Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/24/2001 11:18:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2001 11:13:07 AM EDT by hound]
We had a heated discussion about this, the first time around so I thought we would revisit it, now that the LAPD has one another one in court. "officer feared for his life"??? shot him from outside the house, into a party, IN THE BACK, and NINE TIMES. Does any concealed carry holder think that you could go to court and defend this if you did it? http://latimes.com/news/local/la-000084438oct23.story
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 11:59:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 12:18:42 PM EDT
It is so hard for the public to actually know what went on at this shooting unless they were actually there and the first thing that they want to do is to accuse the police officer of a wrong ful death. Believe it or not the police are out there to protect you, not to harm you. Although their first abjective is to make sure that they go home at night. With a gun pointing you in the face, real or fake, you don't have the time to determine if it is real or not. You gut instinct is to draw and fire. If someone draws a weapon on a police officer, what does that say about their character. Why did he go to the back door or to the side of the house before going to the front door, I don't know, maybe he saw something back there that got his attention. You have got to know the facts and all facts to make a judgement on this one and less you are on the shooting review board, I don't think that you could make an accurate discission. The suspect probably was moving when the officer fired, which is why he was hit in the back. How else would he have saw the gun, and if he was turn around and pointing the gun, this to would call for self defense. My vote oges to the officer, because I know how hard of a job he has and I know what his responsibilites are on the job. Know one in their right mind is going to go out and shoot someone else just because they don't like the costume they had on, or whatever you guys can come up with. There were too many witnesses around.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 12:21:57 PM EDT
As someone who has seen the layout of the shooting and has talked to LAPD officers about it, I once again say that this was a good shoot. Just the fact that Johnny Cockring is defending this guy should clue everyone in. Lesson of the day: Don't point a Desert Eagle at a cop. Even if its not real.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 12:34:11 PM EDT
woohoo...excellent reply Justice. First let me point out that the LAPD has been proven to have a LOT of bad characters. Ans so anything I see about them I view through crap-colored lenses. I want to take a couple of points here and, while I may scream a lot, take it with a pinch of sarcasm. First objective is to protect and serve, and maybe catch a bullet. Not to go home at night. If they want to make sure they go home at night,they have two choices-become a garbageman or join the Army so that they can shoot first. And the whole thing about the officer shooting him 9 times...overkill. You should not be afraid for your life if someone turns their back to you. I do not have all of the facts, I don't know if the cop said freeze or drop it or just started blasting. My post was to ask the question of CCW's if they thought they would get off on this? CalGat--details? Or should I just believe anything the LAPD says---RAMPART pretty much buried that idea.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 12:37:52 PM EDT
The article says he hit him 4 times, not 9. He fired a total of nine rounds, which in itself doesn't indicate anything bad either. Many people after shootings cannot clearly remember just how many rounds they fired during the incident. There was an article in one training magazine last year that went into how people get shot in the back in perfectly ordinary shootings, due to reflexive movements, etc. Attempting to insinuate that something nefarious was happening due to the back shots is wrong. As has been said, its the idiot who wanted to point a fake pistol that is responsible here. There were enough photos of the actual gun from this incident posted on the internet last year that show how realistic this "fake" was. Just about anyone here would've pulled the trigger when faced with that item,I believe. And there's nothing wrong with admiting "fear for your life". The era when you can shoot someone and clam up and play macho are over. If you were scared when confronted by a gun, and pulled the trigger partially based on that fear, then by ALL MEANS, admit to that frame of mind when the case goes to trial. Don't try to macho out and play tough.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 12:53:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: Does any concealed carry holder think that you could go to court and defend this if you did it? Not a chance, we are all bad guy's for wanting a weapon in the first place. As Hitler put it "If you want a gun, join the SS". Randy Weaver's wife was bad too I guess.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 1:05:12 PM EDT
OK, here are my thoughts. First off, LAPD is the most professional police organization i have ever encountered. Most officers are ex-military and have extreme discipline. They are "paramilitary" but they have to patrol some of the worst neighborhoods in the world. Rampart: True, a few CRASH officers were overzealous. However, these guys were framing hardcore gangsters. Sometimes you have to get a little dirty when dealing with scumbags. Kinda like how our CIA was not able to deal with "unsavory" characters until 9/11. We're they wrong? Yes. However the LAPD already had the two worst officers locked up - Mack and Perez. Then they cut a plea deal with Perez, a guy who they should have thrown the key away. Besides, very few other officers have been implicated in related misdeeds. I could go on and on about Rampart, but thats not what this post is all about. Haloweiner shooting: Officers are called to a large party. For a little background, this house (mansion) had been raided about a year earlier for cultivation of MJ. This property is continuously rented out by the owners. So this was a "problem" location before. Anyways, the officers get there and there is a large party. The neighbors want it shut down because their peace is constantly being disturbed. There is no owner of the house and it takes the hosts awhile to get to the front. So this officer decides to investigate. Maybe he was looking for drugs, maybe he was looking for the hosts. Whatever, he goes around the side down a narrow pathway with a little stream running next to it. He comes to a french door / window. Shines his light and a guy raises a Desert Eagle 44 at him. They are only a couple feet apart through the door. Retreat options are limited due to the small pathway. The officer shoots, the guy spins around or ducks and is hit in the back. It is tragic. But if someone points a Desert Eagle at me, he is getting popped. The guy did not immediately go down. If you've ever done any tactical shooting, you know what a failure to stop drill is. Maybe the guy has on body armor? So the officer keeps on shooting. I do think that the officer did panic and did probably overshoot, but whatever. Dead is dead. Besides i'm sure the officer was scared S-less. And if the Desert Eagle had been real, one hit with that will ruin your day real quick. Even if it stops in his vest it would probabaly knock him on his ass, then you are in real trouble. Again, I agree that it was tragic for this to happen, but justified. I also think its hard to compare this with a CHL-holder situation since this officer was investigating a crime. Finally, Chief Parks is not officer friendly. He is hated by the beat cops for his disciplinarian attitude and the fact he does not stand behind them. If there was anything even remotely bad about this shoot, the chief would have fired his ass in a second. Sorry for the long post, but this shooting really interests me.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 1:19:32 PM EDT
I had a post written and lost it all..so I will start over. CalGat, can we agree to disagree about the LAPD? unsavory characters...the CIA trained most of those charaters..different subject. Excellent details on the rest and I still have a problem with the attitude that the death penalty for stupidity is valid. A houuston office posted a similar situation last week and I praised the man for his handling of that.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 1:52:22 PM EDT
"Hopper, a three-year officer at the time of the shooting, fired nine shots at Lee. According to an autopsy report, he hit the actor once in the back of the head and three times in the back." 5 rounds missed, and 4 hit him from the back. This is justified?
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 1:59:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Steel_Rat: "Hopper, a three-year officer at the time of the shooting, fired nine shots at Lee. According to an autopsy report, he hit the actor once in the back of the head and three times in the back." 5 rounds missed, and 4 hit him from the back. This is justified?
View Quote
Certainly. The hit ratio is actually higher than in many police shootings. And,as I mentioned, just because the offender was hit in the back doesn't make the shooting unjustified.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 2:22:39 PM EDT
Hound, the "death penalty for being stupid" is a poor euphamism. Until the officer absolutely confirms that it is a toy, it is the death penaly for threatening an officers life while he is carrying out his duty. Hindsight does not change this.
Top Top