Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer

[carlfense]

So this is what it comes down to.

 

I don't see how a guy walking back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene. The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

 

That's why you are an internet message board hero and not a cop. If you were, and had been put in all those situations, you would probably have been shot dead by now.

Yeah . . . it's pretty easy to sit back and nit pick after the bodies drop. It's a little different story out in the real world.

 

Are or have you been a cop?

Nope. But I deal with these situations (with varying degrees of severity) every day.

[carlfense]

So this is what it comes down to.

 

I don't see how a guy turning to walk back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene.

 

The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

You keep omitting facts.

 

Also, "ONLY holding a baby" is not relevant because that was only discovered after the shooting. I believe you called that "Icing on the Cake."

[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?

[Cactusboy]

So this is what it comes down to.

 

I don't see how a guy walking back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene. The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

 

That's why you are an internet message board hero and not a cop. If you were, and had been put in all those situations, you would probably have been shot dead by now.

Yeah . . . it's pretty easy to sit back and nit pick after the bodies drop. It's a little different story out in the real world.

 

Are or have you been a cop?

Nope. But I deal with these situations (with varying degrees of severity) every day.

 

Then you haven't been in their shoes either.

[Cactusboy]

So this is what it comes down to.

 

I don't see how a guy turning to walk back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene.

 

The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

You keep omitting facts.

 

Also, "ONLY holding a baby" is not relevant because that was only discovered after the shooting. I believe you called that "Icing on the Cake."

 

 

I keep updating my "so this is what it comes down to"...because I'm not just trying to "win". which is why I was very willing to tell everyone my findings on "shoot to kill". You on the other hand seem to only want to "win" and win style points.

 

and I stated ".even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere"

[carlfense]

So this is what it comes down to.

 

I don't see how a guy turning to walk back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene.

 

The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

You keep omitting facts.

 

Also, "ONLY holding a baby" is not relevant because that was only discovered after the shooting. I believe you called that "Icing on the Cake."

 

 

I keep updating my "so this is what it comes down to"...because I'm not just trying to "win". which is why I was very willing to tell everyone my findings on "shoot to kill". You on the other hand seem to only want to "win" and win style points.

 

and I stated ".even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere"

Not true. I've repeatedly said that my opinion could be easily changed if we hear more facts. All I'm saying is that given the facts that we have currently, it was a defensible action.

[carlfense]

Then you haven't been in their shoes either.

Please show me where I claimed that I had been in their shoes. You have a nasty little habit of inventing facts . . . and then you accuse me of only wanting to win at all costs. Curious.

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

So this is what it comes down to.

 

I don't see how a guy walking back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene. The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

 

That's why you are an internet message board hero and not a cop. If you were, and had been put in all those situations, you would probably have been shot dead by now.

Yeah . . . it's pretty easy to sit back and nit pick after the bodies drop. It's a little different story out in the real world.

 

Are or have you been a cop?

I am pretty sure he is an attorney...

[Cactusboy]

So this is what it comes down to.

 

I don't see how a guy turning to walk back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene.

 

The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

You keep omitting facts.

 

Also, "ONLY holding a baby" is not relevant because that was only discovered after the shooting. I believe you called that "Icing on the Cake."

 

 

I keep updating my "so this is what it comes down to"...because I'm not just trying to "win". which is why I was very willing to tell everyone my findings on "shoot to kill". You on the other hand seem to only want to "win" and win style points.

 

and I stated ".even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere"

Not true. I've repeatedly said that my opinion could be easily changed if we hear more facts. All I'm saying is that given the facts that we have currently, it was a defensible action.

 

It's true. You are more wrapped up in some personal pissing contest than anything. It's why you keep on nit picking what I say instead of just making the obvious corrections yourself. For example...the walking into the house thing you pointed out...so then I change it to turning to go to the house....or the "only holding a baby" thing. You just want to play gotcha games instead of just having a normal discussion.

[Cactusboy]

Then you haven't been in their shoes either.

Please show me where I claimed that I had been in their shoes. You have a nasty little habit of inventing facts . . . and then you accuse me of only wanting to win at all costs. Curious.

 

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

[Cactusboy]

So this is what it comes down to.

 

I don't see how a guy walking back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene. The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

 

That's why you are an internet message board hero and not a cop. If you were, and had been put in all those situations, you would probably have been shot dead by now.

Yeah . . . it's pretty easy to sit back and nit pick after the bodies drop. It's a little different story out in the real world.

 

Are or have you been a cop?

I am pretty sure he is an attorney...

 

 

That would make sense.

[carlfense]

So this is what it comes down to.

 

I don't see how a guy turning to walk back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene.

 

The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

You keep omitting facts.

 

Also, "ONLY holding a baby" is not relevant because that was only discovered after the shooting. I believe you called that "Icing on the Cake."

 

 

I keep updating my "so this is what it comes down to"...because I'm not just trying to "win". which is why I was very willing to tell everyone my findings on "shoot to kill". You on the other hand seem to only want to "win" and win style points.

 

and I stated ".even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere"

Not true. I've repeatedly said that my opinion could be easily changed if we hear more facts. All I'm saying is that given the facts that we have currently, it was a defensible action.

 

It's true. You are more wrapped up in some personal pissing contest than anything. It's why you keep on nit picking what I say instead of just making the obvious corrections yourself. For example...the walking into the house thing you pointed out...so then I change it to turning to go to the house....or the "only holding a baby" thing. You just want to play gotcha games instead of just having a normal discussion.

Ah. You tried to pick a fight over a disagreement that didn't exist . . . then turned around and actually made the same type of argument that you wrongly accused me of making . . . and then claim that I am the one in a personal pissing contest.

 

Convincing.

 

Bring me some facts. Then we'll talk. The facts we have now don't support your argument.

[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.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Cactus quote:

 

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?

 

 

 

 

Because he can still get his gun if he is shot in the leg and he could shoot you!!

 

Exactly we don't know that but the officer was told that by the dispatcher. So in his mind he has a gun somewhere, are you willing to risk your life that it was phone he was reaching for? You have the advantage to sit back and read everything and make a logical decision AND take as much time to get that decision right. He had a few seconds to determine whether or not that guy is going to pull out a gun and shoot him.

 

Play that scenario with a friend. Have a friend put a phone or a toy gun ( you don't know which one) in his pocket and you have to decide whether you are going to let him reach in his pocket and pull out whatever he put there. Even that isn't really that accurate because you know you are going to live through the game no matter what he does, the officer does'nt have that luxury.

[walksalone]

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