I have mixed feelings on this....

[Ralph_Kirk]

Most of y’all know I’m retired Air Force. Pretty much all I’ve seen is the body cam video without any talking head analysis.

From a tactical perspective, it appears the deputy was responding to a domestic dispute. The guy and girl that deputy encountered in the apartment complex entry area did no favors feeding old hearsay tales to the deputy that was irrelevant to the situation at hand, but started the mindset this would be high threat.

The deputy had a second officer on the way and, as far as I can tell, did not hear anything outside the apartment to necessitate immediate intervention.

As far as the airman is concerned, if somebody is pounding on my door while I’m on my phone, the last thing I’m interested in is grabbing a gun and answering the door; I’m just going to ignore that shit if I’m not expecting somebody. If I’m going to answer the door, I need to get off the phone and use the GD peephole before I open it.

Door opens, deputy sees the gun, adrenaline dump happens and bang bang bang then “drop the gun”. Piss poor decision making there, but given a 911 call and the info provided by the female, he had to investigate, so there’s no pre-meditated intent to murder.

Given a gun in hand at the doorway, use of deadly force criteria is met from a legal perspective although department policy will come into play.

Shitty things happen when people do stupid things and the deputy and airmen both did some stupid things.

I agree the airman was young and dumb. I've been a young and dumb airman myself. Being an old military retiree, I know a lot more about the tactics of opening the front door.

But...before I dismiss the incident as "both did stupid things," I have to ask: Why do we expect ordinary citizens to be as trained and knowledgeable of tactical situations as professional police?

 

[Renegade]

Then we should expect to see charges, a conviction and the sentence upheld on appeal.

Not comfortable with that either. The whole thing was a massive shit sandwich.

I applaud the massive increase in carry and self defense rights in recent years, but with it comes responsibility. Just because you have the right, does not make it a good idea. Answering the door in that manner with gun in hand was never going to end well regardless of who is on other side. Too much room for mis-interpretation. If that gun was in a belt holster he is almost certainly alive today.

Likewise, LE training has not kept up with changes in carry/SD rights, and things that might have been illegal a few years ago are now legal. Training has to keep up with these changes. There have been way too many homeowner shootings these past few years.

Police have a tough job. Us good guys do not need to make it tougher. Officer had maybe 2/10s of a second to make a kill or be killed decision. Dont put an officer (or other good guy) in that position.

 

[Ralph_Kirk]

The whole thing is a shit show. The lady giving second hand information to the officer, and the first time he asked “which door” she said “I’m not sure”. It will be interesting to hear the testimony of the girl he was on the phone with.

There, in my mind, is a real issue. There was never anything solid that should have put the officer on high alert. Although the woman--who "wasn't sure" said apartment 1401, the officer himself did not see or hear anything at that apartment to put him on high alert. All he'd gotten was some very sketchy hearsay.

Then he began pounding the door in a situation that should have called for a polite knock.

From the other point of view, someone pounding on my door will put me in a state of high alert. I may or may not have heard what that person said...I may have only heard a muffled voice. If I don't see a reason why police should be pounding on my door instead of merely knocking, I might wonder if it's really the police, or if it's some bad guys who are going to be piling through the door in the next second.

 

[leVieux]

It was just an observation from the article. More so just pointing it out for the people defending the officer ignoring all the red flags in the information he was given prior to going and shooting a guy who was supposedly beating up his chick despite actually being home alone.

OK

 

[Havok1]

As far as the suggestion that the victim should have used the peephole, let’s run through how this could have gone. Let’s say he heard the knock over the sound of his phone/game. He goes to the door, looks through the peephole and doesn’t see anyone. Goes into his room, grabs his gun, maybe hears more knocking, but can’t hear what the officer is saying, or maybe doesn’t hear the second round of knocks, then comes back and opens the door to see what’s going on and gets shot. Would that be the ideal response? No, absolutely not. But is it believable? Yes absolutely.

You could see from his reaction in the video that he was not answering with the door with the intent to shoot the officer, and yes I realize that all of that happened in a fraction of a second, not over the time I spent watching the video several times.

 

[leVieux]

<>

Please allow me to draw a parallel with something I am much more familiar with.

The ‘’news’’ we first get about airplane accidents, especially ‘’light aircraft’’ crashes with fatalities, is ALWAYS absurdly wrong.

The follow-up articles trying to flesh-out details are terribly incorrect.

Then, there is always a formal FAA/NTSB investigation, which takes about a year. Formal investigations involve collection & preservation of all evidence. The determinations are made by REAL scientific experts in related fields; air communications, airframe, engines, metallurgy, avionics radios, propellers, aviation law, pilot psychology medical standards, meteorology, etc.

This takes about a year. The formal report is thorough, detailed, & highly accurate.

I know, because I personally read every one for decades.

Point is that the real explanation is ALWAYS extremely different from the initial reports.

This is a great model, which our Courts should be forced to follow.

I suspect that initial reports of crimes are similar.

Then, our Courts are a mockery of determining ‘’truth’’; relying on specious ‘’evidence’’, lawyer tricks, psychological intimidation, political issues, manipulated jury selection, etc.

As my late Dad held: Usually, anything beyond the headline is unreliable.

Back to the present discussion; we are offering opinions based on ignorance-generated media reports.

Over my long time here, I’ve had Police at the door numerous times, for various reasons, some summoned by me. At no time was there any door ‘’banging’’, hollering, etc.

During my years, our Police at all levels have become better educated, more professional, and less threatening to us ordinary folks. This new way is much, much better.

As to CycleGuy: He is performing great service to his community and to World Peace. This is commendable.

But, I see a big problem with shooting an innocent, NON-THREATENING, CITIZEN in his own home because he has a ‘’gun in hand’’. And, the attitude that this is appropriate scares Hell outta me.

We are seeing a general move towards a ‘’police state’’ regime, which is not compatible with the U S Constitution nor American Ethic.

To wit; frequent technically warranted but absurdly unnecessary ‘’no-knock’’ raids at dawn. Or, Eric Holder’s immolation of children, Ruby Ridge fiasco, ‘‘Fast & Furious’’, Elian Gonzales raid, etc.

We have been sensitized to Police abuses for very good reasons.

leVieux

<>

<>

 

[toddnjoyce]

…Why do we expect ordinary citizens to be as trained and knowledgeable of tactical situations as professional police?

I think the ordinary citizen has an unrealistic expectation of the average LEO’s tactical proficiency and interpersonal skills.

 

[A1Oni]

I think the ordinary citizen has an unrealistic expectation of the average LEO’s tactical proficiency and interpersonal skills.

most cops also couldn't hit the broad side of a mountain.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Well apparently, at least one did.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[Razzamatazz]

I think the ordinary citizen has an unrealistic expectation of the average LEO’s tactical proficiency and interpersonal skills.

That's true, and they also don't have any common sense...which seems to be not all that common anymore.

Opening a door without knowing, asking or looking who it is with a handgun in your hand is not a good idea. Yes it is our Right to be able to do that but it doesn't mean we should.
The equivalent would be getting pulled over by an LEO, and have your handgun on the dashboard instead of in your holster, not a good idea, but that's your Right!

The pedestrian is always right, but if they cross the street without looking, they may end up being Dead Right!

I'm not saying the Officer was right in this situation, two wrongs don't make a right...not even one wrong and one right makes a right.
Two rights make a right....everything else will make a wrong.

 

[Whistler]

Opening a door without knowing, asking or looking who it is with a handgun in your hand is not a good idea. Yes it is our Right to be able to do that but it doesn't mean we should.

It makes me sad it's come to folks thinking this way.

No one should be afraid to exercise a right for fear of being murdered by police.

 

[Razzamatazz]

It makes me sad it's come to folks thinking this way.

No one should be afraid to exercise a right for fear of being murdered by police.

Like I said, common sense is not so common.

It makes me sad to think people prefer to be dead right, than have common sense and live.
This may be easier to understand.
Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.

 

[leVieux]

<>

As Dad of one career LEO & close Friend of another (late) LEO; I can well understand our Police’s fears of being injured or killed.

Our politicians have allowed society to devolve into different camps:

Those who follow laws, don’t do stupid things, & are productive citizens.

Then, there is the segment who run crack labs, do drive-by’s, and vote for democrats.

The instant case was an off-duty active. non-criminal US Serviceman in his own home, minding his own business while legally-armed & non- threatening; who is now DEAD.

leVieux

<>

 

[Whistler]

Like I said, common sense is not so common.

It makes me sad to think people prefer to be dead right, than have common sense and live.
This may be easier to understand.
Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.

No, it means I can and (supposedly) without fear OR whether or not you approve. What some call "common sense" looks to me like servility.

"If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide" is another pearl of wisdom folks with that mindset seem to embrace. See the similarities?

A Right is not dependant on the opinion of others, it's one of the things that separates it from a privilege. Your opinion of that Right is completely irrelevant. I only mention it because that way of thinking leads, inevitably, to servitude.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Hopefully my last post to try to explain why the deputy would be justified in using deadly force in the face of getting insulted for simply explaining facts about the law and case law.

Is there any disagreement that had the man opened the door with a holstered pistol that shooting him would NOT (absent something crazy) have been justified?

From there if the man reaches for and begins to draw the handgun... is there any question the deputy now would (absent some crazy situation) could reasonably believe he was in immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death and use deadly force to protect himself against the man?

When the man opened the door, he didnt have the handgun in a holster, it wasn't just nearby, he wasn't reaching to draw or get it. It was ALREADY in his hand. If the deputy can articulate a reasonable belief he was in an immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death (murder) then the use of deadly force is justified.



Reasonable is something like "COULD another officer with similar training and experience, in similar circumstances have made the same decision" not "would you have" or "should you have", but "could".Also, bad tactics (if there were any) leading up to the interaction do not negate any reasonableness at the time force or deadly force was used, which takes away the "the deputy could have done this instead" which may be true, and points to learn from or train to, but it doesn't change the question at hand that at the moment the door opened revealing a man with a gun in hand deadly force was justified by the deputy responding to a report of family violence.

At the end of the day LE have rights too. We have a right to live and not have to wait to be shot before we can shoot back when there in situations like this. At the moment the man opened the door with a gun in hand he put the deputy into a position of "protect my life with deadly force vs hope he doesn't shoot me" and in the proximity they were "hope he doesn't shoot me, isnt reasonable.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[BeatTheTunaUp]

Hopefully he doesn't shoot me, isnt reasonable.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

And neither is killing someone when they haven't made an aggressive move. Because you can shoot a civilian and get away with it doesn't mean you should. I would hope you don't fall into that camp, but your words are telling otherwise. Your fear of the duty doesn't override someone's right to life. Police shoot way to fast and often. It's probably from years of bad training putting yourself above the community that you're supposed to be protecting. I'm sure you're a solid guy, but you're just flat wrong if you think it's OK to shoot someone for simply holding a gun on a non threating way. Remind us not to invite you to any of the shoots.

 

[Havok1]

so you’re trying to justify this shooting, where the victim put his hand up try to to prevent a situation from escalating, by presenting another situation where someone opens the door and escalates by drawing a handgun?

 

[cycleguy2300]

so you’re trying to justify this shooting, where the victim put his hand up try to to prevent a situation from escalating, by presenting another situation where someone opens the door and escalates by drawing a handgun?

He could have pulled out his willie and played with it and it doesn't change the fact that the gun in hand, given the circumstances the deputy reasonably believed them to be, justified deadly force.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

He could have pulled out his willie and played with it and it doesn't change the fact that the gun in hand, given the circumstances the deputy reasonably believed them to be, justified deadly force.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

If the victim had seen the officer and immediately shot him claiming that it was self defense because if he didn’t shoot the officer, the officer would have shot him, would you recognize the victims “right to live” and desire to see his family again?

If it were an armed door dash driver instead of a police officer at the door who shot the victim
upon seeing him open the door with a gun in his hand, at his side, police would have arrested him immediately.

The fact that you first tried to relate a guy standing inside his own apartment while holding a gun to someone walking into another establishment while brandishing a gun, and then attempted to relate a guy attempting to show he wasn’t a threat, to someone drawing his gun after seeing a police officer tells me all I need to know about the desperate lengths you have to go to to support a fellow officer who made a bad choice.

 

[cycleguy2300]

And neither is killing someone when they haven't made an aggressive move. Because you can shoot a civilian and get away with it doesn't mean you should. I would hope you don't fall into that camp, but your words are telling otherwise. Your fear of the duty doesn't override someone's right to life. Police shoot way to fast and often. It's probably from years of bad training putting yourself above the community that you're supposed to be protecting. I'm sure you're a solid guy, but you're just flat wrong if you think it's OK to shoot someone for simply holding a gun on a non threating way. Remind us not to invite you to any of the shoots.

I lost a lot of people who had pretended to me my friends in 2020 over covid and the riots... I really dgaf if you lose "respect" because I tell you what I beleive the law and case law to be on a particular matter.

If you lost respect for me telling you what I honestly believe to be right and correct rather than being quite or telling you what pleases your ear you can **** right off.

I don't really care you you or others want to shoot with me or not. If you think hanging out with you or others that just want believe what you like, without respect to correctness of law and caselaw, who then attempt to manipulate someone into silence or lying based on getting to shoot you can **** right off again.

Such is the life of a cop who lets the civilians peek behind the curtain they are unwilling to go past for themselves.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk