Utah Guns Forum banner

Interesting thought...

21K views 69 replies 13 participants last post by  Uinta Firearms 
#1 ·
I thought I would put this up here as a reference point and to see what you guys think.

So I've been following this story since it hit, and from what I can collect, this guy was stopped for carrying a sword, and after threatening officers with it, or acting in a threatening manner was shot.

obviously I don't know the whole story, but if he had the weapon sheathed and on his back when stopped, it seems that would not be RAS for detainment. While swinging a sword at a police officer would be foolish, I can't help but think-

A. Could this have been completely avoided?

B. this likely wouldn't have played out the same way with an open carry pistol

Thoughts?

Ps- not here to cop bash. Just seems much less detailed than the completely transparent and warranted shooting in st george this week.

Story- http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865610 ... gle.com%2F
 
See less See more
#52 ·
Hey man. What's going on?" Schauerhamer asked, according to Buhman's report.

"I'm looking for a ride," Hunt replied.

Schauerhamer then asked Hunt to place his sword on the hood of his patrol car. He refused, according to the officers.

"Why not?" Schauerhamer asked. "It's my sword," Hunt replied.

"OK. You can't just set your sword on the hood of my car for a second?" asked Schauerhamer.
Charles, IF the officers are telling the truth (odd that surveillance footage has not been released, but I digress), then this situation looks to have played out precisely as we thought.

The officer did everything he could to request him to hand over his sword without clearly saying he was requiring it. In the context of being surrounded by a few officers, I would bet anything this did not sound anything like a request, rather a demand.

if the story is true, justified shoot, probably. But how is it you come by an honestly justified shoot by an unjustified detainment?
 
#53 ·
So what part of the incident justified unsheathing the sword and taking a swing at a police officer? Why is it an unreasonable request from a police officer for a total stranger with a weapon in their hand to put it down while talking with them? I have noticed an "us vs. them" attitude growing for years and my useless opinion, it has been brought on by our societies trend away from personal responsibility. People are rarely blamed for their actions anymore(unless it is an authority figure for some reason) but it is usually some other reason. Their parents, their teachers, a medical issue, ect. Look at our president. Anything negative is not his fault, it is always somebody else(usually Bush, but often some other republican) and he is allowed to get away with that.

This whole thing is that a young man made mistakes and lost his life as a result. Sorry, but that is our national religion of Darwinism at work. We say if we are involved in a self defence shooting to keep our mouth shut and let the lawyers do the talking, but if it is a police officer, he has to be hiding something because he dosent tell the public every little thing at once? Why?
 
#54 ·
MrReverse said:
So what part of the incident justified unsheathing the sword and taking a swing at a police officer? Why is it an unreasonable request from a police officer for a total stranger with a weapon in their hand to put it down while talking with them? I have noticed an "us vs. them" attitude growing for years and my useless opinion, it has been brought on by our societies trend away from personal responsibility. People are rarely blamed for their actions anymore(unless it is an authority figure for some reason) but it is usually some other reason. Their parents, their teachers, a medical issue, ect. Look at our president. Anything negative is not his fault, it is always somebody else(usually Bush, but often some other republican) and he is allowed to get away with that.

This whole thing is that a young man made mistakes and lost his life as a result. Sorry, but that is our national religion of Darwinism at work. We say if we are involved in a self defence shooting to keep our mouth shut and let the lawyers do the talking, but if it is a police officer, he has to be hiding something because he dosent tell the public every little thing at once? Why?
NOTHING justified the kid unsheathing a sword and taking a swing at at police officer. I don't think anyone here is saying that at all. I think that is at strawman at best.

Why is it an unreasonable request from a police officer for a total stranger with a weapon in their hand to put it down while talking with them?
^this is the part that is concerning. If he was illegally brandishing the weapon, the police have reasonable cause for detainment, and asking him to surrender his weapon (from my understanding of the law). Where the disconnect is, is that if this young man was openly carrying his sword and NOT breaking the law in doing so, a police officer demanding the young man disarm is NOT reasonable, and constitutes unlawful detainment by the officer.

The point is, did the presence of the police de- escalate this situation, or just the opposite?

Nobody here is saying the kid was right to take a swing at the officer. At the same time, the bear that is not poked does not attack.

You will find this forum is full of reasonable people. It is also full of people that are very wary of giving up their RKBA.

As far as comparing this situation as a civilian vs LEO, I believe we DO hold law enforcement to a higher standard, as we should. They have a great responsibility. While I don't believe in witch hunts every time a shooting happens, one has to remember, had this been a civilian shoot, the shooter would likely already be serving his prison sentence.
 
#55 ·
My question is was he detained? Was he ordered to disarm or was it requested? Small but different definitions involved here. From everything I have seen in the media about this, no rights were violated. Guns were not drawn until a sword was unsheathed. Nobody was physically imobilized or even ordered to stop. What crime was comitted or rights infringed by the police officers? Yes they are held to a higher standard, but to automatically assume wrongdoing on their part without evidence on both sides is not holding to a higher standard, just showing a bias.

I personally was willing to give the benifit of the doubt to them until information was released by those that actually have it. I personally don't trust the media to be unbiased or even to do much fact checking in their reports. I don't trust statements given by people that did not witness an even and were not even there about what happened. That is just me. Like I have said before, my opinions don't count for much, they are just my opinions.

I am an ASE certified master tech automotive tech with about 15 years professional experiance. I know a lot about automobiles. Dosent make me an expert in psycology or fine nuances in law though. It does tend to make me look at the how and why of things. It also tends to encourage my natural tendancy to apply proper names and terms to things to try and reduce confusion. I due to my profession, am held to a higher standard and accept that, but when somebody tries to blame me because their wheel fell off their car 2 months after I did an oil change and never touched a lugnut, I have issues with their credibility. Just for the record, I have accusations like that leveled at me at least a few times per year by those that should know better, even my manager will accuse me of wrongdoing when I never even worked on the car because he is being yelled at by sombody. So it does bug me when I see people blasting professionals doing their job when there is no hard evidence they did wrong. Civility is decreasing rapidly in our society, and that does worry me because historically, it never ends well.
 
#56 ·
MrReverse said:
My question is was he detained? Was he ordered to disarm or was it requested? Small but different definitions involved here. From everything I have seen in the media about this, no rights were violated. Guns were not drawn until a sword was unsheathed. Nobody was physically imobilized or even ordered to stop. What crime was comitted or rights infringed by the police officers? Yes they are held to a higher standard, but to automatically assume wrongdoing on their part without evidence on both sides is not holding to a higher standard, just showing a bias.

I personally was willing to give the benifit of the doubt to them until information was released by those that actually have it. I personally don't trust the media to be unbiased or even to do much fact checking in their reports. I don't trust statements given by people that did not witness an even and were not even there about what happened. That is just me. Like I have said before, my opinions don't count for much, they are just my opinions.

I am an ASE certified master tech automotive tech with about 15 years professional experiance. I know a lot about automobiles. Dosent make me an expert in psycology or fine nuances in law though. It does tend to make me look at the how and why of things. It also tends to encourage my natural tendancy to apply proper names and terms to things to try and reduce confusion. I due to my profession, am held to a higher standard and accept that, but when somebody tries to blame me because their wheel fell off their car 2 months after I did an oil change and never touched a lugnut, I have issues with their credibility. Just for the record, I have accusations like that leveled at me at least a few times per year by those that should know better, even my manager will accuse me of wrongdoing when I never even worked on the car because he is being yelled at by sombody. So it does bug me when I see people blasting professionals doing their job when there is no hard evidence they did wrong. Civility is decreasing rapidly in our society, and that does worry me because historically, it never ends well.
I highly doubt that when surrounded by more than one officer, and asked to surrender a holstered weapon, it could be construed as anything but detainment.

Which of course nobody will care since the kid flipped out.
 
#57 ·
J_dazzle23 said:
I highly doubt that when surrounded by more than one officer, and asked to surrender a holstered weapon, it could be construed as anything but detainment.

Which of course nobody will care since the kid flipped out.
And had the kid not flipped out and gotten himself ventilated, he could have possibly hired a lawyer and sued for unlawful detention.
 
#58 ·
gravedancer said:
J_dazzle23 said:
I highly doubt that when surrounded by more than one officer, and asked to surrender a holstered weapon, it could be construed as anything but detainment.

Which of course nobody will care since the kid flipped out.
And had the kid not flipped out and gotten himself ventilated, he could have possibly hired a lawyer and sued for unlawful detention.
I still don't buy the "we had to shoot him in the back" mentality that would have gotten you, or me handed a nice jail sentence. Oh, I understand their argument/justification, but I don't agree with it.

Mel
 
#59 ·
quychang said:
gravedancer said:
J_dazzle23 said:
I highly doubt that when surrounded by more than one officer, and asked to surrender a holstered weapon, it could be construed as anything but detainment.

Which of course nobody will care since the kid flipped out.
And had the kid not flipped out and gotten himself ventilated, he could have possibly hired a lawyer and sued for unlawful detention.
I still don't buy the "we had to shoot him in the back" mentality that would have gotten you, or me handed a nice jail sentence. Oh, I understand their argument/justification, but I don't agree with it.

Mel
Where the plot gets REALLY thick is when you take into account the reason they said they shot him running away, then remember the multiple court decisions that have determined "protecting" citizens is not part of the responsibility of an LEO...
 
#60 ·
J_dazzle23 said:
Where the plot gets REALLY thick is when you take into account the reason they said they shot him running away, then remember the multiple court decisions that have determined "protecting" citizens is not part of the responsibility of an LEO...
I believe the court decisions maintain that law enforcement has no duty to protect individual persons but do have a duty to protect the community as a whole.
 
#61 ·
Car Knocker said:
J_dazzle23 said:
Where the plot gets REALLY thick is when you take into account the reason they said they shot him running away, then remember the multiple court decisions that have determined "protecting" citizens is not part of the responsibility of an LEO...
I believe the court decisions maintain that law enforcement has no duty to protect individual persons but do have a duty to protect the community as a whole.
Hmmmm. That definitely does make a difference with that distinction
 
#63 ·
quychang said:
And that, Charles, is exactly what I meant by an attempt at a smoke screen. There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates her son had similar tendencies.
Respectfully, there is some evidence (how credible may be debatable by those figuring the cops are doing a massive coverup) that he had very similar issues.

There was some kind of domestic violence incident a short time ago where he threatened his mother and she call the cops. She downplays this now as "nothing," but how often do moms call the cops on their sons over "nothing"?

There is the report of the facebook stalking of the young lady in Provo.

And it seems four witnesses indicate he drew his sword and swung at the cop without any obvious provocation.

And it isn't like the cops are releasing private interviews with the mom. She is out there seeking the spotlight every chance she gets. Seemingly to pretty good effect as a lot of folks are questioning why deadly force might be the appropriate response to a guy swinging a sword.

Now, I'm not at all opposed to some kind of additional review of police actions. Not sure I trust any federal agency with Holder overseeing it any more than I do the worst of Jim Crow southern small town police department.

But at the end of the day, if someone takes a swing at me with a sword, there is a good chance I will be shooting. If he runs toward someone I have responsibility for (wife, child, etc) with that sword still in hand, odds are good I'll keep shooting until I end the threat. I suspect you and most everyone else would do likewise. None of will want to be judged legally on how many bullets entered what part of the body so long as that is the minimum number needed to stop the threat.

The big question in my mind is only whether the initial contact, "detention", and "request" to surrender the sword was legal. Sadly, I have to admit that unless the cops said something highly threatening that nobody else heard, I think sword guy's reaction to them is pretty good evidence the stop was needed even if it wasn't entirely legal the moment it was made.

I suspect what we had here was a young man with some mental health and social interactions problems (some form of autism or aspbergers perhaps?) that caused him to act in a way that was entirely irrational, unpredictable, and dangerous. I mourn for him and his family. I really do. He may not have even realized what he was doing.

But I have to judge the cops by what a reasonable man could discern in the moment. And everything that has been released strongly suggests that in the moment, the shooting was legally justified and necessary for a cop given his general duty to protect the public. On the flip side, I've seen nothing to suggest it wasn't legally justified and necessary.

Kick in a door after dark, shoot into a car as the driver backs out of a parking stall,or beat man after he is in cuffs and I'll cry foul and demand justice. Shoot a guy acting nuts and swinging a sword and I have to cut some slack.

Charles
 
#64 ·
Charles,

With all due respect, you have more faith in the information being released than I do. I suspect the police are secretly glad they didn't have body cams or dash cams operating at the time of the incident.

Oh, I suppose I'll not quibble whether he should have been shot when there were non lethal choices and chalk it up to the heat of the moment. It doesn't appear that he was running towards anyone, just simply away. He was already injured, he wasn't going to run all that far. I suspect the bullets in the back were as much to shut him up, as to contain him. Obviously I put less trust in the police than you do. It takes 2 minutes for 4 cops to put their heads together and decide how it went down, before emergency teams were on site.

It's over and done, the second guessing may as well stop, though I would imagine that this may still see civil court. Rightfully so in my opinion. As always it's been good discussing it with you, but I find my arms are tired and the dead horse has been beaten into submission.

Regards,

Mel
 
#65 ·
I do not believe that there is any sort of massive cover-up here. Will the cops try to skew information in their favor? Most likely, but I don't think any more that anyone else would do who's job and reputation are on the line. The info that has been released is mostly like true even if it leaves much out. I believe that by the time the shooting part happened it probably happened very quickly and more less like was stated. I do think that they possibly could have use other less lethal methods but again it probably happened very quickly at that point. Choices have to be made in a split second and we depend on the police to make hard choices even if we may think they made the wrong one.

I really think where this whole think fell apart was in the initial calling of the cops and and the escalation that was created by the encounter, however there is also some mention of a tweet he made about ...having sword and going to get shot... I don't know if this is real is not. Technically carrying the sword around was not illegal but that argument went out he window when he decided to draw it. If he had submitted like he should have and he was detained or arrest for only that then he would have had a case but he didn't. At this point I'm ready to put this one aside and just see what happens in the civil side of things.
 
#66 ·
D-FIN said:
I do not believe that there is any sort of massive cover-up here. Will the cops try to skew information in their favor? Most likely, but I don't think any more that anyone else would do who's job and reputation are on the line. The info that has been released is mostly like true even if it leaves much out. I believe that by the time the shooting part happened it probably happened very quickly and more less like was stated. I do think that they possibly could have use other less lethal methods but again it probably happened very quickly at that point. Choices have to be made in a split second and we depend on the police to make hard choices even if we may think they made the wrong one.

I really think where this whole think fell apart was in the initial calling of the cops and and the escalation that was created by the encounter, however there is also some mention of a tweet he made about ...having sword and going to get shot... I don't know if this is real is not. Technically carrying the sword around was not illegal but that argument went out he window when he decided to draw it. If he had submitted like he should have and he was detained or arrest for only that then he would have had a case but he didn't. At this point I'm ready to put this one aside and just see what happens in the civil side of things.
At the risk of further beating a dead horse. I don't really believe there's a massive police cover up here either, I'm just saying there isn't really an evidence to the contrary. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there were video evidence to back them up. And frankly, assuming there is no cover up, I imagine the police wish the same, it would be highly in their favor assuming civil suits are pursued.

But I'll go out on a limb and say that the thin blue line extends into the prosecutors office and the judicial system. I predict that civil suits will be lost, or dismissed.

We'll see.

Mel
 
#67 ·
quychang said:
At the risk of further beating a dead horse. I don't really believe there's a massive police cover up here either, I'm just saying there isn't really an evidence to the contrary. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there were video evidence to back them up. And frankly, assuming there is no cover up, I imagine the police wish the same, it would be highly in their favor assuming civil suits are pursued.

But I'll go out on a limb and say that the thin blue line extends into the prosecutors office and the judicial system. I predict that civil suits will be lost, or dismissed.
I'm sure the thin blue line extends all the way. If nothing else, someone you know is a person, anyone else is easy to dehumanize in some way. Friends make mistakes, others engage in deliberately reckless behavior.

Notice the teacher with the ND in the toilet has taken a plea deal on the criminal charge of illegal discharge of a firearm. I don't recall similar charges being brought against the police chief who shot himself in the leg while teaching a permit class, nor even against the WVC cop who shot Danielle Willard. Unjustified shoot, and charges of manslaughter, but no piling on with illegal discharge so far as I know.

Some years back a good friend kind of got into the circle of the UHP. His stories of their conduct including DUI, infidelity while on the clock, etc was very troubling to say the least. Power corrupts.

And whether it was with the honest, best intentions to protect the public, or out of some kind of "get even" for having someone swing a sword at him, it isn't hard to wonder whether cops (and you and I) might just be quicker to shoot knowing the standard they get held to as opposed to the scrutiny given a private joe.

But that said, it is entirely possible that civil suits fail simply because there is no evidence to support the suit. And I'll admit, I'm a bit biased against the mom because she jumped so quick to claim racial bias. If I ever get shot by cops, nobody will be able to claim racial bias. It offends me when someone else plays the race card with zero evidence to back it up. In this day, it is downright irresponsible to do anything to perpetuate the myth of cops gunning down black men because they are black. Because they are not cops, because they are young, because they pop an attitude and try something stupid, because they are tatted and pierced up and dress like gangsters? Maybe even because some are very dangerous criminals who actually try to hurt or kill cops or others? Sure. White, black, hispanic, polynesian. We all carry guns because we recognize there are violent criminals. I guess maybe a few only carry to protect against wild animals while hiking. But most of us recognize that there are bad men in the world who would harm us or ours. Sometimes it is a decent, but ill man who just isn't thinking right. Doesn't much matter the motivation if we end up crippled or dead. So we own and carry guns. We do so despite also being able to minimize our chances of being victimized by avoiding high risk behavior and high risk associations.

I just think it makes sense to remember that those dangerous, criminal, violent, and crazy men don't cease to exist just because a cop rather than a private joe is in the area. In fact, we kind of expect cops to seek them out and deal with them so we don't have to.

Yup, I'm bothered that one cop involved may have used some excessive force in the past. And I'd love some great evidence proving what they say is true. But innocent until proven guilty means we have accept a lack of evidence demonstrating guilt as sufficient to maintain innocence.

Rough case. If a civil suit wins something I'll concede something dirty happened. If it fails to win anything material (IE, something more than the city settling for less than the cost to defend the thing), I'll take that as one more evidence that there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing.

Charles
 
#68 ·
bagpiper said:
Rough case. If a civil suit wins something I'll concede something dirty happened. If it fails to win anything material (IE, something more than the city settling for less than the cost to defend the thing), I'll take that as one more evidence that there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing.

Charles
I'm not even saying something dirty happened. I am however, saying that if you or I shot a fleeing perp in the back we'd have to answer for it. I don't buy all the arguments in favor of allowing the cops to get away with it. At least not in a case like this. If he had a gun? Sure. If he had a knife, swinging wildly while screaming he'd kill everyone. Sure. Running away with a sword in his hand after being wounded at least once? Not so much. We'll have to agree to disagree. I suspect there will be little to no consequences at this point, and I agree the mother's behavior has most likely influenced the outcome.

Mel

Edited to correct miss wording. I suspect the perp was Feeling the shots already in him, but I meant to say fleeing. That's now fixed.
 
#69 ·
There is video released now, http://fox13now.com/2014/11/06/new-...rrien-hunt-released-family-attorney-responds/

As the family has stated "he was doing nothing wrong". My opinion is that the Cops escalated the situation. (notice the woman walking calmly behind the man, clearly she saw no threat....But now entering the scene is a "Peace Officer"....The plot thickens).
I have seen reports of a witness saying the statement he gave to police was altered. Did not say he saw the sword swung at an officer, But Cops Put It In The Report that he said he did. The Cops Lied!

Looks like the situation was legal and peaceful up till the Cops show up. That tells me, Cops were the catalyst that turned this into a young man, for some reason thinking the best thing to do was to runaway (from a dangerous situation) And they shot him in the back...No way in heck would we ever be justified shooting someone in the back (no magic badge). He was running away from those that did kill him, I wonder what really happened, was he justified in running from his assailants? Was he threatened and felt his life in danger?

There is still more to this that has not been released and it is held onto by the same side of justice that shot him in the back.

Looking at the video it appears that when he is running the sword is in the scabbard...would he really put it back into the scabbard before running or is he only holding the sword....? I do wish there was just raw video to analyze. How about some crime scene photos of the sward after he was shot? Sorry, I do not trust an investigation of one side that has a vested interest in holding to the thin blue line (members of same police union doing the investigation, same people that may also want a pass in case they screw-up sometime..."professional courtesy"...and all that).
 
#70 ·
Car Knocker said:
J_dazzle23 said:
Where the plot gets REALLY thick is when you take into account the reason they said they shot him running away, then remember the multiple court decisions that have determined "protecting" citizens is not part of the responsibility of an LEO...
I believe the court decisions maintain that law enforcement has no duty to protect individual persons but do have a duty to protect the community as a whole.
Iirc, that's South v Maryland. There's a few others too. Woollard is another case.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top