I have mixed feelings on this....

[Tblack89]

Because you can shoot a civilian and get away with it doesn't mean you should.

Because you can open the door with a gun in your hand doesn’t mean you should, pretty hypocritical there to say I can do whatever I want but if I’m perceived as a threat you can’t do anything.

You should brush up on Texas law before you wind up in a situation where you’re wrong.

 

[Havok1]

Because you can open the door with a gun in your hand doesn’t mean you should, pretty hypocritical there to say I can do whatever I want but if I’m perceived as a threat you can’t do anything.

You should brush up on Texas law before you wind up in a situation where you’re wrong.

Nobody is saying that from a tactical perspective the victim should have done what he did, just that it wasn’t legally wrong. how do we expect a guy in his early 20s to consider all of the possibilities of what’s going to happen in an encounter like this while giving an officer who is nearly 40, and probably has years of police experience a pass for not being able to do the same?

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.

I dare say if I was just a guy on the street you would be saying such nasty things, but 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

Care to show any applicable case law? So far your examples couldn’t be less comparable.

Also, keep in mind that case law doesn’t make something right, just that it’s acceptable for the government.

 

[cycleguy2300]

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.

Your mental gymnastics are truly at an Olympic level.

Doordash, lets break this one down.

The scene:
Apartment hallway, a common area that the man (lets not bias the discussion by using terms like victim...) has no right of control or ability to trespass someone from and "anybody" can use.

It is not illegal to knock on someone's door wheter at an apartment or a home whether doordash or police/fire/ems/postman/morman...

Threat of deadly force ( "ima goin to kill you iffn you dont leave") is only justified if force is justified, which it would not be because if the man has now control of the property (apartment common area) he cannot use force to kick someone off the property.

So now doordasher who has a right to be where he is, is confronted with a man with a gun in hand threatening deadly force unlawfully.

Now then... I don't think there is any real argument over the above. Where the argument come is in a moment when you mist be honest with yourself (amazing how difficult and painful that can be...).

Why would the man open GO to the door with a gun in hand? The obvious answer is so the gun was there and could be employed quickly. That's why I take a gun in hand to the door...

Why would the man OPEN the door and show/let the doordasher see the gun but to threaten him? A gun in hand is much more threatening than one in a holster becaus its already a couple of steps closer to being able to shoot you.

Doordasher (who has a right to be in the apartment common area, even if he knocke at the wrong door) confronted with a man (unlawfully threatening deadly force) with the immediate means to kill him then shoots the man and police are called. I am going to ask him why he thought the man had a gun, what he thought the man was going to do with the gun and can describe thinking the man was going to kill him, rob him, shoot him I would fight tooth and nail to keep him from being arrested.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Tblack89]

Nobody is saying that from a tactical perspective the victim should have done what he did, just that it wasn’t legally wrong. how do we expect a guy in his early 20s to consider all of the possibilities of what’s going to happen in an encounter like this while giving an officer who is nearly 40, and probably has years of police experience a pass for not being able to do the same?

I believe what is being said is the officer acted within his capacity of the law, perceiving a threat and eliminating said threat.

Feelings aside because there huge mistakes on both sides, sure, that’s an opinion. Fact is he acted within in law wether right or wrong is the point. I have the right to carry a firearm, true, you also have the right to shoot me if I have it in my hand and you perceive me as a threat.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Nobody is saying that from a tactical perspective the victim should have done what he did, just that it wasn’t legally wrong. how do we expect a guy in his early 20s to consider all of the possibilities of what’s going to happen in an encounter like this while giving an officer who is nearly 40, and probably has years of police experience a pass for not being able to do the same?



Care to show any applicable case law? So far your examples couldn’t be less comparable.

Also, keep in mind that case law doesn’t make something right, just that it’s acceptable for the government.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

While not dealing directly with deadly force this case laid the ground work for "excessive force" particularly the severity of the crime (doesnt not mean that a crime occured, only what it is reasonable to believe may have occurred and is being investigated) immediacy and severity of the threat to officer (which I believe a gun in hand to be both immediate and severe)


Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Courst said police cannot use deadly force on unarmed, non-violent person fleeing simply because they are a felon. Deadly force is justified when "The officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others"

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Whistler]

That's an awfully low bar to justify killing someone...

I certainly don't consider a gun in hand pointing in a safe direction as "unlawfully threatening deadly force", ill intent is assumed by the officer and this is why people don't like to interact with LE. Everyone is guilty, a bad guy and a blink away from being killed by an assumption.

Here's how it looks to non-LEO; Officer was hiding off to the side, LEO (maybe) ordered the occupant to open the door, when he did, either to comply or see who was pounding on his door, Officer broke cover and killed the person opening the door. Following multiple shots, fatally wounding occupant, LEO then commands occupant to "drop the gun" (shouldn't that be before the shots?) to the uninitiated, it looks like a fatal ambush. He was afforded no opportunity to "drop the gun".

How did LE know that person was even involved in the reported altercation? Maybe he was a good guy who just stopped the bad actor?
Where is the line? Was he justified if it was holstered? How about on a table within arms reach? What about stuffed in his belt? Suppose he was holding it by the barrel? Does it have to be in hand or does resting a hand on it meet the standard?

It appears the officer saw a gun and killed that person immediately. As someone who carries a side arm pretty much everywhere, including home, that scares the crap out of me.

I get what you're saying, LEOs don't want to get shot either, I just don't agree it's remotely acceptable behavior by Law Enforcement regardless of the ability to rationalize it.

 

[Tblack89]

That's an awfully low bar to justify killing someone...

I certainly don't consider a gun in hand pointing in a safe direction as "unlawfully threatening deadly force", ill intent is assumed by the officer and this is why people don't like to interact with LE. Everyone is guilty, a bad guy and a blink away from being killed by an assumption.

Here's how it looks to non-LEO; Officer was hiding off to the side, LEO (maybe) ordered the occupant to open the door, when he did, either to comply or see who was pounding on his door, Officer broke cover and killed the person opening the door. Following multiple shots, fatally wounding occupant, LEO then commands occupant to "drop the gun" (shouldn't that be before the shots?) to the uninitiated, it looks like a fatal ambush. He was afforded no opportunity to "drop the gun".

How did LE know that person was even involved in the reported altercation? Maybe he was a good guy who just stopped the bad actor?
Where is the line? Was he justified if it was holstered? How about on a table within arms reach? What about stuffed in his belt? Suppose he was holding it by the barrel? Does it have to be in hand or does resting a hand on it meet the standard?

It appears the officer saw a gun and killed that person immediately. As someone who carries a side arm pretty much everywhere, including home, that scares the crap out of me.

I get what you're saying, LEOs don't want to get shot either, I just don't agree it's remotely acceptable behavior by Law Enforcement regardless of the ability to rationalize it.

In the state of Texas I can see you driving down the road with a gun, I can then call police and say I saw this guy brandishing a firearm, they can then preform a felony stop ( I’m sure you’ve never been in one and it’s not pleasant). If you get out of your car with said gun in your hand “pointed in a safe direction” they have the right to shoot your ass.

Don’t mix feelings or opinions with facts, once again that low bar you speak of is the law, I didn’t write it. If some of y’all don’t like the law you should do something to change it, until then you must abide by said law or suffer the consequences of not.

Officer discretion is a real thing, I’ve personally been taken to jail for no drivers license or insurance after presenting it to the officer. He didn’t like my attitude so I got to go to jail for not having a license and insurance when I clearly did.

I presented my information once again while in court showing I had both and did the day of the arrest, everything was dropped. Now, did that officer treat me fair? I think not, especially after having to bond me and my car out.

However it wasn’t in my best interest to hash it out with the cop on side of the road, that’s what court is for.

I don’t care for a ton of the laws, I still have to abide by them, doesn’t matter if I think they are right or wrong. Thats a fact.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

So, what happened to the officer that arrested you under false pretenses?

 

[Tblack89]

So, what happened to the officer that arrested you under false pretenses?

Absolutely nothing, small Texas town and it’s his word against mine. All he said is I didn’t show him, even though I did. When I returned to get my car, my license and insurance was right there on the seat where he left it.

 

[Texasgordo]

 

[Havok1]

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

While not dealing directly with deadly force this case laid the ground work for "excessive force" particularly the severity of the crime (doesnt not mean that a crime occured, only what it is reasonable to believe may have occurred and is being investigated) immediacy and severity of the threat to officer (which I believe a gun in hand to be both immediate and severe)


Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Courst said police cannot use deadly force on unarmed, non-violent person fleeing simply because they are a felon. Deadly force is justified when "The officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others"

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Thanks. It sounds like the sheriffs department doesn’t agree with the applicability of these laws to this situation though.

In the state of Texas I can see you driving down the road with a gun, I can then call police and say I saw this guy brandishing a firearm, they can then preform a felony stop ( I’m sure you’ve never been in one and it’s not pleasant). If you get out of your car with said gun in your hand “pointed in a safe direction” they have the right to shoot your ass.

Don’t mix feelings or opinions with facts, once again that low bar you speak of is the law, I didn’t write it. If some of y’all don’t like the law you should do something to change it, until then you must abide by said law or suffer the consequences of not.

Officer discretion is a real thing, I’ve personally been taken to jail for no drivers license or insurance after presenting it to the officer. He didn’t like my attitude so I got to go to jail for not having a license and insurance when I clearly did.

I presented my information once again while in court showing I had both and did the day of the arrest, everything was dropped. Now, did that officer treat me fair? I think not, especially after having to bond me and my car out.

However it wasn’t in my best interest to hash it out with the cop on side of the road, that’s what court is for.

I don’t care for a ton of the laws, I still have to abide by them, doesn’t matter if I think they are right or wrong. Thats a fact.

Getting out of a vehicle with a gun in your hand during a traffic stop is an entirely different situation than possessing one inside your residence. Just because you were mistreated by police doesn’t make it ok for police to mistreat others.

 

[Whistler]

I

In the state of Texas I can see you driving down the road with a gun, I can then call police and say I saw this guy brandishing a firearm, they can then preform a felony stop ( I’m sure you’ve never been in one and it’s not pleasant). If you get out of your car with said gun in your hand “pointed in a safe direction” they have the right to shoot your ass.

Don’t mix feelings or opinions with facts, once again that low bar you speak of is the law, I didn’t write it. If some of y’all don’t like the law you should do something to change it, until then you must abide by said law or suffer the consequences of not.

Officer discretion is a real thing, I’ve personally been taken to jail for no drivers license or insurance after presenting it to the officer. He didn’t like my attitude so I got to go to jail for not having a license and insurance when I clearly did.

I presented my information once again while in court showing I had both and did the day of the arrest, everything was dropped. Now, did that officer treat me fair? I think not, especially after having to bond me and my car out.

However it wasn’t in my best interest to hash it out with the cop on side of the road, that’s what court is for.

I don’t care for a ton of the laws, I still have to abide by them, doesn’t matter if I think they are right or wrong. Thats a fact.

I hear you and what you describe is obviously wrong and I can't agree with your suggestion to accept it as a fact of life. I don't accept we have to sheepishly tolerate thuggish behaviour from those we entrust to safeguard us.
It's always "tell it to the judge", "the side of the highway isn't the place", "change the law of you don't like it", "just following orders", "Officer's discretion", the list of excuses is endless and doesn't dismiss personal responsibility.
It's incumbent upon LE to conduct themselves as a sterling example despite the challenges of their chosen profession and in exchange we grant them extensive authority, privilege and leeway. When that trust is abused it's doubly concerning for those very reasons.

Therein lies the problem, accepting the unacceptable changes nothing for the better but I likewise don't accept open, candid discussion isn't, albeit minor, doing nothing.

I want police to be safe, they've never done anything for me directly but it's an incredibly important job and I support them, with some reservation as I've described. That said it's a very difficult job but not everyone approaches it with the same level of respect and integrity.

"Well that's just how it is" grants tacit license to further and greater abuses. Conversation can well result in consensus and that's when real change happens.

 

[popsgarland]

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?

If you paid attention to the video, you would have seen he wasn't drawing the gun.
It was already in his hand.

 

[popsgarland]

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.

If, if,and more ifs. Everyone posting in this thread that is not nor have ever been
in law enforcement, has no idea what they would have done in this situation.

No one, and I mean no one, has any idea of what the man was thinking when he
opened his door with a gun in his hand,
Is he going to raise his gun and shoot?
Is he going to drop the gun when he saw the police office?
Is he just going to keep the gun as he has it.

You can state what you would have done, but until your in this situation, you
have no idea what you would done.

 

[Whistler]

QFT ^^^

 

[TreyG-20]

If you paid attention to the video, you would have seen he wasn't drawing the gun.
It was already in his hand.

Woosh right over your head

 

[Havok1]

If you paid attention to the video, you would have seen he wasn't drawing the gun.
It was already in his hand.

I don’t think you were following the conversation.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Thanks. It sounds like the sheriffs department doesn’t agree with the applicability of these laws to this situation though.

Getting out of a vehicle with a gun in your hand during a traffic stop is an entirely different situation than possessing one inside your residence. Just because you were mistreated by police doesn’t make it ok for police to mistreat others.

Many departments, especially sheriff departments dont have civil service protections and they can fire their employees with or without cause.

Other departments have the burden of showing the officer violated policy, law or civil rights (case law) before they can fire a civil servant.

There are pros and cons to both.

In non-protected departments the Chief/Sheriff can get rid of bad apples before they spread problems, but they can also become little tyrannical kingdoms.

In protected departments it can be more difficult to fire problems, but the officers can also opperate without as much worry about political blow-back

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[popper]

'I’ve personally been taken to jail for no drivers license or insurance after presenting it to the officer.' And NO consequences for the LEO.

 

[Tblack89]

Getting out of a vehicle with a gun in your hand during a traffic stop is an entirely different situation than possessing one inside your residence. Just because you were mistreated by police doesn’t make it ok for police to mistreat others.

It’s not about me, it’s about what the law says. Explain to me the difference, the police were sent to his house, correct? I can legally carry in my vehicle under castle law, the same law that I can carry in my home.

So by your logic I should be able to get out at a traffic stop as well. Just because I can open my home door with a pistol in my hand doesn’t mean I should right?

I can also drive 100 mph, there would be consequences though.