Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its a gun threat. and no one answered if brandishing a weapon even in open carry state is legal or not.

its probably a good idea to get all the ducks in a row.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?

Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?

I don't think you understand that what you are saying is illegal. Risk management my ass. They received a single call about a weapon, no other person has called or reported anything and there have been no calls about gunfire. The Hotel staff has not even called about it as a complaint from a person there. You want them to go from 0 to 60 and treat this like an active shooter. That is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you should stop and understand what you are saying here. I fully understand that what you are saying is foolish at best.

They received a call about a weapon being waved around inside a hotel room. gunfire, complaints it has nothing to do about anything. its the cops job to go secure location and then find out the answers there are ways they can do it that would look less aggressive like calling in beat cops and knocking on the door and sorting everything out. or they could of had hotel management go up and tell them their no guns policy and in this case yeah it would of been resolved. but the fact of the matter is they have to take the calls serious, they cant make fething assumptions because no one else called it in, they have to think about everyone safety and not just their own. that is their responsibility and thats why going in and attempting to clear the floor the way they did would of been fine and not news worthy, the caller would of gotten fined, the people detained would complain but otherwise walked away. what wasnt acceptable in this case was the fethin idiot cops making stupid commands that caused this kid to make a confused stupid move that got him shot by a guy thats job is to make disisions based on the situation, not hindsight, not on assumptions. charge the other two cops with manslaughter call it a day.

 Desubot wrote:
Its a gun threat. and no one answered if brandishing a weapon even in open carry state is legal or not.

its probably a good idea to get all the ducks in a row.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?

Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?

Hotels are considered a "temporary residence", thus he was well within his rights to brandish it, as long as it wasn't pointed an another person. Unless that particular hotel has a "no guns" policy, he did nothing wrong.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its a gun threat. and no one answered if brandishing a weapon even in open carry state is legal or not.

its probably a good idea to get all the ducks in a row.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?

Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?

Hotels are considered a "temporary residence", thus he was well within his rights to brandish it, as long as it wasn't pointed an another person. Unless that particular hotel has a "no guns" policy, he did nothing wrong.

Thanks man at least i know that now.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its a gun threat. and no one answered if brandishing a weapon even in open carry state is legal or not.

its probably a good idea to get all the ducks in a row.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you saying that the police should be able to "detain" a person by handcuffing them against their will, even when they are not under arrest or charged with anything?

Do you still not understanding the concept of risk management or do you just not want to understand?

I don't think you understand that what you are saying is illegal. Risk management my ass. They received a single call about a weapon, no other person has called or reported anything and there have been no calls about gunfire. The Hotel staff has not even called about it as a complaint from a person there. You want them to go from 0 to 60 and treat this like an active shooter. That is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you should stop and understand what you are saying here. I fully understand that what you are saying is foolish at best.

They received a call about a weapon being waved around inside a hotel room. gunfire, complaints it has nothing to do about anything. its the cops job to go secure location and then find out the answers there are ways they can do it that would look less aggressive like calling in beat cops and knocking on the door and sorting everything out. or they could of had hotel management go up and tell them their no guns policy and in this case yeah it would of been resolved. but the fact of the matter is they have to take the calls serious, they cant make fething assumptions because no one else called it in, they have to think about everyone safety and not just their own. that is their responsibility and thats why going in and attempting to clear the floor the way they did would of been fine and not news worthy, the caller would of gotten fined, the people detained would complain but otherwise walked away. what wasnt acceptable in this case was the fethin idiot cops making stupid commands that caused this kid to make a confused stupid move that got him shot by a guy thats job is to make disisions based on the situation, not hindsight, not on assumptions. charge the other two cops with manslaughter call it a day.

You mean they have to consider everyones safety when a man is legally holding a weapon in a room and has made no threats towards anybody?

CALL IN THE SWAT BOYS! TED HAS HIS RIFLE OUT CLEANING IT! HE MAY BE ABOUT TO GO POSTAL WE GOTTA GET THE COPS DOWN HERE TO HANDLE THIS SITUATION BEFORE IT POTENTIALLY GETS WORSE!

Something to consider. I am a tax preparer. I passed the test with the IRS and have met my continuous education requirements.

This means that 'mistakes' on my personal tax return are held to a higher standard than yours. Since I have special knowledge and training.

The same principle should apply to police officers.

I'm also amused by the fact that the same people that claim that gun deaths are miniscule so we don't need any additional gun control laws are trying to argue that the same principle doesn't apply to police officers using lethal force...

Yeah sure why not.

do we have transcripts of the 911 call?

 ProwlerPC wrote:
But if the risk of being killed by police becomes higher then the risk of being killed by those the police are sworn to protect others from then the concept of the police being there to protect starts to fall apart and starts looking more and more that they are dispatched to display force to remind others that the state won't lax. It's a terrifying direction if no oversight is applied to itchy triggers. We don't want mass murderers wandering free, for sure, but we also don't want the boys in blue to amass kill scores that make the former blush in envy either. Not saying it's there yet but with no oversight and a lack of swift punishment for infringements it may.

Wait, wait! I have the solution! The US needs a special force to protect people from the police.

"Hello, this is the police protection force, how may we assist you?"
"Please help, I think I saw a policeman sneaking around the neighbourhood. There are a lot of black people living in the area. I am afraid he is going to shoot someone."
"Please stay calm. We will dispatch a team immediately."

Or implement swift decisive punishment for officers whom are overcome with zeal resulting in civilian executions. Might seem counter intuitive but I think it's worth a shot.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Or implement swift decisive punishment for officers whom are overcome with zeal resulting in civilian executions. Might seem counter intuitive but I think it's worth a shot.

Certainly could and probably should.

gotta figure out the whole cops protecting their own problem first though. can get rid of the bad ones if the good ones and the in between keep them safe. if there are real repercussions then maybe the few bad ones will think twice.

If the "good ones" are protecting bad ones then they are not "good ones".

 Xenomancers wrote:

I understand the need to deal with the risk...to allow an active shooter situation to blow up after the las vegas shooting would have been a terrible terrible tragedy. This is ofc why the dept. over reacted i assume in the first place. So now we have another tragedy. Like...why did the guy have to be drunk out of his mind? Just bad luck. Picked a bad night to pound entire bottles of liquor and show off his air rifle...

I think this happened before Las Vegas so that incident should not have had any impact in how the Mesa incident was handled.

I could be wrong though.

Yeah it was

this was some time 2016

thats why i retracted a statement a while back.

Pretty typical internet discussion on a police matter (read: 90% ignorance).

I'd lean heavily toward this being a bad shoot, personally. The officer in the video is pretty awful (control, shouting, commands, etc.) all pretty bad. Even worse so it sounds like he has a new guy riding with him and he's trying to instruct him on what to do. The defence he'd rely on is exceptionally grey-area on this one. A normal use-of-force policy would indicate that the officer would have to identify why he felt his life was in danger (or risk of grievous bodily harm). When investigated for an on duty use of force, the officer will be judged according to what a "normal" police officer would do - not subject to a jury of non-officers (that would be the civil case arena).

I suspect the officer just skated by on this one but will probably take it in the pants in the civil case coming up.

From a LEO perspective, this officer handled this very poorly. However, the usual "oh man, cops just want to kill everybody" nonsense is clouding the thread as usual.

Hilarious strawman argument

Claim that 90% of the people in this thread don't know what they are talking about

subsequently make the exact same observations and come to the exact same conclusion as virtually everyone else

Truly you are the poster this forum needs.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
How many acceptable innocents die until?

No acceptable innocents. Sending in LEOs in this situation was warranted. What this LEO then did was unacceptable. Would have been easier for him to hold the guy instead of giving horrible commands outside of protocol then shooting the victim because the LEO was being stupid. Procedure wise, LEOs on scene was a good call. What happened after is the entirety of the problem. Thats when it became murder as I have stated before. No one with experience that is not ideologically in defense of the police can intellectually honestly say this was justified. They jury was wrong, this is the clearest video I have seen of a police shooting and it shows an execution.

 Elbows wrote:
Pretty typical internet discussion on a police matter (read: 90% ignorance).

I'd lean heavily toward this being a bad shoot, personally. The officer in the video is pretty awful (control, shouting, commands, etc.) all pretty bad. Even worse so it sounds like he has a new guy riding with him and he's trying to instruct him on what to do. The defence he'd rely on is exceptionally grey-area on this one. A normal use-of-force policy would indicate that the officer would have to identify why he felt his life was in danger (or risk of grievous bodily harm). When investigated for an on duty use of force, the officer will be judged according to what a "normal" police officer would do - not subject to a jury of non-officers (that would be the civil case arena).

UOF policies are not commonly applied to SWAT-related shootings. The idea is that they're a specialized unit with specialized circumstances and as such they are given broader discretion when it comes to their use of force.

I suspect the officer just skated by on this one but will probably take it in the pants in the civil case coming up.

Civil cases against officers tend to do poorly when the officers are found not guilty. They tend to go even worse in red states where the "Blue Lives Matter" tripe is treated as gospel rather than the nonsensical deflection that it is.

From a LEO perspective, this officer handled this very poorly. However, the usual "oh man, cops just want to kill everybody" nonsense is clouding the thread as usual.

Right, because a guy who is rocking personalized stuff on his firearm that basically amounts to the usual wanna-be Delta Operators that make up SWAT teams these days totally negates the argument that this individual had literally zero business being an officer.

As soon as that gak went on his gun, someone should have been sitting him down to have a serious talk.

Court didn't see it as a crime, I don't it either. Accidents happened, officer made a bad choice in an awkward situation.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Court didn't see it as a crime, I don't it either. Accidents happened, officer made a bad choice in an awkward situation.

Unfortunately, this is less of an "accident" and more of a "This officer never should have been hired in the first place if he just wants to cosplay as John McClane".

Your opinion, different opinion, same video, same event.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Court didn't see it as a crime, I don't it either. Accidents happened, officer made a bad choice in an awkward situation.

Unfortunately, this is less of an "accident" and more of a "This officer never should have been hired in the first place if he just wants to cosplay as John McClane".

TFW you try to have a serious discussion why a guy who essentially admitted to trolling in a different thread less than 15 minutes ago.

Why can't I have another conversation with something I find a bit more serious of an issue, something that may if I'm convinced be an ACTUAL issue.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Why can't I have another conversation with something I find a bit more serious of an issue, something that may if I'm convinced be an ACTUAL issue.

Because you're not looking to be convinced or even have an actual discussion. You have an opinion that you think is fact.

This is a case where evidence was purportedly held back(his dust cover on the rifle saying "You're fethed") as being "too prejudicial" against the officer despite it being entirely relevant to the officer's state of mind going into this situation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Why can't I have another conversation with something I find a bit more serious of an issue, something that may if I'm convinced be an ACTUAL issue.

Because you're not looking to be convinced or even have an actual discussion. You have an opinion that you think is fact.

This is a case where evidence was purportedly held back(his dust cover on the rifle saying "You're fethed") as being "too prejudicial" against the officer despite it being entirely relevant to the officer's state of mind going into this situation.

While I absolutely believe this was an execution, speaking as someone with experience in much higher stress situations that were more dangerous to my person than this poor kid was to the officers, I do not believe the dust cover was as relevant as many believe. While it shows he may be a douche, it does not speak to motive IMO. I have known many well disciplined grunts and other type Soldiers with what we refer to as "Morale patches". These are funny patches we put on the velcro on our sleeves usually hidden under unit insignia or the fold down flap. Didn't make them more or less prone to any action be it heroic or illegal. In other words you can be a douche and still not be a murderer, and vice versa.

 redleger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Why can't I have another conversation with something I find a bit more serious of an issue, something that may if I'm convinced be an ACTUAL issue.

Because you're not looking to be convinced or even have an actual discussion. You have an opinion that you think is fact.

This is a case where evidence was purportedly held back(his dust cover on the rifle saying "You're fethed") as being "too prejudicial" against the officer despite it being entirely relevant to the officer's state of mind going into this situation.

While I absolutely believe this was an execution, speaking as someone with experience in much higher stress situations that were more dangerous to my person than this poor kid was to the officers, I do not believe the dust cover was as relevant as many believe. While it shows he may be a douche, it does not speak to motive IMO. I have known many well disciplined grunts and other type Soldiers with what we refer to as "Morale patches". These are funny patches we put on the velcro on our sleeves usually hidden under unit insignia or the fold down flap. Didn't make them more or less prone to any action be it heroic or illegal. In other words you can be a douche and still not be a murderer, and vice versa.

That's actually what I was referring to specifically when I made the comment about "cosplaying as John McClane".

This kind of officer is exactly the kind who should have been screened out. Someone who thinks they're a soldier, not a law enforcement officer.

It doesn't speak to motive, it speaks to intent and mindset. It's not meaningful in and of itself, but as a piece of what happened, it shows state of mind.

 Ouze wrote:
It doesn't speak to motive, it speaks to intent and mindset. It's not meaningful in and of itself, but as a piece of what happened, it shows state of mind.

I disagree, unless you are asserting that his peace of mind was always one of panic and cowardice. He very may well have seen it online, bought it because he thought it was funny. (I find it kinda funny myself, but not in this context) It shows nothing about his state of mind during that situation. His state of mind was that of someone who was too scared to make a rational decision, or communicate effectively. If he was the kind of bad ass he tried to portray himself to be, he would have had more trigger discipline.

It might not show panic and cowardice, but an adversarial mindset, an us-vs-them attitude, a lack of respect and decorum commensurate with his powers and responsibilities.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might not show panic and cowardice, but an adversarial mindset, an us-vs-them attitude, a lack of respect and decorum commensurate with his powers and responsibilities.

Throw into that extremely poor execution of policy and procedure and you have this particular incident in a nutshell.

 redleger wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
It doesn't speak to motive, it speaks to intent and mindset. It's not meaningful in and of itself, but as a piece of what happened, it shows state of mind.

I disagree, unless you are asserting that his peace of mind was always one of panic and cowardice. He very may well have seen it online, bought it because he thought it was funny. (I find it kinda funny myself, but not in this context) It shows nothing about his state of mind during that situation. His state of mind was that of someone who was too scared to make a rational decision, or communicate effectively. If he was the kind of bad ass he tried to portray himself to be, he would have had more trigger discipline.

It shows that someone in a professional law enforcement capacity actively sought out aggressive and unprofessional upgrades to a weapon, in a manner that can only be seen as boastful or threatening, that they used in an ostensibly professional capacity. To me, that shows a marked lack of judgement for that role and a fundamental misunderstanding of that profession.

Much like the department that had their cars done up with the Punisher logo and whatnot all over them.

I spent most of my twenties professionally wielding firearms in various capacities, and I would NEVER have added some kind of cosmetic part for that very reason. You carry a firearm with the knowledge that you may have to end someone's life with it in the fulfillment of your duties. Knowing that day might come, and that adding any kind of unnecessary modification to your duty weapon might reflect poorly on you and your department/unit/company in that dire moment, modifying the weapon anyway doesn't speak very well of an individual's judgment.