Sad Situation

[WyattandDoc]

It depends. What if I want to buy an airgun tomorrow? It would be nice to know if I may be shot to death. I could let my wife know that my car needs an oil change and stuff first.

I ask a very valid question, and you come up with that?!?!

[IrishJoe3]

Yes. It's my perception from what I've read. Our citizens are not a court of law though, we just hear about things and process them the best we can... It's not possible for people to just ignore it and wait until some investigation completes months or years later.

Missed this coment. How about your local police department adopt a policy of "ALL INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED, 12 HOURS OR LESS!" Think of the tax payer dollars saved by not spending thousands of man hours investigating every aspect of a crime. Sure, it'll be a shoddy half-assed investigation based on very preliminary and often false information. That wouldn't be a very responsible thing to do, now would it?

Yeah...thats about what you're saying.

I bought an airgun this year also... I got it as a gift for my best friend's 10 year old son. (Yep, checked with the Mom first) I would very much like the opportunity to place the airgun on the ground before getting shot, should I get engaged by a LEO. As far as I can tell, this young guy did nothing wrong. If that's true, then it could have just as easily been me shot. I have a very real interest in knowing what in the world went wrong.

Well dang, all the armed CCW holders I have NOT shot, all the armed hunters I have NOT shot, all the armed gangsters I have NOT shot, all the drivers of carstops with longguns in arms reach I have NOT shot, all the kids/adults/gangsters with painted toy guns I have NOT shot...I must be doing something wrong as I've encountered hundreds of armed individuals and have shot NO ONE!

Be smart, use common sense. You'll be fine.

[IrishJoe3]

It depends. What if I want to buy an airgun tomorrow? It would be nice to know if I may be shot to death. I could let my wife know that my car needs an oil change and stuff first.

Point a something that a reasonable person would believe is a firearm at a cop (or other armed individual), you will be shot.

Too easy.

[IrishJoe3]

I ask a very valid question, and you come up with that?!?!

I'm still trying to figure out what that had to do with your question at all....

[IrishJoe3]

Thank you for your kind words. He's been in and out of surgery for the last 18 months, and now he'll be retiring this month. He and his family are doing well all things considered.

Good to hear! I am glad he survived, and it sounds like a retirement earned. Hopefully he and his family are getting and have gotten the support they need.

We're mostly in agreement, I think...

Regarding the last... he had picked up a airgun that walmart was selling, was walking through the store on his cell phone, chatting with his Mom when he was shot, according to what I have read. His Mom claims he was shouting "It's not real" when he was shot.

None of us knows for sure, but from what we do know, it really seems unlikely that he was facing the officer, lifted the rifle, and aimed it at them. I suppose he was probably holding it as one holds a rifle... I don't imagine it came with a strap. When I think of how I might hold a rifle without a strap, it would probably look like I was heading towards a shooting stance.

Speculation is dangerous, especially here. Because speculation gets turned into "fact". This is also why many resident CalGuns LEOs get a bad rap, because we understand emotional spin and conjecture, and therefore adopt a neutral "lets wait and see what the REAL story is", which doesn't jive with the mob mentality of "justice NOW!!!!!".

I can speculate too; I can speculate that he was playfully "clearing corners" with the BB gun. In doing so he came face to face with officers. Realizing how it looked he tried to tell them that it was a toy, but the officers had already begun to react to the very obvious threat.

The reality is that neither your nor I KNOW what happened. Which is why its of utmost importance to wait for the investigation, an investigation with will have every documentable fact available and every available witness statement.

Also, something that works against everyone in this scenario... when you yell at a person, his natural instinct is going to be to turn and face the voice. That body turning is going to redirect the position of the rifle. I can imagine that for a LEO, who is facing a unknown threat it can very much look like he is being engaged... but in my opinion, it is not fair (legal is another matter) to presume that the person is engaging because he turns when he's shouted at.

Indeed, which is why police don't yell "hey", "Dude" "WTF?!". They will yell something along the lines of "POLICE, get on the ground!" "POLICE! Drop the gun!". That clearly identifies the law enforcement and gives a clear command to be followed. I have never had any problem whatsoever with my commands or identification or intent being misunderstood.

What would be fair would be for the officers to allow a person some amount of time for him to understand the situation. It's not just unfolding quickly for the officers. Everyone here is at risk, but civilians do not have protective body armor to give them a second chance in the case that a mistake is being made.
Just my 2c.

They are afforded all the time in the world, up until their own actions become a perceived threat. Then the officer, as does anyone else, has a perfect right to defend themselves from the threat.

How about personal responsibility? I can play soccer on the freeway, but common sense tells me I could get hit by a car. I could play with a gun or gun facsimile, but common sense tells me it could be mistaken for a real gun.

And sorry, body armor, really?! Body armor is not a force field. Body armor is not intended to allow officers to wade into a stream of bullets. Its intended to give officers a slightly higher chance of survival if they happened to get shot by a small caliber weapon in the areas the vest covers. Yes, I did indeed mean to say "slightly higher chance of survival". And if you do get shot in the vest and it does happen to stop the bullet, you're still out of the fight, you're just no dead.

[IrishJoe3]

Also, thanks to all of you for your thoughts on this. I'm not trying to be a basher, it's just something I'm honestly concerned about aftering seeing a lot of stuff on the news and here that does look bad.

Fair enough, I can respect that! I am perfectly happy having a civil discussion, something you seem to genuinely be seeking. And in which case I'm more than willing to explain a perspective you perhaps have never considered.

Its refreshing, as many members (ie OT) simply bash and rant, and simply seek to outyell anyone that has a differing opinion. So thanks for NOT doing that.

[55chevypost]

Good conversation here.

[CBR_rider]

Okay, that's fair. But if you are in a place that sells rifles, air rifles, and toy rifles, as well as other black plastic items that from a distance could appear to be a rifle... you really don't know if a person is a threat immediately. That needs to be determined. It is not reasonable for a LEO to shoot someone on sight because the LEO sees something that "might" be a gun.

Just a note.... Absent any other circumstances/observations; such a shooting would most likely NOT be justified. I don't get to walk around on duty, see something that "looks" like a firearm, and just shoot. Have there been some bad shoots by LEO's? Of course. There have also been plenty of good ones (if it is ever "good" to have to kill someone) that don't make the news and even more scenarios that COULD have turned into shootings that get safely resolved that the public NEVER hears about. I agree that many departments are losing in the PR realm; but I think that brings up the question: Is it really law enforcements "job" to be involved in PR or is it the news media's job to be objective in their reporting?

[IrishJoe3]

I'm not thinking that this is happening all the time. I am sure that all things considered it's very rare. That does not mean that we can't improve upon things. Do you believe that your current protocols or proceedures are the very best that they can be?

You asked a direct question which I missed, so I'll answer that. I do think that existing protocols/procedures/policy are very good, and I can not think of how they could be improved.

There are too many variables in life to come up with a black and white "when faced with X, do Y". As such I am never required to use lethal force. And any incident in which I may have used lethal force will be the subject of a homicide investigation to determine if I was within the very narrow and specific circumstance that would make a homicide 'justifiable'.

In short, I, (as can anyone) can defend myself if I can articulate

1) a fear for my life (Someone is pointing a gun at me; its reasonable to be in fear for your life)
2) my attacker as the intent to harm me (if my attacker is pointing a firearm at me, it is reasonable to believe the attacker has the intent to harm me)
3) my attacker has the ability to harm me (my attacker possess a rifle, therefore as the ability to harm me)

If all three (and only if all three are met), it is a justified self defense EVEN IF it is later determined that one (or more) of the three is lacking, (ie it was a toy therefore "ability" is missing).

Remember, the circumstance is evaluated based on what was reasonably known at the time. Not on every imaginable fact that the 6 month investigation uncovered.

[IrishJoe3]

Quoted because this is worth reading twice.

Just a note.... Absent any other circumstances/observations; such a shooting would most likely NOT be justified. I don't get to walk around on duty, see something that "looks" like a firearm, and just shoot. Have there been some bad shoots by LEO's? Of course. There have also been plenty of good ones (if it is ever "good" to have to kill someone) that don't make the news and even more scenarios that COULD have turned into shootings that get safely resolved that the public NEVER hears about. I agree that many departments are losing in the PR realm; but I think that brings up the question: Is it really law enforcements "job" to be involved in PR or is it the news media's job to be objective in their reporting?

A note on the bold. A police agencies responsibility is maintaining the integrity of an investigation. Which is why in an era of "instant information NOW!" police departments can give the appearance of 'circling the wagons' and their PR image subsequently gets damaged.

Its that if they tell all, it WILL compromise the investigation, meaning the guilty party could walk or worse, an innocent party gets damaged based on the premature release of information.

[1CavScout]

Do you know of a Sheriffs Deputy named Ali Perez from San Diego? That's my cousin. He was shot in a doorway by a rifle while serving a warrant on a child molester. Believe me, the very last thing I want is for LEOs to get hurt. But I don't want guys purchasing airguns to get hurt either.

I know both Ali and Craig, who was also shot on the same call. Both are lucky to be alive, especially Ali. You should discuss these topics with your cousin, or even Craig if you know him. They will give you the same answers others on this thread are.

[spyde12]

Since I've never walked a day in the shoes of LE, I won't dare tell anyone here how to do their job. It's rough reading how non LE folks think they would handle a situation a lot better after the incident has already played out and more facts come to light. If they're so sure, they should sign up and prove it. Unfortunately, you only have seconds and making the wrong decision can be fatal (for either party).

I believe that making the best decision and assessment is dependent on the LEO's experience. However, this will not safeguard them from an unfortunate event. Intentions and the end result don't always mesh. I strongly believe that the majority of LE has the intent to do the right thing, but sometimes politics, media, prejudice and fear can cloud one's judgement. This doesn't make them bad. It just makes them (LE) human.

I'm in software and my worst day is when our system is down and costs not only my company $$$, but our customers as well. IMO, a LEO's worst day isn't when they die in the line of duty (not bashing, so let me finish), but when the decision they made to pull the trigger resulted in the death of an innocent, or worse, a colleague. I couldn't bear that burden, but this is a possibility every time you suit up.

Which is why when ever there's an unfortunate event (pick your recent shooting involving an officer), I always hope that it's not as bad as the media makes it out because it just hurts society as a whole. I'll wait for the facts to come out in court and pray that no cover up took place before I share my opinion. It's only fair and logic, well at least for me.

[micro911]

On the subject of shooting, if officers are serving a warrant for a known (dangerous) felon, isn't the risk higher and naturally the alert level will be higher, and shooting can occur more frequently in that situation? How about SWAT is involved? What if the officer ran the plate and it came back as 10-29 FD (dangerous felony) whoever the driver is? Maybe the driver is not a subject of the warrant, but officer's alert level may be red.

There are too many variables and officers have to make quick decisions. That is where training and experience come in to handle the situation. I wish departments enhance training program to help officers make better decisions, but it may be a long shot.

[pacrat]

CBR_rider said

[QUOTE]
Quoted because this is worth reading twice over and over.

FIFY

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR_rider
Just a note.... Absent any other circumstances/observations; such a shooting would most likely NOT be justified. I don't get to walk around on duty, see something that "looks" like a firearm, and just shoot. Have there been some bad shoots by LEO's? Of course. There have also been plenty of good ones (if it is ever "good" to have to kill someone) that don't make the news and even more scenarios that COULD have turned into shootings that get safely resolved that the public NEVER hears about. I agree that many departments are losing in the PR realm; but I think that brings up the question: Is it really law enforcements "job" to be involved in PR or is it the news media's job to be objective in their reporting? [QUOTE]

A note on the bold. A police agencies responsibility is maintaining the integrity of an investigation. Which is why in an era of "instant information NOW!" police departments can give the appearance of 'circling the wagons' and their PR image subsequently gets damaged.

Its that if they tell all, it WILL compromise the investigation, meaning the guilty party could walk or worse, an innocent party gets damaged based on the premature release of information.

I'm not a cop, never been a cop, never even played a cop on a TV soap opera, but at 65 yrs old. I've been around the block a few times, and did so with my eyes/ears open so seen/heard a lot.

No, hell NO, it should not be a cops job to be a PR man. Sadly, most large agencies do have PR men. Why? Because the "Bias Stream Media" does not take it upon themselves to be "objective" they no longer even care if what they spout is truth or not. As long as it is good for as many sensationalized sound bytes as they can milk it for. [they are covered by "Absence of Malice"]

Then "POOF" they crawl back into the studio, awaiting the next opportunity to get their face on camera. Then weeks or months later when the crap storm they created has blown over. It is no longer considered "News Worthy" to come forward and let the full story and all pertinent facts be known. Unless of course allegations were deemed unfounded but the incident has raised the hackles of a bunch of race baiting divisive butt brains like Al Sharpturd or Jessy Jackoff. Who then profit by stirring up their own brand of crapstorm. Like is happening in Ferguson Mo.

That type of sensationalized crap reporting started back in the 1960s with the Vietnam War Protests and the switch over from Honest Journalism to Sensational Media. Looking back it is hard to imagine that the LA Times was once the most hard core ultra conservative Pro America newspaper in the world. Now they are just a bunch of pimps for illegal aliens and crooked politicos.

"Us v Them" used to be the cops and the law abiding citizens in the white hats against the bad guys. Now the average citizen is much to busy to actually bother to do some fact finding. Much easier to just be spoon fed Bovine Excrement from the Idiot Box. When the average lazy citizen is bombarded with the "bad cops" theme constantly by the BSM and the professional victims orgs. they start to wonder, who is the good guy, and who is the bad guy.

I find it thoroughly disgusting that rewards have to be offered before certain individuals will come forward and say who the scumbag was who shot up grandma's house, and killed innocent children in their own neigborhood.

JM2c

[Guerrilla Warfare]

Non-LEO here (I was an Explorer's Cadet in a city that I used to live in) The majority of you are good guys and the media does the same thing with you as they do with gun owners: sensationalize and cover the baddies (with misinformation sometimes, making good guys look like baddies) while ignoring the good. Thank for you for your service to our community. Please don't forget there are many citizens like myself who value your work and sacrifice.