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

None of this crap will stop until Police are armed with a weapon that will immediately immobilize an attacker from a safe distance without having to use lethal force. The current stun gun isn't applicable in all situations. Better police training is certainly needed, but when all is said and done, there is just too much stress, emotion and confrontations police face on a daily basis. They're only human and they have a difficult and dangerous job to do.

I feel sorry for the vet who lost his life. Sounds like the 911 dispatcher didn't relay clear and accurate information to the police.

a reply to: intrepid

Did you ignore the part where Mr. Black shined a flashlight at the officer(s) as he was approaching them after not putting down his weapon after killing someone?

Officers are not mind readers, nor does every Nam Vet have PTSD.

originally posted by: andy06shake
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?

A question asked by people ignorant to these types of situations. Your 20/20 hindsight and lack of training and experience blinds you from the obvious answer.

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

No.

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.

Ah, yes, the subjective opinion of an untrained individual--so valuable in these discussion.

Please, what else do you have for us?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: intrepid


Officers are not mind readers, nor does every Nam Vet have PTSD.

This is also what came to mind, over the comment the vet was in shock. Vietnam was a very long time ago, and, quite the opposite, you would think a war vet would be much less prone to shock, shooting somebody. If the police knew he was a vet, it hasn't been mentioned that's somebody likely good with a gun. In any case, it comes down to a situation where you can't say, "Timeout!", and perform a psychoanalysis. It doesn't matter what people think of the police, they are not going to decrease their chances of going home, which being indecisive will result in. If you're even a gun owner, and you hesitate to use it in a situation, everybody who knows anything knows that one that hesitates, having that gun, is in more danger than not having a gun, at all, and, for you that need an explanation, your opposition is highly unlikely to hesitate, using their weapon, your merely showing a weapon of lethal force, your standing there and trying to figure out if you should pull the trigger, philosophizing, will likely be your death warrant.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, that's right i suppose, as i certainly lack the motivation to be shooting old people, repeatedly, when im supposed to be protecting them.

I think it's the officers training that's in question. LoL

So in answer to your question what else do i have for you? Well if you were the Police, ultimately a bullet to the back of the nut, but plenty of prolonged torture and agony beforehand, if you ever executed my grandfather in such a manner.

That child will grow and remember, what happens then?

a reply to: luthier

So now we are attempting to lay the blame on poor weaponry or dodgy trigger mechanisms???

If you are a Police then your chances of getting shot are somewhat higher anyway. That does not mean they should go around shooting people on the off chance that they may present a danger.

Else that's not Policing that's a form of anarchy at play.

a reply to: Xcathdra

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.

This wasn't a car accident, or someone spilt a glass of milk..someone died who shouldn't of, via the police..damn right they did something wrong!!!!!!!

originally posted by: KansasGirl
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.

Officer involved shootings (and other use of force incidents) usually have 3 separate investigations.
* - The first one is by the internal affairs division of the officers agency. This investigation concentrates solely on did the officer involved comply with all policy / procedures / guidelines for the department.
* - The 2nd investigation is the criminal investigation into the shooting. This is handled by an outside agency and as it sounds, concentrates on the legality of the use of force and the application of any laws to the incident.
* - The 3rd is a civil rights investigation. Usually handled by the FBI (or outside agency) and concentrates on whether the officers actions violated the persons civil rights. A person who is shot and killed by law enforcement is technically "seized" under the 4trh amendment.
* - There is a 4th but it is not as common and that is the prosecuting attorneys office can use their own investigations division. Usually very large cities and by extensions very large prosecuting attorney offices with the staffing (Think New York city or Los Angeles).

As for officer involved shootings and charges being filed against the officer yes it happens. The officer from Minnesota who shot the Australian lady has been discharged from his department and is currently facing murder charges.

The issue a lot of people dont understand is how an officer use of force is reviewed. 20/20 hindsight is not allowed. It is what the officer perceived when force was used coupled with the totality of circumstances.

The Supreme Court set the process with the understanding that law enforcement is unpredictable and situations can change in a split second. They acknowledge officers have to make snap decisions based on limited information. Hence the what they perceived when force was used and what the totality of circumstances were.

a reply to: luthier

Police officers and unions are restricted under federal and state law and mainly revolve around collective bargaining and benefits. They represent officers who are under department investigations for actions on the job (or off the job but in their capacity as law enforcement).

The ability to strike and all the other abilities non public unions have are not allowed for public service unions (Law Enforcement and Fire if I remember right). Teachers on the toher hand are so many in numbers they have the ability to strike as they have more political ties than other public service unions do.

Qualified immunity for law enforcement ONLY applies when the officer is involved n a use of force incident and the conclusion of all investigations show the officer was within departmental policies/guidelines/procedures and the officer did not violate any laws by their actions.

If the officer is found to have violated policy but not the law the agency and political unit it is attached to can disassociate themselves from the officer for civil actions. This allows the officer to be civilly sued and leaves him solely responsible for any judgments against him.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for the quality of your replies and the time you took to post them.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Police officers and unions are restricted under federal and state law and mainly revolve around collective bargaining and benefits. They represent officers who are under department investigations for actions on the job (or off the job but in their capacity as law enforcement).

The ability to strike and all the other abilities non public unions have are not allowed for public service unions (Law Enforcement and Fire if I remember right). Teachers on the toher hand are so many in numbers they have the ability to strike as they have more political ties than other public service unions do.

Police unions 100 percent legally lobby politicians. Those politicians write laws. Not only that they are part of department procedure...if they say out guys need this method it makes them safe, they get it.

My perspective on this is from the side of the DA and state AG.

Information on police unions.

www.nationalreview.com...

These unions also support the laws that contribute to incarceration in the first place. California’s correctional-officers union is infamous for having wielded its political clout on behalf of the state’s three-strikes law. To a certain kind of conservative, that law was a triumph at the time, but in the long term it fueled government’s growth at the expense of defendants.

So there’s a compelling case that the negative effects of police unions extend beyond bloated spending and criminal-justice policy. As Cato’s Julian Sanchez argues, union courtesy cards, “bills of rights,” and other such contractual handouts reflect and reify a view among public officials “that the law — or at least, some ill-defined subset of it — isn’t a body of rules binding on all of us, but something we impose on others.”

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Qualified immunity for law enforcement ONLY applies when the officer is involved n a use of force incident and the conclusion of all investigations show the officer was within departmental policies/guidelines/procedures and the officer did not violate any laws by their actions.

If the officer is found to have violated policy but not the law the agency and political unit it is attached to can disassociate themselves from the officer for civil actions. This allows the officer to be civilly sued and leaves him solely responsible for any judgments against him.

This is true. However if the unions have protected bad players and have lobbied for bad laws it doesn't matter.

Most officers are not capable of doing the jobs the public has forced them into, they don't have the training.

Have you ever looked at the out of shape numbers?

Have you looked at the marksmanship numbers?

Those are two glaring problems unions don't seem very interested in solving.

They do however help you get tanks and new cars.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

So now we are attempting to lay the blame on poor weaponry or dodgy trigger mechanisms???

If you are a Police then your chances of getting shot are somewhat higher anyway. That does not mean they should go around shooting people on the off chance that they may present a danger.

Else that's not Policing that's a form of anarchy at play.

I never said they can do anything. I was attempting to get you to understand the human aspect of dealing with scumbags everyday and not having the equipment the bad guys may.

This is what I say about neither sides wanting to fix anything. You have people who just hate police and can't understand their side the you have those that support them even if the policy they have to operate in is dangerous for them and the public.

The reality is these guys have a terrible job that doesn't resemble the 1950's version of policing we seem to still have with the training and screening process. Police need better pay and more training but that takes money...money many places spend on riot tanks because of state contracts with defense contractors. Meanwhile the officers themselves and their defense sidearms are the last to be improved on.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Most human being who wake up to a family member being choked, fire a weapon in a 10x10 room, and kill somebody are going to have some kind of shock, also the number of Vietnam vets with ptsd is quite high. It was a drafted war. Many of them also have health problems.

a reply to: luthier

All i know is that Police seem to be doing really bad things and carrying out acts of depravity against a surprising amount of the wrong people these days.

When those that are there to protect the innocent and uphold the law of the land are just as bad as the criminal element then something is very wrong indeed.

The reality is that Police kill innocent civilians almost on a daily basis these days or so it seems.

The reality is that contacting Police or having dealings with such can get you very very dead these days should they deem you to have farted in the wrong direction.

a reply to: andy06shake

Not where I live. But it's a small population state and lawmakers are held in check pretty well by the population. We also have no carry laws at all. Yet people don't shoot each other.

What you don't hear is how often police are injured, stabbed, shot at, or witnessing the failure of society on a regular basis.

Maybe if the towns people stopped pretending their community'service problems are all their for the police to fix they wouldn't be burdened with an impossible job.

Maybe if someone's neighbor or family made sure the meth head beating his girlfriend got help or the girlfriends family got her out the cops wouldn't have to respond every week.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I think it's the officers training that's in question. LoL

In general, I would agree that there are many

So in answer to your question what else do i have for you? Well if you were the Police, ultimately a bullet to the back of the nut, but plenty of prolonged torture and agony beforehand, if you ever executed my grandfather in such a manner.

Sure you would, random internet tough guy.

That child will grow and remember, what happens then?

Hopefully he's able to one day look at what happened objectively and understand that, while it was a terrible thing that happened, the officers acted in a manner appropriate for everything that happened and the limited amount of information that they had upon arriving at the scene.

But I wouldn't expect such an internet tough guy to understand that, since you consider this an "execution."

Hell, even the intruder's mom was understanding as to why Mr. Black had to shoot her son--it's possible for people in these situations to actually be logical, too. Give it a shot...it's cathartic.

a reply to: luthier

"Not where I live. But it's a small population state and lawmakers are held in check pretty well by the population. We also have no carry laws at all. Yet people don't shoot each other."

Rather different in the big cities through just down to socioeconomics and apathy.

"What you don't hear is how often police are injured, stabbed, shot at, or witnessing the failure of society on a regular basis."

That's because its a hazard of the job, same reason we don't hear about any and all injuries and deaths of soldiers all the time.

"Maybe if the towns people stopped pretending their community'service problems are all their for the police to fix they wouldn't be burdened with an impossible job."

Tend to agree with the above, people involve Police over all manner of silly problems that have nothing to do with the service in question.

"Maybe if someone's neighbor or family made sure the meth head beating his girlfriend got help or the girlfriends family got her out the cops wouldn't have to respond every week."

Best not to get too involved with couples arguing, drugs aside, it seldom ends well for the outsider but if methamphetamine is a problem in your area then it can not be a be of roses, small population or otherwise.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You think children that witness there grandparents execution will eventually reflect on the experience with objectivity??? LoL

That's some wishful thinking right there buddy.

Nothing to do with being an "internet tough guy" if you murdered my grandfather i would eventually find you and make you pay for it as would many other people. That's not tough that's prudent as what goes around, comes around.

Logic dictates that Police do not kill innocents, else they are simply not doing their job, simple really.