TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Here is an interesting perspective from a NYPD officer.

Be warned, there is some language. It is a New York cop after all.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He says this:

Missed 12 out of fifty @ 7 yards? GOOD ENOUGH!

Wow.

That is a pretty low standard for a paper target. Once the target is a human threat, that 12 out of fifty is very likely to become 48 out of fifty.

mojo84 wrote:Here is an interesting perspective from a NYPD officer.

Be warned, there is some language. It is a New York cop after all.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Missed 12 out of fifty @ 7 yards? GOOD ENOUGH!

cb1000rider wrote:

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.

cb1000rider wrote: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.

jmra wrote:

talltex wrote:

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 .

I would agree that you should expect to be charged for an ACTUAL action you committed....not so much in this situation...at least AS it is reported. If he was fighting with them, I see no problem with them using physical force or a Taser to control him, but the only action reported, was that he was "wading into traffic and throwing himself in the path of oncoming vehicles". Doesn't make much sense to shoot him, to prevent him from hurting himself. It does not say that he ever struck one of the officers physically, and he was only facing misdemeanor charges. Unless there's a lot more to the story, I can't see how the officers could justify shooting at him in that situation, and I think charging him with assault for the injuries actually caused by the officer's conduct is ridiculous.

This is about attempting to move liability from the police to elsewhere. This has more to do with the lawsuit than it does justice.