No question in my mind [Archive]

BarryBobPosthole

01-29-2016, 11:37 AM

Hopefully they'll get the rest of these people in custody with no more deaths. This didn't have to happen. I don't think there's a person anywhere who'd argue with this.
Well, yeah there is. its already happening.

BKB

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4727157766001/fbi-releases-video-of-fatal-shooting-of-oregon-occupier/?intcmp=hplnws#sp=show-clips

LJ3

01-29-2016, 12:36 PM

quercus alba

01-29-2016, 12:38 PM

Yes

Captain

01-29-2016, 12:41 PM

I'm not 60 so I can't help. :D

quercus alba

01-29-2016, 12:51 PM

Me neither buy I'm in the advanced stages of curmudgeonhood

Buckrub

01-29-2016, 01:11 PM

I'd have emptied the clip in his ass. He's absolutely NO different than a ghetto thug rushing an LEO or any other asshole that doesn't obey LEO commands in a potentially lethal situation.

I'm beginning to just dislike people in general. Can any of you 60+ curmudgeons enlighten me? Is this going to get worse?

No, I can't.

I might have too. But if you really would have done that, would you then have gone to his 50 foster kids and told them what you thought of him and what you did to him?

LJ3

01-29-2016, 02:03 PM

If he was with a group of people who said they're prepared to fight for what they want, committed felonies, were known to be armed and he ignored LEO commands and reached inside his jacket.... His foster kids would be the last thing on my mind. It would be my family and my personal survival that drove my actions.

Someone should explain to his kids why he died. And do so responsibly. I doubt that has any chance of happening.

Buckrub

01-29-2016, 02:07 PM

Fair enough.
BUT......."Reached inside his jacket" is neither on that tape, nor what the FBI said. They have ONLY said "he reached for his waistband". Your phrase would make intent much clearer, but that isn't what is said to have happened.

Oh........edit...........and I wasn't discussing your actions...........which would have been to fire. That is probably justified. I was discussing your comment that he is no better than a street thug....and asked if you were willing to tell his kids "I shot him because he's no better than a street thug rushing an officer"? Do you really believe that, or is that hyperbole?

LJ3

01-29-2016, 02:15 PM

Ohhhhhh. gotcha. Different types of people, surely. I doubt number of foster kids is a good metric to use other than to figure out how much more government assistance they receive.

And you should watch the FBI footage of the shooting. Dude is CLEARLY reaching inside his jacket pocket where there was a 9mm found after the shooting. He did it twice before they shot him.

Buckrub

01-29-2016, 02:19 PM

I guess everything I say is construed as biased for some reason.............. but....... I don't see him reaching inside anything. I see his arms moving from a Raised Arm position to go down. That's about as clear as I can make it out from the height of the camera. I don't know if folks see what they want, or what......but I don't see that. I can't even say he reached for his waistband. I use that phrase because that's what the FBI on the scene described it as. If they said that, and I can't see anything other than that, I conclude that's all that I am comfortable in saying happened.

And honestly, whining that a guy that has 50 foster kids does so strictly to get government assistance is weak, whiney, agenda-seeking, and possibly even false.

And the 9mm is puzzling to me........very probably true, but puzzling. He wore an open .45 on his hip, and almost always did.

Thus, I have questions. The answers are probably what y'all have concluded already. But to me, they are questions.

DeputyDog

01-29-2016, 03:56 PM

I watched it and clearly saw him reaching into the coat. The fact that he was walking around and circling almost goes to his intent. Tjat would have been handled as a high risk stop and the officers would be ordering him to keep his hands up, face away from them and walk backwards to them.

LJ3

01-29-2016, 04:11 PM

Both times he reached for his jacket seemed pretty clear to me. I was actually looking for the opposite if I admit my bias. That being said, anything other than hands up in the air is enough reason to shoot his ass. It is proven without a doubt (I'm sure LEOs can confirm) That even if you have a gun pointed at a perp, they can still shoot you faster than you can shoot them in most cases. I done seen it on the innerwebs.

Buckrub

01-29-2016, 04:38 PM

OK. I get it. Just an unfortunate incident, and it just isn't sitting with me properly..........though I can't validly argue with any of y'all's comments. Just something floating around.

DD and Cappy are saying it's clear, and I need to trust them.....and I do. That gives a lot of weight to it, to me anyway.

Arty

01-29-2016, 05:34 PM

I'm not trying to poke at ya Bucky, but unless your eyes are closed I can't see how you don't see that he's clearly going for something in his waistline.

And I also don't understand how if he was in fact doing that - that he didn't get exactly what was coming to him.

For gods sake he was surrounded by police with their weapons drawn.

If I was in that situation I wouldn't even blink, and if'n I did I'd expect to get shot!

?

01-29-2016, 05:44 PM

#3 has to do this more often than I like, but so far he's never fired his weapon. Taser wouldn't work with the heavy clothing.
Cops face the fact, Damned if you do, dead if you don't. It's something I could not do. Hat's off to the 99% of police that do it right.

HideHunter

01-29-2016, 10:05 PM

So, people, where was all this outrage in Ferguson.?. I'm not even defending them. I'm just getting damned tired of the double standard.

Edit: Shit, now *I'm* all wrapped up in the whole "two threads" thing.. ;)

BarryBobPosthole

01-29-2016, 10:13 PM

What is the connection? I don't understand the point. And no I'm not being a wise ass.
BKB

HideHunter

01-30-2016, 10:20 AM

Just that several of you maintain this "unlawful occupation" was legitimate grounds for shooting a guy, at a roadblock, miles from there (and you need not start splitting hairs - I understand).. My point being, how many "justified situations" were there in St. Louey?.. and it seemed "don't shoot under any circumstances" was the order of the day - in fact "pull back"... Was there something less "unlawful" about the Ferguson "occupation"? You somehow seem madder over a group of cowboys taking over an unoccupied wildlife refuge than looting and burning in the streets.. huh?

BarryBobPosthole

01-30-2016, 10:33 AM

Thanks for answering. I've heard Ferguson held up with this as a parallel people trying to show both sides of the argument.
Personally, I don't see any parallels at all.

What I do see as a parallel is that a bunch of people seem to think both the looters in Ferguson and the so-called 'cowboys' in Oregon are victims. And I call bullshit on both counts. These people are part the same crowd that Timothy McVeigh ran with. These guys don't make their living from cows any more than do. And thanks to a lot of support, mainly from armchair tough guys on the internet, there's a good chance the next American terror plot is being planned.

Anyway, as I said, thanks for answering. Its hard to communicate irony on the innerwebs.

BKB

HideHunter

01-30-2016, 11:21 AM

What I do see as a parallel is that a bunch of people seem to think both the looters in Ferguson and the so-called 'cowboys' in Oregon are victims. And I call bullshit on both counts.
BKB

and on *that* we very much agree..

But, how about, just once... A little even-handedness in handling such situations.. Why didn't the cops open fire in Ferguson *while they were in the act*? Why is a non-white so seldom ever prosecuted for a "hate-crime".. Why aren't animal rights people prosecuted for domestic terrorism? "Gay rights"? why do they get more than me? Oscars are too "white"? How about the NAACP Image awards?

As I said, my original post wasn't even really about whether he "went for his pocket" - more that I'm pissed off more people aren't pissed off.

BarryBobPosthole

01-30-2016, 11:27 AM

I don't know the answers to your questions. I also think that they should be asked. But with this caveat: as wrong as any one or all of those things are for happening, there is no possible combination of any or all of them and this situation in Oregon that comes out making any or all any closer to being right. Just because of that bullshit, don't make it any where close to being right for this bullshit. Yet I've seen that very proposition many times in the past few days. And that makes me ill. Or ill tempered maybe!

BKb

LJ3

01-30-2016, 04:47 PM

I see less of the circumstances leading to the shooting than most people it seems (at least today I do). I do agree that activities before the incident can always play a part but it's what happens seconds before the pull of an LOE trigger that matter to me.

Thumper

01-30-2016, 05:13 PM

... it's what happens seconds before the pull of an LOE trigger that matter to me.

An LOE?? Izzat some sorta NoVa Zither cop? ;)

Big Muddy

01-30-2016, 06:38 PM

Here's my opinion....the guy was in the wrong....he should have dropped to the ground, instantly on command....he was definitely, attempting to draw his weapon, twice....that being said, I also, saw an LEO approach him, undetected, from the rear, out of the woods, and get within 15 feet of him, still undetected.
The LEO's gun had an extremely long barrel, and could have been either a rifle or shotgun....it doesn't matter, he was close enough to have shot the guy in the legs....the man did not have to be killed....jmho.

Thumper

01-30-2016, 06:52 PM

Things may have changed since I was in law enforcement ... but we were always taught to NEVER fire our weapon if we didn't intend to kill. This ain't some Hollywood western where the Sheriff always shoots the gun out'ta the guy's hand.

The only option (NOT in this case) is non-lethal force. Bean bags (that's out), Taser (Nope), Tear gas (no), throw snow in his eyes and take him down (Ummm, naaaa).

BarryBobPosthole

01-30-2016, 06:54 PM

I don't know how they're trained. But if I'm on this team and the perp goes for a weapon I don't want him shot in the legs. I want him shot in the eye. And we seem to forget that three semi auto 223s, Whch I have to assume are prolly AR15s, and a 38 were found later in the truck with the three people that were in there. So knowing those folks were well armed, even though they didn't know those details then, had to have turned the sensitivity knobs all the way up to eleven.

I still think he walked away from the truck for a purpose. And that raised the threat level too.

Anyway, the decision was his. He made, they obliged him.

BKB

Captain

01-30-2016, 06:55 PM

Well Thumper I taught LEO's firearms for better than 25 years and we do NOT shoot to kill. We shoot to stop. Basically we are taught to shoot center mass of what ever we shoot at. And we only shoot to stop not to kill.

Thumper

01-30-2016, 06:57 PM

I guess center of mass is a pretty good kill shot. ;)

Thumper

01-30-2016, 06:59 PM

What we were always told was, if we did not intend to kill someone, we were not to shoot. Makes sense to me.

(if the shot knocks 'em down but doesn't kill 'em ... they got lucky.)

Cappy, in all seriousness, I think what they were trying to say is, if you shoot someone, you have to assume they may not live. It's kinda like even though you "know" a gun is unloaded, ya' still don't point it at anyone ... you ALWAYS assume it's loaded. Similar scenario ... you shoot, you assume they may die.

Captain

01-30-2016, 07:03 PM

It may or may not be depends on what is exposed. The whole body?, sure I'm with you but you don't always get a shot like that. MOST folks try to at least hide and shoot. This guy had his mind made up to have the cops kill him. He would have never stopped in the open otherwise. He would have at least ran to one of the many trees nearby and took some cover if a firefight was his goal.
Absolutely no doubt it ended the way he wanted it too.

Thumper

01-30-2016, 07:09 PM

Captain

01-30-2016, 07:34 PM

Oh, ok ... I see what you're saying ... in that case, I understand. I was just looking at this scenario. But then again, my training was 40+ years ago ... maybe a kinder/gentler crowd has moved in since then. ;)

No Bro-master-general, it's ain't got nothing to do with a softer, kinder way of doing business. It has EVERYTHING with the way our system is "Lawyered" up. I was personally involved in several shootings over my career and on 3 of those occasions I found myself being sued in federal court (as well as state court). It's the way business is done, sue everybody for everything everywhere and see if any of it sticks.
If any officer got on stand and said they shot to kill, it would be a automatic icing on the cake of the plaintiff. You have to say you shot to stop the aggression and death occurred from his actions of that aggression. Any other answer will leave YOU in a bind.
There is nothing that will mess with your mind more than federal marshals showing up at your work and serving you with papers. The trial (if it gets that far, only one of mine did) also takes time off your lifespan.