Interesting thought...

Discuss issues regarding open carry.

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby MrReverse » Wed 29 Oct 2014 9:30 pm

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).
MrReverse
Novice
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue 09 Sep 2014 12:38 pm
Location: Ogden Ut

Police shot Darrien Hunt 6 times from behind; no drugs in sy

Postby RustyShackleford » Thu 30 Oct 2014 6:04 am

(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/865614126/State-autopsy-Police-shot-Darrien-Hunt-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.
If you consider yourself an American, and are not yet on a government watchlist...You're Not Trying.
User avatar
RustyShackleford
Sniper
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009 8:55 am
Location: St. George UT

Re: Police shot Darrien Hunt 6 times from behind; no drugs i

Postby Snurd » Thu 30 Oct 2014 6:21 am

This thread?

viewtopic.php?t=19694


Sent from iSnurd
Snurd
Posse
 
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2008 10:24 am
Location: SLC

Interesting thought...

Postby Snurd » Thu 30 Oct 2014 6:33 am

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
Last edited by Snurd on Thu 30 Oct 2014 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Snurd
Posse
 
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2008 10:24 am
Location: SLC

Re: Police shot Darrien Hunt 6 times from behind; no drugs i

Postby Car Knocker » Thu 30 Oct 2014 7:08 am

Snurd wrote:...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.
Don

-->insert witty and/or inspirational message here<--
User avatar
Car Knocker
Posse
 
Posts: 4563
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004 3:41 pm
Location: Longmont, CO

Re: Police shot Darrien Hunt 6 times from behind; no drugs i

Postby bagpiper » Thu 30 Oct 2014 9:14 am

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

Re: Police shot Darrien Hunt 6 times from behind; no drugs i

Postby D-FIN » Thu 30 Oct 2014 12:25 pm

bagpiper wrote:
RustyShackleford wrote:
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.
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: Police shot Darrien Hunt 6 times from behind; no drugs i

Postby bagpiper » Thu 30 Oct 2014 1:02 pm

D-FIN wrote: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 wrote: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
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Thu 30 Oct 2014 2:15 pm

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
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 J_dazzle23 » Thu 30 Oct 2014 3:25 pm

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Thu 30 Oct 2014 5:16 pm

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Thu 30 Oct 2014 6:47 pm

bagpiper wrote: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


Your final sentence is pretty telling. The young man in question probably had all the cards stacked against him. Perhaps not socio-economic status as I don't really know the neighborhoods out there, but certainly all the others. Let's not forget that our cops have been pretty taser happy in lots of totally inappropriate situations. I'm thinking of the young man who was tasered in front of his pregnant wife, and the son of the KSL bigwig who died from it, sorry I don't have the inclination to research names at the moment, but that's two examples that come to mind immediately. In this case it certainly would have been justified, and perhaps had they actually had the insights you mention they might have thought to use it.

I'm not arguing. I would have cleared leather too. But I don't carry a range of options either. Nor have I supposedly been trained in how to handle situations and what degree of force is sufficient for the situation. I'm just saying, they had options, and they immediately went for the lethal one. I'm not convinced that would be the case if not for the racial implication.

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 » Thu 30 Oct 2014 8:32 pm

quychang wrote:Your final sentence is pretty telling. The young man in question probably had all the cards stacked against him. Perhaps not socio-economic status as I don't really know the neighborhoods out there, but certainly all the others. Let's not forget that our cops have been pretty taser happy in lots of totally inappropriate situations. I'm thinking of the young man who was tasered in front of his pregnant wife, and the son of the KSL bigwig who died from it, sorry I don't have the inclination to research names at the moment, but that's two examples that come to mind immediately. In this case it certainly would have been justified, and perhaps had they actually had the insights you mention they might have thought to use it.

I'm not arguing. I would have cleared leather too. But I don't carry a range of options either. Nor have I supposedly been trained in how to handle situations and what degree of force is sufficient for the situation. I'm just saying, they had options, and they immediately went for the lethal one. I'm not convinced that would be the case if not for the racial implication.


As I argued, I don't think the racial implications had anything to do with the decision to use deadly force. Any credible threat of deadly force is properly met with deadly force. Tasers and pepperspray are for non-lethal threats. And as my favorite on-line columnist observed, every white cop knows shooting a black man is going to raise a lot more grief than shooting a white guy under otherwise identical circumstances. I could accept that racial bias played a role in a lot of decisions leading up to the deadly encounter including whomever called 911 and the cops' decision to make contact rather than stand back and observe. I say "could accept" because it is entirely possible that there was something in the young man's conduct that made a call for police and their contact with him entirely appropriate.

In fact, if we were to discount any claims that they provoked him into acting out, one might suggest that the sudden and unprovoked shift from peaceful conversation to lunatic swinging a sword at innocent people is pretty good evidence that the 911 caller and cops were entirely justified in their concerns.

Now consider on that for a moment. We have how many dozen police encounters recorded on this site? Some were positive, some were fairly negative. How many resulted in one of our members getting shot or tased? It seems clear that how a person responds to police most often has significant influence in how the police encounter ultimately ends.

Of course, we should expect cops to respect our rights and obey the law and be civil and professional. But I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that in the absence of reasonable man belief of imminent and immediate risk to life or limb, we are not justified in resorted to threats nor use of deadly force against a police officer even for fairly serious violations of rights or law, and most definitely not for minor inconveniences nor indignities. If I reasonably believe I'm facing death, serious injury, or sexual assault, then deadly force may be justified and required. But short of that? That is why we have judges and court rooms.

The truth is probably more nuanced than either extreme. I doubt the cops outright provoked him. And odds are fair that they were not pure as the driven snow in respecting his rights or perhaps even diffusing a situation with a mentally unstable, armed man. But considering the extreme gives some insights.

It was Duane Cardall's son who was tasered on the highway outside of Hurricane after he had some kind of schizophrenic or bi-polar break and his own wife locked him out of the car over fears for her and their child's safety. He was naked and running into traffic on the highway. I'm not sure a nightstick or other physical restraining techniques would have been any less dangerous than a taser typically is. His death was a rare complication, made more likely by his medical condition. I don't recall the case of the husband.

But in general, I will quickly agree that it seems cops have become too quick to reach for the electronic compliance wand rather than using less violent, verbal techniques. And my disgust with the overuse of dynamic entry should be well known here. Ditto what looks like heat of the moment, damaged ego murder of Daniele Willard in WVC.

That all said, I'm not sure that overuse of what is taught to be a non-lethal, generally non-dangerous compliance tool (they taser each other during training, they never actually shoot each other on purpose or beat each other with night clubs) translates, generally into overuse or too quick of use of the deadly force of a firearm.

There can be no doubt that there is a general loss of respect for authority in our society as your school teacher wife can surely attest. So maybe the compliance cops used to get by virtue of the uniform they now have to get through verbal intimidation; what they used to get verbally they have to get with a taser, and what used to be possible with non-lethal means now requires deadly force to survive. Maybe cops have brought this change on themselves with their change from peace officer to LEO type. But I don't know that teachers have done anything to deserve their loss of respect. So maybe the problem is a general loss of respect for authority--I might go so far as to note a loss of reverence in society but I'd hate to drag us off topic with a potential religious reference :D -- across the board and cops have had to change their approach just to survive.

Or maybe I'm just really uncomfortable with the thought of any significant number of cops who are so anxious to kill someone as to use deadly force except as a last resort.

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

Re: Police shot Darrien Hunt 6 times from behind; no drugs i

Postby D-FIN » Thu 30 Oct 2014 9:33 pm

bagpiper wrote:
D-FIN wrote: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).

Charles


Except to him it probably didn't seem as a deadly weapon as much as an elaborate decorative replica. I highly doubt he was carrying around the sword for protection and had the mindset or had studied scenarios in which he may have had opportunity to think about how he should respond if stopped by police.

If we start saying weird people can't have fake swords that's not much better than others saying we can't have guns because they think we are strange for wanting them.
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 quychang » Fri 31 Oct 2014 7:42 am

bagpiper wrote:There can be no doubt that there is a general loss of respect for authority in our society as your school teacher wife can surely attest. So maybe the compliance cops used to get by virtue of the uniform they now have to get through verbal intimidation; what they used to get verbally they have to get with a taser, and what used to be possible with non-lethal means now requires deadly force to survive. Maybe cops have brought this change on themselves with their change from peace officer to LEO type. But I don't know that teachers have done anything to deserve their loss of respect. So maybe the problem is a general loss of respect for authority--I might go so far as to note a loss of reverence in society but I'd hate to drag us off topic with a potential religious reference :D -- across the board and cops have had to change their approach just to survive.

Or maybe I'm just really uncomfortable with the thought of any significant number of cops who are so anxious to kill someone as to use deadly force except as a last resort.

Charles


I view it as an across the board change in LEO attitude of respect for the common man and our property. I see it in much the same light as killing a family dog for barking at them when they enter it's territory. I don't think it's a survival mechanism so much as a mind set and the over militarization of our police departments has simply added to the issue. I'll agree there's a loss of respect for authority, and even a loss of respect for their peers. We used to joke and occasionally use an epithet towards a good friend, but you definitely had to know your audience, and know that they knew you were kidding or you were looking for a bloody nose. Now days the language kids use among themselves and aim at complete strangers definitely shows a lack of respect. I'll pass on the chance to side track us into reverence, but you might be surprised that while I mean it in a totally different context than you do, I find the same thing evidenced by what I've viewed in nature. Remote sites trashed and or vandalized out of a total lack of respect for nature and for the future users of said resources.

I don't think there are as many cops who are anxious to kill someone as there are a large number of them that are perfectly willing to do so. I suppose it's a minor distinction, but if we as ccw holders had the same get out of jail free card that a badge bestows, I suspect there would be a greater number of defensive shootings than there currently are. Cops are being given extra training in recognizing dog behavior and whether or not there's a need to defend themselves, it's a shame that they aren't required to take additional training on the subject when they kill a human being.

In short, I don't have the faith you seem to have concerning cops racial bias. I believe you might have a point in places like Detroit, or much of the south, where there is a larger population of African Americans. Those cops might be getting extra training, and might be aware of the race card in their interactions. I don't have the same faith in Utah cops that have proven time and again that they have no respect for our property by executing no knock warrants, killing our pets, tazing when inappropriate, shooting someone backing a car out of a parking space rather than stepping out of the way, and now shooting a kid with a toy sword, at least several of the shots being in the back.

By the way, when did it become the norm for a supposedly highly trained officer to need more than two rounds plus extra rounds from other officers to bring down a single perpetrator at that distance? As little as I practice, I suspect that a double or triple tap would suffice.

So, not only was the cop being threatened trigger happy, and inept with his gun, he had a group of fellow officers prepared to join in the target shooting exercise. It almost reminds me of an old racially non PC joke about a black man in the south being dredged from the river the body wrapped in chain, and the sheriffs pronouncement that it was obvious that the individual was stupid and stole more chain than he could swim with.

Sure, you could be right, and yes I'm second guessing, but the shoot stinks to high heaven in my mind and I know if I were a family member of the deceased I'd feel even more strongly. And it appears that once again, it really doesn't matter that people think, or whether it was in fact a good shoot or a bad one, it's going to be swept under the rug, and nothing is going to change as a result of the shooting. I'm sorry, but if we continue to allow the police departments to review their own cases and make their own determination, the cops will always have their get out of jail free card. And in Utah at least, it appears that it trumps not only human rights and civil liberties, it also trumps the race card.

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

PreviousNext

Return to Open Carry

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest