Rancher killed by two police officers after his Gelbvieh Bull is hit by car.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Do you know how many actual witnesses there were to this event? The stories mention the dead rancher, his wife, and a friend, plus deputies

From what it sounds like the only actual witnesses to the events surrounding Jack's death are his nephew, his wife, and the two officers.

If the officers try to save their skin its going to be their word against the wife and nephew's. Given the fact the Sherif has already spoken well of the rancher, and asked for his help, I don't see how the situation could escalate without some fault being laid at the hands of the deputies.

After they killed him they tossed his wife on the pavement with guns to her head, giving her a heart attack which put her in the hospital. Sounds like they were a tad aggressive.

a reply to: boncho

So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if that's a story coming soon to a headline near you.

Well done Bonch

SnF

a reply to: boncho
One of the links I read stated that the deputies were wearing lapel cameras. I don't think the video has been released from those though. If they were on....I believe the report said that the dam cameras were not operating.

I can't even begin to imagine what this woman and family are going through. Sit down to dinner, sheriff calls and asks that the bull be seen to, probably not an uncommon occurrence for a rancher in free range country. To have such a simple event turn into such a nightmare---becoming a widow, having a gun put at her head, probably for the first time in her life and having a heart attack ....while the cops are saying that her husband turned from a rancher to a crazed cop killer in a matter of seconds.

And to think that some days I think I have problems....my heart goes out to them.

You want to get their attention, start recalls against the sheriff, the county commissioners, and the prosecutor.

Then let the governor know he's next.

You MIGHT get a real investigation then. Other than that, no. Not from ISP.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: boncho
One of the links I read stated that the deputies were wearing lapel cameras.

I wouldn't hold my breath for either copcam or the car camera to have taken any video, if it's incriminatory to the cops.

There will be an unfortunate malfunction.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Do you know how many actual witnesses there were to this event? The stories mention the dead rancher, his wife, and a friend, plus deputies

From what it sounds like the only actual witnesses to the events surrounding Jack's death are his nephew, his wife, and the two officers.

If the officers try to save their skin its going to be their word against the wife and nephew's. Given the fact the Sherif has already spoken well of the rancher, and asked for his help, I don't see how the situation could escalate without some fault being laid at the hands of the deputies.

After they killed him they tossed his wife on the pavement with guns to her head, giving her a heart attack which put her in the hospital. Sounds like they were a tad aggressive.

Thanks for the info. If there were no other witnesses, then I hope there were functioning cameras, and that a good view of the event was recorded. It does seem they were aggressive. Perhaps whoever called the rancher didn't notify the guys on scene, or perhaps they tried, and the guys didn't/couldn't respond? That could be part of it. Could be they were just out of line, too. It doesn't happen every time a cop does anything, of course, but it does happen. If what the wife and other guy described is accurate, then the cops really messed up. It's also possible the other guys aren't being honest, due to the stress and the death. Hard to tell, sometimes. I'd love to see video of either the wife, the other guy, or the cops, stating what happened, to perhaps be able to better gauge whether or not they were being honest.

I can' fathom anything, from the family account, that would warrant them throwing the wife to the ground. The heart attack, I'd guess, was from the stress of her husband being shot as much as from that. Why they did that is a real puzzle. To have any justification, she would have had to pose a threat to them.

Wow, we really need video on this!! Whatever happened, whether a response to aggression, an act of lawlessness by the cops, or a terrible mistake, the truth needs to be known. I am not sure we have heard it all yet.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
We can't fathom much about this situation because it makes absolutely no sense. None. Because we can't twist our brains to the point that we can justify the actions of the cops. There were no criminal actions here on the part of the citizens....despite all the gun pointing and handcuffing witnesses---what possible purpose could that serve other than intimidation? They weren't called to a crime scene...they were called to the scene of an accident.
Yes, there was a huge bull on the loose but the simple act of retreating to a vehicle until a resolution could be had would have been the sensible thing to do. Most every deputy I know can run faster than a bull with a broken leg ---or would have sense enough to remain inside their vehicle.

a reply to: Bedlam

Trust me, I know there are as many ways to derail the investigation in the cops' favor as there are corrupt officials. I'm from Kentucky, where the law enforcement has been found guilty of crimes at a far lower rate than the general population when being tried on similar charges. Evidence is so often misplaced...

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
We can't fathom much about this situation because it makes absolutely no sense. None. Because we can't twist our brains to the point that we can justify the actions of the cops. There were no criminal actions here on the part of the citizens....despite all the gun pointing and handcuffing witnesses---what possible purpose could that serve other than intimidation? They weren't called to a crime scene...they were called to the scene of an accident.
Yes, there was a huge bull on the loose but the simple act of retreating to a vehicle until a resolution could be had would have been the sensible thing to do. Most every deputy I know can run faster than a bull with a broken leg ---or would have sense enough to remain inside their vehicle.

That's the thing; nothing about his makes sense, based on what we know so far, or have been told. From what I have read, the bull was hit by a car, and might have charged a car, the ops show up, the rancher is called out, he brings a gun to put down the bull, and the cops turn him around, shoot him, and then knock the wife down and handcuff her. What makes no sense to me is the why of the matter.

Why would the police call someone to help shoot their own bull, then shoot the person for coming? It doesn't make any sense. Are we to believe that these cops decided to kill someone that day, and saw the rancher as a good opportunity for that? Are we to believe they wanted him dead for some reason, and shot him when the opportunity arose? Neither of those seems likely. Even the wife of this man didn't suggest, at least that I have heard, that this was something planned.

So, again, why? Something is missing here. Unless this was premeditated, there is something we don't know. I don't think this was premeditated.

That leaves us with some possible scenarios:

1. The rancher was called by someone back in the police offices, and for one reason or another, the cops on scene didn't know he was coming, so they saw him as a threat when he showed up with a gun. This seems unlikely, because you'd think cops would know ranchers would carry, and carrying isn't seen as an issue in that area. So, unless he was brandishing at them, he should not have been seen as a threat.

2. The rancher did, somehow, actually threaten the cops. Maybe not intentionally. If at all, it would almost certainly wouldn't have been intentional. Maybe the way the bull was moving, his gun pointed at them, and they foolishly thought it was a threat. Poor training, cops on edge, and you'd have a recipe for just the sort of disaster we see here. In that scenario, they could have taken the wife down as a result of stress from the error, or because she attacked, or seemed to, after her husband was shot.

All in all, I see #2 as most likely.

No matter what, this is a terrible thing, for all involved.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

May I suggest a #3---the threat of being charged by a very large bull got their adrenaline pumping, they were scared and had their fingers on the triggers.
That much I can imagine---it's the part where they shoot the rancher then abuse the witnesses---
That speaks of panic on their part, a quick attempt to cover up their mistake.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Bedlam

Trust me, I know there are as many ways to derail the investigation in the cops' favor as there are corrupt officials. I'm from Kentucky, where the law enforcement has been found guilty of crimes at a far lower rate than the general population when being tried on similar charges. Evidence is so often misplaced...

What frightens me more than a single rouge cop, is how these occurrences keep happening, and the large number of people that are trying to push the agenda that it is okay and justified.

As a Vet, I was concerned a while back when everyone was turning on Vets, and demanding to know if they would turn on American civilians if ordered to. It seems their concerns were misdirected. It doesn't seem to be the military that are turning on and killing civilians. It is the civilian cops that are turning on and killing their fellow civilians.

This also gives strong support to what I have always said. If they are screaming for you to look left, you had better look right first.

Here is another follow up, seems a Town hall meeting took place and people are wanting to know why the body cams either 1. weren't turned on or 2. were they turned on but no one is showing the video.3. why these deputies killed the rancher..

www.nwcn.com...

It won't surprise me a bit if it is proved that these cops are lying through their teeth. Lying seems to be part of the job description. An innocent man was killed and these cops will probably not be held accountable. I am so tired of hearing about all the crimes and abuses of power by cops. It is becoming a daily occurrence. One of the big problems is allowing the police to investigate themselves when something like this happens. They have a vested interest in absolving their LEO's from guilt and I believe it is impossible for them to be unbiased and truthful. I also feel that a citizen panel should have the authorization to perform an investigation and fire these cops if they find reasonable guilt or incompetence.
There should be no suspension with pay. Allowing them to sit at home playing video games and collecting a check while some family mourns the loss of an loved one is immoral in my opinion.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

May I suggest a #3---the threat of being charged by a very large bull got their adrenaline pumping, they were scared and had their fingers on the triggers.
That much I can imagine---it's the part where they shoot the rancher then abuse the witnesses---

That speaks of panic on their part, a quick attempt to cover up their mistake.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, my #2 does include the cops being on edge, because of the bull. Something about the way all were moving, coupled with the stress of the situation, could have led to an accidental shooting. Why the wife was shoved down, I don't get, unless she did something. For that, we need some statements from the police, some video, something! They MUST have some proof of action on her part to excuse that. Panic on their part could be a cause for that, too.

My first inclination was to assume they were very poorly trained, and very careless. I hope that wasn't the case, and this was caused by a series of events that brought on a terrible accident. Either way, the loss of life is a real issue, and the possible abuse of the wife by the police, and something more than paid leave needs to happen here. If it was a complete accident, they are going to have to show video proof to convince the public.

No matter what happened, people will have lost some trust, and that can be very hard to restore.

FBI is getting involved now...

www.nwcn.com...

Any policy that allows any particular LEO to turn the camera off when he/she feels like it is pointless, because the camera will only be on when it's in the cop's favor.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Interstellardove

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
This whole thing sounds botched from the start...I need more information than something that has quotes from people calling police rifles M-16s (and the news source making sure that they made the comparison of the "perhaps an AR15 rifle" to a military M16 that isn't really used anymore).

But, if this really went down as is reported by the obviously biased witnesses, this is a pretty terrible incident. But like I said, more is absolutely needed to determine the veracity of what is stated is story.

Also, on a side note and not being a rancher, if I had a firearm on me--especially an AR--and there was a rampaging bull in front of me, I'd be trying to shoot it down, too, human or not. At some point, attempting to protect yourself and others at the scene is more important than being humane to the animal. But, knowing how cattle and horses get put down when injured like this, I may have at least tried to aim for the head...but that'd be a very improbable shot on a rampaging bull.

ETA: This will most likely be insanely unpopular with some of you, but if the rifle that the rancher was holding did go off, that definitely helps defend the officer's/officers' decision to open fire. I'm sure some of you will twist that into me meaning that the officer(s) should have shot to kill, but understand that is not what I said.

It is botched, people here seem to be twisting it just as much as the media without asking the necessary questions, so much for seeking the truth huh? I find it odd that we demand the truth so vehemently but when it comes time to criticise ourselves we seem have absolutely no interest in it. How is that any different that everything this site stands against?

I'm going to say it again, 0.0052% of officers are involved in shootings year round. The statistics are out there, double check my work. That's even using a highly biased number of shootings from someone heavily anti-police.

That's a pretty low percentage, what is it people want? Perfection? Nothing has changed in this number for decades. It's not new, the only new thing is the media finding every single incident they can and then exposing it in the most controversial way possible, how much do you want to bet they're viewing rates go up drastically on these stories?

It reminds me of what I've read about Vietnam, it could appear to one that major opposition of the war didn't set in until the media started crawling around the backlines taking pictures of dead soldiers to send back to outlets here in the U.S.

It reminds me of ebola, I may not have been a long time member but my friends I've been reading this site for over half my life, I am young, but that equates to nearly a decade, I remember a great number of people on here freaking out about ebola. Then it disappeared off the media, and soon after it stopped being talked about here.

More examples? Okay. The genocide in Darfur, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, the list goes on my friends.

That is not in response to the OP btw, he's just posting information he's garnered for discussion, it's in response to those who respond with hatred towards the police before actually taking part in the discussion.

Good for you buddy. Your rational adult countenance will not be appreciated. These threads are just a magnet for the oft-arrested ne'er-do-wells whose primary hobby is hating cops. If they weren't on here grousing and hating the police, they would be down on the street corner with the convicts doing it verbally. One's first inclination is that nobody could possibly say half this garbage that you read on here, with any semblance of seriousness. But ooop dere day is....in every thread.

Good for you then move on to another site. Plus, many forums won't allow open and free conversation that apparently leads to supposed hatred. Or simply be the change you want to see. Plenty of topics to cover in threads to be made.

I tired of seeing these replies about any sharing of these cop related incidents must mean cop hatred. That is not true especially ATS being a diverse community where even some officers are on the site and families of once officers to current officers. Can one really deny this family, who these officers were no strangers too apparently living in a smaller rural area, really deny a hurting family some kind of closure?

So far, good updates, as mentioned there's the two investigations to be going on of the ISP and the FBI. I believe a third, Independent, organization should bring in oversight as well.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Any policy that allows any particular LEO to turn the camera off when he/she feels like it is pointless, because the camera will only be on when it's in the cop's favor.

Sort of defeats the purpose of having the camera in the first place.

How can a camera be only used at the officer's discretion? That is the same thing as saying a security camera only needs to be turned on at the discretion of the security company.

No one is going to buy into that kind of security system, why should we be expected to?

It makes no kind of sense.

Here's the latest update:

Idaho sheriff releases names of deputies who killed rancher in altercation over charging bull

COUNCIL, Idaho — Authorities released the names of two sheriff's deputies who shot and killed an Idaho rancher last month after one of his bulls was hit by a car and charged emergency crews.

Concerns were shared as well:

"I still have concerns about threats made against the deputies, but at this time, I believe that it is the right thing to do," Zollman said in a statement late Monday.

Releasing the names is "the first step toward accountability and justice," Paul Winward, an attorney for the family, told the Idaho Statesman.

-Source
Exactly why I support it. Often times the ones responsible are never held accountable.