Police Officer sneaks up & grabs legal OCer's holstered gun

[jmra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... nt-pastor/

Not clear, but based on comments in the article, open carry may be a factor in his death.

Maybe if the fog on Hectorville Road hadn’t been so thick. Or if the flood waters hadn’t been so furious. Or if Nehemiah Fischer didn’t have that shiny new handgun on his hip.

Maybe then he’d still be alive.

Uncertainty and anger are swirling like storm clouds in Oklahoma, where, on Friday night, state highway patrolmen shot Fischer during a roadside rescue gone horribly wrong. Authorities claim that Fischer, 35, attacked officers after they told him to leave his disabled pickup truck, giving them no choice but to defend themselves.

But Fischer’s family says the troopers had no reason to be there, let alone gun down “a god-fearing man.”

Haven't you seen the video? He goes up to two cops, who were yelling at him and his brother to get out of a flooded ditch, and just jumps one of the cops. He and the cop went to the ground with him on top. Booze had more to do with this than any OC

I'd like to see it. Do you have a link?

[mojo84]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

[VMI77]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... nt-pastor/

Not clear, but based on comments in the article, open carry may be a factor in his death.

Maybe if the fog on Hectorville Road hadn’t been so thick. Or if the flood waters hadn’t been so furious. Or if Nehemiah Fischer didn’t have that shiny new handgun on his hip.

Maybe then he’d still be alive.

Uncertainty and anger are swirling like storm clouds in Oklahoma, where, on Friday night, state highway patrolmen shot Fischer during a roadside rescue gone horribly wrong. Authorities claim that Fischer, 35, attacked officers after they told him to leave his disabled pickup truck, giving them no choice but to defend themselves.

But Fischer’s family says the troopers had no reason to be there, let alone gun down “a god-fearing man.”

Haven't you seen the video? He goes up to two cops, who were yelling at him and his brother to get out of a flooded ditch, and just jumps one of the cops. He and the cop went to the ground with him on top. Booze had more to do with this than any OC

I'd like to see it. Do you have a link?

I didn't see a video. In fact, the article I read quoted the sister as saying the family would like to see the dashcam video, but given the conditions didn't think there was one.....so I assumed there wasn't a video to see.

[VMI77]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

[EEllis]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

I have not heard anyone from the Troopers or the State reference the gun as any part of the justification. I have heard that the Trooper had his head pushed underwater and that being part of the justification. The only people who mention the gun are speculating as to possible reason, and since those people are doing so to push their narrative I tend to discount it for now at least.

I've also heard complaints from some about the way in wish the cops were talking to the two brothers. I mean it may have been rude or impolite! As if they were talking to two drunk idiots who wouldn't listen, oh wait a min, they most likely were. Heck if a cop is out during a storm or weather emergency working their butt off and happens to speak to someone less than totally polite, no matter how big of a pain the person is being, why that's tantamount to be asking someone to tackle the cop and hold his head underwater.

[ScooterSissy]

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

I have not heard anyone from the Troopers or the State reference the gun as any part of the justification. I have heard that the Trooper had his head pushed underwater and that being part of the justification. The only people who mention the gun are speculating as to possible reason, and since those people are doing so to push their narrative I tend to discount it for now at least.

I've also heard complaints from some about the way in wish the cops were talking to the two brothers. I mean it may have been rude or impolite! As if they were talking to two drunk idiots who wouldn't listen, oh wait a min, they most likely were. Heck if a cop is out during a storm or weather emergency working their butt off and happens to speak to someone less than totally polite, no matter how big of a pain the person is being, why that's tantamount to be asking someone to tackle the cop and hold his head underwater.

I've heard that the full dashcam video is almost 30 minutes long - that tells me these troopers were dealing with the bozos for a long time before the clip we saw. First trooper arrived on scene, and had to call the second one, so I suspect they were pretty frustrated. In addition, the report I read said that they had even used the PA system to try to get the guys to abandon the truck. That tells me that it's highly unlikely they didn't realize it was troopers.

Here's my guess - the guys really wanted help rescuing their truck, and the troopers refused, and kept insisting they come out of the water. The truck owners were likely frustrated they were losing their truck to the water, and ready to blame the troopers for not helping them get it out. I'm sure the booze played into it as well.

This is no different than Ferguson - other than the lack of rioting afterwards. Don't attack cops unless you're prepared to die for it.

[VMI77]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

It is my business if I'm the one supposedly being rescued and don't want to be. These guys didn't need to be "rescued" --the "rescue" claim is clearly a pretext for involvement. Controlling a public road, ok, that could be a legitimate justification...if being in a ditch on the side of the road presented a danger to motorists or was obstructing traffic. I drive by plenty of roadside ditches where my presence attempting to retrieve my vehicle would harm no one, represent no danger to anyone, and would not obstruct or impede traffic. And btw, it's also "settled law" that the police have no duty to protect any individual. So unless these guys represented a danger to other people they had no duty to "rescue" them, especially if they didn't want to be "rescued."

In many of your comments you seem to be tremendously impressed by whether something is "settled law" or what some court said, regardless of how it intrudes on individual liberty. We can also say that it's "settled law" that the DEA can approach you on a train and rob you since they've been doing it for a least a decade. The fact that the government presides over a legal system that ratifies its violations of moral law and civil liberties is irrelevant to me. I may have to obey the law but I don't have to agree with it. I flatly reject your legalism as legitimizing the exercise of authority. Something being legal does not equal that something being moral or being right.

All you're really saying when you excuse government conduct as "settled law" is that the government can make up whatever rules it wants and impose them at gunpoint, and to a point, I agree: it obviously has both the means and the power to impose its will at gunpoint and does so. The difference in our positions appears to be that you believe authority exercised in this way confers legitimacy while I judge the conduct independently from how it is rationalized and labeled.

[KD5NRH]

To bad the fisherman wasnt a federal agent of some type that would be a better story

Or just anybody trained in retaining a weapon and putting the person trying to take it on the ground in a very un-gentle manner before checking out that person's wardrobe choices.

[EEllis]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

It is my business if I'm the one supposedly being rescued and don't want to be. These guys didn't need to be "rescued" --the "rescue" claim is clearly a pretext for involvement. Controlling a public road, ok, that could be a legitimate justification...if being in a ditch on the side of the road presented a danger to motorists or was obstructing traffic. I drive by plenty of roadside ditches where my presence attempting to retrieve my vehicle would harm no one, represent no danger to anyone, and would not obstruct or impede traffic. And btw, it's also "settled law" that the police have no duty to protect any individual. So unless these guys represented a danger to other people they had no duty to "rescue" them, especially if they didn't want to be "rescued."

In many of your comments you seem to be tremendously impressed by whether something is "settled law" or what some court said, regardless of how it intrudes on individual liberty. We can also say that it's "settled law" that the DEA can approach you on a train and rob you since they've been doing it for a least a decade. The fact that the government presides over a legal system that ratifies its violations of moral law and civil liberties is irrelevant to me. I may have to obey the law but I don't have to agree with it. I flatly reject your legalism as legitimizing the exercise of authority. Something being legal does not equal that something being moral or being right.

All you're really saying when you excuse government conduct as "settled law" is that the government can make up whatever rules it wants and impose them at gunpoint, and to a point, I agree: it obviously has both the means and the power to impose its will at gunpoint and does so. The difference in our positions appears to be that you believe authority exercised in this way confers legitimacy while I judge the conduct independently from how it is rationalized and labeled.

You misunderstood my point. Sure they didn't want to be "rescued" and were not. However if there was a problem and they, or you, started to get in trouble them all of you would be screaming for help and the troopers or local responders would have to risk themselves to help. That means it is the States business.

As for me being impressed by settled law. You want to make some abstract point that has little or no basis in the real world then go ahead. I can think something, law or policy, is wrong and stupid and still acknowledge the practical realities of the situation. And as far as the at gun point argument. It's a false analogy. Settled law would not be referring to whatever someone with a gun makes you do. There are other terms for that. No I would be referring to law that have been on the books for a length of time without any significant challenge.

[DevilDawg]

Two thoughts regarding the OP story.

1.) Ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, nor should it be for a sworn LEO who's chosen profession is to enforce same laws.

2.) Sneaking up behind someone and trying to snatch his gun? Lucky the LEO didn't end up with a long cut across his belt line or shot. He needs to go back to remedial training on the Proper approach of a citizen before he is allowed back on the street. That this citizen was in any danger from a LEO stupidity is unacceptable. We need to hold them to the higher standard they seem to believe they are entitled too without fail, or much like the politicians we get what we allow.

[sugar land dave]

On a risk reward chart, not the best move to make......

[Charlies.Contingency]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

It is my business if I'm the one supposedly being rescued and don't want to be. These guys didn't need to be "rescued" --the "rescue" claim is clearly a pretext for involvement. Controlling a public road, ok, that could be a legitimate justification...if being in a ditch on the side of the road presented a danger to motorists or was obstructing traffic. I drive by plenty of roadside ditches where my presence attempting to retrieve my vehicle would harm no one, represent no danger to anyone, and would not obstruct or impede traffic. And btw, it's also "settled law" that the police have no duty to protect any individual. So unless these guys represented a danger to other people they had no duty to "rescue" them, especially if they didn't want to be "rescued."

In many of your comments you seem to be tremendously impressed by whether something is "settled law" or what some court said, regardless of how it intrudes on individual liberty. We can also say that it's "settled law" that the DEA can approach you on a train and rob you since they've been doing it for a least a decade. The fact that the government presides over a legal system that ratifies its violations of moral law and civil liberties is irrelevant to me. I may have to obey the law but I don't have to agree with it. I flatly reject your legalism as legitimizing the exercise of authority. Something being legal does not equal that something being moral or being right.

All you're really saying when you excuse government conduct as "settled law" is that the government can make up whatever rules it wants and impose them at gunpoint, and to a point, I agree: it obviously has both the means and the power to impose its will at gunpoint and does so. The difference in our positions appears to be that you believe authority exercised in this way confers legitimacy while I judge the conduct independently from how it is rationalized and labeled.

You misunderstood my point. Sure they didn't want to be "rescued" and were not. However if there was a problem and they, or you, started to get in trouble them all of you would be screaming for help and the troopers or local responders would have to risk themselves to help. That means it is the States business.

As for me being impressed by settled law. You want to make some abstract point that has little or no basis in the real world then go ahead. I can think something, law or policy, is wrong and stupid and still acknowledge the practical realities of the situation. And as far as the at gun point argument. It's a false analogy. Settled law would not be referring to whatever someone with a gun makes you do. There are other terms for that. No I would be referring to law that have been on the books for a length of time without any significant challenge.

This is going a bit South guys. I agree with both of you on different aspects. I believe in personal freedom in the aspect, that the truck is their property and they are trying to retrieve it. I never stopped somebody from doing it, unless they were a seriously obvious danger to themselves or others. I'm the guy that always stops to help anyway.

There are legal aspects though. A trooper tells you to stop for any reason, assuming there is legal justification somewhere, you ought to comply. Not doing so would be ill advised, as we have learned from the story.

Lets continue with the niceties now.

(Note: I have no idea how the formatting messed up earlier, but it's fixed now!)

[mojo84]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

This is going a bit South guys. I agree with both of you on different aspects. I believe in personal freedom in the aspect, that the truck is their property and they are trying to retrieve it. I never stopped somebody from doing it, unless they were a seriously obvious danger to themselves or others. I'm the guy that always stops to help anyway.

There are legal aspects though. A trooper tells you to stop for any reason, assuming there is legal justification somewhere, you ought to comply. Not doing so would be ill advised, as we have learned from the story.

Lets continue with the niceties now.

It is my business if I'm the one supposedly being rescued and don't want to be. These guys didn't need to be "rescued" --the "rescue" claim is clearly a pretext for involvement. Controlling a public road, ok, that could be a legitimate justification...if being in a ditch on the side of the road presented a danger to motorists or was obstructing traffic. I drive by plenty of roadside ditches where my presence attempting to retrieve my vehicle would harm no one, represent no danger to anyone, and would not obstruct or impede traffic. And btw, it's also "settled law" that the police have no duty to protect any individual. So unless these guys represented a danger to other people they had no duty to "rescue" them, especially if they didn't want to be "rescued."

In many of your comments you seem to be tremendously impressed by whether something is "settled law" or what some court said, regardless of how it intrudes on individual liberty. We can also say that it's "settled law" that the DEA can approach you on a train and rob you since they've been doing it for a least a decade. The fact that the government presides over a legal system that ratifies its violations of moral law and civil liberties is irrelevant to me. I may have to obey the law but I don't have to agree with it. I flatly reject your legalism as legitimizing the exercise of authority. Something being legal does not equal that something being moral or being right.

All you're really saying when you excuse government conduct as "settled law" is that the government can make up whatever rules it wants and impose them at gunpoint, and to a point, I agree: it obviously has both the means and the power to impose its will at gunpoint and does so. The difference in our positions appears to be that you believe authority exercised in this way confers legitimacy while I judge the conduct independently from how it is rationalized and labeled.

You misunderstood my point. Sure they didn't want to be "rescued" and were not. However if there was a problem and they, or you, started to get in trouble them all of you would be screaming for help and the troopers or local responders would have to risk themselves to help. That means it is the States business.

As for me being impressed by settled law. You want to make some abstract point that has little or no basis in the real world then go ahead. I can think something, law or policy, is wrong and stupid and still acknowledge the practical realities of the situation. And as far as the at gun point argument. It's a false analogy. Settled law would not be referring to whatever someone with a gun makes you do. There are other terms for that. No I would be referring to law that have been on the books for a length of time without any significant challenge.

You need to type your comments outside the quote tags. Otherwise, it's very difficult to tell your comments from those of others.

[Charlies.Contingency]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

This is going a bit South guys. I agree with both of you on different aspects. I believe in personal freedom in the aspect, that the truck is their property and they are trying to retrieve it. I never stopped somebody from doing it, unless they were a seriously obvious danger to themselves or others. I'm the guy that always stops to help anyway.

There are legal aspects though. A trooper tells you to stop for any reason, assuming there is legal justification somewhere, you ought to comply. Not doing so would be ill advised, as we have learned from the story.

Lets continue with the niceties now.

It is my business if I'm the one supposedly being rescued and don't want to be. These guys didn't need to be "rescued" --the "rescue" claim is clearly a pretext for involvement. Controlling a public road, ok, that could be a legitimate justification...if being in a ditch on the side of the road presented a danger to motorists or was obstructing traffic. I drive by plenty of roadside ditches where my presence attempting to retrieve my vehicle would harm no one, represent no danger to anyone, and would not obstruct or impede traffic. And btw, it's also "settled law" that the police have no duty to protect any individual. So unless these guys represented a danger to other people they had no duty to "rescue" them, especially if they didn't want to be "rescued."

In many of your comments you seem to be tremendously impressed by whether something is "settled law" or what some court said, regardless of how it intrudes on individual liberty. We can also say that it's "settled law" that the DEA can approach you on a train and rob you since they've been doing it for a least a decade. The fact that the government presides over a legal system that ratifies its violations of moral law and civil liberties is irrelevant to me. I may have to obey the law but I don't have to agree with it. I flatly reject your legalism as legitimizing the exercise of authority. Something being legal does not equal that something being moral or being right.

All you're really saying when you excuse government conduct as "settled law" is that the government can make up whatever rules it wants and impose them at gunpoint, and to a point, I agree: it obviously has both the means and the power to impose its will at gunpoint and does so. The difference in our positions appears to be that you believe authority exercised in this way confers legitimacy while I judge the conduct independently from how it is rationalized and labeled.

You misunderstood my point. Sure they didn't want to be "rescued" and were not. However if there was a problem and they, or you, started to get in trouble them all of you would be screaming for help and the troopers or local responders would have to risk themselves to help. That means it is the States business.

As for me being impressed by settled law. You want to make some abstract point that has little or no basis in the real world then go ahead. I can think something, law or policy, is wrong and stupid and still acknowledge the practical realities of the situation. And as far as the at gun point argument. It's a false analogy. Settled law would not be referring to whatever someone with a gun makes you do. There are other terms for that. No I would be referring to law that have been on the books for a length of time without any significant challenge.

You need to type your comments outside the quote tags. Otherwise, it's very difficult to tell your comments from those of others.

Unintentional error has been corrected.

[The Wall]

Thankfully the officer was not shot or that the fisherman wasn't shot when he started to reach for his gun.

I wonder if the officer would think it's a valid exercise to have the same thing done to him.

If I was that officer's boss, he just showed inherently bad judgement.