Current Events > Alabama police give homeowner one second to respond before killing him

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yes, we know 27, you think him having a gun is enough reason to kill him.

So why waste the good officer's time giving orders? They should have just opened fired on sight like you support.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Perkins turned the gun toward one of the officers,

Fair, next.

Is it fair though? The news aired a clip from a neighbors camera. You cant really see what happened, but you can hear what happened. And it really is as quick as the family's attorney said. Not to mention, it's yet another instance where police fired far, far too many shots (at least 20 shots)

https://www.wsfa.com/2023/10/05/several-shots-heard-newly-obtained-footage-decatur-officer-involved-shooting/

So according to CE it's ok to pull a gun on a tow truck driver doing his job, but not ok to shoot at someone aiming a gun at you? I'm not a fan of police and this was a shitty situation but come on.

texanfan27 posted...

If your car is outright stolen (thief broke in a stole it, not going look at it getting repoed) and you were insured, you get a rental and find a new car after going through the process. It sucks, but not worth taking a life.

If your car is being repossessed, however, or even illegally parked, you're already in the wrong.

NoxObscuras posted...

And it really is as quick as the family's attorney

Well, we already have people suggesting that him having a gun was enough reason without them waiting for him to follow the orders.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Prove what? Do you doubt the story as it is reported? I can only go off the info that had been provided. The man reportedly pointed a weapon at a police officer, so yeah, if that is what happened, the shooting was justified.

LMAO imagine actually believing the police in 2023, especially in a situation where they've not released the video. If what they described was truly how it went down, they would've immediately released the video. Any time they don't is a tacit admission on their part that they're at the very least fudging the truth a bit if not outright lying.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Prove what? Do you doubt the story as it is reported? I can only go off the info that had been provided. The man reportedly pointed a weapon at a police officer, so yeah, if that is what happened, the shooting was justified.

I absolutely do doubt the story occurred as presented. Cops constantly lie to cover their asses. It's such a routine occurrence I don't understand why you'd give them a benefit of a doubt based on just their word alone.

eggcorn posted...

So according to CE it's ok to pull a gun on a tow truck driver doing his job, but not ok to shoot at someone aiming a gun at you? I'm not a fan of police and this was a shitty situation but come on.

Maybe they can prove he aimed a gun?

Or do we just take the words of people known to lie at any opportunity to give themselves a reason to kill somebody?

GranAures posted...

Yes, we know 27, you think him having a gun is enough reason to kill him.

So why waste the good officer's time giving orders? They should have just opened fired on sight like you support.

him having a gun out and if he had pointed it someone.

What if they waited and he fired and killed someone? then you have two dead people instead of one? Or maybe he would dropped it and no one be dead.

but at the end of the day, cause he pulled a firearm and used it in a threatening manner, officers responded the way they did. Now we wait for camera footage to see what what fully happened.

NoxObscuras posted...

Is it fair though? The news aired a clip from a neighbors camera. You cant really see what happened, but you can hear what happened. And it really is as quick as the family's attorney said. Not to mention, it's yet another instance where police fired far, far too many shots (at least 20 shots)

https://www.wsfa.com/2023/10/05/several-shots-heard-newly-obtained-footage-decatur-officer-involved-shooting/

Look, if more info comes out I'm more than willing to change my mind on this, but based on what had been reported it sounds justified.

How long exactly do you expect somebody to stand there aiming gun at you? Do you wait one second? Two? 10? Do you expect the cops to wait until they have been shot at, potentionally killed before action is taken?

The shots fire is irrelevant. You don't shoot to kill or wound, you shoot to stop the threat, which means you keep firing until the threat doesn't exist.

Now if they fired until he was down and no longer threat, and then kept pumping rounds into him, that would be excessive. I haven't watched this camera yet so I don't have an opinion on that yet.

GranAures posted...

I remember a case where they did.

One of them unloaded as he was following that order and they all proceeded to arrest his wife on top of his still warm corpse.

I want to point back at this.

This case was of police being called on a domestic disturbance by a neighbor, knocking on the apartment door in the middle of the night, actually announcing themselves but then hiding around the hallway corner. When the husband checked the peephole he clearly saw nobody so opened the door with his handgun in hand pointed at the ground to which police stormed out and told him to put it on the ground so he proceeded to lower with his empty hand raised and was still killed.

In this thread him having a gun in hand means he was a threat and he had it coming. And it wasn't even a domestic disturbance so his only "crime" was answering the door armed in the midnight hours because he didn't believe the people who knocked were police because he didn't see them.

first world country.

If you can be shot and killed without repercussions for having a gun then you don't actually have a 2nd amendment right to keep or bear arms.

texanfan27 posted...

him having a gun out and if he had pointed it someone.

What if they waited and he fired and killed someone? then you have two dead people instead of one? Or maybe he would dropped it and no one be dead.

but at the end of the day, cause he pulled a firearm and used it in a threatening manner, officers responded the way they did. Now we wait for camera footage to see what what fully happened.

I feel like there's been so many examples of the police managing to find the ability to exercise restraint when the suspect is a belligerent old white male with a gun that if they really wanted to in this instance they would have done something completely different, such as announce themselves or made their presence known from a greater distance.

Without any sort of corroborating evidence from the video I'm just not willing to accept the mere word from these cops that there was absolutely nothing they could have done to avoid shooting this man.

ScazarMeltex posted...

If you can be shot and killed without repercussions for having a gun then you don't actually have a 2nd amendment right to keep or bear arms.

Guess I missed the subsection where it says it is okay to point weapons at tow truck drivers and police officers.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Guess I missed the subsection where it says it is okay to point weapons at tow truck drivers and police officers.

Yet again, the tow truck driver was attempting to steal the man's vehicle.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Guess I missed the subsection where it says it is okay to point weapons at tow truck drivers and police officers.

Because stealing cars is totally an okay thing to do, and having a gun while speaking to a thief is totally worth killing.

All of you people are nuts that are saying this is fine.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Guess I missed the subsection where it says it is okay to point weapons at tow truck drivers and police officers.

So why exactly are you so eager to take the police at their word when they've repeatedly proven to be untrustworthy throughout the country? Does the boot leather really taste that good?

If it went down exactly as they claim, why are they hesitant to release any video?

Murphiroth posted...

So why exactly are you so eager to take the police at their word when they've repeatedly proven to be untrustworthy throughout the country? Does the boot leather really taste that good?

If it went down exactly as they claim, why are they hesitant to release any video?

It always takes a while for body cam footage to come out. Come on now.

electricbugs2 posted...

It always takes a while for body cam footage to come out. Come on now.

Weird how it always comes out much faster when they're more confident they're in the right.

And that doesn't really address the fact that you absolutely should not take the word of the police in a situation like this at face value.

Murphiroth posted...

Weird how it always comes out much faster when they're more confident they're in the right.

Or the video backs up the spin they give. But if it doesn't then you can best expect it to not exist or be real slow rolling.

Regardless
Murphiroth posted...

you absolutely should not take the word of the police in a situation like this at face value.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Look, if more info comes out I'm more than willing to change my mind on this, but based on what had been reported it sounds justified.

How long exactly do you expect somebody to stand there aiming gun at you? Do you wait one second? Two? 10? Do you expect the cops to wait until they have been shot at, potentionally killed before action is taken?

The shots fire is irrelevant. You don't shoot to kill or wound, you shoot to stop the threat, which means you keep firing until the threat doesn't exist.

Now if they fired until he was down and no longer threat, and then kept pumping rounds into him, that would be excessive. I haven't watched this camera yet so I don't have an opinion on that yet.

"Based on what had been reported" but there was literally paragraphs in the opening post explaining what I just posted. About how the police gave him barely any time to react. Just ran up, yelled and bam.

And both you and TexasFan have used the mindset of "what if they had waited and he had shot one of them?" That's why they're supposed to approach safely so that they have cover if he starts shooting. Like at the end of car chases, they don't just rush up to the person, guns blazing. They take cover behind their patrol cars and order the suspect to come out with their hands up and then slowly back up towards them.

https://youtube.com/shorts/am4ZCxs600g?si=OObrI0Nha32kNHle

"Drop the gun!"
"Gun!" *kills person immediately for possessing gun*

It's always so amazing how the 2nd Amendment fanatics change their entire tune about the right to have a gun when it comes to a black person.

You have a RIGHT to own a gun.
You have a RIGHT to wear that gun.
You have a RIGHT to use that gun to protect yourself or your property, especially while on your homestead.

"Oh it's a black person. Of course you need to shoot him immediately! Why did he even have a gun!?!"

Every time.

Murphiroth posted...

Weird how it always comes out much faster when they're more confident they're in the right.

And that doesn't really address the fact that you absolutely should not take the word of the police in a situation like this at face value.

If the body cam comes out and proves me wrong Ill eat crow. But Im guessing this is going to be Jaheim Mills 2.0

Pulling a gun on a tow truck driver. Bet he felt really strong until he didnt.

texanfan27 posted...

If your car is outright stolen (thief broke in a stole it, not going look at it getting repoed) and you were insured, you get a rental and find a new car after going through the process. It sucks, but not worth taking a life.

Everything is your house can be replaced mostly outside family heirlooms, but again is it worth taking a life over them?

you can save a $20000 dollar truck, but Im doing so eat 100k or more civil suits. Again is it worth it?

It's honestly a little amazing that you can have this attitude on not killing over property yet seem to be endorsing the idea that you should shoot on sight someone with a gun without giving them the chance to surrender/lower it.

It feels similar to a certain other poster I've seen who is staunchly against the death penalty, yet has many times justified police split-second on the spot executions based off their mere perception of what they thought was happening at the time for things no court of law would ever sentence someone to death over.

texanfan27 posted...

This is something that was drilled into me from my dad who was a handgun instructor and self defense teacher. Property is replacable, human life isnt.

Once again, good on your dad but that isn't the viewpoint of typical 2A defenders, even here.

Questionmarktarius posted...

See also: Castle Doctrine.

NoxObscuras posted...

About how the police gave him barely any time to react.

"But he had a gun and therefore does not deserve a chance to react!"

meralonne posted...

Once again, good on your dad but that isn't the viewpoint of typical 2A defenders, even here.

It also is a pretty stupid thing to say when... Someone died over this. So it's apparently fine if certain people die, but not others.

another one bites the dust lmao!

Kradek posted...

It's honestly a little amazing that you can have this attitude on not killing over property yet seem to be endorsing the idea that you should shoot on sight someone with a gun without giving them the chance to surrender/lower it.

"Drawing a gun over property is stupid(agreeable)."
"Him having certain property justifies killing him."

texanfan27 posted...

if you are waving around a firearm, then yes. I would assume you have the intent to use it.

No

Sandalorn posted...

It's always so amazing how the 2nd Amendment fanatics change their entire tune about the right to have a gun when it comes to a black person.

You have a RIGHT to own a gun.
You have a RIGHT to wear that gun.
You have a RIGHT to use that gun to protect yourself or your property, especially while on your homestead.

"Oh it's a black person. Of course you need to shoot him immediately! Why did he even have a gun!?!"

Every time.

Nothing scares the gun nuts more than minorities having access to firearms. Republicans overwhelmingly supported Ronald Reagan when he banned open carry of firearms in California after the Black Panthers started arming themselves to protect against cops.

dameon_reaper posted...

No

That's another funny thing. Fine to assume the victim was going to shoot somebody but heaven forbid he assume somebody was stealing his truck and acted irrationally.

Kradek posted...

It's honestly a little amazing that you can have this attitude on not killing over property yet seem to be endorsing the idea that you should shoot on sight someone with a gun without giving them the chance to surrender/lower it.

It feels similar to a certain other poster I've seen who is staunchly against the death penalty, yet has many times justified police split-second on the spot executions based off their mere perception of what they thought was happening at the time for things no court of law would ever sentence someone to death over.

the difference is loss of life. Also the constant saying Im saying they should shoot on sight is wrong. I rather it end with no deaths and not a single shot fired, but minimal loss of life is the goal. This was preventable long before the police arrived.

texanfan27 posted...

the difference is loss of life. Also the constant saying Im saying they should shoot on sight is wrong. I rather it end with no deaths and not a single shot fired, but minimal loss of life is the goal. This was preventable long before the police arrived.

And there was a loss of life. So your point is completely moot. If the owner had shot the tow driver, then in your eyes would that be fine?

"Minimal loss of life" would have been better achieved by not shooting first and asking questions never because he dared to have a gun. But again, more attempts to blame somebody for daring to have a gun instead of the people who shot on sight.
ArtiRock posted...

If the owner had shot the tow driver, then in your eyes would that be fine?

That would have likely led to more loss of life as police would have been called on a shooting and would be two dead bodies.

If possessing a weapon in the vicinity of police immediately forfeits your life, then there is no right to possess a weapon.

If breaking any law within the vicinity of police immediately forfeits your life, then the penalty for every crime is death.

GranAures posted...

"Minimal loss of life" would have been better achieved by not shooting first and asking questions never because he dared to have a gun. But again, more attempts to blame somebody for daring to have a gun instead of the people who shot on sight.

That would have likely led to more loss of life as police would have been called on a shooting and would be two dead bodies.

im blaming the person who thought be effective to threaten a tow truck driver with a gun. Then brought it out again when he returned with police.

He escalated the conflict, which could resolved peacefully with a few phone calls. Instead he threatened someone doing their job (or would any of you like to explain how he would know it was a wrongful repo?) with a firearm. Owning the gun isnt a crime, but using it to openly threaten someone is.

Or the police are lying.

texanfan27 posted...

im blaming the person who thought be effective to threaten a tow truck driver with a gun. Then brought it out again when he returned with police.

He escalated the conflict, which could resolved peacefully with a few phone calls. Instead he threatened someone doing their job (or would any of you like to explain how he would know it was a wrongful repo?) with a firearm. Owning the gun isnt a crime, but using it to openly threaten someone is.

Or, you know, the police are lying.

And are you seriously asking how the guy who owned the truck and had presumably been making payments on it knew it was a wrongful repo? Is that a real question? You surely can't be that dumb. Like if it was in fact a mistake then the guy who owned the truck would definitely know he was caught up on payments. Or do you mean how would the tow truck driver know? Cause if so you worded that poorly.

But hey, maybe the family's lying and the repo was legit. I can acknowledge that, unlike your inability to acknowledge the cops might be full of shit.

Murphiroth posted...

Or, you know, the police are lying.

And are you seriously asking how the guy who owned the truck and had presumably been making payments on it knew it was a wrongful repo? Is that a real question? You surely can't be that dumb. Like if it was in fact a mistake then the guy who owned the truck would definitely know he was caught up on payments.

But hey, maybe the family's lying and the repo was legit. I can acknowledge that, unlike your inability to acknowledge the cops might be full of shit.

the tow truck driver is who Im referring to, how would he know? All he was told was go this truck it behind on payments.

and till more video comes out showing what happened, I assume that the accounts given are remotely accurate on all sides. Based on those listed, the gun threatened the tow truck driver with a gun, he left and returned with officers, then there was a shooting which resulted in this death. Thats all that is known outside there was a crap ton of gun fire based on the driveway video which is excessive amounts (17 shots I think?)

if any is proven false Ill re-evaluate from there. Right now we just have the news reports to go off of.

Pigs gonna oink

And that crime clearly is deserving of death to you. One person doing something stupid.

Mill that over.

One person did something stupid and you are in here saying that that deserves police, unannounced police at that, not giving him any chance to obey their orders before opening fire.