Too Early to Judge, I guess. But police Shoot Woman in her Own Backyard

[toobfreak]

So being aware and defending yourself and family is a vigilante. Got it.

No, you apparently haven't gotten much in life, including the understanding that when you take the law in your own hands (for good or bad, right or wrong) not being a formally deputized LEO, that is what a vigilante is.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That would leave her armed and out of visual sight, which means she could start firing from concealment. When investigating, LEO need to know threats are eliminated.

Is that really your standard? if somebody "could" be a threat, police can kill them.

 

[hadit]

Is that really your standard? if somebody "could" be a threat, police can kill them.

In this case, they knew she was armed and when someone comes outside carrying a weapon, they want that weapon neutralized. That's a far different scenario than a simple traffic stop where there are no weapons visible.

You take it too far into absurdity. Let's put it this way. Do you believe they would have fired on her had she, 1, left the weapon in the house, or 2, put it down when they said to put it down?

 

[Seymour Flops]

In this case, they knew she was armed and when someone comes outside carrying a weapon, they want that weapon neutralized. That's a far different scenario than a simple traffic stop where there are no weapons visible.

What right did they have to "neutralize" that weapon? There is no law against having a weapon in your backyard. Given the circumstances, it seems the prudent thing to do.

You take it too far into absurdity. Let's put it this way. Do you believe they would have fired on her had she, 1, left the weapon in the house, or 2, put it down when they said to put it down?

These are officers willing to kill a woman who was no known threat. You want me to speculate that she would not have been killed under slightly different circumstances?

You want me to blame the victim because she did not follow the intricate set of rules that these police officers had worked out in their minds, but not shared with the public?

I'm reasonably sure and I would certainly hope that this is not how these officers were officially trained to respond to that set of circumstances. The problem is with their unofficial training that comes from their partner as they ride day in and day out.

"Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six" and the other nonsense that police officers tell each other. They talked themselves into believing that if they are not absolutely 100% positive that a person is not about to shoot them they should assume that the person is about to shoot them.

Kids being shot while holding toy guns, people being shot for pulling a cell phone out of their pocket, a completely innocent exterminator in a motel room ordered to crawl on the floor by an officer with an AR fifteen. He does crawl on the floor and complies with all orders. But he gets shot anyway, because he reach back to pull his shorts up, with both hands in full view of the officer.

Maybe I was wrong about the official training. Because the officer who killed him was let off on the basis that he was trained to act in exactly that way.

 

[hadit]

What right did they have to "neutralize" that weapon? There is no law against having a weapon in your backyard. Given the circumstances, it seems the prudent thing to do.

When law enforcement has to deal with an individual, they have to make sure that individual is not a threat. For whatever reason, they were dealing with her and wanted to make sure she did not pose a threat. She had a firearm in her possession, and when a cop is talking to you, he does not want to see that. I do not blame them for that. Her best bet would have been to put it down and talk with them.

These are officers willing to kill a woman who was no known threat.

How do you know that a woman carrying a firearm and does not put it down when ordered to is not a threat? I would posit that they are a threat precisely because they are not reacting sanely to the police.

You want me to speculate that she would not have been killed under slightly different circumstances?

I think I see where you went off the rails. The presence or absence of a firearm does not represent slightly different circumstances, it represents VERY different circumstances. Couple that with refusing to put it down when ordered to do so by LEO with guns in your face, and it's a dangerous situation. Again, the question, would they have fired on her had she simply put the gun down, talked with them calmly, and ultimately pressed her right to have a firearm in her own backyard (depending on local ordinances, of course)? I say no, they would not have. Once they determined she was not a threat, they would have left her alone if she wasn't breaking any laws at that time.

You want me to blame the victim because she did not follow the intricate set of rules that these police officers had worked out in their minds, but not shared with the public?

Nothing intricate about placing your firearm on the ground and it clearly was shared with her. If the cops are in the wrong, she has a lawsuit, but better to follow orders and not have bullets headed your way. Don't you think it would have been a lot more prudent for her to put the gun down? I am continually amazed at the armchair gunslingers who think it's a good idea to ignore a police officer who is pointing a gun at you because reasons. Live to file a lawsuit and collect big bucks if they're wrong.

I'm reasonably sure and I would certainly hope that this is not how these officers were officially trained to respond to that set of circumstances. The problem is with their unofficial training that comes from their partner as they ride day in and day out.

And that is a matter for the lawyers to untangle. If the cops were wrong, she has a lawsuit.

"Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six" and the other nonsense that police officers tell each other. They talked themselves into believing that if they are not absolutely 100% positive that a person is not about to shoot them they should assume that the person is about to shoot them.

Are you privy to the training these LEO received and to their personal conversations? I posit that no, you are not and are just making that up because reasons and you don't like cops.

Kids being shot while holding toy guns, people being shot for pulling a cell phone out of their pocket, a completely innocent exterminator in a motel room ordered to crawl on the floor by an officer with an AR fifteen. He does crawl on the floor and complies with all orders. But he gets shot anyway, because he reach back to pull his shorts up, with both hands in full view of the officer.

And when a cop has his gun pointed at you, the prudent thing is to do exactly what he says to do. Doing otherwise invites bullets headed your way. Cops are people too and make mistakes. The best thing you can do is put them as much at ease as you can by representing no threat whatsoever. The chances of you walking away totally unscathed go up astronomically. If, OTOH, you insist on playing cowboy and thinking you can intimidate a cop, the chances of you being carried away on a stretcher also go up astronomically.

Maybe I was wrong about the official training. Because the officer who killed him was let off on the basis that he was trained to act in exactly that way.

Then it makes sense for us to look into the training these LEO receive. I've been in situations where I observed their actions in dealing with a domestic violence situation, and the ones involved were very professional and didn't even pull their weapons. Now, have you been hurt by the police, or are you just reacting to headlines because somebody told you to distrust and hate cops when you were a kid?

 

[stan ford 4]

No, you apparently haven't gotten much in life, including the understanding that when you take the law in your own hands (for good or bad, right or wrong) not being a formally deputized LEO, that is what a vigilante is.

So now one has to be "deputized" to defend oneself. Yer funny.

 

[Seymour Flops]

When law enforcement has to deal with an individual, they have to make sure that individual is not a threat. For whatever reason, they were dealing with her and wanted to make sure she did not pose a threat. She had a firearm in her possession, and when a cop is talking to you, he does not want to see that. I do not blame them for that. Her best bet would have been to put it down and talk with them.

How do you know that a woman carrying a firearm and does not put it down when ordered to is not a threat? I would posit that they are a threat precisely because they are not reacting sanely to the police.

I think I see where you went off the rails. The presence or absence of a firearm does not represent slightly different circumstances, it represents VERY different circumstances. Couple that with refusing to put it down when ordered to do so by LEO with guns in your face, and it's a dangerous situation. Again, the question, would they have fired on her had she simply put the gun down, talked with them calmly, and ultimately pressed her right to have a firearm in her own backyard (depending on local ordinances, of course)? I say no, they would not have. Once they determined she was not a threat, they would have left her alone if she wasn't breaking any laws at that time.

Nothing intricate about placing your firearm on the ground and it clearly was shared with her. If the cops are in the wrong, she has a lawsuit, but better to follow orders and not have bullets headed your way. Don't you think it would have been a lot more prudent for her to put the gun down? I am continually amazed at the armchair gunslingers who think it's a good idea to ignore a police officer who is pointing a gun at you because reasons. Live to file a lawsuit and collect big bucks if they're wrong.

And that is a matter for the lawyers to untangle. If the cops were wrong, she has a lawsuit.

Are you privy to the training these LEO received and to their personal conversations? I posit that no, you are not and are just making that up because reasons and you don't like cops.

And when a cop has his gun pointed at you, the prudent thing is to do exactly what he says to do. Doing otherwise invites bullets headed your way. Cops are people too and make mistakes. The best thing you can do is put them as much at ease as you can by representing no threat whatsoever. The chances of you walking away totally unscathed go up astronomically. If, OTOH, you insist on playing cowboy and thinking you can intimidate a cop, the chances of you being carried away on a stretcher also go up astronomically.

Then it makes sense for us to look into the training these LEO receive. I've been in situations where I observed their actions in dealing with a domestic violence situation, and the ones involved were very professional and didn't even pull their weapons. Now, have you been hurt by the police, or are you just reacting to headlines because somebody told you to distrust and hate cops when you were a kid?

The second amendment does not get deleted from the Constitution because a police officer talks to me.

Nor do any of our other rights under the constitution.

In fact, maintaining those rights when dealing with the government, it's practically the whole point of the bill.Of rights in the first place.

She had every right to be in her backyard with a firearm, and she had every right to go back into her house with a firearm. not just because there is no law against it. But because that right is enshrined, in the Constitution. Second amendment, third amendment and fourth amendment.

Yes, I get that police are unofficially trained to be Nervous Nellies around everybody who doesn't happen to be a police officer also. They have taken it to the extreme in cases like this one.

It reminds me of was there movies in which a gang of outlaws rides into a town in which a civilian has agreed to serve as sheriff, maybe until the real sheriff that they sent for gets there.

The outlaw leader page law enforcement, but recognizes that this is a civilian. so he will let him live. As long as he throws is badge into the dirt.

Now, we have modern police acting like these same outlaws, only they don't offer the choice.They just start shooting.

Not only at civilians who are armed, but at children with toys, and at people who reach to pull their cell phone out and record the incident. At a woman holding a pot of water who they know was the onecwho called them.

Why does it happen so often thst when there is a questionable shooting by police that the officer involved turns out to have a history of excessive force? those are the ones who are the problem?Not every police officer. They should have been gotten rid of the first time they had such an incident before somebody got killed.

 

[toobfreak]

So now one has to be "deputized" to defend oneself. Yer funny.

No moron, I did not say that, learn to read to avoid putting words in people's mouths. What I said is that whatever happened, when the police got involved, the best thing to do is to surrender, disarm, don't get shot, and work out the details afterwards.

 

[stan ford 4]

No moron, I did not say that, learn to read to avoid putting words in people's mouths. What I said is that whatever happened, when the police got involved, the best thing to do is to surrender, disarm, don't get shot, and work out the details afterwards.

ok backpeddler