TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:...but it's hard to believe race wasn't a factor in the charge and the sentence if true....and that's a big if since it is an article in the "news" media, which frequently means the reality is completely different.

I think he was most likely bagged because he couldn't afford a good attorney. Sure race could be a factor, but likely the lack of enough money to afford an "adequate" defense is also in play.
And yea, the media could be reporting it totally backwards.

There are different rules for different people apparently.

It's crazy how firearm incidents are treated differently depending on where you are and who you are:

http://thegrio.com/2013/12/04/us-airman ... -25-years/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This guy was protecting himself from an unprovoked attack. He fired, hit his attacker and also managed to hit 2 other people via fragments.

The DA had to say:

“The evidence is clear here that the act of pointing a gun into a group of people, even if you’re not specifically deciding to kill them, is a crime,” said Assistant State Attorney Jack Campbell in his closing statements during the trial...

20-year mandatory minimum sentence for this guy. 10 years of it was for "brandishing". Sheesh. Not worth owning a gun in FL.

texanjoker wrote: Whether the shooting is justified or not is another argument. Even if the shooting was not a 'good shoot' this guy apparently did some stuff and was arrested. NYPD had the charges right, all being misdemeanor charges. I think people are not reading the entire article because it was the DA"s office that upped the charges to felony assault.

If you can't follow police orders and put your hands anywhere, you may get shot. I accept it as fact. It should just be more widely advertised.. :-)

And my real beef is with the DA that ran these charges up the flag pole. Ridiculous.. It makes every person suspected of a crime responsible for LEOs actions during that interaction.

EEllis wrote: You are making an argument based on a logical fallacy here. You say "when he clearly was not a deadly threat" but that is not a given so the rest of your statement does not follow. What if the guy was doing something like trying to commit suicide by cop? Making moves that were designed to make others believe he had a firearm when he didn't? He then would be trying to look like he was a deadly threat to induce the suicide by cop so obviously a person can be unarmed and still present like a deadly threat.

I mean clearly he wasn't a deadly threat (after the fact). No way the LEO could have known that up front.
I dunno what you do in a situation where you've got a back drop full of people and you're sure he's a deadly threat. I guess you take the shot because it's going to get bad either way. Up until that point, it's a tough call and understand why it might go badly.

However, in regard to charging that guy with assault, how is it any different that an officer involved accident while trying to catch up to me to give me a speeding ticket? Shouldn't we charge motorists with any accident between when the pursuit starts and the motorist stops (I'm not talking about a non-pursuit case here where the civilian is being caught up to)?

A-R wrote: Agree, I just didn't see much in the way of life-threatening movements by the suspect described in the story (again, one article is only info I have).

The only way that *ever* works out in a suspects favor is if there happens to be a camera.
Hey, why not give the LEOs 48 hrs to make sure there weren't any?

A-R wrote: Agree, but I think the rub here is whether they were justified to shoot at all? Hands in his pockets, no gun. By no means do I intend to second guess as I wasn't there, but it don't sound good based solely on the report.

I pretty much accept that if you're deemed to be physically threatening (over 12 years old, under 80 years old) and you make a furtive move, you can justifiably be shot if you're not following directions. There isn't any reason why LEOs should take a beating just so a suspect doesn't get shot.. Besides, there is a greater danger if they are physically incapacitated.

I don't get the backdrop issue.. Maybe joker can weigh in here, but isn't that in consideration before shooting - or is that you're just focused on that limited area and not what is in the background?

texanjoker wrote:One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force. Just because they missed doesn't give him a free pass .

So charge him appropriately - disturbing the peace. Commit him for being a danger to himself or others. Maybe charge his with resisting...
Charging him with assault on the public? That's what our justice system is these days... I wonder if that helps deflect the civil responsibility?

CoffeeNut wrote: The NYPD and the officers involved should be held responsible for the shoot when it was clear that a Taser could be used with more effectiveness in that situation.

I thought that some PDs were prohibited from "switching" once that firearm was pulled? I guess you have to pop-off a few, when that doesn't work, you can then switch to non-lethal means... Ok, that's a bit mean spirited, but sheesh... Unbelievable here. It just illustrates the no-matter-what alignment between prosecutors and PDs.

On this issue, I'm good with a few people losing their ability to make a living for a while.. Especially those in the DA's office.

Horrible title - back to media school for someone.. How about "Unarmed suspect charged with wounding bystanders"?


I might be able to understand a LEO shooting someone for reaching in his her pocket. PDs should advertise more effectively though - it might lead to fewer deaths: "If you don't follow directions and reach into a pocket, we will try to kill you". I'd rather see that on police cars rather than "protect and serve". It's a much more attention grabbing motto.

I don't understand why you take a shot at someone that you haven't confirmed as a deadly threat with a backdrop full of people. Maybe it's because I haven't been in that adrenalin fueled type of event? Before you even raise a gun, aren't you going to think about the backdrop?

And lastly, I don't understand a criminal justice system that charges an unarmed guy with assault when he clearly was not a deadly threat. If you follow that to it's logical conclusion, any action that I might take that results in LEO gunfire, I'm inherently responsible for, regardless of how justified or unjustified that use of force was. It's no different than having an offer club me and accidentally hurting someone else, then charging me with two crimes.

I'm calmed down by recognizing that hopefully this is a pretty isolated incident in day to day public/police interaction.