TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:Now, having a CHL is to blame:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/05/31 ... ghbor.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VMI77 wrote:OK, sorry, but I don't feel at all heated about it. My comment about the outcome is just based on logic and a belief that the police did not murder him, but shot him as a result of a series of unfortunate events. I don't think it should have happened but I don't see how the officers can be charged with anything either.

VMI77 wrote:I haven't gone back through every one of your comments on incidents like this but from those I remember it sure seems like you want to place blame anywhere but on police. Please explain further what you mean by the "current culture of people wanting to force themselves upon police while carrying a gun?" Personally, I'm afraid of the police because they're the only group of people I can't defend myself against if they attack me. The police break into my house by mistake my dog is dead, and if they see me with a gun having woken up in the middle of the night thinking my home is being invaded, I'm dead, and possibly my wife. Officer safety you know. No one else in this country has this kind of license to kill. I don't have a magic phrase like "officer safety" to keep me out of prison. There is no "citizen safety." If a bad cop rapes a woman and she shoots him, SHE is going to prison. Any sane and relatively informed person knows that any contact with police while armed, especially if the weapon is visible, is a possible death sentence. That's not the way it was 40 years ago.

In this case, the old man didn't "force himself on police while carrying a gun." The police forced themselves on HIM. And sorry, no CHL owner gets to pull out a gun and shoot someone without warning without going to prison. If a CHL holder shot someone in the same or similar circumstances, his life would be over. We already know what the result of the "investigation" is going to be: sorry surviving family members, but the officers acted properly in accordance with department procedures. The chances it will lead to charges for the officers are about the same as you encountering a legitimate residential alarm.

When you say the officers don't have to identify themselves you're saying a citizens right to self-defense is ALWAYS subordinate to police, since in the many cases where it is impossible for a citizen to see that a potential threat is the police, such as at night with a flashlight in your face, or coming out of a deep sleep in the middle of the night with your door crashing in, a citizen has to take the risk that the unidentified threat is a good guy. The police on the other hand, can shoot and then say they felt threatened and it's, oops, so sorry. The citizen shoots and it is the police, he ends up dead or in prison. So much for serve and protect.

Finally, in this particular case we come to one of two possible conclusions if we assume good faith on the part of the officers: 1) the old man didn't know they were police and felt threatened; or 2) the old man was tired of living and decided to commit suicide by cop. Which of these two possibilities is the most likely? You're apparently OK with number one; I'm not, and I consider it a police culture problem.

carlson1 wrote:I do not believe we can even come close to making a decision because not one of us knows the true facts. We are basing our statements on what the "media" says and we should know by now that the media is twisted. Over and over some have said and righteously so, "wait until the investigation is over."

As for as this statement my answer is REALLY?

Where is the blame for the person that set off the alarm and started this chain of events? Alarms are considered a burglary in progress and are treated as such. Had this person properly operated their alarm this would not have happened.

VMI77 wrote:

puma guy wrote:Wandering around on your property with a visible weapon in the dead of night is certainly not advisable.

Seriously? On MY PROPERTY? Then we may as well all be disarmed if the police can come on our property and kill us just because we have a gun ---which btw, is not illegal. On occasion I wander around my property in the dead of night with an AR15 in hand --I don't think that gives the police the right to shoot me. Also, the accounts say he was standing in his garage, not wandering around. Here's what we know for sure, as most of the comments following the article reflect: if the situation was reversed, and this man, on his OWN PROPERTY, had mistakenly shot a police officer wandering around in the dark with a gun in his hand because he felt "threatened," he'd be in jail right now, he'd be charged with murder, and he'd go to prison. It wouldn't matter that he felt threatened, that it was dark, that he didn't realize they were police, that it wasn't intentional, or that he was on his OWN PROPERTY.

Diesel42 wrote:With respect Keith, it's my neighborhood. Mr Walker was in his garage watching the property with the alarm sounding. Woodhaven has a proactive neighborhood watch. I don't know what actions Mr Walker made. I hope the investigation determines what happened. This is a very sad incident for Woodhaven.
Nick