Looks like the armed resident was shot by responding LEO...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I don't see why it's a big deal to fire cops after a bad, or even questionable shoot. You fucked up and killed someone, go get a different job. Why should the public fund expensive civil suits so the department can retain officers that screwed up so bad that they killed someone? Are we so hard up for police that we can't even stand to let some go?

It sounds like the office that killed Mr. black made a mistake, at least in comparison to the murderer that murdered Daniel Shaver. Either way, I can't see why either officer should keep his job. Same with the FBI agent who shot the guy at a club. Is that unreasonable?

---

Did you read the DA's report and then watch the video? Officer Limbaugh shot and killed Mr. Black. Former Officer Brailsford killed Mr. Shaver. The former FBI agent Bishop killed no one. Notice that in two of the three cases, former Officer Brailsford and former FBI agent Bishop are no longer employed in law enforcement. Both Brailsford and Bishop were prosecuted. Brailsford was acquitted by a jury of 2nd degree murder and Bishop plead guilty to 3rd degree assault.

Each case needs to be evaluated individually. Sadly, when agencies or departments fire employees, the unions that represent them have enough power to force settlements for wrongful termination and often get the employees reinstated. Just because an officer kills someone doesn't mean the officer made an error. If you are carrying a gun you must be prepared to use it and using it can often lead to someone's death.

I didn't say that any time an officer kills someone they should lose their job. Didn't the officer that killed Black also kill someone else before then? I thought there wasn't a question about the first one.

I don't want to suggest this is ready or black and white, because of course it isn't. The unions add another level of complexity and I'm sure there are many other things of which I'm not aware that do as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I didn't say that any time an officer kills someone they should lose their job. Didn't the officer that killed Black also kill someone else before then? I thought there wasn't a question about the first one.

I don't want to suggest this is ready or black and white, because of course it isn't. The unions add another level of complexity and I'm sure there are many other things of which I'm not aware that do as well.

---

Yes, the last part of the DA's report noted that Officer Limbaugh had shot and killed someone just over a month before he shot and killed Mr. Black. According to the report, the dead man had attempted to fire at Officer Limbaugh but his weapon failed. Officer Limbaugh then fired his handgun killing the person. There was body camera footage in that shooting as well. It was reviewed and Officer Limbaugh was not charged with a crime in that homicide. He had just returned to duty two weeks prior to this shooting and he did so after completing Aurora PD's reintegration program for officers after being involved in a shooting. This includes a psychological evaluation.

It is unusual for any officer to have killed two people in their entire career, much less two in less than two months. Maybe the first shooting had an affect on Officer Limbaugh. I would assume that it had to have had some impact as killing someone is not something that goes easy for normal people. Regardless of what anyone believes after viewing the video, the killing of Mr. Black seems to have been thoroughly investigated and it was reviewed by a prosecutor who determined that no charges should be brought against Officer Limbaugh...again. I don't know what happened afterward but I am certain the case was reviewed by IA for any indications of administrative wrong doing. I don't know if Officer Limbaugh is still employed by Aurora PD or in any law enforcement capacity. I assume that both the Harper family and the Black family hired attorney's and some sort of compensation was paid because that is the normal way of settling law suits even when there is no appearance of wrong doing.

I will not sit in judgement of Officer Limbaugh for killing Mr. Black. I will not sit in judgement of Mr. Black for killing Mr. Harper or not dropping his handgun when the officers were yelling at him to drop the gun. As was noted previously, it was a shitty situation all around. My opinion will not change that for either the living or the dead. I pray that none of us ever find ourselves in any of those places.

Be safe.

This is one of the most chaotic home defense/invasion situations I have ever read about or seen. Absolutely insane.

I think the homeowner did everything right. I don't even question his not dropping his gun. He didn't know who was outside issuing commands. I actually argued in this forum many years ago that carrying a flashlight in hand rather than on a weapon might be a good idea for home defense because then you could identify good guys without pointing a gun at them. When confronted a 2nd time in mere seconds with unidentified individuals in/at his house he didn't immediately shoot. But instead he kept his gun at his side and raised his flashlight to identify the individuals first. Great, great job. But it didn't help him.

And that's my biggest issue with this situation. Cstone, you say the officers acted as most are trained but I think that must only be partially correct. Are they not also trained to identify themselves? Neither officer did in this case. A simple "POLICE!!!!!!" Could have been a world of difference in this case. They had time to issue multiple commands yet they never identified themselves. That must be trained. This homeowner may have responded to that (although it's speculation here, the homeowner was hearing impaired) but the point stands and should be a general procedure when police are entering a situation which all common sense indicates there a good guys in the house too. Identification is absolute importance.

All good self defense training teaches that identification is critical. This homeowner followed that doctrine even if he didn't have any training. And I know that LE is trained to identify first too. They train shoot/no shoot for similar situations. Does the guy raise a gun or a phone, a flashlight or a knife? Shoot/no shoot? Some agencies more than others...

All that said, I don't judge the officer either and I don't think this shoot was criminal. It's simply a tragic event every way you look at it.

But it's surely a grim reminder for us civilians that prepare for home defense. We can do everything right, and it still might not be enough. One thing that didn't happen here is the other residents didn't offer any help to the officers. Other residents MUST provide information to responding officer if the situation is still ongoing. Multiple people were asked what's up as the officers arrived but the information they provided was limited. We must teach our wives, children, roommates, etc to do this. Take 2 seconds to tell officers "My husband/Mom/Dad, is a good guy still in the with a gun. Don't shoot him/her". That little bit alone could help the officers wait a second longer to identify whoever it is holding a gun inside.

I appreciate the Aurora PD for releasing this video. Gives us all more to think about when we prepare for home defense.

I'll add this too. LEO training should be more than just generic shoot/no-shoot. It's not as simple as "Guy with gun doesn't drop it = shoot" everytime. Situation should dictate.

For example. Guy just gets pulled over by clearly identified police (flashing lights, etc) on highway, gets out of car with gun, doesn't drop gun when commanded...that's a pretty clear threat and immediate shoot for LE.

Residence that clearly has lots of innocents around, dark outside, obvious home invasion/defense situation, guy doesn't drop gun immediately...maybe should dictate an additional few seconds to make sure guy with gun is a bad guy.

I know some LE agencies make distinctions like this in their extensive training and I know others do not in their more limited training. But it's a disservice if LEO's aren't given more situation based training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

This is one of the most chaotic home defense/invasion situations I have ever read about or seen. Absolutely insane.

I think the homeowner did everything right. I don't even question his not dropping his gun. He didn't know who was outside issuing commands. could identify good guys without pointing a gun at them.

When confronted a 2nd time in mere seconds with unidentified individuals in/at his house he didn't immediately shoot. But instead he kept his gun at his side and raised his flashlight to identify the individuals first. Great, great job. But it didn't help him.

A simple "POLICE!!!!!!" Could have been a world of difference in this case. They had time to issue multiple commands yet they never identified themselves. That must be trained. This homeowner may have responded to that (although it's speculation here, the homeowner was hearing impaired) but the point stands and should be a general procedure when police are entering a situation which all common sense indicates there a good guys in the house too. Identification is absolute importance.

All good self defense training teaches that identification is critical. This homeowner followed that doctrine even if he didn't have any training. And I know that LE is trained to identify first too. They train shoot/no shoot for similar situations. Does the guy raise a gun or a phone, a flashlight or a knife? Shoot/no shoot? Some agencies more than others...

All that said, I don't judge the officer either and I don't think this shoot was criminal. It's simply a tragic event every way you look at it.

But it's surely a grim reminder for us civilians that prepare for home defense. We can do everything right, and it still might not be enough. One thing that didn't happen here is the other residents didn't offer any help to the officers. Other residents MUST provide information to responding officer if the situation is still ongoing. Multiple people were asked what's up as the officers arrived but the information they provided was limited. We must teach our wives, children, roommates, etc to do this. Take 2 seconds to tell officers "My husband/Mom/Dad, is a good guy still in the with a gun. Don't shoot him/her". That little bit alone could help the officers wait a second longer to identify whoever it is holding a gun inside.

I appreciate the Aurora PD for releasing this video. Gives us all more to think about when we prepare for home defense.

---

I deleted a few lines and cherry picking your post for a few reasons. Since there's no reason to quote your entire post.

There's a few issues with the incident

1: The deceased was hearing impaired.

2: firearm discharged in a confined space- the house.... You fire off a round w/out hearing protection, then listen to what you can or cannot hear. That itself was a major issue. It could be for anyone with good hearing, let alone the decreased capability to hear in a normal situation.


3: We must teach our wives, children, roommates, etc to do this. Take 2 seconds to tell officers "My husband/Mom/Dad, is a good guy still in the with a gun. Don't shoot him/her".

Here's my take based on what happened to my brother while trying to stop an armed robbery in progress. Multiple people were YELLING...HE'S THE GOOD GUY. HE'S A FEDERAL AGENT, DON'T SHOOT

Lets Start at beginning.

Brother walks in back door of pharmacy. Employees says we are being robbed, that's the guy, he has a gun. Brother issues command FEDERAL AGENT, DROP YOUR WEAPON YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!

After having what was clearly a gun pointed at him in the store. Brother discharges his service pistol, scores hit on BG. The scene then moved outside after BG flees. Brother tackles him, wrestling on the ground,.


In the few seconds, if that, of 2 people (Brother and piece of shit convict) wrestling on the ground. 4 hands on gun, shot goes off grazing retired le's head.
That retired LE came out of another store, after people in drug store ran for help. Shot who he "thought" was the BG based on his interpretation of the scene at that moment.

Turns out the one he "thought" was the BG was not, but a responding LE who himself acted in the moment. Based on what he was told by known employees of store.

SO you can have as many people yelling to the cops, who's who, even pointing out the good vs bad guy. Unfortunately tunnel vision and the 1-2-3+ responding LE's interpretation of what's happening at that moment. Can and will effect everyone involved for the rest of their lives.


Good shoot-Bad Shoot. While we all have opinions of what happened based on camera footage, etc. Not being in said officers shoes, will never truly know what was going on. Only what he said to investigators after the incident, of how he saw the scene playing out.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

As a follow up of the incident that took our brothers life. The POS who started the chain of events that transpired. The gun he pointed at my brother. was a fuking pellet gun. .

In that case the situation wasn't one where color was involved. Just imagine if the BG been a P.O.C and information after investigation released, said the deceased was carrying a BB Gun.

Once again judgement call by my brother. He saw GUN! pointed at him. This after employees said they were robbed. How would you have responded as a LE in that scenario? Which IMO is a topic best done in a separate thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

SO you can have as many people yelling to the cops, who's who even pointing out the good vs bad guy. Unfortunately tunnel vision and that 1-2-3 LE's interpretation of what's happening at that moment. Can and will effect everyone involved for the rest of their lives.

---

Agreed. Sometimes shit happens. That's why I also agree with the decision not to discipline/charge the officer. This specific situation is simply tragic in every way. It went the way it went, there is no one to blame. Sucks, but that's the world sometimes. As my Dad always told me "Life's a bitch...and then you die".

That said, it's still valid to discuss these things because everyone can learn something from every situation.

PS - this home owner saved a life that night. That's a win in my book and I'm willing to bet that was his only concern at that moment. His family should be proud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

I'll add this too. LEO training should be more than just generic shoot/no-shoot. It's not as simple as "Guy with gun doesn't drop it = shoot" everytime. Situation should dictate.

For example. Guy just gets pulled over by clearly identified police (flashing lights, etc) on highway, gets out of car with gun, doesn't drop gun when commanded...that's a pretty clear threat and immediate shoot for LE.

Residence that clearly has lots of innocents around, dark outside, obvious home invasion/defense situation, guy doesn't drop gun immediately...maybe should dictate an additional few seconds to make sure guy with gun is a bad guy.

I know some LE agencies make distinctions like this in their extensive training and I know others do not in their more limited training. But it's a disservice if LEO's aren't given more situation based training.

---

If you can try, finding one of the FATS or other "live" training exercises offered. Those seconds could mean the difference between your life or theirs ending. Even better, try finding a simunitions training course where you're engaged in a "live fire" exercise against others. Between the adrenaline flowing, having to make split second calls, etc it will open ones eyes , and mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CavSct1983

Daniel Shaver did everything he was told and died in a hotel hallway for it.

---

I know. That story broke my heart, and made me crazy. Listened to Mark Geragos talk about it early on. Sounds like not much happens to cops in Arizona either. I know it's not Mayberry but we need to knock it of with the military style policing. I'm tired of being own of their threats. Some cops see us as enemy combatants. Anyone that says "it's only a few" is missing the point. Those rotten ones still have arrest powers and guns.

Something is lost in translation with my post. I'm not asking for judgement on anyone. I'm saying if you kill someone that shouldn't have been killed, then you can get another job.

I agree with the sentiment that life's not fair, but why should that end at the wrong person getting killed? I'd take being fired over being dead any day.

Lousy situation. Does the family have any legal recourse against the officer or PD for wrongful death?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10x

Lousy situation. Does the family have any legal recourse against the officer or PD for wrongful death?

---

That's usually settled between the family and city , possibly the officer as well in a civil suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Something is lost in translation with my post. I'm not asking for judgement on anyone. I'm saying if you kill someone that shouldn't have been killed, then you can get another job.

I agree with the sentiment that life's not fair, but why should that end at the wrong person getting killed? I'd take being fired over being dead any day.

---

I'm with you 100%. Early on in the thread I mentioned "carried by six", though I might need seven myself. I'd even say he made the right decision based on his perspective. Just don't this guy walking around with a badge and gun. He needs to pick one or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

That's usually settled between the family and city , possibly the officer as well in a civil suit.

---

The officer will have qualified immunity, as the incident occured while he was on duty, and the investigation found no wrongdoing. The city, on the other hand, will settle out of court for 7 figures.

I'm not entirely comfortable bringing up what I did in this particular thread, because I feel like I can understand why the situation in the Black house ended the way that it did.

I'm generally not an aggressive person, but just about all of my physical encounters with people in my life occurred within the two to six months after I got jumped down in Denver once. I was hyper aggressive for awhile after that and definitely made engagements that I shouldn't have. With that personal experience in mind, I look at the Black situation and feel I can relate on some level as to why everything that transpired did. In short, that officer had to have still been amped after his previous engagement, and if he's working, he didn't have the option to just not get involved in a situation. So again, I'm not trying to make a judgement on the officer that killed Mr. Black, but it's certainly not an over reach to lose your job if you kill someone that wasn't supposed to be killed in my opinion.

Further clarification, I haven't, and won't watch the video, or read the report, for the sole reason that I know that I'll have interactions with police in the future, and I don't want to have those future interactions shaded with negativity from me watching a bunch of stuff that will piss me off. It's very easy to only look at sensationalized events and build an incorrect impression based on events of generally low occurrence rates. Hope that makes sense.

I agree, Mr. Black was the wrong person to be killed. The question is: What did Officer Limbaugh do wrong?

Firing an employee because the outcome was bad is different than firing an employee because their actions were bad.

Watching the video in this case has made me think through former Weirton WV police officer Stephen Mader’s termination. When deadly force is legal, is it required?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

When deadly force is legal, is it required?

---

And how often is that question posed to LEO's, both new and experienced? In some agencies, I know it's a common question, in others, I'm not sure it's ever asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

And how often is that question posed to LEO's, both new and experienced? In some agencies, I know it's a common question, in others, I'm not sure it's ever asked.

---

Based on the parkland review board. The answer is, no it's not required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

And how often is that question posed to LEO's, both new and experienced? In some agencies, I know it's a common question, in others, I'm not sure it's ever asked.

---

I think it is a question everyone who carries a gun needs to answer for themselves. Ask the question of yourself frequently because when the time comes to answer the question for real, you will probably have a second or two to make the correct decision; and the correct decision you make will not be the correct decision for everyone else who reviews your actions afterward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

If you can try, finding one of the FATS or other "live" training exercises offered. Those seconds could mean the difference between your life or theirs ending. Even better, try finding a simunitions training course where you're engaged in a "live fire" exercise against others. Between the adrenaline flowing, having to make split second calls, etc it will open ones eyes , and mind.

---

This.

Horrible situation all around in this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

When deadly force is legal, is it required?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

And how often is that question posed to LEO's, both new and experienced? In some agencies, I know it's a common question, in others, I'm not sure it's ever asked.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

Based on the parkland review board. The answer is, no it's not required.

---

Deadly force is a means to an end, not an end in itself, so I don't see how it could ever be "required" under any circumstances. The question that the Parkland review board had to answer was whether the police department had an affirmative, legally enforceable duty to the victims of the shooting.

It's pretty well established law that public safety officials (police, fire, paramedics, etc) don't owe a legally enforceable duty to anybody to protect them from harm and there are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which is that trying to enforce such a 'duty' would quickly bankrupt every state or municipal entity in the country.

By required, I didn't mean legally but administratively, morally, socially? While Deputy Peterson had no legal obligation to enter the building during the shooting, I believe the majority of people reviewing his actions have determined that he did have an obligation in the other three areas. I don't believe any random armed citizen would have the same obligations. There were armed citizens in the parking lot, and in close proximity to the shooter, in Tucson on January 8, 2011, and none of them shot Jared Loughner as he killed six people and wounded thirteen others.

The Stephen Mader termination in WV was interesting to me for several reasons. It rests on an ethos of being able to pull the trigger when it is necessary. If you don't, some will judge you as a coward. If you do, some will judge you as a cowboy, or worse, a power hungry, jackboot thug who gets some sort of thrill out of killing people. In his former department he was judged to be unsuited to be an officer because he endangered his co-workers and forced his co-worker to do what needed to be done. Mader didn't see it that way. His own version of it was that he didn't feel the need to shoot the armed suspect. Something in his personal experience lead him to believe that while lethal force was justified, it was not necessary. Upon review, the shooting was ruled justified. Mader was terminated based on the lack of trust the department had in him. Mader sued the department for wrongful termination and won a judgment of $170,000 from the city of Weirton. Does the judgment in a civil case vindicate the decision Mader made? Given that police officers in Weirton, WV made $34,000 per year, that is about five years pay. I'm guessing the Chief feels that he got a good deal by paying a coward five years of pay to be rid of him.

If you can't tell, I spend too much time reading and reviewing these types of incidents. Seems to me that the one thing I learn over and over is; "You can do everything right and still be wrong." We each need to make decisions in life. The tough part is learning to live the with the decisions we've made.

Be safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Something in his personal experience lead him to believe that while lethal force was justified, it was not necessary.

---

I think this is important. I've heard first hand accounts, and we've all heard many not first hand accounts of situations where lethal force would have been justified. People like to engage in a type of bar talk mentality and chime in with all kinds of "I would have shot him right where he stood!" kind of chest pounding. We've all made comments like that. I can just about guarantee that very few of the people who would have been justified in pulling the trigger on someone, but didn't, aren't laying awake at night wishing that they had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

There were armed citizens in the parking lot, and in close proximity to the shooter, in Tucson on January 8, 2011, and none of them shot Jared Loughner as he killed six people and wounded thirteen others.

---

I don't recall the specifics of that incident off the top of my head, and as such may be missing something, but how much of that "non-engagement" may have been directly related to:

1. none of those so-armed were directly targeted
2. knowledge that any possible detail of their action(s), no matter how small/insignificant, which could be second-guessed after the fact by an aggressive prosecutor would at best result in massive legal fee and loss of employment, or jail-time at worst

My guess would be alot...What's that saying, "No good deed goes unpunished"?

There seems to be what could be considered "negative grey-area" for anyone who is not current/retired LEO when it comes to this kind of thing, and once again possible I'm missing something, but I don't see how holding everyone to a similar standard is a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

I agree, Mr. Black was the wrong person to be killed. The question is: What did Officer Limbaugh do wrong?

---

In the camera you can clearly see the pistol (looks like a 1911) in his right hand with the barrel pointed downwards. He tilts the flash light in his left hand up, which is when the cop shoots him twice. The cop then shoots him once more in the back, as he's lying on the ground.

The cop had been under investigation about 6 months prior for another shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Well, shit. I must've dreamed that whole 7 days in federal district court defending myself against a multi-million dollar civil suit against me both personally and professionally as a law enforcement officer for "doing my job".

I can't even begin to comment on the remainder of your post without getting myself in trouble. But let's just say you've set the bar pretty low for further discussion.

---

This!!!

I heard someone was flirting in here...

[Sarcasm2]..

. my new signature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChickNorris

I heard someone was flirting in here...

---

LOL!

Speaking AS one of the redheaded stepchildren on the forum, it's cool to see what folks think about stuff, and opinions will differ.

We're kinda family here, hash and move on I figure. Ain't worth having good fellers stuck on one thing in a bad way.


2 cents anyways. :)

We're 127 (counting mine) posts in and what needed to be said (info/facts) has been said. All that is left is for more statements on folks positions to the known facts and replies in the form of either agreement or disagreement. The disagreements aren't being presented as friendly as I'd prefer them to be within our community. I think it's time to close this thread.