Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 419281 times)

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2650 on: June 14, 2017, 01:48:48 PM »
With the exception of law enforcement, if you're going to carry, carry concealed.  On the rare occasion you would actually ever need your gun, concealed carry will give you the element of surprise advantage.

In some states it is difficult/impossible to carry concealed.  NC has been an open carry state longer than I've been alive but the existence of a CCP is a relatively new thing (1990s).  Prior to that, it just didn't exist for anyone other than law enforcement.

Some people carry openly in order to exercise their rights.  Rights are like muscles; without use they atrophy.

Open carry can be more of a deterrent than anything else.

Texas just legalized OC last year. I have yet to see anyone carry openly as I think most of us are concerned about blowback if the soccer moms get their jimmies rustled and start pushing back on our rights. Funny how nobody seems to have a problem with the 3-4% of the population that carry under a thin piece of fabric.
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

BDWW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Location: MT
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2651 on: June 14, 2017, 01:52:49 PM »
For states without an international airport, you'd just take a two-leg flight to another airport and then get on your international flight in New York or Detroit or California, etc.

Yes, you can, but if you're starting in, say, Montana, that can be a long-ass journey.  And expensive.   

Yep, it takes time to load up the pack mules, stock provisions, and journey into the civilized world...

Or I can drive ten minutes to the airport and take a direct flight to -
 off the top of my head - Seattle,Portland,SF,Vegas,Den,SLC,Chicago,Phoenix,LA,NYC,Dallas...

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2652 on: June 14, 2017, 02:35:20 PM »
With the exception of law enforcement, if you're going to carry, carry concealed.  On the rare occasion you would actually ever need your gun, concealed carry will give you the element of surprise advantage.

In some states it is difficult/impossible to carry concealed.  NC has been an open carry state longer than I've been alive but the existence of a CCP is a relatively new thing (1990s).  Prior to that, it just didn't exist for anyone other than law enforcement.

Some people carry openly in order to exercise their rights.  Rights are like muscles; without use they atrophy.

Open carry can be more of a deterrent than anything else.

That's generally the excuse I see from people who open carry because they want to be assholes and intentionally create drama.

Open carry for most people is a poor tactical decision. Unless you're using a triple retention holster (and know how to defend yourself from a gun grab, which is still possible with an excellent holster), you're ripe for something like this:


libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1129
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2653 on: June 14, 2017, 04:02:30 PM »
With the exception of law enforcement, if you're going to carry, carry concealed.  On the rare occasion you would actually ever need your gun, concealed carry will give you the element of surprise advantage.

In some states it is difficult/impossible to carry concealed.  NC has been an open carry state longer than I've been alive but the existence of a CCP is a relatively new thing (1990s).  Prior to that, it just didn't exist for anyone other than law enforcement.

Some people carry openly in order to exercise their rights.  Rights are like muscles; without use they atrophy.

Open carry can be more of a deterrent than anything else.

That's generally the excuse I see from people who open carry because they want to be assholes and intentionally create drama.

Open carry for most people is a poor tactical decision. Unless you're using a triple retention holster (and know how to defend yourself from a gun grab, which is still possible with an excellent holster), you're ripe for something like this:

Open carry one pistol.  Concealed carry the second to shoot the bastard who might try to steal the open carry weapon.

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1040
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2654 on: June 15, 2017, 09:57:20 AM »
[[/quote]

That's generally the excuse I see from people who open carry because they want to be assholes and intentionally create drama.

Open carry for most people is a poor tactical decision. Unless you're using a triple retention holster (and know how to defend yourself from a gun grab, which is still possible with an excellent holster), you're ripe for something like this:

[/quote]

Seems like you like drama and try to create it by calling people assholes.
The world is a dangerous place.  It has been since Caine killed Abel. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2655 on: June 15, 2017, 12:31:40 PM »
Seems like you like drama and try to create it by calling people assholes.
The world is a dangerous place.  It has been since Caine killed Abel.

"Seems you like drama," says the guy bringing religious stories into a discussion about reality.

I literally can't even.

Regardless, my point remains.
Quote from: JLee
Open carry for most people is a poor tactical decision. Unless you're using a triple retention holster (and know how to defend yourself from a gun grab, which is still possible with an excellent holster), you're ripe for something like this:

Do you have relevant training or experience that contradicts my statement?

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2656 on: June 16, 2017, 08:47:30 AM »
"Seems you like drama," says the guy bringing religious stories into a discussion about reality.
Sure he referenced a religious story, but I take his meaning to simply be that thoughout all history of mankind there have been people willing to use violence to get what they want. Ridiculing him for use of a religous idiom adds nothing to this discussion (except plossibly to prove his point that you do seem to like drama).

Some on this thread use the fact that mankind has a long history of violence as a reason people might want to own and carry a firearm; others use that fact as a reason people might want to limit the personal access to firearms. I've already indicated on this thread that I'm of the opinion that most people are good and responsible, so providing reasonably easy access to firearms for most people makes my community safer.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2657 on: June 16, 2017, 12:48:24 PM »
"Seems you like drama," says the guy bringing religious stories into a discussion about reality.
Sure he referenced a religious story, but I take his meaning to simply be that thoughout all history of mankind there have been people willing to use violence to get what they want. Ridiculing him for use of a religous idiom adds nothing to this discussion (except plossibly to prove his point that you do seem to like drama).

Some on this thread use the fact that mankind has a long history of violence as a reason people might want to own and carry a firearm; others use that fact as a reason people might want to limit the personal access to firearms. I've already indicated on this thread that I'm of the opinion that most people are good and responsible, so providing reasonably easy access to firearms for most people makes my community safer.

You're continuing along the tangent while steadfastly ignoring my on-topic comments (which is now becoming a trend, it seems). 

Quote from: JLee
Open carry for most people is a poor tactical decision. Unless you're using a triple retention holster (and know how to defend yourself from a gun grab, which is still possible with an excellent holster), you're ripe for something like this:

Do you have relevant training or experience that contradicts my statement?

I'm also of the opinion that most people are good and reasonable.  The ones open carrying "to exercise rights" (translated: to elicit reactions from the general public - often with a video camera to record the subsequent dramatic events) are not among those.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 12:53:14 PM by JLee »

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2658 on: June 20, 2017, 08:37:07 AM »
I'm also of the opinion that most people are good and reasonable.  The ones open carrying "to exercise rights" (translated: to elicit reactions from the general public - often with a video camera to record the subsequent dramatic events) are not among those.
I agree that open carry may not a good tactical choice in many situations, but a dramatic reaction to seeing that someone merely possesses a gun is not really a reasonable response either.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2659 on: June 20, 2017, 08:48:28 AM »
I'm also of the opinion that most people are good and reasonable.  The ones open carrying "to exercise rights" (translated: to elicit reactions from the general public - often with a video camera to record the subsequent dramatic events) are not among those.
I agree that open carry may not a good tactical choice in many situations, but a dramatic reaction to seeing that someone merely possesses a gun is not really a reasonable response either.

With regard to dramatic reaction, are you referring to a pistol in a holster or an AR-15 in a sling at walmart or target?  I'm pretty pro-gun, but the morons carrying rifles while shopping would cause me some alarm.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2660 on: June 20, 2017, 08:50:13 AM »
I'm also of the opinion that most people are good and reasonable.  The ones open carrying "to exercise rights" (translated: to elicit reactions from the general public - often with a video camera to record the subsequent dramatic events) are not among those.
I agree that open carry may not a good tactical choice in many situations, but a dramatic reaction to seeing that someone merely possesses a gun is not really a reasonable response either.

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. And apparently depends on the situation. Apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2661 on: June 20, 2017, 08:55:02 AM »
I'm also of the opinion that most people are good and reasonable.  The ones open carrying "to exercise rights" (translated: to elicit reactions from the general public - often with a video camera to record the subsequent dramatic events) are not among those.
I agree that open carry may not a good tactical choice in many situations, but a dramatic reaction to seeing that someone merely possesses a gun is not really a reasonable response either.

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. And apparently depends on the situation. Apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile

Travesty of justice.  There is a trial going on in Cincinnati right now for a cop who killed a motorist during a traffic stop.

Most police are good.  The few who aren't need to be held accountable.

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2662 on: June 20, 2017, 08:55:14 AM »
Prior to 2012 Calif allowed open carry but only if unloaded. Not sure WHAT that was about but assume it was to show support for Constitutional rights but in a way that no one is actually carrying a loaded handgun. It was very weird to me. I'm not a supporter of open carry anyways except in certain circumstances and situations (i.e. I open carried when I went hiking while living in Alaska) but really didn't see the point of Cali's open carry but unloaded policy. Probably why they changed it.
Retired at 42 to play!

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2663 on: June 20, 2017, 09:05:15 AM »
I'm also of the opinion that most people are good and reasonable.  The ones open carrying "to exercise rights" (translated: to elicit reactions from the general public - often with a video camera to record the subsequent dramatic events) are not among those.
I agree that open carry may not a good tactical choice in many situations, but a dramatic reaction to seeing that someone merely possesses a gun is not really a reasonable response either.

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. And apparently depends on the situation. Apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile

Travesty of justice.  There is a trial going on in Cincinnati right now for a cop who killed a motorist during a traffic stop.

Most police are good.  The few who aren't need to be held accountable.

Funny how the NRA has been pretty much silent on this whole thing. You would think they would have been screaming from the rooftops and using it as a perfect example of why their organization is important. I mean, a licensed gun owner with a permit to carry was murdered just for possessing a gun.

I wonder why they didn't.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 09:06:47 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2664 on: June 20, 2017, 09:09:53 AM »
I'm also of the opinion that most people are good and reasonable.  The ones open carrying "to exercise rights" (translated: to elicit reactions from the general public - often with a video camera to record the subsequent dramatic events) are not among those.
I agree that open carry may not a good tactical choice in many situations, but a dramatic reaction to seeing that someone merely possesses a gun is not really a reasonable response either.

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. And apparently depends on the situation. Apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile

Travesty of justice.  There is a trial going on in Cincinnati right now for a cop who killed a motorist during a traffic stop.

Most police are good.  The few who aren't need to be held accountable.

Funny how the NRA has been pretty much silent on this whole thing. You would think they would have been screaming from the rooftops and using it as a perfect example of why their organization is important. I mean, a licensed gun owner with a permit to carry was murdered just for possessing a gun.

I wonder why they didn't.

Not an NRA member and not defending them on this point.  As a disinterested third party, this may have as much to do with being pro-cop as anything.  Regardless, they should have spoken up on the victims behalf in this case.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2665 on: June 20, 2017, 09:20:30 AM »
Prior to 2012 Calif allowed open carry but only if unloaded. Not sure WHAT that was about but assume it was to show support for Constitutional rights but in a way that no one is actually carrying a loaded handgun. It was very weird to me. I'm not a supporter of open carry anyways except in certain circumstances and situations (i.e. I open carried when I went hiking while living in Alaska) but really didn't see the point of Cali's open carry but unloaded policy. Probably why they changed it.

I wonder if it was an allowance for being seen in public with a firearm and that not being a crime.  So if you loaded your gun into your car and people saw you, something like that, it's "open carrying". 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2666 on: June 20, 2017, 09:25:48 AM »
Prior to 2012 Calif allowed open carry but only if unloaded. Not sure WHAT that was about but assume it was to show support for Constitutional rights but in a way that no one is actually carrying a loaded handgun. It was very weird to me. I'm not a supporter of open carry anyways except in certain circumstances and situations (i.e. I open carried when I went hiking while living in Alaska) but really didn't see the point of Cali's open carry but unloaded policy. Probably why they changed it.

I wonder if it was an allowance for being seen in public with a firearm and that not being a crime.  So if you loaded your gun into your car and people saw you, something like that, it's "open carrying".
I don't know. I think they still had the same transport laws then as they do now (locked case with ammo separate) but I'm not sure. I know that people at political rallies or Minuteman border patrol type things would wear holstered unloaded handguns for show.

ETA: Just checked and open carry unloaded was allowed in vehicles prior to 2012 too.

http://smartgunlaws.org/open-carrying-in-california/
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 09:31:05 AM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2667 on: June 20, 2017, 09:50:09 AM »
I know that people at political rallies or Minuteman border patrol type things would wear holstered unloaded handguns for show.

Seems like it may be useful (better than nothing anyway...) if your particular Sheriff wouldn't approve your concealed carry permit because he didn't like your skin color, your tattoos, or maybe you just didn't contribute to his political campaign.

In case of emergency it would only take a second to unholster, pull a magazine from your pocket, and chamber a round.
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2668 on: June 20, 2017, 10:15:06 AM »
I know that people at political rallies or Minuteman border patrol type things would wear holstered unloaded handguns for show.

Seems like it may be useful (better than nothing anyway...) if your particular Sheriff wouldn't approve your concealed carry permit because he didn't like your skin color, your tattoos, or maybe you just didn't contribute to his political campaign.

In case of emergency it would only take a second to unholster, pull a magazine from your pocket, and chamber a round.
True. I'm not sure how you were legally suppose to carry ammo then - could you carry a magazine or speed loader on your gun belt or in your pocket or did they have to be no where near your body and totally inaccessible and thus useless? 
Retired at 42 to play!

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2669 on: June 20, 2017, 10:26:02 AM »
Funny how the NRA has been pretty much silent on this whole thing. You would think they would have been screaming from the rooftops and using it as a perfect example of why their organization is important. I mean, a licensed gun owner with a permit to carry was murdered just for possessing a gun.

I wonder why they didn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/philando-castile-shooting-nra-response-colion-noir

Here's a pretty interesting article on it. As for why no public statement, it could be for any number of reasons. Situations with cops shooting or killing civilians are inherently difficult, because cops by the nature of their job have to be treated a bit differently than a random citizen. Part of their job is getting into dangerous life threatening situations, and making split second life or death decisions. If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.

The NRA loves jumping on the support train when someone is killed by a criminal, or kills a criminal.  Situations like these are more nuanced, so it makes sense they'd step back a bit from their usual bravado. 

I'm not going to pretend to know all of the details of the case, because I don't, but I suspect there is a reason beyond "the victim was black" that the cop was not convicted.

Personally I would've liked it if they would have come out not necessarily against the cop, but in favor of education for concealed carry safety.  Maybe starting a campaign to spread awareness on how to behave properly while carrying, using this tragedy as a learning opportunity.

edit:  And this is yet another situation in which body cameras would have been extremely helpful.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 10:31:16 AM by ooeei »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2670 on: June 20, 2017, 11:57:02 AM »
Funny how the NRA has been pretty much silent on this whole thing. You would think they would have been screaming from the rooftops and using it as a perfect example of why their organization is important. I mean, a licensed gun owner with a permit to carry was murdered just for possessing a gun.

I wonder why they didn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/philando-castile-shooting-nra-response-colion-noir

Here's a pretty interesting article on it. As for why no public statement, it could be for any number of reasons. Situations with cops shooting or killing civilians are inherently difficult, because cops by the nature of their job have to be treated a bit differently than a random citizen. Part of their job is getting into dangerous life threatening situations, and making split second life or death decisions. If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.

The NRA loves jumping on the support train when someone is killed by a criminal, or kills a criminal.  Situations like these are more nuanced, so it makes sense they'd step back a bit from their usual bravado. 

I'm not going to pretend to know all of the details of the case, because I don't, but I suspect there is a reason beyond "the victim was black" that the cop was not convicted.


Personally I would've liked it if they would have come out not necessarily against the cop, but in favor of education for concealed carry safety.  Maybe starting a campaign to spread awareness on how to behave properly while carrying, using this tragedy as a learning opportunity.

edit:  And this is yet another situation in which body cameras would have been extremely helpful.
I've followed this case very closely and honestly cannot find another reason other than, we trust cops to do the right thing and your line of "If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.".  I don't see how this man was shot for anything other than being black.  He did exactly what you are suppose to do.  That cop is a murderer IMO and should never be on the streets much less policing them.

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2671 on: June 20, 2017, 12:07:13 PM »
True. I'm not sure how you were legally suppose to carry ammo then - could you carry a magazine or speed loader on your gun belt or in your pocket or did they have to be no where near your body and totally inaccessible and thus useless?

I'm no expert on California law but in Illinois as long as there wasn't a bullet in the gun it didn't matter where the magazine was, it was "unloaded".
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2672 on: June 20, 2017, 12:21:22 PM »
True. I'm not sure how you were legally suppose to carry ammo then - could you carry a magazine or speed loader on your gun belt or in your pocket or did they have to be no where near your body and totally inaccessible and thus useless?

I'm no expert on California law but in Illinois as long as there wasn't a bullet in the gun it didn't matter where the magazine was, it was "unloaded".

For a while before IL had CCW, it was common to carry an unloaded handgun and a full magazine in a fanny pack ("encased" per IL law) and it was, according to the internet lawyers, "legal."  I was never brave enough to risk the felony conviction to try that approach.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2673 on: June 20, 2017, 12:30:00 PM »
True. I'm not sure how you were legally suppose to carry ammo then - could you carry a magazine or speed loader on your gun belt or in your pocket or did they have to be no where near your body and totally inaccessible and thus useless?

I'm no expert on California law but in Illinois as long as there wasn't a bullet in the gun it didn't matter where the magazine was, it was "unloaded".
According to my friends in California back then (I did not look), you had to have it not within arms distance of the firearm so if you had it in the car, the ammo had to be in the trunk. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2674 on: June 20, 2017, 12:40:41 PM »

If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.

edit:  And this is yet another situation in which body cameras would have been extremely helpful.

If by accident you mean justified but tragic, I agree cops should not be charged. 

If by justified, you mean the cop screwed up and and killed/injured somebody through over aggression or  incompetence, then they should definately be charged. 

Police, if anything, are given too much of the benefit of the doubt in these situations.  If police were afraid of prosecution, tactics would change to avoid certain situations (no knock warrants, playing soldier).  99.99% of cops are great.  It's the small minority that need reigned in.

Agree with you on the body camera's. 

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2675 on: June 20, 2017, 09:40:52 PM »
  99.99% of cops are great.  It's the small minority that need reigned in.


[/quote]

Funny how the 99.99% never do anything to reign in the supposed tiny fraction of bad cops.   A "good" cop who looks the other way is a bad cop.

It's much more widespread than .01%. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2676 on: June 20, 2017, 10:28:55 PM »
Funny how the 99.99% never do anything to reign in the supposed tiny fraction of bad cops.   A "good" cop who looks the other way is a bad cop.

It's much more widespread than .01%.

I assume you're being facetious with your gratuitous use of absolutes here.

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2677 on: June 20, 2017, 11:18:26 PM »
Funny how the 99.99% never do anything to reign in the supposed tiny fraction of bad cops.   A "good" cop who looks the other way is a bad cop.

It's much more widespread than .01%.

I assume you're being facetious with your gratuitous use of absolutes here.

If it will make you feel better I'll say "almost" never instead.   Name me any of the recent cop kills civilian stories in the news where a "good" cop testified against the shooter. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2678 on: June 20, 2017, 11:39:57 PM »
Funny how the 99.99% never do anything to reign in the supposed tiny fraction of bad cops.   A "good" cop who looks the other way is a bad cop.

It's much more widespread than .01%.

I assume you're being facetious with your gratuitous use of absolutes here.

If it will make you feel better I'll say "almost" never instead.   Name me any of the recent cop kills civilian stories in the news where a "good" cop testified against the shooter.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/ray-tensing-retrial-uc-police-officers-called-to-testify-against-former-colleague

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3398
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2679 on: June 20, 2017, 11:52:10 PM »
Funny how the NRA has been pretty much silent on this whole thing. You would think they would have been screaming from the rooftops and using it as a perfect example of why their organization is important. I mean, a licensed gun owner with a permit to carry was murdered just for possessing a gun.

I wonder why they didn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/philando-castile-shooting-nra-response-colion-noir

Here's a pretty interesting article on it. As for why no public statement, it could be for any number of reasons. Situations with cops shooting or killing civilians are inherently difficult, because cops by the nature of their job have to be treated a bit differently than a random citizen. Part of their job is getting into dangerous life threatening situations, and making split second life or death decisions. If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.

The NRA loves jumping on the support train when someone is killed by a criminal, or kills a criminal.  Situations like these are more nuanced, so it makes sense they'd step back a bit from their usual bravado. 

I'm not going to pretend to know all of the details of the case, because I don't, but I suspect there is a reason beyond "the victim was black" that the cop was not convicted.


Personally I would've liked it if they would have come out not necessarily against the cop, but in favor of education for concealed carry safety.  Maybe starting a campaign to spread awareness on how to behave properly while carrying, using this tragedy as a learning opportunity.

edit:  And this is yet another situation in which body cameras would have been extremely helpful.
I've followed this case very closely and honestly cannot find another reason other than, we trust cops to do the right thing and your line of "If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.".  I don't see how this man was shot for anything other than being black.  He did exactly what you are suppose to do.  That cop is a murderer IMO and should never be on the streets much less policing them.
Have you seen the dashcam footage released today?

I can see why the jury let him go. Still tragic, but it didn't look like a trigger-happy cop.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2680 on: June 21, 2017, 06:31:59 AM »
I've followed this case very closely and honestly cannot find another reason other than, we trust cops to do the right thing and your line of "If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.".  I don't see how this man was shot for anything other than being black.  He did exactly what you are suppose to do.  That cop is a murderer IMO and should never be on the streets much less policing them.

I haven't seen much of the officer's testimony in the news sites, it all talks about the girlfriend/wife and mother. Of course it's tragic, but only hearing it from his girlfriend/wife's perspective and his mother's is going to give you a very one sided view. I distinctly remember a young man who was killed while robbing somebody's house and his mother was going crazy about how good of a kid he was, can't remember the name.

I've seen enough of these types of situations that show the footage some bystander takes which makes the cops look undeniably terrible, then show the cop's body cam or some other perspective and it turns into a totally different story. I'm willing to give the judge/jury the benefit of the doubt.

It blows my mind how people who live 1000's of miles away and have a very limited amount of evidence are confident that they are better equipped to decide who is a murderer than a local judge and jury.  It happens with every single high profile case.


If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.

edit:  And this is yet another situation in which body cameras would have been extremely helpful.

If by accident you mean justified but tragic, I agree cops should not be charged. 

If by justified, you mean the cop screwed up and and killed/injured somebody through over aggression or  incompetence, then they should definately be charged. 

Police, if anything, are given too much of the benefit of the doubt in these situations.  If police were afraid of prosecution, tactics would change to avoid certain situations (no knock warrants, playing soldier).  99.99% of cops are great.  It's the small minority that need reigned in.

Agree with you on the body camera's.

By accident I mean killing or shooting someone who actually isn't a threat.  Whether that's a shot at a suspect that goes through a wall and hits someone, or a misunderstanding.  You don't have to be overly aggressive or incompetent to have a misunderstanding.

https://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/8097484-Video-Anti-police-protester-undergoes-use-of-force-scenario-training/

There's a video of a reverend who was very critical of police killings.  He went through a training class with the local PD and was "killed" in the first scenario when he hesitated.  He ended up "killing" the suspect who was unarmed in his second scenario. In the third he did well and apprehended the suspect.  He was 1/3 on nobody dying in his training. Afterwards he talks about how important compliance is specifically, how you need to do exactly what the police officer says. 

I just read an article describing the Castile dashcam footage.  It says he hands the officer his insurance after he was asked for his insurance and license, and then tells him "I have to tell you I do have a firearm on me."  The cop says "don't pull it out," he then reaches for something, he says his driver's license, the cop says the gun, and the cop yells two more times "don't pull it out!" before shooting.  Castile says "I'm not pulling it out" in between the two yells.  If a cop is yelling "don't pull it out!" at you, STOP REACHING for whatever it is. Freezing in place is probably a good choice, and asking them how to proceed.  It was probably an honest mistake, but if a cop knows you have a gun, sees you reaching for something, and you don't stop when he yells at you twice, I can see why he might think you're a threat. 

If police were afraid of prosecution?  Do you really think officers see these high profile trials like this one and think "Haha he got off totally clean, looks like we're still good to go!" The officer had all charges dropped, so his only consequences were losing his career, forever having his name associated with being a racist cop who murdered someone, and having a target on his back for the rest of his life. Yeah, definitely something I'd want to emulate if I was a cop, seems like a really great life.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 07:05:58 AM by ooeei »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2681 on: June 21, 2017, 07:02:02 AM »
Funny how the NRA has been pretty much silent on this whole thing. You would think they would have been screaming from the rooftops and using it as a perfect example of why their organization is important. I mean, a licensed gun owner with a permit to carry was murdered just for possessing a gun.

I wonder why they didn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/philando-castile-shooting-nra-response-colion-noir

Here's a pretty interesting article on it. As for why no public statement, it could be for any number of reasons. Situations with cops shooting or killing civilians are inherently difficult, because cops by the nature of their job have to be treated a bit differently than a random citizen. Part of their job is getting into dangerous life threatening situations, and making split second life or death decisions. If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.

The NRA loves jumping on the support train when someone is killed by a criminal, or kills a criminal.  Situations like these are more nuanced, so it makes sense they'd step back a bit from their usual bravado. 

I'm not going to pretend to know all of the details of the case, because I don't, but I suspect there is a reason beyond "the victim was black" that the cop was not convicted.


Personally I would've liked it if they would have come out not necessarily against the cop, but in favor of education for concealed carry safety.  Maybe starting a campaign to spread awareness on how to behave properly while carrying, using this tragedy as a learning opportunity.

edit:  And this is yet another situation in which body cameras would have been extremely helpful.
I've followed this case very closely and honestly cannot find another reason other than, we trust cops to do the right thing and your line of "If every cop who accidentally shot or killed someone got charged with murder or manslaughter nobody would want to be a cop.".  I don't see how this man was shot for anything other than being black.  He did exactly what you are suppose to do.  That cop is a murderer IMO and should never be on the streets much less policing them.
Have you seen the dashcam footage released today?

I can see why the jury let him go. Still tragic, but it didn't look like a trigger-happy cop.
I did see it.  And I saw the cop shoot a man for following his instructions.  Which leans me towards shooting him for being black vs panic.  Either way, I disagree that the jury should have let him go. 

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2682 on: June 21, 2017, 07:33:08 AM »
I did see it.  And I saw the cop shoot a man for following his instructions.  Which leans me towards shooting him for being black vs panic.  Either way, I disagree that the jury should have let him go.

I think the circumstances surrounding this case are extremely tragic and fucked up. But it is uncertain from the dashcam footage if the driver was, in fact, reaching for something as the officer told him not to. The girlfriend's testimony says he was putting his hands up but without a bodycam it is impossible to know for certain. Because of that element of "reasonable doubt", the jury was unable to convict.
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2683 on: June 21, 2017, 07:39:15 AM »
I did see it.  And I saw the cop shoot a man for following his instructions.  Which leans me towards shooting him for being black vs panic.  Either way, I disagree that the jury should have let him go.

I think the circumstances surrounding this case are extremely tragic and fucked up. But it is uncertain from the dashcam footage if the driver was, in fact, reaching for something as the officer told him not to. The girlfriend's testimony says he was putting his hands up but without a bodycam it is impossible to know for certain. Because of that element of "reasonable doubt", the jury was unable to convict.

And also, because the jury was not able to read the officer's testimony to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, in which he clearly said that he did not see a gun.

Which contradicts his rehearsed testimony on the stand during the trial.

As far as I can understand it, the prosecution did not introduce the BCA testimony during their questioning, and tried to introduce it later as new evidence during their cross-examination of Yanez. Seems like a tragic error on the part of the prosecution.

Even so, I never believed for one minute that given the current law as it stands, a police officer would ever be convicted for shooting a black man in legal possession of a firearm who was complying with the officer's commands.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2684 on: June 21, 2017, 09:24:01 AM »
I did see it.  And I saw the cop shoot a man for following his instructions.  Which leans me towards shooting him for being black vs panic.  Either way, I disagree that the jury should have let him go.

I think the circumstances surrounding this case are extremely tragic and fucked up. But it is uncertain from the dashcam footage if the driver was, in fact, reaching for something as the officer told him not to. The girlfriend's testimony says he was putting his hands up but without a bodycam it is impossible to know for certain. Because of that element of "reasonable doubt", the jury was unable to convict.
It is not reasonable to assume that a person who is legally carrying a gun, who informs the police officer of that fact will then pull their gun.  I know of no cases where someone who wanted to shoot a cop, thought it a good idea to warn said cop, hey I have a weapon to shoot you with, before shooting him/her.  That is just is idiotic. 

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2685 on: June 21, 2017, 09:33:56 AM »
It is not reasonable to assume that a person who is legally carrying a gun, who informs the police officer of that fact will then pull their gun.  I know of no cases where someone who wanted to shoot a cop, thought it a good idea to warn said cop, hey I have a weapon to shoot you with, before shooting him/her.  That is just is idiotic.

He didn't say he had a carry license, he just said "I have to tell you I have a firearm on me."

So a cop should totally relax when the person tells them they have a weapon, and starts reaching for something while the cop tells him not to? I don't doubt you're right that's not what someone typically says before shooting an officer, but being able to sit back here and analyze these things after the fact is very different from being there in person where a split second decision can (and did) mean life or death. 

As long as we get to sit back and analyze, here's what Castile probably should have done.  "I'm licensed to carry, and my firearm is in a holster on my right hip. My driver's license and wallet are in my right pocket, how would you like me to proceed?" rather than just reaching for it immediately after telling the officer he has a firearm and the officer said not to reach for it.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2686 on: June 21, 2017, 09:37:07 AM »
It is not reasonable to assume that a person who is legally carrying a gun, who informs the police officer of that fact will then pull their gun.  I know of no cases where someone who wanted to shoot a cop, thought it a good idea to warn said cop, hey I have a weapon to shoot you with, before shooting him/her.  That is just is idiotic.

He didn't say he had a carry license, he just said "I have to tell you I have a firearm on me."

So a cop should totally relax when the person tells them they have a weapon, and starts reaching for something while the cop tells him not to? I don't doubt you're right that's not what someone typically says before shooting an officer, but being able to sit back here and analyze these things after the fact is very different from being there in person where a split second decision can (and did) mean life or death. 

As long as we get to sit back and analyze, here's what Castile probably should have done.  "I'm licensed to carry, and my firearm is in a holster on my right hip. My driver's license and wallet are in my right pocket, how would you like me to proceed?" rather than just reaching for it immediately after telling the officer he has a firearm and the officer said not to reach for it.
Actually you missed that the officer also told him to reach for his license.  If he had refused to do so, he would have been arrested.  If the officer was actually worried, all he had to do was not tell the victim to reach for something. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2687 on: June 21, 2017, 09:38:38 AM »
It is not reasonable to assume that a person who is legally carrying a gun, who informs the police officer of that fact will then pull their gun.  I know of no cases where someone who wanted to shoot a cop, thought it a good idea to warn said cop, hey I have a weapon to shoot you with, before shooting him/her.  That is just is idiotic.

He didn't say he had a carry license, he just said "I have to tell you I have a firearm on me."

So a cop should totally relax when the person tells them they have a weapon, and starts reaching for something while the cop tells him not to? I don't doubt you're right that's not what someone typically says before shooting an officer, but being able to sit back here and analyze these things after the fact is very different from being there in person where a split second decision can (and did) mean life or death. 

As long as we get to sit back and analyze, here's what Castile probably should have done.  "I'm licensed to carry, and my firearm is in a holster on my right hip. My driver's license and wallet are in my right pocket, how would you like me to proceed?" rather than just reaching for it immediately after telling the officer he has a firearm and the officer said not to reach for it.

Here's what the officer should have done.

"Thank you for informing me you have a gun on you. Please put your hands on the steering wheel, and tell me where your gun is currently located."
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2688 on: June 21, 2017, 09:48:31 AM »
It is not reasonable to assume that a person who is legally carrying a gun, who informs the police officer of that fact will then pull their gun.  I know of no cases where someone who wanted to shoot a cop, thought it a good idea to warn said cop, hey I have a weapon to shoot you with, before shooting him/her.  That is just is idiotic.

He didn't say he had a carry license, he just said "I have to tell you I have a firearm on me."

So a cop should totally relax when the person tells them they have a weapon, and starts reaching for something while the cop tells him not to? I don't doubt you're right that's not what someone typically says before shooting an officer, but being able to sit back here and analyze these things after the fact is very different from being there in person where a split second decision can (and did) mean life or death. 

As long as we get to sit back and analyze, here's what Castile probably should have done.  "I'm licensed to carry, and my firearm is in a holster on my right hip. My driver's license and wallet are in my right pocket, how would you like me to proceed?" rather than just reaching for it immediately after telling the officer he has a firearm and the officer said not to reach for it.
Actually you missed that the officer also told him to reach for his license.  If he had refused to do so, he would have been arrested.  If the officer was actually worried, all he had to do was not tell the victim to reach for something. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Yes, he told him that before he was informed he had a firearm. That changes the situation a bit. I've never heard of someone being arrested for being too slow or asking for clarification about how to reach for their license.

Here's what the officer should have done.

"Thank you for informing me you have a gun on you. Please put your hands on the steering wheel, and tell me where your gun is currently located."

Yup, you're absolutely right.

It all really comes down to details we can't know without something like a body cam. A slight difference in timing or how he was acting could make the difference between something being suspicious and threatening, or innocent.

Lesson learned for those of us who might be carrying (or not), when in doubt don't make any movements until the officer instructs you, and move slowly and predictably. Also ask for clarification if you aren't absolutely sure about something. The vast majority of the time you'll be fine even if you screw up something, but you don't know what else the officer who pulled you over has been through that day, and what state of mind he's in, or if you remind him of someone he thinks might be dangerous (whether related to race, or a suspect from an earlier crime).
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 09:53:33 AM by ooeei »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2689 on: June 21, 2017, 09:56:35 AM »
It is not reasonable to assume that a person who is legally carrying a gun, who informs the police officer of that fact will then pull their gun.  I know of no cases where someone who wanted to shoot a cop, thought it a good idea to warn said cop, hey I have a weapon to shoot you with, before shooting him/her.  That is just is idiotic.

He didn't say he had a carry license, he just said "I have to tell you I have a firearm on me."

So a cop should totally relax when the person tells them they have a weapon, and starts reaching for something while the cop tells him not to? I don't doubt you're right that's not what someone typically says before shooting an officer, but being able to sit back here and analyze these things after the fact is very different from being there in person where a split second decision can (and did) mean life or death. 

As long as we get to sit back and analyze, here's what Castile probably should have done.  "I'm licensed to carry, and my firearm is in a holster on my right hip. My driver's license and wallet are in my right pocket, how would you like me to proceed?" rather than just reaching for it immediately after telling the officer he has a firearm and the officer said not to reach for it.
Actually you missed that the officer also told him to reach for his license.  If he had refused to do so, he would have been arrested.  If the officer was actually worried, all he had to do was not tell the victim to reach for something. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Yes, he told him that before he was informed he had a firearm. That changes the situation a bit. I've never heard of someone being arrested for being too slow or asking for clarification about how to reach for their license.

Here's what the officer should have done.

"Thank you for informing me you have a gun on you. Please put your hands on the steering wheel, and tell me where your gun is currently located."

Yup, you're absolutely right.

It all really comes down to details we can't know without something like a body cam. A slight difference in timing or how he was acting could make the difference between something being suspicious and threatening, or innocent.

Lesson learned for those of us who might be carrying (or not), when in doubt don't make any movements until the officer instructs you, and move slowly and predictably. Also ask for clarification if you aren't absolutely sure about something. The vast majority of the time you'll be fine even if you screw up something, but you don't know what else the officer who pulled you over has been through that day, and what state of mind he's in, or if you remind him of someone he thinks might be dangerous (whether related to race, or a suspect from an earlier crime).
Then you have not been paying attention.  Asking for clarification and not immediately doing as ordered has gotten non-whites arrested (it may have also got whites arrested, but I have not seen any evidence of that).

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2690 on: June 21, 2017, 10:09:48 AM »
Then you have not been paying attention.  Asking for clarification and not immediately doing as ordered has gotten non-whites arrested (it may have also got whites arrested, but I have not seen any evidence of that).

Fair enough, then as a minority you're in a very disadvantaged position and that's certainly a problem. I don't think the fact that minorities are scared to move too slowly getting their license should have any bearing on this particular situation as far as the officer's guilt. Yes it's a systemic issue, but not something this officer can control, if he felt threatened that's all there is to it. If that is happening regularly it does need to be addressed.

It's the same as the officers who shot the guy who was mentally ill who they thought was charging them. Yeah it's not fair, and the guy shouldn't be shot because he isn't in control and isn't trying to hurt anyone, but the officers didn't know that, they just saw a suspect charging at them. The difference between a mentally ill person charging or acting crazy, and a criminal charging or acting crazy isn't something you can figure out 100% of the time in a split second. In the same way, the difference between a guy nervously reaching for his ID, and nervously reaching for his gun is going to be tough to call in a split second.

If you want to become a police officer and spend a few minutes in every split second situation thinking through possible systemic reasons why someone might be doing something that looks suspicious but actually isn't, be my guest (as long as you have some sort of time freezing device). Keep in mind even if you're right 99.9% of the time, you only have to be wrong once to either be dead, or kill someone who doesn't deserve it.  All it takes is one moment in one day. Maybe you didn't sleep well the night before, maybe your long time friend got killed the week before in a similar situation, maybe the person in question is pretty close in description to a suspect wanted for a violent crime. Maybe the person in the car had a friend beat up by a bad cop so is super nervous around you.


Doctors accidentally kill people all the time, yet I don't see news headlines about it very often. We as a society tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, even though some of them probably don't deserve it. I certainly don't feel qualified to decide whether a particular doctor maliciously killed someone or made a mistake based on something I might read on the internet about it.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 11:18:23 AM by ooeei »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2691 on: June 21, 2017, 11:51:58 AM »

If you want to become a police officer and spend a few minutes in every split second situation thinking through possible systemic reasons why someone might be doing something that looks suspicious but actually isn't, be my guest (as long as you have some sort of time freezing device). Keep in mind even if you're right 99.9% of the time, you only have to be wrong once to either be dead, or kill someone who doesn't deserve it. 


A few officers a clearly choosing to err way on the side of I'd rather kill someone than risk it.  That's the problem.   That's not an accident or tragedy in many cases, that's a crime.

If Castle planned to shoot the officer, he wouldn't have told him he had a gun.  The other officer didn't shoot, just officer fife.  7 times.

Are you familiar with John Crawford?  He's the guy killed by police in walmart while holding a bb gun.  Not pointing a bb gun, holding one.  There's video with sound.  The command is drop the weapon, bang.  The guy has no time to react (he's on his cell phone the whole time).  The cop that shot this guy has killed 2 people.  The police force he represents has 2 fatal police shootings in it's entire history.  Grand jury decided not to proceed.  I suspect the DA's presentation might have something to do with that.

Regarding doctors, sometimes they do get convicted - http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-doctor-prescription-drugs-murder-overdose-verdict-20151030-story.html
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 12:18:18 PM by Midwest »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2692 on: June 21, 2017, 11:54:35 AM »
Then you have not been paying attention.  Asking for clarification and not immediately doing as ordered has gotten non-whites arrested (it may have also got whites arrested, but I have not seen any evidence of that).

Fair enough, then as a minority you're in a very disadvantaged position and that's certainly a problem. I don't think the fact that minorities are scared to move too slowly getting their license should have any bearing on this particular situation as far as the officer's guilt. Yes it's a systemic issue, but not something this officer can control, if he felt threatened that's all there is to it. If that is happening regularly it does need to be addressed.

It's the same as the officers who shot the guy who was mentally ill who they thought was charging them. Yeah it's not fair, and the guy shouldn't be shot because he isn't in control and isn't trying to hurt anyone, but the officers didn't know that, they just saw a suspect charging at them. The difference between a mentally ill person charging or acting crazy, and a criminal charging or acting crazy isn't something you can figure out 100% of the time in a split second. In the same way, the difference between a guy nervously reaching for his ID, and nervously reaching for his gun is going to be tough to call in a split second.

If you want to become a police officer and spend a few minutes in every split second situation thinking through possible systemic reasons why someone might be doing something that looks suspicious but actually isn't, be my guest (as long as you have some sort of time freezing device). Keep in mind even if you're right 99.9% of the time, you only have to be wrong once to either be dead, or kill someone who doesn't deserve it.  All it takes is one moment in one day. Maybe you didn't sleep well the night before, maybe your long time friend got killed the week before in a similar situation, maybe the person in question is pretty close in description to a suspect wanted for a violent crime. Maybe the person in the car had a friend beat up by a bad cop so is super nervous around you.


Doctors accidentally kill people all the time, yet I don't see news headlines about it very often. We as a society tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, even though some of them probably don't deserve it. I certainly don't feel qualified to decide whether a particular doctor maliciously killed someone or made a mistake based on something I might read on the internet about it.
Your example actually made me laugh because I work in a research hospital and there has been a major discussion about doctors harming patients because of lack of knowledge and bias and based on those issues which we get from all over the country, read via the internet, there are changes and some MDs held accountable/blamed.  For example, ever hear about the fact that MDs miss heart attacks in women?  And that is because women present differently than men and medical schools and old doctors were only teaching about men.  We've also changed our base research to include females which did not happen prior.  So, yes when you look at the data overall, I feel perfectly comfortable judging both.   

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2693 on: June 21, 2017, 02:28:42 PM »
Funny how the 99.99% never do anything to reign in the supposed tiny fraction of bad cops.   A "good" cop who looks the other way is a bad cop.

It's much more widespread than .01%.

I assume you're being facetious with your gratuitous use of absolutes here.

If it will make you feel better I'll say "almost" never instead.   Name me any of the recent cop kills civilian stories in the news where a "good" cop testified against the shooter.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/ray-tensing-retrial-uc-police-officers-called-to-testify-against-former-colleague

I'll give you this one, even though originally in their reports they backed the shooter, and I think the only reason they changed their stories is that the video evidence left them no choice.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2694 on: June 23, 2017, 06:27:27 AM »

If you want to become a police officer and spend a few minutes in every split second situation thinking through possible systemic reasons why someone might be doing something that looks suspicious but actually isn't, be my guest (as long as you have some sort of time freezing device). Keep in mind even if you're right 99.9% of the time, you only have to be wrong once to either be dead, or kill someone who doesn't deserve it. 


A few officers a clearly choosing to err way on the side of I'd rather kill someone than risk it.  That's the problem.   That's not an accident or tragedy in many cases, that's a crime.

If Castle planned to shoot the officer, he wouldn't have told him he had a gun.  The other officer didn't shoot, just officer fife.  7 times.

Are you familiar with John Crawford?  He's the guy killed by police in walmart while holding a bb gun.  Not pointing a bb gun, holding one.  There's video with sound.  The command is drop the weapon, bang.  The guy has no time to react (he's on his cell phone the whole time).  The cop that shot this guy has killed 2 people.  The police force he represents has 2 fatal police shootings in it's entire history.  Grand jury decided not to proceed.  I suspect the DA's presentation might have something to do with that.

Regarding doctors, sometimes they do get convicted - http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-doctor-prescription-drugs-murder-overdose-verdict-20151030-story.html

I'm not familiar with Crawford, and I'm not trying to say there are no cops who should ever be prosecuted. I'm just saying I can see non malicious reasons for stuff like this to happen. Is the guy a shitty cop, yeah apparently he's not really up to the task. As far as I know he's been fired, and I doubt any other police department is going to hire him again. Did he kill the guy for being black or some other malicious reason? That's a much harder thing to prove, and being 70% sure isn't good enough to convict someone and send them to prison. Without footage showing exactly what went on in the vehicle, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove, which is why bodycams are such a necessary thing. In crazy intense situations like that peoples' memories can get all sorts of screwy, it's just natural.

Our justice system is supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty, not innocent until eh most likely guilty. Because of this sometimes guilty people go free, and that sucks, but it also prevents innocent people from being sent to prison. I find it very hard to believe that a bunch of people who read some stuff on the internet are more qualified to determine a verdict about a case than the judge and jury it was presented to.

The shooting 7 times is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, in the movies people shoot someone once or twice then turn around and walk away without worrying, in the real world you shoot until the threat is stopped, and sometimes a bit more.

And yes, cops should definitely be trained better on how to deal with gun owners, and on less than lethal methods of restraining someone. I read something awhile back about how police training is more focused on firearm training than it is on de-escalating situations and reading people, if true that's a huge problem. With that being said, sending this individual to prison isn't going to fix that system, it's going to make other cops second guess themselves, and be afraid to approach dangerous looking people in case they might make a mistake. Unfortunately cops don't get the luxury of avoiding sketchy people like the rest of us do.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 06:31:01 AM by ooeei »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2695 on: June 23, 2017, 07:48:50 AM »

If you want to become a police officer and spend a few minutes in every split second situation thinking through possible systemic reasons why someone might be doing something that looks suspicious but actually isn't, be my guest (as long as you have some sort of time freezing device). Keep in mind even if you're right 99.9% of the time, you only have to be wrong once to either be dead, or kill someone who doesn't deserve it. 


A few officers a clearly choosing to err way on the side of I'd rather kill someone than risk it.  That's the problem.   That's not an accident or tragedy in many cases, that's a crime.

If Castle planned to shoot the officer, he wouldn't have told him he had a gun.  The other officer didn't shoot, just officer fife.  7 times.

Are you familiar with John Crawford?  He's the guy killed by police in walmart while holding a bb gun.  Not pointing a bb gun, holding one.  There's video with sound.  The command is drop the weapon, bang.  The guy has no time to react (he's on his cell phone the whole time).  The cop that shot this guy has killed 2 people.  The police force he represents has 2 fatal police shootings in it's entire history.  Grand jury decided not to proceed.  I suspect the DA's presentation might have something to do with that.

Regarding doctors, sometimes they do get convicted - http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-doctor-prescription-drugs-murder-overdose-verdict-20151030-story.html

I'm not familiar with Crawford, and I'm not trying to say there are no cops who should ever be prosecuted. I'm just saying I can see non malicious reasons for stuff like this to happen. Is the guy a shitty cop, yeah apparently he's not really up to the task. As far as I know he's been fired, and I doubt any other police department is going to hire him again. Did he kill the guy for being black or some other malicious reason? That's a much harder thing to prove, and being 70% sure isn't good enough to convict someone and send them to prison. Without footage showing exactly what went on in the vehicle, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove, which is why bodycams are such a necessary thing. In crazy intense situations like that peoples' memories can get all sorts of screwy, it's just natural.

I don't think the officer was in any way malicious.  He made a terrible judgement call and killed someone.  The guy was not a threat and yet the officer perceived him as one.  That's manslaughter.

The situation was - He pulls a guy over for a broken tail light.  The guy tells him he has a weapon and the officer shoots him because he reached for something.  Rationale person here, why does the driver tell the copy he has a gun if he plans on using it?  Why does this driver have any rationale for shooting the cop?  Assuming this guy was driving his own car, the officer already knows who he is (likely a non-threat).

To me, 70% sure would be beyond a reasonable doubt.


And yes, cops should definitely be trained better on how to deal with gun owners, and on less than lethal methods of restraining someone. I read something awhile back about how police training is more focused on firearm training than it is on de-escalating situations and reading people, if true that's a huge problem. With that being said, sending this individual to prison isn't going to fix that system, it's going to make other cops second guess themselves, and be afraid to approach dangerous looking people in case they might make a mistake. Unfortunately cops don't get the luxury of avoiding sketchy people like the rest of us do.

Sending this cop to prison would absolutely help reform this system.  If officers knew a completely stupid judgement calls that kills innocent people could result in jail time, I guarantee the training changes would happen. 

If this cop was approaching a known felon and this happened, I would be defending the cop.  This guy was a legal gun owner who the cop mistakenly identified as a threat.

40 years ago we said drunk drivers who killed people didn't mean to do it and didn't deserve jail.  Now we send them to jail. 


Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2696 on: June 23, 2017, 07:49:48 AM »

If you want to become a police officer and spend a few minutes in every split second situation thinking through possible systemic reasons why someone might be doing something that looks suspicious but actually isn't, be my guest (as long as you have some sort of time freezing device). Keep in mind even if you're right 99.9% of the time, you only have to be wrong once to either be dead, or kill someone who doesn't deserve it. 


A few officers a clearly choosing to err way on the side of I'd rather kill someone than risk it.  That's the problem.   That's not an accident or tragedy in many cases, that's a crime.

If Castle planned to shoot the officer, he wouldn't have told him he had a gun.  The other officer didn't shoot, just officer fife.  7 times.

Are you familiar with John Crawford?  He's the guy killed by police in walmart while holding a bb gun.  Not pointing a bb gun, holding one.  There's video with sound.  The command is drop the weapon, bang.  The guy has no time to react (he's on his cell phone the whole time).  The cop that shot this guy has killed 2 people.  The police force he represents has 2 fatal police shootings in it's entire history.  Grand jury decided not to proceed.  I suspect the DA's presentation might have something to do with that.

Regarding doctors, sometimes they do get convicted - http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-doctor-prescription-drugs-murder-overdose-verdict-20151030-story.html

I'm not familiar with Crawford, and I'm not trying to say there are no cops who should ever be prosecuted. I'm just saying I can see non malicious reasons for stuff like this to happen. Is the guy a shitty cop, yeah apparently he's not really up to the task. As far as I know he's been fired, and I doubt any other police department is going to hire him again. Did he kill the guy for being black or some other malicious reason? That's a much harder thing to prove, and being 70% sure isn't good enough to convict someone and send them to prison. Without footage showing exactly what went on in the vehicle, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove, which is why bodycams are such a necessary thing. In crazy intense situations like that peoples' memories can get all sorts of screwy, it's just natural.

Our justice system is supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty, not innocent until eh most likely guilty. Because of this sometimes guilty people go free, and that sucks, but it also prevents innocent people from being sent to prison. I find it very hard to believe that a bunch of people who read some stuff on the internet are more qualified to determine a verdict about a case than the judge and jury it was presented to.

The shooting 7 times is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, in the movies people shoot someone once or twice then turn around and walk away without worrying, in the real world you shoot until the threat is stopped, and sometimes a bit more.

And yes, cops should definitely be trained better on how to deal with gun owners, and on less than lethal methods of restraining someone. I read something awhile back about how police training is more focused on firearm training than it is on de-escalating situations and reading people, if true that's a huge problem. With that being said, sending this individual to prison isn't going to fix that system, it's going to make other cops second guess themselves, and be afraid to approach dangerous looking people in case they might make a mistake. Unfortunately cops don't get the luxury of avoiding sketchy people like the rest of us do.
I don't care why he killed the man, the reasoning is not why you send him to jail.  The fact that he did, without cause, makes his actions murder, IMO.  The man legally was carrying, informed the officer and the officer shot him.  Done.  Was the man acting in any illegal way, no, then he should not have been shot.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2697 on: June 23, 2017, 07:53:41 AM »

I don't care why he killed the man, the reasoning is not why you send him to jail.  The fact that he did, without cause, makes his actions murder, IMO.  The man legally was carrying, informed the officer and the officer shot him.  Done.  Was the man acting in any illegal way, no, then he should not have been shot.

I don't think it was murder.  It appears the guy didn't respond to commands that cop completely over reacted.  That's manslaughter.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2698 on: June 23, 2017, 07:57:19 AM »

I don't care why he killed the man, the reasoning is not why you send him to jail.  The fact that he did, without cause, makes his actions murder, IMO.  The man legally was carrying, informed the officer and the officer shot him.  Done.  Was the man acting in any illegal way, no, then he should not have been shot.

I don't think it was murder.  It appears the guy didn't respond to commands that cop completely over reacted.  That's manslaughter.
The officer commanded him to get his licence and to not reach for his gun.  He followed both of the commands.  The officer just could not handle that he had a gun nor was able to give the poor man instructions that did not cause him to freak out.  I watched what happened, the officer started freaking out RIGHT after being informed he had a gun. 

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2699 on: June 23, 2017, 12:29:25 PM »
I don't think the officer was in any way malicious.  He made a terrible judgement call and killed someone.  The guy was not a threat and yet the officer perceived him as one.  That's manslaughter.

The situation was - He pulls a guy over for a broken tail light.  The guy tells him he has a weapon and the officer shoots him because he reached for something.  Rationale person here, why does the driver tell the copy he has a gun if he plans on using it?  Why does this driver have any rationale for shooting the cop?  Assuming this guy was driving his own car, the officer already knows who he is (likely a non-threat).

Supposedly the officer said he matched a robbery suspect's description, but I don't put much stock in that. Yeah I get the whole "why tell him if he's gonna use it" argument, and after the fact it's obvious. In the moment the officer got nervous and ended up freaking out for some reason. Again, without bodycam or other footage of the inside of the vehicle when it happened we don't know what went down. He supposedly reached for something as the officer was saying "don't reach for it" and then yelled it at him. He was also probably nervous. If an officer tells you not to reach for something, and you do anyway, after telling him you have a gun, you're not really setting yourself up for success.

Quote
To me, 70% sure would be beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you're okay with 30% of people we send to prison being innocent?

Quote
Sending this cop to prison would absolutely help reform this system.  If officers knew a completely stupid judgement calls that kills innocent people could result in jail time, I guarantee the training changes would happen. 

Either that or they'd purposefully avoid sketchy situations or call for backup on all sorts of routine things. That just means whoever needs help is waiting longer for it, and we're paying for more officers. Maybe that's a good thing, but that can be done without sending someone to prison.

Quote
If this cop was approaching a known felon and this happened, I would be defending the cop.  This guy was a legal gun owner who the cop mistakenly identified as a threat.

40 years ago we said drunk drivers who killed people didn't mean to do it and didn't deserve jail.  Now we send them to jail.

Not really sure how drunk drivers are comparable, but all right.

The officer commanded him to get his licence and to not reach for his gun.  He followed both of the commands.  The officer just could not handle that he had a gun nor was able to give the poor man instructions that did not cause him to freak out.  I watched what happened, the officer started freaking out RIGHT after being informed he had a gun. 

Just to repeat, he told him to get his license BEFORE the guy told him he had a gun. As soon as he said he had a gun, the cop said "don't reach for it." It's not like he said "all right get your license" then shot him while he did it. 

It's like if someone said "Hey can I give your kid this cookie?" and I said "Yes."  Then they said "It's coconut and oatmeal" and I said "Don't give it to her she's allergic to coconut."  Then they try to give her the cookie and I knock it out of their hand.  Would you expect them to say "Why'd you knock it out of my hand, you said I could give her the cookie!"  The situation changed since the initial request when new information was brought into the mix.