Glendale Police shoot and Kill grandfather with granchild in arms, page 3

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:08 AM

link

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by choos

you have obviously never been in a life threatening situation before have you?

More than your entire generation combined I bet.

maybe you should have a slight understanding what people who put their lives on the line go through, if you have known traffic cops you might understand how thick their skins need to be

BLa bla bla, nonsense. Can't handle the job, don't sign up. But ow wait, they actually need to be dumb enough to take the job!

i know things are different in the US since you never know who you are going to pull over and how unstable that person with the gun is

Why are you creating all these straw men? The guy was not pulled over, nor was there a gun on him. There was HEARSAY of a gun though..

cause all you wanted was to give the guy a warning for not wearing a seatbelt next thing you know you have a bullet through your chest cause the paranoid driver thought you knew he had stolen something.

Yeh right, why don't you go impress a 5 year old with your retarded straw man argument okay? That is NOT what happened here...nor do you put a cause to why the driver would be paranoid...you're just making stuff up as you go along. Get lost # muncher.

getting quite offensive there, nice work buddy. i can tell your blind hatred for authority will have you completely biased to anything anyone says.

www.pittsburghlive.com...

this cop that died on a routine traffic stop probably deserved it.

Kyprian

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:10 AM

link

reply to post by choos

Nice. Has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with OP, but nice. Is your straw man looking for a brain, by any chance?

choos

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:12 AM

link

Originally posted by Toffeeapple

Originally posted by choos
i see, than this guy needs to be retrained or removed. probably needs to learn how to difuse aggressive situation without use of lethal force. i bet he was under a bit of stress sometimes you only have a small window of oppurtunity between you killing them or them killing you. most people would rather not be killed.

I'm willing to bet the grandad was under a bit of stress when the bullet went through his head - I wonder if he'd rather have not been killed.

I haven't been able to find the other threads on this subject. Can anyone link them please? If there's more information, I'd like to see it.

im sure he was as well.. which is why i stated the cop needs to be retrained or reassessed.. isnt it always better to difuse the situation??

choos

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:13 AM

link

Originally posted by Kyprian
reply to post by choos

Nice. Has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with OP, but nice. Is your straw man looking for a brain, by any chance?

i did say daily stress of being an officer could have played a part to the situation didnt i?

Toffeeapple

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:15 AM

link

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by Toffeeapple

Originally posted by choos
i see, than this guy needs to be retrained or removed. probably needs to learn how to difuse aggressive situation without use of lethal force. i bet he was under a bit of stress sometimes you only have a small window of oppurtunity between you killing them or them killing you. most people would rather not be killed.

I'm willing to bet the grandad was under a bit of stress when the bullet went through his head - I wonder if he'd rather have not been killed.

I haven't been able to find the other threads on this subject. Can anyone link them please? If there's more information, I'd like to see it.

im sure he was as well.. which is why i stated the cop needs to be retrained or reassessed.. isnt it always better to difuse the situation??

Yes, it is.

But I'm not sure retraining is sufficient.

Kyprian

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:17 AM

link

reply to post by choos

Yup..which seems to be another straw man, as the article says NOTHING about the officer in question being under stress. It does, however, mention the victim being unarmed. "I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers..."

defcon5

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:23 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
1st underlined: How obviously exactly? Do you know what they were talking about, mister assumption?

Its called reading between the lines of what the police and news agency have released here.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
2nd underlined: Normal people do not shoot people who are carrying a baby, in the back of the head because of some hearsay.

If a person is using a human shield, then the police will sometimes employ a sniper/marksman with a high powered, scoped rifle to take them out.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Normal people also do not exist and since it is a logical fallacy, your argument lost its entire merit - seemingly, you are on the side of the police before you even read the article.

Normal people who are acting in a rational fashion do not drag children into a potentially hostile confrontation with neighbors or the police. A person who is acting in a rational fashion, and showing care and concern for the child would send it away from such a situation.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
It's obvious to me you have some sort of stake in the matter.

Uhm… I live thousands of miles away from there…. Wrong!

Originally posted by InfoKartel

The fact that it was a single shot says a lot as well.

You mean, if he was shot in the body there would have been less gore, thus less reason for the other officers to refrain from shooting?

Again, reading between the lines of what they have released so far. Its called using logic.

Police do not shoot into a hostage situation with a low powered handgun. Unlike the movies, bullets in real life are affected by the laws of physics. When a low powered bullet enters an area of body with a concentration of bone, such as a skull, it slows down and has the tendency to tumble or spin. If it loses enough power it can ricochet off other bone, and may exit the body as some odd angle. When someone is holding a child their heads will be in close proximity to each other.

This tells me that the police would not risk taking a Hollywood style pistol shot, it means that they most likely used a high power rifle and scope. Since that takes time to set up a shot for, this was not a snap judgment, it was most likely a drawn out stand off.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

choos

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:24 AM

link

Originally posted by Kyprian
reply to post by choos

Yup..which seems to be another straw man, as the article says NOTHING about the officer in question being under stress. It does, however, mention the victim being unarmed. "I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers..."

the cop had a report he was armed, we dont know the full situation that has occured. clearly things got out of hand some how, which is why im saying he needs to be retrained or reassessed. The thing is stress can play a large part of it, who's to say he had bad day and just wanted to shoot someone for fun? but on the other hand who's to say the grandpa was nuts and was going to run inside to grab a gun a shoot either the baby or the officer? who knows maybe the gun was concealed in his pocket and he was about to grab it and shoot.

Kyprian

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:31 AM

link

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by Kyprian
reply to post by choos

Yup..which seems to be another straw man, as the article says NOTHING about the officer in question being under stress. It does, however, mention the victim being unarmed. "I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers..."

the cop had a report he was armed, we dont know the full situation that has occured. clearly things got out of hand some how, which is why im saying he needs to be retrained or reassessed. The thing is stress can play a large part of it, who's to say he had bad day and just wanted to shoot someone for fun? but on the other hand who's to say the grandpa was nuts and was going to run inside to grab a gun a shoot either the baby or the officer? who knows maybe the gun was concealed in his pocket and he was about to grab it and shoot.

So we've gone from stress to the gun was in his pocket? Is there a reason you seem so hell-bent on justifying what happened? The report states he was unarmed, he was shot IN THE BACK, nothing was said about pocket guns, stress or the voices in his head ( I added the last one, beat you to it.). Just admit the in all probability, this guy was extremely wrong and should face consequences for what happened. Let's stop making excuses for criminal behavior, and make these guys accountable for their decisions to play God.

Now, if new evidence comes out to the contrary to what I have said I will gladly recant. But til then, stop with the Ray Bolger arguments. Thank you.

defcon5

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:37 AM

link

As a matter of fact look what I found:

www.usatoday.com...
Police said Loxas went back in his house after allegedly threatening the neighbors, then opened the door with the 9-month-old grandson in his arms but wouldn't come out.
Several officers called for him to come outside, but Loxas refused, Rodbell said. Peters shot Loxas in the head with a scope-equipped rifle from about 15 yards away when he leaned over and reached inside the house.
Loxas died instantly, and fell with the baby in his arms, police spokesman Sgt. Mark Clark said. The baby was unhurt.
Police said a loaded handgun was tucked into the side of a chair a few feet inside the door, and a shotgun was also found nearby.

In this case, the actions Loxas took in threatening his neighbors with a gun and refusing to come outside while holding a baby led to a legitimate concern by the officers, he said. He speculated that Loxas may have wanted police to shoot him in a so-called "suicide by cop."

So the guy went into his house to ditch the gun, and refused to come back out to the police. The police will be ruled justified in this instance because they had no way to know that the man was not still armed.

Toffeeapple

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:38 AM

link

reply to post by defcon5

"Its called reading between the lines of what the police and news agency have released here."

So rather than it being obvious, it's you making assumptions.

"If a person is using a human shield, then the police will sometimes employ a sniper/marksman with a high powered, scoped rifle to take them out."

But someone answering the door with their grandchild in their arms should not be assumed to be someone using the child as a human shield.

" Normal people who are acting in a rational fashion do not drag children into a potentially hostile confrontation with neighbors or the police. A person who is acting in a rational fashion, and showing care and concern for the child would send it away from such a situation."

So you're assuming the neighbours who have been feuding with him are telling the truth, and that he knew that it was the police he was answering the door to.

"Uhm… I live thousands of miles away from there…. Wrong!"

But you do sound like you're determined to defend the police shooting regardless of having to pass assumptions off as obvious facts.

"Again, reading between the lines of what they have released so far. Its called using logic"

Not when I went to school it wasn't. It's called making unfounded assumptions and presenting them as facts.

"....it was most likely a drawn out stand off."

More assumptions.

choos

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:41 AM

link

Originally posted by Kyprian

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by Kyprian
reply to post by choos

Yup..which seems to be another straw man, as the article says NOTHING about the officer in question being under stress. It does, however, mention the victim being unarmed. "I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers..."

the cop had a report he was armed, we dont know the full situation that has occured. clearly things got out of hand some how, which is why im saying he needs to be retrained or reassessed. The thing is stress can play a large part of it, who's to say he had bad day and just wanted to shoot someone for fun? but on the other hand who's to say the grandpa was nuts and was going to run inside to grab a gun a shoot either the baby or the officer? who knows maybe the gun was concealed in his pocket and he was about to grab it and shoot.

So we've gone from stress to the gun was in his pocket? Is there a reason you seem so hell-bent on justifying what happened? The report states he was unarmed, he was shot IN THE BACK, nothing was said about pocket guns, stress or the voices in his head ( I added the last one, beat you to it.). Just admit the in all probability, this guy was extremely wrong and should face consequences for what happened. Let's stop making excuses for criminal behavior, and make these guys accountable for their decisions to play God.

Now, if new evidence comes out to the contrary to what I have said I will gladly recant. But til then, stop with the Ray Bolger arguments. Thank you.

dude im not hell bent on justifying him, im just trying to stop you from crying bloody murder so soon, we have no idea of the volatility of the situation.

Kyprian

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:44 AM

link

reply to post by choos

He was shot IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD with his grandchild IN HIS ARMS while UNARMED. Yet you don't want me crying bloody murder? You, who have already pulled out stress and holdout pistols in the pocket???? How is this, based on the reports, NOT murder?

Toffeeapple

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:45 AM

link

Originally posted by defcon5

So the guy went into his house to ditch the gun, and refused to come back out to the police. The police will be ruled justified in this instance because they had no way to know that the man was not still armed.

Well if those are all the accurate and relevant details, US law needs a serious overhaul. And as for the speculation in the article about him wanting to commit suicide by cop, what BS - as if he'd be holding the child if he wanted to be shot! It's another of those stock excuses rolled out as handily as, "I was in fear for my life", to justify murder.

And you've assumed he went in to ditch the gun btw. How do you know it's not a legally possessed gun that's always kept there, and the feuding neighbours were lying? You don't.

choos

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:49 AM

link

Originally posted by Kyprian
reply to post by choos

He was shot IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD with his grandchild IN HIS ARMS while UNARMED. Yet you don't want me crying bloody murder? You, who have already pulled out stress and holdout pistols in the pocket???? How is this, based on the reports, NOT murder?

because we dont know the situation.. remember jennifer fox from occupy seattle protests? reports are not always accurate.

seriously most officers wont shoot law abiding citizens in the head just for fun or to get a day off.

defcon5

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:49 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
"Its called reading between the lines of what the police and news agency have released here."
So rather than it being obvious, it's you making assumptions.

Apparently I made pretty damn good assumptions by reading between the lines:

www.usatoday.com...
Police said Loxas went back in his house after allegedly threatening the neighbors, then opened the door with the 9-month-old grandson in his arms but wouldn't come out.
Several officers called for him to come outside, but Loxas refused, Rodbell said. Peters shot Loxas in the head with a scope-equipped rifle from about 15 yards away when he leaned over and reached inside the house.

What did I state?
1) He was shot with a high powered sniper rifle.
2) It was a stand-off.
3) There were multiple officers present.
4) This was not a snap judgment, it was something that took time to setup.

Please show me the wrong assumption that I made there?

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
But someone answering the door with their grandchild in their arms should not be assumed to be someone using the child as a human shield.

It is when they went back into the house to ditch the gun they were just brandishing around their neighbors:

www.usatoday.com...
Police said a loaded handgun was tucked into the side of a chair a few feet inside the door, and a shotgun was also found nearby.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
So you're assuming the neighbours who have been feuding with him are telling the truth, and that he knew that it was the police he was answering the door to.

www.usatoday.com...
Several officers called for him to come outside, but Loxas refused,

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
But you do sound like you're determined to defend the police shooting regardless of having to pass assumptions off as obvious facts.

Not all police shootings are unjustified, but online it seems that every armchair quarterback has a police brutality issue, even when the shooting is justified.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Not when I went to school it wasn't. It's called making unfounded assumptions and presenting them as facts.

Its called using common sense, and apparently pretty well too judging from the attached article.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
"....it was most likely a drawn out stand off."
More assumptions.

www.usatoday.com...
Several officers called for him to come outside, but Loxas refused,

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 2/17/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

MattNC

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:50 AM

link

Originally posted by SkipperJohn
reply to post by BenReclused

I seen this also.. But it did not say he was armed when they shot him.

And it didn't say he was without his gun either.

also:

Neighbors tell us the man was in his 50s and he had been feuding with neighbors for a long time.

Sad that it happened but it doesn't look like an upstanding citizen.

Toffeeapple

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:53 AM

link

Originally posted by MattNC

Originally posted by SkipperJohn
reply to post by BenReclused

I seen this also.. But it did not say he was armed when they shot him.

And it didn't say he was without his gun either.

also:

Neighbors tell us the man was in his 50s and he had been feuding with neighbors for a long time.

Sad that it happened but it doesn't look like an upstanding citizen.

Yes, an article earlier in this thread does state quite clearly that he was unarmed.

defcon5

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:55 AM

link

reply to post by Toffeeapple

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Okay…
Again…
In THIS country police are allowed to shoot you for other reasons besides you having a gun in your possession, or threatening the police with a gun….

even an civilian can shoot someone under certain circumstances, and having a gun on them is not the only one of them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Kyprian

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:02 AM

link

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Toffeeapple

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Okay…
Again…
In THIS country police are allowed to shoot you for other reasons besides you having a gun in your possession, or threatening the police with a gun….

even an civilian can shoot someone under certain circumstances, and having a gun on them is not the only one of them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Agreed..except I see nothing about the victim having hostages, threatening terror-related actions, or, well, anyone's life being in jeopardy. Unless holding your own grandkid is a death worthy crime.

Oh, by the way, "several officers called for him to come out" does not a drawn out standoff make. Simply means a guy didn't want to go outside. No crime there, either. Unless I missed the part about a warrant?