Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://ellegon.com/forum/

"Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.
http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14226
Page 2 of 2

Author:  mrokern [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.

joelr wrote:
Erik_Pakieser wrote:
joelr wrote:
As I suggested in my comment there, when the non-warrior-type instructors tell folks to avoid holding somebody at gunpoint, we do have reasons.


I teach students, when confronted with a surrendering subject, to say "GET OUT OF HERE, THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY" and then position themselves so the subject has a clear exit path away from them. I also teach them how to greet the police in a non-threatning manner.

Good. Some of the warrior-type instructors spend a lot of time on subjects like How to Hold a Subject at Gunpoint, to the exclusion of Only a Moron Holds a Guy at Gunpoint if He Doesn't Have to, and Here's How Not to Do That Stupid Thing, which, in my considered opinion, is a far more useful skill (and an easier one) for civilian permit holders.


Spot on.

My carry-related fears, in order:

#1: Fail to defend family
#2: Fail to defend self

Both of those are almost incomprehensibly awful thoughts.

#3: Have to shoot bad guy

Not good for lots of reasons, but if it comes down to that or #1 / #2, bad guy is going to have a really bad day.

#4: Have to hold bad guy at gunpoint

Yeah, because I WANT to get shot by police. Right. :?

Run, bad guy, run.

-Mark

Author:  a911scanner [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.

mrokern wrote:
Run, bad guy, run.

-Mark


Do you suppose his leg braces fall off when he's running away? :mrgreen:


MM

Author:  BrianB [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.

a911scanner wrote:
mrokern wrote:
Run, bad guy, run.

-Mark


Do you suppose his leg braces fall off when he's running away? :mrgreen:


MM



:lol: now that's funny

Author:  mrokern [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.

a911scanner wrote:
mrokern wrote:
Run, bad guy, run.

-Mark


Do you suppose his leg braces fall off when he's running away? :mrgreen:


MM


I hope so, then the cops might actually catch him... :mrgreen:

Author:  Chunkychuck [ Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.

Saw a report on this in another forum so I googled for the news story.

Officer Cleared In Shooting
Brian Lilly Acted Within Police Policy, Board Determines

POSTED: 8:10 pm MST September 25, 2009
UPDATED: 4:36 am MST September 26, 2009
facebook
del.icio.us
buzz
digg
reddit
›› Email
›› Print
PHOENIX -- A Phoenix police officer who mistakenly shot an armed homeowner during a search for an intruder has been cleared of wrongdoing by a committee that reviews officer-involved shootings.

This week's ruling by the Phoenix Use of Force Board determined Officer Brian Lilly acted within police policy in the incident in which he fired six shots at the homeowner amid the confusion of a home invasion last September.

The shooting hospitalized homeowner Tony Arambula, who earlier this year sought a $5.75 million settlement in the case.

The 36-year-old Arambula says he was armed and holding a suspect at bay when he suffered gunshot wounds to his back and arm.

Arambula claimed Lilly shot him twice as he lay bleeding on the floor of his living room with his wife and two young sons nearby.

Lilly has been named in a lawsuit filed by Arambula last week in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Author:  jdege [ Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.

Chunkychuck wrote:
This week's ruling by the Phoenix Use of Force Board determined Officer Brian Lilly acted within police policy in the incident in which he fired six shots at the homeowner amid the confusion of a home invasion last September.

I can see an argument for the position that the shooting was an understandable mistake.

I can see no argument for the position that the attempted coverup was anything other than an intentional crime.

Author:  JonL [ Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.

joelr wrote:
It wasn't just a cheap shot -- was the response from the trainer "Well, that's a flunk," or "Nice job -- you've gotta make sure you go home that night"? I'd like to think it was the first, but . . .

+1
8)

Author:  mrokern [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:58 am ]
Post subject:  Cop shoots homeowner, homeowner suing the crap out of him...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/10/09/pn.cop.shoots.homeowner.cnn

What the fuck. That motherfucker needs to lose his damn badge, and be locked up for a good long time. Hope the bastard loses everything in the lawsuit.

Incompetent person of fecal craniality.

Yeah, this kind of crap pisses me off.

-Mark

Author:  tman065 [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.

Great "legal" tactic, too, having the wife and her husband's attorney pimp the media...

I agree with Mark.

Author:  mrokern [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Oops," he explained. Well, not quite.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to admit that LEOs have a tough job. But to go in the door and open fire without assessing the situation... :evil:

This is why I tell my students that the thing I fear just as much if not even more than having to shoot someone is having to hold someone at gunpoint while waiting for the police to arrive.

-Mark

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/