TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crim ... nor/nWdY9/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting police shooting in Austin today. The deceased who allegedly pointed a gun an the officer is a range safety officer at the Austin Rifle Club. Leslie Lenn the club VP has it correct IMO in the article. I hope the video and or audio captured the event to prove/disprove the incident.

However, Lenn said if the incident unfolded as police say, he understands why an officer may have been forced to open fire.
“If it happened exactly as police describe, I believe the officers have a right to defend themselves,” he said.
Lenn said he’s known Schaefer for several years and that Schaefer would attend the monthly meetings for the group. According to the group’s website, Schaefer was an instructor for a bench rifle practice class this year, and is listed as an instructor for two “Introduction to Reloading” classes scheduled to begin next week.

Wow, that's unreal. I'm a member at ARC. I did not know Mr. Schaefer, but there must be more to this story. Very sad outcome to a situation that never should have resulted in death.

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.

C-dub wrote: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.

An honest answer might be seen as violating forum rules, so you're on your own.

I am very concerned about how this case plays out. It can play out poorly for CHLs and also poorly for the police.

I read about it in the paper this morning and saw no evidence that the man was a CHL. It read to me like the officer met the man on his own property and saw that he had a firearm. The police officer asked to disarm the man, but he had no legal authority to do so. The law allows police to disarm license holders, not everyone. It also allows police to seize evidence of crimes, but carrying a weapon on his own property is not a crime. And if the officer reached for the gun when the man refused to surrender it, then this would legally be an assault or attempted assault. That would justify some use of force by the man to defend himself. This makes it a case of manslaughter for the officer.

But it also can play out poorly for citizens. Think how this can make armed citizens look to police. An officer asked the man for his pistol, and the man refused and then pulled the gun and threatened the officer with it.

This case is a tragedy in more ways than I can think of. One of the few times I agree with Chief Acevedo was when he said there are never any winners in cases like this.

Was the man who was shot the same man who called about being attacked by a pit bull dog in his back yard? And he was how old, 72? And the gun was in his waistband (maybe IWB holster)? So, please let me ask what the officer had to be afraid of and why would he want to disarm the man in his own front yard? This is a serious question.

The mistake the man made was drawing his weapon, pointing it at the officer and not firing. He should have either never drawn the weapon or fired once drawing. Either way the courts would have sorted it out. Now he's dead and nothing will get sorted out.

I hate to hear a story like this- there is NO good way for it to end.

Even if it happened exactly as the officer said, the fact that he "reached" for the man's gun, leaves a really bad feeling in my stomach. I sincerely hope there is audio with the video, because this story leaves more questions than answers.

I struggle with why an officer can't have a conversation with another man, wearing a gun. He was the guy that called the police in the first place, not a criminal being detained.

C-dub wrote: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."

K.Mooneyham wrote:Was the man who was shot the same man who called about being attacked by a pit bull dog in his back yard? And he was how old, 72? And the gun was in his waistband (maybe IWB holster)? So, please let me ask what the officer had to be afraid of and why would he want to disarm the man in his own front yard? This is a serious question.

This.

Sounds like Officer Nervebags was more than likely just trying to "exert his authoritah" by disarming this 70 year old dude, as opposed to actually being in fear of violence. There's only 3 people that truly know, and one is dead.

I don't find this acceptable at all, and IMO, Officer Nervebags needs to find employment that doesn't require him to carry a firearm and make use of force decisions.

I could be wrong, of course.

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.

Where is it stated the deceased called saying he shot a dog? Statesman story says he called 911 to report he was attacked by a dog.

I agree, wait for more facts. But on initial reading seems both men may have made bad choices.

A-R wrote:Where is it stated the deceased called saying he shot a dog? Statesman story says he called 911 to report he was attacked by a dog.

I agree, wait for more facts. But on initial reading seems both men may have made bad choices.

It's all over the news that he called 911 to say he shot and killed a pit bull.

By Claudia Grisales, Ciara O'Rourke and Tony Plohetski
American-Statesman Staff
A man was shot and killed Friday in North Austin after he refused to surrender his gun to a police officer and then aimed the weapon at the officer, officials say.
The man had called police about 7:20 a.m. to say he had shot and killed a pit bull that attacked him, officials said.
- See more at: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crim ... LuMe5.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

texanjoker wrote:

C-dub wrote: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."

I completely understand that you, as a law enforcement officer, go into some very bad situations and obviously do not want to be shot. Which is why, no offense to any current or former LEO, I'd rather not have any interactions with any LEOs while they are "on the job". Just too many chances for something to go very wrong very fast.

My wife doesn't seem to fully grasp why I HATE living in the suburbs and want to move to the country so badly. And the why is that the suburbs offer WAY too many instances for small things to turn very badly very fast. The LEOs have to deal with too many thugs on a regular basis, and thus treat EVERYONE as a potential threat. I cannot wait to get a decent job, buy a place out a ways, and put some physical space between me and other folks. Not because I don't "trust" them, but because it just reduces those potentials.

texanjoker wrote:

A-R wrote:Where is it stated the deceased called saying he shot a dog? Statesman story says he called 911 to report he was attacked by a dog.

I agree, wait for more facts. But on initial reading seems both men may have made bad choices.

It's all over the news that he called 911 to say he shot and killed a pit bull.

By Claudia Grisales, Ciara O'Rourke and Tony Plohetski
American-Statesman Staff
A man was shot and killed Friday in North Austin after he refused to surrender his gun to a police officer and then aimed the weapon at the officer, officials say.
The man had called police about 7:20 a.m. to say he had shot and killed a pit bull that attacked him, officials said.
- See more at: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crim ... LuMe5.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks. I must've been reading an older version of story.

Agree with your take, but definitely would want to see/hear recordings.