Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer

[johnnyrodgers20]

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.

 

 

Great job!! +1

[Cactusboy]

I never said you did make that claim. I just made a clarification. See...always w/ the gotcha games and pissing contests w/ you.

Getting called out on your . . . shall we say creativity? . . . is not a gotcha game.

 

Let's simplify this.

 

Show me step by step why you think that the officer was NOT justified in shooting. You've already looked at the applicable standard. Apply the facts (ALL of the facts. Not just the ones that you want.) as they were known to the officer at the time to that standard. I already did just that to prove my case. Now it's your turn. I'd be more than happy to return to a more civil discussion of the facts of this case as they are applied to the law.

 

I already did, but I'll break it down again.

 

Known facts:

 

Guy was accused of pulling gun on neighbor.

Police show up and guy has baby in his hand.

Cop w/ gun 18' away sees something black in his hand.

Guy turns around to go back in the house and has he reaches down to his right the cop shoots him in the head.

Ends up guy didn't have a gun on him, but there was a cell phone in his pocket.

 

Based on known facts alone I'd say it's not proven that he deserved to be shot. The cop would need to show that there he was a threat to someone's life and the facts known don't show he was. Just because he threatened a civilian earlier in a different place doesn't mean he will do so to police at his door. It's not on me to prove he wasn't threatening someone...it's on you to prove he was. There is nothing in the known facts that could lead anyone to conclude it was a justified shooting. The most you could do it say you don't know if it was. I'm saying it wasn't justified based on the known facts...because we can't assume he was guilty of making threats or putting anyone's life in danger w/out there being any evidence that he did.

[Cactusboy]

there is some validity to this logic, but it can also easily be exploited and over used.

 

Ok, then I have a hypothetical situation for you.

 

You're in the military, in a combat zone in the middle of a fire fight. A woman or a kid (say 12 years old), picks up a rifle, and points it at you.

 

What do you do?

 

Probably whatever it is I'm trained to do. If you want me to answer anyway...how far away are they? What is in between us? How far away from me is the nearest thing to hide behind?

 

30 yards, just open ground, no cover

 

If they were aiming at me I'd probably shoot them unless maybe if I was trained not to. I don't see why it matters if this in a combat zone though.

[carlfense]

I never said you did make that claim. I just made a clarification. See...always w/ the gotcha games and pissing contests w/ you.

Getting called out on your . . . shall we say creativity? . . . is not a gotcha game.

 

Let's simplify this.

 

Show me step by step why you think that the officer was NOT justified in shooting. You've already looked at the applicable standard. Apply the facts (ALL of the facts. Not just the ones that you want.) as they were known to the officer at the time to that standard. I already did just that to prove my case. Now it's your turn. I'd be more than happy to return to a more civil discussion of the facts of this case as they are applied to the law.

 

I already did, but I'll break it down again.

 

Known facts:

 

Guy was accused of pulling gun on neighbor.

Police show up and guy has baby in his hand.

Cop w/ gun 18' away sees something black in his hand.

Guy turns around to go back in the house and has he reaches down to his right the cop shoots him in the head.

Ends up guy didn't have a gun on him, but there was a cell phone in his pocket.

 

Based on known facts alone I'd say it's not proven that he deserved to be shot. The cop would need to show that there he was a threat to someone's life and the facts known don't show he was. Just because he threatened a civilian earlier in a different place doesn't mean he will do so to police at his door. It's not on me to prove he wasn't threatening someone...it's on you to prove he was. There is nothing in the known facts that could lead anyone to conclude it was a justified shooting. The most you could do it say you don't know if it was. I'm saying it wasn't justified based on the known facts...because we can't assume he was guilty of making threats or putting anyone's life in danger w/out there being any evidence that he did.

Close . . . but you're missing one point. It doesn't matter whether or not the guy actually threatened his neighbor with a gun so long as the officer believed that he did. It's the officer's perception that matters.

 

Whether or not the confrontation with the neighbor actually happened is irrelevant. FWIW, phone reports from citizen informants are presumed to be reliable with or without further corroboration.

 

Additionally, the first bold statement is not a fact but a guess. The second bold statement cannot be a factor because we didn't know that until after the shot.

[walksalone]

If they were aiming at me I'd probably shoot them unless maybe if I was trained not to. I don't see why it matters if this in a combat zone though.

 

Because you are making a split second decision. Just like that officer did in that situation.

[Cactusboy]

If they were aiming at me I'd probably shoot them unless maybe if I was trained not to. I don't see why it matters if this in a combat zone though.

 

Because you are making a split second decision. Just like that officer did in that situation.

 

the scenario you described and what we know of what happened in Scottsdale are nothing alike.

[Cactusboy]

 

Close . . . but you're missing one point. It doesn't matter whether or not the guy actually threatened his neighbor with a gun so long as the officer believed that he did. It's the officer's perception that matters.

 

Whether or not the confrontation with the neighbor actually happened is irrelevant. FWIW, phone reports from citizen informants are presumed to be reliable with or without further corroboration.

 

It's 2 different scenes at different times..even if it's as little as just 15 min later. From what we know the guy wasn't acting odd or threatening in any way. Just because he pulled a gun on a neighbor down the street and earlier doesn't mean it's a green light to shoot him now at a different place and time. Again, from what we know it wasn't a tense, threatening environment...from what we know no one was in any sort of danger. Agreed?

 

 

 

Additionally, the first bold statement is not a fact but a guess. The second bold statement cannot be a factor because we didn't know that until after the shot.

 

Then change the 1st bold to just "guy turns around towards house" Is it safe to assume he's facing away from house when talking to the officer that came to his door? even if it's just "turns" it doesn't change anything. It's simply a movement that as far as we know is 100% nonthreatening.

 

Last bold is a known fact that happened after the shooting. We can come back to this later. For now let's see if we can come to an understanding on the other stuff.

[carlfense]

1. It's 2 different scenes at different times..even if it's as little as just 15 min later. 2. From what we know the guy wasn't acting odd or threatening in any way. 3. Just because he pulled a gun on a neighbor down the street and earlier doesn't mean it's a green light to shoot him now at a different place and time. 4. Again, from what we know it wasn't a tense, threatening environment...from what we know no one was in any sort of danger. 5. Agreed?

1. The police were dispatched in response to the gun pointing incident. Same string of events. The main points to be taken from this is that the guy was angry (yelling) irrational (pointing a cocked gun at neighbor) and dangerous (pointing a cocked gun at neighbor).

2. Pointing a cocked gun at a neighbor after kicking over a trashcan and yelling at him is "acting in an odd or threatening" way. Agreed?

3. Agreed.

4. Actually, we don't know that at all. In fact, the evidence hints otherwise.

5. See above.

 

1. Then change the 1st bold to just "guy turns around towards house" 2. Is it safe to assume he's facing away from house when talking to the officer that came to his door? 3. even if it's just "turns" it doesn't change anything. 4. It's simply a movement that as far as we know is 100% nonthreatening.

 

5. Last bold is a known fact that happened after the shooting. We can come back to this later. For now let's see if we can come to an understanding on the other stuff.

1. "Guy turns towards house" please.

2. Probably. But it's best to not assume.

3. Your opinion.

4. Your opinion. I'd argue that the only way to be 100% non-threatening would be to announce each move and move very slowly and deliberately. Even then, it's hard to appear 100% non-threatening after you just pointed a cocked gun at your neighbor.

5. "After the shooting." We also know that after the shooting a loaded handgun and shotgun were found mere feet away. We both agree that it isn't relevant to the shot. Please stop trying to squeeze this stuff in or at least admit that it doesn't matter.

[Cactusboy]

from what we know it wasn't a tense, threatening environment...from what we know no one was in any sort of danger.

 

 

Actually, we don't know that at all. In fact, the evidence hints otherwise.

 

 

it's 100% true that from what we know there was no threatening behavior at the scene and no one was in danger at the scene. To say otherwise is an assumption to support your claim/defense of the cop. I didn't say WE KNOW...I said FROM what we know. Big difference.

[Cactusboy]

 

5. "After the shooting." We also know that after the shooting a loaded handgun and shotgun were found mere feet away. We both agree that it isn't relevant to the shot. Please stop trying to squeeze this stuff in or at least admit that it doesn't matter.

 

I said we can come back to this. It can be an after discussion.

[carlfense]

from what we know it wasn't a tense, threatening environment...from what we know no one was in any sort of danger.

 

 

Actually, we don't know that at all. In fact, the evidence hints otherwise.

 

 

it's 100% true that from what we know there was no threatening behavior at the scene and no one was in danger at the scene. To say otherwise is an assumption to support your claim/defense of the cop. I didn't say WE KNOW...I said FROM what we know. Big difference.

Why do you keep trying to separate the gun pointing and the police response? They were dispatched to investigate that crime. If police respond to a call of a man who just murdered a woman in his yard and ran into his home should the police totally disregard the murder because it happened before they arrived? It's the same string of conduct.

 

You must be in the approximately 1% of people who think that pointing a cocked gun at a bystander and shortly after having the police show up with guns drawn is not a "tense, threatening environment." I'm not sure what your daily life is like . . . but that fits the bill of a tense, threatening environment.

 

The officer's were informed that there was very threatening behavior by this man. That is indisputable. It is not an assumption.

 

You seem to be implying that I will blindly defend police action. That is most definitely not the case. Given the facts from this case, in my professional opinion, the shooting was defensible. It's not a perfect case. None of them are. That said, were I asked who would win in court I'd lay heavy odds on the officer. That is not because of an inherent bias in the legal system in favor of LEOs but rather because the facts that we have support this argument.

 

 

 

Also, I see that you've said this:

Based on known facts alone I'd say it's not proven that he deserved to be shot.

As you probably know, what the man deserved is not relevant to whether or not the officer's actions were defensible. In fact, those are quite different theories that require different arguments. I'm arguing that the officer was acting within reason and that his actions are defensible. What are you arguing? Are you saying that the officer's shot cannot be justified?

[Cactusboy]

from what we know it wasn't a tense, threatening environment...from what we know no one was in any sort of danger.

 

 

Actually, we don't know that at all. In fact, the evidence hints otherwise.

 

 

it's 100% true that from what we know there was no threatening behavior at the scene and no one was in danger at the scene. To say otherwise is an assumption to support your claim/defense of the cop. I didn't say WE KNOW...I said FROM what we know. Big difference.

Why do you keep trying to separate the gun pointing and the police response? They were dispatched to investigate that crime. If police respond to a call of a man who just murdered a woman in his yard and ran into his home should the police totally disregard the murder because it happened before they arrived? It's the same string of conduct.

 

You must be in the approximately 1% of people who think that pointing a cocked gun at a bystander and shortly after having the police show up with guns drawn is not a "tense, threatening environment." I'm not sure what your daily life is like . . . but that fits the bill of a tense, threatening environment.

 

The officer's were informed that there was very threatening behavior by this man. That is indisputable. It is not an assumption.

 

You seem to be implying that I will blindly defend police action. That is most definitely not the case. Given the facts from this case, in my professional opinion, the shooting was defensible. It's not a perfect case. None of them are. That said, were I asked who would win in court I'd lay heavy odds on the officer. That is not because of an inherent bias in the legal system in favor of LEOs but rather because the facts that we have support this argument.

 

 

 

Also, I see that you've said this:

Based on known facts alone I'd say it's not proven that he deserved to be shot.

As you probably know, what the man deserved is not relevant to whether or not the officer's actions were defensible. In fact, those are quite different theories that require different arguments. I'm arguing that the officer was acting within reason and that his actions are defensible. What are you arguing? Are you saying that the officer's shot cannot be justified?

 

Pure obfuscation on your part.

 

I'll post what I said again which still stands.

 

it's 100% true that from what we know there was no threatening behavior at the scene and no one was in danger at the scene. To say otherwise is an assumption to support your claim/defense of the cop. I didn't say WE KNOW...I said FROM what we know. Big difference.

[carlfense]

from what we know it wasn't a tense, threatening environment...from what we know no one was in any sort of danger.

 

 

Actually, we don't know that at all. In fact, the evidence hints otherwise.

 

 

it's 100% true that from what we know there was no threatening behavior at the scene and no one was in danger at the scene. To say otherwise is an assumption to support your claim/defense of the cop. I didn't say WE KNOW...I said FROM what we know. Big difference.

Why do you keep trying to separate the gun pointing and the police response? They were dispatched to investigate that crime. If police respond to a call of a man who just murdered a woman in his yard and ran into his home should the police totally disregard the murder because it happened before they arrived? It's the same string of conduct.

 

You must be in the approximately 1% of people who think that pointing a cocked gun at a bystander and shortly after having the police show up with guns drawn is not a "tense, threatening environment." I'm not sure what your daily life is like . . . but that fits the bill of a tense, threatening environment.

 

The officer's were informed that there was very threatening behavior by this man. That is indisputable. It is not an assumption.

 

You seem to be implying that I will blindly defend police action. That is most definitely not the case. Given the facts from this case, in my professional opinion, the shooting was defensible. It's not a perfect case. None of them are. That said, were I asked who would win in court I'd lay heavy odds on the officer. That is not because of an inherent bias in the legal system in favor of LEOs but rather because the facts that we have support this argument.

 

 

 

Also, I see that you've said this:

Based on known facts alone I'd say it's not proven that he deserved to be shot.

As you probably know, what the man deserved is not relevant to whether or not the officer's actions were defensible. In fact, those are quite different theories that require different arguments. I'm arguing that the officer was acting within reason and that his actions are defensible. What are you arguing? Are you saying that the officer's shot cannot be justified?

 

Pure obfuscation on your part.

 

I'll post what I said again which still stands.

 

it's 100% true that from what we know there was no threatening behavior at the scene and no one was in danger at the scene. To say otherwise is an assumption to support your claim/defense of the cop. I didn't say WE KNOW...I said FROM what we know. Big difference.

Ah. Pointing a cocked firearm at someone = no danger. You are either trying very hard to win with a losing hand or you're just trolling.

 

I don't think obfuscation means what you think it means.

[Cactusboy]

 

Ah. Pointing a cocked firearm at someone = no danger. You are either trying very hard to win with a losing hand or you're just trolling.

 

I don't think obfuscation means what you think it means.

 

He pointed a firearm at the time of the shooting? You're simply trying too hard and getting sloppy.

 

Post the def and I'll show you how it's what you're doing.

[Cactusboy]

What I posted earlier...

 

 

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.

 

Again...FROM WHAT WE KNOW the man shot didn't do anything to show he was about to use deadly force on anyone. IF you disagree post the part from the article that shows there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force".