Stiff wrote:
So the officer has no right to defend himself when the distraught man points the gun at him? Simply by being an officer he has to accept the death penalty visited upon him by the distraught man? Without the gift of clairvoyance how could the officer know that the guy wasn't going to shoot?

Again, you have nothing other than speculation to support your opinion than the guy wouldn't have shot the officer.

I mean, in what world did he live in where pointing a gun to a cop first is acceptable?

We as a society agree that having a police force is better than letting each person administer his own justice. The police is not (and never going to be) perfect, but history has proven that it works better than vigilante justice. As part of the job they are authorized to arrest and point guns at people first. If they have the exact same role as other civilians, then there's no point of having cops.

If you think cops are unnecessary, then we have nothing more to talk about. I'm not a fan of libertarianism, I like her big sister anarchy even less.

According to the news story, the man closed the door and then opened it with the rifle and pointed it at the officer. Unless the officer had already drawn his weapon, all the guy had to do is aim and pull the trigger. He didn't. As far as I know there is no video of the man pointing the rifle, by the way.

People should not point weapons at other people, but the context is important. There are judicially administered punishments for pointing weapons at people. Death is not one of them. WWAGD? (What would Andy Griffith do?) As hard as it is for muy macho cops to do this, sometimes putting your hands in the air and backing away is the appropriate response when dealing with emotionally distraught people. It is a judgement call, I agree, but shooting citizens left and right to ensure a risk-free work environment does not seem like the way to go.

Here is how it looks to the foreign press:

The firing squad: Shocking moment at least TEN San Francisco cops use a volley of shots to kill lone black man armed with a knife
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... treet.html

SilasSoule wrote:

Stiff wrote:
So the officer has no right to defend himself when the distraught man points the gun at him? Simply by being an officer he has to accept the death penalty visited upon him by the distraught man? Without the gift of clairvoyance how could the officer know that the guy wasn't going to shoot?

Again, you have nothing other than speculation to support your opinion than the guy wouldn't have shot the officer.

I mean, in what world did he live in where pointing a gun to a cop first is acceptable?

We as a society agree that having a police force is better than letting each person administer his own justice. The police is not (and never going to be) perfect, but history has proven that it works better than vigilante justice. As part of the job they are authorized to arrest and point guns at people first. If they have the exact same role as other civilians, then there's no point of having cops.

If you think cops are unnecessary, then we have nothing more to talk about. I'm not a fan of libertarianism, I like her big sister anarchy even less.

According to the news story, the man closed the door and then opened it with the rifle and pointed it at the officer. Unless the officer had already drawn his weapon, all the guy had to do is aim and pull the trigger. He didn't. As far as I know there is no video of the man pointing the rifle, by the way.

People should not point weapons at other people, but the context is important. There are judicially administered punishments for pointing weapons at people. Death is not one of them. WWAGD? (What would Andy Griffith do?) As hard as it is for muy macho cops to do this, sometimes putting your hands in the air and backing away is the appropriate response when dealing with emotionally distraught people. It is a judgement call, I agree, but shooting citizens left and right to ensure a risk-free work environment does not seem like the way to go.

Here is how it looks to the foreign press:

The firing squad: Shocking moment at least TEN San Francisco cops use a volley of shots to kill lone black man armed with a knife
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... treet.html

By law I as a private person is allowed to shoot you if you cause me to fear for my life by pointing a gun at me. The same principle applies to cops. Does that mean I am empowered to be a judge, jury, and executioner applying a death penalty to an attacker? Absolutely not. However, MY right to life trumps the aggressor's.

The law in USA doesn't require me to surrender my life to an attacker just so the court can judicially punish him later. That would be immensely stupid.

I don't care about what other cops in other cities do, we're talking about this particular case in Cleveland. If you keep jumping all over the place I'll begin dragging all sorts of unrelated cases where cops were shot to death.

Cops can do wrong, and many times they get away with it. However it is a needed profession to serve justice, so applying a broad brush against them is like saying black people should be suspected because a high proportion of criminals are black.

Oh, the Daily Mail is worse than Fox News.

Stiff wrote:
By law I as a private person is allowed to shoot you if you cause me to fear for my life by pointing a gun at me. The same principle applies to cops. Does that mean I am empowered to be a judge, jury, and executioner applying a death penalty to an attacker? Absolutely not. However, MY right to life trumps the aggressor's.

The law in USA doesn't require me to surrender my life to an attacker just so the court can judicially punish him later. That would be immensely stupid.

I don't care about what other cops in other cities do, we're talking about this particular case in Cleveland. If you keep jumping all over the place I'll begin dragging all sorts of unrelated cases where cops were shot to death.

Cops can do wrong, and many times they get away with it. However it is a needed profession to serve justice, so applying a broad brush against them is like saying black people should be suspected because a high proportion of criminals are black.

Oh, the Daily Mail is worse than Fox News.

The point here is that there is a well established pattern of law enforcement officers in the U.S. shooting citizens under questionable circumstances. I think this is a problem, but apparently many of you do not. If this guy in Cleveland had deadly intent, then he was truly foolish to hesitate before shooting, and to give the cop time to draw on him and fire. You may think he was a bumbling cop-killer, but I think he was just upset. If someone with deadly intent had you in his rifle sights, would you draw on him? With a pistol? This story seems implausible to me.

SilasSoule wrote:The point here is that there is a well established pattern of law enforcement officers in the U.S. shooting citizens under questionable circumstances. I think this is a problem, but apparently many of you do not.

No, I think many of us agree that there is such a pattern. What we don't agree on is the characterization of literally pointing a rifle at someone as "questionable circumstances".

PiratePenguin wrote:

SilasSoule wrote:The point here is that there is a well established pattern of law enforcement officers in the U.S. shooting citizens under questionable circumstances. I think this is a problem, but apparently many of you do not.

No, I think many of us agree that there is such a pattern. What we don't agree on is the characterization of literally pointing a rifle at someone as "questionable circumstances".

I would agree with that. I would say that there are police departments out there sorely in need of a consent decree and compete overhaul. I would agree that there are bad cops and a culture, in some departments, that is toxic. I would also agree that there are thousands of good cops out there exercising good judgement and demonstrating restraint, who we never hear about in the news. That's all broad stuff, though, and I don't see how it has bearing on this particular story.

What I know for sure from this story is that it is sad and tragic, and likely needn't have happened. I suspect the man was distraught, and it's a damn shame it so impaired his judgement that his daughter died as a result. I would give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer for, while the man didn't shoot him outright with the rifle, the cop couldn't have known that he would not shoot him in the next moment, or the next, so long as he had the rifle in his hands.

There is another dynamic at work here as well. Why do we have armed law enforcement officers enforcing rent collection? Are the police going to show up to make the landlord fix a broken toilet? If my employer is shorting my paycheck, are they going to come to his office and make him pay up?

SilasSoule wrote:There is another dynamic at work here as well. Why do we have armed law enforcement officers enforcing rent collection? Are the police going to show up to make the landlord fix a broken toilet? If my employer is shorting my paycheck, are they going to come to his office and make him pay up?

Rent collection and eviction proceedings are not the same thing. The police (or sheriff deputy) is merely enforcing an order of the court. An order, mind you, that was granted because the property owner was able to show, before a judge, that the renter violated his rental agreement by not paying rent. The owner is merely taking formal steps to re-possess his rightful property.

As for broken toilets and shorted paychecks, you too have available the same court system everyone else does.
If your evidence is such that you can convince a judge or jury your complaint is valid, they may well rule in your favor.

SilasSoule wrote:There is another dynamic at work here as well. Why do we have armed law enforcement officers enforcing rent collection? Are the police going to show up to make the landlord fix a broken toilet? If my employer is shorting my paycheck, are they going to come to his office and make him pay up?

Ok here is a dynamic dealing with the OP, he wasn't a cop, he's an elected constable, doing what elected constables do where he is employed.

SilasSoule wrote:

Stiff wrote:
By law I as a private person is allowed to shoot you if you cause me to fear for my life by pointing a gun at me. The same principle applies to cops. Does that mean I am empowered to be a judge, jury, and executioner applying a death penalty to an attacker? Absolutely not. However, MY right to life trumps the aggressor's.

The law in USA doesn't require me to surrender my life to an attacker just so the court can judicially punish him later. That would be immensely stupid.

I don't care about what other cops in other cities do, we're talking about this particular case in Cleveland. If you keep jumping all over the place I'll begin dragging all sorts of unrelated cases where cops were shot to death.

Cops can do wrong, and many times they get away with it. However it is a needed profession to serve justice, so applying a broad brush against them is like saying black people should be suspected because a high proportion of criminals are black.

Oh, the Daily Mail is worse than Fox News.

The point here is that there is a well established pattern of law enforcement officers in the U.S. shooting citizens under questionable circumstances. I think this is a problem, but apparently many of you do not. If this guy in Cleveland had deadly intent, then he was truly foolish to hesitate before shooting, and to give the cop time to draw on him and fire. You may think he was a bumbling cop-killer, but I think he was just upset. If someone with deadly intent had you in his rifle sights, would you draw on him? With a pistol? This story seems implausible to me.

You may find this helpful:
http://www.corneredcat.com/article/lega ... -jeopardy/

The point here is that there is a well established pattern of law enforcement officers in the U.S. shooting citizens under questionable circumstances. I think this is a problem, but apparently many of you do not. If this guy in Cleveland had deadly intent, then he was truly foolish to hesitate before shooting, and to give the cop time to draw on him and fire. You may think he was a bumbling cop-killer, but I think he was just upset. If someone with deadly intent had you in his rifle sights, would you draw on him? With a pistol? This story seems implausible to me.

I question the existence of "a well established pattern". Crime exists, bad people exist. people do stupid things. We want the cops to protect us, so they have to deal with people at their worst. Some cops overstep, most do not. Most never use the gun against people at all. Some have to just to survive, and that of course takes up hours of media coverage. There are 315 million of us, and most of us never talk to a cop, year after year. Last year, about 1200 people were killed by cops. Unless you look at each case and all the evidence, you do not know if these shootings were justifiable or not. The people who do look at the evidence usually decide it is justifiable based on evidence and proof, not emotion.
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon1204sm.html

Despite such pronouncements, two decades of data on police interactions with the public don’t support the idea that something extraordinary is afoot, that the police are becoming “militarized” as President Obama has suggested, or that distrust between police and local communities has produced an enormous spike in conflicts. By contrast, the data show that significant crime declines have been accompanied by a leveling off and then a reduction in confrontations with the police, as reported by Americans of all races.

Since 1991, the peak of crime in New York, the number of yearly shooting incidents by NYPD officers has declined by more than two-thirds, from 332 to 105. The number of individuals shot and killed by police officers has fallen from 39 to 16. Something similar might be afoot nationally, but we don’t have the data to know.

In what alternate reality is pointing a rifle at someone, upset or not, not considered a lethal threat. I suppose we could require cops wait until 2 or 3 shots are absorbed by body armor. In this particular situation, you would appear to have two options. Die, or try to fight and maybe die. At close range, long gun vs pistol, the first one shooting will win. Assuming the man with a rifle won't use it is an exercise in Darwinism.

SilasSoule wrote:

Stiff wrote:
By law I as a private person is allowed to shoot you if you cause me to fear for my life by pointing a gun at me. The same principle applies to cops. Does that mean I am empowered to be a judge, jury, and executioner applying a death penalty to an attacker? Absolutely not. However, MY right to life trumps the aggressor's.

The law in USA doesn't require me to surrender my life to an attacker just so the court can judicially punish him later. That would be immensely stupid.

I don't care about what other cops in other cities do, we're talking about this particular case in Cleveland. If you keep jumping all over the place I'll begin dragging all sorts of unrelated cases where cops were shot to death.

Cops can do wrong, and many times they get away with it. However it is a needed profession to serve justice, so applying a broad brush against them is like saying black people should be suspected because a high proportion of criminals are black.

Oh, the Daily Mail is worse than Fox News.

The point here is that there is a well established pattern of law enforcement officers in the U.S. shooting citizens under questionable circumstances. I think this is a problem, but apparently many of you do not. If this guy in Cleveland had deadly intent, then he was truly foolish to hesitate before shooting, and to give the cop time to draw on him and fire. You may think he was a bumbling cop-killer, but I think he was just upset. If someone with deadly intent had you in his rifle sights, would you draw on him? With a pistol? This story seems implausible to me.

You keep insisting that because the guy didn't shoot then the police wasn't justified in shooting him. You think the guy can't possibly be foolish enough to point a gun but not shoot? To everybody out there (except criminals and anti cops) it's extremely stupid to point a gun at anybody, and it's ten times stupider to point it at a cop.

Pointing a gun at anybody doesn't merit a death penalty, but legally and morally the person at the other end is fully justified to assume it's a threat to his life. As such he is legally and morally justified to stop that threat, including using deadly force. No, the potential victim is not justified to kill, but he's justified to shoot until that gun is no longer pointed at him. If the aggressor happens to die as a result, then it's an unfortunate but excusable event.

Well established pattern is separate from this incident. How would you feel if you bring up a case involving a black guy, then regardless of the facts I quote all sorts of other crimes establishing a pattern of criminality by black people? That's how outrageous your argument is, trying to decide a case based on pattern despite clear facts to the contrary.

eelj wrote:Ok here is a dynamic dealing with the OP, he wasn't a cop, he's an elected constable, doing what elected constables do where he is employed.

In PA, constables are indeed peace officers.

The status, duties, and authority of people with the title "constable" varies drastically from state to state, and even within a given state. It can be confusing as Hell and make for some real head-scratchers.

Don't point your vehicle at a police officer either. These two deputies felt threatened and opened fire.

Dashcam video shows Montana police shooting man as he steered car away
"Both deputies told the inquest they feared for their lives before opening fire."

"As Simpson approaches the officers, who stand pointing their rifle and shotgun, he veers to their right before they open fire. Once the car is stationary, the officers continue to fire."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... am-footage

24 shots in total. And yes, he died.

Officer shot, killed in downtown Seaside while attempting to serve warrant

The shooting occurred at about 9:24 p.m. The officer, a man, was serving a warrant and was shot as he approached the suspect, police said. The Daily Astorian reported that the fallen officer was a 13-year veteran of the department.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/north-coa ... g/33702052

Stiff wrote:Officer shot, killed in downtown Seaside while attempting to serve warrant

The shooting occurred at about 9:24 p.m. The officer, a man, was serving a warrant and was shot as he approached the suspect, police said. The Daily Astorian reported that the fallen officer was a 13-year veteran of the department.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/north-coa ... g/33702052

Ya beat me to it, Stiff. How are you going to spin this one, Silas?

Older news

Second arrest made in case of Orlando officer hit by car during traffic stop


Around 2:45 a.m. Monday, Anderson, an eight-year veteran, was working off duty as security at a McDonald's in the 5400 block of South Kirkman Road when another officer reported gunfire in the area and he was called to assist, police said.

“He's responding to a call where shots are fired with possible suspects who, according to the video, were obviously trying to get away,” Orlando Police Chief John Mina said.

Anderson pulled over a car that he saw leaving the area.

Video shows Anderson walking up to the car with his gun drawn, at which point a passenger bolts out the door.

As Anderson moves toward the front of the car, he is run over.

http://m.wesh.com/news/dashcam-video-sh ... r/34157972

SwampGrouch wrote:

Stiff wrote:Officer shot, killed in downtown Seaside while attempting to serve warrant

The shooting occurred at about 9:24 p.m. The officer, a man, was serving a warrant and was shot as he approached the suspect, police said. The Daily Astorian reported that the fallen officer was a 13-year veteran of the department.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/north-coa ... g/33702052

Ya beat me to it, Stiff. How are you going to spin this one, Silas?

Here is the whole story. Note that "serving a warrant" is actually "making an arrest", that the suspect was tasered before any shots were fired, and that the suspect was also killed:

"It's unclear whether the warrant, which stemmed from a parole violation, was related to Ferry's 2003 or 2011 convictions for assaulting a public safety officer....

Friday's confrontation began about 9:20 p.m. in downtown Seaside when the officers ordered Ferry to show his hands, Marquis said. The other officer tased him when he refused to comply, and Ferry dropped to the ground.

When Goodding moved in to subdue him, Marquis said, Ferry fired once.

The other officer returned fire, striking Ferry, Marquis said. The officer discharged his weapon three times; it was not clear how many times Ferry was hit.

Ferry, of Seaside, died at an Astoria hospital at about 10:40 p.m., Marquis said."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... _wh_1.html

Please notice how the media headlines are skewing this story, which leads me to believe there is more about this that we don't know yet. Otherwise we have some very poor journalism here.

SilasSoule wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:

Stiff wrote:Officer shot, killed in downtown Seaside while attempting to serve warrant

The shooting occurred at about 9:24 p.m. The officer, a man, was serving a warrant and was shot as he approached the suspect, police said. The Daily Astorian reported that the fallen officer was a 13-year veteran of the department.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/north-coa ... g/33702052

Ya beat me to it, Stiff. How are you going to spin this one, Silas?

Here is the whole story. Note that "serving a warrant" is actually "making an arrest", that the suspect was tasered before any shots were fired, and that the suspect was also killed:

"It's unclear whether the warrant, which stemmed from a parole violation, was related to Ferry's 2003 or 2011 convictions for assaulting a public safety officer....

Friday's confrontation began about 9:20 p.m. in downtown Seaside when the officers ordered Ferry to show his hands, Marquis said. The other officer tased him when he refused to comply, and Ferry dropped to the ground.

When Goodding moved in to subdue him, Marquis said, Ferry fired once.

The other officer returned fire, striking Ferry, Marquis said. The officer discharged his weapon three times; it was not clear how many times Ferry was hit.

Ferry, of Seaside, died at an Astoria hospital at about 10:40 p.m., Marquis said."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... _wh_1.html

Please notice how the media headlines are skewing this story, which leads me to believe there is more about this that we don't know yet. Otherwise we have some very poor journalism here.

And your point is?

According to this story, despite the headline, there was no actual "warrant" being "served", they just spotted the guy and knew he was wanted:

"Sergeant Goodding and another unidentified officer attempted to place Ferry under arrest when they spotted him walking down Broadway Friday night. The suspect was known by the officers to have a felony assault warrant for his arrest."

http://katu.com/news/local/seaside-offi ... gooding-39

I'm not saying shooting him was not justified, but this was not a police officer knocking on someone's door "serving a warrant" and being gunned down in cold blood, as the police or the media seem to be playing it as. Why are they distorting this incident? There is apparently body cam footage, so maybe some day it will be released and we can see how this actually played out.

SilasSoule wrote:According to this story, despite the headline, there was no actual "warrant" being "served", they just spotted the guy and knew he was wanted:

"Sergeant Goodding and another unidentified officer attempted to place Ferry under arrest when they spotted him walking down Broadway Friday night. The suspect was known by the officers to have a felony assault warrant for his arrest."

http://katu.com/news/local/seaside-offi ... gooding-39

I'm not saying shooting him was not justified, but this was not a police officer knocking on someone's door "serving a warrant" and being gunned down in cold blood, as the police or the media seem to be playing it as. Why are they distorting this incident? There is apparently body cam footage, so maybe some day it will be released and we can see how this actually played out.

Do you actually understand how an arrest warrant works?

Stiff wrote:
Do you actually understand how an arrest warrant works?

There was a warrant for his arrest, but in common English we do not usually say that a person being arrested because there is a warrant for their arrest is "being served a warrant". We say they are "being arrested on an outstanding warrant". The headlines are Orwellian "Newspeak".

SilasSoule wrote:

Stiff wrote:
Do you actually understand how an arrest warrant works?

There was a warrant for his arrest, but in common English we do not usually say that a person being arrested because there is a warrant for their arrest is "being served a warrant". We say they are "being arrested on an outstanding warrant". The headlines are Orwellian "Newspeak".

Common English as defense? I've heard common sense used a lot of times, but not common English.

Whether it's serving, executing, or enforcing a warrant, it's basically the same thing. The court issues a warrant, the police runs it. Because you were ignorant of how it works, you claimed that the cops were not 'serving a warrant', as you were probably familiar only with the warrant on TV, where cops show up at the door with a piece of paper.

This is a very simple case where cops were absolutely in the right (and one of them died as a result), and you're trying to argue that their action was somehow questionable.

The point of my posting the article is that cops are routinely shot and killed in the performance of their duty. You simply do not understand how patently ridiculous it is to argue that the PA cop was wrong in taking the shot against a man pointing a rifle at him.

This whole line of "if cops can do it why can't I" is also ridiculous. Cops can arrest people, but if you try to do it as a private citizen you could be charged with "false imprisonment". Cops can break your door to serve a court order, try that as a private citizen and you'll be charged with "breaking and entering". There are certain basic tasks that we as a society have delegated to the police, and somehow you can't understand this.

SwampGrouch wrote:

eelj wrote:Ok here is a dynamic dealing with the OP, he wasn't a cop, he's an elected constable, doing what elected constables do where he is employed.

In PA, constables are indeed peace officers.

The status, duties, and authority of people with the title "constable" varies drastically from state to state, and even within a given state. It can be confusing as Hell and make for some real head-scratchers.

They are LEO here as well.

SilasSoule wrote:

Stiff wrote:
Do you actually understand how an arrest warrant works?

There was a warrant for his arrest, but in common English we do not usually say that a person being arrested because there is a warrant for their arrest is "being served a warrant". We say they are "being arrested on an outstanding warrant". The headlines are Orwellian "Newspeak".

"WE say...?" You got an adolescent mouse with authority issues in your pocket? If so, your pedantic mouse may be correct if grading Language Arts papers, but its understanding of common usage is wrong. Both forms are commonly used and understood.

Silas, do you know anything about the history of law enforcement in Anglo America? Lemme school ya a little.

In the early colonies, hogs were valuable livestock, but they were a problem. They were (and still are) smart, resourceful, and curious, so they frequently got out of their pens and went walkrootabout. This made for friction between neighbors, and people often ended up penning other people's hogs.

Now, if everyone had been upright and honest, it would have stopped there, but, these people being people, included among their numbers several flakes and even a few thievin' scalliwags. The former were not above crying, "Mine swine didst not escape from mine sty - surely they were stolen by ye blackguard in whose sty mine swine now be!" The latter were inclined to pignap swine and, if approached by the village elders, would claim, "I didst finde these swine at large, and thus didst I pen them in mine own sty until I couldst returneth them to mine neighbore, who now oweth me five shillings for their feeding."

Obviously, possession of vagabond hogs became a divisive issue. The solution was for the village elders, who really did not care to be summoned every time a goddamn pig got loose, to appoint a Hog Warden whose duties were to deal with and confine lost, strayed, or stolen hogs. The Hog Warden had what we would call today a police commission which gave him authority to act on behalf of the village, to include impounding and holding in custody other people's hogs.

A similar officer was the "pint warden" (title varied) whose duties included going about the public houses and taverns, presumably while sober, to inspect serving vessels to be sure they held a standard pint. This alleviated the problem of persons who had already consumed a plurality of pints deciding they had been cheated and starting brawls with the landlords. You can't run a tav with any doofus off the street coming in and bringing business to a halt by demanding to inspect your stock of mugs.

To bring things up to the present day - as we have seen, cops can lawfully do things in the fulfillment of their duties that other citizens cannot. Differences of opinion as to whether or not a specific officer's actions were taken in good faith and in actual fulfillment of their duties is to be addressed in court, not on the scene.

Insert your yeahbutwhuddabouts below.