NightOwl
Regular Member
imported post
Vandal wrote:
I did recall correctly, you didn't say anything different than what I said, and I did not go "ape@#$%". The cops involved absolutely deserve me "ragging on" them, and they should be charged with murder, at least in the case of the guy with the bread knife. Did the cop know the kid with the bayonette was there in the yard before he showed up? Absolutely,the officerwas informed the teen was in that yard with the rifle and put themselves in proximity to be in danger. Did he have to approach so closely to be in a position to get charged like that? No. Where was the shotgun with non-lethal rounds? Where was the tazer? Few bean bags would have done the trick perhaps, but now we'll never know. The officer went into the situation knowing full well the teen was there and what was going on, and made the choice to put himself in that location. The officer wasn't within 21 feet when he got the call, and he made the choice to put himself close enough to get charged at. Could have have parked his car and stood behind it, firing non-lethal ammo from behind it? Perhaps he could have talked the kid down from behind it, keeping the vehicle in position to prevent himself from getting charged at.
Do your own research and you'll find that the ombudman and the father both agree that the officer fired without warning. The father and officer disagree as to whether or not the teen was close enough to poke the officer. The father told the dispatcher it was an unloaded rifle, the dispatcher told the officer that it was an "assault rifle" (confirmed by the ombudsman).
Take a look for yourself: http://boiseguardian.com/2006/07/13/report-raises-ombudsman-stock/ Alternatively, you can check here, where they state the ombudsman finds that they officer did not follow proper procedure: http://www.fox12boise.com/Global/story.asp?s=5143880 Perhaps you'd prefer to see where the officer says the cuts in his shirt and vest were from the bayonet, but there were no cuts in his fleece jacket that he was wearing over the shirt and vest: http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-nov1705-inquest_day_4.610a320.html That's kind of odd how the "stab" missed the outer layer of clothing, don't you think? Oh, wait, I'm wrong...using a magnifying glass and a flashlight they found a tiny, tiny hole in the outer jacket that cut a year after the event (and I quote the coroner here) "one or two threads". From a bayonet stab? Seriously? Yet it made visible holes in the underclothing and didn't injure the officer?
As for the guy with the bread knife, they again put themselves into the position where he was within 21 feet, he didn't put himself in that position. If you walk up to a person with a knife and shoot them for being too close to you with a knife, that's hardly the fault of the person with the knife. It could have been handled MUCH better, since he wasn't a threat to them until they made him one. He was sequestered in a back bedroom of an empty house...until they went in with guns drawn and shot him down. Ahem, more links: http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-may1407-shooting.6aa9f739.htmlwhere it clearly states that everyone was safely out of the house till the officers went into the house with their "plan". Obviously, their plan was insufficient to handle the known situation of a man with a mental disorder who had a knife in an area where he wasn't actively threatening anyone. Could they have worked out a better plan? Perhaps tried talking to him through the closed door, or from the backyard? Why on earth would they enter the room when they didn't need to do so immediately, when they could have taken the time to deal with him in safety?
Would I be justified in walking up to someone with a knife who I know to be mentally unstable and shooting them down? No, that would be called murder. How about if I talked them into putting down the knife and surrendering while I'm in a safe location, since nobody is currently being threatened? Much better outcome.
As for my "attitude" I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm "stirring up trouble" around here. Perhaps a little research into that might be helpful to you as well. I can only assume that you're referring to my disagreement with CaCop, and I will always have a problem with someone saying that their paycheck is more important than my rights, every single time. Other than that, and people stirring up trouble involving me directly, I'm a pretty easygoing guy. So, why are you coming here with incorrect assumptions about the incident (which it seems that I remembered correctly) and claiming that I'm wrong? Before you jump on my case telling me I'm going "ape@#$%" check your own facts and get them straight. Feel free to use the links I provided to help out with that.
Oh, and if you could show me a link to any police policy indicating that they should shoot people who aren't a threat to anybody, I'd love to read it.
Vandal wrote:
NightOwl, you remember incorrectly.
The high school student was in possession of a WWII Japanese 8mm rilfe with bayonet attached. He charged the single BPD officer from the bushes by his home and stuck the cop through his jacket. According to the Tueller Rule (which has been held up in court) a person within 21 feet with an edged weapon is an immediate and lethal threat. That teen was well within 21 feet and had already attempted to stab the cop after going apesh!t inside of his home. If you would have pulled the trigger it would have been justified and so was that one. Oddly enough the same rule applies to the guy with the bread knife.
Before you go ragging on our cops do some research about the cases you so poorly cite. You should also look into the use of force continuum that LEOs use.
I would much rather have Idaho cops than CA or Spokane cops here. They may be found not-guilty in their shootings but that is because they tend to play by the rules around here and are not a corrupt agency like LAPD, Spokane PD or any host of others. If you don't like 'em leave my state.
Call me a LEO apologist, or whatever you want but before you go calling out people and situations you have very little knowledge of do some research into the cases. You appear to have virtually zero knowledge of police procedure, if you had any you would know the cops did what needed to be done. Of course you seem to have a hard on for stirring up trouble around here. Personally I don't trust you with a firearm with your attitude, but living in Nampa it kinda come with the territory.
I did recall correctly, you didn't say anything different than what I said, and I did not go "ape@#$%". The cops involved absolutely deserve me "ragging on" them, and they should be charged with murder, at least in the case of the guy with the bread knife. Did the cop know the kid with the bayonette was there in the yard before he showed up? Absolutely,the officerwas informed the teen was in that yard with the rifle and put themselves in proximity to be in danger. Did he have to approach so closely to be in a position to get charged like that? No. Where was the shotgun with non-lethal rounds? Where was the tazer? Few bean bags would have done the trick perhaps, but now we'll never know. The officer went into the situation knowing full well the teen was there and what was going on, and made the choice to put himself in that location. The officer wasn't within 21 feet when he got the call, and he made the choice to put himself close enough to get charged at. Could have have parked his car and stood behind it, firing non-lethal ammo from behind it? Perhaps he could have talked the kid down from behind it, keeping the vehicle in position to prevent himself from getting charged at.
Do your own research and you'll find that the ombudman and the father both agree that the officer fired without warning. The father and officer disagree as to whether or not the teen was close enough to poke the officer. The father told the dispatcher it was an unloaded rifle, the dispatcher told the officer that it was an "assault rifle" (confirmed by the ombudsman).
Take a look for yourself: http://boiseguardian.com/2006/07/13/report-raises-ombudsman-stock/ Alternatively, you can check here, where they state the ombudsman finds that they officer did not follow proper procedure: http://www.fox12boise.com/Global/story.asp?s=5143880 Perhaps you'd prefer to see where the officer says the cuts in his shirt and vest were from the bayonet, but there were no cuts in his fleece jacket that he was wearing over the shirt and vest: http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-nov1705-inquest_day_4.610a320.html That's kind of odd how the "stab" missed the outer layer of clothing, don't you think? Oh, wait, I'm wrong...using a magnifying glass and a flashlight they found a tiny, tiny hole in the outer jacket that cut a year after the event (and I quote the coroner here) "one or two threads". From a bayonet stab? Seriously? Yet it made visible holes in the underclothing and didn't injure the officer?
As for the guy with the bread knife, they again put themselves into the position where he was within 21 feet, he didn't put himself in that position. If you walk up to a person with a knife and shoot them for being too close to you with a knife, that's hardly the fault of the person with the knife. It could have been handled MUCH better, since he wasn't a threat to them until they made him one. He was sequestered in a back bedroom of an empty house...until they went in with guns drawn and shot him down. Ahem, more links: http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-may1407-shooting.6aa9f739.htmlwhere it clearly states that everyone was safely out of the house till the officers went into the house with their "plan". Obviously, their plan was insufficient to handle the known situation of a man with a mental disorder who had a knife in an area where he wasn't actively threatening anyone. Could they have worked out a better plan? Perhaps tried talking to him through the closed door, or from the backyard? Why on earth would they enter the room when they didn't need to do so immediately, when they could have taken the time to deal with him in safety?
Would I be justified in walking up to someone with a knife who I know to be mentally unstable and shooting them down? No, that would be called murder. How about if I talked them into putting down the knife and surrendering while I'm in a safe location, since nobody is currently being threatened? Much better outcome.
As for my "attitude" I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm "stirring up trouble" around here. Perhaps a little research into that might be helpful to you as well. I can only assume that you're referring to my disagreement with CaCop, and I will always have a problem with someone saying that their paycheck is more important than my rights, every single time. Other than that, and people stirring up trouble involving me directly, I'm a pretty easygoing guy. So, why are you coming here with incorrect assumptions about the incident (which it seems that I remembered correctly) and claiming that I'm wrong? Before you jump on my case telling me I'm going "ape@#$%" check your own facts and get them straight. Feel free to use the links I provided to help out with that.
Oh, and if you could show me a link to any police policy indicating that they should shoot people who aren't a threat to anybody, I'd love to read it.