TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote:It's a tragedy all around, but it was the complainant's actions that set the events in motion.

Jumping Frog wrote:If one objects to being disarmed by an LEO,it is poor strategy to refuse or otherwise resist at that moment. Those arguments are dealt with after the fact by the complaint process, through IA, or in the courts.

First objective is to survive the encounter. Survival ensures a plethora of choices. Being dead does not offer those options.

gigag04 wrote:Ok, so now we are advocating killing an LEO who has done nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral?

I am shocked some cops have an "us vs them" mentality...

KingofChaos wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

hillfighter wrote:It sounds like the deceased made a very poor decision to pull his weapon and not pull the trigger.

Sounds to me like pulling the weapon was a poor decision. Pulling the trigger on the LEO would have been a worse decision.

I actually have to disagree with this. Once he already made the clearly bad decision of pulling the gun it seems that pulling the trigger would have actually been one of the better things he could have done. It's certainly better than not pulling the trigger, which we see resulted in his death. Shooting first may have saved his life, so to say that it would have been worse doesn't make much sense. The determination of whether either of the individual choices, pulling the weapon and firing the weapon, is good or bad is independent of the other choice

hillfighter wrote:It sounds like the deceased made a very poor decision to pull his weapon and not pull the trigger.