Skip to comments.Disabled Vietnam vet, 70, shot in the stomach by police
Posted on 02/27/2014 9:09:04 AM PST by Teotwawki
A disabled Vietnam vet was shot in the stomach by police in South Carolina as he reached for his cane during a traffic stop...[snip...The 24-year-old deputy believed the elderly man was trying to grab a rifle from the back of his pick up truck and fired at him, with one bullet striking Mr Canipe.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Comment: Fortunately the cop was able to make it home safely to his family and that's what really matters.
up till now Barney was limited to practicing his quick draw in front of a mirror.
OR how about “We don’t know the whole story.” That’s a favorite with the cops suckers
“Mr Faris described the incident as ‘very unfortunate,’ and added: ‘It does appear, at this time, that Deputy Knox’s actions were an appropriate response to what he reasonably believed to be an imminent threat to his life.’”
Uh huh. Reasonable. NOT.
Did this cop actually SEE a rifle. Or just THINK he thought the man was reaching for a gun. Just reaching and not seeing is no reason to pull out his weapon and fire. He has to have seen a weapon, thus believing his life in jeopardy. But, swinging a rifle around to point it out the window of a pickup truck would have been a feat in its own right.
Any logical reason why this was being reported by a UK paper and not from the US?
I don’t get stopped very often; but when I do I turn off the engine and place both hands on the steering wheel. Any other movements are signaled to the police before I move. Heard this advice on one of those cop shows on TV.
Trigger-Happy Cop Meets
Now that`s a Fair Fight!
Oh I forgot-
trigger-happy cops don`t go after criminals-
they go after unarmed law-abiding citizens -
Sorry- never Mind....
It’s beast not to reach for anything if covered by cops.
I haul my 2 labs around with me all the time. I would truly fear for their safety during a traffic stop. I want nothing to do with today’s police at all. They can go to blazes.
The Deputy lost control of the situation from the get-go. Mr. Canipe should have been instructed to remain in the truck.
Since when does an officer’s safety override every other possible concern, such as the life of a non-violent civilian pulled over for a simple traffic stop? So the officer feared for his life. What if that fear isn’t rational? Maybe someone who handles rifles more often than me can explain it, but what chance would someone have of grabbing a rifle, pointing it, and firing it accurately at a policeman who already had their weapon pulled and carefully aimed at said person? You’d think the officer could wait a few milliseconds to see if that rifle was in fact...a cane.
That may be the right answer, but it ain't logical...
We dont know the whole story.
That’s actually appropriate when the story seems contradictory or is missing key details. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
There were earlier threads on this incident. The fact that he was disabled and happened to be a Veteran was, for some reason omitted. But that is neither here or there. The important thing was that the deputy got to shoot someone and got home safe.
> All the good guys must not want to be cops anymore.
Why would any honorable good guy want to be one of Darth Vader’s Storm Troopers?
“But, swinging a rifle around to point it out the window of a pickup truck would have been a feat in its own right.”
Sometimes it pays to read the article before posting ....
It is early, they will be here with that one.
The guy didn’t deserve to be shot simple for reaching for a cane, but you make a valid point. I’ve been excoriated for writing the same thing. In an ideal world, the police wouldn’t be so quick to resort to violence, but this isn’t an ideal world. People would be wise to #1 avoid dealing with police or the justice system as much as humanly possible and #2 carefully listen, think, and remain calm if forced to interact with them.
“Any logical reason why this was being reported by a UK paper and not from the US?”
Yeah, The US and UK media have a deal. Each of them report on what’s going on in the other’s country. Keeps them from having to do any serious vetting of what they print and makes certain that they cannot be sued for any yellow journalism.
‘effing LEOs,,, they better start being nice ...
Even if it WAS a rifle—which it was not—what business does a cop have shooting a man who is picking up his rifle from the back of his truck? The guy obviously wasn’t threatening anyone. Maybe he was just carrying the rifle back there and planning to carry it to his home or something.
This cop has NO excuse.
A few years ago I had a young guy working for me as an electrical tech. He was really incompetent and careless. The day before I planned on firing him, he came to me and tendered his resignation. He’d passed the Municipal Police Academy Entrance Exam and had an offer to work as a cop.
The UK papers will report on incidents our papers don't want to touch.
However, It was reported earlier in the Myrtle Beach, SC newspaper.
“I want nothing to do with todays police at all. They can go to blazes.”
You took the words right out of my mouth. Every decent person’s goal should be to never have any contact with any of them.
You make a valid point.
Now THAT makes sense.
We need to use caution when interacting with those who are sworn to "protect and serve".
Whilst I am a great admirer of all (well, many) things American, this is one thing that we Brits have over the Americans. Our press is still genuinely investigative and pluralistic. The American press is servile and manages to be both sensationalist and boring at the same time. Even ‘the Guardian’ still does good stuff occasionally, like exposing what GCHQ and the NSA was doing when no American newspaper would touch it.
I hope it will remain thus, but I have my doubts because once the Royal Charter on the press comes into effect in 2015 as a result of the recent hacking scandal, the press might start acting in a more subdued manner...
We have completely "lost the bubble" on this one. Police officers are not better citizens, nor are they justified in violating other citizen's rights simply on the slight possibility that an old guy is reaching for a rifle instead of his cane. The cop in question had many other options available but chose to fire multiple shots instead of all the other potential options (such as taking cover, moving forward to seize the "weapon" if he/she was close enough, etc.).
This kind of atrocity needs to be stopped and the police who perpetrate it charged with a crime. If this can't be done, our Constitution means nothing.
Sounds like a song verse waiting for a Political Rock Opera to be built around it.
No arguement from me. But I wish to be proactive in protecting myself. I find I am really being a careful driver these days. I want to avoid having any contact with them. Everyone needs to protect themselves.
I read the UK Mail everyday to find out what is going on here.
Did this officer already have his weapon drawn??? If so, what made him unholster the weapon in the first place?
If he did not have the weapon drawn, did he give loud, strong verbal warning when the 70 year old man reached for the object??? Or did he draw and shoot as fast as he could???
At either rate, the officer should be charged with either murder or manslaughter....
I guess this cop comes across a lot of people who carry their rifles in the beds of their pick-up trucks. Gun racks are just too damned expensive.
Same here, a Boxer and Cane Corso Italian Mastiff.
They are Cujo x 20 when in the truck, even if Me or Mama is in it. Even worse when parked and on Guard Duty. No need to lock it or set the alarm.
Rue the day any cop (and it’s family) that shoot My Dogs.
Yes, be sure to tell Massa Officer that you want to get your cane. Maybe Massa Officer will approve if you first beg for the privilege.
We used to be a nation of free men and women.
Yep, the same “advise” given to slaves should they encounter a “superior” in the 1800s.
“Make sure you don’t make threatening movements around Massa. Don’t be uppity, Massa will beat you....”
Then sometimes folks like you might want to shut up and not take swats at everyone who says what they might want to say. You worry about your side and I will worry about mine. End of discussion.
and the article did say about the rifle. So go away.
“Then sometimes folks like you might want to shut up and not take swats at everyone who says what they might want to say.”
Oh. You want to say what you want to say but you want me to shut up? If you get to say what you want to say, I get to say what I want to say. Fair is Fair.
Sure Mr. Know it all. I said what I said first. You fat mouth came in second. If you don’t want someone to respond to your big mouthed smart ass responses, then shut up. We’re done pal.
“Sure Mr. Know it all. I said what I said first. You fat mouth came in second. If you dont want someone to respond to your big mouthed smart ass responses, then shut up. Were done pal.”
I never said I didn’t want anyone to respond to my posts. You jumped the shark there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.