Off-duty officer shoots 2 in lot after Angels game

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FadeToBlack
 


Same here, and he hasn't the usual thing of putting 4 or 5 bullets in each of em, he's shot in self defence and I would have too.

A bottle or a club? If it's thrown that is gonna hurt and you've got no idea if they were looking to further carry out harm to the guy.

Unlucky lads, you shouldn't be throwing things at strangers walking out of the game with their family. Guarantee they weren't expecting what they got!




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX

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.



i have to agree on this one, if you are with your wife and kids, you don't know what could happen to them, and one has to strike out hard and fast to make sure your family is safe. funny how the emphasis is on the shooter, and not on the guys that hit first?...what was their motive?...and i might add their brains? thugs are going to get their @ss kicked when they act like that, this isn't some video game.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX
I see nothing wrong with this, self defence if ever i saw it.


I see something wring with this. If it all went down as the story reports it's obvious self-defense and he very may well have saved his family from much worse than a bottle across the head.

The problem I have with this is that in CA it's nearly impossible for the unconnected, unpowerful, unwealthy, citizen to be permitted the same opportunity to protect themselves in a similar fashion.

CA is one of those "being a rape/murder victim is morally superior than shooting your attacker dead" states.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
He was hit in the head with an object once.

So he shoots two men - because as we now know, it is possible for two men to throw one bottle or swing the same club at the same time.

*And just ignore the fact that no "bottle or club" was reported or found....


CX

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
He was hit in the head with an object once.

So he shoots two men - because as we now know, it is possible for two men to throw one bottle or swing the same club at the same time.

*And just ignore the fact that no "bottle or club" was reported or found....



I can see your point, but once is enough to kill a person. I've seen a person killed by one blow to the head by a chair leg, and i've seen one soldier put in a coma from a bottle round the head.

So the "hit once" thing makes no difference to me.

As for the no weapon being found, if it turns out to be the case that there is more to this, then i'll quite happliy rethink my opinion of the situation.

Fact is the father still received a head injury from something. In my experience, when someone cause you head injuries, you don't let continue doing that if you can help it.

CX.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981


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)


Unbelievable? These two goons attacked the man while his wife and children were with him. Who knows what their intentions were, but obviously not to break bread with him. He had every right to defend his family and himself. The only shame in this is that more people in this country aren't allowed to do the same. I happen to live in the only state left in the country that considers it a felony to want to protect yourself and your family with a firearm. I say props to the officer, but drops to the legislators for not allowing everyone the same privelege of right to life through maximum defense. An Armed Society is a Polite Society.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Another thing just occurred to me that irritates me. This guy was carrying during the game. I don't know how the Angels do things but a policy of Fenway is no firearms. Even lawfully carried ones. Given Californias hoplophobia I seriously doubt Anaheim permits lawfully carried arms into the stadium.

I really hate this whole "one man is better than another in the eyes of the law" crap.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX
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.


Agreed.

Isn't this what our guns are for?

Also, who's to say the assaulters didn't have guns on them either?

OP you are paranoid - this is a case where the VICTIM is right, off-duty police officer or not (it doesnt matter).



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Oreyeon
 


OK a bit off-topic, but i didn't know the opposite of Props was Drops...

Agree with you! Not about the "polite society" bit (that's weird-sounding) but self-defense is absolutely a must, firearm or otherwise. And the man was by himself, against TWO attackers, with children... it wouldnt have been pretty had the man not have his gun.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


I sure hope you and you family are never attacked. You would probably curl up in a ball and let the attack happen. Even if it meant the rest of your family is next after you.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
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?


YES that seems possible... I did not think about that before.

Kaytagg posted this:

"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. "

And now that I think about it, that's more likely than a "self-defense" issue.

In which case, the man is WRONG. You should NOT shoot unless 1) You are at a shooting range or 2) Someone is attacking you.

(For me, animals shouldn't be shot either. It's just... cruel.)

Now that this theory's out, it seems more plausible that he got into a tussle with these men (maybe a staring-one) and after the game, the two men decided to duke it out with him, but before they landed a REAL blow... they got shot.

And that is NOT right.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Personally, if he was simply mugged or assualted for some drunken fun, its too bad he didn't kill them both. Harsh? Yes, but if this is the result from every mugging or unprovoked assault I imagine crime would soon drop off due to piles of dead bodies or simply the fear of ending up as dead body.

Why do we continue to make excuses for criminals? Our taxes pay for shelters and food banks to feed and house those in need, they also pay for programs to get homeless people educations and jobs. So why do we continue to make petty excuses for people who had a choice and instead of taking assistance from the programs availiable decided to mug a person? Unprovoked assault, even worse, what can possibly be an excuse?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Just another sensationalized thread so all the cop haters can come and bash.... don't worry, it'll grow old in a few days and we'll move on to something else.


He had every right to defend himself and his family.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
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.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I live in a state where MANY MANY MANY people carry - thanks to our CWL law.

I would bet that if this did not involve a cop the sentiments would be different by some.

The man was assaulted and the safety of his family was an issue and he defended himself. Where does it say how one should defend themself? He had no idea if the idiots were carrying guns. They could have shot him first or his family - then what?

He did what he felt was best to do - within the law. If it comes out that this is not the case - and he broke the law - than that is another story.

They were thugs and they messed with the wrong person. Too bad for them.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Just a little information. Most (99-99.9998%) of off duty police officers carry and are actually supposed to. Officers are technically officers 24/7. They can detain, they can discharge their weapon if the situation meets the same on duty criteria.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
Just another sensationalized thread so all the cop haters can come and bash.... don't worry, it'll grow old in a few days and we'll move on to something else.


He had every right to defend himself and his family.


I agree that he had every right to defend his family.

What I don't agree with is that if that had been me ( a non LEO), would I be given the same right?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


If a cop is perpetually on duty are they perpetually above the law or only when firearms come into play? Can they stick their heads out the car window and shout "wooo, wooooo, woooooo" as they fly 80 down a 25?

Given the gross fallibility of man and what I know of police training a badge in mo way makes them "better" or "more suited" to run amok or selectively disregard the law than any other individual. In fact, given that instances of stress, depression, divorce and anger are all significantly higher in police officers than in the general population I'd argue they are by far "less suited" to selectively disregard the law.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Well i think this pig should be jailed.

Shooting two men just because one of them may have thrown something is borderline psychopathic.

Imagine how the children leaving the event must have felt when some freak starts shooting.

Once again it just goes to show me that America is one of the last places i would ever choose to visit.




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


I don't know all the state laws, but I would hope that in most states you have the right to defend yourself, your family and personal property if you feel your life may be in danger.

That being said we do have a messed up legal system, so who knows.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Not at an MLB game and not in California.

The cops, like the rich and the politicians, are special people and we're all pigs.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join