That's a llittle murky. Would have to research the DA. That could swing percentages one way or the other. For example,I wouldn't put anything past our POS DA here in Austin.
I have mixed feelings on this....
- Thread starter retired_tim
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yeah. I'm not that interested. Lol. It's the weekend. I'm researching bourbon
cycleguy2300
TGT Addict
Fair enough.
I think the last few links and some reading of case law may explain my position.
There was a lot more that goes into my belief that the shooting was objectively reasonable than "he had a gun". I've responded to calls where a business owner had a gun out when we got there, but we knew he was there and thinking he was tripping his business alarm to ambush us wasnt reasonable BUT we didnt know he had a gun out and iirc he got told to holster it with our guns drawn. Game wardens often deal with folks with guns out, BUT the circumstances are very different than what this deputy was had sprung on him.
I have a lot of training on case law, search and seizure, use of force and I get to practice articulate it daily in reports. I may be wrong, I'm not perfect, but I cannot find a persuasive argument that dilutes the objective reasonableness in my eyes.
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
1- she literally said “I don’t know” the first time the officer asked what apartment it was.Dude, The woman the deputy is talking is an apartment manager I believe and staff usually know exactly who is doing what and she clearly knew which apartment she heard the prior disturbances.
Catch up... No one here that I know of has ever claimed the deputy forced entry and opened the door to the apartment. A cursory watching of almost any of the body cam videos make is obvious the deputy never opened the apartment door.
Ever scenario I have described is applicable to elucidate a portion of case law.
So say you, who has probable never heard of reasonable belief before last week. He 20 year police vet and he is not only credible but correct.
Yeah, Crump himself lied about that and this case
The police didn't raid Breonna Taylor's neighbor and I suggest you go look up Breonna Taylor and her history before you say she was innocent she and her BF were drug dealers and she was likely a murderer. its unfortunate she dies instead of Walker he BF, but alas...
The commentary is valuable, but the most valuable information is the additional body camera footage that counters in every point Crump's version of events.
This was a good deputy who was responded to a CREDIBLE report of domestic violence to an apartment with CREDIBLE WITNESSES describing vididly prior violent events. The deputy was then confronted by a man suspected to be involved in that violent with a gun in hand after knocking loudly and clearly announcing "Sheriff's Office!" So that it would be reasonable to believe anyone in the apartment *should* know (and did if he said "****, its the police" as the deputy described).
If you put half the effort you put into down playing good, accurate, useful information into learning and expanding your knowledge, you could have a grade school diploma by now. I cannot express how basic the concepts involved here are to policing and while novel at first they are common sense and constitutional. Seriously, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
This shooting IS text book it Is exactly what I was trained to do, almost to a specific scenario from the academy. You dont have to like it, it usually sucks anytime someone dies, but the officer did EXACTLY what they were trained to do and should have done. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect the officer to risk his life against hope alone, against all better judgement and against his training
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
2- what I posted about the officer opening the door was a direct quote from your post. I know what doors the officer did and didn’t open. The point was that you tried to come up with an explanation for why the victim said something that there is no evidence of him saying, by presenting a scenario that we know did not take place. I didn’t actually need for you to point anything out, I just wanted to see if you would double down on something known to be untrue.
3- why do I care how much time in LE the guy had? Thats just a fall back for him not knowing what’s he’s talking about.
4- not sure where you get the idea that Taylor and her bf were drug dealers. Neither of them had any previous drug arrests, nothing was found in their apartment. Before suggesting I make myself aware of her history, I would suggest you catch up on the fact that an officer pleaded guilty to conspiring with another officer to fabricate the narrative that you’re repeating here.
Former Louisville, Kentucky, Police Detective Pleads Guilty to a Federal Crime Related to the Death of Breonna Taylor
The Justice Department announced today that former Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) Detective Kelly Goodlett, 35, pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiring to commit two federal crimes.
Your guy wasn’t onto anything with Ben crump. He’s a turd, but him being a turd doesn’t make the officer right.
5-Back to the case this thread is about, what do you mean additional body cam footage? The entire body cam video has been out since before I first posted in this thread. Myself, and who knows how many other people had already seen it.
From the first article:Since when does a firearm need to be "pointed" at you?
Why would "pointing the weapon at him" different? Because of the deputy's inability to react to save his own life?
A gun, exactly where the man had it is employable in under 1/4 second, which is faster than most humans ability to recognize and react, even in a "sterile" environment where all they have to watch is a gun or start light. The gun innhand, held by the side is JUST AS MUCH OF A DEADLY THREAT as of he had been pointing it at the deputy's face.
These are both excellent articles written by two of the most prominent organizations that provide standards for police.
Reasonableness and Reaction Time in Police Use of Force Incidents
Police chiefs seeking to explain deadly force incidents must understand the concepts of reasonableness and reaction time in police use of force.www.lexipol.com
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
cycleguy2300
TGT Addict
1- she literally said “I don’t know” the first time the officer asked what apartment it was.
2- what I posted about the officer opening the door was a direct quote from your post. I know what doors the officer did and didn’t open. The point was that you tried to come up with an explanation for why the victim said something that there is no evidence of him saying, by presenting a scenario that we know did not take place. I didn’t actually need for you to point anything out, I just wanted to see if you would double down on something known to be untrue.
3- why do I care how much time in LE the guy had? Thats just a fall back for him not knowing what’s he’s talking about.
4- not sure where you get the idea that Taylor and her bf were drug dealers. Neither of them had any previous drug arrests, nothing was found in their apartment. Before suggesting I make myself aware of her history, I would suggest you catch up on the fact that an officer pleaded guilty to conspiring with another officer to fabricate the narrative that you’re repeating here.
Former Louisville, Kentucky, Police Detective Pleads Guilty to a Federal Crime Related to the Death of Breonna Taylor
The Justice Department announced today that former Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) Detective Kelly Goodlett, 35, pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiring to commit two federal crimes.www.justice.gov
Your guy wasn’t onto anything with Ben crump. He’s a turd, but him being a turd doesn’t make the officer right.
5-Back to the case this thread is about, what do you mean additional body cam footage? The entire body cam video has been out since before I first posted in this thread. Myself, and who knows how many other people had already seen it.
Do you intend to make a fool of yourself or is it an accident?
The deputy was at the correct appartment end of story (but even if he wasn't the use of force would still be based on the deputy's reasonable beliefs, even if they were mistaken)
So a deputy's statments suddenly isnt evidence? Your paragraph is a word salad. What do you think is untrue?
For someone to graduate a police academy they get infinity more training and experience in use of force case law than you will ever get, much more so for someone to stay 20years. The shooting IS objectively reasonable, just as the sky IS blue. Your arguments from ignorance does not and will not change either fact. "Totally of the circumstances" and "reasonable belief" are the important things here. Just like a doctor may see a mole that a lot of warning signs of cancer, doing a biopsy then it coming back normal doesn't make it malpractice to do the biopsy because the totally of circumstances directed the trained doctor to the reasonable conclusion of it likely being cancer. (Sure cancer doesnt have the ability to shoot you in under 1/4 second, but I am sure most of you understand the point)
Breonna was only brought into this discussion because of Crump's lies about her and this case. I have heard she was a scumbag, but that is really beside the point here.
Havok, in the end you are simply wrong. I've discussed this with other officers and all have the same, immediately, reaction which is it was totally justified.
If you want to see just how fast you can be shot from the position the man held the gun I have an airsoft pistol and we can run the drill as many times as you want to get shot... it is unreasonable to prevent another from protecting their life by hoping the guy with a gun doesn't kill him.
The gun in hand is just as deadly as if he had had it pointed at the officer because neither could be reacted to before being shot.
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
cycleguy2300
TGT Addict
And??? Did you read beyond that?
Hughes had no clear established rights violated and the courts side stepped the issue, but had the question of justification been asked the answer would likely be it was justified.
Here is a bit more:
Dang... sounds exactly like what I have been saying.
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
The fact that the person was alone in the apartment was discovered *after* the shooting took place - as far as the dispatchers and responding officers knew, there was more than one individual in the unit. They have to make decisions and take actions based on what they know in the moment, not what is discovered *afterward* - the deputy in this case did not know that the airman was at home alone. He was responding to a DV call so had a reasonable assumption that there was a second party in the apartment. Its not just "reported" - its literally in the body cam video. There are 9 seconds between the first time the deputy knocks and announces who he is, to the second time, and it's *ONE* second later that the deceased opened the door and stepped forward toward the deputy, who before shooting yells "STEP BACK" as the airman is advancing on him and raising his left hand.
Raising the left hand, I believe is what triggered the deputy to shoot, because he'd already seen the gun, and when the man begins to raise his hands. Put yourself in that situation for a moment - you're dealing with a known armed man with a gun in his hand at his side, then his hand(s) begin to come up to his chest. Is he saying "woah bro, don't shoot" or is he bringing his support hand up to meet his shooting hand for a two handed shot? Is he bringing that hand up to distract you while he attempts a first shot from the hip? You have 1/4 of a second to make that decision before potentially being shot yourself, and you're within 6 feet of one another at that moment.
The facts discovered AFTER the shooting - that the airman was alone and had been talking to someone via FaceTime are irrelevant to the situation at the time of the shooting as those facts were not known.
The "facts" the deputy was working with at the moment of contact were that witnesses he'd spoken to claimed to have heard the disturbance, the call came in as a DV, and he did indeed go to the apartment that was supposed to have been the source of the disturbance, then upon knocking and announcing yelling "SHERIFF'S OFFICE" - the door opens to a man holding a gun in one hand and advancing forward - not hiding behind the door but stepping completely into the doorway chest forward - an action that can reasonably be interpreted as aggressive - then raises a hand as the deputy is yelling "STEP BACK".
Ultimately this is just a giant shitty situation that should never have happened, and it bothers me that its unlikely that the person making the initial report will face appropriate repercussions. They *should* investigate to see if this person has made multiple complaints before, and if those complaints had been unfounded to see if they can prove a pattern of harassment between the "Karen" and the dead airman - and if so she should be charged with manslaughter or something equal at the least and not just with making a false report. Its tragic that the airman is dead, but his very own actions in the span of a couple of seconds lead to his death, along with the bad report being made to police.
The fact that he was home alone when he was killed just highlights the importance of having officers that do a good job of evaluating the information they are given.
The manager that he talked to never heard any noise coming from the apartment.
I also don’t know how much shooting you’ve done, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone bring their support hand up to meet their firing hand by extending their support hand in front of them with their palm facing their intended target while leaving their gun pointed directly down so that the person they plan to shoot can still see the white outline of the sights on their gun. Not exactly what you expect from someone that supposedly knows that it’s the police in the door and said “**** the police” and intended to kill the officer.
cycleguy2300
TGT Addict
What the heck would be reasonable to expect the deputy to do? He can't spend hours calling every friend and acquaintance or neighbor while there is a reasonable belief someone is being assaulted. He talked to folks in the office, a witness that had personal knowledge of the apartment that corroborated the original story. All that the deputy can reasonably do at that point is ho the the apartment, where the best information about what did or didnt happen is and investigate.
At least youre not alone in not knowing anything... but others he talked to DID have information that bolstered the original complaint's information.
Again, you have the advantage of camly and cooly watching the video multiple times, in slow motion where you dont have anthing else to watch, very unlike the deputy.
People that are trained or experienced WILL distract, like a magician, with a hand AWAY from what they are doing with the weapon. Go watch videos on what to do when youre being robbed and want to distract the robber as you draw... and bringing a hand up towards the face, into "your work space" IS good combat tactics. It provides both a distraction from the drawn gun and protection from punches, grabs etc.
At the end of the day, this man who the deputy had every reason to suspect of being violent appeared with a gun in hand, where the deputy could be killed before reacting. Even if the deputy had drawn and aimed, the many could have shot and killed the deputy before the deputy could react and it is unreasonable to expect the deputy to take that risk with his life when he has a lawful DUTY to investigate.
For anyone that questions just how fast the man could point the gun and shoot I will happily meet you and demo it with airsoft. Flip the wrist up and fire in under 1/4 sec...
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
Last edited:
he could have gone to go speak with the person who supposedly heard the “fighting” going on. He could have even given some thought to the fact that the apartment manager was uncertain about the apartment, but instead he chose to ignore that.
And yes, I realize that I have the benefit of calmly and coolly watching the video. However, we see from your posts that even when offered that, you still thought that the officer walked into the apartment office, opened the door, and loudly announced himself, and that was what prompted the alleged “**** the police” comment from the victim who was playing video games in his living room on the fourth floor of the building across the parking lot. Everyone who has watched the full body cam video knows this did not happen. We have seen that you will repeat false narratives despite the fact that police have pled guilty to crimes for creating them.
And yeah, it may only take 1/4 second to raise his gun and fire, but yet it wasn’t raised in the amount of time it took the officer to draw and fire several shots. The victim could have opened the door with his gun already pointed at the officer if the narrative you’re trying to create were actually true.
If there was an actual DV situation going on somewhere, a little common sense may have resulted in the officer actually going to the apartment where it was occurring instead of shooting an innocent person.
Except he DID go speak to the person who supposedly reported the incident to the manager, and not just the manager who made the call. He didn't just talk to one person then go shoot someone for funsies. He also spent some time outside the apartment door attempting to ascertain if he could hear anything inside before attempting contact. He even stated in his interview with investigators his reason for not announcing on the first knock - so he could listen for movement inside the apartment. I've been with deputies going to DV calls that did the same thing, and with deputies who announce on every knock, so I'm not going to say that tactic was good or not. Every cop in the field has a personal working style, and so long as they aren't doing something outside of policy or way out of left field, they're typically given discretion on how to approach each situation based on their best judgement.
The "hang 'em" crowd seems stuck on the fact that there was no one in the apartment, and there was no DV, and they cannot get over the notion he went to the wrong apartment - when he in fact did not go to the wrong apartment, and was operating with the information given that there were at least two people in the apartment. Hind sight is always 20/20.
When someone has done something that they know the cops may be called for, and they hear the knock it is not at all uncommon for them to try being quiet to make it seem like no one is home, or for the offender to attempt to hide hoping police won't find them. Going to what Johnny Diamond asked a few posts up - IF the responding officers don't hear what sounds like an on-going assault and no one comes to the door, they're not booting the door. They may attempt to get further information from nearby neighbors / witnesses, they may hang back and watch for a few minutes, or they may leave and tell the reporting person to call back if things flare up again, or they may do all of the above.
It really is crazy that the internal investigators found "no threat" by an unknown man with a gun in his hand when answering the door on a reported DV call. Personally I have a gut feeling that their findings were directed from on-high in a damage control attempt because of the white-cop-dead-black-man situation. Even Floriduuhh is not immune to rioting and stupidity, and maybe this Sheriff was trying to keep another "Summer of Love" from happening in his area. Unless a whistle blower steps forward with evidence, that's just my assumption but the findings of "no threat" don't fit what is plainly visible on the camera. It may be that the Sheriff or one of his immediate underlings believes its better to hang one white cop out to dry over a controversial shooting, than to risk rioting or jeopardize a re-election bid.
We'll see if the DA takes the case to a grand jury, or files charges.
You’re aware that there is a video of the entire incident, as well as a report on it right? Where are you coming up with the idea that he spoke with the person who supposedly heard the arguing? Maybe you’re getting confused with her being interviewed after the incident was over?
About 12 years ago, which would have put me at 61 years old, I went to Front Sight for my first time. I was training with a new Glock 21 that I had never looked at or fired before going onto the firing line, with a holster I wasn't familiar with except for looking at how it worked. I know I could draw from the holster and put 2 rounds on a target at 7 yards in less than a second. I have no doubt that the young man with a gun in hand could have put at least one round into that officer quicker than the officer could react.
cycleguy2300
TGT Addict
You appear stuck on what the deputy "could" have done.
What the deputy DID was objectively reasonable and what else "could" have been doesnt matter.
He "could have" requested CBP to bring a mobile xray truck to scan the house... but that would have been unreasonable.
The officer made reasonable efforts to gather information and ended up at the apartment where the disturbance had been reported and where prior violent disturbances had been heard... an officer needn't pursue all avenues for gathering information so long as reasonable efforts are made, just as an officer needn't try each option on a force continuum before using deadly force when it is immediately required.
Reaction times what they are you can think of a subject holding holding a gun at their side as a bit of shrödinger's cat where the man with the gun at his side generates a reaction in the deputy based on the POTENTIAL future state, and because one of the unknowable future states would cause serious bodily harm or death to the deputy he cannot ignore that potential state and must act as if that future, unreactable state is already reached.
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
cycleguy2300
TGT Addict
Will post later
Seems non-LEO have been pretty clear on their perception. Right, wrong or indifferent, the consensus is it was handled poorly and not the behavior most expect.
LEO-oriented folks are adamant, not that it was good so much as it was legal, but for the most part, endorse the actions of the Officer most others find inappropriate.
My mixed feelings stem from the disparity between what the two groups perceive as acceptable behavior.
It does very much clear up confusion regarding how the general public views LE and the way LE views the rest of us. I've personally taken exception to the increasingly heavy-handed attitude of Law Enforcement though it's hard to blame them in these times.
Here's my quandary; who is the arbiter? The law? What is the general level of respect for the law in light of the increasing abuses, perceived militarization, "lawfare" or candidly, this discussion? How do we fix it? Is it even broken?
Is this a result of Soros-backed DAs not prosecuting crime, the "mostly peaceful" riots celebrated by the Left and Media? The persecution and demonization of LEOs by the Left? Is it a back lash by LE due to their frustration?
Whatever it is, the us versus them mentality doesn't lead anywhere good. I miss Mayberry
LEO-oriented folks are adamant, not that it was good so much as it was legal, but for the most part, endorse the actions of the Officer most others find inappropriate.
My mixed feelings stem from the disparity between what the two groups perceive as acceptable behavior.
It does very much clear up confusion regarding how the general public views LE and the way LE views the rest of us. I've personally taken exception to the increasingly heavy-handed attitude of Law Enforcement though it's hard to blame them in these times.
Here's my quandary; who is the arbiter? The law? What is the general level of respect for the law in light of the increasing abuses, perceived militarization, "lawfare" or candidly, this discussion? How do we fix it? Is it even broken?
Is this a result of Soros-backed DAs not prosecuting crime, the "mostly peaceful" riots celebrated by the Left and Media? The persecution and demonization of LEOs by the Left? Is it a back lash by LE due to their frustration?
Whatever it is, the us versus them mentality doesn't lead anywhere good. I miss Mayberry
Staff online
-
VaqueroMoving stuff to the gas prices thread.....
Members online
- cckirk
- GMK
- Army 1911
- Joat
- TexMex247
- deemus
- OpenSky
- ggiovanni
- Whalercohasset
- rl96ss
- gasgas
- Younggun
- glenbo
- Vaquero
- GMann1
- Texasgordo
- ILexpatriot
- General Zod
- ZX9RCAM
- TNHoosier
- Polekitty
- Bozz10mm
- Mescobarrpls
- lg57
- NoFunAllowed
- Nick!
- Emow
- smittyb
- 10-96inTexas
- skfullgun
- 4mm
- roadkill
- Geezer
- Lonesome Dove
- TxBigfoot
- leVieux
- Steve In Texas
- Nortex
- msharley
- zackmars
- Chupacabra Hunter
- wickll
- ollie1911
- BillW
- Doons
- Gorp2007
- lonestardiver
- BeatTheTunaUp
- llbts1
- buckshot4900