Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer

[holvy83]

Regardless, I would not even want to imagine being in a situation like that, loose cannon or not, the guy is either highly trained or just flat out nuts to be that trigger happy, but would guess a cop has to answer to the law when he pulls his trigger, so they know what they are doing before they pull it.

[carlfense]

Regardless, I would not even want to imagine being in a situation like that, loose cannon or not, the guy is either highly trained or just flat out nuts to be that trigger happy, but would guess a cop has to answer to the law when he pulls his trigger, so they know what they are doing before they pull it.

Regarding the bold, yeah . . . but in practice the police will get more deference than the average Joe. Like in any profession, there tends to be a circle the wagons mentality that is sometimes difficult to overcome.

 

It is eye opening that this is his SEVENTH.

[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.

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.

 

 

How was the phone in his hand if it was later found in his pocket? Why even bring up the other guns if you agree they aren't relevant?

[Cactusboy]

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.

 

Yes take away your spin and I think it's a huge stretch. The city already paid at least 75k for his past actions. and you still haven't even attempted to explain how the officers right next to the guy didn't make a move. If it was a heated talk w/ the cops I'm sure they cops would have told the reporters. Same thing if he had ignored any commands from the officers. All we know that he did was turn around and walk back into his house...PERIOD.

 

and actually from what we know he didnt' have anything in his hand.

 

Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand

 

Investigators later determined that Loxas was not carrying a gun but had a cellphone in his pants pocket.

 

based on what we know it seems the 2 cops were lying. They said they saw a black object in his hand...but it was later found out he was not carrying a ANYTHING...but a phone was IN HIS POCKET. Maybe there is more to this, but FROM WHAT WE KNOW there was nothing in his hand.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes.

[carlfense]

How was the phone in his hand if it was later found in his pocket? Why even bring up the other guns if you agree they aren't relevant?

The officers reported seeing a black object in his hand before the shot. Maybe he was putting his phone into his pocket? Whether or not he actually had a black object in his hand is not as relevant as if the officers thought he did at the time. It's all from a subjective perspective.

 

I brought the guns up because I'm guessing the officer felt his actions were a little more justified (after the fact) upon seeing those. They are not a factor in the analysis of whether or not his shot was justified at the time of the shot. Note where I said THIS:

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.

I specifically noted that and you still tried to pick a fight over it. Life is too short to argue over areas of agreement. Let's leave that part at that, ok?

[carlfense]

Yes take away your spin and I think it's a huge stretch.

Facts aren't spin. Your argument is getting weaker by the post.

 

 

The city already paid at least 75k for his past actions.

Not relevant. In fact, probably inadmissible. Keep trying.

 

 

and you still haven't even attempted to explain how the officers right next to the guy didn't make a move.

And I don't have to. The prosecutor has to prove the case. In this particular case, that is you.

 

 

If it was a heated talk w/ the cops I'm sure they cops would have told the reporters. Same thing if he had ignored any commands from the officers.

Conjecture. Please stick to the facts. Plus the police tend to love the media and"I'm sure" will carry a lot of weight.

 

 

All we know that he did was turn around and walk back into his house...PERIOD.

 

In fact, we know quite a bit more than that. For whatever reason you want to ignore those facts. I guess you feel like the officers actions can't be justified. Facts be damned. You can tell how irrational you are by your conviction. I've said here that my opinion would change if the given facts changed. Your emotions hint that your decision is made. Funny how that works.

 

Anything else?

[Cactusboy]

How was the phone in his hand if it was later found in his pocket? Why even bring up the other guns if you agree they aren't relevant?

The officers reported seeing a black object in his hand before the shot. Maybe he was putting his phone into his pocket? Whether or not he actually had a black object in his hand is not as relevant as if the officers thought he did at the time. It's all from a subjective perspective.

 

I brought the guns up because I'm guessing the officer felt his actions were a little more justified (after the fact) upon seeing those. They are not a factor in the analysis of whether or not his shot was justified at the time of the shot. Note where I said THIS:

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.

I specifically noted that and you still tried to pick a fight over it. Life is too short to argue over areas of agreement. Let's leave that part at that, ok?

 

 

so they saw a black object in his hand at one point...but it had to have been back in his pocket when he took his shot. So he's walking back into the house calmly and not disobeying orders w/ nothing but the baby in his hand and they feel the need to kill him. I don't see how a guy walking back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone.

 

yes you said "Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun"....that language looks like you COULD use it as a relavant point but you're choosing not to. Like..if we were talking about who has the coolest friends...and I give my list of friends and then say "and keep in mind I'm not even addressing that my neighbor is Miles Davis".

[Cactusboy]

cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes.

 

 

I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop.

[Cactusboy]

 

 

Anything else?

 

post 23

[carlfense]

so they saw a black object in his hand at one point...but it had to have been back in his pocket when he took his shot. So he's walking back into the house calmly and not disobeying orders w/ nothing but the baby in his hand and they feel the need to kill him. I don't see how a guy walking back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone.

 

yes you said "Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun"....that language looks like you COULD use it as a relavant point but you're choosing not to. Like..if we were talking about who has the coolest friends...and I give my list of friends and then say "and keep in mind I'm not even addressing that my neighbor is Miles Davis".

Take a good look at the bold. You might see a pattern.

 

Regarding the latter, let me put this very clearly because you seem to be having trouble comprehending it:

 

"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."

 

Do you see that little underlined section? That explains why I didn't include that in my analysis but you've conveniently omitted it. In your wonderful analogy you would be omitting the part where I said that Miles Davis isn't on my list of friends because we've never spoken.

[HSKR]

After reading that, my conclusion is if the officer has had 7 chances to shot people, I'm glad I don't have my family living in that POS town. Nebraska, the good life.

[walksalone]

cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes.

 

 

I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop.

 

Center Mass, that means the torso, Most of your vital organs are in that area. If you aiming for the "extremities", then you are less likely to hit what you're aiming at.

[carlfense]

cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes.

 

 

I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop.

One lesson learned!

[carlfense]

 

 

Anything else?

 

post 23

Addressed. Anything else?