It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Glendale Police shoot and Kill grandfather with granchild in arms
page: 5share:
reply to post by Toffeeapple
Again, this is where knowing the area comes into play.
Arizona is an open carry state, and the residents take that right very seriously. Which means thwarting any bad press if possible. Many residents take plenty of training beyond what is required, and treat their guns like heirlooms. To them, weilding a gun as a threat would be like taking a key to a BMW. You just don't do it. Considering that most of the residents are trained and good shots, if they called the police on this guy, then they seriously felt threatened.
Again, this is where knowing the area comes into play.
Arizona is an open carry state, and the residents take that right very seriously. Which means thwarting any bad press if possible. Many residents take plenty of training beyond what is required, and treat their guns like heirlooms. To them, weilding a gun as a threat would be like taking a key to a BMW. You just don't do it. Considering that most of the residents are trained and good shots, if they called the police on this guy, then they seriously felt threatened.
reply to post by Kyprian
In my town where half the people are strung out or thugs, yes they do.
Depends on where you live. If they are holding people hostage, their chances of surviving drop considerably.
In my town where half the people are strung out or thugs, yes they do.
Depends on where you live. If they are holding people hostage, their chances of surviving drop considerably.
reply to post by nixie_nox
The only one saying hostage is you. Not the article, YOU. It may well be that things transpired the way you seem to think, but since we have not been given that information, based on what we have, is a bunch of gung ho cops acting on hearsay. And instead of wounding, or using tear gas or some other non-lethal means of ending a "drawn out" situation (which there is as yet no evidence of either), they opted for the Kennedy approach. Nice.
I t may seem as though I'm anti-cop. I'm not. But the current crop of militaristic badge dwellers stopped being Officer Friendly them nanosecond they decided it was a war on everyone but them.
Btw..you said "in my town". Does this mean you live in the town where this took place?
The only one saying hostage is you. Not the article, YOU. It may well be that things transpired the way you seem to think, but since we have not been given that information, based on what we have, is a bunch of gung ho cops acting on hearsay. And instead of wounding, or using tear gas or some other non-lethal means of ending a "drawn out" situation (which there is as yet no evidence of either), they opted for the Kennedy approach. Nice.
I t may seem as though I'm anti-cop. I'm not. But the current crop of militaristic badge dwellers stopped being Officer Friendly them nanosecond they decided it was a war on everyone but them.
Btw..you said "in my town". Does this mean you live in the town where this took place?
edit on 17/2/12 by Kyprian because:
clarification
Two things jump out. This was Peters 6th kill in 7 attempts making him the deadliest PO in Arizona History and he accomplished it in just 12 years.
Secondly, victim was 18 feet away, had turned to go back into the house and was shot in the back of the head.
I reviewed the other 6 shootings Peters was involved in and they all seem justified. This one seems that "Dirty Harry" might have gotten a little trigger happy. If in fact the man had his grandchild in his arms it would leave him few options to actually pull a gun while officers had guns trained on him. If a bullet passes through a body, the opportunity to exit and strike the child is strong. I have seen victims shot in the leg and have it exit their chest or the top their head. You don't put innocents in danger.
I am not going to judge this case other than the two things I mentioned. Seems strange when you consider the shooting of a 54 year old women in a church parking lot the two days before and the shooting of marine in a school parking lot while his two children sat in the back seat. Either were armed.
As always, it may take days to evaluate this situation and when more facts are brought forward we hopefully can judge better.
I reviewed the other 6 shootings Peters was involved in and they all seem justified. This one seems that "Dirty Harry" might have gotten a little trigger happy. If in fact the man had his grandchild in his arms it would leave him few options to actually pull a gun while officers had guns trained on him. If a bullet passes through a body, the opportunity to exit and strike the child is strong. I have seen victims shot in the leg and have it exit their chest or the top their head. You don't put innocents in danger.
I am not going to judge this case other than the two things I mentioned. Seems strange when you consider the shooting of a 54 year old women in a church parking lot the two days before and the shooting of marine in a school parking lot while his two children sat in the back seat. Either were armed.
As always, it may take days to evaluate this situation and when more facts are brought forward we hopefully can judge better.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox -Wait, says the same person who keeps making the same assuptions and arguements over and over without considering
the information. You have't even demonstrated that you understood the first article.-Text
Such as what? Oh, I get it - you're just going to make accusations without backing anything up with facts or examples. No surprise there then.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox -Reading comprehension is a valuable skill. The original article clearly states that the feud has been going on for some time, which means this guy is a repeat offender. Go back and read.-Text
That's hilarious! You're accusing me of a lack of comprehension, then proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that it's you who lacks comprehension! The fact that the shot man and the neighbour have had a long-running feud simply means they've been falling out with each other. It does not mean, 'This guy is a repeat offender', at all, you complete dolt! But that bit of defective reasoning you've displayed there is very illuminating.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox-Now this is just lame. Because all those pretty blue and red lights and sirens didn't tip him off?-ext
Oh really? Where does it say they turned up with lights and sirens going? Oh yes. Nowhere. Do we know whether he was in a room with a window enabling him to see out to where the police were? Nope. Do we know what time it was and whether his curtains were drawn. Errr - nope. Mr My-Assumtions-Are-Facts strikes again then.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox - Again, reading comprehension is a valuable skill.Text
Aint that the truth!
-Originally posted by nixie_nox -He came out, and went back in and THEN refused to come out-Text
Oh really? Then how do you explain this..?
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.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox - He should of put the child down before even answering the door to the police.-Text
Maybe - or maybe he didn't know it was the police. If the neighbours who'd been feuding with him were lying to the police about the earlier incident, he may have had no inkling of the seriousness of the situation. Maybe the child was of an age where he / she couldn't be just deposited on the floor or a sofa safely without supervision. There are lots of if's and maybes where we don't know due to lack of information. A little thing like that doesn't seem to stop people like you an Defcon defending the killing though.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox - No they are not really, ATSers desperately look for and misinterpret articles like these so they can slay authority.I work with every kind of law enforcement from FBI to campus police. I have yet to see anyone abuse anything.-Text
Do you carry a white stick then?
Such as what? Oh, I get it - you're just going to make accusations without backing anything up with facts or examples. No surprise there then.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox -Reading comprehension is a valuable skill. The original article clearly states that the feud has been going on for some time, which means this guy is a repeat offender. Go back and read.-Text
That's hilarious! You're accusing me of a lack of comprehension, then proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that it's you who lacks comprehension! The fact that the shot man and the neighbour have had a long-running feud simply means they've been falling out with each other. It does not mean, 'This guy is a repeat offender', at all, you complete dolt! But that bit of defective reasoning you've displayed there is very illuminating.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox-Now this is just lame. Because all those pretty blue and red lights and sirens didn't tip him off?-ext
Oh really? Where does it say they turned up with lights and sirens going? Oh yes. Nowhere. Do we know whether he was in a room with a window enabling him to see out to where the police were? Nope. Do we know what time it was and whether his curtains were drawn. Errr - nope. Mr My-Assumtions-Are-Facts strikes again then.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox - Again, reading comprehension is a valuable skill.Text
Aint that the truth!
-Originally posted by nixie_nox -He came out, and went back in and THEN refused to come out-Text
Oh really? Then how do you explain this..?
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.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox - He should of put the child down before even answering the door to the police.-Text
Maybe - or maybe he didn't know it was the police. If the neighbours who'd been feuding with him were lying to the police about the earlier incident, he may have had no inkling of the seriousness of the situation. Maybe the child was of an age where he / she couldn't be just deposited on the floor or a sofa safely without supervision. There are lots of if's and maybes where we don't know due to lack of information. A little thing like that doesn't seem to stop people like you an Defcon defending the killing though.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox - No they are not really, ATSers desperately look for and misinterpret articles like these so they can slay authority.I work with every kind of law enforcement from FBI to campus police. I have yet to see anyone abuse anything.-Text
Do you carry a white stick then?
Originally posted by nixie_nox A man pulling up a chair and lying down a rifle and a handgun on the chair is looking for a fight.
Please describe this imaginary "pulling up of a chair".
And as for"...Is looking for a fight", I thought people in the USA like to have guns for their own self-defence - especially in an area as rough as the one you've described.
-Originally posted by nixie_nox Haven't you ever watched a western??-Text
Why, have you imagined a few cowboys and Indians into the scenario now?
Originally posted by nixie_nox - Besides, many arizonians would be pissed that he even layed arms in reach of a child.Text
And with the child in his arms, and the weapons not on his person, how, precisely, do you manage to calculate that they were child's reach?
Not really making much sense, are you!
edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: Too many tags making type miniscule.
Originally posted by Kyprian
reply to post by Toffeeapple
Kinda like a blck hole, where reason gets sucked in and dies, no?
Yep! My head's banging a bit.
I have always and currently support law enforcement officers...
I have family, friends and acquaintances throughout my life who were/are officers.
FBI, City municipal Police departments, Sheriff's departments, Conservation officers, State Police, US Marshalls, Military police, etc.
I have questions:
1 - Was this person a known or wanted felon and or did he have a history of mental instability
2 - Did this person have a previous history of threating others with or without a weapon
3 - Had the police been called to this house prior to this incident
4 - What were the commands the officers were issuing.
5 - Was he making threating comments to the officers
6 - Where were the tasers?
I make not an overly critical critique but Arizona, although inundated wtih illegal aliens and illegal drugs and the associated violence is not a war zone like Iraq or Afghanistan or the American border with Mexico.
I will withhold my final opinion until I hear more evidence and without answers to my five questions above it is difficult to make my initial assesment.
On the surface, given the information furnished, I find this shooting suspect.
I have family, friends and acquaintances throughout my life who were/are officers.
FBI, City municipal Police departments, Sheriff's departments, Conservation officers, State Police, US Marshalls, Military police, etc.
I have questions:
1 - Was this person a known or wanted felon and or did he have a history of mental instability
2 - Did this person have a previous history of threating others with or without a weapon
3 - Had the police been called to this house prior to this incident
4 - What were the commands the officers were issuing.
5 - Was he making threating comments to the officers
6 - Where were the tasers?
I make not an overly critical critique but Arizona, although inundated wtih illegal aliens and illegal drugs and the associated violence is not a war zone like Iraq or Afghanistan or the American border with Mexico.
I will withhold my final opinion until I hear more evidence and without answers to my five questions above it is difficult to make my initial assesment.
On the surface, given the information furnished, I find this shooting suspect.
Here is a quote from one of the first paragraphs from the article.
"About 6 p.m. Tuesday, police received a 911 call that a man was threatening neighbors with a handgun while holding a baby."
So the police call involved a man with a gun. He was partially hidden by a door.
"About 6 p.m. Tuesday, police received a 911 call that a man was threatening neighbors with a handgun while holding a baby."
So the police call involved a man with a gun. He was partially hidden by a door.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
But they didn't make him comply with their frisk to check for weapons in his outer garments. They shot him in the head.
That's right, because when you were just in an armed altercation with your neighbors, the police show up, you look outside, and see scenes like this....
THEN a reasonable man does this:
As ordered, if they want to live.
Its certainly not the time to take your kid for a walk, feed your dog, take a shower, bake a pie, etc...
I think that some of you from other countries just have no idea how the system over here works.
Its not like this:
“Cheerio chap, we had a report that you were running with a sharpened pencil, lets stand around and have a friendly chat about that.”
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)
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Oh really? Where does it say they turned up with lights and sirens going? Oh yes. Nowhere. Do we know whether he was in a room with a window enabling him to see out to where the police were? Nope. Do we know what time it was and whether his curtains were drawn. Errr - nope. Mr My-Assumtions-Are-Facts strikes again then.
*laughs* you have gone from lame to pathetic in 6 seconds. Obviously you have never witness a real crime and know what it is like to have four cop cars come to your house with sirens and lights blaring. And being that the neighbors reported a crazy guy with a gun, he would be lucky if it were only four. You would have to be Helen Keller to miss that.
Nice try. And your not Sherlock Holmes by any stretch of the imagination.
I am done with you until you come up with something realistic.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Oh really? Where does it say they turned up with lights and sirens going? Oh yes. Nowhere. Do we know whether he was in a room with a window enabling him to see out to where the police were? Nope. Do we know what time it was and whether his curtains were drawn. Errr - nope. Mr My-Assumtions-Are-Facts strikes again then.
*laughs* you have gone from lame to pathetic in 6 seconds. Obviously you have never witness a real crime and know what it is like to have four cop cars come to your house with sirens and lights blaring. And being that the neighbors reported a crazy guy with a gun, he would be lucky if it were only four. You would have to be Helen Keller to miss that.
Nice try. And your not Sherlock Holmes by any stretch of the imagination.
I am done with you until you come up with something realistic.
How's about you answer all the other points in that post, like justifying how he and the neighbour have had a long-running feud actually means, in your language, he's got a record for having done this before? I see you waited for your buddy, the other Rambo wannabe showed up to back you up.
Originally posted by Kyprian
reply to post by nixie_nox
The only one saying hostage is you. Not the article, YOU. It may well be that things transpired the way you seem to think, but since we have not been given that information, based on what we have, is a bunch of gung ho cops acting on hearsay.
Are you trying to accuse me of not having enough information but the very next statement, you accuse the police of acting on hearsay? Your just as bad clinging to your i hate cops ordeal as the other one.
And instead of wounding, or using tear gas or some other non-lethal means of ending a "drawn out" situation (which there is as yet no evidence of either), they opted for the Kennedy approach. Nice.
They would of tear gassed the baby too dingbat.
I t may seem as though I'm anti-cop. I'm not. But the current crop of militaristic badge dwellers stopped being Officer Friendly them nanosecond they decided it was a war on everyone but them.
Give me a personal example where you were hassled by police then. And don't make one up.
Btw..you said "in my town". Does this mean you live in the town where this took place?edit on 17/2/12 by Kyprian because: clarification
Yes, I previously said I lived there, which is why I know so much about Arizona. The town I live in now is much worse.
reply to post by Toffeeapple
If the best you can come up with is that he didn't see four screaming cop cars, your other statements are certainly not worth anymore of my time.
Rambo? Really?
If the best you can come up with is that he didn't see four screaming cop cars, your other statements are certainly not worth anymore of my time.
Rambo? Really?
edit on 17-2-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
reply to post by defcon5
You characteristically omitted the all-important word, "Allegedly" that should have been inserted between, "You were just", and "In an armed altercation".
What? The reasonable man puts his arms up? While he's holding a child? But the child would fall.
And there, "If they want to live", is the crux of it isn't it. Innocent until proven guilty means bugger all to you. Do as you're told or die. How very sick that is.
You don't know if this man was completely innocent, and simply terrified and overwhelmed. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you think the police are right to shoot like that.
To be clear, IF he was a homicidal maniac, and hiding behind the baby, I wouldn't bear a grudge for their action, but while it's so unclear that's the case, and you're still determined to defend the polices' actions anyway, I find your line of thinking warped.
Oh, and by the way, there's never any violent crime in Britain, only running with sharp pencils.
You characteristically omitted the all-important word, "Allegedly" that should have been inserted between, "You were just", and "In an armed altercation".
What? The reasonable man puts his arms up? While he's holding a child? But the child would fall.
And there, "If they want to live", is the crux of it isn't it. Innocent until proven guilty means bugger all to you. Do as you're told or die. How very sick that is.
You don't know if this man was completely innocent, and simply terrified and overwhelmed. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you think the police are right to shoot like that.
To be clear, IF he was a homicidal maniac, and hiding behind the baby, I wouldn't bear a grudge for their action, but while it's so unclear that's the case, and you're still determined to defend the polices' actions anyway, I find your line of thinking warped.
Oh, and by the way, there's never any violent crime in Britain, only running with sharp pencils.
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
How's about you answer all the other points in that post, like justifying how he and the neighbour have had a long-running feud actually means, in your language, he's got a record for having done this before?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
It doesn't matter.
When the police are called out to a scene where there is a report of an armed man, they go guns to the wall, they don't pussyfoot around. When the police arrive and start giving you lawful commands at a scene like that, you better obey them quickly and precisely if you want to walk away from the situation in one piece.
Heck, I got pulled over one night and had my license in the center console. I kept my hands on the wheel until the officer saw I was unarmed, then asked his permission to get my license out. He unlatched and drew his gun before he gave me the okay to get it out....
See, too many cops here have been caught off guard and shot during routine stops, they DON'T dick around anymore.
All that for a traffic stop with NO indication of my being armed, or having any priors. Now take that an amplify it to a situation in which the call is of someone that is actually armed.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
reply to post by Toffeeapple
I answered all that in the above I believe.
And in the UK, unless I am mistaken, there is a pretty darn low rate of officers being shot on the job considering that you guys cannot own guns.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
I answered all that in the above I believe.
And in the UK, unless I am mistaken, there is a pretty darn low rate of officers being shot on the job considering that you guys cannot own guns.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
How's about you answer all the other points in that post, like justifying how he and the neighbour have had a long-running feud actually means, in your language, he's got a record for having done this before?The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
It doesn't matter.
When the police are called out to a scene where there is a report of an armed man, they go guns to the wall, they don't pussyfoot around. When the police arrive and start giving you lawful commands at a scene like that, you better obey them quickly and precisely if you want to walk away from the situation in one piece.
Heck, I got pulled over one night and had my license in the center console. I kept my hands on the wheel until the officer saw I was unarmed, then asked his permission to get my license out. He unlatched and drew his gun before he gave me the okay to get it out....
See, too many cops here have been caught off guard and shot during routine stops, they DON'T dick around anymore.
All that for a traffic stop with NO indication of my being armed, or having any priors. Now take that an amplify it to a situation in which the call is of someone that is actually armed.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
I don't say they're wrong to excercise vigilance. I don't doubt there are plenty of armed tossers over there. It's the necessity of shooting I'm questioning.
And the point you've quoted there which was addressed to some poster who's name I don't recall, does matter actually - it's the application of total illogic like that stated as fact by people that gets used to 'justify' things.
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Toffeeapple
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
I answered all that in the above I believe.
And in the UK, unless I am mistaken, there is a pretty darn low rate of officers being shot on the job considering that you guys cannot own guns.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
I expect you noticed my post was addressed to Nixi, not you?
And what's the rate of officers being shot over here got to do with anything anyway? Yes there are a lot more shootings where you are, but that's not a good reason to be blase about it, surely!