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

[hollohas]

https://youtu.be/xJRQCrCXV8w

[Ridge]

https://youtu.be/xJRQCrCXV8w

3 seconds in and I'm already pissed off.

They heard gun shots inside the home, and could not comprehend why the suspect did not respond to verbal commands immediately afterwards?

More importantly, I can see from that video that the gun is in his right hand, and he raises a flashlight with his left, which is when the officer shoots him. And then once more when he's on the ground.

I get that they're pumping adrenaline through their systems, but that last shot into the guy's back while he's laying on the ground?

[Snowman78]

Thanks, after reading the report and seeing the body cam footage it was just such a shitty situation.

[cstone]

Tough to criticize the reaction of someone who had just fought someone, been hit in the head with a vase, and then killed the person who was assaulting their grandson. The whole incident lasted less than ten minutes for Mr. Black.

The officers got disjointed and confusing information and no description of the suspect causing the disturbance. That is not anyone's fault and too often is normal if you are close enough and responding faster than the dispatcher can get information. The officer who killed Mr. Black was reacting exactly the way most police officers are trained when someone has a gun, is not responding to commands, and points (in this case) a flashlight at them. The incident lasted less than three minutes for the officer who killed Mr. Black.

I am honestly without any good answers for how we, as gun owners should respond differently if we ever find ourselves in a similar situation. I don't know how you train to react after being hit in the head and killing someone in defense of a loved one and then being confronted by more armed men, who happen to be law enforcement. I can't say that I would be any more clear thinking and probably less than Mr. Black.

Be safe.

[ben4372]

I'll say it. That cop is not afraid to shoot. I'm at a loss as to how to teach my kids how to interact with the police. As of right now I tell them to do everything they are told, move slow and don't go for your wallet. I keep my info in the visor so I don't have to reach for nothing. I also turn down the N.W.A. When the police is made up of soldiers from the military, we get this. My impression of the Officer Friendly program when I was little is not the police we have now. One bad apple and such.

[CS1983]

I'll say it. That cop is not afraid to shoot. I'm at a loss as to how to teach my kids how to interact with the police. As of right now I tell them to do everything they are told, move slow and don't go for your wallet. I keep my info in the visor so I don't have to reach for nothing. I also turn down the N.W.A. When the police is made up of soldiers from the military, we get this. My impression of the Officer Friendly program when I was little is not the police we have now. One bad apple and such.

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

[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?

[Ridge]

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

That was my immediate thought when reading his post, too. Cops will give conflicting commands (Officer 1: Hands behind your head! Officer 2: Hands up!) and then one of them might shoot you for it.

[cstone]

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.

[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.