Glendale Police shoot and Kill grandfather with granchild in arms, page 7

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:50 PM

link

Originally posted by mkgandhas
shows that american police are full of mass murdering thugs.

Actually that's a false statement. For some reason people on this discussion board only post articles about the few that do fail to make good decisions while on duty. Police officers aren't robotic, pre programmed machines like some of you make them out to be. They're people, just like you and me. Some people that can't make good decisions end up being police officers and i won't defend them. To point to a handful of incidents and say every officer is an evil murdering thug is ignorant.

Like i said, people here on ATS for some reason only see the bad side of police actions, and it's nowhere near enough to prove they're all evil. They're human beings that every day have to deal with the worst people so we don't have to. I've traveled far and wide, met hundreds of officers and they were all professional, kind and caring. I live in a small town that employs about fifteen officers, and we're all like family. I think we need to step back and see the bigger picture.

casenately

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:01 AM

link

This is why I call the cops less and less.
I am 100% serious. I don't really call them. If I can handle it, I do. If I need help, I call a neighbor or a bystander. Seriously, you can't trust them anymore. Not like we could say even 20 years ago. Law favors criminals, and cops are treated like infallible gods.

Forget that. I believe in judge dread style justice

I am the law.

In all seriousness, I don't call them, the community should solve its problems.
If you cant handle it alone, ask for help. IMO

edit on 20-2-2012 by casenately because: (no reason given)

FTD Brat

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:07 PM

link

reply to post by newcovenant

Like I said, the presumption is that he was pointing it at the officers.

I don't think he was though, because that would have been clearly stated (I would think it would be anyway) in the news report. Like I said, the whole situation stinks to me.

FTD Brat

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:09 PM

link

reply to post by petrus4

We've fairly clearly got a very large number of people out there with badges and guns, who simply should not be in that position.

I agree. It could have been they meant to merely wound the man, but everything I've ever heard about police having to use their weapons is that they shoot to kill, period.

Kyprian

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:14 PM

link

reply to post by JackBauer

Because when a grandfather is shot in the back of the head while holding a child, because people are getting arrested for defending their private homes and having their own property seized, because family pets who are doing no wrong are gunned down in a hail of 30+ bullets, because men who served their country are put down like rabid animals, because women are tazed after restrained to the point of being a vegetable, because a cop can stop and demand to see your papers and arrest you if you don't have them on you, because school children are being carted off in handcuffs for doodling on a desk and being strip searched because they have money, because these animals who swear to serve and protect will arrest you if you look at them funny....because of this, I ask why we need them and how much more are we going to take until we cry out "Enough!" and DEMAND an overhaul of the whole damned corrupt system. THAT'S why.

newcovenant

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:31 PM

link

Originally posted by FTD Brat
reply to post by newcovenant

Like I said, the presumption is that he was pointing it at the officers.

I don't think he was though, because that would have been clearly stated (I would think it would be anyway) in the news report. Like I said, the whole situation stinks to me.

If this was a law abiding gun owner with a legally registered gun I would hope the NRA would speak up in his defense. I have not heard anything like that and so I have to assume it was an illegal gun and not registered. This man might have been defending his grandchild with that legal gun and if the Police still shot him in that case I imagine there will be hell to pay.

FTD Brat

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:51 PM

link

reply to post by newcovenant

I still think he didn't have a gun on him when the police shot him. But it doesn't really matter now, does it?

defcon5

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:28 PM

link

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

Actually, I found out today from a LEO friend (talking about something totally unrelated) that it makes NO difference if he was armed, or not, when he was shot.

The neighbors called in that he was threatening them, and “brandishing” a firearm. It makes ZERO difference if he really had a firearm, if it was unloaded, a toy, an airgun, etc… If the person that you brandished the “item” at BELIEVES that you have a firearm, and feels in fear for their safety, then you have committed a felony, it falls under being “felony assault with a deadly weapon”, and the police have the right to treat the suspect like an armed felon.

If you think about this, you should all realize that its true. If someone holds up a store or a bank, even if they used a toy, they are still treated as though the firearm is REAL. If the person is caught, and sent to court, they are treated and sentenced EXACTLY the same way as though the firearm was real, even if it was fake.

He “brandished” what witnesses felt was a firearm, they were in fear, and the police had the right under the law to treat that as a felony.

Some legal backup for this:

Toy weapn Laws
Also in Chicago, if a toy gun or replica gun is used to commit a crime, then that person is treated as though they had actually used a real firearm.

Airsoft Guns
Finally, states such as California have laws that make it a crime to brandish a look-alike gun in public. Furthermore, individuals using an Airsoft or replica gun to commit crimes will invariably be treated as though they had used an actual firearm.

Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
RCW 9.41.270 (1)

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Assault with a deadly weapon is technically termed "aggravated assault" under the Florida statutes. "Simple" assault is defined in the following manner:
An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
If this threat is accompanied by the brandishing of a deadly weapon, a defendant who is convicted of this charge faces the penalties that accompany a third-degree felony. A third-degree felony can carry a prison term of up to five years.

Assault and Aggravated Assault
Assault is defined as the intentional act of threatening to injure a person. Brandishing a weapon falls firmly under the definition of assault. If a firearm or other deadly weapon is used, the charge is elevated to aggravated assault, a felony in Texas. Even if you were acting in self-defense by brandishing a firearm, you could still be at risk of being convicted for aggravated assault.

Pulling a firearm on someone without firing it suggests that the gun was not necessary and that you did not fear for your life, because if you had you would have pulled the trigger. Fighting an aggravated assault charge with the self-defense doctrine can therefore be a difficult argument to make in court.

And finally in Arizona itself:

Arizona Gun Laws Update 2009
Improper display of a firearm can be anything from a class 1 misdemeanor (e.g., disorderly conduct) to a class 3 felony (e.g., aggravated assault).

So if the neighbors reported that he was “brandishing” a deadly weapon, and they felt in fear of their safety, then it’s Felony Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, regardless if he was armed at the time the police arrived or not, and he would have been charged with that crime if he would have gone to court. The police had every right to treat him as an armed felon. His reluctance to comply with police demands gave the police the absolute right to treat him as being armed, dangerous, and as a resisting felon, thereby giving them the right to shoot him.[ /mod] extra DIV

OldCurmudgeon

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:27 PM

link

Originally posted by defcon5

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

Actually, I found out today from a LEO friend (talking about something totally unrelated) that it makes NO difference if he was armed, or not, when he was shot.

The neighbors called in that he was threatening them, and “brandishing” a firearm. It makes ZERO difference if he really had a firearm, if it was unloaded, a toy, an airgun, etc… If the person that you brandished the “item” at BELIEVES that you have a firearm, and feels in fear for their safety, then you have committed a felony, it falls under being “felony assault with a deadly weapon”, and the police have the right to treat the suspect like an armed felon.

If you think about this, you should all realize that its true. If someone holds up a store or a bank, even if they used a toy, they are still treated as though the firearm is REAL. If the person is caught, and sent to court, they are treated and sentenced EXACTLY the same way as though the firearm was real, even if it was fake.

He “brandished” what witnesses felt was a firearm, they were in fear, and the police had the right under the law to treat that as a felony.

Some legal backup for this:

Toy weapn Laws
Also in Chicago, if a toy gun or replica gun is used to commit a crime, then that person is treated as though they had actually used a real firearm.

Airsoft Guns
Finally, states such as California have laws that make it a crime to brandish a look-alike gun in public. Furthermore, individuals using an Airsoft or replica gun to commit crimes will invariably be treated as though they had used an actual firearm.

Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
RCW 9.41.270 (1)

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Assault with a deadly weapon is technically termed "aggravated assault" under the Florida statutes. "Simple" assault is defined in the following manner:
An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
If this threat is accompanied by the brandishing of a deadly weapon, a defendant who is convicted of this charge faces the penalties that accompany a third-degree felony. A third-degree felony can carry a prison term of up to five years.

Assault and Aggravated Assault
Assault is defined as the intentional act of threatening to injure a person. Brandishing a weapon falls firmly under the definition of assault. If a firearm or other deadly weapon is used, the charge is elevated to aggravated assault, a felony in Texas. Even if you were acting in self-defense by brandishing a firearm, you could still be at risk of being convicted for aggravated assault.

Pulling a firearm on someone without firing it suggests that the gun was not necessary and that you did not fear for your life, because if you had you would have pulled the trigger. Fighting an aggravated assault charge with the self-defense doctrine can therefore be a difficult argument to make in court.

And finally in Arizona itself:

Arizona Gun Laws Update 2009
Improper display of a firearm can be anything from a class 1 misdemeanor (e.g., disorderly conduct) to a class 3 felony (e.g., aggravated assault).

So if the neighbors reported that he was “brandishing” a deadly weapon, and they felt in fear of their safety, then it’s Felony Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, regardless if he was armed at the time the police arrived or not, and he would have been charged with that crime if he would have gone to court. The police had every right to treat him as an armed felon. His reluctance to comply with police demands gave the police the absolute right to treat him as being armed, dangerous, and as a resisting felon, thereby giving them the right to shoot him.[ /mod]

Hey defcon... respectfully, I have reviewed you post above carefully, and although I agree with your research and and respect your opinion I must disagree with your final stance.
Here I believe it important I add somes facts, I am a life long supporter of police officers and law enforcement.
I can read and understand laws and statues.
I have a grandson who is currently an officer in another state, an uncle who was an FBI agent, a cousin who was a US Marshall and too many close personal friends who have been and currently are officers of the law.
I might also admit that given my involvement and respect for this position I have always been a little predisposed to err on the side of these hard working men and women.
Setting this minor predjuidcie aside, I contacted all my trusted police professional contacts in the area of law enforcement, i.e. all my family members, a close college friend who was one of four state police commanders in a major state in the midwest for severa years, and as many of my other friends and acquaintances as I couldn, including some current military police officers, and in an effort to get a real legal perspective on the subject, I contact a good friend who is a former Superior Court Judge and who now teaches law to potential and existing police officers in another state.
Sum total, these officers and the judge, without question all stated this situation warrants a full investigation, and all stressed the investigation should be by a department other than the officer's.
I must agree, the situation warrants a full investigation.
Respectfuly,

edit on 29-2-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Edit

edit on 29-2-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Spelling

extra DIV

defcon5

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:44 PM

link

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

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

I am not understanding why they would feel that way other than not wanting to commit one way or the other.

In a nutshell however, what I was told is that if someone is brandishing a firearm in your presence, then the police will treat that as a felony solely based on the witnesses report of being in “fear". You do not have to prove that the person had a gun, that it was a real gun, or that it was loaded. Simply the act of brandishing something that appears to be a gun, and making threats toward a person that cause them to be in fear for their life and safety, constitutes a felony as though that person does in fact have a real, loaded, firearm pointed at you.

So to use an example from the movie batman returns:

In that scene batman would have committed a felony of "assault with a deadly weapon", simply because he makes Gordon feel that he has a real weapon pointed at him. It makes no difference in the end that it was in fact a stapler as long as Gordon thought it was a gun, and it caused him to be in fear for his life.

This is the exact same situation with this particular instance. The police had the right to treat this man as an armed suspect based on the neighbors reports that he was “brandishing” a firearm, and making threats at them. As long as those neighbors were in fear of their lives or safety when he brandished a firearm in front of them with the intent to intimidate them, then no matter if what they saw was real or a mistake, it becomes legally real. The police then had every right to come into the scene as though facing an armed individual, and when he failed to follow their lawful commands, they had the right to shoot him.

If the shoot ends up being bad, and there was no real gun, or the person really didn't feel they were in danger. Then its not the polices fault, its the person who made the false report who ultimately ends up being charged.

As I stated, this law is enacted because of the number of crimes that have been committed over the years using toys, and other realistic looking fake weapons.

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

OldCurmudgeon

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:04 PM

link

Originally posted by defcon5

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

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

I am not understanding why they would feel that way other than not wanting to commit one way or the other.

In a nutshell however, what I was told is that if someone is brandishing a firearm in your presence, then the police will treat that as a felony solely based on the witnesses report of being in “fear". You do not have to prove that the person had a gun, that it was a real gun, or that it was loaded. Simply the act of brandishing something that appears to be a gun, and making threats toward a person that cause them to be in fear for their life and safety, constitutes a felony as though that person does in fact have a real, loaded, firearm pointed at you.

So to use an example from the movie batman returns:

In that scene batman would have committed a felony of "assault with a deadly weapon", simply because he makes Gordon feel that he has a real weapon pointed at him. It makes no difference in the end that it was in fact a stapler as long as Gordon thought it was a gun, and it caused him to be in fear for his life.

This is the exact same situation with this particular instance. The police had the right to treat this man as an armed suspect based on the neighbors reports that he was “brandishing” a firearm, and making threats at them. As long as those neighbors were in fear of their lives or safety when he brandished a firearm in front of them with the intent to intimidate them, then no matter if what they saw was real or a mistake, it becomes legally real. The police then had every right to come into the scene as though facing an armed individual, and when he failed to follow their lawful commands, they had the right to shoot him.

If the shoot ends up being bad, and there was no real gun, or the person really didn't feel they were in danger. Then its not the polices fault, its the person who made the false report who ultimately ends up being charged.

As I stated, this law is enacted because of the number of crimes that have been committed over the years using toys, and other realistic looking fake weapons.

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

I have not confirmed this other than by emails... but the judge and one state officer said the academy in several states east of the Mississippi, i.e. the 'rules of engagement' would only allow for a head shot, an intentional killing shot as a last resort, and then it must be approved by a shift captain I believe... I'll check into that..
The other thing is, this officers record of shots taken and kills 'far' exceeds some sort of statistical average that I heard the Glendal or Scottsdale police chief state while watching the news, channel 5 I believe...
I haven't had time, but I will and research the statistics for officer shootings across the nation, giving consideration to swat shootings which we all know are highly probable deaths. In this case however nothing has ever been said about swat having been contacted or onsite. I do recall some statement that this officer is an ex marine and 'used' to be a swat team member. It might be interesting to find out why he is no longer a member of swat.
One thing I can say for sure from most of my contacts, in the case of a shooting with death, in most cases the investigation is not made by the officer's department.
As to the accusation of 'brandishing a weapon' , I find that very weak evidence as neighbors who are fighting could certainly misstate the truth, leaving the officers approaching the scene and the man in an incorrect manner. I would hope that police officers would use more common sense than to take at face value the he said she said comments of a rival and shoot an 'unarmed' person.
Also, having guns in your home, in your living room is a weak excuse and sounds like typical 'anti-gun propogana spouted constantly in an attempt to attack gun rights.
The lid has apparently been screwed down tight on this incident with the media because I have seen litte if anything about the incident. Having said that, it is likely a good idea as the media can certainly spin and twist non facts.
I await the full investigation including release of the transcripts of the original 911 call, the following police radio traffic, the commands communicated by officers to the man and deposed from all officers on site, "if" any threats had been made to the child's safety at any time, etc, etc.
On the surface, I still believe this is a questionable shoot and on top of it, the officers record cries out for a complete investigation.
Again, respectfully I'll await the full release of all information from the investigation, i.e. the facts.

defcon5

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:41 AM

link

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

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
The other thing is, this officers record of shots taken and kills 'far' exceeds some sort of statistical average that I heard the Glendal or Scottsdale police chief state while watching the news, channel 5 I believe...
I haven't had time, but I will and research the statistics for officer shootings across the nation, giving consideration to swat shootings which we all know are highly probable deaths. In this case however nothing has ever been said about swat having been contacted or onsite. I do recall some statement that this officer is an ex marine and 'used' to be a swat team member.

He was a member of the swat team, and since he was the one with the high-powered rifle, I would feel pretty comfortable making the assumption he was their marksman. This in itself could be the reason why he had more “shoots” on record then other officers, and you would have to compare his number of shootings to other swat snipers who had been engaged in a similar number of comparable crime scenes. Often the sniper is the one who is called on to make a precision killing shot, where other officers cannot safely take one.

Also it should be looked into exactly what the previous encounters that the suspect had with the police. I believe that it was mentioned in one of the articles, that this was not the guys first encounter with the law.

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
but the judge and one state officer said the academy in several states east of the Mississippi, i.e. the 'rules of engagement' would only allow for a head shot, an intentional killing shot as a last resort, and then it must be approved by a shift captain I believe.

I have never heard of such a thing, are these LEO's US Law enforcement or some other country? If the officers on scene feel they need to take a shot, and that it is justified, they are allowed to make that call. They are not expected to wait around for a superior to “clear” them to do it. Waiting for clearance from a higher authority, who is not on scene, puts additional lives at risk. I'm not sure who told you this information, but I have NEVER heard such nonsense before in all the years I have been friends with LEO's.

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
As to the accusation of 'brandishing a weapon' , I find that very weak evidence as neighbors who are fighting could certainly misstate the truth, leaving the officers approaching the scene and the man in an incorrect manner. I would hope that police officers would use more common sense than to take at face value the he said she said comments of a rival and shoot an 'unarmed' person.

It is what it is, and if the report was made that he was “brandishing”, regardless of how you personally feel about it, the law says that the police then treat the situation as though its an actively armed individual. If he then refuses to follow police commands, or acts in any manner like he is going for a weapon (reaching inside the house in this instance), then they have the legal right to shoot.

As I said before, when officers tell you to put your hands up, and lay down face first on the cement, you do that NOW. You do not continue to wander around the scene, pick up a kid, decide to use that kid as an excuse to reach inside a structure, etc.

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
The lid has apparently been screwed down tight on this incident with the media because I have seen litte if anything about the incident. Having said that, it is likely a good idea as the media can certainly spin and twist non facts.

The “lid” is always screwed down tight on any crime investigation, there is nothing uncommon or particularly telling about that in this scenario.

BTW, you don't have to re-quote my posts in their entirety, that is a waste of space on both the page and the server. Simply use the “reply” button at the upper right side of my post.

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

OldCurmudgeon

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:15 PM

link

reply to post by defcon5

Thanks... no more quotes... lol
I thought I heard/read that the office was a former member of the swat team???
And to clarify my comment about approval before taking the shot, I meant this was regarding swat members who are usually in direct contact via ear piece with a shift sargent, captain, or commander or the like... and they usually make the call on head shots..
And yes, the investigation should include if this man had a 'history' with the police and of making threats, and maybe the officers already knew him from previous calls... we have someone similiar in our neighborhood right now who officers know and recognize as a nut case and very unstable.
I know so little about this it makes me want to shut up and not even talk about it until the full report is released.
Fact, I have seen/been involved personally in several scenerios like this and this is one reason officers hate domestic or disturbances of such a nature.
My old college buddy who headed up a state department for many years now is able to laugh at all the calls he was involved in early in his career when he was just a highway patrol officer... but he usually follows the laugh with a shot of whiskey too... lol

OldCurmudgeon

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:11 PM

link

I'm still awaiting the results of an investigation into this issue and do hope TPTB have not chosen to attempt to sweep this under the carpet.

The more opportunity I have to speak personally to more officer friends, here in the valley and across the country about this shooting and this officers record of shooting and kills, the more head shaking I am seeing with many quietly speaking of this being far beyond the intent and training of law enforcement officers.
One prime example used by an Arizona officer was the daily war going on along the southern Arizona border and the risk which each officer there takes each day in dealing with illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and other known and unknown criminals. While statistics are difficult to obtain, my sources tell me there are few officers partolling our southern border who has shot and killed as many as this officer.
Many, others who have worked drug task forces and inner city gang task forces, as an example in Chicago, Atlanta, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Miami speak of drawing weapons many times during their careers, but seldom if ever being forced to shoot and then against real bad guys and not against unarmed men holding a child.
Many officers comments I hear regarding the incident, based on what has been disclosed to date use words such as embarrassing and loss of credibility and community respect and most imporant this sort of shooting just adds to an already growing anger amongest many and a loss of respect that many in law enforcement fear will lead to further and intentional confrontations with police by those walking more on the lesser side of the law.

.

OldCurmudgeon

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:36 PM

link

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

Still no answer... I'll keep searching... this is a bad thing and the public should not let it be swept under the rug.