario, each particpant has a legal jsutification to use force to effectively make an arrest.

Wow, I think that pretty much sums it up right there.

Guilty in till proven innocent. "We all know who runs numbers"

This attitude is why I hate cops and the new SWAT incarnation most of all.

That man was murdered for no reason.

PS. I'd be a "felony suspect" for allegedly possessing a new AR15 in my state. Maybe you should come to my house and shoot me in the face.

Posted: 4/3/2006 12:47:28 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Here is a more effective illustration.

One of the members here (I don't remember his handle, sorry) just recently posted about his experience with a ND. In his house, capped off his .45. Went down hall, and into neighbors apartment. Didn't hit a human at all.

Called 911, owned up to it, took responsability, didn't run, try to hide, lie, or try to cover up. He went through hell, including having all his guns taken away. Big expenses for court and lawyers, evicted from hi apartment, etc, etc, etc....IIRC just barely avoided losing his rights to own a gun forever.

An honest CITIZEN who got royally screwed, almost fucked over for hitting air.

LEO caps a guy and kills him with a ND. No punishment. No nothing. There you go....

Citizen, didn't hurt a soul with ND...fucked over, because citizens with guns are bad

LEO, kills guy with ND....off scott free, keeps job and guns, because LEO must be better than mere subjects....

Look, willing to admit it or not, there IS a double standard....

Well it's a great illustration, of we don't want any details.

Almost lost his Rights how? Was there an arrest? A conviction?

Plus, perhaps the story that was told that night, just didn't add up to the police on the scene that night. So they needed to gather evidence, and reconstruct the event, etc. etc.

If I was the property owner, I'd evict him too. Can't be shooting the other tenants, even accidentally, it makes the rent checks not get written.

Posted: 4/3/2006 12:49:29 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
If a person stops a burglar that is entering his house, by "drawing down" on the burglar, then trips while trying to get to the phone to call 911, and has an unintended discharge, killing the burglar.

What should happen to the home owner?

Easy to ask that question when you have that shiny thing pinned to your uniform...because it doesn't matter what "should" happen to the homeowner.

We all know what "would" happen.

Posted: 4/3/2006 12:53:30 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Wow, I think that pretty much sums it up right there.

Guilty in till proven innocent. "We all know who runs numbers"

This attitude is why I hate cops and the new SWAT incarnation most of all.

That man was murdered for no reason.

PS. I'd be a "felony suspect" for allegedly possessing a new AR15 in my state. Maybe you should come to my house and shoot me in the face.

You are right, now that I think about it. When confronting criminal suspects, the police should have to act like the kids in Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St, Halloween, or any of those other horror movies. Don't think about what could reasonably occur, until AFTER someone gets a hatchet through the head.

The military should take all the guns and body armor away from troops in Iraq, and only let them use them for say 2 hours, after they recieve incoming fire. Helicopters should be standing by with the equipment loaded, so they can fly the gear in, AFTER the shooting has started.

Let's not use an ounce of common sense. At all. Let's make the police and military confront people that may want to kill them using the ridiculous theories you just posted.

Posted: 4/3/2006 12:54:08 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If a person stops a burglar that is entering his house, by "drawing down" on the burglar, then trips while trying to get to the phone to call 911, and has an unintended discharge, killing the burglar.

What should happen to the home owner?

Easy to ask that question when you have that shiny thing pinned to your uniform...because it doesn't matter what "should" happen to the homeowner.

We all know what "would" happen.

Hey, I own a home too.

Posted: 4/3/2006 12:55:41 PM EDT

[#7]

IBTL.

Posted: 4/3/2006 12:56:07 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Here is a more effective illustration.

One of the members here (I don't remember his handle, sorry) just recently posted about his experience with a ND. In his house, capped off his .45. Went down hall, and into neighbors apartment. Didn't hit a human at all.

Called 911, owned up to it, took responsability, didn't run, try to hide, lie, or try to cover up. He went through hell, including having all his guns taken away. Big expenses for court and lawyers, evicted from hi apartment, etc, etc, etc....IIRC just barely avoided losing his rights to own a gun forever.

An honest CITIZEN who got royally screwed, almost fucked over for hitting air.

LEO caps a guy and kills him with a ND. No punishment. No nothing. There you go....

Citizen, didn't hurt a soul with ND...fucked over, because citizens with guns are bad

LEO, kills guy with ND....off scott free, keeps job and guns, because LEO must be better than mere subjects....

Look, willing to admit it or not, there IS a double standard....

Well it's a great illustration, of we don't want any details.

Almost lost his Rights how? Was there an arrest? A conviction?

Plus, perhaps the story that was told that night, just didn't add up to the police on the scene that night. So they needed to gather evidence, and reconstruct the event, etc. etc.

If I was the property owner, I'd evict him too. Can't be shooting the other tenants, even accidentally, it makes the rent checks not get written.

If you want details, there was a very large thread on it...unfortunately I don't remember the posters handle, or you could look it up...maybe someone else does...Any help with this?

Posted: 4/3/2006 12:58:04 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Also, the article here says they were arresting a FELONY SUSPECT, so your "no warrant, innocent person" is incorrect, FELONY SUSPECT. \

Police arresting felony suspect(s) are generally permitted to draw and aim guns at suspects who they are arresting for felonies.

There are felonies, and then there are felonies:

Criminalizing victims: The strange truth behind this fantasy

We’ve all heard bizarre stories before. Leave it to the Connecticut General Assembly (and other assorted officials of the elected and unelected variety) to try to top them all. What if I told you that the people who mold and shape public policy in Connecticut were banding together to push a new anti-crime initiative?

I’m sure many, if not most of you would say, “About time we got tough on criminals!”

You couldn’t be further from the truth.

You see, as this column goes to press, our legislators are busy in Hartford trying to put the best face they can on a new “crime-fighting” bill that would actually make it a crime to be a victim of crime.

Yes, you read that correctly.

There’s actually a bill moving through the legislature (and it’s picking up speed) that will criminalize the act of being a victim. I know it sounds nuts, but when Mark Twain observed that making legislation and making sausage are two processes one might best avoid trying to watch, he wasn’t kidding.

The pending legislation not only makes victims of crime criminals themselves, it specifies that victims who fall under the provisions of this bill are, are you ready, guilty of a felony. That’s right. Becoming a felon in Connecticut is about to get a whole lot easier.

What could we possibly be talking about, you say? Well, before I delve into the specifics of this bizarre bit of legislation, there is one more especially troubling aspect of the bill that is worthy of comment. Are you sitting down? You are? Good, because you will not believe this: If this bill is passed (as written) by the house and senate and is signed by Governor Rell (who has hinted that she will do just that), a victim of this particular crime will be, according to the law, presumed guilty of committing that felony. Astoundingly, the very same evidence that proves you are a victim will also prove you are guilty of a felony. That’s a neat trick, don’t you think?

By now you must be wondering what this is all about. I don’t blame you.

What if I told you that the legal framework of this new proposal could be applied to the crime of rape? That, in order to cut down on the number of rapes, our venerated officials decided to make it a felony offense for a woman to be “negligent” in the prevention of a rape, and to specify that in order to avoid such an outcome, any rape victim would have the burden of proving that she was not dressed provocatively and that she employed adequate measures to resist her attacker? Suppose the law said that the very evidence a rape took place would result in a statutory presumption that the victim was an accessory to her own to rape before she even set foot into a courtroom?
“Preposterous,” you’d say? You’d be right. The idea is so far beyond bizarre, it’s positively scary.

No, this isn’t about some lame-brained idea on curbing rape. However, that doesn’t make it any less troublesome. It’s about a lame-brained idea on curbing gun crime.

The legislation I am referring to is House Bill 5818. Of course, the legislators responsible for this nonsense gave it a rather benign and neutral title: “AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS.” While true, the title hides the fact that the real purpose of the legislation is much more sinister, and you don’t have to look very far to see this. Here is the “statement of purpose” that immediately follows the title:

“To require that when a firearm is not in the actual physical possession of the owner it be stored or kept in a manner so as to reduce the risk that it will be stolen or otherwise come into the possession of another person, require the reporting of the loss or theft of a firearm to a law enforcement agency and provide that evidence that a pistol or revolver was found not in the possession of the owner thereof is prima facie evidence that the owner had transferred such pistol or revolver without proper application and authorization.”

Now, is there anything wrong with requiring firearms to be stored securely? On the surface, no. I guess it depends on who determines exactly what is defined as “secure.” If the end result is some agency (most likely it’d come down to the Department of Public Safety and the Connecticut State Police) deciding the only lawful manner of owning firearms is by keeping them in a concrete vault, that would be problematic for most Connecticut gun-owners, wouldn’t it?

Likewise, requiring a citizen who has had his or her gun stolen to promptly inform law enforcement seems like common-sense, and it is. This legislation provides for a 72 hour window to do so if you are unfortunate enough to be in this predicament.

Had the new law stopped there, there might not be much to quarrel with. But the most alarming aspect of this legislation is revealed only by closer examination. This is the part that actually criminalizes the very fact of being a victim of theft. Here it is again, for your convenience:

“…and provide that evidence that a pistol or revolver was found not in the possession of the owner thereof is prima facie evidence that the owner had transferred such pistol or revolver without proper application and authorization.”

Anybody see the problem here? Let me break it down for you:

A. If a pistol that you legally own is stolen from you, obviously you are no longer are in possession of that pistol.

B. “Prima facie” is a fancy Latin phrase. It means "on its face," or at the outset. This means there is a presumption that the evidence or case in question can stand on its own merits until or unless proven otherwise. In other words, prima facie means it’s assumed to be true right from the start. In the context of criminal law, what this bill is saying is that the prosecutor does not have to actually prove that you failed to store the gun properly. You could have had it locked up in the vault at your local bank, but if it’s not found there, you will be presumed to have violated the law.

C. Transferring pistols or revolvers (handguns) “without proper application and authorization” is a felony. This is sometimes referred to as a “straw purchase,” when a legal gun buyer purchases a firearm for someone other than himself, or a person who is legally barred from possessing a firearm.

Therefore, according to many high-profile officials in our state, if you fall victim to thieves and a pistol of yours is stolen, as soon as the pistol is recovered, you will be presumptively guilty of illegally transferring your pistol to the thief. You will be an instant felon in the eyes of the law; you will be arrested, you will go to trial, and the only proof the state will need to present in court is the fact that someone other than you had your pistol, even if it was stolen from you. Now that’s what you call a “slam-dunk” case.

The very evidence that you were a crime victim is the very evidence that sends you to prison! Imagine that!

Additionally, this legislation attempts to nail the crime victim to the wall by putting the burden on the defendant to prove his innocence, through what is called “affirmative defenses.” Affirmative defenses shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. Under the legislation I’m writing about today, for example, the statute says you are presumed at first blush to have violated the law if your gun is recovered somewhere other than your possession. The affirmative defense may prove you were not negligent in storing your gun and that it was secure. But how do you prove it was stored securely if it was stolen?

The simple answer is you probably can't and the leaders who are pushing this legislation know it. They want your guns, and if they can’t ban them outright, they want you.

If your house or apartment is ever broken into and a pistol or revolver is stolen from you, you might as well get fitted for prison attire right away; because that’s the future people like Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez want for you. After all, it was Perez who said back in January, “The issue is not who fired the gun, but where it came from.”

True criminals must love that message.

Now, the officials who are peddling this legislation say these measures are needed to stem the flow of guns falling into the hands of criminals. They say that “straw purchasing” puts too many guns into the hands of the people who use guns to commit crime. Even if this is true (it’s interesting to note that at a splashy news conference, none of the attending officials offered any empirical evidence that this is actually a widespread problem), straw purchasing is, get this, already illegal. Remember? It’s a felony to transfer a pistol without the proper application and authorization!

This begs the question: If straw purchasing is already illegal (a felony), and it is a widespread problem (although no hard evidence has been offered to prove this), how is this legislation going to stop criminals (straw purchasers) from doing what they know is already illegal?

Could it be that our leaders are up to something much more sinister?

Posted: 4/3/2006 1:15:38 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Wow, I think that pretty much sums it up right there.

Guilty in till proven innocent. "We all know who runs numbers"

This attitude is why I hate cops and the new SWAT incarnation most of all.

That man was murdered for no reason.

PS. I'd be a "felony suspect" for allegedly possessing a new AR15 in my state. Maybe you should come to my house and shoot me in the face.

You are right, now that I think about it. When confronting criminal suspects, the police should have to act like the kids in Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St, Halloween, or any of those other horror movies. Don't think about what could reasonably occur, until AFTER someone gets a hatchet through the head.

The military should take all the guns and body armor away from troops in Iraq, and only let them use them for say 2 hours, after they recieve incoming fire. Helicopters should be standing by with the equipment loaded, so they can fly the gear in, AFTER the shooting has started.

Let's not use an ounce of common sense. At all. Let's make the police and military confront people that may want to kill them using the ridiculous theories you just posted.

Once again you make my point. Comparing what troops in Iraq go though, with these assholes serving warrants on gambling, is precisely the problem. You want everyone to believe cops are under siege from murderous "criminals" and that they need the best gear money can buy and no tactic is over reaction. Then they prance around the neighborhood shooting people for no reason, for our "safety". Dude might have been running numbers, first off, who fucking cares, second, since when is the punishment for gambling death?

Who do I need to be protected from again? The deadly bookies or the crazed, ninja jackass, serving the no knock warrants on "FELONOY SUSPECTS" (i.e. drug, gun, and gambling offences most of the time) and then shooting them for no reason.

How about they actually keep rapists and murders in jail instead of focusing on this chicken shit nonsense, obliterating our rights, and wasting all our money in the process?

This is still America and we ought to start acting like it.

Posted: 4/3/2006 1:30:47 PM EDT

[#11]

One of the classic arguments that LEO's use to try to convince legislators that civilians shouldn't have guns is the fact that they're professionally trained in the use of weapons and tactics. That's why I think they should be held to an even HIGHER standard when someone gets "accidentally" shot and/or killed. In any other job it's called "screwing up". See if a pilot who makes a mistake and kills someone gets to keep his or her job. Never happened.

Posted: 4/3/2006 1:35:05 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
If a person stops a ~~burglar~~Bookmaker, by "drawing down" on the ~~burglar~~ Bookmaker, then trips while trying to get to the phone to call 911, and has an unintended discharge, killing the burglar.

What should happen to the home owner?

In your (corrected) analogy the home owner should and would be charged. Civillians, LEO's or not, are not allowed to shoot unless preventing great bodily harm or in fear for their lives. But you already knew that didn't you?

If your going to make an analogy, make an accurate analogy.

Anyone who during, the normal activities of their work, kills somebody through sheer negligence, should be forced into a different career. That is just common sense.

Our government will continue to lose our trust as long as they protect incompetentence and evil.

Posted: 4/3/2006 1:36:19 PM EDT

[#13]

He had been up till 8PM thats not late at all.

Posted: 4/3/2006 1:45:56 PM EDT

[#14]

I find myself wondering about the mechanics of the incident. The article mentioned a flashlight (I assume an M3 or similar type). Something I don't like about these lights is they are activated by the trigger finger. Put a shooter in a high stress situation, trying to turn on the light (it was dark when the shooting occured) and the trigger finger just might go where it's not supposed to go.

IMHO the officer should be fired, even if criminal charges are not considered. As mentioned before, police are expected to be proficient with firearms, and a negligent discharge is definitely a failure to meet that standard. When I was an LEO supervisor I disciplined and recommended firing for a guy who had an ND with a shotgun (property damage only thankfully). I genuinely liked the guy, but I also strongly believe whenever a cop NDs a gun that they could have just as easily shot me.

I forsee a massive civil suit, settled out of court by the city.

Posted: 4/3/2006 2:05:12 PM EDT

[#15]

So the DA's line is basically "Negligent Discharges are not legally Negligence". Wow. And add on that cops are presumed in many laws to be more proficient with guns than regular citizens. And SWAT is supposed to be even more highly trained in order to perform the actions with the NFA weapons they are authorized to carry.

But this guy violated two of the most basic gun handling rules.

I know down here in FL, if I pointed a gun (not shot, not killed) at someone that I was not in fear for my life from, I would be going to jail.

Maybe the state police or feds should get involved with this case.

Any lawyer worth his degree will have no problem winning a wrongful death suit. I hate to say it, but thank god for the civil court system.

Posted: 4/3/2006 6:29:41 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a person stops a burglar that is entering his house, by "drawing down" on the burglar, then trips while trying to get to the phone to call 911, and has an unintended discharge, killing the burglar.

What should happen to the home owner?

Easy to ask that question when you have that shiny thing pinned to your uniform...because it doesn't matter what "should" happen to the homeowner.

We all know what "would" happen.

Hey, I own a home too.

But like you said in other threads, LE is LE, whether on the job or not.

Posted: 4/3/2006 7:43:25 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
If a person stops a burglar that is entering his house, by "drawing down" on the burglar, then trips while trying to get to the phone to call 911, and has an unintended discharge, killing the burglar.

What would happen to the home owner?

In CA nothing. In fact you wouldn't even have to worry about rushing to the phone until after you shot him on purpose.

Posted: 4/3/2006 8:33:27 PM EDT

[#18]

Don't have time to read thru all the usual chest beating, but since it was an ND is certainly should have gone to the Grand Jury. As for restricting police to 10 hour shifts.

I haven't gone home on time since March 3rd. I haven't had a scheduled day off since the 7th. Do you think that was my choice?

To wipe out our department overtime would required the hiring of about 230 more officers.

What happened to the officer in this case is called a "double-back" Very common to work two different 10 hr shifts in a 24 hour period. We had a local officer killed last year because he fell asleep on the way home after one.

Posted: 4/3/2006 8:47:15 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Here is a more effective illustration.

One of the members here (I don't remember his handle, sorry) just recently posted about his experience with a ND. In his house, capped off his .45. Went down hall, and into neighbors apartment. Didn't hit a human at all.

Called 911, owned up to it, took responsability, didn't run, try to hide, lie, or try to cover up. He went through hell, including having all his guns taken away. Big expenses for court and lawyers, evicted from hi apartment, etc, etc, etc....IIRC just barely avoided losing his rights to own a gun forever.

An honest CITIZEN who got royally screwed, almost fucked over for hitting air.

LEO caps a guy and kills him with a ND. No punishment. No nothing. There you go....

Citizen, didn't hurt a soul with ND...fucked over, because citizens with guns are bad

LEO, kills guy with ND....off scott free, keeps job and guns, because LEO must be better than mere subjects....

Look, willing to admit it or not, there IS a double standard....

Well it's a great illustration, of we don't want any details.

Almost lost his Rights how? Was there an arrest? A conviction?

Plus, perhaps the story that was told that night, just didn't add up to the police on the scene that night. So they needed to gather evidence, and reconstruct the event, etc. etc.

If I was the property owner, I'd evict him too. Can't be shooting the other tenants, even accidentally, it makes the rent checks not get written.

He was arrested and charged with two felonies instead of a misdemeanor charge they could have charged him with. He understands why he was evicted, knows he fucked up, etc. The police on scene apparently did not have any reason to believe he was up to anything more than blowing a hole in his wall accidentally. It has been reported to me by a reliable source (trying to avoid name dropping!) that even some Tempe officers who were not involved had heard of the case and could not figure out why he was being threatened with three years in prison. Charges were eventually dropped after someone who knew someone called someone....

Posters name is ASU1911.

ETA: A federal agent shot himself in the ass in Mesa (same court covers both areas) and last I heard no charges were filed.

Posted: 4/3/2006 8:58:09 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Don't have time to read thru all the usual chest beating, but since it was an ND is certainly should have gone to the Grand Jury. As for restricting police to 10 hour shifts.

I haven't gone home on time since March 3rd. I haven't had a scheduled day off since the 7th. Do you think that was my choice?

To wipe out our department overtime would required the hiring of about 230 more officers.

What happened to the officer in this case is called a "double-back" Very common to work two different 10 hr shifts in a 24 hour period. We had a local officer killed last year because he fell asleep on the way home after one.

Hey John, HR should really run the numbers on that if overtime is so prevalent. With their software, it should be a simple set of calculations for various hypothetical staffing levels.

Common sense tells me that it would be more cost-effective to hire more officers and not pay overtime, since *most* professions don't fork out mils of bills in benefits, but I will be the first to admit I'm nowhere near as familiar with your profession as you are.

Posted: 4/3/2006 9:00:51 PM EDT

[#21]

Is anyone really suprised ?

Posted: 4/4/2006 10:42:59 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Here is a more effective illustration.

One of the members here (I don't remember his handle, sorry) just recently posted about his experience with a ND. In his house, capped off his .45. Went down hall, and into neighbors apartment. Didn't hit a human at all.

Called 911, owned up to it, took responsability, didn't run, try to hide, lie, or try to cover up. He went through hell, including having all his guns taken away. Big expenses for court and lawyers, evicted from hi apartment, etc, etc, etc....IIRC just barely avoided losing his rights to own a gun forever.

An honest CITIZEN who got royally screwed, almost fucked over for hitting air.

LEO caps a guy and kills him with a ND. No punishment. No nothing. There you go....

Citizen, didn't hurt a soul with ND...fucked over, because citizens with guns are bad

LEO, kills guy with ND....off scott free, keeps job and guns, because LEO must be better than mere subjects....

Look, willing to admit it or not, there IS a double standard....

Well it's a great illustration, of we don't want any details.

Almost lost his Rights how? Was there an arrest? A conviction?

Plus, perhaps the story that was told that night, just didn't add up to the police on the scene that night. So they needed to gather evidence, and reconstruct the event, etc. etc.

If I was the property owner, I'd evict him too. Can't be shooting the other tenants, even accidentally, it makes the rent checks not get written.

He was arrested and charged with two felonies instead of a misdemeanor charge they could have charged him with. He understands why he was evicted, knows he fucked up, etc. The police on scene apparently did not have any reason to believe he was up to anything more than blowing a hole in his wall accidentally. It has been reported to me by a reliable source (trying to avoid name dropping!) that even some Tempe officers who were not involved had heard of the case and could not figure out why he was being threatened with three years in prison. Charges were eventually dropped after someone who knew someone called someone....

Posters name is ASU1911.

ETA: A federal agent shot himself in the ass in Mesa (same court covers both areas) and last I heard no charges were filed.

Thanks Combat_Jack, thats exactly who I was talking about.

Now 'splain that one Oly_M4gry.....why does Mr. PoPo get a free ride on his, while John Q Public gets screwed?

This is why people get the us versus them mentality when it comes to LE, it is often made clear that there is a clear double standard.

Funny thing is there are more than a few LEO's who apparently don't know shit about weapons, so the reasoning that the police are better trained and qualified to handle weapons is bogus....

Posted: 4/4/2006 9:11:05 PM EDT

[#23]

pzjgr,

I'd like to make a comment/distinction on your last sentence:

Funny thing is there are more than a few LEO's who apparently don't know shit about weapons, so the reasoning that the police are better trained and qualified to handle weapons is bogus....

I think the truth of it is that police (as a whole, or "on average") receive *more* training than the gen pop (also note that I said "gen pop," not "gun owners").

The ppl making the rules (and getting them made) *assume* that more=better, though we (gun owners, a distinct subset of the gen pop) know that is not automatically the case.

Obviously, some (maybe even "many," though I'd hesitate before going that far) gun owners receive training *far* above and beyond what most police officers ever receive. The fuck of it is, sans registration (which none of *us* want), there's no real good way to distinguish "average" gun owners from the gen pop, let alone the really well-trained ones.

Not a solution, just an observation/rumination.

Posted: 4/5/2006 5:04:20 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
pzjgr,

I'd like to make a comment/distinction on your last sentence:
Funny thing is there are more than a few LEO's who apparently don't know shit about weapons, so the reasoning that the police are better trained and qualified to handle weapons is bogus....

I think the truth of it is that police (as a whole, or "on average") receive *more* training than the gen pop (also note that I said "gen pop," not "gun owners").

The ppl making the rules (and getting them made) *assume* that more=better, though we (gun owners, a distinct subset of the gen pop) know that is not automatically the case.

Obviously, some (maybe even "many," though I'd hesitate before going that far) gun owners receive training *far* above and beyond what most police officers ever receive. The fuck of it is, sans registration (which none of *us* want), there's no real good way to distinguish "average" gun owners from the gen pop, let alone the really well-trained ones.

Not a solution, just an observation/rumination.

I concur...I guess what I was going for is the fact that there are more than a few who know their issue weapons well, but don't seem to know shit about anything else...like the classic shit you see on cops...mis-identifying SKS's as AK's, finding a pistol and not being able to figure out how to drop the mag, etc....

But still the real question is why the double standard, as in the examples above....

Posted: 4/5/2006 6:01:53 AM EDT

[#25]

Perhaps he used the Cheney defense?

"I mistook the suspect for a small bird"

Posted: 4/5/2006 6:03:43 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If a person stops a burglar that is entering his house, by "drawing down" on the burglar, then trips while trying to get to the phone to call 911, and has an unintended discharge, killing the burglar.

What should happen to the home owner?

Nothing, but that is not even remotely the same scenario.

Both are someone lawfully holding a suspected felon caught in the act at gunpoint...

Posted: 4/5/2006 6:05:58 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Funny. I posted a story about a local man who was showing a gun to a friend, and he had an ND that killed her. He ran. They caught him. He got 18 months in the big house.

The majority of posters stated, in essence, "if you fuck up and kill someone, you should pay, period".

Why is this different again?

Did the "local man" have a lawfull reason to point a loaded weapon at his friend?

Posted: 4/5/2006 7:45:26 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Funny. I posted a story about a local man who was showing a gun to a friend, and he had an ND that killed her. He ran. They caught him. He got 18 months in the big house.

The majority of posters stated, in essence, "if you fuck up and kill someone, you should pay, period".

Why is this different again?

Did the "local man" have a lawfull reason to point a loaded weapon at his friend?

I certainly don't know/have the whole story, but when you run after shooting someone, a story about an ND sounds like just that. It's hard to spin well.

Same thing with leaving the scene of an accident. Even if the accident is not your fault (i.e. you were the one hit), it looks bad when you run. I would assume that jurors could easily believe the same thing.

Posted: 4/5/2006 7:50:02 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
If a person stops a burglar that is entering his house, by "drawing down" on the burglar, then trips while trying to get to the phone to call 911, and has an unintended discharge, killing the burglar.

What should happen to the home owner?

This is absolutely NOT an analogy to what happened in this story.

Go back to the drawing board and give us something better than this.

Be a bit more clever next time, flatfoot.

Eric The(Rational)Hun

Posted: 4/5/2006 7:55:01 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Hey, I own a home too.

You should live in a group home.

Eric The(Caring)Hun

Posted: 4/5/2006 7:59:48 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey, I own a home too.

You should live in a group home.

Eric The(Caring)Hun

Damn!

TRG

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:03:52 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Did the "local man" have a lawfull reason to point a loaded weapon at his friend?

Again, what idiocy.

From the article:

"Horan said the officer was aware that he should not have had a finger on the trigger and that he should not have had his .45-caliber H&K handgun pointed at anyone. "As he [the officer] says, you keep your finger straight," Horan said. "He felt his finger was straight. . . . But obviously his finger is not straight up. His finger has to be on the trigger."

This is what the District Attorney is saying about the cop's actions.

Apparently he didn't think that this sack of shiite had a 'lawfull' [sic] right to point the weapon at the deceased.

You are really making this too easy.

Not get enough sleep last night?

"Horan said the accident 'could have been based on the number of hours the officer was awake that day." He said the officer had started working at 5 a.m., overseeing a managed deer hunt in the Great Falls area aimed at thinning deer overpopulation. Horan said the officer went home at noon that day, then returned to work at 8 p.m.'"

Hmmm?

Eric The(NoDoze)Hun

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Officer Won't Face Charges in Shooting Death. Citizen ND that kills some one would be in jail? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us