TexasCHLforum.com

Txtension wrote: So apparently there's some drill that he's supposed to know, but can you point out where this "drill" is codified?

I've always heard that referred to as common sense.

Txtension wrote:
Lets toss the spotlight on the Officer. How many complaints has he had? How many "thug-life" photo's are on his social media? How many anti-civilian texts has he distributed?

You tell us? Do you know of any?

I don't think anyone is blaming the dead guy at this point. I also think we do not know enough to convict the cop either. I try to give the cops the benefit of the doubt when it isn't clear they are in the wrong. Since we can't see what led up to the shooting, we don't know.

It doesn't matter how emotional and angry we get or how much more common sense we think we have than others, we just don't know enough facts at this point. Assuming this cop is bad and comparing this to other situations is wrong. Each situation needs to be evaluated on its own.

Even then, smart people may come to differing conclusions. For example, I am still not convinced Finicum was the sweet law abiding patriot as some are convinced he was.

thenick_ttu wrote:

Txtension wrote: So apparently there's some drill that he's supposed to know, but can you point out where this "drill" is codified?

I've always heard that referred to as common sense.

Some say common sense isn't common. Not sure if a breach of etiquette is worth killing over. Is it worth killing over Simon-Says?

To mojo84,

No sir, I am unaware of any of the Officer's social or official misconduct. Nor am I aware of whether the Officer is in violation of any other common victim-blaming/justifications. But who's on trial here, the dead-man or the one who killed him?

No one is on trial, yet. No one may go to trial. It all depends on the evidence and not emotional overreaction based upon incomplete and unreliable reports in the media.

Why not give the cop the benefit of the doubt until solid evidence he was wrong is presented?

Txtension wrote:

thenick_ttu wrote:

Txtension wrote: So apparently there's some drill that he's supposed to know, but can you point out where this "drill" is codified?

I've always heard that referred to as common sense.

Some say common sense isn't common. Not sure if a breach of etiquette is worth killing over. Is it worth killing over Simon-Says?

So you know for a fact that he was "killed over a breach of etiquette"? I can think of at least 20 (real) factors that could have influenced this situation and none of them involve a breach of etiquette. This was obviously a tragic situation but it is clear your agenda lies on a very specific side.

Why don't you come back with those 20 real factors and avoid the ad-hominems. I don't have an agenda, I see logical inconsistencies in some of the posts here and like you, post my thoughts and opinions.

OK folks, keep this conversation civil and no personal attacks, or the topic will be locked.

I feel badly for the young man in the Minnesota case who--unlike the Louisiana case---was not resisting at the time he was shot.

We all have differing opinions in this area but I believe this is the "model" way to do it:

Motorist traveling down highway and sees police vehicle behind him with overheads on. Motorist immediately places wallet on dashboard and stops car, and rolls window down. Police stop behind motorist and approaches motorist. Motorist: how are you today sir? Police: I pulled you over because you had a bad tail light. Motorist: oh, I am sorry sir, I did not realize it was out--I will get it taken care of first thing. Police: May I see your driver's license? Motorist: Yes sir, it is in my wallet there on the dashboard. Motorist grabs wallet and shows police both his driver's license and concealed carry license. Police: Oh, I see you have a conceal carry license. Are you carrying? Motorist: Yes sir, I have my Glock 26 in my left pocket. Police: Okay, no problem, I am just giving you a warning today on your tail light. Please get it fixed as soon as possible. Motorist: Yes sir, and I appreciate the work you guys do! [Both drive off without incident].

I believe the actions of the motorist in my model case help to de-escalate the situation. It should also be mentioned that the motorist keeps his hands in plain view of the officer at all times when the officer is at the vehicle window. I also believe you should not volunteer to an officer that you have a handgun in your car as that could make some officers nervous.

In any event you should practice and train in your own mind how you would handle a police detention on the roadway to avoid a repeat of the fatal encounter in the Minnesota case.

"I also believe you should not volunteer to an officer that you have a handgun in your car as that could make some officers nervous."

By the 53rd time, it should all come as naturally as saying "over-easy" when someone asks how you want your eggs.
If we find out he did have his concealed carry weapon on his lap, knowing an officer was coming to his window, then trying to analyze this situation based on common sense no longer works. There is something else at play here.

Just a few milliseconds to make a life or death decision. His life or mine? Given these situations, that these decisions are made every day by thousands of cops. These lighting quick decisions are sometimes going to be wrong. Even the best of cops are capable of making a bad instant decision. A bad decision might cost the cop his life, or an innocent his life. All we can do learn from our own and others mistakes.

Topbuilder wrote:"This had nothing to do with race. This had everything to do with the presence of a gun," Kelly said. He said that Yanez, who is Latino and has served on the St. Anthony Police Force for four years, is distraught over the shooting."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /86969728/

I read that quote as well. And it gave me chills. A law abiding citizen that has passed background checks, has a good record, and gets shot because of the presence of a gun????? This would be a horrible precedence for the rest of us if that is his only defense. "Citizen had a firearm in my sphere of influence. I was uncomfortable. I shot them."

goose wrote:

Topbuilder wrote:"This had nothing to do with race. This had everything to do with the presence of a gun," Kelly said. He said that Yanez, who is Latino and has served on the St. Anthony Police Force for four years, is distraught over the shooting."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /86969728/

I read that quote as well. And it gave me chills. A law abiding citizen that has passed background checks, has a good record, and gets shot because of the presence of a gun????? This would be a horrible precedence for the rest of us if that is his only defense. "Citizen had a firearm in my sphere of influence. I was uncomfortable. I shot them."

Goes back to my post about "lack of grit" officers earlier.

And racism is not always white vs black etc, it occurs with Latino vs black, black vs Asian etc.
Just because he wasn't white doesn't remove racial component here necessarily.

I agree if the officer was aware at that point the guy had a license to carry and the gun wasn't out in his lap or near where he was reaching. However, we don't know this was the case.

It sounds to me like the officer thought he was approaching a possible armed robber and then saw a gun that was in the guys lap or near where he was reaching.

How does anyone not directly involved with the investigation know which is true?

A video has surfaced of police officers giving him CPR.

mojo84 wrote:... Why not give the cop the benefit of the doubt until solid evidence he was wrong is presented?

People are too willingly to throw due process out the window because the media told them otherwise. After watching both videos one time it could be perceived as "a bad look" at first glance.

mojo84 wrote:...It sounds to me like the officer thought he was approaching a possible armed robber and then saw a gun that was in the guys lap or near where he was reaching...

I have seen many videos online and on TV where LEOs are shot while a person, regardless of color, is digging around. Although we should wait to pass judgment on the LEO, it's very hard to not make your own assessment of what has happened based off reports from the media.