Off-duty officer shoots 2 in lot after Angels game

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Off-duty officer shoots 2 in lot after Angels game


news.yahoo.com

ANAHEIM, Calif. – An off-duty police officer shot and wounded two men who had assaulted him in the crowded Angel Stadium parking lot after Wednesday night's Colorado Rockies-Los Angeles Angels game, authorities said.

The officer, who was walking to his car with his wife and small children about 25 minutes after the game, was hit in the head with an object, police Sgt. Tim Schmidt said.

The off-duty officer then shot the men with his duty weapon, Schmidt said. Police did not immediately identify the officer or the shooting
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Ok this is just unbelieveable, this officer shoots two unarmed men after they "assulted" him following a baseball game. So apparently it's ok for cops even off duty to use firearms against others, here is another example of the "law" going to an extreme, I have in the past defended the actions of police officers in regards to issues like this but now I'm starting to see that these kind of police related incidents are increasing at alarming rates, see the article.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


CX
+23 more 
posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I see nothing wrong with this, self defence if ever i saw it.


If two guys are low enough to attack someone in front of their wife and small kids, who knows what they would do after they'd finished you off with a club?

Fair game if you ask me.

CX.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


He(officer) was apparently hit in the head with an object, what was the object? they don't say was it a bullet? I think not.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 

I am in agreement with cx, in this case the guy had every right to defend himself, he was with his family who were in danger.
I normally am on the side of victim when its the police who have acted above the law but not this time, he was protecting his family & anyone would do the same.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


Guns are dangerous, and should not be used wantonly.

The only time you ever point a gun at somebody is if you're going to shoot them. The only time you shoot them is if you're 100% ready to kill them.

Don't they teach firearm safety to cops?



Edit to add: We don't know the facts of the case. The cop could have been hit in the head by an empty beer can. Wait for more information to come out before taking the side of somebody who just shot two people, imo.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Kaytagg]


CX

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by CX
 


He(officer) was apparently hit in the head with an object, what was the object? they don't say was it a bullet? I think not.



The officer, who was walking to his car with his wife and two small children about 25 minutes after the game, was hit in the head with a bottle or club, police Sgt. Tim Schmidt said.


A bottle or a club can kill you if you are hit hard enough, are you going to risj finding out in front of your wife and kids? I certainly wouldn't.

It makes no odds if he was attacked with a bullet, if you think your life is at risk, you are going to do whatever you can to stop it happening.


The officer also had a serious head wound


I'm not sure what consitutes a "serious head wound", i must admit he doesn't look that bad at up on the trolley there, but it's apparent he was at least attacked.

Again though, attack a man in front of his family, and you should expect little leniancy in the response.

CX.


CX

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by CX
 


Guns are dangerous, and should not be used wantonly.

The only time you ever point a gun at somebody is if you're going to shoot them. The only time you shoot them is if you're 100% ready to kill them.


Very true, and as you say, we don't really know the full facts of the case.

However going by the facts we are given in the article, if someone tried to wrap a bottle or club around my head when my little ones were with me, i would indeed point my gun at them and intend wholeheartedly to shoot them.

What if that club kills you there and then, what happens to your little ones stood there? Sorry, i wouldn't wait to find that one out.

Lots of "what if's" though, and as you say, no definates on the facts. I'm only giving an opinion on what i think i would do in that situation.

CX.


[edit on 25/6/09 by CX]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


So he was left with no other option but to fire? He couldn't have perhaps drew down on the men while his family went to safety and called police? he just fired? not good, obviously more information is needed, but to me it soulds like he possibly "got into it" with the men inside the stadium, then when the game was finished they all continued it out in the parking lot.

What kind of man alows conflict to escalate while he has his wife and kids with him anyways?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by CX
 



Edit to add: We don't know the facts of the case. The cop could have been hit in the head by an empty beer can. Wait for more information to come out before taking the side of somebody who just shot two people, imo.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Kaytagg]


Good advice. Why not take it and wait for more detail before taking a side yourself.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
The only reason this is being made to look bad is because he is a cop who was off duty.
Look beyond that and you have a regular guy who was attacked while he was with his family.
Now to me that IS an attack on his family.

Any other guy and this wouldnt be an issue but it has been made so because he is a police officer (off duty)....it should be irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I want to see what comes of this of course, but my initial impression leans to the "big man with a gun" syndrome all given fact taken into account, he didn't need to shoot IMO unless the men were both attacking him placing himself and his family's life at risk, but even the 1+1 rule as it applys to use of force dosen't fit here.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 



Most "regular" people don't carry and the small percentage that do(legally) would have still been spotlighted the same if one were to have done this. Cop on duty, off duty, civilian doesn't matter he had other options.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Like a few posters have said,the circumstances are not fully known so things may pan out differently yet.
off topic i see your signiture.....where is rfburns?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 


I agree that more info is needed so I guess we;ll just wait and see what is released and when, I'll be looking for good word play by the media.


CX

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by cropmuncher
The only reason this is being made to look bad is because he is a cop who was off duty.
Look beyond that and you have a regular guy who was attacked while he was with his family.
Now to me that IS an attack on his family.

Any other guy and this wouldnt be an issue but it has been made so because he is a police officer (off duty)....it should be irrelevant.


I agree, if this was a member of the public who was carrying a concealed weapon and defended their family, there would be cheers all round.

When a cop is off duty, is he not still a member of the public?

Unless you've been subjected to any kind of attack when you are with your little ones, you have no idea how scary it can be, and how much of a ingrained desire to protect your family at any cost it can bring out in you.

Again, i do agree that we don't know all the facts, i'm just discussing it for the sake of discussion sake as the topic has been posted without all the facts.

A presumption i know, but if it had been a mum on her own with her kids, we'd probably looking at two dead criminals, so i wouldn't neccessairly go with the "big man with a gun" theory. I've seen women do some nasty things to protect their kids.

CX.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


I gonna go with the facts we have for now, but even so he still had other options besides to shoot. I can understand the need to protect but what about the trauma those kids suffered possibly seeing daddy shoot two men?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by CX
 


Guns are dangerous, and should not be used wantonly.

The only time you ever point a gun at somebody is if you're going to shoot them. The only time you shoot them is if you're 100% ready to kill them.


Very true, and as you say, we don't really know the full facts of the case.

However going by the facts we are given in the article, if someone tried to wrap a bottle or club around my head when my little ones were with me, i would indeed point my gun at them and intend wholeheartedly to shoot them.

What if that club kills you there and then, what happens to your little ones stood there? Sorry, i wouldn't wait to find that one out.

Lots of "what if's" though, and as you say, no definates on the facts. I'm only giving an opinion on what i think i would do in that situation.

CX.


[edit on 25/6/09 by CX]


I agree completely. What is being overshadowed here is that somebody would be mean spirited enough to attack a father in front of his own kids. Children don't need to be exposed to that sort of thing.

I hope the people that threw the bottle get charges pressed against them and pay for their pointless act of violence, but I also hope the cop gets his day in court as well. I don't think shooting the attackers was necessarily the first and best course of action to take on his part.

Just my two cents



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Defense of family much?

I don't know about you guys, but if I were attacked and I felt my family was in danger, I'd probably shoot them provoked.

If it were me by myself, I probably wouldn't shoot unless I had to.. But if my FAMILY were with me... I'd be much more defensive.


CX

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by CX
 


I gonna go with the facts we have for now, but even so he still had other options besides to shoot. I can understand the need to protect but what about the trauma those kids suffered possibly seeing daddy shoot two men?


Fair one. Then again if it was a decision on having my girls see there daddy shoot someone, or have them see someone club their daddy...possibly hard enough to kill him....i know which one i'd go with.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this on lol.


I am posting as a dad of two girls who are my whole world, the thought of anyone or thing even coming close to harming them is probably the only thing on this planet that makes me feel anger that i would ordinarily find concerning.

Oh well, and another day, another subject here on ATS, thanks for the thread.


Take care,

CX.

[edit on 25/6/09 by CX]





top topics
 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join