TexasCHLforum.com

Panda wrote:Can one of the people who know what happened post a link to the video so the rest of us can see too ?

Far as I know, APD hasn't released any video yet.

gigag04 wrote:

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.

While you're at it, I see the gun makers (all of them) as responsible. And the dog breeders too...

I already tried showing some folks in this thread how their logic was similar to anti-gunners. Didn't stick first time. Doubt it will stick this time.

gringo pistolero wrote:

A-R wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see a video of the shooting, but if I have to pick a side, I'll play the odds.

So this one officer is guilty by association with and membership in APD? I sure am glad the antis don't treat all gun owners and NRA members the same way.

Maybe this will help.

Your link takes me to a reading comprehension test.

http://www.majortests.com/sat/reading-comprehension.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was that intentional?

If so, kindly reread #2 here

gigag04 wrote:Don't cloud the thread with facts and assertions - here we have a great chance to bash police again and I for one won't have that right quelled because this looks to be a good shoot...

mojo84 wrote:I don't think any of us know enough to declare either party guilty or innocent. At the end of the day, I bet both parties made mistakes and it may have had a lot to do with both of them getting caught up on principal.

Jeff B. wrote:This is a lose - lose scenario. This gentleman ended up dead, the officer in the incident has shot and killed someone and will have to live with that for the rest of his life. Reading a thread like this with all the various thoughts, opinions and observations is really interesting. But, I'm still stuck on the fact that a man who has lived 70 years as a decent citizen and an officer who's been trained at our expense is facing a whole bunch of trouble, not the least of which are the internal consequences of his action, and there isn't anything coming from this.

It seems that the main result of this incident and any news coverage it gets will be to push those in Law Enforcement and those who are either concerned with their rights or becoming concerned about those rights , further apart and more skeptical and suspicious of the intent of the other (LEO or citizen) no matter the circumstance. Given the events, political developments and societal issues concerning firearms, I think the last thing we all need is for law enforcement to become aggressive "on weapons" whilst a significant segment of society is getting really nervous about the topic. I will say that I'd sure prefer to be reading that Mr. Schaefer was going to appear in court on such and such a charge and so forth...

Jeff B.

Good points, both. Only caveat - "there isn't anything coming of this" ... this JUST happened, give it time.

gringo pistolero wrote:On one side we have someone who apparently got through 70 years without major problems until Friday. On the other side, we have APD which can't seem to make it through a single year without allegations of excessive force.

I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see a video of the shooting, but if I have to pick a side, I'll play the odds.

So this one officer is guilty by association with and membership in APD? I sure am glad the antis don't treat all gun owners and NRA members the same way.

longtooth wrote:Had a class yesterday & in last night about 9:00 so I am late to this party.
When you start this from square 1 & the basic simplest points that cannot be argued or oppinionated this is pretty cut/dried to me.

1. The law says nothing about a LEO having the right to disarm. It says they have the authority to disarm. For the officer to ASK for the weapon was a great show of trust in itself.
2 As soon as he refused that is an offence in itself. Refusing to obey the LAWFUL order of a Piece Officer.
Whether anyone agrees or not w/ him reaching for the gun, I still see that as a last gesture of trust.
He could have drawn his own weapon of taser & called for all backup. Roughly put the guy on the ground & taken the weapon.
If a person refuses ANY lawful order & the officer "lets it go" then from that time on the person is in control & not the officer.

Great points.

One other comparative thought:

How many who are criticizing this LEO for what he may have done BEFORE the old man apparently pointed a gun AT the LEO are/were equally as critical of George Zimmerman for what he did/didn't do BEFORE Trayvon Martin started beating his head into the ground?

Not to bring elements of another heated, emotional case into this (too late?), but there are some similarities between the build up to both shootings ... innocent person is shot after violently resisting the initial actions of the shooter (and yes, pointing a gun at someone is "violently resisting" - you would/could shoot someone who pointed a gun at you, right?).

All most of you likely need to do to understand the LEO's perspective on this is change the first deceased (the dog) to a more obvious legally protected possible "victim". Use the Oscar Pistorious case. Dispatch tells you a man called to say he shot an "intruder". LEO shows up and the intruder is a young, blonde female (you don't even know yet that it's his girlfriend).

Now do you disarm the contact individual before continuing the investigation?

"Oh but that's obviously different," you say. Shooting a dog is different than shooting a pretty blond woman.

Not as different as you think, under the law. Point is BOTH are potentially serious crimes involving violence or (gun violence to use the anti's loaded language). And before LEO begins to investigate he must make sure the scene is safe and secure to investigate. As stated, LEO must act objectively and treat each person and similar situation the same. The LEO cannot/should not ASSUME that the dog shooter is justified and safe anymore than he should assume the woman shooter is guilty and unsafe.

Could this particular APD officer have used different tactics to disarm the old man? Maybe, but none of us here know for sure which tactics he did or did not try (though many here ASSUME and are labeling the LEO based on these assumptions).

But again, to say the LEO was automatically wrong to disarm the man at all (because of RKBA, property rights, etc) is just plain wrong, and a misunderstanding of LEO duties, powers etc. I make this blunt point in the hope that if any of you are ever in a similar situation you will remember this and not resist.

With all of the above in mind, there certainly are many errors the LEO could have made. I'm sure we'll all be paying close attention (as we should) to the facts (video/audio and other evidence) as it's released. But it's WAY to early to be labeling the LEO in this case a "bad guy".

It's too early to label the old man a bad guy too. We don't know exactly what happened, except that he's dead and we THINK it's because he refused to comply with an officer's instruction/request/demand.

If there is anything to take away at this point, it's (as has been stated multiple times before) to always follow officer's instructions - ESPECIALLY if you are a MWAG (man with a gun) - and then argue the correctness of those instructions later.

You may not like it. None of us may like it. But regardless, arguing with a cop who tells you to disarm is NEVER going to end well and - as we've seen - can end tragically.

Sure, there are extreme circumstances where compliance is not best - but there's a reason these are EXTREME hypothetical situations.

mojo84 wrote:I too am curious about the procedures and protocol regarding disarming.

My contention is there was an incident to be investigated. Initially, the info was that there was a dog attack and the dog was shot. That in and of itself doesn't warrant disarming the guy in my mind. Just as disarming a chl for "officer safety" on a routine traffic stop when the chl doesn't exhibit any behaviors that warrant disarming him or her.

I also want to be sure my comments aren't misconstrued to indicate that I support the deceased pulling his gun. There its quite a bit more to this story than what we know at this point.

Big difference between routine traffic stop and discharge of firearm.

mojo84 wrote:

A-R wrote:Generally speaking discharging a firearm within city limits is a crime, unless justified by Chapter 9 of Penal Code. There IS an investigation of any discharge of a firearm within city limits. Whether tha investigation shows justification comes later.

From what little I've seen, he called saying he shot a dog that attacked him. Therefore, the officer was not aware there was a crime committed other than that of someone's dog attacking someone. Generally speaking, when a dog attacks someone that is a crime but defending oneself against a dog attack is not.

The comment that I questioned was phrased in a way that indicated the officer was there to investigate a crime committed by the deceased when at the point of the officer showing up it appears the only crime that was evident was that of someone allowing their digg to attack someone. If that's the case, I don't set why the deceased was being disarmed on his property.

If it comes out he was acting irrationally or overly angry, there may be justification.

Not trying to judge anyone but trying to get a better idea of what went down and why.

The info provided to police by the deceased was one side of the story. There may or may not have been another side to the story. That is what the police are there to find out. In its most basic form, that is an investigation.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty the LEO might have done wrong. We simply don't know. But to say there was no "crime" to "investigate" in first place is a misunderstanding of the police role when called out about the discharge of a firearm.

What I'd be interested to know is whether this officer and/or APD as a whole has a habit of or even a standing order to disarm all contacts in such a situation or is it based on discretion? If discretion, what are the factors that should lead to disarming and what are the factors that did lead to disarming in this case.

Generally speaking discharging a firearm within city limits is a crime, unless justified by Chapter 9 of Penal Code. There IS an investigation of any discharge of a firearm within city limits. Whether tha investigation shows justification comes later.

texanjoker wrote:

A-R wrote:Where is it stated the deceased called saying he shot a dog? Statesman story says he called 911 to report he was attacked by a dog.

I agree, wait for more facts. But on initial reading seems both men may have made bad choices.

It's all over the news that he called 911 to say he shot and killed a pit bull.

By Claudia Grisales, Ciara O'Rourke and Tony Plohetski
American-Statesman Staff
A man was shot and killed Friday in North Austin after he refused to surrender his gun to a police officer and then aimed the weapon at the officer, officials say.
The man had called police about 7:20 a.m. to say he had shot and killed a pit bull that attacked him, officials said.
- See more at: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crim ... LuMe5.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks. I must've been reading an older version of story.

Agree with your take, but definitely would want to see/hear recordings.

Where is it stated the deceased called saying he shot a dog? Statesman story says he called 911 to report he was attacked by a dog.

I agree, wait for more facts. But on initial reading seems both men may have made bad choices.