TexasCHLforum.com

tbrown wrote:

Excaliber wrote:The deceased made a series of decisions which were not under the control of the dog owner, and there were clear alternatives to the ones he made that would have certainly led to a much different incident outcome

True. It's also true Whitted made a series of decisions which were not under the control of Schaefer, and there were clear alternatives to the ones he made that would have certainly led to a much different incident outcome.

There's enough blame to go around. Including the irresponsible dog owner.

mojo84 wrote:This part of the article seems to be being ignored by those that think the officer was completely in the right and the dead man was totally wrong. Now, I do think the dead man was wrong in trying to argue at that point in time and I do not fault the officer for shooting him once the now dead man pulled his gun. I still question why the officer was so adamant about disarming the guy and treating him as a "suspect" when he arrived on the scene. I don't think anyone that shoots a dog that doesn't belong to them that was attacking them in their backyard and then calls the police to report it should be regarded as a suspect. Call me crazy if you want.

The man had called 911 early Friday to report he was attacked by a pit bull that did not belong to him in his back yard,

http://statesman.com/news/news/local/po ... nor/nWdY9/

Websters definition of suspect.
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspect

tbrown wrote:If we're going to play "but for" then let's charge the dog owner with homicide, because he or she put this all in motion. Once the dog was allowed to run loose and attack people, Schaefer was no more (and no less) to blame than Whitted.

texanjoker wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:

texanjoker wrote:If I read this correct you feel he should have then shot the LEO? That is absurd.

No, unholstering his weapon and pointing it at the LEO was absurd. Once he made that choice, pulling the trigger would have been perfectly rational. Not pulling the trigger is actually the odd part of the whole thing. Which is why a few others here have said this looks like a suicide by cop.

Your comment implies that you've entirely missed my meaning and instead think that I am condoning his behavior and think that the LEO somehow deserved to be shot. I was merely pointing out to jumping frog that saying that pulling the trigger would have been a worse decision for the deceased isn't true. It was the only decision he could have made at that time which could have possibly resulted in him keeping his life....assuming back up didn't shoot him.

I got your post, I just don't agree with it. Not firing at the cop was probably the only rational thing he did. He obviously at some point probably realized he was in a heep of trouble but was too stupid to just drop the gun. I don't by suicide by cop in this incident. This guy let his temper get the best of him and couldn't get himself out of the mess.

Excaliber wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I have two thoughts about this story. First, assuming the man was rational, why would he have pointed his gun at the officer? He apparently didn't want to shoot him, because he had the drop on him but didn't fire. That only leaves me with one conclusion. If he was rational, then he had decided he wanted to die. What other explanation could there have been?

Second, if you were talking to a neighbor and he pointed his gun at you, what would you do? Once the gun is pointed at you, your choices are limited. If, in your judgment, the neighbor isn't serious about pulling the trigger, you could try to talk him down, but there is a high risk in that scenario. If you're wrong, you're dead. If you're not certain what the neighbor's intentions are, then you have to either escape or shoot. Police officers can't run away. They're paid to confront difficult situations.

While the officer may have been wrong to try to take the gun away from him (I have no idea if he did or not and, if he did, if he was wrong or not), once the gun was pointed at him, he was forced to make a quick decision that determined whether he lived or died. Under the same circumstances, I would shoot. Wouldn't you?

For me the lesson of this incident is, if you are confronted by a police officer who you are convinced has no legal right to do what he's doing to you you either need to shoot without hesitation or surrender and wait for your day in court. The latter has a much higher likelihood of ensuring your survival.

I kind of wonder if there was an escalation of force that took place. One possibility in my thinking is:

The LEO arrives and sees the deceased with the gun tucked in his waist band.

The LEO makes the decision, right or wrong, to disarm the deceased.

The LEO starts his attempt by ordering the deceased around, and the deceased, thinking he is being abused because after all it was he that called in the report and the LEO is there to assist him and take a report, reacts defensively.

The LEO then attempts to remove the gun himself, and the deceased reacts by taking hold of it himself, still in defensive mode.

Now we have the deceased, gun in hand, challenging the LEO to act the way he expected him to in the first place.

The LEO, having a perpetrator with a drawn gun and obviously upset, facing him with a drawn gun, draws his own gun.

The deceased, now feeling under attack, starts to raise his gun in response to the perceived threat of the LEO who was supposed to be there to assist him now drawing down on him.

The LEO, a little quicker to react, perceives that the deceased has now become a deadly threat, finishes his draw stroke and fires.

Based on the information available at this point, I agree that this is the most viable working hypothesis which is, of course, subject to change based on new information as the investigation unfolds.

One factor that bears consideration is that the deceased may have been in an agitated state immediately after shooting an attacking dog, and that may have contributed to the officer's perception of a threat to his safety.

However the facts turn out, I think Chief Acevedo very accurately summarized this sad state of affairs.

jimlongley wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I have two thoughts about this story. First, assuming the man was rational, why would he have pointed his gun at the officer? He apparently didn't want to shoot him, because he had the drop on him but didn't fire. That only leaves me with one conclusion. If he was rational, then he had decided he wanted to die. What other explanation could there have been?

Second, if you were talking to a neighbor and he pointed his gun at you, what would you do? Once the gun is pointed at you, your choices are limited. If, in your judgment, the neighbor isn't serious about pulling the trigger, you could try to talk him down, but there is a high risk in that scenario. If you're wrong, you're dead. If you're not certain what the neighbor's intentions are, then you have to either escape or shoot. Police officers can't run away. They're paid to confront difficult situations.

While the officer may have been wrong to try to take the gun away from him (I have no idea if he did or not and, if he did, if he was wrong or not), once the gun was pointed at him, he was forced to make a quick decision that determined whether he lived or died. Under the same circumstances, I would shoot. Wouldn't you?

For me the lesson of this incident is, if you are confronted by a police officer who you are convinced has no legal right to do what he's doing to you you either need to shoot without hesitation or surrender and wait for your day in court. The latter has a much higher likelihood of ensuring your survival.

I kind of wonder if there was an escalation of force that took place. One possibility in my thinking is:

The LEO arrives and sees the deceased with the gun tucked in his waist band.

The LEO makes the decision, right or wrong, to disarm the deceased.

The LEO starts his attempt by ordering the deceased around, and the deceased, thinking he is being abused because after all it was he that called in the report and the LEO is there to assist him and take a report, reacts defensively.

The LEO then attempts to remove the gun himself, and the deceased reacts by taking hold of it himself, still in defensive mode.

Now we have the deceased, gun in hand, challenging the LEO to act the way he expected him to in the first place.

The LEO, having a perpetrator with a drawn gun and obviously upset, facing him with a drawn gun, draws his own gun.

The deceased, now feeling under attack, starts to raise his gun in response to the perceived threat of the LEO who was supposed to be there to assist him now drawing down on him.

The LEO, a little quicker to react, perceives that the deceased has now become a deadly threat, finishes his draw stroke and fires.