ADVERTISEMENT

Another unarmed man shot by police in Oklahoma

theIowaHawk said:
This is precisely what I've never understood. The staunchest anti-federal / anti-authority are the biggest supports of local authority, especially the enforcement officers. Why?
Click to expand...

Gawd, you guys just don't get it, do you? Quit trying to interject that into an argument you are getting your lunch fed toy you in. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we are saying here.

Follow along here, I'll dumb this down that even you guys can understand it.

If ANYBODY with a firearm tells you to do something that you know you should be heeding said armed person's warning, what possibly could go through your mind at that exact moment that would lead you to believe that if you do not heed said warning, chances are a whole lot better that they will shoot you?

Choice A = do what they say, don't get shot
Choice B = don't do what they say, and increase by oh...100% that you get shot and killed.

What choice are you most likely to NOT GET SHOT?

I walk into a convenience store that is getting robbed by two white people at gunpoint (white, just so you can't interject other idiotically insane variants into it...let's just call them big bad ol' whitey if it makes you happy). They turn to me, point their guns at me, and tell me to get on the floor.

Knowing instantly in that situation that pretty much anything other than getting on the floor increasingly gets me shot, I choose to get on the floor. Now...I had a choice there...increase the odds of getting shot if I don't do what they told me to do, or do something completely logical and get on the floor. Now say I choose to defy them, and subsequently get shot. Let's say there's film and audio and witnesses to the entire episode.

The very same people here saying follow the officer's directions will be lambasting me FOR NOT FOLLOWING WHAT THEY GUYS WITH GUNS TOLD ME TO DO!


It doesn't have anything to do with democrats, republicans, anti-federal, anti-authority, etc...you're about to get shot. Are you frigging serious?

Myself..."yes sir, right away sir". I probably have an oh...99.99% opportunity to go home alive. If you want to interject your idiotic politics into a simple yes/no question about choosing one's own life or death, go ahead. Just don't throw this horsehockey into it when you know for certain what the correct answer is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Funky Bunch
theIowaHawk said:
You don't seem to have the ability to separate the important issues.

Yes, that is the problem. When you, the people, believe things like: "Do everything a cop says or expect to die", you set up a system of allowing that to occur.

Let's put it in to a context that you prefer: If society says, "Well, everybody is going to use welfare improperly, just get used to it." Then, logically, that is going to continue to occur. That is the problem.

Sure, you can say, "ITS THE WELFARE CHEATERS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM," but really it isn't, the problem is allowing it to occur.
Click to expand...
They didn't disobey the cops, they fought with them. Just a slight difference, no?

What was your handle during all the Ferguson threads btw?
 
TexMichFan said:
What is the right response? Once you get knocked down how much further does it have to go before lethal force is an option? How would you defend yourself if you had been knocked down and felt the situation was going to get worse?
Click to expand...

This is a difficult question, no doubt, and that is why the hiring/vetting process should be stringent, and the training be mandatory and proper, whatever that is. You compare what "you" would do in the same situation, which, again, is part of the problem. It isn't you, or me, it is a trained law enforcement officer.

If a trained law enforcement officer feels that he is in the same danger as you and I in each of these situations, and must act like we would, I question his ability to do the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BABiscuit
Mattski said:
They didn't disobey the cops, they fought with them. Just a slight difference, no?

What was your handle during all the Ferguson threads btw?
Click to expand...

My handle was exactly the same as now, but I stayed out of most of Ferguson. You hint at an important point: Not ALL of these cases can/should be treated the same. Facts are extremely important.

BUT, the larger issue is exactly what I first responded to in this thread. The facts, the circumstances don't matter if this is the blanket mindset: "If you are dumb enough to put your hands on a law enforcement officer, you are dumb enough to catch the dead. EoS."

If that is the mindset, the facts simply don't matter. That mindset needs to change.
 
bagdropper said:
Gawd, you guys just don't get it, do you? Quit trying to interject that into an argument you are getting your lunch fed toy you in. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we are saying here.

Follow along here, I'll dumb this down that even you guys can understand it.

If ANYBODY with a firearm tells you to do something that you know you should be heeding said armed person's warning, what possibly could go through your mind at that exact moment that would lead you to believe that if you do not heed said warning, chances are a whole lot better that they will shoot you?

Choice A = do what they say, don't get shot
Choice B = don't do what they say, and increase by oh...100% that you get shot and killed.

What choice are you most likely to NOT GET SHOT?

I walk into a convenience store that is getting robbed by two white people at gunpoint (white, just so you can't interject other idiotically insane variants into it...let's just call them big bad ol' whitey if it makes you happy). They turn to me, point their guns at me, and tell me to get on the floor.

Knowing instantly in that situation that pretty much anything other than getting on the floor increasingly gets me shot, I choose to get on the floor. Now...I had a choice there...increase the odds of getting shot if I don't do what they told me to do, or do something completely logical and get on the floor. Now say I choose to defy them, and subsequently get shot. Let's say there's film and audio and witnesses to the entire episode.

The very same people here saying follow the officer's directions will be lambasting me FOR NOT FOLLOWING WHAT THEY GUYS WITH GUNS TOLD ME TO DO!


It doesn't have anything to do with democrats, republicans, anti-federal, anti-authority, etc...you're about to get shot. Are you frigging serious?

Myself..."yes sir, right away sir". I probably have an oh...99.99% opportunity to go home alive. If you want to interject your idiotic politics into a simple yes/no question about choosing one's own life or death, go ahead. Just don't throw this horsehockey into it when you know for certain what the correct answer is.
Click to expand...

That is a frightening mindset, but I think I get your point. You aren't talking about what should happen, or what is right, you are saying that, completely out of self-interest, people should comply. Did I characterize that right?
 
theIowaHawk said:
That is a frightening mindset, but I think I get your point. You aren't talking about what should happen, or what is right, you are saying that, completely out of self-interest, people should comply. Did I characterize that right?
Click to expand...

If someone is pointing a gun at you A) they shouldn't be doing it B) its probably not right and C) yes it is in your best interest at that point in time to listen to the person with the gun. You can sort out whether or not they should be doing it or if its right later because there will still be air in your lungs and blood pumping thru your heart.
 
theIowaHawk said:
That is a frightening mindset, but I think I get your point. You aren't talking about what should happen, or what is right, you are saying that, completely out of self-interest, people should comply. Did I characterize that right?
Click to expand...

Sounds like it. I guess I just expect that police hold would themselves to a higher standard (the law) and don't just think they get to shoot innocent people for not doing what they are told.
We as a society should expect better than that from those entrusted to 'protect and serve' us.
 
22*43*51 said:
Follow the link in the OP. I kinda hope you would've checked it out before all of those posts...
Click to expand...

Huh. I followed the link previously and was sure there wasn't video. Checking on it now. Even without, my comments have not once been directed at the specific facts of this matter, nor need they be. People are so concerned with, "SEE THIS TIME YOU ARE WRONG," than dealing with the larger issues.

My link still has no video, only photo galleries, no link to another video. I could be missing it, I'll just google it.
 
theIowaHawk said:
Huh. I followed the link previously and was sure there wasn't video. Checking on it now. Even without, my comments have not once been directed at the specific facts of this matter, nor need they be. People are so concerned with, "SEE THIS TIME YOU ARE WRONG," than dealing with the larger issues.

My link still has no video, only photo galleries, no link to another video. I could be missing it, I'll just google it.
Click to expand...

It's in the photo gallery. Slide 6/19
 
22*43*51 said:
It's in the photo gallery. Slide 6/19
Click to expand...

Never even thought to look there. Also, the link I posted above doesn't seem to work, I found the press-conference one here: http://kfor.com/2015/06/01/ohp-releases-dashcam-footage-moments-before-deadly-shooting/.

Doesn't show much. The two clearly come at the officer, who begins yelling at them to settle down, or similar, the one pushes the officer, the other draws his weapon, the rest is off screen. Are you seeing a better video with more?

Wonder if my ad-blocker is messing these up, can't seem to get any to work.
 
theIowaHawk said:
Never even thought to look there. Also, the link I posted above doesn't seem to work, I found the press-conference one here: http://kfor.com/2015/06/01/ohp-releases-dashcam-footage-moments-before-deadly-shooting/.

Doesn't show much. The two clearly come at the officer, who begins yelling at them to settle down, or similar, the one pushes the officer, the other draws his weapon, the rest is off screen. Are you seeing a better video with more?

Wonder if my ad-blocker is messing these up, can't seem to get any to work.
Click to expand...

Your other link worked for me.

It is a news clip that adds information saying that the dead guy was carrying the gun on his person while pushing the cops head under water.

If true, then legal use of deadly force will be pretty academic.
 
Pinehawk said:
So, conservatives generally think that everyone should own a gun and have a permit to carry...but then also think it's justified for the police to shoot anyone that is armed. Ok...
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone saying that so you are either unable to comprehend what you are reading or just making things up.
 
Pinehawk said:
Sounds like it. I guess I just expect that police hold would themselves to a higher standard (the law) and don't just think they get to shoot innocent people for not doing what they are told.
We as a society should expect better than that from those entrusted to 'protect and serve' us.
Click to expand...

Cops are justified to use deadly force in situations when they are being physically assulted, such as the story in the OP. No one was shooting anyone for not doing what they were told.
 
theIowaHawk said:
My handle was exactly the same as now, but I stayed out of most of Ferguson. You hint at an important point: Not ALL of these cases can/should be treated the same. Facts are extremely important.

BUT, the larger issue is exactly what I first responded to in this thread. The facts, the circumstances don't matter if this is the blanket mindset: "If you are dumb enough to put your hands on a law enforcement officer, you are dumb enough to catch the dead. EoS."

If that is the mindset, the facts simply don't matter. That mindset needs to change.
Click to expand...
theIowaHawk said:
My handle was exactly the same as now, but I stayed out of most of Ferguson. You hint at an important point: Not ALL of these cases can/should be treated the same. Facts are extremely important.

BUT, the larger issue is exactly what I first responded to in this thread. The facts, the circumstances don't matter if this is the blanket mindset: "If you are dumb enough to put your hands on a law enforcement officer, you are dumb enough to catch the dead. EoS."

If that is the mindset, the facts simply don't matter. That mindset needs to change.
Click to expand...

Huh, I think the mindset to think it is ok to charge a cop and not catch a beat down or the dead is the mindset that needs changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bullethawk
herk90 said:
I don't see anyone saying that so you are either unable to comprehend what you are reading or just making things up.
Click to expand...

It's what Bagdropper said:

bagdropper said:
If ANYBODY with a firearm tells you to do something that you know you should be heeding said armed person's warning, what possibly could go through your mind at that exact moment that would lead you to believe that if you do not heed said warning, chances are a whole lot better that they will shoot you?

Choice A = do what they say, don't get shot
Choice B = don't do what they say, and increase by oh...100% that you get shot and killed.
Click to expand...
 
The one guy pushed the trooper down and jumped on him. You can't do that. The guy that pushed him down also was open carrying a pistol on his belt per the news story. So you have an armed, apparently drunk guy, push a trooper to the ground, jump on him ... and the troopers' lawyers say he was holding the trooper under the water.

While I would like to think the trooper that fired the fatal shot (he wasn't the one that was pushed) could have responded without going full lethal, if you do what the drunk guy did, getting shot is a possible outcome. I'd give the troopers the benefit of the doubt here.
 
herk90 said:
Huh, I think the mindset to think it is ok to charge a cop and not catch a beat down or the dead is the mindset that needs changed.
Click to expand...

What is this even saying? That if more people obeyed police society would be better? Are you thinking I'm in disagreement. I don't think it is even apropos to the discussion. The discussion, at least as I believed I was having it, is the idea that the person who is shot/killed deserved it for their action.

Are you saying it is deserved? Also, there is a large difference between "beat down" and "the dead", right? You seem to believe, based on your post, that they are both equal reactions to a LEO being "charged".
 
whatsup12579er said:
Cops are justified to use deadly force in situations when they are being physically assulted, such as the story in the OP. No one was shooting anyone for not doing what they were told.
Click to expand...

Actually, cops are not justified to use deadly force if they are being assaulted. They are justified to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in danger of being seriously injured or killed - there's a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SWIowahawks
St. Louis Hawk said:
The one guy pushed the trooper down and jumped on him. You can't do that. The guy that pushed him down also was open carrying a pistol on his belt per the news story. So you have an armed, apparently drunk guy, push a trooper to the ground, jump on him ... and the troopers' lawyers say he was holding the trooper under the water.

While I would like to think the trooper that fired the fatal shot (he wasn't the one that was pushed) could have responded without going full lethal, if you do what the drunk guy did, getting shot is a possible outcome. I'd give the troopers the benefit of the doubt here.
Click to expand...

I normally agree with you StL, and you seem to confirm a point I've argued in many other threads: LEOs are NOT, in fact, ok with people open-carrying, at least when it is not them and not their buddies.

Certainly being held under water is egregious and deserved a quick and decisive reaction, regardless of whether the person was open-carrying.

I read far too many stories that go like this: "The guy was armed so we had to respond ____________________." That doesn't seem very 2A-supportive.
 
jaffarosenfels said:
To point fingers and put blame on anyone not at the scene is lazy and disingenuous. I'm pretty sure this guy was not considering Obama's actions the last 6 years when confronting the officer.
Click to expand...
I think it's a fair point when so many incidents are happening and so many more people are plotting to kill cops. The most power ful man in the world who happens to be black is helping to cause a wider divide. I'm talking more broad than this one incident.
 
St. Louis Hawk said:
Actually, cops are not justified to use deadly force if they are being assaulted. They are justified to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in danger of being seriously injured or killed - there's a difference.
Click to expand...

This is very important. It is not the only time they can use deadly force, but this distinction, in relation to this story is vital.
 
theIowaHawk said:
I normally agree with you StL, and you seem to confirm a point I've argued in many other threads: LEOs are NOT, in fact, ok with people open-carrying, at least when it is not them and not their buddies.

Certainly being held under water is egregious and deserved a quick and decisive reaction, regardless of whether the person was open-carrying.

I read far too many stories that go like this: "The guy was armed so we had to respond ____________________." That doesn't seem very 2A-supportive.
Click to expand...
They have to respond if someone is carrying around a weapon. They will ask for permits and ID, which I don't think the law abiding citizen has to brandish in all states. But what I don't get are the idiots that try to argue. Just show the ID and get on with your day.
 
theIowaHawk said:
This is very important. It is not the only time they can use deadly force, but this distinction, in relation to this story is vital.
Click to expand...
A drunk guy attacks a cop knocking him down, jumps on top of him, and attempts to hold him under water. Do you believe in this case the cops partner was justified in shooting the offender? Yes or no?
 
Mattski said:
A drunk guy attacks a cop knocking him down, jumps on top of him, and attempts to hold him under water. Do you believe in this case the cops partner was justified in shooting the offender? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Based on your recitation of the facts, probably. But, then again, I'm not trained law enforcement. I can't see enough in the video that appears to be available to judge it on its own. The second LEO appears to just stand there with the gun drawn.
 
SWIowahawks said:
They have to respond if someone is carrying around a weapon. They will ask for permits and ID, which I don't think the law abiding citizen has to brandish in all states. But what I don't get are the idiots that try to argue. Just show the ID and get on with your day.
Click to expand...

I agree with this post, and to clarify, this isn't what I'm trying to illustrate. It is the assumption that most/all carriers are potentially violating the law. Put it in another context, would we be ok with LEO simply stopping cars to check and see if they are licensed? I would guess not. But what I'm trying to point out is the hostility/raised aggression towards anyone with a firearm.
 
Pinehawk said:
Sounds like it. I guess I just expect that police hold would themselves to a higher standard (the law) and don't just think they get to shoot innocent people for not doing what they are told.
We as a society should expect better than that from those entrusted to 'protect and serve' us.
Click to expand...


It was more than "not doing what he was told" he ASSAULTED the officer. Again, at what point is the LEO supposed to defend himself? What if the guy is a trained fighter (MMA style)? What if he is on drugs (LSD)? I know several County and City officers along with a couple US Marshals - every one of them has told me "I hope I never have to draw my weapon, but if I do - I pray I have the ability to use it to protect myself and\or those I have sworn to protect."

Would you want a cop to sit by and watch you get your skull fractured before he stopped the perp? Would you really care if the LEO used his weapon to stop the perp? Better yet, what if it were your spouse, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter being assaulted?

Where would you draw the line if it were YOU?
 
theIowaHawk said:
I agree with this post, and to clarify, this isn't what I'm trying to illustrate. It is the assumption that most/all carriers are potentially violating the law. Put it in another context, would we be ok with LEO simply stopping cars to check and see if they are licensed? I would guess not. But what I'm trying to point out is the hostility/raised aggression towards anyone with a firearm.
Click to expand...

They actually do this type of thing and I hate it - I was in the "line" once where they did spot checks (they funneled us off of 965 into the driveway across from Oakdale). I understand why though, it was to try and find illegal drug transport,etc., it took about 30 minutes, I wasn't happy but I did as asked and got out of there.
 
It was more than "not doing what he was told" he ASSAULTED the officer.

I understand that, but being assaulted isn't the "end-all" of the discussion. Thankfully, the vast majority of officers don't shoot people just because they are "assaulted."

Again, at what point is the LEO supposed to defend himself?

I'm only going to speak for myself here, but of course he is able, and should, defend himself, nobody is questioning that. Usually, maybe not specifically this case, it is how they "defend" themselves that is at issue. Just off the top of my head, the guy who wrestled with the officer, the gun was dropped, the guy ploddingly runs way, officer shoots him in the back. It is the response that is the issue.

What if the guy is a trained fighter (MMA style)? What if he is on drugs (LSD)?

This actually gets to the heart of MY issue with this. We will give LEOs every "what-if", what if the guy is Jean Claude Van Damme, or the guy is Tsarnaev. When we grant them all of the worst-case scenarios, their response can never be improper.

I know several County and City officers along with a couple US Marshals - every one of them has told me "I hope I never have to draw my weapon, but if I do - I pray I have the ability to use it to protect myself and\or those I have sworn to protect."

I agree with this observation, and believe it to be true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss these issues, just because they mean well, most of the time.

Would you want a cop to sit by and watch you get your skull fractured before he stopped the perp? Would you really care if the LEO used his weapon to stop the perp? Better yet, what if it were your spouse, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter being assaulted?

No, of course not, but you know these are all straw-men, and do not further your point. I've mostly touched on these points, but want to add, specifically to this case one of the issues I can see. The officer who fired, from what I could tell, was standing there during the assault, with his gun drawn. Obviously his response, from where he was, with his gun drawn, is to fire, and so he did. That isn't the only response I can conjure up. For example, regardless of facts: If he had reacted immediately to the assault, as opposed to stepping back and yelling with his gun drawn, he may have been in a better position to help his fellow officer.

As always, it is much easier after the fact, with unlimited time, to figure out what should have been done. I understand that. The question, to me, is largely training. Was his response, per proper training, the correct response? If not, why wasn't it, and how can we fix it.

You illustrate another issue, people wanting to make this a "what would you do?" It isn't, these are trained, heavily armed, law enforcement officers. If they must, by necessity, respond as I would, or how my wife would, by god, they are in the wrong line of duty.

Where would you draw the line if it were YOU?

As always with self-defense situations, you can't draw a bright-line, you simply can't. If you do you leave out a great deal of scenarios, but also allow for generic, wrong, decisions to be made. If we made it: Officer Assaulted = Shoot to Kill, it would necessarily be done in the right circumstances at some times, but certainly not at others. Any line that is drawn requires objective, outside decision-making, and "reasonableness" is the best way to describe it.
 
TennesseeWaltz1 said:
"Knowing your rights" is not the same as resisting arrest... difference there big fella.
Click to expand...

Well, as always, it completely depends.

Here is one instance: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-police-won-t-press-charges-against-6063816.php#item-39786
Lawyer telling an officer to not question her client/take photos of him at the courthouse where he is standing trial.
Lawyer threatens to arrest her, she says something like, Go ahead, and they do.......on the basis of resisting arrest.

Of course it was later dropped. There are many times where "knowing your rights" IS the same thing as resisting arrest...........in the eyes of the law enforcer. Often, knowing your rights makes them more upset, and act more outside the legal requirements.

THAT BEING SAID, be careful watching YouTube and "rights", they are wrong, a lot, more often than not probably. Those people who yell, "I need to see three forms of ID" at the officers and refuse to comply until done so, are doing so under no pretense of "knowing their rights." They probably watched another youtube video and continued the ignorance.

But, with all of this said, the SCOTUS through many cases has basically said that walking away from a police officer is what is required to follow your rights. You can't run - its suspicious. But if an officer asks you to stop, just walk away, it is within your right......limited to exceptions, like suspicion of committing a crime.

But therein is the rub: The LEO isn't going to let you walk away, so then what? Well, you follow the instructions, maybe end up in jail, lose your job, pay a lawyer, and have them quietly dismiss it later. Justice served.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

alaskanseminole

Fun night here in San Antonio

Replies
0
Views
153
Off Topic
alaskanseminole
alaskanseminole
QChawks

Man drove for nearly 2 hours with girlfriend shot in the head

Replies
0
Views
159
Off Topic
QChawks
QChawks
BrunoMars420

Florida man and a horse

Replies
4
Views
214
Off Topic
Lindemann
Lindemann
NDallasRuss

Rot in Hell Pizzagate Shooter!

Replies
8
Views
393
Off Topic
torbee
torbee
McLovin32

SIAP: "Let's cruise around and come back"

Replies
6
Views
343
Off Topic
Hawgk
H
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back