Man Shot By Officer In Mt. Oliver Had Gun (Sez parents: "They'll PAY for this!")

[WitsBusa]

Originally Posted by Siobhra

This one leaves me a bit confused. He was told to show his hands. He did and he had a gun in it. The part I don't see is the officer telling him to drop the gun.

If at the first sight of a gun the officers sic a dog on me the dog is going down. Clear self-defense.

If at the first sight of a gun the human officer starts shooting at me with no warning or anything I will return fire.

Officer or not you just can not open fire. In this case it looks all too much like the guy did the human reaction of defending himself from an attack. Someone swings at you your arm goes up without thinking.

They are not saying where the gun was pointed or if the guy did anything except defend himself from a vicious dog.

Interesting the relevant points you are raising.. I have to imagine it either went down with the kid pulling the gun but not dropping upon receiving the order, or refusing to pull his hand out. Is that sufficient provocation to set the dog after him? I guess so if they felt he posed a threat?

I just can't get a clear picture of the scenario on this one.

[NineseveN]

What a small world, I went to kindergarten not too many blocks from where this happened (shootings are not rare there).


There's not a lot of clear information on this one, I didn't visit the links to videos yet (at work), but it just sounds a little off to me.


The kid was walking wityh his hand inside his jacket/coat/pants/whatever. So what? Is that a crime? Does someone merely having their hands in their clothing give RAS? Suspicion of what? We all have pockets in our pants too, they could have a gun, weapon or drugs in their pockets. OMG! Stop everyone who has pockets and make tyhem empty them out.

I have a hard time believeing that this is the totality of the situation.


The officer sees a gun and just lets the dog loose? No brainer there, dead dog, not my problem (until the LEO kills me of course). Was the gun pointed at the officer? What were the circumstances involved? There has to be more to this. If it went down where the LEO saw a gun and sent the dog without anything else being a factor, he murdered that kid. If the kid was screwing around, being an idiot or made a threat or some form of assault, too bad junior, take a dirt nap (and it's a shame that the dog was killed).


There are just too many holes here.

[PisnNapalm]

One less illegal gun toting felon on the streets.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Siobhra

This one leaves me a bit confused. He was told to show his hands. He did and he had a gun in it. The part I don't see is the officer telling him to drop the gun.

i dunno what happened in this case, but come on.

i can just see how that would play out:

LEO: "show me your hands"
BG...pulls hands out of pockets with a gun in one
LEO: "drop the..."
BG: shoots LEO
LEO: dead

if the police tell you to show them your hands, you do not show them your hands with a gun in one.

as i said, i dunno what really happened in this case. something doesn't make sense to me simply because i can't imagine the reaction to the guy showing his hands with a gun in one would be to sic a dog on him rather than just shoot him.

but, if you reveal your hands from a hidden place and, when you do, you are holding a gun in one, expect to get shot in self-defense.

leave the gun in your waistband, pocket, holster, or wherever it is. if it is already in your hand, maybe yell "OK...i am dropping my gun" and then immediately drop it before showing your hands.

but you cannot ask an LEO (or anyone else) to wait to see if the person who just pulled a gun out of his pocket is going to actually shoot him before the LEO defends himself...by then, it will be too late.

If at the first sight of a gun

first sight of a gun vs. first sight of a gun in the hands of an unknown person who is the subject of an investigation and has just pulled his hands out of his pockets with a gun in one are two completely different things.

Officer or not you just can not open fire. In this case it looks all too much like the guy did the human reaction of defending himself from an attack. Someone swings at you your arm goes up without thinking.

that analogy does not seem to be applicable. it might be applicable if they sicced the dog on him before telling him to show his hands and he pulled out a gun in response.

but, that does not seem to be what happened. it seems that they said "show me your hands" and the guy responded by pulling a gun.

of course, as i mentioned before, i don't understand why he was not filled with bullets right at that point, so maybe that isn't what actually happened.

They are not saying where the gun was pointed

if the officer waits until the gun is pointed at him, it is too late.

i am one of the vocal critics of LEOs overstepping their authority, but you have to be realistic. you seem to be expecting the police to actually take incoming fire before engaging someone who pulls a gun in response to their commands to show his hands. that is crazy.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

The officer sees a gun and just lets the dog loose?

...

Was the gun pointed at the officer?

to me the question isn't was the gun pointed at the officer.

the question is was the gun in his hand?

if he took his hand out of his pocket and had a gun in it, i think the LEO should have just shot him then and there.

if the gun was just in his pocket, then totally different story.

but, expecting an officer to wait until someone who pulls a gun out of his pocket actually points it at the officer for the officer to shoot is asking the officer to commit suicide.

There are just too many holes here.

agreed.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

to me the question isn't was the gun pointed at the officer.

the question is was the gun in his hand?

if he took his hand out of his pocket and had a gun in it, i think the LEO should have just shot him then and there.

if the gun was just in his pocket, then totally different story.

but, expecting an officer to wait until someone who pulls a gun out of his pocket actually points it at the officer for the officer to shoot is asking the officer to commit suicide.



agreed.

Understood, but that's what I'm saying...if the officer thought the gun was a threat, he would have shot right then and there. It just makes no sense, but humans make bad decisions all the time and we really don't know enough to say one way or the other.

[Siobhra]

That is my point, we don't know. Something is missing with the story. OK we now know he was a fellon. And with 20-20 hind sight we know he was most likely up to no good. But the way we are hearing it the story has a smell to it.

If it were LittleRedToyota who was walking from his car to his house with his gun in his hand the story we would hear was that "some gun nut was seen with a gun in his hand and when the police set their dog on him he shot the dog". "The police had no choice at that time but to shoot and kill Mr LittleRed Toyota".

Would you call from your grave "I had it coming"?

[TheBuckslayer]

Originally Posted by Siobhra

That is my point, we don't know. Something is missing with the story. OK we now know he was a fellon. And with 20-20 hind sight we know he was most likely up to no good. But the way we are hearing it the story has a smell to it.

If it were LittleRedToyota who was walking from his car to his house with his gun in his hand the story we would hear was that "some gun nut was seen with a gun in his hand and when the police set their dog on him he shot the dog". "The police had no choice at that time but to shoot and kill Mr LittleRed Toyota".

Would you call from your grave "I had it coming"?

If you are not a criminal, and a LEO sends his dog after you, you show submission to the LEO so he can call off his dog. YOU DON'T SHOOT HIS DOG What is to say this LEO didn't end up like the Philly cop who got shot trying to stop a criminal robbing a bank?

[Philadelphia]

Whatever it's worth, the way I read the story, the suspect had his hand on his gun under his jacket. LEO recognized this, believed it was indeed a gun, and ordered suspect to stop and show hands (Terry stop). Suspect refused. Dog released to force compliance. Suspect pulls gun, shoots and is stopped. Dead.

If the suspect just showed empty hands when he was ordered to, he might still be alive and the dog never would have been on him.

I think the issue Pex raised was would a Terry stop be OK if the officer believed he had a gun and had his hand on it. The gun alone isn't enough. PA Supreme Court has already said do. Would having your hand on the gun change that? I think it does. I don't think there's a right to go walking around with your hand on your gun and not be stopped by cops to ask you what's up. As part of that stop, I don't think it's too much to ask that you show your empty hands. You refuse to do so and things start to go bad for you from there.

[buckscobill]

He deserved it, and they should lock up the parents for being ignorant. He shot and killed a cop. Dog or not; It was still a cop! At least now I will not have to pay for that waste to rot away in prison for the rest of his life.

I do feel sympathy for the family because I’m not heartless, but the family could have used other words. I don’t think they should have immediately blamed it on the cops….. Did they mention anything about missing him? Or he was a good kid?