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
#2 ·
Just how dangerous is a guy with a sword, anyway? If he is standing in the middle of the street, whats the need to shoot? If he charged someone, just say so!

Methinks the cops are very quick to shoot. There are far too many questionable shootings these days. Whether that is a paranoia ingrained in society as a whole with all the cop movies over the last 30 years, a tendency trained into them by POST, or a holdover from their military training needs research, I think.
The overuse of NKW and SWAT teams is indicative of police feeling beseiged. But are they?
 
#3 ·
Daeyel said:
Just how dangerous is a guy with a sword, anyway? If he is standing in the middle of the street, whats the need to shoot? If he charged someone, just say so!

Methinks the cops are very quick to shoot. There are far too many questionable shootings these days. Whether that is a paranoia ingrained in society as a whole with all the cop movies over the last 30 years, a tendency trained into them by POST, or a holdover from their military training needs research, I think.
The overuse of NKW and SWAT teams is indicative of police feeling beseiged. But are they?
I agree that cops are pretty trigger happy these days, and there are far too few repercussions when they make a questionable shoot. Seems like they could stand a little outside scrutiny of their actions. But on the other hand, it depends on if the sword was unsheathed, and how it was being handled. If the guy was swinging it like he knew what the **** end of it to hold, and he took a step in my direction. Well, let's say that 20 feet can be covered pretty fast, and add the reach of the sword, and he becomes a menace that much quicker. I'm not saying I would have shot him, but I am saying I wasn't there to judge. But 20 feet is pretty much a hard line for me, if you let someone armed or not get much closer than that, you're asking to grapple. No thanks, it wouldn't go well for me.

Mel
 
#4 ·
I personally would like a lot more information than what us available to us. I would like to know if he was truly In a position to hurt anyone. My gut tells me it maybe could have been handled with a taser or some other less lethal means. If not then I'd really like to know what justified the use of deadly force. If it was justified then great, tell us why. I didn't really get that he was waiving it around at people when I first read it. It sounded as if it was just on his back.

It has come out that he has assaulted his mother in the past though she plays is down probably a lot. In the process punched a couple other people there. She is also trying to play the race card in her grief trying understand why this happened. KSL put it out there and I find it completely tasteless of them.

I don't think he was doing anything illegal but people called it in. I would not have thought it as much more than a little odd. I also would not have though oh my gosh a dangerous weapon in a sword on someone's back. Even if he was a bit unstable I bet if no one had called it in nothing would have ever come of it. Likely the presence of officers escalated something that would have been a non-issue into a deadly encounter. As much as we hate public eyes(video surveillance) I would love to know what something like that would have shown us here.
 
#6 ·
Uinta Firearms said:
I fear the guy with the pen more than I do the guy with the sword.
It kind of depends on how long the pen is, and how it's being handled. I'm no more afraid of edged weapons than I am of rocks. If you had a fist size chunk of granite in your hand and came at me, with every indication you meant to hit me with it, I'd shoot you just as fast as if you had a sword. Which is why I said that it depended on how it was being handled. Childishly or obviously with little clue, then step back and talk him down or try to, If he assumes a proper fencing stance, or runs through a Kata with it, he's not getting within 20 feet of me.

All that said, as this story plays out, it's not sounding like a good shoot. Of course we still aren't getting all the information. And good shoot or not, there's little chance of any repercussions for the officers involved. Here's the link to the latest on the story. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31631222&ni...d-in-saratoga-springs-shooting&s_cid=queue-19

Mel
 
#7 ·
I'll say here what I've said in previous cases (though not necessarily on this forumn):

0-Very little has been released about what happened and so it is a tad premature to speculate too much. That said a few guiding principles if you will.

1-When we are visibly armed we bear an extra burden not to appear to pose a credible risk of violence against police, other innocent persons, nor even ourselves.

2-We can't really expect cops to ignore a visibly armed person who does appear to pose a threat to others or even himself, is acting incoherent or otherwise strangely, or who doesn't obey reasonable commands from an officer. As I've said before, it really isn't a matter of "lawful" vs "unlawful" orders when interacting with a cop on the street. Comply. Verbally, peacefully, and rationally assert your rights, but comply. Or, go limp and offer no resistance. Take it up with a judge later if your rights were violated. But do not exhibit resistance nor violence to a cop and expect it to go well for you on the street. If the cop evidences sufficient threat to your safety that you need to treat him like any other armed threat to life or limb...well, that is probably beyond what ought to be discussed here. But for anything short of a grave threat to your life or limb, suck it up and obey. Insults to pride and honor, to dignity, and violation of rights can be handled in court later.

3-In the absence of some evidence that race played a role, I think it most unhelpful and downright offensive for the family to play the race card. I can empathize with their pain and suffering. But before accusing a cop (or a homeowner, or anyone else) of racially motivated murder (or something nigh unto it), maybe there ought to be a bit of evidence that happened rather than a justifiable case of defense of self or others.

4-As I said in the Danielle Willard case out of West Valley a couple of months into that investigation, the longer it takes the police to begin releasing information on what happened, the more it stinks. I note that nobody got to play the race card in that case and despite any racial differences, the young woman is dead at the hands of a cop or two in what appears to be unjustifiable circumstances. One cop is now on trial for his conduct.

I don't expect all details to be released immediately. But I don't figure it takes months to say, "The suspect rushed officers," or "...refused to comply and was running, sword in hand, toward a crowd of innocent persons..." or something similar. While a man with a sword does pose a risk to anyone he targets, it isn't like he has his finger on the trigger of a tactical nuke or even a full auto rifle and poses such a general danger that he needs to be stopped immediately just because he is seeking higher ground or whatnot. Odds that the guy was a member of ISIS or Al Quida and had to be taken down immediately seem low. So I don't figure it should take very much longer for the police department to tell us at least the reason the officer gave for shooting. Direct threat to officer? Risk to some other specific person? General risk of armed man running away after being told to stop? I certainly hope there was some direct interaction that gave police more cause to shoot than just a guy with a sword who didn't obey their commands immediately and from some distance. I'm reminded that some portion of the population is hard-of-hearing of even deaf and so should not be expected to obey a command shouted from behind. I'd like to start to see some info from a State coroner's examination. How many times shot, at what range, and from the front or back. And so on.

5-And I'd feel a whole lot better if the chief or spokesman would speak in terms of "lack of evidence to support" such and such claim (such as racial bias) rather than telling us such a claim is absolutely false without providing any evidence one way or the other. A guy isn't guilty--in my mind--of racism until there is some evidence of racism. But a complete lack of evidence one way or the other is not quite the same thing as evidence of the lack of racism: IE evidence of some other motivation.

Anyway, with what has been reported about the sword man's troubled past and perhaps somewhat impaired mental or emotional abilities, I can easily imagine this one going either way. It could be a justified shoot. Or, it could be unjustified. But the longer it drags out without data, the harder it will be convince the public it was justified.

As one who does OC from time to time, I have a personal stake in how cops respond to armed citizens.

Charles
 
#8 ·
bagpiper said:
I'll say here what I've said in previous cases (though not necessarily on this forumn):

Anyone, with what has been reported about the sword man's troubled past and perhaps somewhat impaired mental or emotional abilities, I can easily imagine this one going either way. It could be a justified shoot. Or, it could be unjustified. But the longer it drags out without data, the harder it will be convince the public it was justified.

As one who does OC from time to time, I have a personal stake in how cops respond to armed citizens.

Charles
Indeed, and to some extent, because the longer it draws out, the more likely it is that there's truly a problem with the situation. The lack of timely disclosure often indicates that public opinion may indeed be valid, or partially so.

Mel
 
#9 ·
quychang said:
Indeed, and to some extent, because the longer it draws out, the more likely it is that there's truly a problem with the situation. The lack of timely disclosure often indicates that public opinion may indeed be valid, or partially so.
Yup. It just doesn't take very long to tell us that a guy was charging cops or innocent bystanders with a sword, or a woman tried to run down cops with her car.

The longer it takes to release details, the more complicated those details need to be in order to justify the delay in a justified shooting. "Due to an on-going under-cover operation we couldn't release details of how we knew he was dangerous until after we made several other arrests just last week...." might actually be plausible and justified in some very rare case. But, "Young, healthy, able-bodied cop couldn't and wouldn't step out of the way of a car backing out of a parking stall and so decided to open fire on the driver over his ego being bruised because driver didn't obey orders from an under-cover, plainclothes officer..." just doesn't sound very justified when the driver is, seemingly, nothing worse than maybe a low level drug user rather than an escaped, death-row inmate with a nuke in the trunk and three orphans being held hostage in the back seat. (The cop is, of course, entitled to a legal presumption of innocence, a full fair trial, due process, etc.)

I expect cops to do more than yell, "Halt or I'll yell halt again," when trying to apprehend supposed criminals. But deadly force better really be the very last resort and used only when innocent life or limb is in immediate, imminent, grave danger. The cops are supposed to be peace officers, not an occupying military force that views we the people as an enemy to be subdued and conquered. So in the same vein as it being better for "10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly convicted," cops need to realize that in the vast majority of cases, it is far better for 10 criminals to escape than for one innocent man to be shot without full, just cause.

And while I don't support the rioting, looting of innocent businesses, and other lawlessness in Ferguson, I do hope that the scenes give any rambo-wannabee law-enforcement types some cause for reflection on just what could happen if a population were to ever fully turn against the police.

Charles
 
#10 ·
Again, I concur, there is no excuse for rioting and wide spread civil disobedience, even with clear evidence of a bad shoot. Such action is just likely to trigger even more bad shoots, not solve anything.

Mel
 
#11 ·
Well, today's DesNews has an article suggesting maybe this was justified after all.

From the article it appears fairly well substantiated that the encounter started peacefully perhaps even congenially enough, the deceased drew his sword and lunged at officers, and that he then ran away toward a crowded area.

The officers are claiming a need to stop a violent and armed man before he reached the crowded area and harmed others.

While not technically relevant to the decision to use deadly force in the moment, the post shooting investigation has turned up a number of facts about the deceased that would make it easier to believe that he acted in an irrational and even violent manner including use of psychedelic drugs, past violent episodes, and some stalking behavior.

On the flip side, the family's lawyers are claiming this is all just so much after-the-fact attempts to justify, that officers told him to unsheathe his sword, and so on.

Obviously, this is a horrible situation for the family, as well as for any decent cop who would use deadly force only as a last resort.

So despite my pessimistic prior views, this is now looking more like a justified shoot...though reports of one officer previously using excessive force at a high school drinking party still raises some concerns for me.

Charles
 
#12 ·
bagpiper said:
Well, today's DesNews has an article suggesting maybe this was justified after all.

From the article it appears fairly well substantiated that the encounter started peacefully perhaps even congenially enough, the deceased drew his sword and lunged at officers, and that he then ran away toward a crowded area.

The officers are claiming a need to stop a violent and armed man before he reached the crowded area and harmed others.

While not technically relevant to the decision to use deadly force in the moment, the post shooting investigation has turned up a number of facts about the deceased that would make it easier to believe that he acted in an irrational and even violent manner including use of psychedelic drugs, past violent episodes, and some stalking behavior.

On the flip side, the family's lawyers are claiming this is all just so much after-the-fact attempts to justify, that officers told him to unsheathe his sword, and so on.

Obviously, this is a horrible situation for the family, as well as for any decent cop who would use deadly force only as a last resort.

So despite my pessimistic prior views, this is now looking more like a justified shoot...though reports of one officer previously using excessive force at a high school drinking party still raises some concerns for me.

Charles
Charles-

I read this story as well. I have three main concerns with this story.

First, the claim in the affidavit said that when he lunged with the sword toward the officer, the officer first shot in self defense. Correct me if I am wrong.

To me, this is very hard to understand after reading the autopsy report. I didn't see any shots that would have held up this claim.

Second, the officers offered him a ride to orem? Again, fishy. I can't imagine that's a normal activity to offer a suspect.

Third, why was he a suspect? I have not been able to find able clear reason as to why the man was detained. If he was simply carrying a sword and not brandishing or threatening with it, it seems that this would qualify under the same idea that openly carrying a firearm is not RAS for a detainment, as no crime is being committed.

Even in the kid had some screws loose, I find it hard to believe that if he thought he was free to go, he would have had any reaction other than to walk away. (Huge opinion judgement, I know)

At the end of the day, I think the lesson is one we have heard many times before. The police are not there to protect us. They are not there to "help." Sure, some policemen may be willing to do that, but legally that is not their employment contract.

Had the cops not been called....I highly doubt any of us would have ever heard this kid's name.

I do feel that the story points toward validation on the shoot, but I don't think it's anywhere near clear cut, either.
 
#13 ·
J_dazzle23 said:
First, the claim in the affidavit said that when he lunged with the sword toward the officer, the officer first shot in self defense. Correct me if I am wrong.

To me, this is very hard to understand after reading the autopsy report. I didn't see any shots that would have held up this claim.
A miss? Or the shot that went in through the side? I dunno. :dunno:

J_dazzle23 said:
Second, the officers offered him a ride to orem? Again, fishy. I can't imagine that's a normal activity to offer a suspect.
I can easily imagine cops offering a ride in order to get someone who just a little "off" to put down his sword. Now, whether they actually give that ride, or just a ride for psych eval is another question.

J_dazzle23 said:
Third, why was he a suspect? I have not been able to find able clear reason as to why the man was detained. If he was simply carrying a sword and not brandishing or threatening with it, it seems that this would qualify under the same idea that openly carrying a firearm is not RAS for a detainment, as no crime is being committed.
This is the most concerning aspect of the event. While the law doesn't prevent a consensual visit with someone who happens to be armed, when the cops demand you disarm, that is no longer consensual. On the flip side, as I posted back in September, when a cop gives an order, one is advised to obey it and take it up with the judge later.

For those who are vulnerable due to mental illness or drug use, immaturity or whatever else, this means they are at heightened risk with any interaction with the police. And that isn't quite right. The police should not create a situation likely to be escalated.

But for those in their right mind, the course to follow when confronted by police is clear.

It also gives something to think about if you are concerned for the welfare of a loved one who may be suicidal. Way too many times it seems a person who wants suicide by cop is too readily obliged. Of course, if someone poses a risk to others I think there a moral obligation to summon whatever help is needed to end that risk. But if the risk is only to himself, maybe calling in a heavily armed SWAT team (which is what you are likely to get if you call 911 with reports of an armed and suicidal person) isn't the best first choice.

J_dazzle23 said:
Even in the kid had some screws loose, I find it hard to believe that if he thought he was free to go, he would have had any reaction other than to walk away. (Huge opinion judgement, I know)
I think those with screws loose tend to behave in ways that are, you know, irrational. Who lunges at a cop using a sword and then turns to run? It isn't rational. But it sure looks like a credible threat to the cop and then to larger society if it happens.

J_dazzle23 said:
At the end of the day, I think the lesson is one we have heard many times before. The police are not there to protect us. They are not there to "help." Sure, some policemen may be willing to do that, but legally that is not their employment contract.

Had the cops not been called....I highly doubt any of us would have ever heard this kid's name.

I do feel that the story points toward validation on the shoot, but I don't think it's anywhere near clear cut, either.
Sadly, you are probably more right than not about the police. Time and again we hear that their number one concern is going home safe to their families. And can't really blame them for that except when maybe it conflicts with respecting rights.

I think the story points to a valid shoot at the moment it happened. The underlying reason for the initial stop will almost certainly not be addressed as attention likely focuses to a crazy kid with a sword threatening cops and the public.

The lesson here is that if you want to press the issue of an improper detention, odds of success are much higher if you are not dead; doubly so if you avoid getting dead over something criminal, stupid, or irrational that looks like a credible threat to the cops.

Charles
 
#14 ·
bagpiper said:
J_dazzle23 said:
First, the claim in the affidavit said that when he lunged with the sword toward the officer, the officer first shot in self defense. Correct me if I am wrong.

To me, this is very hard to understand after reading the autopsy report. I didn't see any shots that would have held up this claim.
A miss? Or the shot that went in through the side? I dunno. :dunno:

J_dazzle23 said:
Second, the officers offered him a ride to orem? Again, fishy. I can't imagine that's a normal activity to offer a suspect.
I can easily imagine cops offering a ride in order to get someone who just a little "off" to put down his sword. Now, whether they actually give that ride, or just a ride for psych eval is another question.

J_dazzle23 said:
Third, why was he a suspect? I have not been able to find able clear reason as to why the man was detained. If he was simply carrying a sword and not brandishing or threatening with it, it seems that this would qualify under the same idea that openly carrying a firearm is not RAS for a detainment, as no crime is being committed.
This is the most concerning aspect of the event. While the law doesn't prevent a consensual visit with someone who happens to be armed, when the cops demand you disarm, that is no longer consensual. On the flip side, as I posted back in September, when a cop gives an order, one is advised to obey it and take it up with the judge later.

For those who are vulnerable due to mental illness or drug use, immaturity or whatever else, this means they are at heightened risk with any interaction with the police. And that isn't quite right. The police should not create a situation likely to be escalated.

J_dazzle23 said:
Even in the kid had some screws loose, I find it hard to believe that if he thought he was free to go, he would have had any reaction other than to walk away. (Huge opinion judgement, I know)
I think those with screws loose tend to behave in ways that are, you know, irrational. Who lunches at a cop using a sword and then turns to run? It isn't rational. But it sure looks like a credible threat to the cop and then to larger society if it happens.

J_dazzle23 said:
At the end of the day, I think the lesson is one we have heard many times before. The police are not there to protect us. They are not there to "help." Sure, some policemen may be willing to do that, but legally that is not their employment contract.

Had the cops not been called....I highly doubt any of us would have ever heard this kid's name.

I do feel that the story points toward validation on the shoot, but I don't think it's anywhere near clear cut, either.
Sadly, you are probably more right than not about the police. Time and again we hear that their number one concern is going home safe to their families. And can't really blame them for that except when maybe it conflicts with respecting rights.

I think the story points to a valid shoot at the moment it happened. The underlying reason for the initial stop will almost certainly not be addressed as attention likely focuses to a crazy kid with a sword threatening cops and the public.

The lesson here is that if you want to press the issue of an improper detention, odds of success are much higher if you are not dead; doubly so if you avoid getting dead over something criminal, stupid, or irrational that looks like a credible threat to the cops.

Charles
Completely agree with many points.

I would love to see police officers have much more training in conflict descalation and human psychology. I am all for rule of law, and I support those charged with maintaining it, BUT AT WHAT COST?

Just like you said, the rights infringement is perhaps the biggest concern for me here. And like you said, far better to fight it later than get shot.
 
#15 ·
J_dazzle23 said:
bagpiper said:
J_dazzle23 said:
First, the claim in the affidavit said that when he lunged with the sword toward the officer, the officer first shot in self defense. Correct me if I am wrong.

To me, this is very hard to understand after reading the autopsy report. I didn't see any shots that would have held up this claim.
A miss? Or the shot that went in through the side? I dunno. :dunno:

J_dazzle23 said:
Second, the officers offered him a ride to orem? Again, fishy. I can't imagine that's a normal activity to offer a suspect.
I can easily imagine cops offering a ride in order to get someone who just a little "off" to put down his sword. Now, whether they actually give that ride, or just a ride for psych eval is another question.

J_dazzle23 said:
Third, why was he a suspect? I have not been able to find able clear reason as to why the man was detained. If he was simply carrying a sword and not brandishing or threatening with it, it seems that this would qualify under the same idea that openly carrying a firearm is not RAS for a detainment, as no crime is being committed.
This is the most concerning aspect of the event. While the law doesn't prevent a consensual visit with someone who happens to be armed, when the cops demand you disarm, that is no longer consensual. On the flip side, as I posted back in September, when a cop gives an order, one is advised to obey it and take it up with the judge later.

For those who are vulnerable due to mental illness or drug use, immaturity or whatever else, this means they are at heightened risk with any interaction with the police. And that isn't quite right. The police should not create a situation likely to be escalated.

J_dazzle23 said:
Even in the kid had some screws loose, I find it hard to believe that if he thought he was free to go, he would have had any reaction other than to walk away. (Huge opinion judgement, I know)
I think those with screws loose tend to behave in ways that are, you know, irrational. Who lunches at a cop using a sword and then turns to run? It isn't rational. But it sure looks like a credible threat to the cop and then to larger society if it happens.

J_dazzle23 said:
At the end of the day, I think the lesson is one we have heard many times before. The police are not there to protect us. They are not there to "help." Sure, some policemen may be willing to do that, but legally that is not their employment contract.

Had the cops not been called....I highly doubt any of us would have ever heard this kid's name.

I do feel that the story points toward validation on the shoot, but I don't think it's anywhere near clear cut, either.
Sadly, you are probably more right than not about the police. Time and again we hear that their number one concern is going home safe to their families. And can't really blame them for that except when maybe it conflicts with respecting rights.

I think the story points to a valid shoot at the moment it happened. The underlying reason for the initial stop will almost certainly not be addressed as attention likely focuses to a crazy kid with a sword threatening cops and the public.

The lesson here is that if you want to press the issue of an improper detention, odds of success are much higher if you are not dead; doubly so if you avoid getting dead over something criminal, stupid, or irrational that looks like a credible threat to the cops.

Charles
Completely agree with many points.

I would love to see police officers have much more training in conflict descalation and human psychology. I am all for rule of law, and I support those charged with maintaining it, BUT AT WHAT COST?

Just like you said, the rights infringement is perhaps the biggest concern for me here. And like you said, far better to fight it later than get shot.
Certainly, makes it easier to state your own case if one is alive
 
#16 ·
I recall in the early stories by the media, there was a 911 call reporting a person with a sword who was acting odd. Generally, a call like that tends to have somebody sent out to investigate at the very least. From what I have read on this event, it seems like things were rather low key and restrained, then with no warning there was a very fast change. I admit that I am just an auto mechanic so in many peoples eyes I can't possibly be very smart( I kinda agree there since it is not a very good way to make a living the way things are these days) but, there didn't seem to be very much time for the officers to think and discuss how to react to the threats.

I can't help but wonder, if it is unreasonable to have somebody report a man armed and acting strange and a police officer stop and ask the man to put down the weapon, what is? If I am stopped and an officer wants to ask me some questions, I am perfectly willing to keep my hands away from any weapons I may have on me. I view that as simple courtesy since I would not be very comfortable talking to a total stranger with a weapon in his hand( not using man or his in a sex, but as a human).
 
#17 ·
(I thought there was a thread on this but could not find it with a search)

State autopsy: Police shot Darrien Hunt 6 times from behind; no drugs in system
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/86...t-6-times-from-behind-no-drugs-in-system.html

...One of the biggest questions for the family has been how the situation went from that scenario to Hunt running and being shot moments later.

After allegedly lunging at the officers with his sword, three shots were fired, according to the autopsy report.

Hunt ran about 200 yards toward a nearby Panda Express restaurant. A fourth shot was fired on the east side of the restaurant. Hunt then ran to the north side of the restaurant where police fired three more times, bringing the total number of shots to seven, the report states.

Hunt collapsed on the northwest corner of the Panda Express.

Of the seven shots fired, six of them struck Hunt. He suffered three "perforating wounds," or bullets that had both an entry and an exit point, and three "penetrating wounds," or wounds where the bullet was still lodged in his body.

The medical examiner recovered bullets from Hunt's right upper lung, left elbow and left hip. Those three shots - in no particular order - entered Hunt in his right back, the back of his left upper arm and his back left hip, according to the autopsy....
Shot him in the back.
 
#19 ·
Shooting in the back isn't always bad. It may seem that way since it could mean the person was running away, or not posing a threat to the shooter. But let me put a little scenario out there. I'm not saying that this is what happened in the above situation.

A person is threatening a LEO with a weapon. That person has multiple LEOs around him. If the other LEOs see that the person with the weapon makes a move to cause serious bodily injury or death to the first LEO , the other LEOs are lawfully allowed to fire upon the person. It's very possible that they would hit him in the back or side if the person was not facing them.

Again, I'm not saying that this is what happened in the situation above, but shooting someone in the back can be justified if you are defending a third party.

Sent from iSnurd
 
#20 ·
Snurd said:
...shooting someone in the back can be justified if you are defending a third party.

Sent from iSnurd
Heck, I can think of plausible scenarios where it would be easy to legitimately shoot someone in the back while defending yourself. Fortunately there's no Utah law defining in what part of the body it's acceptable to shoot someone.
 
#21 ·
RustyShackleford said:
Shot him in the back.
Yup. But that is not really relevant unless the shooter claims he was shooing in self-defense.

And even there, let us remember how quickly things can happen. I'd never want the difference between spending a long time in jail and walking away a free man after defending myself from a violent criminal to be how fast a criminal turned as I squeezed off a couple of rounds.

Admittedly, there were 6 or so rounds in this case.

But let a bad guy get between me and my children's bedroom and then move toward their bedroom and I can assure you, I won't be counting or limiting how many rounds I put into him. I will do whatever it takes to end that threat to my family. I trust nobody here will disagree in the least.

This isn't the movies' bad depiction of the old West. We're not talking about "fair" fights on main street at high noon. With all due respect, to suggest that shots entering the side or back of a suspect is automatically an indication of a bad shoot is as ill-informed as those in the general public who think cops should shoot guns out of bad guys' hands, or shoot them in the leg, or otherwise just "wing" them rather than ending the threat.

The officers, apparently, are claiming they believed sword dude posed an immediate, imminent, and credible threat to innocent persons as he ran away from officers and toward a crowded parking lot. This, after he, without provocation unsheathed his sword and lunged at one officer with it.

Now, I'm not saying this is what actually happened. I wasn't there. And I've previously expressed concerns about this incident. But on its face, what is described--and at least partially corroborated by at least one independent witness, it seems--sounds like a legitimate use of deadly force in defense of innocent third parties.

As I've suggested before, I think we need to be careful not to hold cops to a different standard than we would want ourselves held to. If one of us ever has to shoot a bad guy in the side or back in order to end a threat against our children, or if a bad guy spins and takes a couple of rounds in the back as we defend ourselves, or if it takes 8 rather than 2 shots to end a threat, or if a dangerous bad guy turns out to be "not armed", or whatever other irrelevant details might be highlighted by gun haters to make a legit use of deadly force appear to be less legit, we will not want that to influence our legal outcome. We need to have the intellectual honesty to make sure such irrelevant details are not used against police officers.

I think the most material and important issue is whether the initial stop and request/demand to surrender the sheathed sword was legal, necessary, or appropriate.

Of course, even if the stop was technically illegal, assuming it was handled peacefully and civilly, it would not justify someone going off off-cocked and threatening an officer or others with a sword....assuming that is what happened.

Charles
 
#22 ·
bagpiper said:
RustyShackleford said:
Shot him in the back.
Yup. But that is not really relevant unless the shooter claims he was shooing in self-defense.

And even there, let us remember how quickly things can happen. I'd never want the difference between spending a long time in jail and walking away a free man after defending myself from a violent criminal to be how fast a criminal turned as I squeezed off a couple of rounds.

Admittedly, there were 6 or so rounds in this case.

But let a bad guy get between me and my children's bedroom and then move toward their bedroom and I can assure you, I won't be counting or limiting how many rounds I put into him. I will do whatever it takes to end that threat to my family. I trust nobody here will disagree in the least.

This isn't the movies' bad depiction of the old West. We're not talking about "fair" fights on main street at high noon. With all due respect, to suggest that shots entering the side or back of a suspect is automatically an indication of a bad shoot is as ill-informed as those in the general public who think cops should shoot guns out of bad guys' hands, or shoot them in the leg, or otherwise just "wing" them rather than ending the threat.

The officers, apparently, are claiming they believed sword dude posed an immediate, imminent, and credible threat to innocent persons as he ran away from officers and toward a crowded parking lot. This, after he, without provocation unsheathed his sword and lunged at one officer with it.

Now, I'm not saying this is what actually happened. I wasn't there. And I've previously expressed concerns about this incident. But on its face, what is described--and at least partially corroborated by at least one independent witness, it seems--sounds like a legitimate use of deadly force in defense of innocent third parties.

As I've suggested before, I think we need to be careful not to hold cops to a different standard than we would want ourselves held to. If one of us ever has to shoot a bad guy in the side or back in order to end a threat against our children, or if a bad guy spins and takes a couple of rounds in the back as we defend ourselves, or if it takes 8 rather than 2 shots to end a threat, or if a dangerous bad guy turns out to be "not armed", or whatever other irrelevant details might be highlighted by gun haters to make a legit use of deadly force appear to be less legit, we will not want that to influence our legal outcome. We need to have the intellectual honesty to make sure such irrelevant details are not used against police officers.

I think the most material and important issue is whether the initial stop and request/demand to surrender the sheathed sword was legal, necessary, or appropriate.

Of course, even if the stop was technically illegal, assuming it was handled peacefully and civilly, it would not justify someone going off off-cocked and threatening an officer or others with a sword....assuming that is what happened.

Charles
Unfortunately some nitwit call the cops in the first place or this would probably have been a non-issue to begin with. So the cops had to respond. I think we can assume he was acting a little weird just be cause he was carrying a sword (Weird does not have to mean dangerous). I doubt he did anything that would be considered illegal until after the encounter with the cops began.

Not all people are capable of acting in a calm rational manner around cops especially when they feel they are being treated unjustly. Just look at the lady at UVU who was confronted about vandalizing the sign. She obviously didn't think her actions warranted the response she got or that she could be taken into custody for it. In this case I think the the cops may have escalated something rather than trying to deescalate it. Taking someone into custody just so you and those who called FEEL SAFE is not deescalation.

Beyond that who knows maybe he flipped out and pulled his sword or maybe he just tried to leave either way I think the who think could have been avoided with a little bit of patience.
 
#23 ·
D-FIN said:
Unfortunately some nitwit call the cops in the first place or this would probably have been a non-issue to begin with. So the cops had to respond. I think we can assume he was acting a little weird just be cause he was carrying a sword (Weird does not have to mean dangerous). I doubt he did anything that would be considered illegal until after the encounter with the cops began.

Not all people are capable of acting in a calm rational manner around cops especially when they feel they are being treated unjustly. Just look at the lady at UVU who was confronted about vandalizing the sign. She obviously didn't think her actions warranted the response she got or that she could be taken into custody for it. In this case I think the the cops may have escalated something rather than trying to deescalate it. Taking someone into custody just so you and those who called FEEL SAFE is not deescalation.

Beyond that who knows maybe he flipped out and pulled his sword or maybe he just tried to leave either way I think the who think could have been avoided with a little bit of patience.
There is a lot of stuff that isn't illegal that probably warrants a little checking out.

There is nothing illegal about Joe random parking in his car on the public street directly in front of my house for hours on end. And there is nothing illegal about me, my neighbors, or our agents the police, investigating a bit to determine what is going on. Ditto if some guy parks in a windowless panel van next to a grade school playground. And such investigation doesn't give the subject any right to engage in violence against us.

There comes a time when grand theory gives way to reality.

Maybe sword dude wasn't doing anything the least bit dangerous or concerning. Maybe whomever called 911 was just a racist, sword hating bigot with deep paranoia issues. Or maybe, something about the overall comportment of the fellow carrying the sword on his back was sufficient to give any reasonable man some cause for concern.

Maybe the cops initiated contact without any good reason at all. Maybe they should have just stood back and observed for a while and decided there was no reason for contact. Or maybe they observed something in over all comportment that gave them legitimate cause for concern regarding either the public safety, or even the welfare of the young man.

It is entirely possible that their request/order for the young man to surrender his sword was not legally sustainable.

It is possible that had the police never made contact this obviously troubled young man would have gone about his day and gone home and nothing would have happened. It is also possible that he would have eventually shown up, sword in hand, at the home of the young woman he was apparently stalking online, or lashed out at whomever declined to hire him, or who knows what.

I don't know. And the bad that might have happened maybe isn't reason to shoot him.

But, something you wrote highlights a very important concept. You wrote:

D-FIN said:
Not all people are capable of acting in a calm rational manner around cops especially when they feel they are being treated unjustly.
Such people then have no business carrying deadly weapons around in public, and maybe not even owning them at all.

With rights come responsibilities. And when we talk of the right to own and carry deadly weapons, the responsibilities are most grave (no pun intended).

Life is full of seeming injustices. These come daily to most of us and from a variety of sources including family, co-workers, bosses, rush hour traffic, and yes, sometimes "the man" in the form of a cop with a badge and gun. The vast majority of us learn as children to deal with these injustices without hitting or otherwise lashing out. A few don't and end up in prison, mental hospitals, on the streets, dead, or otherwise in less than ideal circumstances.

I'm no cheerleader for the cops. I still think the Danielle Willard case in WVC, and the Ogden "knock and announce" then bust down the door case involving a few pot plants stick to high heaven.

And I'm downright radical when it comes to defending rights. How many times have I said, "Any man allowed to walk the streets unsupervised is entitled to exercise all of his rights including RKBA"?

But if someone is "Incapable" of (or simply chooses not to) acting calmly when confronted by life's multitude of injustices, he really ought to think twice about having a deadly weapon close at hand. Because while I'll defend his legal rights up to the point he is jailed or committed, I will also demand his responsibility.

We don't get to lunge at cops with swords just because they tell us to lay the sword down. We don't get to attack store owners or bosses just because they tell us to leave our sword outside, or fire us for violating company sword policy.

Maybe the cops made a small mistake somewhere in the long chain of events that lead to a young man getting killed. Maybe.

But it is looking quite indisputable that the fellow with the sword made at least a couple of really big mistakes and quite possibly, walking around with a deadly weapon when he was incapable of maintaining civilized conduct when life wasn't exactly what he wanted might have been a big one. Not as big as taking a swing at a cop with the sword. But pretty big.

Charles
 
#24 ·
You know Charles, for once I can't argue a single point that you've made. I would however like to submit that this case could and probably should have been handled by taser or pepper spray. I know that's second guessing the situation based on hindsight and I know that the community outrage would have been similar, but at least they young man would be alive to learn from his mistake.

No argument, he made multiple mistakes. He paid the final price for them. I believe it was excessive. And deep in my heart, while not wanting it to be true, I believe that it would have been handled differently if the suspect had been white. It's a sad commentary, but it's pretty hard to not see that minorities are often handled differently than Caucasians. Just as black on black crime gets little reporting, and even black on white doesn't get the same press as white on black. The race card is always there, and it will pretty much always be played. I think that fact alone warrants an attempt at a non lethal option being tried.

Mel
 
#25 ·
I can see both sides of this, and in reality, I think a few lessons are learned.
1- if you think it's time to call the cops, you better make dang sure that it deserves their attention, and that you understand what the consequences of the police showing up are.

2- too many people think odd, or even somewhat unusual behavior is criminal in nature. The two are not the same. It's unusual for me to park a white windowless van by a kid's park, and it's also unusual for me to open carry a glock, but not both of those scream of lawlessness. And the people around you that may call the police are typically not going to be lawyers or psychologists that know (or care to know) the difference between the two.

I think that highlights what Charles said, that with exercising our rights comes responsibility
 
#26 ·
quychang said:
You know Charles, for once I can't argue a single point that you've made. I would however like to submit that this case could and probably should have been handled by taser or pepper spray. I know that's second guessing the situation based on hindsight and I know that the community outrage would have been similar, but at least they young man would be alive to learn from his mistake.

No argument, he made multiple mistakes. He paid the final price for them. I believe it was excessive. And deep in my heart, while not wanting it to be true, I believe that it would have been handled differently if the suspect had been white. It's a sad commentary, but it's pretty hard to not see that minorities are often handled differently than Caucasians. Just as black on black crime gets little reporting, and even black on white doesn't get the same press as white on black. The race card is always there, and it will pretty much always be played. I think that fact alone warrants an attempt at a non lethal option being tried.
Obviously, I'll never complain if non-lethal force will end a situation without loss of life. That said, I won't expect an officer or anyone else to use less than the most effective means possible to end a threat to his life when a man with a knife (or sword or other deadly weapon) is threatening him, especially inside that dangerous 21 foot Tueller range. Once the guy turns and starts to run, we private citizens no longer have just cause to use any force at all in most cases, but cops may still have some responsibility to protect the general public and I'm not sure how you tase or pepper spray someone running away and toward a crowded public place.

Consider on how the public would react if the cops had let the kid keep running and he had run into a crowd and started madly swinging his sword, seriously injuring, maiming, or even killing some number of people. I'm reminded of what has been said recently about the Secret Service not using more (ie deadly) force to prevent that guy who jumped the fence from making it inside the White House.

As for the kid being treated differently by the cops (and maybe whomever called 911 in the first place) because he was black: Probably. But maybe not in the way some think.

Whomever called 911 may have been a little quicker with the phone because he saw a black kid with a sword rather than a white, asian, or Jewish kid. But the cops? Remember the post here a bit ago with the study that said cops actually hesitated more when faced with a black suspect than a white suspect? Why might that be?

Well, if you've read and believe any of what Fred Reed has written on the subject over the years, it might be because cops know the political risks of shooting a black man. Especially if the cop is white. The linked article regarding the police shooting and subsequent riots in Fergeson is only his latest to use the following language but it is hard to dispute:

Fred Reed said:
Reflect: Every white cop short of the orbit of Neptune knows that if he shoots a black, he faces dismemberment in the media, loss of job and pension, probable criminal charges locally by a publicity-seeking prosecutor, a well-funded civil suit that he can't afford filed by surviving family members, and trumped-up federal civil-rights charges from an attorney general who doesn't like whites.

All this because he wants to shoot a black kid for jaywalking [or minding his own business while having a toy sword on his back]?
I'll grant that cops may not come from the same intellectual basket as rocket scientists, brain surgeons, and theoretical mathematicians. But I suspect they figure out pretty quickly how real life politics work in matters such as race relations, prosecutions, etc. Even in Utah, charges of racial profiling do not enhance police careers.

So knowing how race factors into the aftermath of even the most justified and necessary shooting if the bad guy happens to be black, it is easy to understand how a cop might subconsciously hesitate, ever so slightly, longer before using deadly force against a black suspect that a white suspect.

Of course, the study was small and showed some averages. And maybe the cop(s) is this case acted from racial biases either deliberately or otherwise that caused them to reach for guns faster. But I have to ask how long any of us would hesitate to clear leather if a guy swung a sword at us.

So I don't think any racial bias materially affected the use of deadly force. Might it have affected decisions about calling 911, and about whether a personal interaction was warranted, and exactly how that interaction was handled? Sure. But so could the choice of clothing, hair style, tats and piercings, age, etc. I mean, do we really think 40 or 50 year old black men in suits get treated worse than 18 year old whites sporting tats and visible bore holes and dressed like gangsters?

I've reached the point where I'd much rather see a middle aged and older man (regardless of race) professionally dressed walking behind me on a dark sidewalk than white teenager dressed like a street thug. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but I don't remember the last time a professionally dressed, middle age or older black or hispanic man engaged in violent criminal conduct. White adolescent and 20-something males, OTOH, do so quite a bit and dressing like a member of a street gang raises the odds that one is, actually a member of a street gang. A couple of 12 year olds in Boy Scout uniforms may not be angels, but are also a little less likely to mug me, it seems. I'm now way more ageist than I ever was racist. (But I have never been inclined to racism, either.)

So while the race card will, sadly, always get played, I don't think it affects cops near as much as socio-economic status, age, gender, and a general view of "cops vs non-cops".

Charles
 
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