OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

[baldeagle]

I have two thoughts about this story. First, assuming the man was rational, why would he have pointed his gun at the officer? He apparently didn't want to shoot him, because he had the drop on him but didn't fire. That only leaves me with one conclusion. If he was rational, then he had decided he wanted to die. What other explanation could there have been?

Second, if you were talking to a neighbor and he pointed his gun at you, what would you do? Once the gun is pointed at you, your choices are limited. If, in your judgment, the neighbor isn't serious about pulling the trigger, you could try to talk him down, but there is a high risk in that scenario. If you're wrong, you're dead. If you're not certain what the neighbor's intentions are, then you have to either escape or shoot. Police officers can't run away. They're paid to confront difficult situations.

While the officer may have been wrong to try to take the gun away from him (I have no idea if he did or not and, if he did, if he was wrong or not), once the gun was pointed at him, he was forced to make a quick decision that determined whether he lived or died. Under the same circumstances, I would shoot. Wouldn't you?

For me the lesson of this incident is, if you are confronted by a police officer who you are convinced has no legal right to do what he's doing to you you either need to shoot without hesitation or surrender and wait for your day in court. The latter has a much higher likelihood of ensuring your survival.

[mojo84]

This could get interesting.

When the officer saw the man had a pistol in his waistband, the officer asked the man to give him the weapon during the interview, Acevedo said. The man refused and when the officer reached for it, the man took out the gun and pointed it at the officer, Acevedo said. The officer then took out his own gun and shot the man, the police chief said.

It doesn't specifically say, but it sounds like he met the officer out in his front yard when the officer arrived. This means he would have been openly carrying on his property. I'm worried about the statement that the officer reached for the guy's gun. Why would he have done that? It doesn't sound like the officer was being threatened before that point.

The deceased called 911 saying he shot a dog, hence the officer was investigating a crime, had a right to detain the deceased to investigate said crime and as such can seize evidence in a potential crime. In this case a gun was evidence and was in plain view in the decease waistband. The first rule of thumb when responding to a incident is to make sure the crime scene is safe. In this case the officer apparently did not feel it was and wanted the suspect to surrender a visible firearm. One witness on the news saw both the officer and deceased pointing guns at each other so I agree that would lead you one to believe they were IFO the house. It is common knowledge that if you point a gun at a uniformed LEO you will most likely be shot. Very tragic yes, but as in all cases let the investigation unfold. I'll be curious to what audio or video there may be. I wonder what the deceased rational was for pointing his gun at a uniformed officer? Hopefully that will be caught on the audio/video. I can also say just because somebody called 911, that does not mean they did nothing wrong. Many times people call 911 and are then arrested for a crime after the LEO realizes they committed a crime.

One witness statement to news:

A woman who calls herself Lena lives three houses down from where the shooting happened. She walked outside and witnessed the confrontation.

"Him and the guy were in close proximity," said Lena. "And he had no other choice but to protect himself. The guy didn't want to put the gun down."

At the point the officer showed up, what crime was there to investigate and did that crime warrant that the deceased needed to be disarmed?

[A-R]

Generally speaking discharging a firearm within city limits is a crime, unless justified by Chapter 9 of Penal Code. There IS an investigation of any discharge of a firearm within city limits. Whether tha investigation shows justification comes later.

[sjfcontrol]

Didn't stop Rick Perry (I'm assuming that was inside city limits).

[S_3]

This story reminds me of a comment in viewtopic.php?f=7&t=63201&p=776916#p776762" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have been out of LE since 1993. We had our motto back then that stated " in case of shots fired, ensure only one side gets to the Grand Jury".

[mojo84]

Generally speaking discharging a firearm within city limits is a crime, unless justified by Chapter 9 of Penal Code. There IS an investigation of any discharge of a firearm within city limits. Whether tha investigation shows justification comes later.

From what little I've seen, he called saying he shot a dog that attacked him. Therefore, the officer was not aware there was a crime committed other than that of someone's dog attacking someone. Generally speaking, when a dog attacks someone that is a crime but defending oneself against a dog attack is not.

The comment that I questioned was phrased in a way that indicated the officer was there to investigate a crime committed by the deceased when at the point of the officer showing up it appears the only crime that was evident was that of someone allowing their digg to attack someone. If that's the case, I don't set why the deceased was being disarmed on his property.

If it comes out he was acting irrationally or overly angry, there may be justification.

Not trying to judge anyone but trying to get a better idea of what went down and why.

[jimlongley]

I have two thoughts about this story. First, assuming the man was rational, why would he have pointed his gun at the officer? He apparently didn't want to shoot him, because he had the drop on him but didn't fire. That only leaves me with one conclusion. If he was rational, then he had decided he wanted to die. What other explanation could there have been?

Second, if you were talking to a neighbor and he pointed his gun at you, what would you do? Once the gun is pointed at you, your choices are limited. If, in your judgment, the neighbor isn't serious about pulling the trigger, you could try to talk him down, but there is a high risk in that scenario. If you're wrong, you're dead. If you're not certain what the neighbor's intentions are, then you have to either escape or shoot. Police officers can't run away. They're paid to confront difficult situations.

While the officer may have been wrong to try to take the gun away from him (I have no idea if he did or not and, if he did, if he was wrong or not), once the gun was pointed at him, he was forced to make a quick decision that determined whether he lived or died. Under the same circumstances, I would shoot. Wouldn't you?

For me the lesson of this incident is, if you are confronted by a police officer who you are convinced has no legal right to do what he's doing to you you either need to shoot without hesitation or surrender and wait for your day in court. The latter has a much higher likelihood of ensuring your survival.

I kind of wonder if there was an escalation of force that took place. One possibility in my thinking is:

The LEO arrives and sees the deceased with the gun tucked in his waist band.

The LEO makes the decision, right or wrong, to disarm the deceased.

The LEO starts his attempt by ordering the deceased around, and the deceased, thinking he is being abused because after all it was he that called in the report and the LEO is there to assist him and take a report, reacts defensively.

The LEO then attempts to remove the gun himself, and the deceased reacts by taking hold of it himself, still in defensive mode.

Now we have the deceased, gun in hand, challenging the LEO to act the way he expected him to in the first place.

The LEO, having a perpetrator with a drawn gun and obviously upset, facing him with a drawn gun, draws his own gun.

The deceased, now feeling under attack, starts to raise his gun in response to the perceived threat of the LEO who was supposed to be there to assist him now drawing down on him.

The LEO, a little quicker to react, perceives that the deceased has now become a deadly threat, finishes his draw stroke and fires.

[ftabangler13]

Would definitely have to take my day in the court on that one and let him have the gun. Especially if i called in the first place. You gotta know they are there to help you file a report and get things squared away, so work with em a little. I seriously doubt he would confiscate the gun.

[OldGrumpy]

Bottom line we should always respect the badge and its authority. Having a handgun does not give us the right to disobey a lawful order. We should remember that law enforcement is a tough job and their lives are on the line with every call they answer. Sure every once in a while one acts dishonorably but there are ways of lawfully responding to that.

[tomtexan]

I understand that a person is allowed to open carry on his own property or in his own front yard. That is just something I don't practice. If this person had kept his concealed, he could have retained his weapon while chatting with the officer. If I call the police to my house, I'm not going to be strutting around with a weapon openly visible. To me, that's just inviting problems. Concealed is concealed.

[texanjoker]

This could get interesting.

When the officer saw the man had a pistol in his waistband, the officer asked the man to give him the weapon during the interview, Acevedo said. The man refused and when the officer reached for it, the man took out the gun and pointed it at the officer, Acevedo said. The officer then took out his own gun and shot the man, the police chief said.

It doesn't specifically say, but it sounds like he met the officer out in his front yard when the officer arrived. This means he would have been openly carrying on his property. I'm worried about the statement that the officer reached for the guy's gun. Why would he have done that? It doesn't sound like the officer was being threatened before that point.

The deceased called 911 saying he shot a dog, hence the officer was investigating a crime, had a right to detain the deceased to investigate said crime and as such can seize evidence in a potential crime. In this case a gun was evidence and was in plain view in the decease waistband. The first rule of thumb when responding to a incident is to make sure the crime scene is safe. In this case the officer apparently did not feel it was and wanted the suspect to surrender a visible firearm. One witness on the news saw both the officer and deceased pointing guns at each other so I agree that would lead you one to believe they were IFO the house. It is common knowledge that if you point a gun at a uniformed LEO you will most likely be shot. Very tragic yes, but as in all cases let the investigation unfold. I'll be curious to what audio or video there may be. I wonder what the deceased rational was for pointing his gun at a uniformed officer? Hopefully that will be caught on the audio/video. I can also say just because somebody called 911, that does not mean they did nothing wrong. Many times people call 911 and are then arrested for a crime after the LEO realizes they committed a crime.

One witness statement to news:

A woman who calls herself Lena lives three houses down from where the shooting happened. She walked outside and witnessed the confrontation.

"Him and the guy were in close proximity," said Lena. "And he had no other choice but to protect himself. The guy didn't want to put the gun down."

At the point the officer showed up, what crime was there to investigate and did that crime warrant that the deceased needed to be disarmed?

The officer was there to investigate the shooting of a dog within city limits. He would need to investigate the shooting and determine if the shooting was justified or not. There are various laws that would apply if it was not a good shooting. The first rule of thumb in a shooting is to disarm the subject involved as you do not interview an armed suspect.

[A-R]

Generally speaking discharging a firearm within city limits is a crime, unless justified by Chapter 9 of Penal Code. There IS an investigation of any discharge of a firearm within city limits. Whether tha investigation shows justification comes later.

From what little I've seen, he called saying he shot a dog that attacked him. Therefore, the officer was not aware there was a crime committed other than that of someone's dog attacking someone. Generally speaking, when a dog attacks someone that is a crime but defending oneself against a dog attack is not.

The comment that I questioned was phrased in a way that indicated the officer was there to investigate a crime committed by the deceased when at the point of the officer showing up it appears the only crime that was evident was that of someone allowing their digg to attack someone. If that's the case, I don't set why the deceased was being disarmed on his property.

If it comes out he was acting irrationally or overly angry, there may be justification.

Not trying to judge anyone but trying to get a better idea of what went down and why.

The info provided to police by the deceased was one side of the story. There may or may not have been another side to the story. That is what the police are there to find out. In its most basic form, that is an investigation.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty the LEO might have done wrong. We simply don't know. But to say there was no "crime" to "investigate" in first place is a misunderstanding of the police role when called out about the discharge of a firearm.

What I'd be interested to know is whether this officer and/or APD as a whole has a habit of or even a standing order to disarm all contacts in such a situation or is it based on discretion? If discretion, what are the factors that should lead to disarming and what are the factors that did lead to disarming in this case.

[mojo84]

I too am curious about the procedures and protocol regarding disarming.

My contention is there was an incident to be investigated. Initially, the info was that there was a dog attack and the dog was shot. That in and of itself doesn't warrant disarming the guy in my mind. Just as disarming a chl for "officer safety" on a routine traffic stop when the chl doesn't exhibit any behaviors that warrant disarming him or her.

I also want to be sure my comments aren't misconstrued to indicate that I support the deceased pulling his gun. There its quite a bit more to this story than what we know at this point.

[A-R]

I too am curious about the procedures and protocol regarding disarming.

My contention is there was an incident to be investigated. Initially, the info was that there was a dog attack and the dog was shot. That in and of itself doesn't warrant disarming the guy in my mind. Just as disarming a chl for "officer safety" on a routine traffic stop when the chl doesn't exhibit any behaviors that warrant disarming him or her.

I also want to be sure my comments aren't misconstrued to indicate that I support the deceased pulling his gun. There its quite a bit more to this story than what we know at this point.

Big difference between routine traffic stop and discharge of firearm.

[texanjoker]

I too am curious about the procedures and protocol regarding disarming.

My contention is there was an incident to be investigated. Initially, the info was that there was a dog attack and the dog was shot. That in and of itself doesn't warrant disarming the guy in my mind. Just as disarming a chl for "officer safety" on a routine traffic stop when the chl doesn't exhibit any behaviors that warrant disarming him or her.

I also want to be sure my comments aren't misconstrued to indicate that I support the deceased pulling his gun. There its quite a bit more to this story than what we know at this point.

Big difference between routine traffic stop and discharge of firearm.

This case is more then the discharge of a firearm as it was an investigation into the shooting death of a dog, which can be a criminal offense if not justified self defense. You do not interview an armed suspect. They even take our guns in a OIS before they interview us.