Replies

I haven't been on in a while and i guess I should not say any thing but you seem to be stepping hard a on some people saying how stupid they are that they expected the policeman to do something more than he done that they had no right to expect him to place his life in danger that he might get killed.

You also said if the guy was 30 ft away he wouldn't have much of a chance of hitting him with his handgun.

Well I should not say anything; but the more you post the harder you come down on people which seems a little off for you and I;ll try to take a little heat off the others.

To say the officer has no obligation to place himself in a situation where he may get in a gun fight is not really right.

He knowingly chose a job that was very good chance that it could happen and was certainly one of the risks might have to take.

This is like those people who sign up for our volunteer military in the past during peace time to see the world dress up like a real soldier and then screaming their heads when a conflict breaks out and bullets start flying saying this ain't fair didn't sign up for this.

Also you imply that he would be committing suicide to have to go in the building because the guy would have seen him and if he could not get closer than thirty feet he would have little chance of hitting him or doing any good.

Yes the guy with the rifle most of the time has the advantage over the guy with the handgun but not always.

If you think that a .45 auto, 357 .44 or.45 revolver are not capable against a man size target at ranges of fifty to a hundred yards with standard iron sights then you haven't done much shooting or been trained around men who can really shoot.

I mean come on, most clubs and private ranges have the old 100yd gong and some years before these wonderful computer lathes and ugly but light plastic marvels, I have seen guys pull out their little Beretta .25's and Colt 380's auto backup and 2".38's and play Johnnie Come Marching Home in b flat. Lets not forget this officer was a veteran police officer and this was an untrained 19 coward proved by the targets he chose and he didn't expect any one to show up very quickly and with all the running and screaming and him shooting he was focusing on them and this should have able to tell from the shots and yells where he was located and to approached without being surprised.

I guess what really bothered me was I believe was thinking about his retirement and the money.

I mean he tried to say he done what he thought was best and I might have given him benefit of the doubt I usually do to most people, especially our policemen my Dad was one for a number of years and my brother and nephew were firemen and retired from them.

But this guy had no intention to stand by his statement but resigned as quickly as he could after his statement.

He ran before any thing could be looked into to see if he acted inan appropriate manner.

If he stayed and it was found that he did not do his job if fired he could lose probably half of his retirement even more if it was a serious breech.

So he did not even wait to see if he would be even investigated but resigned and locked in his 75% of his eighty thousand a year retirement.

As Quick as it happened he had to be in process or finished before his speech.

We seen what happened when a real police approached him with no cover with his weapon in this little monsters face he stuck his nose in the dirt.

I'm not trying to make this guy the scapegoat but there is a load of that to be wrapped around the FBI and local police who needs to be where they were at the beginning reduced unarmed and behind a desk doing lab and paper work to support the states police organizations.

Since the 1960's most of what they and the CIA seem to do is spy on Americans for the democrat and republican election committees , refuse to cooperate with each while trying to get the biggest chunk of the budget money and to bust the whistle blowers and cover up the crimes that they expose committed by our politicians.

I haven't been on in a while and i guess I should not say any thing but you seem to be stepping hard on some people saying how stupid they are that they expected the policeman to do something more than he done that they had no right to expect him to place his life in danger that he might get killed.

You should be voicing your opinion just like everyone else. It isn't the idea he shouldn't have placed his life in danger so much as the reality him doing so may not have had any positive effect here. Him getting killed and the shootings continuing would not have been productive. It would have merely added one more to the body count.

You also said if the guy was 30 ft away he wouldn't have much of a chance of hitting him with his handgun.

Over the last year or so, I've read some rather shocking (at least to me) stats on police shootings. Rounds miss a whole lot more than I had thought, what with them going to the range rather often, and having to meet requirments for such things. A guy with a rifle is much more likely to hit center mass over and over. That was where I was coming from here.

Well I should not say anything; but the more you post the harder you come down on people which seems a little off for you and I;ll try to take a little heat off the others.

Again, I appreciate your comments. So far I have no problem with them. I try not to come down on folks harder than they come down on me. You may find places where I did, and I don't object to be called on it when I do.

To say the officer has no obligation to place himself in a situation where he may get in a gun fight is not really right.

I have not tried to make such a claim. What I have tried to mention is if the room is 60 feet from cover, it's just plain suicide for an officer to go up against a guy with a rifle from that range. Entering into a lethal situation where you have a chance of prevailing is reasoned. Entering into one where you can't prevail, you'll just wind up dead without ending the killing, is a waste. I would not support that.

He knowingly chose a job that was very good chance that it could happen and was certainly one of the risks might have to take.

He knowingly chose a job where he could help kids in trouble, IF it was feasible to do so. He did not sign on to a job that required him to commit suicide at some point. Just because and officer is armed, he is not 100% required to enter into a situation when there is not hope of success. If the circumstances are such that there is a 'reasoned' chance of success, then by all means go for it.

This is like those people who sign up for our volunteer military in the past during peace time to see the world dress up like a real soldier and then screaming their heads when a conflict breaks out and bullets start flying saying this ain't fair didn't sign up for this.

Not really. I do get the seeming equivelancy, but even in live fire situations, there are more reasoned situations than others. In a military setting there can be live fire skirmishes, but there is a plan and at least a reasoned chance of success in most instances. Sometimes you're asked to enter into action where there is a low chance of success, but then it's to advance a cause that will be affected favorably, even if your demise occurs. In this situation with the deputy we may have been looking at sure demise with very little likelihood of overall positive impact. I get where you were headed, but I think it is different for several reasons.

Also you imply that he would be committing suicide to have to go in the building because the guy would have seen him and if he could not get closer than thirty feet he would have little chance of hitting him or doing any good.

Yes the guy with the rifle most of the time has the advantage over the guy with the handgun but not always.

If you think that a .45 auto, 357 .44 or.45 revolver are not capable against a man size target at ranges of fifty to a hundred yards with standard iron sights then you haven't done much shooting or been trained around men who can really shoot.

Shooting on the rage is great practice. I'm not going to deny you have a point there. When it comes to high pressure situations, the stats show that officers do not meet their normal range performances. Now I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I read a number of articles on this in 2017, and I was very suprised at how hard it is to hit the target when you're in a life-threatening situation. While I said 30 feet, and I think you could take me to task on that range, this could have been a situation where upwars of 60-90 feet could have been involved. In a pressure situation, I think it's very iffy if a handgun could prevail..

I mean come on, most clubs and private ranges have the old 100yd gong and some years before these wonderful computer lathes and ugly but light plastic marvels, I have seen guys pull out their little Beretta .25's and Colt 380's auto backup and 2".38's and play Johnnie Come Marching Home in b flat. Lets not forget this officer was a veteran police officer and this was an untrained 19 coward proved by the targets he chose and he didn't expect any one to show up very quickly and with all the running and screaming and him shooting he was focusing on them and this should have able to tell from the shots and yells where he was located and to approached without being surprised.

Upon entering a room, you have to open the door. Some of those rooms really echo, when the door is opened. So when you do so, the shooter is alerted, and all they have to do is point at the door, adjust and shoot as you enter. You have to scan the room, adjust your stance, and fire. The shooter has enough of a drop on you to place 5-7 shots into you before you know what's even happened. This guy could be called a coward because of his targets, but he was a lone person using lethal force, was likely sure to be confronted, and arrested, if not killed outright. I'm not sure I'd go with coward. He was willing to die doing this. He was definitely screwed up in the head, and perhaps hell bent on a police involved suicide.

I guess what really bothered me was I believe was thinking about his retirement and the money.

Would you be thinking of your retirement? Why is it you think this guy had to be? Perhaps knowing the layout and all the considerations I've mentioned, he saw the futility in taking the action some folks think he was obligated to.

I mean he tried to say he done what he thought was best and I might have given him benefit of the doubt I usually do to most people, especially our policemen my Dad was one for a number of years and my brother and nephew were firemen and retired from them.

But this guy had no intention to stand by his statement but resigned as quickly as he could after his statement.

He ran before any thing could be looked into to see if he acted in an appropriate manner.

What I would respond with here, is that he may have seen internals on the Sheriff's attitude, and decided it was best to resign. If your own people aren't going to stand behind you, you have no choice. I want to touch on that too. The police department(s) down there didn't lift a finger to stop this kid from doing what he did. So what we have here is a very tainted department(s) going after this guy, when they themselves could have prevented this easily. I'm simply not buying this righteous indignation down there. There's a ton of blame to go around, and in light of that, it's my position everyone should shut up until the heads roll across about ten different entities. And head should roll across them. I've listed some agencies at the bottom that have complicity in this..

If he stayed and it was found that he did not do his job if fired he could lose probably half of his retirement even more if it was a serious breech.

So he did not even wait to see if he would be even investigated but resigned and locked in his 75% of his eighty thousand a year retirement.

I believe that you, I, and anyone else who goes through life should be able to defend themselves to the extent they can. This guy put in many years of service, had a good record, and had an incident pop up on one day. I'm not convinced he should forfeit his pension based on one bad day out of roughly 12,500 days.

As Quick as it happened he had to be in process or finished before his speech.

If he could read the tea leaves from his superiors, he was probably smart to do so. I've seen superiors sell out their employees on a whim, so this wouldn't be the first time I've seen superiors do something questionable to cover their own posteriors. I will say that this is my take on it right now. Over time I may alter my opinion of this, but I am not near convinced he should lose his pension.

We seen what happened when a real police approached him with no cover with his weapon in this little monsters face he stuck his nose in the dirt.

I did not see that, but I would be interesed in how that scene played out. Was one officer alone? Did he have the drop on the guy?

I'm not trying to make this guy the scapegoat but there is a load of that to be wrapped around the FBI and local police who needs to be where they were at the beginning reduced unarmed and behind a desk doing lab and paper work to support the states police organizations.

I'm not sure I understood this accurately, but I believe you were saying there's blame in a number of places here. Again, I have mentioned some entities below that stuck out to me. We're not all going to agree on this. The reason I entered this thread was because I was seeing a lot of folks trashing this guy, and I wasn't convinced he was as bad a guy as they were trying to make him out to be. On certain issues I'll take a pass, if it looks like both sides are getting some play. Here it didn't seem like that, so I jumped in..

Since the 1960's most of what they and the CIA seem to do is spy on Americans for the democrat and republican election committees , refuse to cooperate with each while trying to get the biggest chunk of the budget money and to bust the whistle blowers and cover up the crimes that they expose committed by our politicians.

I agree with the the general outline of that. I think we could both go a lot deeper on it, especially right now with this Russia Collusionn game going on, and Mueller being completely out of control.

Thank you for your thoughts on this.

Entities that are culpable here:

The FBI
The sheriff's department
The local police department
The local D. A.'s office
The local courts (judges have the discretion to put a guy like this on probation)
The probation department
The school system
The local family services department
The foster child placement system
The former foster parents
The current foster parents

Individuals in each of these agencies are required by law to report individuals that could be a threat to children.

Every person who reviewed this kid, should be fired for not making sure he didn't fall through the cracks, being the threat he was.