What happens when you see an unmarked car on your property and some guy snooping around

reply to post by harvib


That's not what it said in the update, I am going to have to trust the update. Which said that it was unknown if the man was arrested or not.

I think the reporters just got ahead of themselves or maybe the police did.

If you are so pissed about this why don't you go all Dog the Bounty hunter on the cop and drag him back? Then you can hold him in your basement and beat him with chains till the cops come to arrest him. It would probably make you feel better.

reply to post by whatukno


Here is why the article was updated:

*This article has been changed to accurately describe wounds to a man who assisted the female victim, to correct the hometowns of those involved, and clarify that the Columbia Police Department primarily viewed the incident as a homicide investigation.

It was not an update on the facts, it was updated to make corrections. They wrote another article to update the facts and is linked in my post. I provided an external quote and a link to the article that says he was arraigned Tuesday.

www.spokesman.com... another link for this tale evidently (not that it seems to matter much) the cop sold sex toys i dont know how thats here or there other then spokane is a more then usual conservative town with values that might not like such things it almost seems like a waste of a news article but it is related to this story

edited to add this “He told us his wife runs it. If his wife runs it, I can’t control what a spouse does,” Knezovich said, adding that an anonymous tipster advised the Sheriff’s Office on Friday of Hirzel’s connection to the sex toys company. “If he was part of it, there will be some kind of disciplinary action. The discipline will be determined by the facts of the matter.”

Department policy requires deputies to alert the sheriff about any outside employment. Additionally, deputies are barred from operating any business that would pose a conflict of interest with their law enforcement duties or bring the office into “disrepute.”

this was something i was unaware of didnt know cops didnt get private lives or the entitlement to sell what ever they want as along as its legal

www.spokesman.com... another link but this one might have been posted it seems to say that the state police are takeing over the case this is still a good case to watch

reply to post by whatukno


Your right - however the homeowner ended up dead......................

A friend of mine 15 years ago heard some noise from her bedroom window overlooking an alley.

She peeked out her curtains and saw three cops beating the frap out some guy on the ground.

Who was she going to call? The cops.

Now, my experience has been quite the opposite. I live in the exact same town. The cops I have met, even when my oldest son was in trouble, were very polite and nice to me.

There are some good ones and some bad ones. The bad ones, the guys in it for the power trip must be rooted out.

That cop that shot and killed the homeowner needs to be investigated and brought before a court of law.

Something just doesn't sound right about this story.

Spokesman-Review

More current info.

Seems the police dept. knew quite a bit more about the victim than previously admitted.
1. Had numerous contacts with the police.
2. Was know to carry a gun.
3. Personally apprehended a criminal and held him until police arrived.
4. Officer parked unmarked car in exact area where numerous incidents had previously occurred.
5. And what about the "phantom baton blow to the leg"?

Seems simple to me.
The victim was known, and a simple, courteous "Stop right there sir, I am a police officer" would have avoided any altercation.

Seems obvious that after 21 calls in 5 years, the victim figured very early on that waiting for the police to arrive was not conducive to apprehending criminals.

reply to post by gotrox


Based on the article linked above, I would like to drop my two professional cents into the pot on this one. I’m a Federal Law Enforcement Agent, a supervisor, actually. Given the relative short list of facts that we know about this incident, I will give my professional speculation.

First, we have verified scenario in which residents in the area have requested increased patrols in response to prowlers in the area. Now, some here have argued against using unmarked patrol vehicles for this. My response to that is, there is just no pleasing some people that want to see cops fail. The same people that are upset about this situation and argue against using an unmarked have decried the effectiveness of law enforcement in other threads stating that they are not proactive and only respond after the crime.

In this situation, would you, as a resident of the area prefer to have a marked patrol come through and hope by sheer luck to spot the crime in progress or actually see someone take some alternative steps to observe the scene and catch the offender in the act? What do you think has the higher likelihood of success? These residents should be happy that the local law enforcement is taking the time to invest this manpower and time solely to this one complaint. And a brief aside to the couple of posters that have claimed this; how is the illegally entrapping the criminal?

Moving along… The Pastor. As stated in the linked article, he has a known history of confronting people at gunpoint. I think most common sense people would stop right here and realize who ultimately caused this tragic encounter. For those that don’t see it, I’ll explain. As many people here have chimed in and shared, they think that it is a great idea to go around armed and confronting people with their weapon out and ready to rock. That is our Constitutionally protected freedom, right? Not so much. While I have absolutely no problem with people being armed and carrying, you have to realize the responsibility to do it properly. Given this Pastor’s track alleged track record, I can take a pretty well-educated guess as to how the encounter went down. Armed Pastor approached the unmarked patrol car which was parked in the parking lot of his business, not his residential driveway, by the way, with gun drawn attempting to hold the perceived criminal at gunpoint. Go back and read the link. He has a history of this. This is where he failed. He broke the law and failed to be a responsible armed citizen. You want to talk about holding cops to a higher standard? Apply it to people that want to take the responsibility to arm themselves and then create an armed encounter. I’ll explain.

As a law enforcement agent, I have very strict rules that I have to adhere to when using force. The ultimate level of force that I can partake in is deadly force. Drawing my weapon in a use of force situation is the last step before pulling the trigger. That is what 99% of people simply fail to realize; when you draw your weapon, you have just elevated the situation to the ultimate level and seriously limited your options. Most cops realize this and that is why we don’t just come out with guns drawn; you basically have given yourself no room to move on the use of force continuum. That is what the Pastor did; he limited his options and the cop’s. As a cop, if you are confronted with an armed subject with a gun drawn on you, you will shoot. Period. You may or may not give a command to drop the weapon, but I wouldn’t. Statistically speaking, those would probably be the last words I would ever speak. You simply don’t have the luxury of time in that situation to give more chances to de-escalate. Split second stuff. Here, the gun is already out and, I’M ASSUMING, pointed in the general direction of the officer.

This is tragic, but, it is the responsibility of the party that raised the stakes to deadly force. Now, is this how it went down that night? I don’t know; I wasn’t there. I’m simply basing this scenario off of the limited facts that have been presented. If you are a cop sitting in a car and you are approached by man with a gun drawn on you, you have no choice but to react with deadly force. You may not agree and think there is more the deputy could have done to de-escalate, but I’m telling you, there is no alternative in that situation. That is the real tragedy of the story, that people think a drawn gun is something used to intimidate. That is a dangerous misconception. It is a tool that is used for one purpose; to take a life. In the holster, it can be considered a deterrent, but once it comes out, the game changes. Our firearms instructors drill into our heads; don't point a gun at something you are not willing to kill. This is how we and every reasonable person should perceive a weapon pointed in your direction; that the person on the other end is willing to take your life. Gun owners need to realize the potential for violence that is wordlessly communicated by a gun.

reply to post by JWH44


So in short you're tell me that if I see a cop pull a gun out on me I should shoot him first and ask questions later?

Otherwise I'll be dead.

That's quite some advise there JWH44.

With law like that who needs criminals.

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


Brilliant simplification of a complex situation. Who dictates the use of force in violent encounter? The agressor. In this case, who was the agressor? Again, we don't KNOW, but based on the limited facts, the Pastor approached the officer with his gun drawn, looking to hold him at gunpoint. How would you perceive that? I would perceive that as an act of agression with a tool capable of ending my life. Would you honestly hope to talk your way out of that? If you weren't armed, I guess that might be your only option. But if you are armed, as the cop is, what would you do?

My point is to try and put yourself in that situation. If it played out as I assume, you have essentially no choice but to shoot. Once a gun is pointed at me, I am going to do what I have to do to protect my life. Any reasonable person should see that and appreciate it.

But let's give your simplified scenario a little credit; what if I was walking down the street and I meet a cop. He draws his gun and starts to point it at me. No verbalized commands, no warning. I would have to say that I would go for my weapon and defend myself. Now, is your scenario realistic? No. However, please describe to me an instance where the situation you gave would ever play out.

You see, as law enforcement, we ARE bound by higher standards. I can't simply walk up to a person, draw my gun and point it at them. What would be a situation where that would ever occur? If I'm drawing my weapon, it is in a situation that has escalated to that point. I have already made contact with the person on some other level of the use of force continuum. My mere identified presence is considered the lowest level on the use of force continuum.

So, your argument fails in this very simple step. We (law enforcement) have to react to the other party and respond accordingly. In this case, the officer was confronted by an armed agressor. He is already behind in the race. He has to respond.

Thanks for expanding upon that theory.

It still appears that you are advising (if armed) to shot another person if they have a gun pointed at you lest you be killed by them first.

The fact that a cop with their gun out understands the gravity of that posturing means that they are more likely to kill as they are trained to do so.

So to be truly safe we should snipe headshots at unknown men in illegally parked cars at 3AM just in case they are a cop and will kill us for defending our premises even though the onus of identifying themselves as public servants is on them at all times.

I do think the old man should have called the cops before investigating himself though - I mean that guy in the car could have been a dangerous murdering criminal and cops protect us from them not expose us to them.

-m0r

Originally posted by m0r1arty
Thanks for expanding upon that theory.

It still appears that you are advising (if armed) to shot another person if they have a gun pointed at you lest you be killed by them first.

The fact that a cop with their gun out understands the gravity of that posturing means that they are more likely to kill as they are trained to do so.

Actually, that is pretty much right on. You are making my point for me. If a person has a gun out and pointed at you, your options have just decreased rapidly. It is a horrible situation to be in.

How you make the leap to the sniper comment I'm not sure. Again, that is making the sniper the aggressor. The main point I'm trying to make, especially to people who carry a gun, is you need to appreciate the responsibility of carrying a weapon. Realize that drawing a gun on somebody is going to illicit a response from the person you are drawing down on and you need to be prepared for that response.

Edit to Add:

One quick point; saying a cop is "more likely to kill" is kind of slanted, don't you think? When deadly force is used, it is used to stop the threat. You are implying intent to end a life. The intent is to stop the threat. A shooting situation is a high stress, dynamic incident that involves a massive adrenaline dump to the body. Physiologically speaking, this type of stress greatly hinders fine motor skills and forces the shooter to rely on gross motor skills and muscle memory (developed through repititious training). Your chance to stop the threat relies on shooting for areas of the body with the highest chance for a hit. That is why we do not train to shoot for the legs or hands or head. Certainly not the gun. The center mass of a target presents the largest target and the highest chance to hit, thus successfully stopping the threatening action (being shot at or the threat of being shot).

So to say a cop is shooting to kill is misleading and inaccurate.