Shooting at Carl's Junior.
- Thread starter BassNut
- Start date
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I believe the guy that got shot had a pipe bender in his hands. Not positive, but whatever it was, he was in the act of swinging it when he got shot. Too bad, so sad, but that's a good shoot as far as I can see. I'm not particularly easy on trigger-happy or overly-aggressive and abusive cops, but I don't expect them to hold off on shooting until after they've taken blows to the head or face from the end of a 4 or 5 foot stick being swung at full force by some numb-nuts who has already been hit with a Taser to the face and refused to submit.
Blues
Blues
Last edited:
Two things. 1) The LEO has a dog--is it just decoration? Ridiculous that he has the dog and still shoots the guy. May be a good shooting but in my book it is not. Put that before me in a civil case and I will rule against the city. 2) Are the idiot kids in the car our hope for the future? Probably cannot wait to vote for the garbage in the whitehouse so that they can sit around in their car the rest of their lives laughing when someone dies as they get paid to do nothing.
SR40c
Done told her once...
When seeing a video like this, I usually try to put things in a personal perspective. If I was with a friend or family member, and some jackass with a conduit bender came at me or one of them with malice, I would have to do the same thing. Without question.
Now, having said that, I was not there, nor do I know all the circumstances. Being there can be much different than watching a video that only gives part of the story. What may seem obvious at a distance could be very different when directly involved.
Been at a gunpoint four times in my life. From a distance, all four incidents would have appeared to have been justification for lethal force. Probably the same from a legal perspective as well. Two of those incidents would have been a huge mistake on my part if I could have and did.
Now, having said that, I was not there, nor do I know all the circumstances. Being there can be much different than watching a video that only gives part of the story. What may seem obvious at a distance could be very different when directly involved.
Been at a gunpoint four times in my life. From a distance, all four incidents would have appeared to have been justification for lethal force. Probably the same from a legal perspective as well. Two of those incidents would have been a huge mistake on my part if I could have and did.
rrman12280
New member
Mixed emotions. The perp was obviously going after the cop after being sprayed. The dog was maybe the next tactic, but the perp decided to speed things up a bit and didn't give the cop time to unleash the beast. The first officer was forced to fire when the perp started after the second officer. If the dog would have been released prematurely, then some lawyer would claim police brutality via dog or some crap. Maybe a little attempted first aid would have been in order. But I'm just calling what I see after the fact which is easy. It may have been different in the middle of it happening. I'm also not sure what the perp had already done inside the restaurant. I'll try to find the full story online.
The guys in the video are annoying, and use some windshield wipers.
The guys in the video are annoying, and use some windshield wipers.
The_Outlaw
~The Dude Abides~
The cop with the K-9 did an excellent job of protecting his fellow officer i.m.h.o.
He did not have time to release the K-9 because the suspect was allready taking the swing at the other officer who was clearly not even paying attention to the suspect at that moment.
However, I believe that the 2nd cop (with the pepper spray) was incompetent and it was both a combination of his incompetence & the suspects stupid reaction that forced the K-9 officer to use deadly force i.m.h.o.
And WHY in the hell did the same incompetent officer have to add even more bullets into the suspect AFTER the suspect was already shot and down on the ground? ~SMH~
He did not have time to release the K-9 because the suspect was allready taking the swing at the other officer who was clearly not even paying attention to the suspect at that moment.
However, I believe that the 2nd cop (with the pepper spray) was incompetent and it was both a combination of his incompetence & the suspects stupid reaction that forced the K-9 officer to use deadly force i.m.h.o.
And WHY in the hell did the same incompetent officer have to add even more bullets into the suspect AFTER the suspect was already shot and down on the ground? ~SMH~
SGB
New member
rrman12280
New member
rifleshooter474
New member
You have to be very careful when cops are involved, they will shoot first ask questions later if someone can still answer.
Dog should have been released.
Officer should not have been close enough to be swung on with a conduit bender. 2nd officer probably didn't need to discharge his weapon. I would say this situation could have ended with him being treated for bite wounds and sent to jail instead of full of holes. Having said all that, I feel the deadly force was probably justifiable given the situation and in that moment the cop did the right thing.
Officer should not have been close enough to be swung on with a conduit bender. 2nd officer probably didn't need to discharge his weapon. I would say this situation could have ended with him being treated for bite wounds and sent to jail instead of full of holes. Having said all that, I feel the deadly force was probably justifiable given the situation and in that moment the cop did the right thing.
SGB
New member
These are the worst kind of aggressor to deal with, were I a betting man I'd say homeless, emotionally disturbed substance abuser. Not subject to reason or pain compliance.
MYGLOCK
New member
Very disturbing video. I don't know if letting the dog loose would have prevented this outcome. The dude took a shot from the taser witch only made him more agitated. The dog would have just gotten hurt with the same end result. Who charges police officer with a weapon? This dude was some kind of jacked. Non-compliance got this guy dead.
The_Outlaw
~The Dude Abides~
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
Took the words right off my keyboard. Agree 100%.
He definitely should have loosed the dog first. At that point the perp would have been easy pickings for the LEOs to pounce on him.
rrman12280
New member
This time you and I somewhat agree. The dog should have been released earlier, but when that didn't happen and it got to the point of starting the swing, it may have been too late for the dog. Hindsight is 20/20.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
1) The jerks taking the video are 100% irrelevant to evaluating the scene and shooting.
2) The K9 handling officer has no duty to send his partner in to face a potentially deadly weapon (the conduit bender) in place of a uniformed officer. If the handler was justified in shooting to protect his human partner from the bender being swung, he was justified in preventing his K9 partner from being the target of the same weapon. If he had let the dog go, it would have vastly reduced his shooting options, or at least put his K9 partner in the line of fire if he decided after letting the dog go that it was time to open fire.
3) While the second volley of shots is a valid action to question and scrutinize for those investigating the shooting, the only video we have to go on prevents us from seeing what the perp is doing once he disappeared from the camera's eye from the first volley. If he was still holding the bender and made an attempt to get up again, or actually, it's possible that he never went all the way down, the second volley would be justified. If not, well, I can't say what other threatening movement he might have made, if any at all. I'd be interested to hear both officers explain the second volley, but I'm nowhere near ready to judge it unjustified based only on this video. Chances are the first volley of five shots would've killed the guy eventually anyway, but if a Taser to the bare skin of his face didn't slow him down from being threatening, the second volley may well have been necessary to stop the threat, and there's no question that will be the officer's explanation, a second volley was necessary to stop the threat.
Blues
2) The K9 handling officer has no duty to send his partner in to face a potentially deadly weapon (the conduit bender) in place of a uniformed officer. If the handler was justified in shooting to protect his human partner from the bender being swung, he was justified in preventing his K9 partner from being the target of the same weapon. If he had let the dog go, it would have vastly reduced his shooting options, or at least put his K9 partner in the line of fire if he decided after letting the dog go that it was time to open fire.
3) While the second volley of shots is a valid action to question and scrutinize for those investigating the shooting, the only video we have to go on prevents us from seeing what the perp is doing once he disappeared from the camera's eye from the first volley. If he was still holding the bender and made an attempt to get up again, or actually, it's possible that he never went all the way down, the second volley would be justified. If not, well, I can't say what other threatening movement he might have made, if any at all. I'd be interested to hear both officers explain the second volley, but I'm nowhere near ready to judge it unjustified based only on this video. Chances are the first volley of five shots would've killed the guy eventually anyway, but if a Taser to the bare skin of his face didn't slow him down from being threatening, the second volley may well have been necessary to stop the threat, and there's no question that will be the officer's explanation, a second volley was necessary to stop the threat.
Blues
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 0
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.