A Vietnam Vet Killed An Intruder Who Tried To Strangle His Grandson, Then Police Shot Him

Its clear most police in america are poorly trained and a danger to people unlucky enough to have to interact with them.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I want to see the evidence / video police couldnt release before forming my opinion.

It would seem there's already some evidence, anyway, having a gun in one's hand when the police arrive. American is steeped in cop shows, both fictional and reality. If one shoots somebody, for any reason, and the police are on their way, the threat eliminated, you should have the sense to put the gun down and be able to show hands empty of a gun, the flashlight not even the best idea. Worst case, if the person didn't know if, say, another intruder would show up, you put the gun down, as soon as you see police arrive, and you need to be ready to show empty hands. You do not face police with a weapon in your hand, as, to the police, that is a builtin escalation.

Not having a weapon in your hands is a very well known procedure that anybody that has watched TV in their lives is well aware of. Police deal with bad guys, all day long, and are more acutely conscious of a desire to go home to their families alive, are the least likely to sacrifice themselves for a potential dirtbag. The nature of the job is that one does not dick around with somebody brandishing a weapon. I don't know what happened here, but it also seems the police would not have had a chance to make an assessment just what happened. Was the man with the gun simply a murderer, a dangerous lunatic? There was definitely something wrong that he wouldn't put down his gun, again, if he had ever seen a cop show: I don't think this is something a law abiding citizen would not know to do, and those that will not drop their weapons and show their hands for police, as a matter of fact, are generally a danger, quite the opposite of law abiding.

Bottom line, I would have to ask who would still have a gun in their hand, when the police are in sight? I'd have my hands in the air, before the police got through the door. If the threat were neutralized, I'd have put the gun on a table, unloaded, before the police arrived. I suppose there are those here that would expect the police to roll the dice, just in case a man, that refused to drop his weapon, wasn't a danger? What planet are you on? Regardless, the man was stupid or something to still have a gun in his hand, and stupidity can be quite costly, always is, eventually.

This is sad, but being sad doesn't alter realities we must have the sense to properly cope with, and one would have to have been born yesterday, to think it was a good idea to face cops with a gun in their hand. And that has nothing to do with whether a person were even deaf: again, just the combination of gun in the hand and cops is never going to be likely to win one a Good Housekeeping Seal.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You write: "An investigation must occur to determine the shooting was justified..."

That makes it sound like the investigation is just a formality so they can say "This shooting was justified."

I'm not saying it wasn't, since as you point out, we weren't there and don't know all of the particulars and what the cops knew and didn't know and what the scene was like.

I do wonder though- are you aware of any incidence ever, where a cop shooting the wrong person was deemed NOT justified? Curious if these investigations ever come out against the police officer.

Maybe after having just fought and shot an intruder attacking a child, reenacting flash backs to TV cop show procedure isn't at the top of the list.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: 727Sky

I want to see the evidence / video police couldnt release before forming my opinion.

If a person has never been in this type of situation then they should think twice and get all the facts before suggesting the police did something wrong.

Considering the job and training it's not unheard of for police to over react. Many places have terrible training, pay, screening, and community support.

What most likely happened is the gunfired in a small room made the home owner temporarily deaf, and the trauma of seeing his grandson in a life or death fight and killing another human being put him in shock. The police not being well trained did what they are trained to do and yelled put down the gun, etc and fired when the suspect did not follow orders. Of coarse hand guns would make me nervous in a clear out situation too. At least one officer should have a carbine for intimidation in a shots fired situation. And he should be more confident to look for body language and movement of a guy who most like can't hear well and is in shock before he fires. Of course this isn't always possible so it's a terrible situation for officers. Also having a picture of the home owner before entering..again it's a shots fired so the protocol is to respond without enough Intel sometimes and sometimes there just isn't any.

Domestic calls are terrible enough without gunfire already being heard. I can't blame the officers...I can blame the training and screening they have that put them in situations they aren't always capable of handling.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Police unions have enormous power. Qualified immunity has protected bad policing in terms of method and accountability for far too long.

Many forces are amazing. They usually have good pay, screening, training, and community support.

originally posted by: luthier
Qualified immunity has protected bad policing in terms of method and accountability for far too long.

Who on earth would be a policeman or a host of other such jobs, without qualified immunity, in a society where being litigious and the frivolous lawsuit is a national pastime, to turn a buck? And how long do you think it would be, until the local government budget were blown through?

You know, it's funny, something else you could take to the bank. You get rid of qualified immunity, drug dealers start getting awarded millions in damages, or whatever, you get the point, and I guarantee you'd get your real estate tax bill and be screaming for qualified immunity. Also, you guys that hate the police, of course, feel differently, if it's your 911 call and they save your rear, which seldom seems to make the press, what police mainly do, all day, everyday.

First story I read on this said the lady who called it in gave a detailed description of her husband and that he was armed to stop the intruder.

IF that is the case, any justified statement from the authorities should generate outrage because that means they didn't asses and react they just reacted.

originally posted by: Scrutinizing

originally posted by: luthier
Qualified immunity has protected bad policing in terms of method and accountability for far too long.

Who on earth would be a policeman or a host of other such jobs, without qualified immunity, in a society where being litigious and the frivolous lawsuit is a national pastime, to turn a buck? And how long do you think it would be, until the local government budget were blown through?

You know, it's funny, something else you could take to the bank. You get rid of qualified immunity, drug dealers start getting awarded millions in damages, or whatever, you get the point, and I guarantee you'd get your real estate tax bill and be screaming for qualified immunity. Also, you guys that hate the police, of course, feel differently, if it's your 911 call and they save your rear, which seldom seems to make the press, what police mainly do, all day, everyday.

Perhaps you don't understand, I was explaining that unions and qualified immunity mask over bad policing methods. This is just a fact.

I never said banning police protection from frivolous lawsuits. However, they also can't have such loose negligent laws (thanks to unions) they have immunity from requiring to fix bad policies.

For one 80 percent by the fbi's own study ate overweight and out of shape. That is not acceptable. Heart rate and decision capability go hand in hand. There are many reasons you can't be out of shape.

Match that with poor marksmanship training and maintenance training and we have some pretty glaring issues.

We can't support the police by accepting they aren't treated well in terms of health and wealth. Their own union only serve to protect a job that sucks worse everyday. They no longer are capable of creating a better job. They just get in the way of criminal justice reform.

Qualified immunity is the tool that protects the bad procedures lobbied by unions to "protect" officers.

a reply to: Irishhaf

This is how I feel as well reading the info on hand. Though if I was getting 32k a year and had poor training and just needed a job I am not sure of the margin of qualification to enter such a situation if there is no military back round training. I honestly feel terrible for some of these guys. Even the guys who are well equipped and go to the range and train in combat sports and such on their own time have to be paired up with guys that are 5'9" 250. I have a close friend I coached wrestling with that was almost a goner because his partner was obese and couldn't provide backup in a foot chase.

a reply to: 727Sky

Dirty Police scum.

Let's face it the officer responsible for shooting that old Man for nothing more than protecting his grandchild should be handed over to the family to do with as they will.

I can't imagine having to decide if calling for help is more or less of a risk to my life than a home invasion.

I'd be afraid to call.

a reply to: SlowNail

When the Police are more or just as dangerous as the criminals the only thing that separates them really is a uniform.

The officer should be charged with murder because that's what he has done to an old man.

Well if there is a positive takeaway from all this it's that the Police didn't also shoot and kill the 11 year old boy......

a reply to: 727Sky

Local CBS Report

Okay, if you go to that link and listen to the video, you hear the reporter say these exact words:

Chief Metz says his officers never received a description of the intruder. When they arrived on scene, they heard shots fired inside the home. Standing at the front door, they saw Black, inside, holding a gun.

"For the next 13 seconds, officers continued to give at least five commands to Mr. Black to drop the gun and to show his hands. We don't know why, but for whatever reason, Mr. Black did not drop the gun." (Chief Metz)

One of the officers fires four rounds, killing Black.

So, one thing that many people don't understand is that, just because physical descriptions are given to 911 dispatch, that doesn't always make it to the officers. Apparently, all that the responding officers knew was that someone was in the house, shots had just been fired, and the guy holding the gun was not responding to commands.

I have also seen reports that Mr. Black had hearing problems, and may not have heard or understood the commands, but if at least five commands were given (and probably not quietly) to drop the gun over the span of at least 13 seconds, and an officer opened fire, that doesn't seem unreasonable, especially with the report that Mr. Black raised his flashlight in the direction of the officer.

But the reporter did note this:

The same officer involved was also involved in another shooting in June. Chief Metz says that he was evaluated and approved to be back on the job at this time.

It's possible that this officer is quick on the trigger, but not knowing about the other incident, that's an unfair claim to make at this time.

But this report paints a much better picture of what happened than does your OP and the story to which you linked. Without any description of the intruder versus the homeowner, officers could only respond as they assessed the situation in the moment.

Also, according to the NY Times, Mr. Black had begun advancing toward the officers when the one officer opened fire. It also notes his hearing impairment.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: 727Sky


Let's face it the officer responsible for shooting that old Man for nothing more than protecting his grandchild should be handed over to the family to do with as they will.

Don't base your whole argument and "understanding" of the incident on the OP--it's sorely lacking in pertinent details.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

"For the next 13 seconds, officers continued to give at least five commands to Mr. Black to drop the gun and to show his hands. We don't know why, but for whatever reason, Mr. Black did not drop the gun." (Chief Metz)

Viet Nam flashback? If so I'm guessing that could leave a person mentally constipated for more than 13 seconds.

originally posted by: luthier

Perhaps you don't understand, I was explaining that unions and qualified immunity mask over bad policing methods. This is just a fact.

I never said banning police protection from frivolous lawsuits. However, they also can't have such loose negligent laws (thanks to unions) they have immunity from requiring to fix bad policies.

Immunity is immunity, which you are complaining about. Altering negligence criteria can be subjective, and, in doing so, it's no longer immunity. There are already parameters that border the immunity and what is negligence, what is negligence that which fails to follow procedure. Procedure, in this case, is a person, brandishing a gun, is a threat and has a target on them. What you describe is some sort of partial immunity, negligence within procedure? This fails to account for the fact one man's negligence is another man's going home alive.

We have already wisely decided, as a society, these are things we don't litigate. There has never been any immunity for rogue policemen, either, and it's a commen Greek chorus, among police and government haters, that all government and police are rogue. Look at this thread, this being turned into a Posse Comitatus matter? Isn't that just a tad being drama queens? The dude had a gun he wouldn't put down. That's not martial law. The point is, it's the sort of thinking that wants to get rid of qualified immuity, which is really what you're advocating, again, immunity is immunity, ironic that immunity is required, to counter people who consider government, itself, offensive, like tin foil hats, other delusional paranoids and skinheads, con men, criminals and riffraff, generally speaking.

Nobody would argue against the best training and fitness for a job, but that, neither, has anything to do with qualified immunity, until it's procedure, codified, that being overweight is misconduct, negligence, or less than perfect marksmanship, whatever. These are not qualified immunity issues, rather procedural issues, and how you link some paunch, in a weapons fired situation, I have no idea: a triathelete would not have fired? But there must be qualified immunity, within codified guidelines. Put it this way, qualified immunity and fixing bad policies are separate issues.

Held off firing for 13 seconds. I feel better now.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

How hard can it be through for trained officers of the law to get the lay of the land when responding to a situation without killing innocents?

And another thing, 4 rounds we're allegedly discharged, that's a little overkill is it not?

2 rounds fair enough, but given the officers possible overzealous past record, i have to wonder if Dirty Harry was on the job that evening.