Interesting thought...

Discuss issues regarding open carry.

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby J_dazzle23 » Tue 04 Nov 2014 8:51 pm

Car Knocker wrote:
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.

Hmmmm. That definitely does make a difference with that distinction
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby dewittdj » Tue 04 Nov 2014 10:11 pm

The opened ended questions are:

1. Who defines what constitutes "protection?"

...and

2. Who defines what constitutes "community?"

...and

3. What differentiates the micro community from the macro "whole" community ("community as a whole")?
Save $10-1yr: new or renewal:
3yr-$70, 5yr-$100, Life-$750
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=XI028543
dewittdj
Top Shot
 
Posts: 5258
Joined: Sat 07 Aug 2010 10:36 pm
Location: Northern Utah

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby bagpiper » Tue 04 Nov 2014 11:13 pm

quychang wrote: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.


Respectfully, there is some evidence (how credible may be debatable by those figuring the cops are doing a massive coverup) that he had very similar issues.

There was some kind of domestic violence incident a short time ago where he threatened his mother and she call the cops. She downplays this now as "nothing," but how often do moms call the cops on their sons over "nothing"?

There is the report of the facebook stalking of the young lady in Provo.

And it seems four witnesses indicate he drew his sword and swung at the cop without any obvious provocation.

And it isn't like the cops are releasing private interviews with the mom. She is out there seeking the spotlight every chance she gets. Seemingly to pretty good effect as a lot of folks are questioning why deadly force might be the appropriate response to a guy swinging a sword.

Now, I'm not at all opposed to some kind of additional review of police actions. Not sure I trust any federal agency with Holder overseeing it any more than I do the worst of Jim Crow southern small town police department.

But at the end of the day, if someone takes a swing at me with a sword, there is a good chance I will be shooting. If he runs toward someone I have responsibility for (wife, child, etc) with that sword still in hand, odds are good I'll keep shooting until I end the threat. I suspect you and most everyone else would do likewise. None of will want to be judged legally on how many bullets entered what part of the body so long as that is the minimum number needed to stop the threat.

The big question in my mind is only whether the initial contact, "detention", and "request" to surrender the sword was legal. Sadly, I have to admit that unless the cops said something highly threatening that nobody else heard, I think sword guy's reaction to them is pretty good evidence the stop was needed even if it wasn't entirely legal the moment it was made.

I suspect what we had here was a young man with some mental health and social interactions problems (some form of autism or aspbergers perhaps?) that caused him to act in a way that was entirely irrational, unpredictable, and dangerous. I mourn for him and his family. I really do. He may not have even realized what he was doing.

But I have to judge the cops by what a reasonable man could discern in the moment. And everything that has been released strongly suggests that in the moment, the shooting was legally justified and necessary for a cop given his general duty to protect the public. On the flip side, I've seen nothing to suggest it wasn't legally justified and necessary.

Kick in a door after dark, shoot into a car as the driver backs out of a parking stall,or beat man after he is in cuffs and I'll cry foul and demand justice. Shoot a guy acting nuts and swinging a sword and I have to cut some slack.

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Wed 05 Nov 2014 5:14 am

Charles,

With all due respect, you have more faith in the information being released than I do. I suspect the police are secretly glad they didn't have body cams or dash cams operating at the time of the incident.

Oh, I suppose I'll not quibble whether he should have been shot when there were non lethal choices and chalk it up to the heat of the moment. It doesn't appear that he was running towards anyone, just simply away. He was already injured, he wasn't going to run all that far. I suspect the bullets in the back were as much to shut him up, as to contain him. Obviously I put less trust in the police than you do. It takes 2 minutes for 4 cops to put their heads together and decide how it went down, before emergency teams were on site.

It's over and done, the second guessing may as well stop, though I would imagine that this may still see civil court. Rightfully so in my opinion. As always it's been good discussing it with you, but I find my arms are tired and the dead horse has been beaten into submission.

Regards,

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 » Wed 05 Nov 2014 2:28 pm

I do not believe that there is any sort of massive cover-up here. Will the cops try to skew information in their favor? Most likely, but I don't think any more that anyone else would do who's job and reputation are on the line. The info that has been released is mostly like true even if it leaves much out. I believe that by the time the shooting part happened it probably happened very quickly and more less like was stated. I do think that they possibly could have use other less lethal methods but again it probably happened very quickly at that point. Choices have to be made in a split second and we depend on the police to make hard choices even if we may think they made the wrong one.

I really think where this whole think fell apart was in the initial calling of the cops and and the escalation that was created by the encounter, however there is also some mention of a tweet he made about ...having sword and going to get shot... I don't know if this is real is not. Technically carrying the sword around was not illegal but that argument went out he window when he decided to draw it. If he had submitted like he should have and he was detained or arrest for only that then he would have had a case but he didn't. At this point I'm ready to put this one aside and just see what happens in the civil side of things.
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 » Wed 05 Nov 2014 5:18 pm

D-FIN wrote:I do not believe that there is any sort of massive cover-up here. Will the cops try to skew information in their favor? Most likely, but I don't think any more that anyone else would do who's job and reputation are on the line. The info that has been released is mostly like true even if it leaves much out. I believe that by the time the shooting part happened it probably happened very quickly and more less like was stated. I do think that they possibly could have use other less lethal methods but again it probably happened very quickly at that point. Choices have to be made in a split second and we depend on the police to make hard choices even if we may think they made the wrong one.

I really think where this whole think fell apart was in the initial calling of the cops and and the escalation that was created by the encounter, however there is also some mention of a tweet he made about ...having sword and going to get shot... I don't know if this is real is not. Technically carrying the sword around was not illegal but that argument went out he window when he decided to draw it. If he had submitted like he should have and he was detained or arrest for only that then he would have had a case but he didn't. At this point I'm ready to put this one aside and just see what happens in the civil side of things.


At the risk of further beating a dead horse. I don't really believe there's a massive police cover up here either, I'm just saying there isn't really an evidence to the contrary. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there were video evidence to back them up. And frankly, assuming there is no cover up, I imagine the police wish the same, it would be highly in their favor assuming civil suits are pursued.

But I'll go out on a limb and say that the thin blue line extends into the prosecutors office and the judicial system. I predict that civil suits will be lost, or dismissed.

We'll see.

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 05 Nov 2014 6:04 pm

quychang wrote:At the risk of further beating a dead horse. I don't really believe there's a massive police cover up here either, I'm just saying there isn't really an evidence to the contrary. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there were video evidence to back them up. And frankly, assuming there is no cover up, I imagine the police wish the same, it would be highly in their favor assuming civil suits are pursued.

But I'll go out on a limb and say that the thin blue line extends into the prosecutors office and the judicial system. I predict that civil suits will be lost, or dismissed.


I'm sure the thin blue line extends all the way. If nothing else, someone you know is a person, anyone else is easy to dehumanize in some way. Friends make mistakes, others engage in deliberately reckless behavior.

Notice the teacher with the ND in the toilet has taken a plea deal on the criminal charge of illegal discharge of a firearm. I don't recall similar charges being brought against the police chief who shot himself in the leg while teaching a permit class, nor even against the WVC cop who shot Danielle Willard. Unjustified shoot, and charges of manslaughter, but no piling on with illegal discharge so far as I know.

Some years back a good friend kind of got into the circle of the UHP. His stories of their conduct including DUI, infidelity while on the clock, etc was very troubling to say the least. Power corrupts.

And whether it was with the honest, best intentions to protect the public, or out of some kind of "get even" for having someone swing a sword at him, it isn't hard to wonder whether cops (and you and I) might just be quicker to shoot knowing the standard they get held to as opposed to the scrutiny given a private joe.

But that said, it is entirely possible that civil suits fail simply because there is no evidence to support the suit. And I'll admit, I'm a bit biased against the mom because she jumped so quick to claim racial bias. If I ever get shot by cops, nobody will be able to claim racial bias. It offends me when someone else plays the race card with zero evidence to back it up. In this day, it is downright irresponsible to do anything to perpetuate the myth of cops gunning down black men because they are black. Because they are not cops, because they are young, because they pop an attitude and try something stupid, because they are tatted and pierced up and dress like gangsters? Maybe even because some are very dangerous criminals who actually try to hurt or kill cops or others? Sure. White, black, hispanic, polynesian. We all carry guns because we recognize there are violent criminals. I guess maybe a few only carry to protect against wild animals while hiking. But most of us recognize that there are bad men in the world who would harm us or ours. Sometimes it is a decent, but ill man who just isn't thinking right. Doesn't much matter the motivation if we end up crippled or dead. So we own and carry guns. We do so despite also being able to minimize our chances of being victimized by avoiding high risk behavior and high risk associations.

I just think it makes sense to remember that those dangerous, criminal, violent, and crazy men don't cease to exist just because a cop rather than a private joe is in the area. In fact, we kind of expect cops to seek them out and deal with them so we don't have to.

Yup, I'm bothered that one cop involved may have used some excessive force in the past. And I'd love some great evidence proving what they say is true. But innocent until proven guilty means we have accept a lack of evidence demonstrating guilt as sufficient to maintain innocence.

Rough case. If a civil suit wins something I'll concede something dirty happened. If it fails to win anything material (IE, something more than the city settling for less than the cost to defend the thing), I'll take that as one more evidence that there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing.

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

Re: Interesting thought...

Postby quychang » Thu 06 Nov 2014 2:09 pm

bagpiper wrote:
Rough case. If a civil suit wins something I'll concede something dirty happened. If it fails to win anything material (IE, something more than the city settling for less than the cost to defend the thing), I'll take that as one more evidence that there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing.

Charles


I'm not even saying something dirty happened. I am however, saying that if you or I shot a fleeing perp in the back we'd have to answer for it. I don't buy all the arguments in favor of allowing the cops to get away with it. At least not in a case like this. If he had a gun? Sure. If he had a knife, swinging wildly while screaming he'd kill everyone. Sure. Running away with a sword in his hand after being wounded at least once? Not so much. We'll have to agree to disagree. I suspect there will be little to no consequences at this point, and I agree the mother's behavior has most likely influenced the outcome.

Mel

Edited to correct miss wording. I suspect the perp was Feeling the shots already in him, but I meant to say fleeing. That's now fixed.
Last edited by quychang on Fri 07 Nov 2014 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 07 Nov 2014 8:03 am

There is video released now, http://fox13now.com/2014/11/06/new-footage-from-fatal-shooting-of-darrien-hunt-released-family-attorney-responds/

As the family has stated "he was doing nothing wrong". My opinion is that the Cops escalated the situation. (notice the woman walking calmly behind the man, clearly she saw no threat....But now entering the scene is a "Peace Officer"....The plot thickens).
I have seen reports of a witness saying the statement he gave to police was altered. Did not say he saw the sword swung at an officer, But Cops Put It In The Report that he said he did. The Cops Lied!

Looks like the situation was legal and peaceful up till the Cops show up. That tells me, Cops were the catalyst that turned this into a young man, for some reason thinking the best thing to do was to runaway (from a dangerous situation) And they shot him in the back...No way in heck would we ever be justified shooting someone in the back (no magic badge). He was running away from those that did kill him, I wonder what really happened, was he justified in running from his assailants? Was he threatened and felt his life in danger?

There is still more to this that has not been released and it is held onto by the same side of justice that shot him in the back.

Looking at the video it appears that when he is running the sword is in the scabbard...would he really put it back into the scabbard before running or is he only holding the sword....? I do wish there was just raw video to analyze. How about some crime scene photos of the sward after he was shot? Sorry, I do not trust an investigation of one side that has a vested interest in holding to the thin blue line (members of same police union doing the investigation, same people that may also want a pass in case they screw-up sometime..."professional courtesy"...and all that).
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 Uinta Firearms » Sun 09 Nov 2014 12:40 am

Car Knocker wrote:
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.

Iirc, that's South v Maryland. There's a few others too. Woollard is another case.
Uinta Firearms
Marksman
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Highland Park, IL

Previous

Return to Open Carry

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest