Interesting thought...

Discuss issues regarding open carry.

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

Postby bagpiper » Fri 31 Oct 2014 8:33 am

D-FIN wrote: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.


Whatever he thought it was when he put it on, when he swung it at another person, it became a deadly weapon in any reasonable man test. How often does someone use an elaborate decorative item as an aggressive weapon of assault?

And note, I never said weird people can't have fake swords or even guns. I specially said, I will defend the right to own and carry a gun right up to the point there is a conviction or commitment. And I've repeatedly said that once a person is deemed law abiding or mentally healthy enough to walk the streets unsupervised I will expect all of their rights to be legally respected including the right to own and carry a firearm.

What i said, is that if someone is unable to conduct himself calmly, rationally, peacefully, and lawfully even in the face of life's multitude of minor and modest injustices (real or perceived), then that person has no business carrying or perhaps even owning a weapon. I'll respect his legal right to do so. But if he misuses it and gives another man reasonable man cause to use deadly force against him, I won't excuse the misuse of the weapon (real or replica) based on some mental health issue, temper, bad day, etc. You pick and carry a weapon, you accept the full responsibility not to misuse it.

A couple of times in my life, close associates have asked me to hold firearms for them because they had a situation at home where they felt the presence of a gun wasn't advised. When the situation resolved, they retrieved their firearms. No law involved. No loss of rights. No one telling them they "can't" own a gun. But a prudent exercise of personal responsibility to avoid a bad situation before it ever develops. This is what responsible adults do.

Those who not responsible tend to lose their rights eventually, one way or another. To me, this looks like a particularly tragic case of that.

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby J_dazzle23 » Fri 31 Oct 2014 9:03 am

bagpiper wrote:What i said, is that if someone is unable to conduct himself calmly, rationally, peacefully, and lawfully even in the face of life's multitude of minor and modest injustices (real or perceived), then that person has no business carrying or perhaps even owning a weapon.

Charles



Charles, I hope I don't take this little snippet out of context.

I just thought this was a very profound statement. Of many of the citizen shootings by police (and the dog, for that matter), would you characterize the police actions as fitting all four of these terms: calm, rational, peaceful, lawful?

If there is even so much as a small doubt when considering that, then this is simply unacceptible. I do not buy the "police should be treated to the same standard citizens are, they just want to go home" story. We trust our lives in the hands of the police, the standards of conduct should be SKY high, imo. When you trust your life to a surgeon, we don't just give the surgeon the same expectations as an average joe, so why should we for police?

I have many LEO'S as friends, and it pains me to say this, but I very seldom meet average officer that exhibits calm, rational, peaceful, and lawful as traits that they have ALL of.

Simply the nature of their job works to the core of them being calm or peaceful.

My internal jury is out on the case. I would need to see footage (which is odd that we haven't seen surveillance footage yet)....but even if the shoot is technically justified and this officer is telling the truth in his affidavit, the amount of police interaction with civilians that Is questionable lately is alarming.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Fri 31 Oct 2014 9:12 am

quychang wrote:
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.

...

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.


Interesting insights. In reading it, I realized that most of today's cops are coming from the same pool of persons that has generally lost all respect and reverence that started really giving teachers fits 20 years ago. So the whole situation is a mutual problem. Less respect for cops coupled with police having less respect for citizens and probably even for life.

I will pick nits in only three areas.

1-I think you and I use reverence very much the same. The only difference is that in addition to nature, life, etc, I include deity and the religiously sacred in the list of things that should be reverenced. I note that even among generally "good" kids that I sometimes work with at church, the concept of respect and reverence are generally lacking. They are not malicious. They just haven't been taught that some things are deserving of our reference or respect. And so it shows in their conduct and language. Your observation about the difference between how one spoke among friends and the caution exercised around adults or others is spot on. I see it in how hymnals and even school textbooks are mistreated, how they abuse their school clothes, and in a ton of other little ways, my mentioning of any one would lead many today to suggest I just don't think kids should be kids. But in total, the evince a lack of respect that permeates their lives and conduct.

2-I don't know that this shooting stinks to high heaven. On its face, it appears to me the shooting was legally justified. The initial stop may stink a little. But even there, unless the cops just really deliberately pushed some buttons, it appears the irrational, inexplicable conduct of lunging at a cop with a sword validates the concerns of both 911 caller and police decisions to make a stop.

3-I doubt Utah cops are any worse than anywhere else. My total interactions with police in my life have been somewhat limited, I being of the boring, law-abiding type of folks. But my personal experience is that Utah police are at least as good as, on average maybe better in respecting citizens than what I saw in Indiana, Chicago, Boston, or DC. I was living in the Boston area some 20 years ago when cops did a no-knock on an apartment based on nothing more than a CI's word. The elderly resident was thrown to the floor with a boot in his back and gun to his head. They didn't shoot him. But the heart attack and lack of immediate medical care was no less fatal. Guy wasn't a dealer or even a user. Just an old minister. He happened to be black so the cost to the city for wrongful death was probably less than it would have been.

Always fun to chat. Have a great weekend.

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Fri 31 Oct 2014 9:18 am

J_dazzle23 wrote:
I just thought this was a very profound statement. Of many of the citizen shootings by police (and the dog, for that matter), would you characterize the police actions as fitting all four of these terms: calm, rational, peaceful, lawful?


There are certainly cases where the officer's conduct appears to be outside of such bounds. I think the Danielle Willard case is clearly one of them. The shooting has been ruled unjustified, but the judge tossed the charges. Go figure. :dunno: I doubt any non-cop would get a similar slide.

But to clarify, once a lawful and reasonable man justification for use of deadly force in self defense (or defense of another) is present, I don't much expect anyone to remain calm or peaceful. I do expect lawful; and being rational probably helps save your own life. Obviously, if someone assaults me and I draw my firearm and shoot, there is nothing peaceful about that.

What we must expect is that people--including cops--remain calm, rational, peaceful, and lawful even in the face of frustration, slights, insults, and modest injustices.

And in this regard, we do see officer's losing their cool too often, Reaching too quickly for a taser is certainly one manifestation of this. "I WILL be obeyed, period," seems to be too common an attitude as opposed to, "I'm keeping the peace and so long as we can talk, we'll talk."

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby J_dazzle23 » Fri 31 Oct 2014 9:21 am

bagpiper wrote: "I WILL be obeyed, period," seems to be too common an attitude as opposed to, "I'm keeping the peace and so long as we can talk, we'll talk."

Charles



Bingo. That, above anything in these cases over thr last few years, is what stinks to me the most.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Fri 31 Oct 2014 9:47 am

J_dazzle23 wrote:Bingo. That, above anything in these cases over thr last few years, is what stinks to me the most.


And yet, in the case at hand, it appears the cops did keep talking right up to the point the guy went nuts with his sword. They claim they asked him to put his sword on the hood of the car and he refused. They didn't reach for a taser or a gun to force compliance, but kept talking. They offered him a ride if he'd surrender his sword. At least one witness seems to corroborate seeing what appeared to a friendly, even funny conversation prior to the guy lunging with his sword.

Obviously, the cops have a vested interest in not looking like they provoked a mentally unstable man. But I've yet to hear of any evidence that contradicts their version of events as officially released in the last day or two.

I'm not sure why its taken so long to release what seems to be a fairly straight-forward time line of events. And I've expressed concerns about it.

But with what has been released, when we get past certain emotional elements, things look justified. Tragic, but justified.

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby J_dazzle23 » Fri 31 Oct 2014 9:53 am

bagpiper wrote:
J_dazzle23 wrote:Bingo. That, above anything in these cases over thr last few years, is what stinks to me the most.


And yet, in the case at hand, it appears the cops did keep talking right up to the point the guy went nuts with his sword. They claim they asked him to put his sword on the hood of the car and he refused. They didn't reach for a taser or a gun to force compliance, but kept talking. They offered him a ride if he'd surrender his sword. At least one witness seems to corroborate seeing what appeared to a friendly, even funny conversation prior to the guy lunging with his sword.

Obviously, the cops have a vested interest in not looking like they provoked a mentally unstable man. But I've yet to hear of any evidence that contradicts their version of events as officially released in the last day or two.

I'm not sure why its taken so long to release what seems to be a fairly straight-forward time line of events. And I've expressed concerns about it.

But with what has been released, when we get past certain emotional elements, things look justified. Tragic, but justified.

Charles

you mentioned it briefly, but I'll nail it home. I don't take what is said by the person with their butt on the line when it took 2 months to get this far, and we still don't have factual details, only a self report. That stinks to both of us. Like I said a month ago, the st george shooting 6 weeks ago had all details released THE NEXT DAY.

When something is clear cut, it doesn't take months. Just my opinion.

I agree with what you said about the poor decision making by the victim, but at the same time, I honestly believe if it was all clear cut justified shoot a-z, we wouldn't have it dragged out.

I'm inclined to believe it was an unjustified detainment leading to a justified shoot. While explainable, it just.........sits uneasy....with me.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Fri 31 Oct 2014 12:30 pm

Somewhat off-topic, but related enough for a minor diversion I hope. KSL and the Deseret News are both reporting potential misdemeanor charges against Darrien Hunt's mother after she got into some kind of confrontation with police, possibly slapping an officer.

Assuming that something material happened (either physical, credible threat, or actual interference with police work), as opposed to just something the cops found non-respectful, I'm frankly a little torn.

I can understand a mother being distraught and upset. OTOH, this wasn't a heat of the moment thing having just witnessed a shooting. The event happened several weeks ago. And I don't think we can give a free pass to threaten, assault, or interfere with the police just because someone is unhappy.

Some kind of plea in abeyance that doesn't go on her record but makes clear she has to straighten up and fly right for the next 12 months might be about right.

If, OTOH, the Saratoga Springs PD is fabricating anything to protect a couple of their own....


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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Fri 31 Oct 2014 5:45 pm

If the mother was being confronted on her property in any way at all, honestly even a face to face apology by one of the officers, I can see a reflexive reaction such as a slap to the face.

That said, I'll agree that it probably can't be let go without taking some kind of legal action. And yes, it would be best if it could be handled in such a way as to not leave her with a criminal record would be the charitable solution under the circumstances.

Were the roles reversed, and it was my son dead, and an officer in anyway confronted me on my property, I might very well get myself shot too, then you all would have more to talk about. On the other hand, if this happened in the police station, or the steps of the courthouse, with cameras, well. Then they might have to save face and make an example of her. I can see it going down either way honestly.

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 » Fri 31 Oct 2014 6:55 pm

quychang wrote:If the mother was being confronted on her property in any way at all, honestly even a face to face apology by one of the officers, I can see a reflexive reaction such as a slap to the face.

...

On the other hand, if this happened in the police station, or the steps of the courthouse, with cameras, well. Then they might have to save face and make an example of her. I can see it going down either way honestly.


The report indicates the confrontation took place in a parking lot near where her son was shot. It appears she approached to officers who were making a stop of another individual.

Had it been cops coming to her property for anything other than official business I'd be entirely on her side. With her instigating the contact in a public place and interfering with their duties...I'm really stretching to be generous and suggest something that won't leave a lifetime record.

I certainly hope she is at least exercising the good sense not to have a gun or other deadly weapon around as she seems less than entirely emotionally stable right now. And maybe justifiably so. But she needs to protect herself from her own emotions until she has them in check.

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Fri 31 Oct 2014 7:55 pm

Yes Charles you are correct, I read the article after the fact and I agree. If it went down, as alleged, with what information was released or leaked, then she was in the wrong. Of course her attorney is disputing it, but then that's what he's paid to do, so we'll take that with the box of salt as needed.

You know though... the timing of the release is suspicious and looks like an attempt to swing public opinion in the LEO's direction. The fact of the matter is, the mothers actions postmortem have absolutely no bearing on whether the shooting was justified or not. Zero. Nothing what so ever to do with the case.

I agree that the mother would do well to stay out of the spotlight until she has her emotions more under control, but I can sympathize with a parent that has lost a child. I'm sure my emotions would be near the surface as well.

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 RustyShackleford » Fri 31 Oct 2014 9:55 pm

A Real Man should, under the circumstances be able to take a slap to the face from a grieving mother (no matter what her intensions) and be able to take it standing up...and let it go. But I doubt their ego could understand what she has lost and not add to it. You bet, Charge her with a crime.
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: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Fri 31 Oct 2014 10:25 pm

RustyShackleford wrote:A Real Man should, under the circumstances be able to take a slap to the face from a grieving mother (no matter what her intensions) and be able to take it standing up...and let it go. But I doubt their ego could understand what she has lost and not add to it. You bet, Charge her with a crime.


I'm sure most any man could take it and let it go. And had the man given some personal offense, he probably should.

But the man in question is not merely a private citizen, his own man. He is the embodiment of state authority. And just as that places certain limits on his ability to express his personal opinions, it also places certain limits on others' conduct toward him, and his ability to personally "let it go."

Were this a heat of the moment thing and the mother remorseful about lashing out, I'd say let it go and be done.

But as reported, this woman sought out police not involved in the shooting (they are still on administrative leave, I'm sure), confronted them while in the performance of their duties, and didn't merely heckle or verbally express her grief, she engaged in physical assault. A minor assault to be sure, but assault nonetheless. To let that go entirely unpunished may send a dangerous message.

I know some will be very uncomfortable with this next sentence. But the authority of the state/police must be maintained. Without it, we have no government. Washington himself sent the army to put down the whiskey rebellion. It was a crucial test for the new government to see if it would enforce its authority.

See the exchange above between Mel and me. Lack of respect for police, (and by police for society) is not a good thing. To the extent that most police orders can be enforced through healthy respect for the authority of the police alone, there is that much less need for force. An agent of the state, in his official capacity, cannot allow gross disrespect in the form of criminal violence to go entirely unanswered. How long would military discipline hold up if officers brushed off minor assaults from the enlisted?

I recognize and am sympathetic to the grieving mother. But I also recognize law and order must be maintained. When there is no respect for law or the embodiment of it, we can quickly get anarchy as we see in the riots in Fergesun. And that is really bad for all of civil society.

Which is why my gut instinct is to charge her with a misdemeanor, explain to her (and let her attorney explain) she is facing up to 6 months in jail, and encourage a plea in abeyance with a minimal fine and 6 months or so probation. Send a message that assaulting a cop cannot be excused, but that neither is there a need to break someone over a very minor assault from a grieving mother. She learns a lesson without it being overly costly, and if she behaves herself for a few months, it is as if no conviction ever happened.

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Fri 31 Oct 2014 10:29 pm

quychang wrote:You know though... the timing of the release is suspicious and looks like an attempt to swing public opinion in the LEO's direction. The fact of the matter is, the mothers actions postmortem have absolutely no bearing on whether the shooting was justified or not. Zero. Nothing what so ever to do with the case.


You are correct that her conduct has nothing to do with her son's death. But (and I don't mean to be harsh) if this is how she responds, one wonders if her son had similar tendencies.

I also note that as is standard practice, the case is being investigated by an agency other than the one involving the officer who was allegedly slapped. I believe the Utah County Sheriff's office is investigating. This avoids the conflict of interest of having someone in the same department as the victim investigating. Not that the thin blue line doesn't extend across various agencies. But it is a little more removed than from those investigating the son's death.

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby D-FIN » Fri 31 Oct 2014 11:16 pm

The news about the incident with the mother does not really supprise me much. She has always come on a little over dramatic and somewhat unstable to me. I've ignored it for the most part because I've never had to go through what she has and wrote it off as her being distraught but it has been a while and every time you see her she is acting like it just happened. I dunno if i wanna pass judgement she just seems odd.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Open Carry

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest