Interesting thought...

Discuss issues regarding open carry.

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Sat 01 Nov 2014 8:24 am

bagpiper wrote:
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


And that, Charles, is exactly what I meant by an attempt at a smoke screen. There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates her son had similar tendencies. The timing of the release is meant to cast doubt on the son's actions at a time when the police are getting ready to release findings that are likely to be both unpalatable, and unacceptable to a large portion of their audience.

I "might" be molified if the FBI were brought in to oversee investigations of police misconduct, but even there the the thin blue line would exist. I suppose it's unavoidable really, but I'm not satisfied that there is dispassionate investigation of police conduct as it happens currently. Perhaps in a case of multiple wounds in the back, a grand jury would be appropriate. I simply don't trust the police, policing themselves. If that evinces a lack of respect, it's because to some extent respect must be earned. Yes, I agree that putting on the uniform commands a certain degree of respect based on the respect earned by their predecessors in the office. That degree of respect has been dwindling with passing generations based entirely on police conduct.

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 » Sat 01 Nov 2014 9:39 am

Charles, you bring up a good point about the police needing to maintain authority.

I think we are far closer to the police needing a good lesson on how far that authority extends, and why whom they get their authority from, at least by extension.

I don't see any possible reality where the police lose authority. They will stop at nothing to make sure the public knows they run this show we call life.

Sorry to be brash, but this "listen to me, I'm in charge, or else" mentality is overt and blatantly obvious to law abiding citizens.

Not sure if this is the case for the sword weilding man, but it certainly isn't a new idea.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby Car Knocker » Sat 01 Nov 2014 10:22 am

quychang wrote:Perhaps in a case of multiple wounds in the back, a grand jury would be appropriate.

I'm somewhat less than enamored by the grand jury process. The prosecutor, and only the prosecutor, presents evidence to the jury and only evidence of his choosing. New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." <----Sentence shamelessly cribbed from Wikipedia
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: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Sat 01 Nov 2014 12:02 pm

Car Knocker wrote:
quychang wrote:Perhaps in a case of multiple wounds in the back, a grand jury would be appropriate.

I'm somewhat less than enamored by the grand jury process. The prosecutor, and only the prosecutor, presents evidence to the jury and only evidence of his choosing. New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." <----Sentence shamelessly cribbed from Wikipedia


Having been summoned as a witness in a Federal Grand Jury against a former employer, I'm pretty much aware of how they operate. And to some extent I agree that it isn't the best process possible. But I'm still not sure that it isn't better than the current process of investigating and sweeping almost everything under the rug. Sooner or later you're going to have someone wonder what that big bump under the rug is, how it got there, and what do you do about it now?

If a prosecutor has enough evidence to bring in an indictment against the officers, then perhaps they should be indicted and judged in court, instead of in a back office of the police department where it's all too easy to decide to let this one go...again.

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 » Mon 03 Nov 2014 5:44 pm

The Deseret News is reporting that the Utah County prosecutor has officially declared the shooting to be justified.

DesNews wrote:Buhman said four witnesses said that as officers spoke with Hunt, he “abruptly and without apparent provocation withdrew the sword from the sheath” and swung the sword at the officers.

...

Schauerhamer drew his weapon and fired. Judson tried to create distance between him and Hunt and also fired one shot, according to investigators. Buhman said three rounds were fired, with one likely hitting Hunt before he took off running.

Hunt allegedly ran with the sheath in his left hand and the sword in his right.

Buhman said Schauerhamer told investigators he was worried at that time that Hunt would "hack the first person he saw," and he felt he and Judson were still in danger “because he couldn’t let him escape while he was still armed.”


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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Mon 03 Nov 2014 6:09 pm

bagpiper wrote:The Deseret News is reporting that the Utah County prosecutor has officially declared the shooting to be justified.

DesNews wrote:Buhman said four witnesses said that as officers spoke with Hunt, he “abruptly and without apparent provocation withdrew the sword from the sheath” and swung the sword at the officers.

...

Schauerhamer drew his weapon and fired. Judson tried to create distance between him and Hunt and also fired one shot, according to investigators. Buhman said three rounds were fired, with one likely hitting Hunt before he took off running.

Hunt allegedly ran with the sheath in his left hand and the sword in his right.

Buhman said Schauerhamer told investigators he was worried at that time that Hunt would "hack the first person he saw," and he felt he and Judson were still in danger “because he couldn’t let him escape while he was still armed.”


I expected no less.

Mel
Charles
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 » Mon 03 Nov 2014 9:11 pm

Hey man. What's going on?" Schauerhamer asked, according to Buhman's report.

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

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

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

"OK. You can't just set your sword on the hood of my car for a second?" asked Schauerhamer.


Charles, IF the officers are telling the truth (odd that surveillance footage has not been released, but I digress), then this situation looks to have played out precisely as we thought.

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

if the story is true, justified shoot, probably. But how is it you come by an honestly justified shoot by an unjustified detainment?
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby MrReverse » Tue 04 Nov 2014 10:12 am

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

This whole thing is that a young man made mistakes and lost his life as a result. Sorry, but that is our national religion of Darwinism at work. We say if we are involved in a self defence shooting to keep our mouth shut and let the lawyers do the talking, but if it is a police officer, he has to be hiding something because he dosent tell the public every little thing at once? Why?
MrReverse
Novice
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue 09 Sep 2014 12:38 pm
Location: Ogden Ut

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby J_dazzle23 » Tue 04 Nov 2014 12:31 pm

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

This whole thing is that a young man made mistakes and lost his life as a result. Sorry, but that is our national religion of Darwinism at work. We say if we are involved in a self defence shooting to keep our mouth shut and let the lawyers do the talking, but if it is a police officer, he has to be hiding something because he dosent tell the public every little thing at once? Why?


NOTHING justified the kid unsheathing a sword and taking a swing at at police officer. I don't think anyone here is saying that at all. I think that is at strawman at best.

Why is it an unreasonable request from a police officer for a total stranger with a weapon in their hand to put it down while talking with them?


^this is the part that is concerning. If he was illegally brandishing the weapon, the police have reasonable cause for detainment, and asking him to surrender his weapon (from my understanding of the law). Where the disconnect is, is that if this young man was openly carrying his sword and NOT breaking the law in doing so, a police officer demanding the young man disarm is NOT reasonable, and constitutes unlawful detainment by the officer.

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

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

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

As far as comparing this situation as a civilian vs LEO, I believe we DO hold law enforcement to a higher standard, as we should. They have a great responsibility. While I don't believe in witch hunts every time a shooting happens, one has to remember, had this been a civilian shoot, the shooter would likely already be serving his prison sentence.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby MrReverse » Tue 04 Nov 2014 1:12 pm

My question is was he detained? Was he ordered to disarm or was it requested? Small but different definitions involved here. From everything I have seen in the media about this, no rights were violated. Guns were not drawn until a sword was unsheathed. Nobody was physically imobilized or even ordered to stop. What crime was comitted or rights infringed by the police officers? Yes they are held to a higher standard, but to automatically assume wrongdoing on their part without evidence on both sides is not holding to a higher standard, just showing a bias.

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

I am an ASE certified master tech automotive tech with about 15 years professional experiance. I know a lot about automobiles. Dosent make me an expert in psycology or fine nuances in law though. It does tend to make me look at the how and why of things. It also tends to encourage my natural tendancy to apply proper names and terms to things to try and reduce confusion. I due to my profession, am held to a higher standard and accept that, but when somebody tries to blame me because their wheel fell off their car 2 months after I did an oil change and never touched a lugnut, I have issues with their credibility. Just for the record, I have accusations like that leveled at me at least a few times per year by those that should know better, even my manager will accuse me of wrongdoing when I never even worked on the car because he is being yelled at by sombody. So it does bug me when I see people blasting professionals doing their job when there is no hard evidence they did wrong. Civility is decreasing rapidly in our society, and that does worry me because historically, it never ends well.
MrReverse
Novice
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue 09 Sep 2014 12:38 pm
Location: Ogden Ut

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby J_dazzle23 » Tue 04 Nov 2014 1:42 pm

MrReverse wrote:My question is was he detained? Was he ordered to disarm or was it requested? Small but different definitions involved here. From everything I have seen in the media about this, no rights were violated. Guns were not drawn until a sword was unsheathed. Nobody was physically imobilized or even ordered to stop. What crime was comitted or rights infringed by the police officers? Yes they are held to a higher standard, but to automatically assume wrongdoing on their part without evidence on both sides is not holding to a higher standard, just showing a bias.

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

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

I highly doubt that when surrounded by more than one officer, and asked to surrender a holstered weapon, it could be construed as anything but detainment.

Which of course nobody will care since the kid flipped out.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby gravedancer » Tue 04 Nov 2014 4:38 pm

J_dazzle23 wrote:I highly doubt that when surrounded by more than one officer, and asked to surrender a holstered weapon, it could be construed as anything but detainment.

Which of course nobody will care since the kid flipped out.


And had the kid not flipped out and gotten himself ventilated, he could have possibly hired a lawyer and sued for unlawful detention.
Image
http://bit.ly/2vHUiug will get you around the auto filtering of the domain on this site
gravedancer
Sniper
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2011 1:46 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Tue 04 Nov 2014 6:50 pm

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

Which of course nobody will care since the kid flipped out.


And had the kid not flipped out and gotten himself ventilated, he could have possibly hired a lawyer and sued for unlawful detention.


I still don't buy the "we had to shoot him in the back" mentality that would have gotten you, or me handed a nice jail sentence. Oh, I understand their argument/justification, but I don't agree with it.

Mel
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 » Tue 04 Nov 2014 7:49 pm

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

Which of course nobody will care since the kid flipped out.


And had the kid not flipped out and gotten himself ventilated, he could have possibly hired a lawyer and sued for unlawful detention.


I still don't buy the "we had to shoot him in the back" mentality that would have gotten you, or me handed a nice jail sentence. Oh, I understand their argument/justification, but I don't agree with it.

Mel

Where the plot gets REALLY thick is when you take into account the reason they said they shot him running away, then remember the multiple court decisions that have determined "protecting" citizens is not part of the responsibility of an LEO...
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby Car Knocker » Tue 04 Nov 2014 8:46 pm

J_dazzle23 wrote:Where the plot gets REALLY thick is when you take into account the reason they said they shot him running away, then remember the multiple court decisions that have determined "protecting" citizens is not part of the responsibility of an LEO...

I believe the court decisions maintain that law enforcement has no duty to protect individual persons but do have a duty to protect the community as a whole.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Open Carry

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest