Interesting thought...

Discuss issues regarding open carry.

Interesting thought...

Postby J_dazzle23 » Fri 12 Sep 2014 9:28 pm

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
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby Daeyel » Sat 13 Sep 2014 12:20 am

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?
Only one individual can be 100% relied upon to be in your presence at all times and in all places to defend you and your family.
Act accordingly.
Daeyel
Sniper
 
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue 20 Oct 2009 1:00 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Sat 13 Sep 2014 2:16 am

Daeyel wrote: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 [auto-filtered] 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
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby D-FIN » Sat 13 Sep 2014 11:07 am

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.
You can't win the sheep over to your side if your always showing them your fangs.

NRA RSO
D-FIN
Sniper
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat 29 Dec 2012 8:39 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby Uinta Firearms » Sun 14 Sep 2014 5:43 pm

I fear the guy with the pen more than I do the guy with the sword.
Uinta Firearms
Marksman
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Highland Park, IL

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Sat 20 Sep 2014 7:53 pm

Uinta Firearms wrote: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&nid=148&title=police-release-names-of-officers-involved-in-saratoga-springs-shooting&s_cid=queue-19

Mel
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Sat 20 Sep 2014 9:19 pm

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
Last edited by bagpiper on Tue 23 Sep 2014 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Sun 21 Sep 2014 6:22 am

bagpiper wrote: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
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Tue 23 Sep 2014 3:25 am

quychang wrote:
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
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Tue 23 Sep 2014 6:29 am

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
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Wed 29 Oct 2014 5:59 pm

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
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby J_dazzle23 » Wed 29 Oct 2014 6:13 pm

bagpiper wrote: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.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Wed 29 Oct 2014 6:24 pm

J_dazzle23 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby J_dazzle23 » Wed 29 Oct 2014 6:30 pm

bagpiper wrote:
J_dazzle23 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby JoeSparky » Wed 29 Oct 2014 9:11 pm

J_dazzle23 wrote:
bagpiper wrote:
J_dazzle23 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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
JoeSparky
GOA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NAGR Member
UCC
OCDO

Remember IANAL
Praying that OUR Country can be returned to it's greatness and to it's CONSTITUTION!
JoeSparky
Sniper
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008 2:34 am
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah

Next

Return to Open Carry

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests