Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Police shoot man running around with air rifle in Wal-Mart (video)

If I disagree with you then I'm an enemy of the good ol USofA? Power trip much.......Colonel?

I wouldn't doubt you've seen more "gunplay" than me. But I've seen enough douchebaggery to recognize it from all the way across the Internet.

No. If you think cops should be able to shoot US citizens in a walmart under more relaxed rules of engagement than we had in Iraq, then you're a menace to the Republic.

Your right to disagree is specifically one of the ones I'm most proud to defend.

The right to disagree is probably the most important right.

Power trip? Never been accused of that by anyone who knows me. I'm probably the least power-tripy commanding officer I know.

I used to command EOD, fire rescue, emergency management and vertical and horizontal construction units. Now I'm part of a specialized engineer unit that forward deploys into "contingencies," or backstops troops moving forward.

George,

My comment was not directed toward every LEO on the fire. I'm marrying one.

My beef is with people who are trying to justify what appears to be a homocide if it had been done by anyone else.

I think it's time for the pendulum to swing back to not shooting to death everyone who might be a threat.

That's all.

What you keep forgetting is that regardless of what anyone hear thinks. A Grand Jury, who likely heard a lot more evidence ( i know they heard testimony from atleast 18 witnesses) felt that those cops did not use excessive force.


I've probably been "justified" in shooting a [bleep] load of people in my career, but I thankfully haven't had to. And I hope to end my career that way.


Part of the problem with this video is that the audio is dubbed in. It's from the 911 call not the video surveillance system. One of the articles states that by the video they could only make a "best guess" as to when the shots actually were fired, by looking at one officer's feet.

What I'm saying is the bar is too low for use of lethal force.

A grand jury not deciding to indite is just more evidence that the bar is too low.

So I should have to be shot at before I shoot? Gotcha

Here is a direct quote from the prosecutor to those "


The Supreme Court of the United States said you can't judge this sitting at home on a Sunday afternoon, drinking a beer, watching the Bengals," special prosecutor Mark Piepmeier said Wednesday, referring to the Greene County grand jury in Xenia.

"You have to put yourself in their shoes at that time with the information they had."

"Split-second decisions in confronting these type of situations are not a crime unless based on all the circumstances a jury believes that they were unreasonable in what they perceived that day and the way they reacted to it," he said.


That's what those jurors did, they put themselves in those cops shoes

LMAO
From the guy who jumped in with "it was a toy with an orange tip"

You lost all credibility then, and have said nothing since to regain any

To me, it's proof you don't care about any facts that don't fit your agenda.

The Grand Jury got to see it all, but you decided without seeing anything

You came into the thread spewing misinformation and making accusations, and you haven't changed no matter how much evidence to the contrary has been presented.

Colonel Walter,

Many and most people here are biased based on their own experience.
It appears to me, given your comment, that your view is biased based on your experience dealing with the restrictions, limitations and rules you lived under.

I wonder if you'd be so unflexing if you'd been allowed the opportunity to do your job without the ROE you had.

I've been to different sources to watch the video, and the guy did not react properly when requested to drop the gun. Face it, his whole action, to pick up a apparent real looking weapon, and hang out in the pet food aisle for an extended duration was just not right.

The cops did their job.

You can't compare them to Iraq, and contrary to the lot that posts this, these items don't happen every damn day, and certainly are the superminority of interactions with police.

RWE,

I agree.


"Snyper,"

Cute name

Well, this is just about the oddest thing anyone has had to say on the subject, so far.

Despite the fact that the members of the grand jury had access to evidence that you and I - and everyone else here - have not seen, you apparently believe that civilians are not to be trusted with governing themselves.

You're not likely capable of understanding the point he was making.

Hawkeye, the main difference between you and David Walter is that he is an intelligent, thoughtful man who sincerely believes that the members of the grand jury in this case were too lenient in their oversight of the officers. I respectfully disagree with him.

You, on the other hand, are a deranged lunatic whom I pity, but otherwise have no respect for at all.

Too bad there wasn't some audio to go with the video.

And, having never been in one from any side I wonder about a grand jury.
Don't they make their decision based just on the information given them as directed by a prosecutor?

Which ROE David? Because they certainly vary depending on the situation.

Sometimes the military can drone strike known bad guys just to keep them from maybe doing something bad in the future. In other situations the ROE are more strict though. Or are all LEO to be bound by whatever ROE you happened to have on your last deployment as an engineering unit in a contingency area?

Your comparison to military ROE was full of good intentions, but devoid of any critical thinking.

I'm glad you approve, but flattery won't change the facts, will it?

No GJs can call witnesses and prety
Much examine whatever piece of evidence they want. There is no "defense" side to a grand Jury, meaning the only attoney present is usually the prosecutor

Guess again.

Grand juries receive and evaluate the evidence presented to them by the prosecutor. They have no right to demand additional evidence.

We don't even know if the grand jury saw the video. And we'll never know, since the proceedings are secret.

A prosecutor can bring a one-sided presentation of evidence and get most anyone indicted, a la Rick Perry's matter.

A prosecutor can likewise decide not to present certain evidence, and attempt to secure a no bill.

In this case, if the prosecutor decided to only present the testimony of the officer that they approached, the victim raised the rifle, and they shot him dead, what else could the GJ do?

And Gitem, since you're so obviously wrong about this process, you've lost all credibility, and will no longer be posting on the Campfire, correct?