Arizona cop kills man armed... with a baby.

Actually, they only "knew" that neighbors had "reported" that he had a gun.

The police didn't see a gun until after the guy had already been greased.

Actually, yes, it is.

Yes because he was the one with the rifle and the skills to make a shot at a guy who [-]has a kid.[/-] who was watching his grandson.

Did you stop to think about that? Of course you didn't.

You just assume that cops will always shoot with each other at the same time.
[/quote]

The tactical situation is that the guy with the rifle was 18 feet away. The other officers were actually closer. All of them were certainly within range to fire.

Only one of them did. And as this guy is not SWAT, he's not the designated marksman - this isn't the guy on the

And again the officers had a reasonable belief that the concealed hand still held the gun they were told he had. [/quote]

Which he didn't.

And which story is it?

Did they think the guy had something in his hand?

Or did they think he was reaching for a gun?

Witnesses are notorious for not getting things right. [/quote]

And bad cops are notorious for lying about their activities.

Sounds like he came outside, bent over, and was shot before anyone could say anything.

Because of that dangerous weapon that was definitely not on him but could have been somewhere at sometime.

The media is quoting the police, it's said explicitly, and multiple media reports have the same assertion, that they saw a 'black object' that they believe was a weapon, but then the official police statement now doesn't mention that and instead says he was bending over for something.

But then, you are on record for supporting no knock warrants that means anyone's house at any time can be invaded by the police.

Nice to know we can be killed whenever a police officer has a belief.

The guy might not be found criminally suspect, but he sure as fuck isn't justified.

He's the one with the rifle at the situation. SWAT or not he's the one whose got a better shot of hitting the guy without hitting the kid.

And contrary to what you think just because one cop fires doesn't mean all cops will fire at the same time.

Don't try and change things. He had a concealed hand and they believed he had a gun on him. He made a stupid move and got shot for it.

Again with the wild assumption that these are bad cops.

Feel free to do a search of this board and find one instance where I support no knock warrants for anything other then terrorism or hostage situations.

Fucking idiots with short memories plague this board......

He's more then justified.

And if you were in his shoes as a civilian you'd be justified too.

The standards you guys want for shootings is so high that it would lead to officers and people (since both use the same laws regarding deadly force) that it would lead to a lot of officers and people dying.

Vaguely similar incident in Teaneck, NJ, many years ago. Cops were called because someone saw a bunch of "youths" hanging out in a parking lot at 2AM, and one of them had a gun.

Police show up, the kids run away. The police yell halt. One kid spins around to face them. Since the call was for kids with a gun, one of the officers assumes he's about to be shot at. He draws and fires. The kid is in the process of turning away again to continue running when the bullet hits him (IIRC) in the lower side toward the back.

The kid was, as it happens, unarmed. The "furtive movement" was enough to cue the cop to possible danger.

His fellow officers disagreed with him, as it turns out, and no one else fired. Maybe they could see his hands were empty and the one cop couldn't, I don't know. The kid died and Al Sharpton came to Teaneck and caused a riot.

Personally, I can't blame the cop - 2AM, a rowdy gang, and someone saw a gun - As soon as the cops hear there may be a gun they're going to be extra ready.

You keep saying the hand was concealed, but the cops said they saw an object in the hand. Clearly, at some point, the hand was not concealed. The hand was also empty. Whatever he had in his house is irrelevant. That is not why the cops shot him. They shot him because they fucked up and imagined an object in an empty hand from 20 feet away.

If I killed a guy because I thought he had a weapon I'd be justified, even if there wasn't a weapon?

No, I'd be facing manslaughter, IF they believed me.

The hand was concealed until he turned to go inside. Once he started turning the officer was able to see the hand and thinking he's seeing a weapon he fires the shot.

Again as I've already said up thread that you obviously couldn't be bothered to read:

Yes. You've got a guy who just previously was pointing a weapon at you or someone else and then he's there arguing with you while one or both his hands are concealed. He then makes a move and you shoot him.

Yes you would be justified in such a situation.

The guy has previously brandished a weapon and made threats and now he's arguing with you while concealing his hands. It's reasonable for you to assume that he's still concealing the weapon.

Are you seriously accusing someone else of making "wild-assed assumptions"? Wasn't it you that just suggested he might of been going in his house to molest his grandson? Talk about a wild assumption that is outta left field... Also if that was the intention then there is not a reason for deadly force as the cops could easily have just rushed him to stop that from occurring.

I would contend that you don't "err" on the side of anything in this case. You keep a calm head and don't let off rounds in the direction of an infant, even if it might mean taking a bullet yourself. That, at the root of it, is what that whole 'protect and serve' thing is all about, right?

On a lighter note, I just have to go there.

So, was the shooting Justified?

What's really impressive is this:
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/article_71c58131-e72e-5621-bed4-777ca5735747.html

No recent stats, but as of 2006, this police officer was involved in 4 of the 5 most recent shootings in Scottsdale. Department of 430 or so, but 80% of the fatal shootings between 2002 and 2006 were from one guy?

Note that is different than the later statement, that the suspect fired first.

They saw his hand. They thought they saw an object in it. They were wrong.

Bullshit.

About the only place that would be applicable is if I was in my own house. As a citizen I am expected to walk away from that argument.

You don't know shit about the law.

Either way the guy was in the wrong. Which is why the family didn't get $8 million and settled on some technical issue for $75 thousand.

Again we are reading media reports. I want to see the actual District Attorney report. That's the only thing that counts.

I do know the law.

Perhaps your state is one of the few left with the retreat laws. If so you should work to change them.

In my state and most of this country you don't have to walk away.

I will say it would be smart to walk away because a shootout isn't worth it. Just don't turn your back on the person. Keep walking backwards. He's already been waving a gun around. Turn your back and he might decide to shoot you. However you're not required to retreat from where you are legally allowed to be.

Of course your state might still be one of the stupid ones that demands one retreat. Sucks to be you if that is true.

Is that your personal opinion, or do you say that with a strong background of the applicable laws of your jurisdiction?

Then it should be a 10 second internet search for you to cite it, no?

Remember, I've already specified 'unless you are in your home.' Castle doctrine does not apply.

To site what?

Stand your ground laws?

So 1/3rd of the States have a Stand Your Ground, not 'most' as you cited.

That's one of the two components of this.

The other being that it only requires the perception of a lethal attack, even when said perception isn't justified.

Cross index these two issues, and those are the states that would allow you to kill a man because you believe he had a weapon and had intent to attack.

Even then, if the DA doesn't concur that there is a valid reason to believe you were in harm's way, you'd still be charged.

I'll concede that it isn't most states. Thought there was more then that.

He could of traded the gun for the baby, after deciding to put a round in the baby, or lock himself in and start shooting at anything outside the windows. If this had ended with "Man Shoots Baby After Police Fail to Act", you'd still blame the police.

And what was you combat situation? Deciding to shoot into the sock or the wadded tissue?

I say it from having read up on shootings for many years. When a shooting is tried, the shooter's perception of the threat is given a great deal of weight. Even if the shootee ends up having been unarmed, if the shooter can prove that he was convinced that the shootee was armed, and/or a threat, the shooting can be considered justified.

If the officer is dead, how do they protect and serve. And one of the most important things you get taught as an LEO, everyone goes home, meaning the officers. How does a dead officer and a possibly dead hostage improve the situation. If the officer is dead, then there's a criminal who is being confronted and held at bay to protect others. You don't serve the interest of the criminal, you serve the interest of the public by removing the criminal and the danger they possess.

I don't blame the police for the actions of crazy people. If he hurt the baby I wouldn't be out calling for their badges.

And I don't need to trade war stories with you, everyone here that matters knows already.

Dirty Harry: "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross."

Baby in left, reaching to the right, with a baby in his left that leaves his right hand reaching to right. Officers are trained to respond before something happens, not after. With the situation their response was the correct one. The suspect knew who they were and acted like an ass, they responded to prevent a possible death of a baby or others. They acted on the side of caution.