OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

[mojo84]

I agree. But when the person that discharged is on his own property and is the one that called saying it was in self defense against a dog, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I think we need to be very careful with the police or anyone being able to disarm any one they choose at their own discretion without solid legal reasons to do so.

What indication was there at the time the guy was being disarmed that it was not self defense against a dog? If it was a shooting of a person instead, I would understand the man being disarmed immediately upon the officer's arrival. I just don't see why it was necessary base on the info I've seen that the man should have been disarmed. Just my opinion.

[texanjoker]

I agree. But when the person that discharged is on his own property and is the one that called saying it was in self defense against a dog, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I think we need to be very careful with the police or anyone being able to disarm any one they choose at their own discretion without solid legal reasons to do so.

What indication was there at the time the guy was being disarmed that it was not self defense against a dog? If it was a shooting of a person instead, I would understand the man being disarmed immediately upon the officer's arrival. I just don't see why it was necessary base on the info I've seen that the man should have been disarmed. Just my opinion.

You definitely have the right to your opinion in our great nation and I respect it. Just a last thought but you ask about indication. The officer needed to investigate and until he did that, wouldn't know if a good shoot or not. I had a call once where a guy, who was a off duty LEO, shot his neighbors dog in the dogs own backyard. He was unarmed when we contacted him. The off duty LEO ended up being charged with cruelty to animals.

[mojo84]

The difference in your scenario is that he shot the dog in the dogs backyard. Totally different than this situation.

Until the officer had reason to believe the man did something wrong, I don't think he had a right to disarm the guy.

[texanjoker]

The difference in your scenario is that he shot the dog in the dogs backyard. Totally different than this situation.

Until the officer had reason to believe the man did something wrong, I don't think he had a right to disarm the guy.

The reason I brought that up was to show that just because somebody calls and say they shot a dog, it doesn't mean it was a legal shooting. The responding officer has to investigate to determine if they did something wrong or not. You do not interview an armed suspect.

Gotta go. Have a good night.

[mojo84]

He's not a suspect. He's a citizen calling for service and to report the incident.

Presumed innocence officer.

[K.Mooneyham]

He's not a suspect. He's a citizen calling for service and to report the incident.

Presumed innocence officer.

That's what I was getting at with my last post. Many LEOs, by the nature of their work, deal with dangerous thugs day in and day out. And to keep themselves safe, it seems as if at least some LEOs treat everyone as potential thugs. They do NOT "presume innocence", they presume they are going to get shot in just about any encounter and they take whatever measures they can to prevent that. I may get some folks jumping down my throat with both feet saying "That's not true", but it certainly seems to fit a lot of situations we keep reading about. We don't know the details of what happened between the older man and the LEO, but we do know it sure didn't turn out very well.

[texanjoker]

He's not a suspect. He's a citizen calling for service and to report the incident.

Presumed innocence officer.

That's what I was getting at with my last post. Many LEOs, by the nature of their work, deal with dangerous thugs day in and day out. And to keep themselves safe, it seems as if at least some LEOs treat everyone as potential thugs. They do NOT "presume innocence", they presume they are going to get shot in just about any encounter and they take whatever measures they can to prevent that. I may get some folks jumping down my throat with both feet saying "That's not true", but it certainly seems to fit a lot of situations we keep reading about. We don't know the details of what happened between the older man and the LEO, but we do know it sure didn't turn out very well.

That is actually a very good post! Potential thug or not, you treat everybody with the same courtesy regardless if they are the billionaire or street thug. Both can kill you and you take the same safety precautions. You never presume innocence or guilt with any suspect. However it is important to remember that a person is innocent until proven guilty. You do a thorough investigation on each case and let the facts take you where they go. IMO you do presume you are going to be shot or assaulted and do whatever measures that the law and your dept policy allows to prevent that. As all trainees are taught, there is a least one gun in every encounter, the LEO's. I agree that this didn't turn out well and is tragic from any way you look at it.

[ClarkLZeuss]

The way I see this playing out in my mind is that basically it was the perfect storm.

You have a citizen who knows his rights in regards to 2A, as he not only shoots a dangerous animal on his property, but he is still wearing the same gun - openly, on his property - when the police officer arrives. Then when the police officer tries to disarm him, he feels his rights are being violated and so he draws his weapon to defend himself. In his mind, each and every one of his actions seems justified. And it's important to note that he didn't shoot the officer, though he probably could have (physically). He was more focused on the apparent violation of his RKBA.

Then you have the officer, responding to a call that someone has shot a dog. He pulls up and is met outside by the man who did the shooting. This man was not waiting inside for the officer to knock on the door. This man is also carrying the gun he did the shooting with. The officer asks to disarm the man, who refuses. Then, it seems, the officer moves quickly to disarm the man physically. This is where I think the critical mistake happened. (Assuming he didn't), what the officer should have said at this point - as others have - was simply, "Sir, it is standard procedure when we investigate a shooting to disarm the shooter. I am not taking away your gun or your rights, I am simply making the situation safe. If everything checks out, I will promptly return your weapon." IMO, something factual and to the point, along these lines, would have changed everything.

[bagman45]

Sad story, over a dog. Good first thought; don't kill, or be killed over a dog, or cat, or goat, or... OK, so now; just my $.02, THE COP WAS THE BAD GUY. There are good cops, and POWER TRIP cops. He tried to bully the old dude, got called on it, and shot him when the old dude stood up for his right to be armed on his own property. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!!! Even if the old guy was crotchety (like most of us old guys - see Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino), the cop should have talked to him calmly, and CALLED IN A SUPERVISOR to work through the situation, if he "feared for his life". If the homeowner declined to surrender his weapon on his own property, which, by the way, IS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, the cop should have backed off, de-escalated the situation, and called for help to resolve the situation peacefully. Instead, it sure looks like he got mad that the old guy didn't bow down to him, and tried to disarm him with force (likely after some choice words and big threats). Even if the old guy was plain old NUTS, he has the right to carry on his property, if this is, in fact, what went down.

If this is what went down, did the old guy also display poor judgement? YUP! You discharge a firearm, and call the police about it, you likely should not meet them in your front yard with a weapon... That said, we, as CHL holders are trained to defuse tense situations so that deadly force is not required; it's clear this officer either did not receive this training, or determined that it did not apply to him.

[jmra]

I tend to agree with baldeagle, you feel the need to pull a gun on a cop but don't feel the need to pull the trigger...sounds like suicide by cop to me.

[A-R]

All most of you likely need to do to understand the LEO's perspective on this is change the first deceased (the dog) to a more obvious legally protected possible "victim". Use the Oscar Pistorious case. Dispatch tells you a man called to say he shot an "intruder". LEO shows up and the intruder is a young, blonde female (you don't even know yet that it's his girlfriend).

Now do you disarm the contact individual before continuing the investigation?

"Oh but that's obviously different," you say. Shooting a dog is different than shooting a pretty blond woman.

Not as different as you think, under the law. Point is BOTH are potentially serious crimes involving violence or (gun violence to use the anti's loaded language). And before LEO begins to investigate he must make sure the scene is safe and secure to investigate. As stated, LEO must act objectively and treat each person and similar situation the same. The LEO cannot/should not ASSUME that the dog shooter is justified and safe anymore than he should assume the woman shooter is guilty and unsafe.

Could this particular APD officer have used different tactics to disarm the old man? Maybe, but none of us here know for sure which tactics he did or did not try (though many here ASSUME and are labeling the LEO based on these assumptions).

But again, to say the LEO was automatically wrong to disarm the man at all (because of RKBA, property rights, etc) is just plain wrong, and a misunderstanding of LEO duties, powers etc. I make this blunt point in the hope that if any of you are ever in a similar situation you will remember this and not resist.

With all of the above in mind, there certainly are many errors the LEO could have made. I'm sure we'll all be paying close attention (as we should) to the facts (video/audio and other evidence) as it's released. But it's WAY to early to be labeling the LEO in this case a "bad guy".

It's too early to label the old man a bad guy too. We don't know exactly what happened, except that he's dead and we THINK it's because he refused to comply with an officer's instruction/request/demand.

If there is anything to take away at this point, it's (as has been stated multiple times before) to always follow officer's instructions - ESPECIALLY if you are a MWAG (man with a gun) - and then argue the correctness of those instructions later.

You may not like it. None of us may like it. But regardless, arguing with a cop who tells you to disarm is NEVER going to end well and - as we've seen - can end tragically.

Sure, there are extreme circumstances where compliance is not best - but there's a reason these are EXTREME hypothetical situations.

[A-R]

One other comparative thought:

How many who are criticizing this LEO for what he may have done BEFORE the old man apparently pointed a gun AT the LEO are/were equally as critical of George Zimmerman for what he did/didn't do BEFORE Trayvon Martin started beating his head into the ground?

Not to bring elements of another heated, emotional case into this (too late?), but there are some similarities between the build up to both shootings ... innocent person is shot after violently resisting the initial actions of the shooter (and yes, pointing a gun at someone is "violently resisting" - you would/could shoot someone who pointed a gun at you, right?).

[longtooth]

Had a class yesterday & in last night about 9:00 so I am late to this party.
When you start this from square 1 & the basic simplest points that cannot be argued or oppinionated this is pretty cut/dried to me.

1. The law says nothing about a LEO having the right to disarm. It says they have the authority to disarm. For the officer to ASK for the weapon was a great show of trust in itself.
2 As soon as he refused that is an offence in itself. Refusing to obey the LAWFUL order of a Piece Officer.
Whether anyone agrees or not w/ him reaching for the gun, I still see that as a last gesture of trust.
He could have drawn his own weapon of taser & called for all backup. Roughly put the guy on the ground & taken the weapon.
If a person refuses ANY lawful order & the officer "lets it go" then from that time on the person is in control & not the officer.

[Excaliber]

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.

Based on the information available at this point, I agree that this is the most viable working hypothesis which is, of course, subject to change based on new information as the investigation unfolds.

One factor that bears consideration is that the deceased may have been in an agitated state immediately after shooting an attacking dog, and that may have contributed to the officer's perception of a threat to his safety.

[Excaliber]

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.

Based on the information available at this point, I agree that this is the most viable working hypothesis which is, of course, subject to change based on new information as the investigation unfolds.

One factor that bears consideration is that the deceased may have been in an agitated state immediately after shooting an attacking dog, and that may have contributed to the officer's perception of a threat to his safety.

However the facts turn out, I think Chief Acevedo very accurately summarized this sad state of affairs.