Cops shoot home owner not intruder.


the cop who shot him was cleared of any wrong doing??? who cleared him? they should both lose their jobs over this. that is so freakin messed up!
 

the cop who shot him was cleared of any wrong doing??? who cleared him? they should both lose their jobs over this. that is so freakin messed up!

I'm not a civil attorney, but AZ law probably isn't in the homeowner's favor when it comes to a civil case either. Not now, if the LEO's are cleared criminally of any liability.

My guess is the homeowner turned to face the RO's with his gun in hand and they shot him. At least, that's my guess at THEIR story... I wasn't there, thank God.

You don't want to tangle with the gang in blue. It gets ugly.
 
The "gang in blue" is very effective in covering their a$$es. Maybe next time a CCW permit holder gets in a bind, the rest of us can "investigate" his/her actions and, by gosh, clear them of all wrongdoing.
 
I agree with AZ. Its a castle doctrine state. Don't even try to subdue just shoot the piece to crap and put the gun down and sit outside. And jj I'm surprised you would even have to ask that question. It's not talking about walking into a grocery store and blowing someone's brains out for no reason, it's talking about someone entering your home with intent to do harm to you, your family and or your property. Idk maybe the marine corps "screwed me up" in your bleeding hearts eyes but that wouldn't have went down in my house. On the other hand, atleast he lived and now will get lots of money.
 
Holy CRAP. That's a lot of suck.

I wasn't there, so maybe there's circumstances that caused the cop to shoot. But from where I'm standing it looks pretty bad.

I had an incident a few days ago where a neighbor was brandishing a weapon. I called the police and explained to dispatch the situation, as well as the fact that I had a CWP and was armed. The dispatcher all but asked for a blood sample, asking where on my person the weapon was, what kind it was, etc. By the time the police officer arrived (very quickly), he knew all the details, asked if I had my weapon, asked if my husband was armed, proceeded to gather facts, and we walked him back to his car chatting about what kind of CWPs we had and for how long.

Altogether a pleasant encounter. Maybe because it's a small town? Maybe because the cop had all the facts? Don't know.
 
Headline says "Cop Accidentally Shoots Man!" Poppycock. There's no such thing as an accidental shooting of SIX ROUNDS." Shot in the back? Shot while on the floor? No verbal warning? LEO made aware that the homeowner has the gun holding the suspect before entering? No charges on the LEO? This officer must be removed. The department must be sued into oblivion. Send a message.
 
To those of you who say just shoot the BG. I say I don't want to clean up the mess that shooting the BG would cause if it is not needed. As for the Police the wife said she told them that her husband had the gun and not to shoot him cause he is the home owner. He also told the dispatcher that he had the BG at gun point so there is no reason for the Police to go in guns a blazing.

And to shot the person in the back without identifying yourself as a Police officer in my book is cause for criminal charges to be press against the officer who fired the shots.
 
BG in house laying on floor bleeding from gunshot wound, send ambulance and police, I will be sitting on the couch.
 
I don't want to ever shoot anyone, but I've thought of this type of situation many times...Very easy to get things muddled up when the cops walk in and someone has a gun. There is a LOT less trouble for everyone if you DON'T shoot the BG, but you may end up getting shot yourself.

Don't know what I'd do...Pray I never have to find out.
 
I had an incident a few days ago where a neighbor was brandishing a weapon. I called the police and explained to dispatch the situation

Can I ask, please, what your definition of brandishing is? You can PM me if you wish, I really do have a legitimate reason for asking.
 
Can I ask, please, what your definition of brandishing is? You can PM me if you wish, I really do have a legitimate reason for asking.

"Brandishing" may not be proper in this case.

My husband and I have been having ongoing problems with the neighbor's kid. Harassing my dog, trespassing, etc. We've spoken to him and to his mother a few times.

On the day in question he came onto our property and said to my husband "I want to show you something" and pulled a large knife from his waistband. I could only see the handle, and no blade, so it was either a switchblade or folding-type knife.

I imagine that this is probably not brandishing, but considering the kid's track record, I took it as a threat and called the police.
 
"Brandishing" may not be proper in this case.

On the day in question he came onto our property and said to my husband "I want to show you something" and pulled a large knife from his waistband. I could only see the handle, and no blade, so it was either a switchblade or folding-type knife.

I imagine that this is probably not brandishing, but considering the kid's track record, I took it as a threat and called the police.

I would consider that brandishing, given there was no other reason to show the knife other than to intimidate.

Some people, though, would consider me removing a jacket in a restaurant and sitting down to eat with my gun in a holster on my belt clearly visible to be brandishing, even though it is perfectly legal to do so in both WA and ID (and many other states).
 
I could see some of the more sheltered cityfolk reacting that way, but you would think people in Washington and Idaho would know better.

My understanding of the law and the intent of "brandishing" is that there has to be some kind of intimidation factor. The environment you are in, the people around you, even the time of day would all effect whether you were carrying, displaying or brandishing, in my opinion.

Even in my case, had this kid not shown previous violent and devious behavior, I would have said "Oh, cool knife!" But as it is, he already established himself as an aggressor and a repeat offendor, so I cannot possibly assume his intentions were innocent.

In the case of this cop gunning down a homeowner, it's a similar thing. They were entering a terse situation, however, as far as I can tell, they not only had plenty of info beforehand, the man also never pointed his weapon at them. As a cop, you have got to be able to assess a situation like that quickly and accurately, and my feeling is, this particular cop just reacted before he knew what was even happening.

As for carrying in restaurants and such, there was a time it might have made me a little nervous. Now I think to myself "That's the person I'm with if the SHTF."
 
A number of facts are conveniently missing

This came up some time ago, and one of the on scene officers chimed in. The officers were not responding to the 911 call nor did they know one had occurred. They were in hot pursuit of the suspect who was presumed to be armed and dangerous. When they followed him into the home they saw a man with a gun being pointed at another man, and made an erroneous conclusion as to who was who. The dragging of the man out of the house was no different than what they would do to a downed officer, and the "I'll back you up" comment makes a lot more sense if you understand that the mistake was the result of rather incredible circumstances and the officer was simply saying they wouldn't throw him under the bus to simplify the mess. Holding the department liable for medical costs and lost wages is reasonable, but beyond that the family needs to stop boobing.
 
Sonofabiscuit! Well, if that's true, it extra-sucks.

This guy was trying to do what he thought was the right thing in not killing the intruder. What the heck are you supposed to do in this situation?

Some have said you should not be holding a gun when the police arrive, but this guy needed to. Other have said to restrain the intruder, but some have advised against it. And of course many advocated for immediate termination, but not everyone wants to face those implications.

This just stinks no matter what.
 
Sonofabiscuit! Well, if that's true, it extra-sucks.

This guy was trying to do what he thought was the right thing in not killing the intruder. What the heck are you supposed to do in this situation?

Some have said you should not be holding a gun when the police arrive, but this guy needed to. Other have said to restrain the intruder, but some have advised against it. And of course many advocated for immediate termination, but not everyone wants to face those implications.

This just stinks no matter what.

My take on this is that:
- in general you probably should shoot an intruder at your first oportunity (and not just because you want them dead - a lot of cops have been killed by violent scum bags they thought were being compliant and you shouldn't expect to fair better all by yourself in your own home).
- Sometimes the stars are aligned against you and you are screwed no matter what you do. Such is life. Live with it today. Accept that it might kill you tomorrow. Then choose to keep on living anyway.
 
If someone breaks into your home, you shoot them. If you dont, you are not in fear of your life the way I see it. The decision to shoot or not is your own based on that fact.
 
And Through it all, The OFFICER WAS CLEARED of wrong doing??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Hope I never move there and, need that PD'S help... My prayers are with the family, Hopefully he will fully Recover. I also will pray for the Officer. I'm sure he isn't feeling to good about what he did.And, how it all went wrong
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top