Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer

[Cactusboy]

I don't think this was one of the cops I encountered...at least it wasn't the one doing the talking.

 

According to the 911 call, the neighbors said Loxas was pushing his 9-month-old grandsonin a stroller and walked over and kicked a neighbor's trash can into the street. When another neighbor went to pick it up, Loxas returned with the baby in his arms and started yelling, "You got a problem with that?" the caller tells the dispatcher. "The guy pulls out a gun, c$%ks it and aimed it at him."

 

 

 

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.

 

"(Loxas) was holding the baby in his left arm in front of his upper body and face. Moments later, he reached down to his right, lowering the baby, clearly exposing his head and upper body. Officer Peters responded to the movement with a single shot (to) the suspect's head. The suspect fell to the ground and the baby was rescued by officers. The suspect died instantly," Clark said.

 

Peters "felt he had to prevent him from re-entering the house," Clark said. "The intent was to rescue the baby." Investigators later determined that Loxas was not carrying a gun but had a cellphone in his pants pocket.

 

 

You can read the rest on the link and it talks about the other shootings he was involved it. Def sounds like a loose cannon. You don't need to shoot to kill in every situation.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2012/02/15/20120215shooting-seventh-scottsdale-police-officer.html#ixzz1mZhyQD00

[/left][/left][/left]

[carlfense]

I don't think this was one of the cops I encountered...at least it wasn't the one doing the talking.

 

According to the 911 call, the neighbors said Loxas was pushing his 9-month-old grandsonin a stroller and walked over and kicked a neighbor's trash can into the street. When another neighbor went to pick it up, Loxas returned with the baby in his arms and started yelling, "You got a problem with that?" the caller tells the dispatcher. "The guy pulls out a gun, c$%ks it and aimed it at him."

 

 

 

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.

 

"(Loxas) was holding the baby in his left arm in front of his upper body and face. Moments later, he reached down to his right, lowering the baby, clearly exposing his head and upper body. Officer Peters responded to the movement with a single shot (to) the suspect's head. The suspect fell to the ground and the baby was rescued by officers. The suspect died instantly," Clark said.

 

Peters "felt he had to prevent him from re-entering the house," Clark said. "The intent was to rescue the baby." Investigators later determined that Loxas was not carrying a gun but had a cellphone in his pants pocket.

 

 

You can read the rest on the link and it talks about the other shootings he was involved it. Def sounds like a loose cannon. You don't need to shoot to kill in every situation.

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz1mZhyQD00

[/left][/left]

 

I read the article. I think this shooting is a close call . . . but in the totality of the circumstances it was justified. The guy had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor after kicking over his neighbors trash can. The guy answered the police at the door shortly after and went for his pocket . . . while holding a baby.

 

Bad situation. If I were the officer I would probably have taken the shot. Sad story.

 

(His other shootings looks mostly justified as well. I wish they had more facts. The 2005 and 2010 shootings look the most questionable.)

[husker_99]

I don't think this was one of the cops I encountered...at least it wasn't the one doing the talking.

 

According to the 911 call, the neighbors said Loxas was pushing his 9-month-old grandsonin a stroller and walked over and kicked a neighbor's trash can into the street. When another neighbor went to pick it up, Loxas returned with the baby in his arms and started yelling, "You got a problem with that?" the caller tells the dispatcher. "The guy pulls out a gun, c$%ks it and aimed it at him."

 

 

 

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.

 

"(Loxas) was holding the baby in his left arm in front of his upper body and face. Moments later, he reached down to his right, lowering the baby, clearly exposing his head and upper body. Officer Peters responded to the movement with a single shot (to) the suspect's head. The suspect fell to the ground and the baby was rescued by officers. The suspect died instantly," Clark said.

 

Peters "felt he had to prevent him from re-entering the house," Clark said. "The intent was to rescue the baby." Investigators later determined that Loxas was not carrying a gun but had a cellphone in his pants pocket.

 

 

You can read the rest on the link and it talks about the other shootings he was involved it. Def sounds like a loose cannon. You don't need to shoot to kill in every situation.

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz1mZhyQD00

[/left]

 

I read the article. I think this shooting is a close call . . . but in the totality of the circumstances it was justified. The guy had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor after kicking over his neighbors trash can. The guy answered the police at the door shortly after and went for his pocket . . . while holding a baby.

 

Bad situation. If I were the officer I would probably have taken the shot. Sad story.

 

(His other shootings looks mostly justified as well. I wish they had more facts. The 2005 and 2010 shootings look the most questionable.)

 

But what if he missed and the man was moving the baby around and hit the baby instead? Now he just murdered the person who he was trying to save. I don't think he needed to shoot him and risk endangering the baby.

[Cactusboy]

I don't think this was one of the cops I encountered...at least it wasn't the one doing the talking.

 

According to the 911 call, the neighbors said Loxas was pushing his 9-month-old grandsonin a stroller and walked over and kicked a neighbor's trash can into the street. When another neighbor went to pick it up, Loxas returned with the baby in his arms and started yelling, "You got a problem with that?" the caller tells the dispatcher. "The guy pulls out a gun, c$%ks it and aimed it at him."

 

 

 

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.

 

"(Loxas) was holding the baby in his left arm in front of his upper body and face. Moments later, he reached down to his right, lowering the baby, clearly exposing his head and upper body. Officer Peters responded to the movement with a single shot (to) the suspect's head. The suspect fell to the ground and the baby was rescued by officers. The suspect died instantly," Clark said.

 

Peters "felt he had to prevent him from re-entering the house," Clark said. "The intent was to rescue the baby." Investigators later determined that Loxas was not carrying a gun but had a cellphone in his pants pocket.

 

 

You can read the rest on the link and it talks about the other shootings he was involved it. Def sounds like a loose cannon. You don't need to shoot to kill in every situation.

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz1mZhyQD00

[/left]

 

I read the article. I think this shooting is a close call . . . but in the totality of the circumstances it was justified. The guy had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor after kicking over his neighbors trash can. The guy answered the police at the door shortly after and went for his pocket . . . while holding a baby.

 

Bad situation. If I were the officer I would probably have taken the shot. Sad story.

 

(His other shootings looks mostly justified as well. I wish they had more facts. The 2005 and 2010 shootings look the most questionable.)

 

I guess we don't know why he turned around and walked back into the house...or if that even matters. I don't see how anyone was threatened.. He shot from 18 feet away...how could he even hear what was being said?

 

and it doesn't say he went for his pocket...it says they saw a black object and they later found his cell phone in his pocket.

[carlfense]

I don't think this was one of the cops I encountered...at least it wasn't the one doing the talking.

 

According to the 911 call, the neighbors said Loxas was pushing his 9-month-old grandsonin a stroller and walked over and kicked a neighbor's trash can into the street. When another neighbor went to pick it up, Loxas returned with the baby in his arms and started yelling, "You got a problem with that?" the caller tells the dispatcher. "The guy pulls out a gun, c$%ks it and aimed it at him."

 

 

 

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.

 

"(Loxas) was holding the baby in his left arm in front of his upper body and face. Moments later, he reached down to his right, lowering the baby, clearly exposing his head and upper body. Officer Peters responded to the movement with a single shot (to) the suspect's head. The suspect fell to the ground and the baby was rescued by officers. The suspect died instantly," Clark said.

 

Peters "felt he had to prevent him from re-entering the house," Clark said. "The intent was to rescue the baby." Investigators later determined that Loxas was not carrying a gun but had a cellphone in his pants pocket.

 

 

You can read the rest on the link and it talks about the other shootings he was involved it. Def sounds like a loose cannon. You don't need to shoot to kill in every situation.

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz1mZhyQD00

[/left]

 

I read the article. I think this shooting is a close call . . . but in the totality of the circumstances it was justified. The guy had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor after kicking over his neighbors trash can. The guy answered the police at the door shortly after and went for his pocket . . . while holding a baby.

 

Bad situation. If I were the officer I would probably have taken the shot. Sad story.

 

(His other shootings looks mostly justified as well. I wish they had more facts. The 2005 and 2010 shootings look the most questionable.)

 

I guess we don't know why he turned around and walked back into the house...or if that even matters. I don't see how anyone was threatened.. He shot from 18 feet away...how could he even hear what was being said?

 

and it doesn't say he went for his pocket...it says they saw a black object and they later found his cell phone in his pocket.

18 feet is about 6 paces. That's not particularly far. The deceased had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor. I don't know what the reports say but my guess is that he was ordered to remain still and he moved in a way perceived as potentially threatening. Without the prior gun report it would NOT be justified. With that report it was probably an appropriate response . . . even if it ultimately turned out to be incorrect.

[knapplc]

Does he get a free burrito with his tenth shooting?

[Cactusboy]

I don't think this was one of the cops I encountered...at least it wasn't the one doing the talking.

 

According to the 911 call, the neighbors said Loxas was pushing his 9-month-old grandsonin a stroller and walked over and kicked a neighbor's trash can into the street. When another neighbor went to pick it up, Loxas returned with the baby in his arms and started yelling, "You got a problem with that?" the caller tells the dispatcher. "The guy pulls out a gun, c$%ks it and aimed it at him."

 

 

 

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.

 

"(Loxas) was holding the baby in his left arm in front of his upper body and face. Moments later, he reached down to his right, lowering the baby, clearly exposing his head and upper body. Officer Peters responded to the movement with a single shot (to) the suspect's head. The suspect fell to the ground and the baby was rescued by officers. The suspect died instantly," Clark said.

 

Peters "felt he had to prevent him from re-entering the house," Clark said. "The intent was to rescue the baby." Investigators later determined that Loxas was not carrying a gun but had a cellphone in his pants pocket.

 

 

You can read the rest on the link and it talks about the other shootings he was involved it. Def sounds like a loose cannon. You don't need to shoot to kill in every situation.

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz1mZhyQD00

[/left]

 

I read the article. I think this shooting is a close call . . . but in the totality of the circumstances it was justified. The guy had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor after kicking over his neighbors trash can. The guy answered the police at the door shortly after and went for his pocket . . . while holding a baby.

 

Bad situation. If I were the officer I would probably have taken the shot. Sad story.

 

(His other shootings looks mostly justified as well. I wish they had more facts. The 2005 and 2010 shootings look the most questionable.)

 

I guess we don't know why he turned around and walked back into the house...or if that even matters. I don't see how anyone was threatened.. He shot from 18 feet away...how could he even hear what was being said?

 

and it doesn't say he went for his pocket...it says they saw a black object and they later found his cell phone in his pocket.

18 feet is about 6 paces. That's not particularly far. The deceased had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor. I don't know what the reports say but my guess is that he was ordered to remain still and he moved in a way perceived as potentially threatening. Without the prior gun report it would NOT be justified. With that report it was probably an appropriate response . . . even if it ultimately turned out to be incorrect.

 

 

18' is less than a step inside the high school 3 point line.

 

We actually don't know enough from the article to know if it was justified or not. We don't know why he went back into the house...or if it even matters. But there is noting about he made a sudden movement...or a move for something...and how do they know he really pulled a gun on someone...just because someone called in said it happened. If he was a threat why couldn't a cop at the door take action? Why not one of them shoot him in the leg/knee?

[carlfense]

1. 18' is less than a step inside the high school 3 point line.

 

2. We actually don't know enough from the article to know if it was justified or not.

 

3. We don't know why he went back into the house...or if it even matters. But there is noting about he made a sudden movement...or a move for something...

 

4. and how do they know he really pulled a gun on someone...just because someone called in said it happened.

 

5.If he was a threat why couldn't a cop at the door take action? Why not one of them shoot him in the leg/knee?

1. Exactly. That's up close and personal. We aren't talking about a knife fight.

 

2. Agreed. We've got slim facts. My opinion could be changed but from the facts that I've seen so far it was a defensible action.

 

3. And we never will. A. Black object observed in his hand by multiple officers. B. Reaches down to his right. C. Turns slightly. D. Holding baby. E. Had just pointed cocked gun at his neighbor. (Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun located only feet away because the officers didn't know about them at the time of the shot.)

 

4. Imputed knowledge is a well established part of our law. A non-anonymous citizen informant is presumptively reliable. I'm not sure why or how you would argue otherwise.

 

5. You watch too many movies. You don't use a firearm on another to incapacitate them. Deadly weapons are used with deadly intent. Police don't shoot to wound and they shouldn't shoot to wound.

[Cactusboy]

1. 18' is less than a step inside the high school 3 point line.

 

2. We actually don't know enough from the article to know if it was justified or not.

 

3. We don't know why he went back into the house...or if it even matters. But there is noting about he made a sudden movement...or a move for something...

 

4. and how do they know he really pulled a gun on someone...just because someone called in said it happened.

 

5.If he was a threat why couldn't a cop at the door take action? Why not one of them shoot him in the leg/knee?

1. Exactly. That's up close and personal. We aren't talking about a knife fight.

 

2. Agreed. We've got slim facts. My opinion could be changed but from the facts that I've seen so far it was a defensible action.

 

3. And we never will. A. Black object observed in his hand by multiple officers. B. Reaches down to his right. C. Turns slightly. D. Holding baby. E. Had just pointed cocked gun at his neighbor. (Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun located only feet away because the officers didn't know about them at the time of the shot.)

 

4. Imputed knowledge is a well established part of our law. A non-anonymous citizen informant is presumptively reliable. I'm not sure why or how you would argue otherwise.

 

5. You watch too many movies. You don't use a firearm on another to incapacitate them. Deadly weapons are used with deadly intent. Police don't shoot to wound and they shouldn't shoot to wound.

 

3 - he reached to his right...if that was a threatening or dangerous move it'd be the cops up next to him that would know...not a guy 18' feet way. It's irrelevant if there were loaded guns later found...because they weren't known at the time..they didn't factor into his decision to kill the guy. and it's legal to have a loaded gun in your house. no where did it say he made a move for a gun either.

 

4 - Yes take into account what he was accused of doing before arrival...but that doesn't make it right to shoot before needed.

 

5 - So cops are trained to ALWAYS shoot to kill? Serious question, because IDK, but I would hope tha'ts not the case.

[Cactusboy]

It looks like cops are trained to shoot to kill and not shoot to stop...from my quick googling.

 

I found this too:

 

The fact that the District Attorney may feel the shooting was avoidable or “does not like” aspects of the shooting, does not make it criminal. In these circumstances, remedies, if any are appropriate, may be in the administrative or civil arenas.

 

http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/PS-2011%20Protocol.pdf

 

I think it was avoidable and I strongly suspect it will go to civil court. Which has happened at least 1-2 times in the past and the city lost 75-150k as a result.

[Cactusboy]

from same link:

 

officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person . . . when he reasonably believes that it is necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. Therefore, the question presented in most officer-involved shooting cases is whether, at the instant the officer fired the shot that wounded or killed the person, the officer reasonably believed, and in fact believed, that he or another person, was in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death from the actions of the person who is shot. In order to establish criminal responsibility for knowingly or intentionally shooting another, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person doing the shooting either did not really believe he or another was in imminent danger, or, if he did hold such belief, that belief was, in light of the circumstances, unreasonable.

 

It seems it'd be very hard to find a cop criminally guilty in a shooting because how are you going to prove that he didn't think there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force"?

[Cactusboy]

Recently read this book and it's somewhat relevant to this discussion. The title of the book is Blink.

 

 

 

It was the false safety of numbers that gave the three officers the bravado to rush the car. “You’ve got to slow the situation down,” Fyfe says. “We train people that time is on their side. In the Russ case, the lawyers for the other side were saying that this was a fast-breaking situation. But it was only fast-breaking because the cops let it become one. He was stopped. He wasn’t going anywhere.”

 

I feel time was on the police's side in the Scottsdale case. I think it'd be a huge stretch for us to assume the guy was about to our would hurt the baby he was holding.

 

This next part is interesting too.

Fyfe once ran a project in Dade County, Florida, where there was an unusually high number of violent incidents between police officers and civilians. You can imagine the kind of tension that violence caused. Community groups accused the police of being insensitive and racist. The police responded with anger and defensiveness; violence, they said, was a tragic but inevitable part of police work. It was an all-too-familiar script. Fyfe’s response, though, was to sidestep that controversy and conduct a study. He put observers in squad cars and had them keep a running score of how the officers’ behavior matched up with proper training techniques. “It was things like, did the officer take advantage of available cover?” he said. “We train officers to make themselves the smallest possible target, so you leave it to the bad guy to decide whether they’ll be shooting or not. So we were looking at things like, did the officer take advantage of available cover or did he just walk in the front door? Did he keep his gun away from the individual at all times? Did he keep his flashlight in his weak hand? In a burglary call, did they call back for more information or did they just say ten-four? Did they ask for backup? Did they coordinate their approach?—you know, you be the shooter, I’ll cover you. Did they take a look around the neighborhood? Did they position another car at the back of the building? When they were inside the place, did they hold their flashlights off to the side?—because if the guy happens to be armed, he’s going to shoot at the flashlight. On a traffic stop, did they look at the back of the car before approaching the driver? These kind of things.”

 

What Fyfe found was that the officers were really good when they were face-to-face with a suspect and when they had the suspect in custody.

 

 

 

 

In those situations, they did the “right” thing 92 percent of the time. But in their approach to the scene they were terrible, scoring just 15 percent. That was the problem. They didn’t take the necessary steps to steer clear of temporary autism. And when Dade County zeroed in on improving what officers did before they encountered the suspect, the number of complaints against officers and the number of injuries to officers and civilians plummeted. “You don’t want to put yourself in a position where the only way you have to defend yourself is to shoot someone,” Fyfe says. “If you have to rely on your reflexes, someone is going to get hurt—and get hurt unnecessarily. If you take advantage of intelligence and cover, you will almost never have to make an instinctive decision.”

 

http://m.tululu.ru/bread_79145_144.xhtml

[carlfense]

1. 18' is less than a step inside the high school 3 point line.

 

2. We actually don't know enough from the article to know if it was justified or not.

 

3. We don't know why he went back into the house...or if it even matters. But there is noting about he made a sudden movement...or a move for something...

 

4. and how do they know he really pulled a gun on someone...just because someone called in said it happened.

 

5.If he was a threat why couldn't a cop at the door take action? Why not one of them shoot him in the leg/knee?

1. Exactly. That's up close and personal. We aren't talking about a knife fight.

 

2. Agreed. We've got slim facts. My opinion could be changed but from the facts that I've seen so far it was a defensible action.

 

3. And we never will. A. Black object observed in his hand by multiple officers. B. Reaches down to his right. C. Turns slightly. D. Holding baby. E. Had just pointed cocked gun at his neighbor. (Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun located only feet away because the officers didn't know about them at the time of the shot.)

 

4. Imputed knowledge is a well established part of our law. A non-anonymous citizen informant is presumptively reliable. I'm not sure why or how you would argue otherwise.

 

5. You watch too many movies. You don't use a firearm on another to incapacitate them. Deadly weapons are used with deadly intent. Police don't shoot to wound and they shouldn't shoot to wound.

 

3 - he reached to his right...if that was a threatening or dangerous move it'd be the cops up next to him that would know...not a guy 18' feet way. It's irrelevant if there were loaded guns later found...because they weren't known at the time..they didn't factor into his decision to kill the guy. and it's legal to have a loaded gun in your house. no where did it say he made a move for a gun either.

 

4 - Yes take into account what he was accused of doing before arrival...but that doesn't make it right to shoot before needed.

 

5 - So cops are trained to ALWAYS shoot to kill? Serious question, because IDK, but I would hope tha'ts not the case.

3. He reached to his right AND had a black object in his hand. This shortly after he pointed a cocked gun at a citizen. (I specifically noted that the guns found later were NOT relevant. You still tried to disagree with me. Go back and read it again.)

 

4. The point is whether it APPEARED necessary at the time. There is a strong argument to be made that it was. Feel free to disagree but the legal argument is stronger that it was justified than that it wasn't justified.

 

5. So far as I know, yes. Shooting to incapacitate or shooting a weapon out of a hand is for the movies. In reality, if a gun is used, it's used to kill. If you don't intend to kill, don't use the gun.

[carlfense]

from same link:

 

officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person . . . when he reasonably believes that it is necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. Therefore, the question presented in most officer-involved shooting cases is whether, at the instant the officer fired the shot that wounded or killed the person, the officer reasonably believed, and in fact believed, that he or another person, was in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death from the actions of the person who is shot. In order to establish criminal responsibility for knowingly or intentionally shooting another, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person doing the shooting either did not really believe he or another was in imminent danger, or, if he did hold such belief, that belief was, in light of the circumstances, unreasonable.

 

It seems it'd be very hard to find a cop criminally guilty in a shooting because how are you going to prove that he didn't think there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force"?

You'd have to show that a reasonable officer wouldn't/couldn't think that there was going to be imminent use of deadly physical force. It's far from impossible. For what it's worth the standard is the same for a civilian.

[carlfense]

I think it'd be a huge stretch for us to assume the guy was about to our would hurt the baby he was holding.

You think it would be a huge stretch for us to assume that a guy who had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor (right after kicking the neighbor's trash can into the street) might attempt to hurt the baby he was holding of the responding officers? That's not a huge stretch at all. If anything that's a fairly logical assumption. Angry irrational man who just had a cocked gun holding a baby? What could possibly go wrong?

 

Seems like the officer has a very defensible argument. I'm open to new facts when and if you find them.