Grandfather shot and kiled by California deputy - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Grandfather shot and kiled by California deputy (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 1/28/2006 7:00:54 PM EDT

[#1]

I have no prob with the shoot...honestly.

Unless he gut shot the guy... a Taser just happens to last longer is all

Buh-bye baton swinging grandfather!

Dram

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:43:15 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Again, it sucks to be Kenneth Drinkard, 42, Grandfather, of Jamul.

Good shoot deputy., Hope you get through it well.

___________________________

img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/Colt_SBR/57985sm.gif

It is one thing to shoot a criminal scumbag who has a rap sheet a mile long and who has no hesitation to use violence against anyone and everyone.

It is quite another to shoot a grandfather who just had too much to drink. Though I doubt this "grandfather" was lilly white, a man's conscience can sometimes convict him of a crime he never comitted.

Hopefully the officer involved won't suffer long term effects from this.

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:45:18 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I have mixed feelings...
For the record I am neither pro LEO or anti LEO, however I do tend to side with the LEO more often than not.
For those who have met me know I am not a particularly big guy, however I used to be a doorman/bouncer at a bar (Downtown Houston). Drunks and other abusers by the dozens (not to mention the aggressive homeless guys). I do not think that someone who is as professionally trained as our LEO are should have to resort to ending the life of a guy armed with a stick. Crap I would go toe-to-toe with the guy sight unseen armed only with a 4-cell maglight (heck maybe I can make the cap to pop off!!!). To me this is a legal shoot and the LEO should not face any type of charges, however personally I think (morally) it was not the correct choice. This would have been a perfect Tazer opportunity. A knife would have kicked it up to "gun zone", but not a wrestling match/ baton.
LEO's do get scuffles every now and then...If the guy was in such fear of his life maybe he needs to recheck his career choice. My initial thoughts are he is either old or out of shape.

Just for the sake of clarity, not all officers are armed with tasers.

And tasers are not supposed to be deployed without having lethal backup immediately available. (As in one officer uses taser while the other covers with his sidearm)

When someone is coming after you with a weapon while you are alone, such as this case, the taser is not the appropriate response.

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:50:04 AM EDT

[#4]

Sheriff's Department Defends Deputy In Fatal Shooting

Last Updated: 01/27/2006 06:07 PM

(AP) - A San Diego County Sheriff's deputy shot and killed a 42-year-old motorcyclist during a struggle after a traffic stop on a rural road.

Sheriff's officials say Kenneth Drinkard of Jamul grabbed the deputy's baton Thursday afternoon and came at him, ignoring orders to drop it. Drinkard was shot at least twice.

The deputy, a veteran officer assigned to patrol the backcountry, pulled over a motorcyclist for a traffic violation, sheriff's homicide unit Lt. Dennis Brugos said. Brugos said he didn't know the nature of the violation. The deputy's name was not released.

When the motorcyclist stopped, the deputy smelled alcohol on Drinkard's breath, Brugos said.

The deputy returned to his patrol car and radioed for a California Highway Patrol sobriety test. While they waited, Drinkard started yelling at the deputy and then ran up a dirt lane. The deputy ran after him, caught him, and the two men struggled.

"The deputy pepper-sprayed him to little effect, if any," Brugos said. "At some point the suspect got ahold of the deputy's baton and advanced on the deputy with it."

Would be interesting to see Drinkards criminal history and toxicology screen.

Posted: 1/29/2006 9:54:19 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Would be interesting to see Drinkards criminal history and toxicology screen.

Indeed. I doubt he is as clean as the story makes him seem.

Even if he was a complete angel in his regular life, in the moment where he was attacking a deputy with a potentially lethal weapon, he was a lethal threat and lethal force was justified.

Posted: 1/29/2006 10:31:32 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This would have been a perfect taser opportunity.

Nope. TASER is not an appropriate response to a deadly weapon. TASER is for resisting or fighting suspects who are unarmed.

Taser is the same as pepper spray in the force matrix. Used for passive non-compliance or for someone unarmed.

As stated above several times, a baton is a lethal force threat. You have to meet a lethal force threat with lethal force.

Posted: 1/29/2006 11:08:12 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
If you are going to take something from a cop's belt and assault them with it, why pick the baton?? That is just stupid.

The handguns in a retention holster. What else is left? Hmm..OC spray..maybe. latex gloves, Leatherman, portable radio, handcuffs...not very likely.

Posted: 1/29/2006 2:43:00 PM EDT

[#8]

Righteous shoot. Suicide by cop.

Posted: 1/29/2006 2:52:58 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Let me see. Cop had night stick, taser, gun, spray etc. Cop pulled Drunkerd over because he suspected he was drunk and wanted a collar, or really wanted to save the poor guys life as he was driving too bad. Drunkert had no weapons, and had just gotten off a motorcycle so he was in plain view. I'm seeing no helmet and no shirt either.

Question: What was the cop doing with so many weapons that he could not seem to control their use? Although we don't know where the bullet entered the guy and from what distance the shot was fired, it could be Drunkerd was shot in the back from 30 feet. You might think differently with a balistics report that showed those results.

It never ceases to amaze me LE's techniques in dealing with drunk unruly people who do not have guns. Just get in the guy's face with all your weapons, that you have no clue how to secure, allow the guy to take a weapon from you and then since you feel threatned, or pissed (if ballistics did show shot in back at 30 ft) just shoot the guy. Why not just throw him the stick to begin with?

Sorry--- cop's fault.

Failure to secure his weapons.

Failure in not knowing how to subdue stick wielding person with non legal means.

Failure for not allowing the drunk to just run down Deerfield Road at 3:30 PM (where was he going anyway--home? His daughter was nearby), that he had to chase the guy and deliver at least 2 potentially deadly weapons so that they could be used against himself. (Go to his house at 6AM and arrest him after you wake him.)

I'm not a LE officer, yet an appropriate police action might include something far different than killing someone.

This all hinges on ballistics report as if the wound was point blank and the cop suffered bruzes would favor the cop. Doesn't rule out his negligence in allowing a drunk to get his club. Lucky it wasn't the gun Drunkert managed to get the reason the cop is on leave--perhaps to the gym for defensive club training, how to deal with drunks etc. Drunkert was drunk and not responsible for his actions, the cop was responsible for his: having to take lethal action to resolve the fact that he did not secure his weapons.

I favor LE using lethal force to subdue attackers provided it is necessary. I favor managing the security of weapons. There was a 6 year old who took a gun to a day care center today and shot another kid. The more guns are used to kill people in this country the more it hurts the shooting sports industry that we all should work to avoid accidents and people getting killed---anyone-- even if it is a drunk with a club, a club he should not have been allowed to get ahold of.

Nominated for one of the dumbest posts of the year.

Posted: 1/29/2006 2:58:13 PM EDT

[#10]

Not really, I can see his viewpoint. Most people just don't realize how letal a baton can be. I have been trained in the use of it and what to do and not do with a baton, so I know better.

Posted: 1/29/2006 2:58:16 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
The handguns in a retention holster.

I am talking about the logic of grabbing a stick from a guy who also posesses a firearm and then trying to assault him with the stick rather than focusing on the surely lethal weapon he posesses.

It was supposed to be a joke, by the way...

Posted: 1/29/2006 2:58:54 PM EDT

[#12]

I'm pretty critical of unarmed citizen shootings by LE.....this appears to be a good shoot.
Why was this thread started, anyway?

Posted: 1/29/2006 2:59:52 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Not really, I can see his viewpoint. Most people just don't realize how letal a baton can be. I have been trained in the use of it and what to do and not do with a baton, so I know better.

Anyone with actual baton training knows that it can indeed be a lethal weapon if used "improperly", as in the way a drunk guy trying to bash your brains in would use it.

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:03:47 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
I'm pretty critical of unarmed citizen shootings by LE.....this appears to be a good shoot.
Why was this thread started, anyway?

Well in this instance the citizen wasn't unarmed.

AR15Fan starts threads reporting police shootings all the time. Being a cop, I believe he has a certain interest in the topic.

And the responses are usually very interesting.

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:16:04 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me see. Cop had night stick, taser, gun, spray etc. Cop pulled Drunkerd over because he suspected he was drunk and wanted a collar, or really wanted to save the poor guys life as he was driving too bad. Drunkert had no weapons, and had just gotten off a motorcycle so he was in plain view. I'm seeing no helmet and no shirt either.

Question: What was the cop doing with so many weapons that he could not seem to control their use? Although we don't know where the bullet entered the guy and from what distance the shot was fired, it could be Drunkerd was shot in the back from 30 feet. You might think differently with a balistics report that showed those results.

It never ceases to amaze me LE's techniques in dealing with drunk unruly people who do not have guns. Just get in the guy's face with all your weapons, that you have no clue how to secure, allow the guy to take a weapon from you and then since you feel threatned, or pissed (if ballistics did show shot in back at 30 ft) just shoot the guy. Why not just throw him the stick to begin with?

Sorry--- cop's fault.

Failure to secure his weapons.

Failure in not knowing how to subdue stick wielding person with non legal means.

Failure for not allowing the drunk to just run down Deerfield Road at 3:30 PM (where was he going anyway--home? His daughter was nearby), that he had to chase the guy and deliver at least 2 potentially deadly weapons so that they could be used against himself. (Go to his house at 6AM and arrest him after you wake him.)

I'm not a LE officer, yet an appropriate police action might include something far different than killing someone.

This all hinges on ballistics report as if the wound was point blank and the cop suffered bruzes would favor the cop. Doesn't rule out his negligence in allowing a drunk to get his club. Lucky it wasn't the gun Drunkert managed to get the reason the cop is on leave--perhaps to the gym for defensive club training, how to deal with drunks etc. Drunkert was drunk and not responsible for his actions, the cop was responsible for his: having to take lethal action to resolve the fact that he did not secure his weapons.

I favor LE using lethal force to subdue attackers provided it is necessary. I favor managing the security of weapons. There was a 6 year old who took a gun to a day care center today and shot another kid. The more guns are used to kill people in this country the more it hurts the shooting sports industry that we all should work to avoid accidents and people getting killed---anyone-- even if it is a drunk with a club, a club he should not have been allowed to get ahold of.

Nominated for one of the dumbest posts of the year.

Agreed. I am dumber for having read it.

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:17:50 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Drinkard's girlfriend showed up after the shooting and was outraged.

"He was a good dad and just became a grandpa. He would never hurt nobody," she said

Unless a baton is nearby and a policeman looks at him the wrong way .

Again--because so many people can't seem to figure it out....

STUPID HURTS....SOMETIMES STUPID GETS SHOT AND IS THEN DEAD.

Big +1

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:55:59 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have mixed feelings...
For the record I am neither pro LEO or anti LEO, however I do tend to side with the LEO more often than not.
For those who have met me know I am not a particularly big guy, however I used to be a doorman/bouncer at a bar (Downtown Houston). Drunks and other abusers by the dozens (not to mention the aggressive homeless guys). I do not think that someone who is as professionally trained as our LEO are should have to resort to ending the life of a guy armed with a stick. Crap I would go toe-to-toe with the guy sight unseen armed only with a 4-cell maglight (heck maybe I can make the cap to pop off!!!). To me this is a legal shoot and the LEO should not face any type of charges, however personally I think (morally) it was not the correct choice. This would have been a perfect Tazer opportunity. A knife would have kicked it up to "gun zone", but not a wrestling match/ baton.
LEO's do get scuffles every now and then...If the guy was in such fear of his life maybe he needs to recheck his career choice. My initial thoughts are he is either old or out of shape.

Dude, a collapsing baton will break bones and crush skulls. Why the hell should a guy have to fight a fair fight against that? He might get hurt!

As long as the same standard is also applied to non-LEO's who use their sidearm for self-defense, I am in agreement.

Posted: 1/29/2006 3:57:22 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
I'm pretty critical of unarmed citizen shootings by LE.....this appears to be a good shoot.
Why was this thread started, anyway?

This is a Gun board, right? Or did I stumble into the beanie babies and beef jerky forum?

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:05:42 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's the cops fault

No, get it right! It's Bushs' fault!

Exactly! I don't know why it took soooo long for someone to post the truth.

This is a non-starter. Good shoot from what I read...next topic, please.

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:09:51 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me see. Cop had night stick, taser, gun, spray etc. Cop pulled Drunkerd over because he suspected he was drunk and wanted a collar, or really wanted to save the poor guys life as he was driving too bad. Drunkert had no weapons, and had just gotten off a motorcycle so he was in plain view. I'm seeing no helmet and no shirt either.

Question: What was the cop doing with so many weapons that he could not seem to control their use? Although we don't know where the bullet entered the guy and from what distance the shot was fired, it could be Drunkerd was shot in the back from 30 feet. You might think differently with a balistics report that showed those results.

It never ceases to amaze me LE's techniques in dealing with drunk unruly people who do not have guns. Just get in the guy's face with all your weapons, that you have no clue how to secure, allow the guy to take a weapon from you and then since you feel threatned, or pissed (if ballistics did show shot in back at 30 ft) just shoot the guy. Why not just throw him the stick to begin with?

Sorry--- cop's fault.

Failure to secure his weapons.

Failure in not knowing how to subdue stick wielding person with non legal means.

Failure for not allowing the drunk to just run down Deerfield Road at 3:30 PM (where was he going anyway--home? His daughter was nearby), that he had to chase the guy and deliver at least 2 potentially deadly weapons so that they could be used against himself. (Go to his house at 6AM and arrest him after you wake him.)

I'm not a LE officer, yet an appropriate police action might include something far different than killing someone.

This all hinges on ballistics report as if the wound was point blank and the cop suffered bruzes would favor the cop. Doesn't rule out his negligence in allowing a drunk to get his club. Lucky it wasn't the gun Drunkert managed to get the reason the cop is on leave--perhaps to the gym for defensive club training, how to deal with drunks etc. Drunkert was drunk and not responsible for his actions, the cop was responsible for his: having to take lethal action to resolve the fact that he did not secure his weapons.

I favor LE using lethal force to subdue attackers provided it is necessary. I favor managing the security of weapons. There was a 6 year old who took a gun to a day care center today and shot another kid. The more guns are used to kill people in this country the more it hurts the shooting sports industry that we all should work to avoid accidents and people getting killed---anyone-- even if it is a drunk with a club, a club he should not have been allowed to get ahold of.

Nominated for one of the dumbest posts of the year.

I second that.

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:19:47 PM EDT

[#21]

"Gramps" was an idiot with a death wish... HE made it come true. Hope deputy comes through it ok.

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:38:10 PM EDT

[#22]

Yeah, geez what was this old man thinking!?!? Didn't he know only cops are 'professional' enough to beat someone with a club???....

...[/sarcasm]

Posted: 1/29/2006 4:45:48 PM EDT

[#23]

The nice police man just added a bit more chlorine to the gene pool.

Posted: 1/29/2006 5:03:49 PM EDT

[#24]

typically swinging a club at a person authorized to use lethal force might be very hazerdous to your health. Dunno - but maybe gramps should have listened to his Daddy and not brought a club to a gun fight.

looks like a good shoot to me

Posted: 1/29/2006 7:53:04 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have mixed feelings...
For the record I am neither pro LEO or anti LEO, however I do tend to side with the LEO more often than not.
For those who have met me know I am not a particularly big guy, however I used to be a doorman/bouncer at a bar (Downtown Houston). Drunks and other abusers by the dozens (not to mention the aggressive homeless guys). I do not think that someone who is as professionally trained as our LEO are should have to resort to ending the life of a guy armed with a stick. Crap I would go toe-to-toe with the guy sight unseen armed only with a 4-cell maglight (heck maybe I can make the cap to pop off!!!). To me this is a legal shoot and the LEO should not face any type of charges, however personally I think (morally) it was not the correct choice. This would have been a perfect Tazer opportunity. A knife would have kicked it up to "gun zone", but not a wrestling match/ baton.
LEO's do get scuffles every now and then...If the guy was in such fear of his life maybe he needs to recheck his career choice. My initial thoughts are he is either old or out of shape.

Dude, a collapsing baton will break bones and crush skulls. Why the hell should a guy have to fight a fair fight against that? He might get hurt!

As long as the same standard is also applied to non-LEO's who use their sidearm for self-defense, I am in agreement.

When they have to make felony arrests for a living we might think thats a valid analogy. A citizen that approaches a known or possible armed and/or dangerous criminal (or anybody else) and initiates the discussions generally has only a minimal claim to a self-defense defense when the discussions go south.

Posted: 1/29/2006 10:06:54 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have mixed feelings...
For the record I am neither pro LEO or anti LEO, however I do tend to side with the LEO more often than not.
For those who have met me know I am not a particularly big guy, however I used to be a doorman/bouncer at a bar (Downtown Houston). Drunks and other abusers by the dozens (not to mention the aggressive homeless guys). I do not think that someone who is as professionally trained as our LEO are should have to resort to ending the life of a guy armed with a stick. Crap I would go toe-to-toe with the guy sight unseen armed only with a 4-cell maglight (heck maybe I can make the cap to pop off!!!). To me this is a legal shoot and the LEO should not face any type of charges, however personally I think (morally) it was not the correct choice. This would have been a perfect Tazer opportunity. A knife would have kicked it up to "gun zone", but not a wrestling match/ baton.
LEO's do get scuffles every now and then...If the guy was in such fear of his life maybe he needs to recheck his career choice. My initial thoughts are he is either old or out of shape.

Dude, a collapsing baton will break bones and crush skulls. Why the hell should a guy have to fight a fair fight against that? He might get hurt!

As long as the same standard is also applied to non-LEO's who use their sidearm for self-defense, I am in agreement.

When they have to make felony arrests for a living we might think thats a valid analogy. A citizen that approaches a known or possible armed and/or dangerous criminal (or anybody else) and initiates the discussions generally has only a minimal claim to a self-defense defense when the discussions go south.

I don't think he was refering to approaching an armed person. I think it was more on the lines of being attacked by a person using a club syle weapon without provoking them. I think the LEO in the posted article had a good shoot and if a non-LEO is attacked by someone with a club, they have the right to defend themselves with lethal force.

Posted: 1/29/2006 10:27:01 PM EDT

[#27]

Within the constraints of the discussion it was respect to making an arrest, an LEO has the duty to make an arrest and to approach criminals and can use deadly force even if he initiates the incident. In most cases and most states an armed citizen initiating a contact often doesn't have the ability to claim self-defense. This is where the standards are different.

In most cases when either are attacked without provocation they are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves, and the standards are the same. However for those poor souls living in shall retreat states, they would have the duty to retreat first, and LEOs don't have to. (I hope)

Posted: 1/29/2006 10:30:15 PM EDT

[#28]

Sounds like a good shoot to me..

Posted: 1/30/2006 8:09:20 AM EDT

[#29]

If an LEO or anybody for that matter cant defend themselves with lethal force when attacked with a club then just when in the hell can they defend themselves.....

Like I said above - if you dont feel like getting your bell rung with a lead slug dont swing clubs at folks wih guns.....Am I missing something here?

Posted: 1/30/2006 12:01:37 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
If an LEO or anybody for that matter cant defend themselves with lethal force when attacked with a club then just when in the hell can they defend themselves.....

Like I said above - if you dont feel like getting your bell rung with a lead slug dont swing clubs at folks wih guns.....Am I missing something here?

I may have missed a post or two but I agree with you 100%. There is no reason a lawful citizen (CCW holder or concerned home owner) should not be "in the clear" if he shoots a club wielding attacker.
Period.

I think the hair-splitting came in when persons assumed the lawful citizen/CCW holder/concerned home owner approached someone with a club and instigated a confrontation.

If you see a guy in your front yard standing there with a baseball bat, I would say it would not be a bright idea to go outside and confront hime..."HEY!! Get off my lawn, jackass!" It would be better to call PD and be a good witness. If that same guy walks up your drive as your under the hood of your car and cocks his arms/bat to swing on you? Blast him. No reason you need to take a blow first.

Of course my opinion....the law isn't always rational....

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Grandfather shot and kiled by California deputy (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us