TexasCHLforum.com

JJVP wrote:

C-dub wrote:I often times remember something I've left in my truck or am just plain looking for something that might have been left in my truck after dark, but never at 0300. It's going to be interesting how this plays out. I wonder which neighbor it was that called and what they were doing up at 0300.

What I would like to know is what a teenage girl was doing up at 3:00 AM.

A teenage girl who said she witnessed a portion of the incident said she never saw Middleton provoke the deputies: "He wasn't belligerent or anything."

Maybe the teenage girl is who the 60 year old guy was getting a cigarette for.

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote:coke and popcorn time that's not a good situation but we'll see if it makes the national news and see how much racial bigotry and/or scandal then can stuff into it.....

always use SLOW and DELIBERATE movements AFTER being instructed!!!!

Yep. Black guy minding his own business on his own property shot by a cop named "White". Al has to be salivating over this one. Only thing that could make it better is if "White" is actually "White" and if the black guy was wearing a hoodie.
Of course, if "White" is not "White" the argument will be that he was simply a pawn doing the "White" king's bidding.

JJVP wrote:

C-dub wrote:I often times remember something I've left in my truck or am just plain looking for something that might have been left in my truck after dark, but never at 0300. It's going to be interesting how this plays out. I wonder which neighbor it was that called and what they were doing up at 0300.

What I would like to know is what a teenage girl was doing up at 3:00 AM.

A teenage girl who said she witnessed a portion of the incident said she never saw Middleton provoke the deputies: "He wasn't belligerent or anything."

How did the police get there that quickly? Thats a seriously fast response time. Somethign is amiss.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

JJVP wrote:

C-dub wrote:I often times remember something I've left in my truck or am just plain looking for something that might have been left in my truck after dark, but never at 0300. It's going to be interesting how this plays out. I wonder which neighbor it was that called and what they were doing up at 0300.

What I would like to know is what a teenage girl was doing up at 3:00 AM.

A teenage girl who said she witnessed a portion of the incident said she never saw Middleton provoke the deputies: "He wasn't belligerent or anything."

How did the police get there that quickly? Thats a seriously fast response time. Somethign is amiss.

First off, it's not Detroit. However, you have a point. How long does it take to get what you need out of the car and go back inside? That shouldn't take more than a minute. Is there any police department in the world that has that kind of response time?

Exactly.

When some one sues the city and wins a multi million dollar reward the money should not be taken from city funds but from the police pension plan. Then you will see pressure to change

rbwhatever1 wrote:It's amazing that Law Abiding Citizen is still alive after enduring a small arms assault. He was accused of a crime, judged guilty by the LEO's and nearly executed. And no crime was ever committed. Until the LEO's got there...

This... and as MechAg94 stated..."if cops surprise someone, shouldn't they EXPECT the person to act surprised?" If I'm leaning into my car in my driveway at ANY time of the day or night, and someone suddenly yells at me, I'm probably going to jump back out of the car to see who's there and if I'm in danger. They described that as "lunging out of the car and spinning toward them"...sounds like a normal reaction by anyone...hardly grounds to unleash 17 rounds at him. Of course, if they were trying to kill him...which it certainly appears they were...then 17 shots obviously wasn't enough for them.

talltex wrote:Of course, if they were trying to kill him...which it certainly appears they were...then 17 shots obviously wasn't enough for them.

Let's not get carried away here. About the only thing we know for certain about this case is that the deputies were horribly bad shots. The idea that they were actually trying to kill the guy is far fetched and certainly counter to the forum rules.

Let's wait until we have more facts before condemning these officers.

baldeagle wrote:

talltex wrote:Of course, if they were trying to kill him...which it certainly appears they were...then 17 shots obviously wasn't enough for them.

Let's not get carried away here. About the only thing we know for certain about this case is that the deputies were horribly bad shots. The idea that they were actually trying to kill the guy is far fetched and certainly counter to the forum rules.

Let's wait until we have more facts before condemning these officers.

OK...how about: "they intended to thoroughly stop the perceived threat" . BUT, c'mon... if anyone fired 17 shots at you, wouldn't you assume that your life was in immediate danger of ending? Since he wasn't returning fire, I'd be willing to bet they were fired very rapidly, without any pause to see if he had been hit or how many times he'd been hit. I really don't think they fired "16 warning shots before intentionally shooting him in the leg" . Sounds like a case of panicked "spray and pray".

talltex wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

talltex wrote:Of course, if they were trying to kill him...which it certainly appears they were...then 17 shots obviously wasn't enough for them.

Let's not get carried away here. About the only thing we know for certain about this case is that the deputies were horribly bad shots. The idea that they were actually trying to kill the guy is far fetched and certainly counter to the forum rules.

Let's wait until we have more facts before condemning these officers.

OK...how about: "they intended to thoroughly stop the perceived threat" . BUT, c'mon... if anyone fired 17 shots at you, wouldn't you assume that your life was in immediate danger of ending? Since he wasn't returning fire, I'd be willing to bet they were fired very rapidly, without any pause to see if he had been hit or how many times he'd been hit. I really don't think they fired "16 warning shots before intentionally shooting him in the leg" . Sounds like a case of panicked "spray and pray".

Yeah, definitely not a controlled fire situation...

A new article about the shooting. A neighbor witnessed the event but didn't see everything that went on. Middleton says one thing. The deputies claim something else. 15 shots were fired; 12 by one officer and 3 by the other. Without video or an eye witness, it's a he said, she said situation. At this point I'm having problems buying the deputies' story that he lunged at them, because when he was shot he fell back into the car. FDLE is investigating. It will be interesting to find out what the physical evidence says, if we ever get that.

One lesson learned from this (IMO) is when confronted by the police, for God's sake, make sure you' don't have anything in your hands.

baldeagle wrote:15 shots were fired; 12 by one officer and 3 by the other.

I wonder if the second officer was sitting there thinking "ease up dude" while his buddy was cranking off the other/extra nine rounds?

Jerry Miculek would be proud!

baldeagle wrote:

talltex wrote:Of course, if they were trying to kill him...which it certainly appears they were...then 17 shots obviously wasn't enough for them.

Let's not get carried away here. About the only thing we know for certain about this case is that the deputies were horribly bad shots. The idea that they were actually trying to kill the guy is far fetched and certainly counter to the forum rules.

Let's wait until we have more facts before condemning these officers.

Respectfully, firing 17 shots at someone tends to make me believe killing someone is not out of the question. If someone fires that many times that quickly, I am going to assume they are willing and possibly inclined to do more than warn or just stop the "threat". Whatever happened to the double tap and see if the threat stops or retreats?


Sounds to me like the guy encountered some jumpy cops that overreacted.

mojo84 wrote:Whatever happened to the double tap and see if the threat stops or retreats?

I thought it was shoot until the threat is stopped? Where'd the double tab and look thing come from?

Depends on who you talk to and who the instructor is. I've heard instructors and police firearms instructors say the double tap and assess the situation is the way to go. Others say, shoot and don't stop until the target is stopped and down.

Problem with this case is, what was the threat? A man with his keys or a flashlight attached to his key ring that was startled. If the guy was armed and continued after them, that would be another story. It doesn't appear that is the case here based on what is being reported.

I would give the cops a little more benefit of the doubt if the guy hadn't been on his own property, looking in his own car and unarmed.