OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

[texanjoker]

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...

I think it is crystal clear that I was opposing that notion. Agreed?

I certainly wouldn't either and especially in this case where the man's life was not in danger. I do believe that this officer acted appropriately and as probably any one of us would have if someone pointed a gun at us. The only part I was curious about was if the attempt to disarmed and then to handcuff him was legal or not under the circumstances.

I keep repeating myself. You can detain somebody when doing a criminal investigation of the shooting of a dog as is the case and you can detain somebody in handcuffs if needed. The old guy should have obeyed the officers lawful instructions.

[texanjoker]

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. Though i agree that as a whole his choice of actions were bad.

I find that I have to echo sentiment already expressed in this thread, and that is that the "take it up later in court/with their superiors" way of thinking is a perfectly rational plan, but execution of this plan is likely impossible for most or prone to failure. Most people do not have the monetary means to take these issues up in court. Furthermore, the LEO are aware of this fact; they get "you'll hear from my lawyer" talk and know that most of it is hot air. I feel that the knowledge that most of the people you interact with literally can't challenge your actions in court would affect your behaviour. My other issue with this relates to reporting behaviour to superior officers. The code of silence is real and there is a lot of video evidence out there that shows LEOs obstrtucting citizens from lawfully filing complaints against officers when they feel mistreated. If you don't have the ability to go to court, can't file a complaint without exposing yourself to harassment, and can't be sure that your complaint will even be cared, what can you do to ensure that LEOs are held accountable for their actions? Pulling your gun on them on the side of the street clearly isn't the answer, but I do think something needs to be done.

On one side we have someone who apparently got through 70 years without major problems until Friday. On the other side, we have APD which can't seem to make it through a single year without allegations of excessive force.

I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see a video of the shooting, but if I have to pick a side, I'll play the odds.

So this one officer is guilty by association with and membership in APD? I sure am glad the antis don't treat all gun owners and NRA members the same way.

While gringo is taking guilty by association to a bit of an extreme, I can understand his point and think it helps no one to dismiss it outright. In fact, many members of this forum often trumpet how educated profiling can be one of your best observational/awareness tools and potentially save yourself. It's irrational to think that this tool has great value when it comes to youths, minorities, and other people who can often be seen as acting like criminals/thugs but that it's inappropriate when considering police officers. In fact, I'd take gringos thoughts to another place. I've meet lots of LEOs in my short life thanks to my god mother, who's a detective for HPD, and so far my next door neighbour, who is retired, is the the only certifiably bad cop I've met. However, most of these "good" cops, my god mother included, have freely admitted to knowing about other bad cops and doing nothing or letting other officers get away with breaking the law once they found out they were also LEOs. If the "good" cops are turning a blind eye to the rotten apples, what are we to do? Though they aren't the only ones, I'm sure we all work with some incompetent person who shouldn't have his job but say nothing because "he has a family" or "we still get by with him here", etc. But now i'm just off topic.

If I read this correct you feel he should have then shot the LEO? That is absurd.

[KingofChaos]

If I read this correct you feel he should have then shot the LEO? That is absurd.

No, unholstering his weapon and pointing it at the LEO was absurd. Once he made that choice, pulling the trigger would have been perfectly rational. Not pulling the trigger is actually the odd part of the whole thing. Which is why a few others here have said this looks like a suicide by cop.

Your comment implies that you've entirely missed my meaning and instead think that I am condoning his behavior and think that the LEO somehow deserved to be shot. I was merely pointing out to jumping frog that saying that pulling the trigger would have been a worse decision for the deceased isn't true. It was the only decision he could have made at that time which could have possibly resulted in him keeping his life....assuming back up didn't shoot him.

[texanjoker]

If I read this correct you feel he should have then shot the LEO? That is absurd.

No, unholstering his weapon and pointing it at the LEO was absurd. Once he made that choice, pulling the trigger would have been perfectly rational. Not pulling the trigger is actually the odd part of the whole thing. Which is why a few others here have said this looks like a suicide by cop.

Your comment implies that you've entirely missed my meaning and instead think that I am condoning his behavior and think that the LEO somehow deserved to be shot. I was merely pointing out to jumping frog that saying that pulling the trigger would have been a worse decision for the deceased isn't true. It was the only decision he could have made at that time which could have possibly resulted in him keeping his life....assuming back up didn't shoot him.

I got your post, I just don't agree with it. Not firing at the cop was probably the only rational thing he did. He obviously at some point probably realized he was in a heep of trouble but was too stupid to just drop the gun. I don't by suicide by cop in this incident. This guy let his temper get the best of him and couldn't get himself out of the mess.

[gringo pistolero]

I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see a video of the shooting, but if I have to pick a side, I'll play the odds.

So this one officer is guilty by association with and membership in APD? I sure am glad the antis don't treat all gun owners and NRA members the same way.

Maybe this will help.

[A-R]

I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see a video of the shooting, but if I have to pick a side, I'll play the odds.

So this one officer is guilty by association with and membership in APD? I sure am glad the antis don't treat all gun owners and NRA members the same way.

Maybe this will help.

Your link takes me to a reading comprehension test.

http://www.majortests.com/sat/reading-comprehension.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was that intentional?

If so, kindly reread #2 here

[Excaliber]

If I read this correct you feel he should have then shot the LEO? That is absurd.

No, unholstering his weapon and pointing it at the LEO was absurd. Once he made that choice, pulling the trigger would have been perfectly rational. Not pulling the trigger is actually the odd part of the whole thing. Which is why a few others here have said this looks like a suicide by cop.

Your comment implies that you've entirely missed my meaning and instead think that I am condoning his behavior and think that the LEO somehow deserved to be shot. I was merely pointing out to jumping frog that saying that pulling the trigger would have been a worse decision for the deceased isn't true. It was the only decision he could have made at that time which could have possibly resulted in him keeping his life....assuming back up didn't shoot him.

I got your post, I just don't agree with it. Not firing at the cop was probably the only rational thing he did. He obviously at some point probably realized he was in a heep of trouble but was too stupid to just drop the gun. I don't by suicide by cop in this incident. This guy let his temper get the best of him and couldn't get himself out of the mess.

I agree.

From all the information we have, a law abiding citizen who was in an agitated state after just shooting an attacking dog made a very poor judgment by greeting the investigating officer with a visible gun in his waistband. When the officer tried to reduce the potential for violence by disarming him, he responded by presenting a deadly threat to the officer who was clearly not a deadly threat to him.

I suspect the complainant then had an "uh oh, what do I do now moment?" at the same time as the officer responded rationally and as trained to someone who pointed a gun at him at close range and with no cover available.

I also suspect that the officer is now struggling with the aftermath of not knowing whether he killed someone who intended to pull the trigger on him, or an ornery old man who didn't really intend to shoot. That's not an ambiguity I think any of us would like to live with, but that man now has no choice.

On the other hand, anyone who has ever had to make those kinds of decisions understands that an officer who takes no action and waits to see how things turn out on their own in circumstances like that is likely to end his career as the honoree at a police funeral.

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

[tomtexan]

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

That statement right there says it all. From the moment he shot the dog and then called the police, to the moment he pulled his gun and pointed it at the officer, it was his actions that got him where he is now. And that's pushing up daisies.

[Jumping Frog]

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

Yep, 9 pages later and I still agree with my post on the first page:

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.

Point a gun at an LEO, don't be surprised to end up dead.

[C-dub]

it was the complainant's actions that set the events in motion.

I'm still not completely convinced of this. He is mostly at fault because he resisted the lawful actions of the officer.

The deceased was not breaking any laws by openly carrying on his own property, right?

And it has been stated that the officer had the authority or right to disarm him. Okay, but was it required? Did the officer feel threatened. Did he need to disarm him or was it merely policy or his desire?

[texanjoker]

it was the complainant's actions that set the events in motion.

I'm still not completely convinced of this. He is mostly at fault because he resisted the lawful actions of the officer.

The deceased was not breaking any laws by openly carrying on his own property, right?

And it has been stated that the officer had the authority or right to disarm him. Okay, but was it required? Did the officer feel threatened. Did he need to disarm him or was it merely policy or his desire?

The deceased suspect shot a dog. (suspect in the shooting of a dog and aggravated assault on a public servant). The police had the right to detain him and investigate this potential criminal offense. Had the suspect used some common sense he would be alive today. I do not fault any officer that disarms an armed suspect that just fired a gun, refuses to put the gun away when instructed by dispatch, refuses to comply with a uniformed officers lawful commands, ect. That is basic officer safety. Not disarming a suspect that did all that would concern me. That is a lot different than some guy simply open carrying on his own property and a leo showing up wanting to disarm him for the hell of it.

[mojo84]

This part of the article seems to be being ignored by those that think the officer was completely in the right and the dead man was totally wrong. Now, I do think the dead man was wrong in trying to argue at that point in time and I do not fault the officer for shooting him once the now dead man pulled his gun. I still question why the officer was so adamant about disarming the guy and treating him as a "suspect" when he arrived on the scene. I don't think anyone that shoots a dog that doesn't belong to them that was attacking them in their backyard and then calls the police to report it should be regarded as a suspect. Call me crazy if you want.

The man had called 911 early Friday to report he was attacked by a pit bull that did not belong to him in his back yard,

http://statesman.com/news/news/local/po ... nor/nWdY9/

Websters definition of suspect.
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspect

[tbrown]

If we're going to play "but for" then let's charge the dog owner with homicide, because he or she put this all in motion. Once the dog was allowed to run loose and attack people, Schaefer was no more (and no less) to blame than Whitted.

[C-dub]

it was the complainant's actions that set the events in motion.

I'm still not completely convinced of this. He is mostly at fault because he resisted the lawful actions of the officer.

The deceased was not breaking any laws by openly carrying on his own property, right?

And it has been stated that the officer had the authority or right to disarm him. Okay, but was it required? Did the officer feel threatened. Did he need to disarm him or was it merely policy or his desire?

The deceased suspect shot a dog. (suspect in the shooting of a dog and aggravated assault on a public servant). The police had the right to detain him and investigate this potential criminal offense. Had the suspect used some common sense he would be alive today. I do not fault any officer that disarms an armed suspect that just fired a gun, refuses to put the gun away when instructed by dispatch, refuses to comply with a uniformed officers lawful commands, ect. That is basic officer safety. Not disarming a suspect that did all that would concern me. That is a lot different than some guy simply open carrying on his own property and a leo showing up wanting to disarm him for the heck of it.

Yes and I was only curious to know if the disarmament was required. When I asked what would have happened if he had left his gun in the house no one said that it would have been confiscated for the duration of the investigation. Because of that, I didn't think getting the gun that he shot the dog with was required.

[Excaliber]

If we're going to play "but for" then let's charge the dog owner with homicide, because he or she put this all in motion. Once the dog was allowed to run loose and attack people, Schaefer was no more (and no less) to blame than Whitted.

No, the dog owner is not responsible for the man's death.

The deceased made a series of decisions which were not under the control of the dog owner, and there were clear alternatives to the ones he made that would have certainly led to a much different incident outcome