Home owner shot by police by mistake.

[motorhead]

this wasn't a long video, did anybody listen to it?
woman who called cops had a window broken by stray round. police say they indentified themselves. only a complete idiot brandishes to a group of armed cops on a shooting call. even i can't find fault here and i'm on record as a cop hater. technically the burglar could be charged with his shooting as well since it was a diect result of his comission of a felony. headline said this was phoenix.

[Patriot]

Well, this only reinforces my point, doesn't it?

That was my intention

[scotthmt]

Of course they police will say they identified themselves to cover their ***

[tyrist]

Well based on the super limited knowledge of the news story it will end up being a good shoot...of course the city is going to pay the home owner however. The Officer is probably feeling really lucky that he did'nt kill the guy.

Shots are fired and a woman runs out saying there is a man with a gun...the Officer goes in and sees a man with a gun.....you have to judge the situation by what the Officer knew at the time. Once you see the red and blue flashing lights or hear the siren it's time to drop your weapon unless you want to get mistaken for the bad guy.

[M. Sage]

Some of you guys sound like you've never been in a high-stress situation and noticed the "tunnel vision" effect that adrenaline can cause.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Tough situation. Cops should feel bad for shooting a homeowner in his own house. Home owner has a right to be there and be armed too. Maybe the cops should have waited an extra second but at the same time I might not have waited an extra second. There may not be a good answer to this one and this is just one of those cases where no one could have won.

It does sound like the home owner did shoot and wound the suspect. Hopefully he gets some cash flow out of the city over this. I hate to see the tax payers have to pay for it, but that is the least the city can do for lighting up a homeowner hero in his own house.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

As I watched this, I saw another link listed. Since it may not be there the next time someone checks this out, I list it here:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ee_1214812043

"AUSTRALIA'S frontline troops are urging a new shoot-to-kill policy as they confront an increasingly hostile enemy in the war on terror.

Diggers in Afghanistan are facing a rising risk of casualties as they advance into enemy territory.

Defence chiefs have been urged to change the rules of engagement and allow frontline troops to take on the enemy instead of "waiting to be shot".

They're kidding, right? I mean, it just can't be real that soldiers are having to ask permission before shooting at the enemy. Someone's gotta be pulling our legs.

Right?

The Raisuli

[Army]

They're kidding, right? I mean, it just can't be real that soldiers are having to ask permission before shooting at the enemy. Someone's gotta be pulling our legs.

Right?

The Raisuli

Nope. ROE says the threat must present itself first, then react.

Remember, nearly all Arab states allow citizens to own and carry firearms (which is why you see so many being fired into the air in celebration). Seeing Hajji with a rifle can be un-nerving in a combat zone, but he has the right (!) to carry and defend himself and family. He also may be a member of the local militia, helping to make our job easier.

Thus, we must wait until Mr. Haj decides to point/shoot his weapon in our direction. At that, we can determine a threat and react accordingly.

[KTGunner]

I just cannot believe what the neighbor said about the whole incident. "I've been to the Middle East a bunch of times and nothing like this has ever happened."
What a total B**CH! He neighbor almost dies as a result of some trigger happy cops and she has the nerve to say something idiotic like that? I can't believe the news service put that clip on their report. I guess they don't even try to be objective any more.

[trinydex]

While the guy most likely could've acted smarter, I think, part of the problem is also that the police is used to being the only ones on this side of the law with the guns, and they act accordingly. It's about time they re-thought their perceptions.

arizona is pretty liberal with gun policies... i'm wondering what happened in the house.

[RANGER295]

Some of you guys sound like you've never been in a high-stress situation and noticed the "tunnel vision" effect that adrenaline can cause.

+1

Didn't the reporter say there were shots fired before the cops arrived? Maybe this guy didn't think to use ear protection in the initial shooting? Maybe he was having trouble hearing.

Lets say that you haven’t reached that “tunnel vision” state that M. Sage mentioned yet, how many times have you grabbed a weapon to potentially defend yourself and actually put hearing protection on? Do you even have hearing protection with your home defense weapon? I know that I don’t. If I am in a SHTF situation in the middle of the night and am grabbing for a light and my weapon, ear protection is the absolute last thing on my mind. I am focused on evaluating the threat, ascertaining the location of my loved ones to avoid collateral damage should I need to discharge my weapon, and watching my own backside. Yeah later I will wish I had used ear protection, but I would rather be alive than waste the time to put it on and have the threat get me or worse my family.

EDIT: I just reread that and it sounded a little condescending. I am going to leave it as I typed it but please know that I did not mean it to come across that way.

[haodoken]

Wonder what the department policy states the officer should have done / not done in this situation?

Most PDs, to include my own, do not have a "how to approach each situation" manual/policy. It would be impossible to have a black and white 100% solution for each situation we would face in the field. Most policies are general guidelines/basic steps to follow. Most of the decision making is done by the individual officer through experiences learned from similar scenarios. Good policing cannot be learned by studying a book or taking classes. Book learning gives a framework or frame of reference to base your initial actions on. After that you have to experience a situation and learn what the best case resolution is. Sometimes the best case scenario is not what the general public would find as the optimal solution like in this case. My $0.02.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Nope. ROE says the threat must present itself first, then react.

Remember, nearly all Arab states allow citizens to own and carry firearms (which is why you see so many being fired into the air in celebration). Seeing Hajji with a rifle can be un-nerving in a combat zone, but he has the right (!) to carry and defend himself and family. He also may be a member of the local militia, helping to make our job easier.

Thus, we must wait until Mr. Haj decides to point/shoot his weapon in our direction. At that, we can determine a threat and react accordingly.

Thank you. I tend to forget that its not just a combat zone. Its also home to the locals.

The Raisuli

[AaronHorrocks]

Remember, nearly all Arab states allow citizens to own and carry firearms...

Talk like that is dangerous. States or governments "allowing" people to carry arms implies that the power flows from the government, down to the people. Governments are of, by, and for the people. Governments are made up of elected representatives that are allowed to run things because of the people, and the power flows from the people to the government.

[motorhead]

i've been in a very similar situation and believe me, nothing on earth would cloud my judgement enough to brandish a firearm to the cops. in a situation like this they're probably just as tense, it's a recipe for disaster.