# Ohio deputy shot a news photographer



## Timppa

We have a dangerous hobby/job!

Bodycam video shows moment deputy shot photographer | Daily Mail Online


----------



## zombiesniper

Nope.
That's just a chicken **** cop. 
Police should never have the right to shoot first in a situation like that. A warning should be obligatory. Otherwise it's murder or attempted murder.
There was no excuse.


----------



## Braineack

zombiesniper said:


> That's just a chicken **** cop.



redundant.



zombiesniper said:


> Police should never have the right to shoot first in a situation like that.



police are_ trained _to shoot first.  It is instilled in their brains that they must solve all situations with a gun and everyone is a threat -- regardless of how ridiculous the situation may be.


----------



## smoke665

I read the article. Appears the victim thankfully is okay. As some one who's been with officers on the scene, in the dark of night, I can attest to how easy it is to mistake what you see. I feel for the men and women in blue given the environment of the last few years. As in any officer involved shooting there needs to be an investigation of the facts before passing judgement on actions.


----------



## Derrel

Wow..a totally,totally,totally chicken***t cop! Shot the man from some distance. Wow. Pathetic.


----------



## Destin

I won't judge until an investigation is conducted. I work alongside police officers and am friends with many of them. I understand how hard their job can be better than most. 

It does appear that it may have been a very bad call by this cop, but the video doesn't really show what the officer saw either. There are a lot of variables to consider.


----------



## tirediron

I hope that policeman spends the rest of his life in jail and the photographer comes to his senses and sues him for every cent he has!


----------



## tirediron

Destin said:


> I ...It does appear that it may have been a very bad call by this cop, but the video doesn't really show what the officer saw either. There are a lot of variables to consider.


It doesn't matter what he _thought _he saw... if there were no rounds incoming, there's no reason for rounds outgoing.


----------



## smoke665

As I and @Destin commented let the investigation proceed first. He may well be at fault, but judging him from afar based on a story and a snippet of video without benefit of being there, is premature. Sometimes the difference between an officer going home after his shift or not, is measured in a fraction of a second. Being on scene, in the dark with strobes flashing is surreal, movements take on weird actions, your night vision is zilch because of the lights. For some reason, most police departments seem to feel the need to run the lights at the highest power levels.  Add to that background noises that come in to play, that you have no idea where they're coming from, and the chances for errors are multiplied.


----------



## Destin

tirediron said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ...It does appear that it may have been a very bad call by this cop, but the video doesn't really show what the officer saw either. There are a lot of variables to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what he _thought _he saw... if there were no rounds incoming, there's no reason for rounds outgoing.
Click to expand...


Not at all true. Police academies in the US and around the world teach officers to meet lethal threats with lethal force. Subject pulling out a gun can absolutely call for lethal force depending on the circumstance. If you wait for them to shoot first, you'll be dead the majority of the time.

Now, a situation like this might be different. The officer was far away. Maybe he could have yelled out a warning at least or something. I don't know. I wasn't there and neither were any of us.

Until an investigation is conducted and all angles are considered, nobody can judge actions here. That body camera footage doesn't show what the officer saw that caused his reaction, it only shows his reaction. In the dark with strobe lights going it's easy for things to play tricks on your mind.

I've been on 911 scenes and had guns waved at me. I've been in situations where I was screaming for the police on my radio because I had a pissed off family member trying to kick my ass. I've had to sedate people that are high on drugs and in a state of excited delerium. I know how fast things change on scenes like this.

I'm not defending the officer, but I'm not judging him yet either. Until you've been on fast changing emergency scenes, you can't truly understand how vulnerable one can feel or how fast things can go downhill.


----------



## SquarePeg

No warning?  Not taking the time to get a decent look?  I don't think their training is to shoot first and ask questions later.  What if that had been a teenager with the camera and tripod?  Or a senior citizen with a metal cane?  Or a mom taking a dark colored stroller out of her car?


----------



## Gary A.

"The Clark County Sheriff’s Office in Ohio today released body camera footage showing the moment a deputy shot a local news photographer without any warning after mistaking his camera and tripod for a gun."

"Without Any Warning"

I've worked with law enforcement and under the conditions described by the video and in the story ... there is absolutely no reason to shoot without a warning.  Apparently the cop panicked thinking he was under attack. Deputy Shaw may be a great guy, but possibly a bad cop. One would think that the first action the deputy should take, would be to make himself safe ... hit the deck, get out of the vehicle via the door opposite the danger ... put the engine block between you and the danger ... assess the situation ... call in backup ... verbally confront the danger.


----------



## Designer

Man turned Super Soaker water gun into real shotgun: cops

real guns that look like nerf guns - Google Search






Tell me again about why you have a "right" to point something at a police officer.


----------



## SCraig

It's very easy to "Armchair Quarterback" a situation like that and to say the police officer should have done this or he should have done that.  But when YOU are the one in the dark, alone, and it appears someone is getting a rifle out of their vehicle all of a sudden the situation becomes very real, very fast.  I wouldn't have their job for anything in the world, and one of the main reasons is that people are willing to immediately judge them and interject what they should have done.

Have you ever watched a police officer closely at a traffic stop?  Many times they will pause and touch the left rear fender of the vehicle (or at least they used to, I don't know if they still do or not).  The reason is in that touch they leave their finger prints on the vehicle so that if they get killed (let me repeat that: so that if they get KILLED) there is a better chance of finding the vehicle.  Does anyone here have to take precautions like that in their job?

My dad was on the Tennessee Highway Patrol for many years.  He started as a patrol officer and retired as a colonel.  By doing that, be being able to retire, he accomplished the number one goal of every police officer: He came home alive every night.


----------



## SquarePeg

Designer said:


> Tell me again about why you have a "right" to point something at a police officer.



 Show me again exactly what you're responding to?


----------



## waday

Designer said:


> Tell me again about why you have a "right" to point something at a police officer.


I can appreciate that some people do stupid things (like make realistic looking nerf guns). That is very, very stupid.

However, the crux of this particular situation is that someone should have the right to be able to take a tripod out of their car without getting shot by a police officer.


----------



## Braineack

Destin said:


> Police academies in the US and around the world teach officers to meet non-lethal threats with lethal force.



FTFY



Destin said:


> I won't judge until an investigation is conducted.



we investigated ourselves and determined there was no wrong doing.

I bet you $20.


----------



## Gary A.

For me, the discussion isn't about the difficulties of being a cop, or the dangers of being a cop.  But rather should Deputy Shaw be a cop? To my eye, either Deputy Shaw's training was not sufficient for him to be a cop or Deputy Shaw lacks the proper temperament to be a cop or both.

There is no reason to purposely use deadly force, when your life or another life is not in eminent danger. If you cannot accept those terms, then maybe you shouldn't be in law enforcement.


----------



## Destin

Gary A. said:


> For me, the discussion isn't about the difficulties of being a cop, or the dangers of being a cop.  But rather should Deputy Shaw be a cop? To my eye, either Deputy Shaw's training was not sufficient for him to be a cop or Deputy Shaw lacks the proper temperament to be a cop or both.
> 
> There is no reason to purposely use deadly force, when your life or another life is not in eminent danger. If you cannot accept those terms, then maybe you shouldn't be in law enforcement.



If the person had actually been pulling out a shotgun and not a tripod, then this officers life would have been in immediate danger. 

We now know that it was a tripod, but the officer did not. If he had held his fire and it was a gun, he'd likely be dead now and we'd be mourning the loss of another officer. 

The point here is that a police officer has one chance to make these decisions in a split second. But the Facebook/internet warriors get to watch the video multiple times before making the determination of whether it was the right or wrong call. 

Humans make errors. Humans under stress make more errors. Humans under stress and in fear for their life make even more errors. 

When you're the one making the decision in the dark, under stress, and in real time.. then you can talk crap about the officer. The fact is that police officers are human, and prone to error. They work in extremely difficult conditions and most of them manage to do a hell of a good job with those conditions. 

I'm not defending this officer. That being said, we need to stop Monday morning quarterbacking every decision that police officers make. If you weren't there, then you don't know what happened. Period.


----------



## waday

Destin said:


> If the person had actually been pulling out a shotgun and not a tripod for the express purpose to cause harm, injury, or death to the officer, then this officers life would have been in immediate danger.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## SquarePeg

I'd like to ask people to please stop altering other members posts in quotes.  Let's have a discussion without all that.


----------



## smoke665

SCraig said:


> Have you ever watched a police officer closely at a traffic stop?



I have a good friend who has been with the Alabama Highway patrol for a long time. These guys operate all alone on lonely highways without backup. He told me once that one of the greatest threats to their safety is not from the vehicle they stopped but from someone blind siding them. He will tell you very quick if an officer has a car stopped, DO NOT PULL UP ON THE SCENE. If you need to talk to that officer go down the road, stop and wait for him to come to you. Not saying the officer might not have acted  hastily, but until the investigation is completed, and all the witnesses who were actually there interviewed, any blame is premature.


----------



## Designer

SquarePeg said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again about why you have a "right" to point something at a police officer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me again exactly what you're responding to?
Click to expand...

Post #2:

_Nope.
That's just a chicken **** cop. 
Police should never have the right to shoot first in a situation like that. A warning should be obligatory. Otherwise it's murder or attempted murder.
There was no excuse.

_


----------



## Designer

waday said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again about why you have a "right" to point something at a police officer.
> 
> 
> 
> I can appreciate that some people do stupid things (like make realistic looking nerf guns). That is very, very stupid.
> 
> However, the crux of this particular situation is that someone should have the right to be able to take a tripod out of their car without getting shot by a police officer.
Click to expand...

Please see my post #13 above.

Yes, you have a right.  

You have a right to do foolish things that will get you hurt.  

However, I will advise you to not do foolish things that can get you hurt.  

Stand on your rights all you want, but at some point it will probably be your heirs who will be collecting the proceeds of a wrongful death lawsuit, and you won't be around to help them spend the money.


----------



## waday

Designer said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again about why you have a "right" to point something at a police officer.
> 
> 
> 
> I can appreciate that some people do stupid things (like make realistic looking nerf guns). That is very, very stupid.
> 
> However, the crux of this particular situation is that someone should have the right to be able to take a tripod out of their car without getting shot by a police officer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see my post #13 above.
> 
> Yes, you have a right.
> 
> You have a right to do foolish things that will get you hurt.
> 
> However, I will advise you to not do foolish things that can get you hurt.
> 
> Stand on your rights all you want, but at some point it will probably be your heirs who will be collecting the proceeds of a wrongful death lawsuit, and you won't be around to help them spend the money.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize removing a tripod from a car was a foolish thing to do. Where should one keep a tripod while traveling?


----------



## zombiesniper

Designer said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again about why you have a "right" to point something at a police officer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me again exactly what you're responding to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post #2:
> 
> _Nope.
> That's just a chicken **** cop.
> Police should never have the right to shoot first in a situation like that. A warning should be obligatory. Otherwise it's murder or attempted murder.
> There was no excuse.
> _
Click to expand...


At no point did I say anyone has the right to point anything so your post makes no sense if it's responding to me.
I stand by my statement since a quick "Drop that gun!" could have been said while he was performing his other actions. I know. It's what I was trained to do in the military within my first 10 minutes of situational training.


----------



## Designer

waday said:


> I didn't realize removing a tripod from a car was a foolish thing to do. Where should one keep a tripod while traveling?


You are intentionally misinterpreting my post and the entire episode.  As I said; you are welcome to exercise your rights to do stupid things, but I hope I'm not standing near you when you do.

There is nothing inherently dumb or dangerous about carrying a tripod, or getting it out of your car, but doing that while police are likely to be watching and wondering what you're doing is the dumb and dangerous part.  

1. Why did you stop just there?
2. Why are you removing your tripod just then?
3. It wouldn't matter much to the coroner what your intention was.  
4. Tell your family where you are going and what you're doing so they can go claim your body.


----------



## Designer

zombiesniper said:


> At no point did I say anyone has the right to point anything so your post makes no sense if it's responding to me.
> I stand by my statement since a quick "Drop that gun!" could have been said while he was performing his other actions. I know. It's what I was trained to do in the military within my first 10 minutes of situational training.


Since being right is more important to you than being alive, take a few minutes and run that past your local police training academy.  Be sure to write down everything they tell you so you can quote them accurately, and post that answer on here.


----------



## Overread

This thread gets ONE warning. Keep respectful to each other please.

Debate and disagree but lets not get into insults and fighting.


----------



## waday

It's such a sad time when civilians have to be the ones to act with restraint while officers get to act without restraint.


----------



## tirediron

Destin said:


> Not at all true. Police academies in the US and around the world teach officers to meet lethal threats with lethal force.


 Schools the world over used to teach that the earth was flat; that doesn't mean they were teacheing correctly.



Destin said:


> Subject pulling out a gun can absolutely call for lethal force depending on the circumstance.


Holding a fire-arm does not call for a response of deadly force.  It calls for the next level which is:  Ready your weapon, bring it up on and aim and order the person to stop. 



Destin said:


> If you wait for them to shoot first, you'll be dead the majority of the time.


See above; regardless, it comes under the heading of, "The risks of the job" and being dead, or even wounded is extremely unlikely.  Very few people, including police have sufficient experience that when in a stressful situation they can accurately place two in the '10' ring.  If you look at a typical "gun fight" and compare the number of rounds fired to the number of centre-or-mass hits (or even any hits), you're actually pretty safe if you're the one being shot at.



Destin said:


> Until you've been on fast changing emergency scenes, you can't truly understand how vulnerable one can feel or how fast things can go downhill.


  Been there, done that.  Got the t-shirt.  If there are no rounds in-coming, it's a good day and you have no complaint.


----------



## vintagesnaps

The Daily Mail is a tabloid out of the UK. I think they made up most of what they posted/wrote.

I live in the Cin-Day area. I saw something about it on local news and have been sitting here trying to find anything remotely like what that tabloid said - I can't find it anywhere.

edit - The town where it happened is in between Dayton/Springfield; here's the news report. 

http://www.whio.com/news/local/sher...ews-photographer-shot/uOvgIAiAjx9ParhbT7zpGI/


----------



## waday

vintagesnaps said:


> The Daily Mail is a tabloid out of the UK. I think they made up most of what they posted/wrote.
> 
> I live in the Cin-Day area. I saw something about it on local news and have been sitting here trying to find anything remotely like what that tabloid said - I can't find it anywhere.


What exactly do you think they made up? All of these seem to be in general agreement about what happened...

Officer shoots Ohio newspaper photographer after confusing his tripod and camera for a gun

Ohio deputy who shot news photographer placed on leave

News photographer shot by sheriff's deputy, report says

Ohio news photographer reportedly shot by deputy while setting up to take pictures of traffic stop

Ohio deputy shoots newspaper photographer after mistaking camera equipment for a weapon


----------



## pendennis

tirediron said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ...It does appear that it may have been a very bad call by this cop, but the video doesn't really show what the officer saw either. There are a lot of variables to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what he _thought _he saw... if there were no rounds incoming, there's no reason for rounds outgoing.
Click to expand...

Self-defense, even for civilians, doesn't work that way.

The sole determinant for self-defense in Michigan and a number of other states, is the danger presented to the individual.  The individual *does not* have to wait for "incoming" before shooting.   Waiting for "incoming" may well be fatal to the person whose life is in danger.  There are even times when it's permissible to shoot through a closed door.  And, in "stand your ground", where permitted by law, there's no obligation to even retreat.  There's also the "castle doctrine", which allows the individual protect his/her home without abandonment.

In cases where there are questions, it's for the police, attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and juries to make a determination as to gathering evidence, then determining guilt or responsibility.

All folks are doing now, is speculating.  None of us, to my knowledge, is a direct witness, and all we have is some shaky, night-time video, which purports to present some sort of "proof".  It's why we have laws and processes in place to determine what actually happened.


----------



## pendennis

Gary A. said:


> ...
> "Without Any Warning"
> 
> I've worked with law enforcement and under the conditions described by the video and in the story ... there is absolutely no reason to shoot without a warning.  Apparently the cop panicked thinking he was under attack. Deputy Shaw may be a great guy, but possibly a bad cop. One would think that the first action the deputy should take, would be to make himself safe ... hit the deck, get out of the vehicle via the door opposite the danger ... put the engine block between you and the danger ... assess the situation ... call in backup ... verbally confront the danger.


Not always a good idea.  Depending on the situation, it may be advisable to issue a verbal warning to a suspect.  However, if the situation calls for it, police, even civilians shoot first.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, one does not have to wait for "incoming fire" to bring lethal force to bear.  And there are never, ever warning shots.  And the first shot is aimed at center mass.  Shoot to stop the threat, and keep shooting until the threat is over.

A number of years ago, I took a self-defense course.  In one of the scenarios, I was placed in a room in which a stranger was some 20 feet away from me.  I had a holstered "weapon", and I could not see the stranger full-faced; he was angled slightly away from me.

He charged at me wielding a rubber knife, and I never had time to draw my "weapon".  I would have been dead.  Anyone who charges you, within 21 feet, is a lethal threat, and you can be seriously wounded, even killed.  The point of the exercise was to increase situational awareness.


----------



## Designer

My position in this thread is to be critical of people who expect, nay ... DEMAND .. that the police always give "fair warning" before deploying lethal force. 

Try telling that to a police officer who perceives a threat (accuracy be darned in the dark) that in the real world would give him about one-half second in which to 1.) identify the threat with 100% certainty, 2.) give a verbal fair warning, 3.) wait for compliance, and then 4.) decide if the subject will or will not fully comply with a lawful order. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Maybe the reason I had a hard time finding it is because there were a baker's dozen new crime reports/stories just today on one of the Dayton new websites. This is already 'old' news. Today's Cincinnati news was about a suspicious package at the federal courthouse (which turned out to be nothing). Full moon and nice weather.

You're posting info. from elsewhere Wade; there was stuff in that tabloid that is not mentioned here locally on several news sites I looked at (TV news and newspapers). A lot of local info. doesn't make it to the national reports.

Some of what was in the tabloid was taken directly from the body cam footage; I didn't find anything about what was in his 'file' because that hasn't been released. I'm not going thru the rest of it again; if you want to know what happened look at Dayton or Springfield news reports.


----------



## Destin

waday said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the person had actually been pulling out a shotgun and not a tripod for the express purpose to cause harm, injury, or death to the officer, then this officers life would have been in immediate danger.
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...


So you have the superpower of being able to determine someone's intent? You can read minds?

There are precisely zero reasons for an individual to be across the street from a police officer and pulling out a weapon from their vehicle. Their actual intent is irrelevant. The action of removing a long gun from your vehicle while across from a police officer on a traffic stop automatically causes perceived ill intent. The officer can't read minds and will absolutely assume you intend to cause him harm, and you'll get shot. Every. Single. Time. 

It's sad and unfortunate that it wasn't a weapon in this case. But the officer didn't know that when he pulled the trigger. 

Maybe he acted prematurely. Maybe he didn't. Again, none of us were there and we don't know exactly what happened.


----------



## vintagesnaps

The photographer actually said he didn't 'hear' a warning not that there was no warning; in one report it says the officer flashed his lights, etc. It seems unclear what was accurate; I didn't hear that mentioned on the Dayton news.

Sometimes in early reports of an incident there may be mention of what apparently occurred or what a witness may have thought was heard or seen and it's later clarified. Some of it is unclear or may be inaccurate. In one case it's just one sentence and how it was worded that makes info. relayed elsewhere inaccurate or incomplete. 

edit - The CBS report seems consistent with local news here; the LA Times used the AP report which does also. Some of the others aren't so much. I said the tabloid made some of it up because they reported stuff I couldn't find and they didn't give a source so who knows where they found the info. or how much was accurate or how much was embellished, etc.


----------



## Gary A.

Destin said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the discussion isn't about the difficulties of being a cop, or the dangers of being a cop.  But rather should Deputy Shaw be a cop? To my eye, either Deputy Shaw's training was not sufficient for him to be a cop or Deputy Shaw lacks the proper temperament to be a cop or both.
> 
> There is no reason to purposely use deadly force, when your life or another life is not in eminent danger. If you cannot accept those terms, then maybe you shouldn't be in law enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the person had actually been pulling out a shotgun and not a tripod, then this officers life would have been in immediate danger.
> 
> We now know that it was a tripod, but the officer did not. If he had held his fire and it was a gun, he'd likely be dead now and we'd be mourning the loss of another officer.
> 
> The point here is that a police officer has one chance to make these decisions in a split second. But the Facebook/internet warriors get to watch the video multiple times before making the determination of whether it was the right or wrong call.
> 
> Humans make errors. Humans under stress make more errors. Humans under stress and in fear for their life make even more errors.
> 
> When you're the one making the decision in the dark, under stress, and in real time.. then you can talk crap about the officer. The fact is that police officers are human, and prone to error. They work in extremely difficult conditions and most of them manage to do a hell of a good job with those conditions.
> 
> I'm not defending this officer. That being said, we need to stop Monday morning quarterbacking every decision that police officers make. If you weren't there, then you don't know what happened. Period.
Click to expand...


You do not use deadly force if you do not know. (period)

In the split second or two or thirty ... the deputy should have been trained and have the temperament to use good judgement.  He didn't and luckily the deputy was a bad shot otherwise he'd be facing manslaughter. The deputy made a mistake, it could have been a fatal mistake ... no excuses ... he must own his mistake(s) and if it is the department's fault ... they must own up to it. 

Let's just say it was an open carry state and by an odd set of circumstances the reverse happened and a civilian accidentally shot a deputy ... do you think the department and the DA would let it slide with a civilian defense of ... 

"I thought it was a weapon ..."
"I have a stressful job ..."
"It was dark ..."
"I'm just human and I made a mistake ..."

I think the department and the DA would be all over the civilian shooter. We all make mistakes.  Whether big or small we all have to own those mistakes. 

I am not anti-law enforcement, personally, I feel that law enforcement and teachers should be some of the highest paid positions in our society.  When I need a cop, or when I walk around with a tripod, I want that PhD cop to think before reacting.


----------



## Gary A.

pendennis said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> "Without Any Warning"
> 
> I've worked with law enforcement and under the conditions described by the video and in the story ... there is absolutely no reason to shoot without a warning.  Apparently the cop panicked thinking he was under attack. Deputy Shaw may be a great guy, but possibly a bad cop. One would think that the first action the deputy should take, would be to make himself safe ... hit the deck, get out of the vehicle via the door opposite the danger ... put the engine block between you and the danger ... assess the situation ... call in backup ... verbally confront the danger.
> 
> 
> 
> Not always a good idea.  Depending on the situation, it may be advisable to issue a verbal warning to a suspect.  However, if the situation calls for it, police, even civilians shoot first.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, one does not have to wait for "incoming fire" to bring lethal force to bear.  And there are never, ever warning shots.  And the first shot is aimed at center mass.  Shoot to stop the threat, and keep shooting until the threat is over.
> 
> A number of years ago, I took a self-defense course.  In one of the scenarios, I was placed in a room in which a stranger was some 20 feet away from me.  I had a holstered "weapon", and I could not see the stranger full-faced; he was angled slightly away from me.
> 
> He charged at me wielding a rubber knife, and I never had time to draw my "weapon".  I would have been dead.  Anyone who charges you, within 21 feet, is a lethal threat, and you can be seriously wounded, even killed.  The point of the exercise was to increase situational awareness.
Click to expand...

The suspect was across the street.  The suspect was armed with a tripod.  The deputy incorrectly ascertained the situation and the danger. The deputy was wrong. The deputy needs to own up to his mistake.


----------



## Gary A.

vintagesnaps said:


> The photographer actually said he didn't 'hear' a warning not that there was no warning; in one report it says the officer flashed his lights, etc. It seems unclear what was accurate; I didn't hear that mentioned on the Dayton news.
> 
> Sometimes in early reports of an incident there may be mention of what apparently occurred or what a witness may have thought was heard or seen and it's later clarified. Some of it is unclear or may be inaccurate. In one case it's just one sentence and how it was worded that makes info. relayed elsewhere inaccurate or incomplete.
> 
> edit - The CBS report seems consistent with local news here; the LA Times used the AP report which does also. Some of the others aren't so much. I said the tabloid made some of it up because they reported stuff I couldn't find and they didn't give a source so who knows where they found the info. or how much was accurate or how much was embellished, etc.


According to the Daily Mail article it was Grimm, the photographer who flash his lights at the deputy as well as waved. Nowhere in the Daily Mail article did it mention that either the shooter or the person shot issued a verbal warning. 

... "Grimm is heard trying to explain that he waved at Shaw and flashed his car lights, but he also takes the blame for what happened and tries to protect Shaw."


----------



## pendennis

Gary A. said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the discussion isn't about the difficulties of being a cop, or the dangers of being a cop.  But rather should Deputy Shaw be a cop? To my eye, either Deputy Shaw's training was not sufficient for him to be a cop or Deputy Shaw lacks the proper temperament to be a cop or both.
> 
> There is no reason to purposely use deadly force, when your life or another life is not in eminent danger. If you cannot accept those terms, then maybe you shouldn't be in law enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the person had actually been pulling out a shotgun and not a tripod, then this officers life would have been in immediate danger.
> 
> We now know that it was a tripod, but the officer did not. If he had held his fire and it was a gun, he'd likely be dead now and we'd be mourning the loss of another officer.
> 
> The point here is that a police officer has one chance to make these decisions in a split second. But the Facebook/internet warriors get to watch the video multiple times before making the determination of whether it was the right or wrong call.
> 
> Humans make errors. Humans under stress make more errors. Humans under stress and in fear for their life make even more errors.
> 
> When you're the one making the decision in the dark, under stress, and in real time.. then you can talk crap about the officer. The fact is that police officers are human, and prone to error. They work in extremely difficult conditions and most of them manage to do a hell of a good job with those conditions.
> 
> I'm not defending this officer. That being said, we need to stop Monday morning quarterbacking every decision that police officers make. If you weren't there, then you don't know what happened. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not use deadly force if you do not know. (period)
> 
> In the split second or two or thirty ... the deputy should have been trained and have the temperament to use good judgement.  He didn't and luckily the deputy was a bad shot otherwise he'd be facing manslaughter. The deputy made a mistake, it could have been a fatal mistake ... no excuses ... he must own his mistake(s) and if it is the department's fault ... they must own up to it.
> 
> Let's just say it was an open carry state and by an odd set of circumstances the reverse happened and a civilian accidentally shot a deputy ... do you think the department and the DA would let it slide with a civilian defense of ...
> 
> "I thought it was a weapon ..."
> "I have a stressful job ..."
> "It was dark ..."
> "I'm just human and I made a mistake ..."
> 
> I think the department and the DA would be all over the civilian shooter. We all make mistakes.  Whether big or small we all have to own those mistakes.
> 
> I am not anti-law enforcement, personally, I feel that law enforcement and teachers should be some of the highest paid positions in our society.  When I need a cop, or when I walk around with a tripod, I want that PhD cop to think before reacting.
Click to expand...


This is Monday morning, and no one is a position to make a judgement one way or the other.

The problem with your training statement, is that training only goes so far.  It is never designed to cover every contingency, every condition.

There's an old adage out there that states:  No plan of battle ever survives initial contact...  It's also true of training.  While the officer is supposed to take training to the field, the training never covers all scenarios, and the officer has to ad lib from the day he/she takes to the field.


----------



## smoke665

Gary A. said:


> You do not use deadly force if you do not know.



You know you'd be warmly welcomed if you came for a visit, if I was expecting you or even a surprise visit during reasonable hours . However if you were to break down my door at 3 am and enter my house, I would most definitely use deadly force, without first seeking to determine your intentions. Since that scenario is highly unlikely to happen, I guess we don't have to worry, but the point is not everything is black and white.

The whole police/civilian relationship is more strained then I've seen it in my lifetime. Police are rightly concerned for their safety, the 5 officers killed in Dallas, in 2016, and according to a recent Newsweek article four police officers have already been killed by ambush as of the first of July in 2017.  Overall depending on who you quote officer deaths are up in 2017 between 20-30%. Do a search on under staffing, and you'll find countless articles as municipalities and states deal with lack of funding. So sometimes you don't have the best quality candidates willing to work for the money you have to pay.

Then you have the civilian encounters which even when the police are justifiable get blown out of proportion by the media. I did read some interesting data suggesting that the number of police fatal shooting has increased substantially since 2000, but there doesn't seem to be anyone tracking the ones not justified. However, the stories travel like lighting over social media, and now you have a general population that's uneasy about being around the very people sworn to protect them. 

It's a vicious spiral that's been in the works for several years now.


----------



## smoke665

pendennis said:


> This is Monday morning,



Uhh, point of order, isn't this Wednesday evening???


----------



## SCraig

smoke665 said:


> The whole police/civilian relationship is more strained then I've seen it in my lifetime. Police are rightly concerned for their safety, the 5 officers killed in Dallas, in 2016, and according to a recent Newsweek article four police officers have already been killed by ambush as of the first of July in 2017.  Overall depending on who you quote officer deaths are up in 2017 between 20-30%. Do a search on under staffing, and you'll find countless articles as municipalities and states deal with lack of funding. So sometimes you don't have the best quality candidates willing to work for the money you have to pay.



I've known more police officers than I can possibly remember.  I've shot pistol competitions with them, I've had coffee with them.  I've been to their weddings and I've been to their funerals.  There are some I think the world of and there are some I can't stand to be around.  But all in all I've learned one thing: They aren't monsters and they aren't Gods.  They are people, just like all of us, trying to do a lousy job that most people don't want amidst a chorus of everyone second guessing every move they make.  They do a good job one day and save a life, they do a bad job the next and someone gets hurt.  The former is forgotten in a heartbeat but the latter lives on forever on social media.  People curse them one day and the next day they are screaming for their help.

Was this guy wrong?  Probably.  Did he fear for his life (which is a justifiable defense in many areas)?  Without question.  Will he be fed to the wolves or exonerated?  I already hear the wolves howling.


----------



## Jamesaz

I saw this report on google news I think and it caught my eye as I had an ex-wife from that town. Most surprising a place like New Carlilse has a newspaper photographer.


----------



## Gary A.

Jamesaz said:


> I saw this report on google news I think and it caught my eye as I had an ex-wife from that town. Most surprising a place like New Carlilse has a newspaper photographer.


LOL ... yeah, his father owns the paper. (According to the Daily Mail.)


----------



## Gary A.

SCraig said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole police/civilian relationship is more strained then I've seen it in my lifetime. Police are rightly concerned for their safety, the 5 officers killed in Dallas, in 2016, and according to a recent Newsweek article four police officers have already been killed by ambush as of the first of July in 2017.  Overall depending on who you quote officer deaths are up in 2017 between 20-30%. Do a search on under staffing, and you'll find countless articles as municipalities and states deal with lack of funding. So sometimes you don't have the best quality candidates willing to work for the money you have to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've known more police officers than I can possibly remember.  I've shot pistol competitions with them, I've had coffee with them.  I've been to their weddings and I've been to their funerals.  There are some I think the world of and there are some I can't stand to be around.  But all in all I've learned one thing: They aren't monsters and they aren't Gods.  They are people, just like all of us, trying to do a lousy job that most people don't want amidst a chorus of everyone second guessing every move they make.  They do a good job one day and save a life, they do a bad job the next and someone gets hurt.  The former is forgotten in a heartbeat but the latter lives on forever on social media.  People curse them one day and the next day they are screaming for their help.
> 
> Was this guy wrong?  Probably.  Did he fear for his life (which is a justifiable defense in many areas)?  Without question.  Will he be fed to the wolves or exonerated?  I already hear the wolves howling.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of photographers ... I know a lot of photojournalists. I've been to their weddings ... funerals and everything inbetween.  It is wrong to shoot a photojournalist for pulling a tripod out of their vehicle.


----------



## smoke665

Gary A. said:


> It is wrong to shoot a photojournalist for pulling a tripod out of their vehicle.



Doubt that it will do much for their friendship either going forward


----------



## tirediron

smoke665 said:


> ...Police are rightly concerned for their safety,...


This is the crux of the matter.  Any policeman who is more concerned about his own safety than doing his job correctly shouldn't be a policeman.


----------



## Destin

tirediron said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Police are rightly concerned for their safety,...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the crux of the matter.  Any policeman who is more concerned about his own safety than doing his job correctly shouldn't be a policeman.
Click to expand...


Uhhhh. Literally the first thing taught to any first responder on day one of school is that the number one priority on the job is your own safety. The number two priority is the safety of your fellow first responders. The safety of everyone else comes after those two things. 

Literally the first thing every police officer should be thinking about at ALL times on the job is their own safety. The second the place their focus on something else they can be killed.


----------



## smoke665

tirediron said:


> This is the crux of the matter. Any policeman who is more concerned about his own safety than doing his job correctly shouldn't be a policeman.



I don't believe that's their sole concern, at least not the ones I  know, but it is on their mind as it should be. Police officers are human, they have feelings, they have families jyst like everyone else, that expect them to come home at the end of the day


----------



## vintagesnaps

You can't go by the Daily Mail - it's a tabloid. In the UK no less. 

I'm in SW Ohio, although this relatively small town is north of Dayton and not one I'm familiar with. I looked at a number of area newspaper and TV station websites and some of the info. from the Daily Mail is inconsistent with other local news reports - it does not seem to be reported anywhere locally.  

Can we please let the Ohio AG's office investigate this before drawing definite conclusions? We don't know all the details of exactly what happened and inaccurate info. is already out there.


----------



## Gary A.

For me, due to lack of fact and verifiable fact, this is hypothetical ... what if ...


----------



## Gary A.

smoke665 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the crux of the matter. Any policeman who is more concerned about his own safety than doing his job correctly shouldn't be a policeman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that's their sole concern, at least not the ones I  know, but it is on their mind as it should be. Police officers are human, they have feelings, they have families jyst like everyone else, that expect them to come home at the end of the day
Click to expand...

The photojournalist is also human, with a family ... do you think it's okay for him not to be able to come home safe?  The cop who shot the unarmed photographer made it home safe.


----------



## tirediron

Destin said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Police are rightly concerned for their safety,...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the crux of the matter.  Any policeman who is more concerned about his own safety than doing his job correctly shouldn't be a policeman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhhh. Literally the first thing taught to any first responder on day one of school is that the number one priority on the job is your own safety. The number two priority is the safety of your fellow first responders. The safety of everyone else comes after those two things.
> 
> Literally the first thing every police officer should be thinking about at ALL times on the job is their own safety. The second the place their focus on something else they can be killed.
Click to expand...

And again...  schools used to teach that the earth was flat.  Just because something is taught does NOT mean it's correct.  When you're being paid with public money, it's service before self.  Period.


----------



## Destin

tirediron said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Police are rightly concerned for their safety,...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the crux of the matter.  Any policeman who is more concerned about his own safety than doing his job correctly shouldn't be a policeman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhhh. Literally the first thing taught to any first responder on day one of school is that the number one priority on the job is your own safety. The number two priority is the safety of your fellow first responders. The safety of everyone else comes after those two things.
> 
> Literally the first thing every police officer should be thinking about at ALL times on the job is their own safety. The second the place their focus on something else they can be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again...  schools used to teach that the earth was flat.  Just because something is taught does NOT mean it's correct.  When you're being paid with public money, it's service before self.  Period.
Click to expand...


Would you say the same for the garbage man? The construction worker on the highway? Those working in government offices? Politicians?

Do they have to put their personal safety aside in the name of the greater good? 

Nobody, regardless of how they are paid or what they do, should be expected to take risks with their life. Ones personal safety comes first no matter what. There is no amount of money worth trading away your own safety. Who cares that it's government money they're being paid with.. most of them still only make $40-50k per year which is not nearly enough to put your safety aside in the name of public service. 

The primary goal for any police officer or first responder always has been and always will be to go home safe at the end of the shift. Period. There is no room for debate here.. those who have worked public safety will agree with me. Those who have not have no room to speak on the matter.


----------



## tirediron

Destin said:


> Would you say the same for the garbage man? The construction worker on the highway? Those working in government offices? Politicians?


  Actually, I would say the same for any properly raised, moral person.  BUT...  the difference between fire, police, military, et al and the garbage-man, construction-worker, etc is that in the case of the former, their job is dangerous by design, in the case of others by accident.  In other words, a policeman goes to work (or should) knowing full well that he could be five minutes away from a life-threatening situation; the garbage-man does not need to reasonably expect that.  



Destin said:


> Do they have to put their personal safety aside in the name of the greater good?


Shouldn't everyone?



Destin said:


> Nobody, regardless of how they are paid or what they do, should be expected to take risks with their life. Ones personal safety comes first no matter what. There is no amount of money worth trading away your own safety. Who cares that it's government money they're being paid with.. most of them still only make $40-50k per year which is not nearly enough to put your safety aside in the name of public service.


Thanks for letting me know... that's 30 years of my life wasted.   



Destin said:


> The primary goal for any police officer or first responder always has been and always will be to go home safe at the end of the shift. Period. There is no room for debate here.. those who have worked public safety will agree with me. Those who have not have no room to speak on the matter.


So, if a person (and it matters not whether they're a fireman, policeman, or second deputy assistant burger flipper at McDonald's) is primarily focused on getting home safely, how are they every going to their job, no matter what it is?


----------



## Destin

tirediron said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say the same for the garbage man? The construction worker on the highway? Those working in government offices? Politicians?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I would say the same for any properly raised, moral person.  BUT...  the difference between fire, police, military, et al and the garbage-man, construction-worker, etc is that in the case of the former, their job is dangerous by design, in the case of others by accident.  In other words, a policeman goes to work (or should) knowing full well that he could be five minutes away from a life-threatening situation; the garbage-man does not need to reasonably expect that.
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have to put their personal safety aside in the name of the greater good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shouldn't everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody, regardless of how they are paid or what they do, should be expected to take risks with their life. Ones personal safety comes first no matter what. There is no amount of money worth trading away your own safety. Who cares that it's government money they're being paid with.. most of them still only make $40-50k per year which is not nearly enough to put your safety aside in the name of public service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for letting me know... that's 30 years of my life wasted.
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The primary goal for any police officer or first responder always has been and always will be to go home safe at the end of the shift. Period. There is no room for debate here.. those who have worked public safety will agree with me. Those who have not have no room to speak on the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if a person (and it matters not whether they're a fireman, policeman, or second deputy assistant burger flipper at McDonald's) is primarily focused on getting home safely, how are they every going to their job, no matter what it is?
Click to expand...


I do just fine with taking care of my patients while simultaneously being primarily focused on the safety of myself and my partner. It's called situational awareness. 

Sure I enter people's homes, but I never let someone between me and an exit. I take care of critical patients while going down the road, but I keep my seatbelt on while I do it. You can simultaneously be focused on your safety while doing your job. But when doing your job puts your safety at risk, you stop and your safety comes first every time.


----------



## Derrel

Chicken ***t cops that will SHOOT a man in the dark, because they fear for their own safety. Not enough balls to do the job of police officer, too much of a _shoot first before I get hurt _kind of attitude. So sick of reading all this defending of BAD COPS and poor police training, filtered through the fantasy-like adoration of the cops you've known or heard about.

Not every cop is worth defending. Some of them plant drugs on suspects, tamper with evidence, beat up people, steal their money and drugs, beat their wives, have MAJOR alcoholism issues, etc.etc.. Soooo tired of broad-brush defense of bad police behavior in the face of an obvious "bad shoot". Not every cop deserves a slot on a force.

The cop deserves jail time. The innocent civilian, deserves a healthy settlement. Of course, the bad cop's department will investigate, and most likely will find the officer acted "in a justified manner"...becasue, you know, he "*feared for his life*." As all weenie cops do.

Thank god a girl scout with an iPhone was not on-scene, or she'd likely have been gunned down too.


----------



## Destin

Derrel said:


> Chicken ***t cops that will SHOOT a man in the dark, because they fear for their own safety. Not enough balls to do the job of police officer, too much of a _shoot first before I get hurt _kind of attitude. So sick of reading all this defending of BAD COPS and poor police training, filtered through the fantasy-like adoration of the cops you've known or heard about.
> 
> Not every cop is worth defending. Some of them plant drugs on suspects, tamper with evidence, beat up people, steal their money and drugs, beat their wives, have MAJOR alcoholism issues, etc.etc.. Soooo tired of broad-brush defense of bad police behavior in the face of an obvious "bad shoot". Not every cop deserves a slot on a force.
> 
> The cop deserves jail time. The innocent civilian, deserves a healthy settlement. Of course, the bad cop's department will investigate, and most likely will find the officer acted "in a justified manner"...becasue, you know, he "*feared for his life*." As all weenie cops do.
> 
> Thank god a girl scout with an iPhone was not on-scene, or she'd likely have been gunned down too.



Literally nobody is saying this cop was correct. Those of us who can maintain a level head however, are saying that we should wait to pass judgement because we weren't there. We don't know all the details. We've seen one (really shitty) angle.


----------



## Designer

Destin said:


> Uhhhh. Literally the first thing taught to any first responder on day one of school is that the number one priority on the job is your own safety. The number two priority is the safety of your fellow first responders. The safety of everyone else comes after those two things.
> 
> Literally the first thing every police officer should be thinking about at ALL times on the job is their own safety. The second the place their focus on something else they can be killed.


People tend to overlook the reason police are armed.  Police carry a sidearm to protect their own life and the lives of their fellows.  Simple as that.


----------



## Destin

Designer said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhhh. Literally the first thing taught to any first responder on day one of school is that the number one priority on the job is your own safety. The number two priority is the safety of your fellow first responders. The safety of everyone else comes after those two things.
> 
> Literally the first thing every police officer should be thinking about at ALL times on the job is their own safety. The second the place their focus on something else they can be killed.
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to overlook the reason police are armed.  Police carry a sidearm to protect their own life and the lives of their fellows.  Simple as that.
Click to expand...


And the fact that the surpreme court has already ruled that police officers have no legal obligation to protect citizens. Sounds bad, but its fact.


----------



## ClickAddict

For those saying a cop has to send a letter of intent before drawing their weapon... (ok that was an exaggeration)  and that they should never open fire unless fired upon, please take the time to watch this video.  It was in response to some officers shooting black people pulling out wallets, so there is the racist concept being discussed WHICH I KNOW is not being discussed here but it does describe the whole "shooting first" issue which is the crux of this thread's debate.


----------



## Designer

ClickAddict said:


> ..people pulling out wallets, ..


Here's a good way to get shot:

First; act suspiciously for no apparent reason.
Wear burglar clothes (stocking cap, sweatshirt hood, dark glasses, etc.) even if the weather is mild.
Stay in the shadows and remain partially hidden from view.
When a police officer issues a lawful order, ignore the order and do the opposite.
At some point, reach behind your back to retrieve your wallet, all the while ignoring anything the police officer is saying.
Move quickly, as if your wallet is on fire and you must get it out of your pocket before it burns your pants.


----------



## vintagesnaps

I think I get what Destin's talking about. My type work was with babies and toddlers and parents and in case of say, a fire drill at our building (thankfully never had a real fire), the priority is making sure the kids and families are safe. 

Out in the real world doing home visits, of course the reason to be there was for the kids and their families, but not at risking life and limb. We had a long time director who always told us if anything seems not right, figure out a way to get yourself out of there, then we'll figure out how to deal with the situation. If necessary I could call 911 or call child protective services - glad the only time I had to call was when we were at the door and could see the two toddlers but no adult came to the door. (Turned out the mom just didn't hear us practically beating down the door! and was up by the time a police officer arrived.) So we didn't take it so far as to try to break in, but had to wait for assistance in that case. 

You do what you can but yeah, there were days I was glad to get the heck out of Dodge. There's always something on the news about drug related shootings etc. and I'm usually going, yeah, been there, know that neighborhood well... Closest I ever came was passing a guy who nodded to me and I nodded back and then the last several feet to the car it's dawning on me, did I see a gun under his jacket? I didn't wait around to find out if he was the friendly neighborhood drug dealer or what. It's dicey out there (depending on where your 'out there' happens to be). And some of this stuff happens in broad daylight when it didn't used to. We learned how to keep ourselves safe as part of the job.


----------



## TheLibrarian

Destin said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Police are rightly concerned for their safety,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say the same for the garbage man? The construction worker on the highway? Those working in government offices? Politicians?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a hot one. yes, I'd say the same for the garbage man etc they shouldn't go around killing people or shooting people either. Further the cops life was never threatened by a tripod. There are plenty of places it is legal to walk around with your rifle or six guns and you need to be able to walk around those places without being in total fear for your life all the time and shooting everyone. those bad neighborhoods you have to go into sometimes as a paramedic, many people live their everyday. It's no excuse for the poors to run around killing each other don't see any reason to give privilage to the cops. Although i'm sure much inner city crime is due to the same type of fear and suspicion the people face in their interactions with each other same as the cops face but again nobodies out making excuses for the average person growing up in gangland. We say it's unfortunate, we say maybe we understand how it happened in a hollywood movie but nobodies being let off the way cops are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## VidThreeNorth

This is the latest that I have read about this:

*"Sheriff's Deputy who shot photographer won't face criminal charges" *Published Apr 2, 2018 DPreview.com by Brittany Hillen

Sheriff's Deputy who shot photographer won't face criminal charges


----------



## zombiesniper

Failure of the system.


----------



## Destin

zombiesniper said:


> Failure of the system.



Strongly disagree. 

Without being there and seeing what the officer saw it’s hard to say. I’m sure there was a thorough investigation conducted. When it’s dark out and there are flashing lights around it can be hard to be 100% sure what you’re seeing.

This was an unfortunate series of events. Retraining is needed no doubt. But it wasn’t criminal.


----------



## zombiesniper

We each have our opinion.
Mine is the officer should NEVER be allowed to fire unless a confirmed threat is present. 
I don't think that is to much to ask of someone that is properly trained........it's exactly the mandate I had while in the military.


----------



## dennybeall

zombiesniper said:


> We each have our opinion.
> Mine is the officer should NEVER be allowed to fire unless a confirmed threat is present.
> /QUOTE]
> I can see it now "Excuse me Mr Bank Robber but are you really sure you're going to shoot?" "I really need to confirm that you're a threat, just looking like a threat is not enough.."
> You can't judge without complete information. To pick out a portion of an event and disregard the rest is just not right.


----------



## tirediron

zombiesniper said:


> We each have our opinion.
> Mine is the officer should NEVER be allowed to fire unless a confirmed threat is present.
> I don't think that is to much to ask of someone that is properly trained........it's exactly the mandate I had while in the military.


Exactly!  5-6 folks in an un-armored vehicle conducting a patrol in an area where they KNOW they're being tracked by multiple hostiles, but there are no rounds incoming, so they are not permitted to engage.  At the end of the day, if you're so worried about your personal safety that you'd rather engage a _*possible*_ threat with deadly force than wait and determine what, if any threat really exists...    you're in the wrong job!


----------



## Destin

tirediron said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We each have our opinion.
> Mine is the officer should NEVER be allowed to fire unless a confirmed threat is present.
> I don't think that is to much to ask of someone that is properly trained........it's exactly the mandate I had while in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  5-6 folks in an un-armored vehicle conducting a patrol in an area where they KNOW they're being tracked by multiple hostiles, but there are no rounds incoming, so they are not permitted to engage.  At the end of the day, if you're so worried about your personal safety that you'd rather engage a _*possible*_ threat with deadly force than wait and determine what, if any threat really exists...    you're in the wrong job!
Click to expand...



Except for that in the dark you likely won’t know whether it’s a real or perceived threat until you’ve been shot. 

Sorry, but someone reaching for an unknown object and continuing to do so despite being ordered to stop must automatically be considered a lethal threat. 

Again; I’m not saying that this officer was correct in his actions. It may warrant retraining, internal punishment, or even loss of his job. But his actions were certainly not criminal or deserving of charges.


----------



## BrentC

Destin said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We each have our opinion.
> Mine is the officer should NEVER be allowed to fire unless a confirmed threat is present.
> I don't think that is to much to ask of someone that is properly trained........it's exactly the mandate I had while in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  5-6 folks in an un-armored vehicle conducting a patrol in an area where they KNOW they're being tracked by multiple hostiles, but there are no rounds incoming, so they are not permitted to engage.  At the end of the day, if you're so worried about your personal safety that you'd rather engage a _*possible*_ threat with deadly force than wait and determine what, if any threat really exists...    you're in the wrong job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except for that in the dark you likely won’t know whether it’s a real or perceived threat until you’ve been shot.
> 
> Sorry, but someone reaching for an unknown object and continuing to do so despite being ordered to stop must automatically be considered a lethal threat.
> 
> Again; I’m not saying that this officer was correct in his actions. It may warrant retraining, internal punishment, or even loss of his job. But his actions were certainly not criminal or deserving of charges.
Click to expand...


Except the officer gave no warning.   Shot first.  And he was suing for excessive force and only asking money to pay for his medical bills.  Not for him to go to jail.  So not only does he get shot with no warning he had to pay his own medical bills.
If the officer took a few seconds to assess the situation this could have been averted.
It seems like police in the States are trained differently then in Canada.   Reading comments around the web a lot of Americans seem to want to put the blame on the photographer which just blows my mind.


----------



## terri

Since the outcome of the original post is now known, I think this thread has run the course.   It's also teetering into political commentary, which we prefer to keep off the site.

Thanks to all who commented. Closed.


----------

