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.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.

It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.

They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.

Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?

Probably not but it is probably illegal to be brandishing a weapon through an window???

Well, were they brandishing a weapon through a window? Did the person just see a weapon through a window? The person could have been moving it, inspecting it, making sure it made the trip alright, or double checking to make sure it was unloaded(I would do that, anxiety is a mfer).

Are we to assume anybody with a weapon out in a hotel has criminal intent? Could they have just knocked on the door and inquired about the weapon? Could they have called the room and inquired about the weapon? If it was against Hotel policy to have a gun in the room, why does it make more sense to have more people with guns come in to the hotel and actually fire theirs harming a patron instead of you know, calling the room to inform the patrons of the policy and asking them to check out while pointing them to gun friendly hotels in the area so as to keep them happy and amicable? I don't think this was well thought out.

Seems to go against the 2nd Amendment.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.

It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.

They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.

Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?

Probably not but it is probably illegal to be brandishing a weapon through an window???

Well, were they brandishing a weapon through a window? Did the person just see a weapon through a window? The person could have been moving it, inspecting it, making sure it made the trip alright, or double checking to make sure it was unloaded(I would do that, anxiety is a mfer).

Are we to assume anybody with a weapon out in a hotel has criminal intent? Could they have just knocked on the door and inquired about the weapon? Could they have called the room and inquired about the weapon? If it was against Hotel policy to have a gun in the room, why does it make more sense to have more people with guns come in to the hotel and actually fire theirs harming a patron instead of you know, calling the room to inform the patrons of the policy and asking them to check out while pointing them to gun friendly hotels in the area so as to keep them happy and amicable? I don't think this was well thought out.

Seems to go against the 2nd Amendment.

Dunno how was it called in?

The police doesn't have magic telepathic vision and they absolutely have to take any call seriously.

So say they instead call the hotel and ask them to check with the people in the room. what if it turned out to be some nutzo getting ready copycat vegas and the hotel staff and everyone in the building gets hurt. the police department would be 1000% liable for causing the situation.

absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.

Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?

Back in 2011, police got calls about a man casually strolling around a Carolina campus with a rifle. They responded, turned out that all the guy had was an umbrella.

Somehow they managed to restrain themselves from blowing him away.

I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I have always been curious, what right, if any, do civilians have to defend themselves against someone claiming to be the police?

Like if someone comes in to your house (or hotel in this case) and you aren't running a drug lab out of it so have no reason to believe the cops would be after you and you gun one of them down while they're pointing guns at you, can you claim any sort of self defence?

I ask because if you have no rights once the popo says "I'm the police" that would be an awesome way to rob/rape/kidnap/murder/terrorist attack someone, dress up as a cop and yell at people to do what you say until you can gain enough advantage to do the aforementioned robbery/rape/kidnapping/murder/terrorist attack.

This article has some of those questions considered:
"Murder or Self-Defense if Officer Is Killed in Raid?"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/texas-no-knock-warrant-drugs.html

Aside from being exceptionally long it didn't really answer the question

Those were cases where the shooter didn't even hear the call that the people knocking down their doors were cops, and they were people who were doing naughty things.

But from the sounds of things once they've said "it's the police" you don't have any recourse, which makes me surprised we aren't constantly hearing about people dressing up as police to do nefarious things.

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

You are leo right

maybe its best if you could break down the situation so everyone can understand the 123s of it all.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But from the sounds of things once they've said "it's the police" you don't have any recourse, which makes me surprised we aren't constantly hearing about people dressing up as police to do nefarious things.

Bundy?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.

They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.

I know you're not defending them and I know the report. But how many times a year does a report come in about someone with a gun. If the report could be used as justification, how many potential casualties could we be looking at per year from such reports?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I have always been curious, what right, if any, do civilians have to defend themselves against someone claiming to be the police?

Like if someone comes in to your house (or hotel in this case) and you aren't running a drug lab out of it so have no reason to believe the cops would be after you and you gun one of them down while they're pointing guns at you, can you claim any sort of self defence?

I ask because if you have no rights once the popo says "I'm the police" that would be an awesome way to rob/rape/kidnap/murder/terrorist attack someone, dress up as a cop and yell at people to do what you say until you can gain enough advantage to do the aforementioned robbery/rape/kidnapping/murder/terrorist attack.

This article has some of those questions considered:
"Murder or Self-Defense if Officer Is Killed in Raid?"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/texas-no-knock-warrant-drugs.html

Aside from being exceptionally long it didn't really answer the question

Those were cases where the shooter didn't even hear the call that the people knocking down their doors were cops, and they were people who were doing naughty things.

But from the sounds of things once they've said "it's the police" you don't have any recourse, which makes me surprised we aren't constantly hearing about people dressing up as police to do nefarious things.

It doesn't answer it fully no. But it shows that even if you don't know its the police or even if they say they are police you better do nothing. Because if later they turn out to be you might be facing life. Your self defense claim leaves you at the mercy of a jury. So pretending to be a cop works pretty well in that regard as long as you make the victim believe it.

 Desubot wrote:

Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?

Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.

Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?

Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.

Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.

How would they know if its an actual domestic violence case vs a loud disagreement? same difference.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?

Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.

Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.

How would they know if its an actual domestic violence case vs a loud disagreement? same difference.

Investigate. Like I said with the gun situation. Calling to find out more information is called "investigating". You can do that in a situation where there is no reason to suspect a threat. Now if somebody had called and said "There are people walking through the halls with guns drawn!" Oh yeah, come on down and bring your buddies with you. However, seeing one in the privacy of ones room is not the same.

Domestic Violence is a completely different situation. If it has escalated to the point that people are calling the cops, it has escalated to the point that it is now a noise complaint. Which is also against the law in many places. The cops would come and guess what, they would probably ask questions to find out what is going on and why it was so loud. If it was a loud disagreement, then a citation or just a warning would suffice and they would be on their way. If it is domestic violence, deal with that.

Again, one of these things is illegal and the other is not. In no way are they the same and it is still a god awful argument.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.

It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.

They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.

Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?

I think the report was that it was being "waved around" not positive. Arizona is an open carry state actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You'll find yourself minding your business one day, then you'll notice a patch of snow, you'll think nothing of it, then by the time you remember it doesn't snow in Texas, it'll be too late.

It actually snowed here the other for the first time in years. It snowed maybe an eighth of an inch. Tens of thousands were hospitalized and we were forced to eat the neighbors!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Every reason to think he was armed? This is the US, its safe to assume a good chunk of the population is armed due to the 2nd. Its not a good reason to assume everyone with a gun is out to get you as police officers wouldn't even be able to go outside anymore. Its a severe overreaction.

They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.

Is it illegal to have a gun in a hotel or something?

Probably not but it is probably illegal to be brandishing a weapon through an window???

That is interesting as this looked like the type of hotel where the windows don't open.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


They were responding to a report of someone with a gun. Not defending them, but thats why they were there.

So some one using their 2nd Amendment rights is reason for police to forcibly enter the room where they are staying and detain them?

Did you miss the part of my statement where I said: "Not defending them, but thats why they were there."

Per the article in the OP: Shaver was shot at a hotel in the community of Mesa as officers responded to a call that someone was pointing a gun out a window.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?

Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.

Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.

How would they know if its an actual domestic violence case vs a loud disagreement? same difference.

Investigate. Like I said with the gun situation. Calling to find out more information is called "investigating". You can do that in a situation where there is no reason to suspect a threat. Now if somebody had called and said "There are people walking through the halls with guns drawn!" Oh yeah, come on down and bring your buddies with you. However, seeing one in the privacy of ones room is not the same.

Domestic Violence is a completely different situation. If it has escalated to the point that people are calling the cops, it has escalated to the point that it is now a noise complaint. Which is also against the law in many places. The cops would come and guess what, they would probably ask questions to find out what is going on and why it was so loud. If it was a loud disagreement, then a citation or just a warning would suffice and they would be on their way. If it is domestic violence, deal with that.

Again, one of these things is illegal and the other is not. In no way are they the same and it is still a god awful argument.

Investigating through others is putting them at risk and why they dont do it. a loud argument may cause the neighbors to get concerned and they may call the cops. if the cops call the house and it IS an domestive violence situation its entirly possible for one of the parties involved to get further enraged. you just put the house hold and the people around them in danger.

you think people in a potentially distressed situation is going to react rationally to a phone call every time?

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

Here's my problem with that. I saw the arm go back on the video too. But If I am the shooter I have a scoped rifle pointed at him and am able to burn him even if he comes out with a piece, which actually goes against his behavior, crying etc. plus there is at least one other officer with a gun on him. Thats when you shout STOP first and then burn him if he comes out with something. But there is nothing in his behavior (remember this guy is actively crying, complying and begging not to be shot) that he is going to do that, and even John Wick can't pull something when you HAVE A RIFLE POINTED AT HIM FROM SEVEN FEET.

The Officer was amped out of his mind and burned him when he got confused. The only reason he's not in prison is because the rifle and the video where not allowed in by the judge (WHY???).

 Galas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"

But then at the same time if they dont protect them selves first and get taken out you have a wild card running around doing whatever they want to do. (not talking about this specific situation)

Edit: wait the judge didnt allow the video evidence? dafaq?

 Galas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"

Look at this guys setup. He is a SWAT type - believe it or not - not all USA cops walk about with assault rifles. He was called in to neutralize a possible shooter - seen brandishing a weapon and acting drunk in the hallways apparently. I mean - if you know/think (was this just bad intel or did the guy actually have a gun in the bag?) a guy has a gun and hes not respecting the fact you have an AR-15 on him and reaches back behind his back - hes probably trying to shoot you. Maybe we need to change the rules of engagement here - cops can't shoot until fired upon - lets see how that goes. I'll make an estimate though that cops will start dying at such astounding rates and the backlash would be 10 times worse than what we have now.

I've had 2 friends quit the police force in the past 10 years. Each told me the exact same thing as to why. "I am not dying or going to jail to do this job". I could actually post a bunch of videos of police officers being shot in similar situations. I assure you - police officers have seen them all.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"

But then at the same time if they dont protect them selves first and get taken out you have a wild card running around doing whatever they want to do. (not talking about this specific situation)

Edit: wait the judge didnt allow the video evidence? dafaq?

Wasn't allowed as evidence? then why are we seeing it? Sounds like BS to me.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Wasn't allowed as evidence? then why are we seeing it? Sounds like BS to me.

Released after verdict

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

And thats exactly what people is saying the problem is. "Protecting yourself at all times" isn't the same as "Assume everybody is gonna try to kill you and shoot them first"

Look at this guys setup. He is a SWAT type - believe it or not - not all USA cops walk about with assault rifles. He was called in to neutralize a possible shooter - seen brandishing a weapon and acting drunk in the hallways apparently. I mean - if you know/think (was this just bad intel or did the guy actually have a gun in the bag?) a guy has a gun and hes not respecting the fact you have an AR-15 on him and reaches back behind his back - hes probably trying to shoot you.

Or it could be any one of an infinite number of just-as or more likely things than "he's trying to shoot you".

Maybe we need to change the rules of engagement here

How about something a bit more strict than "they moved"?

- cops can't shoot until fired upon - lets see how that goes. I'll make an estimate though that cops will start dying at such astounding rates and the backlash would be 10 times worse than what we have now.

I would ask what your basis is for assuming this would be the case?

I've had 2 friends quit the police force in the past 10 years. Each told me the exact same thing as to why. "I am not dying or going to jail to do this job".

All I can say in response to this is that, if that is their attitude, they never had any business in that profession in the first place, and made the right decision for themselves and society to leave it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

Here's my problem with that. I saw the arm go back on the video too. But If I am the shooter I have a scoped rifle pointed at him and am able to burn him even if he comes out with a piece, which actually goes against his behavior, crying etc. plus there is at least one other officer with a gun on him. Thats when you shout STOP first and then burn him if he comes out with something. But there is nothing in his behavior (remember this guy is actively crying, complying and begging not to be shot) that he is going to do that, and even John Wick can't pull something when you HAVE A RIFLE POINTED AT HIM FROM SEVEN FEET.

The Officer was amped out of his mind and burned him when he got confused. The only reason he's not in prison is because the rifle and the video where not allowed in by the judge (WHY???).

As to the video not being allowed? WTF?

As to the fact that he is trained and well equipped vs a crying drunk idiot reaching back behind his waist. I'd say - baring an equipment malfunction there is close to a 0 % chance that he would fail to put 2 of his first 3 shots on target. The question then becomes even if hes getting shot could he return fire once? If hes on PCP...maybe he could. Like I said I am not going to ask anyone to take that risk on a daily basis because eventually you will get shot if you second guess your instincts. Also - John Wick could totally take that guy out

We all know, Cops are constantly being trained by watching videos of cops getting shot and told the only way to stay alive is to shoot first. It's the whole "Bullet-proof" trainings purpose is to watch those videos and talk about how not to get shot be escalating first.

If that is what we call "training" then we have a serious issue with training our cops.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

Here's my problem with that. I saw the arm go back on the video too. But If I am the shooter I have a scoped rifle pointed at him and am able to burn him even if he comes out with a piece, which actually goes against his behavior, crying etc. plus there is at least one other officer with a gun on him. Thats when you shout STOP first and then burn him if he comes out with something. But there is nothing in his behavior (remember this guy is actively crying, complying and begging not to be shot) that he is going to do that, and even John Wick can't pull something when you HAVE A RIFLE POINTED AT HIM FROM SEVEN FEET.

The Officer was amped out of his mind and burned him when he got confused. The only reason he's not in prison is because the rifle and the video where not allowed in by the judge (WHY???).

As to the video not being allowed? WTF?

As to the fact that he is trained and well equipped vs a crying drunk idiot reaching back behind his waist. I'd say - baring an equipment malfunction there is close to a 0 % chance that he would fail to put 2 of his first 3 shots on target. The question then becomes even if hes getting shot could he return fire once? If hes on PCP...maybe he could. Like I said I am not going to ask anyone to take that risk on a daily basis because eventually you will get shot if you second guess your instincts. Also - John Wick could totally take that guy out

Actually he popped him five times and dropped him completely to the floor by round three. I don't know if the video on the article shows it but others do. I'll give the officer credit. He was probably popping .20 - .25 splits on that burst.

Just to clear some things up here. The jury did see video of the event from other body cams that offered the same information.

"Ben Meiselas, an attorney with Geragos' firm, confirmed that the AR-15 that Brailsford used in the shooting had an expletive etched into it. But the judge did not allow the AR-15 into evidence because he ruled it "too prejudicial" and "not sufficiently relevant," he told CNN." From this article http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/us/arizona-jury-acquits-ex-cop-of-murder/index.html

This is the only evidence that was not allowed to the jury. He had the words "Your F***ed" Etched into his rifle. This isn't something I want police officers doing to their effects. Then again - this is his personal weapon. He was also fired as a result too.

It didn't offer the same information. Its a different viewpoint. The fact it wasn't admitted is nonsensical.

I can guarantee if it was a police officer who was shot it would have been.

Also unless you read the transcript you have no idea if that was the only evidence not admitted. Better you don't make statements like that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I followed this for a while and have seen the back and forth in many veteran threads. Overwhelmingly, with a small pocket of resistance, veterans to include many LEOs are calling this a straight up assassination. I very much agree. Once again, I have been in situations where i was pretty sure every day going to the gate to pick up my ANA counter parts was in all probability going to end up in a firefight with me being the first since I always walked up first. Still managed to never shoot a single ANA no matter how stupid they acted.


LEOs demeanor, attitude, and hell even his dust cover were wrong from the beginning. Not sure there is any valid argument, why in that moment he fired. reaching for your pants after being told to crawl on your knees is guaranteed, and a LEO with discipline would have known that.

So do you just ignore the fact the dude flailed his arm back quickly towards his back pocket/pants line....exactly where someone would be concealing a weapon? Or do you think he just reacted about .25 seconds to quickly if he was pulling out a gun? PFFF. I'm not going to ask any LEO to take that risk. Maybe you are willing to take that risk but it is not a requirement for the job. The main thing they teach LEO in academy and especially in swat type units to to protect yourself at all times.

Do I ignore it, no. I flat out say the LEO did in fact fire too soon. Im looking at multiple things when I come to this conclusion. The demeaner of the LEO. The attitude displayed by the dustcover. I do not expect that on LEOs who's purpose is to keep the piece. Its not the same as a Soldier who is not there to keep peace, but to wreak havoc and death. There is a reason we are not allowed to operate on American soil, rightfully so. You don't have to ask a LEO to make that choice, you have to ask him to have trigger DISCIPLINE. Also based on how you reacted over Castille, I find your defesne of this LEO but absolute surety about Castille to be confusing. LIke I said, I have been in those positions, so its not like I am arm chair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance.

He had the upper hand at all times. This LEO, other than his extremely horrible commands, was in no position to assume the suspect had any hope of obtaining the upper hand. I support lethal force by police becuase I have unique insight to be shot at. But when Soldiers are being imprisoned for life for accidently making a bad call in combat, I will expect a higher standard from LEOs in America and I expect prosecution when said LEO so obviously and egregiously executes someone.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Think about it this way do you think the cops should call the land lord every time there is some domestic violence call?

Domestic Violence is illegal. Having a firearm is only illegal in certain circumstances, as in not having proper registration or actually owning an illegal firearm. That is just a god awful argument.

Things that the cops would not know and should not suspect based on a phone call saying "Hey, I saw a guy in a hotel with a gun." Then they should probably call the room to find out more information. Suspecting ever single person that has a firearm as a potential vegas shooter is absolutely a Second Amendment issue because it is giving the police the ability to execute legal gun owners or even people suspected of having a gun based on fear.

How would they know if its an actual domestic violence case vs a loud disagreement? same difference.

Investigate. Like I said with the gun situation. Calling to find out more information is called "investigating". You can do that in a situation where there is no reason to suspect a threat. Now if somebody had called and said "There are people walking through the halls with guns drawn!" Oh yeah, come on down and bring your buddies with you. However, seeing one in the privacy of ones room is not the same.

Domestic Violence is a completely different situation. If it has escalated to the point that people are calling the cops, it has escalated to the point that it is now a noise complaint. Which is also against the law in many places. The cops would come and guess what, they would probably ask questions to find out what is going on and why it was so loud. If it was a loud disagreement, then a citation or just a warning would suffice and they would be on their way. If it is domestic violence, deal with that.

Again, one of these things is illegal and the other is not. In no way are they the same and it is still a god awful argument.

Investigating through others is putting them at risk and why they dont do it. a loud argument may cause the neighbors to get concerned and they may call the cops. if the cops call the house and it IS an domestive violence situation its entirly possible for one of the parties involved to get further enraged. you just put the house hold and the people around them in danger.

you think people in a potentially distressed situation is going to react rationally to a phone call every time?

Stop with this argument. It is not the same. Nothing indicated there was any issue inside the room other than the existence of a weapon. These are not the same scenarios.

How is it not the same thing

you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation possibly making it worse. or otherwise contact them through the phone ether enraging or spooking them.

Im still waiting on an explanation on how telling the hotel management to walk into an unknown situation involving a firearm is even remotely a good idea.

 Desubot wrote:

you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation

Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.

 Easy E wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation

Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.

unarmed bobby or tow? what are these British words

anyway he was suggesting they send up the hotel management which is ridiculous.

sending up a normal beat cop instead of a full on swat team would probably have been a better call maybe? edit hang on nvm my times are off. just realized this is for something that happend 2016. i guess the only justification for a full on swat team would be if the call in made it out to be more extreme of a situation than waving gun around. but i havnt seen a transcript. its also kinda irrelevant.

fact is sending untrained people to do something potentially dangerous is a dumb idea.

 Desubot wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

you have a situation where a person calls in a threatening disturbance with unknown perimeters, both of which could be life threatening. and you are telling me that the best course of action is to send some one else whom would probably not be trained whatsoever AND probably unarmed to go assess the situation

Isn't that what the British do? They send an unarmed Bobby or tow to assess and then call in back-up if needed. Seems to work okay for them.

unarmed bobby or tow? what are these British words

anyway he was suggesting they send up the hotel management which is ridiculous.

sending up a normal beat cop instead of a full on swat team would probably have been a better call maybe? edit hang on nvm my times are off.

Was there yelling? Did anybody else report an issue? Were they actually waving around a weapon or did somebody freak out about something? Problem easily solved with a phone call. Not all issues require the police, nor are all issues incredibly dangerous. It very easily could have been a misunderstanding.

I have explained how these things are not the same. Soooooooo.....