Search found 12 matches

by mojo84
Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:20 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

This part of the article seems to be being ignored by those that think the officer was completely in the right and the dead man was totally wrong. Now, I do think the dead man was wrong in trying to argue at that point in time and I do not fault the officer for shooting him once the now dead man pulled his gun. I still question why the officer was so adamant about disarming the guy and treating him as a "suspect" when he arrived on the scene. I don't think anyone that shoots a dog that doesn't belong to them that was attacking them in their backyard and then calls the police to report it should be regarded as a suspect. Call me crazy if you want.
The man had called 911 early Friday to report he was attacked by a pit bull that did not belong to him in his back yard,
http://statesman.com/news/news/local/po ... nor/nWdY9/

Websters definition of suspect.
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspect
by mojo84
Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

I have the same concerns and questions as c-dub.
by mojo84
Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:34 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

I just can't get my mind around the idea of one defending themselves against an attacking dog on the person's property being considered a crime.
by mojo84
Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:33 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

Is shooting a vicious aggressive dog that is not yours but on your property a crime?
by mojo84
Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:47 am
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

I have mixed feelings on this one as I think both overreacted to the other in this situation and the ending was permanent and severe for one of the parties involved.

With that said, I sometimes question where the fine line is between "disarming" and confiscation. I know many will say "intent" of the officer. Well, what about the intent of the subject? Neither party's intent can be known with absolute certainty. I understand the officer needs to be able to in control and secure a scene of an investigation but where does it stop? But at the time he arrived, the now dead man was the complainant and not the suspect.
by mojo84
Sun Mar 03, 2013 3:24 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

I don't think any of us know enough to declare either party guilty or innocent. At the end of the day, I bet both parties made mistakes and it may have had a lot to do with both of them getting caught up on principal.
by mojo84
Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:26 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

He's not a suspect. He's a citizen calling for service and to report the incident.

Presumed innocence officer.
by mojo84
Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:04 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

The difference in your scenario is that he shot the dog in the dogs backyard. Totally different than this situation.

Until the officer had reason to believe the man did something wrong, I don't think he had a right to disarm the guy.
by mojo84
Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:41 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

I agree. But when the person that discharged is on his own property and is the one that called saying it was in self defense against a dog, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I think we need to be very careful with the police or anyone being able to disarm any one they choose at their own discretion without solid legal reasons to do so.

What indication was there at the time the guy was being disarmed that it was not self defense against a dog? If it was a shooting of a person instead, I would understand the man being disarmed immediately upon the officer's arrival. I just don't see why it was necessary base on the info I've seen that the man should have been disarmed. Just my opinion.
by mojo84
Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:21 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

I too am curious about the procedures and protocol regarding disarming.

My contention is there was an incident to be investigated. Initially, the info was that there was a dog attack and the dog was shot. That in and of itself doesn't warrant disarming the guy in my mind. Just as disarming a chl for "officer safety" on a routine traffic stop when the chl doesn't exhibit any behaviors that warrant disarming him or her.

I also want to be sure my comments aren't misconstrued to indicate that I support the deceased pulling his gun. There its quite a bit more to this story than what we know at this point.
by mojo84
Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:12 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

A-R wrote:Generally speaking discharging a firearm within city limits is a crime, unless justified by Chapter 9 of Penal Code. There IS an investigation of any discharge of a firearm within city limits. Whether tha investigation shows justification comes later.
From what little I've seen, he called saying he shot a dog that attacked him. Therefore, the officer was not aware there was a crime committed other than that of someone's dog attacking someone. Generally speaking, when a dog attacks someone that is a crime but defending oneself against a dog attack is not.

The comment that I questioned was phrased in a way that indicated the officer was there to investigate a crime committed by the deceased when at the point of the officer showing up it appears the only crime that was evident was that of someone allowing their digg to attack someone. If that's the case, I don't set why the deceased was being disarmed on his property.

If it comes out he was acting irrationally or overly angry, there may be justification.

Not trying to judge anyone but trying to get a better idea of what went down and why.
by mojo84
Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:13 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it
Replies: 149
Views: 22272

Re: OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

texanjoker wrote:
C-dub wrote:This could get interesting.
When the officer saw the man had a pistol in his waistband, the officer asked the man to give him the weapon during the interview, Acevedo said. The man refused and when the officer reached for it, the man took out the gun and pointed it at the officer, Acevedo said. The officer then took out his own gun and shot the man, the police chief said.
It doesn't specifically say, but it sounds like he met the officer out in his front yard when the officer arrived. This means he would have been openly carrying on his property. I'm worried about the statement that the officer reached for the guy's gun. Why would he have done that? It doesn't sound like the officer was being threatened before that point.

The deceased called 911 saying he shot a dog, hence the officer was investigating a crime, had a right to detain the deceased to investigate said crime and as such can seize evidence in a potential crime. In this case a gun was evidence and was in plain view in the decease waistband. The first rule of thumb when responding to a incident is to make sure the crime scene is safe. In this case the officer apparently did not feel it was and wanted the suspect to surrender a visible firearm. One witness on the news saw both the officer and deceased pointing guns at each other so I agree that would lead you one to believe they were IFO the house. It is common knowledge that if you point a gun at a uniformed LEO you will most likely be shot. Very tragic yes, but as in all cases let the investigation unfold. I'll be curious to what audio or video there may be. I wonder what the deceased rational was for pointing his gun at a uniformed officer? Hopefully that will be caught on the audio/video. I can also say just because somebody called 911, that does not mean they did nothing wrong. Many times people call 911 and are then arrested for a crime after the LEO realizes they committed a crime.

One witness statement to news:

A woman who calls herself Lena lives three houses down from where the shooting happened. She walked outside and witnessed the confrontation.

"Him and the guy were in close proximity," said Lena. "And he had no other choice but to protect himself. The guy didn't want to put the gun down."
At the point the officer showed up, what crime was there to investigate and did that crime warrant that the deceased needed to be disarmed?

Return to “OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it”