Off-duty officer shoots 2 in lot after Angels game

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

So i'll just lump you into the 'let's kill everyone group eh?'

Like you're lumping these people into your own chosen group.

Well done.

i think your lumping cops into a little group of their own yourself. im lumping you into the "lets not think things through at all" group. or how bout the "compassion for two thugs but no compassion for man and family with young children" group

hes a father, for christ sake. and i know no fathers perfect, but shooting two people because you want to be a "cowboy" is not a rational explenation. He did what he felt was necessary to ensure the safety of his loved ones.

something im sure you would never do...

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
They did. They assualted him with an object. He defended himself BEFORE they could have possibly used something else.

Don't you think if they were carrying, they wouldn't need to brandish a bottle and throw it at him?

reply to post by Nutter


the people who threw a bottle? lol

your logic is undeniable

reply to post by mr-lizard


That's all well and good for an individual young enough and well enough to get training. What of the wheelchair bound? Elderly? Disabled? Chronically ill? There's a reason my grandmother keeps a shotgun in the bedroom just as there is a reason my grandmother doesnt take kickboxing lessons.

In your world the Mike Tysons would have free reign over the average and weak. That hardly seems right.

reply to post by mr-lizard


your so cool mr. lizard. i think if everyone was like you, we wouldnt need cops.

honestly, get over yourself. We know your a one-man master cheif army, but that doesnt go for everyone.

reply to post by alyosha1981


Exactly, and seriously, what do you think would have happened if say the cop were to shoot the gun at the air instead of at them? They would have ran away and it'd be the end of it. Getting your hair messy from someone indenting it with an object is no reason to shoot someone.

Originally posted by Kevin_X2
He did what he felt was necessary to ensure the safety of his loved ones.

I didn't read in the article where the "thugs" did anything to the family. Just the man himself. Self defense, yes. Defense of family, how do you figure?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
They did. They assualted him with an object. He defended himself BEFORE they could have possibly used something else.

Don't you think if they were carrying, they wouldn't need to brandish a bottle and throw it at him?

reply to post by Kevin_X2


Oh here you go again, getting personal and attacking me just because of my opinions.

The issue here is:

A cop should NOT need to resort to using a weapon in public against a pair of drunks. If he was any respectable father he would have simply flashed his badge and told them in no uncertin terms to 'go away or face jail time for assault'

Instead of getting his kids and wife away from danger, he pulled out a gun and shot two men.

And yes... You'd think a police officer would have some form of physical training.... or do they not do that in America?

Originally posted by Kevin_X2
reply to post by Nutter

 

the people who threw a bottle? lol

your logic is undeniable

So, you agree that throwing a bottle at someone is brandishing and using a weapon? And then therefore, you agree that the fans that got a bottle thrown at them from the coach also should have shot him?

My logic has reason. Yours is the reason of "oh, it's ok for a cop to shoot 2 people when he's attacked, but if it were you or I, we'd be in jail". That is the logic which is faulty IMO.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

That's all well and good for an individual young enough and well enough to get training. What of the wheelchair bound? Elderly? Disabled? Chronically ill? There's a reason my grandmother keeps a shotgun in the bedroom just as there is a reason my grandmother doesnt take kickboxing lessons.

In your world the Mike Tysons would have free reign over the average and weak. That hardly seems right.

I didn't realise that America employed disabled, elderly, chronically ill people in the police force?

I was always under the impression it was fit, healthy and intelligent people who know how to deal with a situation. You know... training and exercise and fitness.

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by cropmuncher
The only reason this is being made to look bad is because he is a cop who was off duty.
Look beyond that and you have a regular guy who was attacked while he was with his family.
Now to me that IS an attack on his family.

Any other guy and this wouldnt be an issue but it has been made so because he is a police officer (off duty)....it should be irrelevant.

I agree, if this was a member of the public who was carrying a concealed weapon and defended their family, there would be cheers all round.

No there wouldnt, there would be cheers all round to support them *IF* they were arrested for it. As it is, that is not the case, no?

Hence the disillusion of one law for us one for them..

Gosh...

When a cop is off duty, is he not still a member of the public?

Trained to react in a manner that is required of an officer of the law. No?

Or do human frailties now become the norm, once the badge is off?

Bah!

Unless you've been subjected to any kind of attack when you are with your little ones, you have no idea how scary it can be, and how much of a ingrained desire to protect your family at any cost it can bring out in you.

Agreed. But where does this fit in with someone who is given the lawful right to think differently about such situations.

If he was in uniform, and it was YOUR kid, would you expect him to shoot?

I hope not. You see, that is against the law.

Again, i do agree that we don't know all the facts, i'm just discussing it for the sake of discussion sake as the topic has been posted without all the facts.

A presumption i know, but if it had been a mum on her own with her kids, we'd probably looking at two dead criminals, so i wouldn't neccessairly go with the "big man with a gun" theory. I've seen women do some nasty things to protect their kids.

CX.

He decided, IMO, that he was superior in force, and used his service weapon to take the law into his own hands.

Now how this pans out in court, will be the clincher. I say he acted no better than a criminal.

Honestly, can just anyone shoot people for throwing projectiles at them? No. Why is he immune?

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
How about not having sympathy for people who CHOOSE to be violent to innocent people?

I never said I have sympathy for them. Now, YOU are putting words in MY mouth. Didn't you just reprimand someone else for that?

I think the "thugs" as you call them should be investigated with the full extent of the law. But, shooting them was the LAST option the man should have taken.

Now, if the "thugs" did indeed brandish a weapon at him and his family, I'd be right beside you in defending him. They did not (as far as I am aware from reading the article).

I would lay even money you will find this LEO is an Anaheim officer. Notice the article says he called dispatch; not 911. APD is well known for being crooked and having the 'facts' fit the situation that will let them off scott-free. The Stadium does not sell anything in a glass bottle and attendees are subject to search/metal detector.

reply to post by mr-lizard


So is this only about the cop in question or is it about any and all Americans who would defend themselves with a firearm? If it's about one not the other than we should all stay on point.

Regarding the fitness of cops, there are standards to a point but once the point is passed they are largely free to be bloated and aerobically useless.

Hence the obese cops you may notice waddling about town.

The training requirements of an officer is another topic altogether. A topic I have plenty of gripes about.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


So as a result of letting their fitness go out of the window, that gives a cop an excuse to shoot someone as opposed to trapping an attacker in a wrist lock or some such non lethal hold?

I wasn't the one who went off topic by the way... I was ONLY talking about this one cop.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

That's all well and good for an individual young enough and well enough to get training. What of the wheelchair bound? Elderly? Disabled? Chronically ill? There's a reason my grandmother keeps a shotgun in the bedroom just as there is a reason my grandmother doesnt take kickboxing lessons.

In your world the Mike Tysons would have free reign over the average and weak. That hardly seems right.

So you are saying he was an elderly, disabled, wheelchair bound cop?

Get real...if a sober, well-trained cop can't handle two aggressive drunks, he is unift for the job. I have run events where I have supervised security details and have handled situations similar to this without having to resort to extreme violence. Of course, I'm not paranoid and don't view every member of the public as an enemy either, so that helped, I'll admit.

There is no excuse for this. If a cop is carrying his weapon, then he is "on-duty" as regards his responsibility to maintain situational awareness, If he is going to be so lax as to allow the situaiton to escalate to the point of killing someone on the spur of the moment, the onus is on him.

Now how does anyone know whether or not this was a police hit? It has happened before, after all. Please don't try to make the case that police have never killed for profit, there are too many documented cases. So the possibility must be acknowledged.

Originally posted by FadeToBlack
Defense of family much?

I don't know about you guys, but if I were attacked and I felt my family was in danger, I'd probably shoot them provoked.

If it were me by myself, I probably wouldn't shoot unless I had to.. But if my FAMILY were with me... I'd be much more defensive.

And By all accounts, you would NOT make a decent law enforcer.

Why are people so much ignoring the facts.

Its akin to a surgeon saying "This guy smoked ciggys for 45 years, Bah, Let him die."

YOU DON'T GET THAT OPTION, IF YOU ARE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO UPHOLD A CONCEPT.

In uniform or not, you don't get to shoot people because they throw crap at you. You get to grab them by the scruff of their neck, take them to an on duty officer, lodge a complaint and claim citizens arrest at MOST.

Do not give law more power then it already thinks it has... for christs sake...

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I was always under the impression it was fit, healthy and intelligent people who know how to deal with a situation. You know... training and exercise and fitness.

No offense to our LEO's here, but obviously you haven't seen an average American cop?

Here's some info.

fatcop.10-8.org...

Here is the average size of cops in my area.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/770370ad571f.jpg[/atsimg]

But, I digress. This shouldn't be about whether he was a fat cop or unfit cop. This should be about him shooting 2 people after being attacked by them and whether it is lawful just because he is a cop.

Originally posted by mr-lizardI was ONLY talking about this one cop.

When you said this?:

Why, oh why does everybody in America assume that everybody is out to kill them?

Are you all that dependant on guns and paranoid?

I'm not excusing this one cop and this one instance. I'm in favor of every American being able to use deadly force to prevent harm to their person or property.