TexasCHLforum.com

I'll throw this into the mix. According to this research paper "Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal." According to this site which tracks police shootings, "In 2011, according to data I have collected, police officers in the United States shot 1,146 people, killing 607." That would mean that police accidentally shot 126 innocent people and killed 67 of them in 2011.

Food for thought.

VMI77 wrote: http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant/ ... 07171.html

Jerry Waller was killed inside his own garage in the Woodhaven neighborhood early Tuesday morning.

A pair of Fort Worth police officers, who have been on the force less than a year, were responding to a burglary alarm in the area.

There's two problems with this. The first is, what does killed inside his garage mean? If they wrote shot while inside his garage, that would be specific. Killed inside his garage could mean that's where he expired. The imprecision of the language lends itself to speculation. Secondly, citing that the officers were on the force for less than a year is prejudicial. It leads the reader to the obvious conclusion that they were young, inexperienced and screwed up. Those aren't facts. They are suppositions.

VMI77 wrote:And it's a little strange from the logical point of view how you accept the police version and reject the homeowner's version.

The homeowner is dead. How could he have a version?

Again, as I've repeatedly stated, we don't have enough facts to make any judgments about what happened, and speculation about what happened merely fuels conspiracy theories.

VMI77 wrote:Sort of simple actually. He was on his property, there were no police there. He remained on his property and police appeared. The police approached him on his property, he didn't stray off his property to approach the police.

And you got this information where? I saw nothing in the article that stated where he was before the police confronted him, where he was when the police confronted him and who approached whom. The only thing we know for certain is that he was dead in his garage. Given that people can travel some distance when shot before succumbing to their wounds, any statement about his or the officers' location at the time of the incident is pure speculation. And that's a poor basis for accusing anyone of anything.

VMI77 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:but we do know that he pointed his gun at the officers.

No, we don't KNOW that. We might accept it as a fact but there is also reason not to accept it as a fact. You're quoting a radio call made after the shooting. If the officers thought they screwed up and were afraid of the consequences they could have made the radio call for cover. Logically, to accept it as fact you have to believe that all police officers tell the truth all the time.

And to reject it as fact you have to assume that all police officers will lie all the time. My assertion would be that at this time, that's all the evidence we have, so it's all we can discuss. Speculation serves no useful purpose except to buttress an opinion not based on facts.

Now we have an additional piece of evidence that clarifies, to some degree, what happened.

In the original police radio call, officer Benjamin Hanlon is heard asking for help: “He wouldn’t put the gun down. He pointed it at [officer Richard] Hoeppner. Hoeppner fired.”

So, we still don't know where Mr. Waller was when he was shot, but we do know that he pointed his gun at the officers. That's a foolhardy thing to do. We still don't know if the officers shouted a warning before shooting (they may not have had time), whether Mr. Waller understood they were police officers (we'll never know that), and whether or not the outcome was avoidable (we still don't have enough facts).

A trend in law enforcement is officer survival training. As the BGs get more aggressive toward LEOs, the LEOs have sought out training to teach them how to survive a deadly encounter. These guys - http://calibrepress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - are at the forefront of that. Their research shows that as officers receive more survival training they become less likely to be involved in deadly force incidents. They learn not to press the issue and not to expose themselves to deadly confrontations. The end result is enhanced officer safety and fewer deadly force incidents - a win-win for them as well as the public. The problem is departments often can't afford to pay for the training, so officers have to come up with the money on their own. Seminars are "cheap" in comparison to other professions, but they're still more than $1000, which is a chunk of change for a junior officer just starting his career.

As for the article, CHL had nothing to do with this incident, so the attempt of this article to blame it for the shooting is blatant bias, plain and simple.

VMI77 wrote:In this case, the old man didn't "force himself on police while carrying a gun." The police forced themselves on HIM.

How in the world do you know this? Are you privy to inside information the rest of us don't have? 1) We don't know who initiated the contact. 2) We don't know the nature of the contact (did the owner have his gun pointed at the officers? Was he aggressively moving toward them? Was he sitting passively in a chair and they blew him away?

VMI77 wrote: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.

How do you know there was no warning?

A single case of a CHL holder shooting someone without first warning them would disprove your statement. There are sufficient videos on Youtube of exactly that happening that I don't even need to post them. There is no requirement in the law to warn someone before shooting them, and in some circumstances it would be foolhardy to do so.

I think you need to calm down. This story has obviously gotten you riled up - to the point that you're veering into uncharted and unproven territory with your accusations.

I have refrained from commenting so far, but no longer. There seems to be an assumption that because these were rookie cops they must have made a mistake. We don't have the facts yet. It's far too early to speculate.

Here's what the article says.

According to Fort Worth police, the alarm call came just before 1 a.m. in the 400 block of North Havenwood Lane. But after arriving at the scene, officers became involved in a confrontation with a man armed with a gun who was across the street from where the alarm was going off.

I don't know what that means. Do you?

Feeling threatened, at least one officer fired at the man, who was later identified as Jerry Waller, police said. Waller was dead at the scene, in his own garage.

The article doesn't say what made them feel threatened. It also doesn't say Mr. Waller was in his garage when he was shot - only that he was dead in his garage.

Before I jump to any conclusions, I want to know more. Don't you? Or is it acceptable to condemn these officers without knowing the facts?

I suggest we all take a breath and think, there but for the grace of God go I.

Once we know all the facts, then perhaps we can condemn these officers, but first try to put yourself in their shoes (when we know the facts.) Given those facts, how would you have performed in their place? If your answer is I don't know or no better than them, then don't condemn them. If your answer is much better than them, maybe you need to reevaluate your thinking about your skill level. Or maybe not. Only you will know for sure.

As for me, I'm thankful I don't have to deal with the pressures of being required to pursue bad guys, especially at night, and put my life on the line every day. I'm also thankful there are young men who are still willing to volunteer to do that.

These two young men will have to deal with this the rest of their lives. The least I can do is hold off on condemning them until all the facts are known.