Post by: Skillet on September 09, 2013, 09:27:49 AM
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021778721_edmondsshootingxml.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021778721_edmondsshootingxml.html)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 09, 2013, 09:34:15 AM
Post by: Atroxus on September 09, 2013, 11:44:27 AM
Post by: Skillet on September 11, 2013, 08:48:05 AM
This guy appears to have been shot for simply not following commands - you can bet your bottom dollar if he leveled the weapon on the cops they would have made absolutely sure that part made it to the press...
"The Edmonds officers who responded to the 911 calls issued verbal commands to the man, then fired at him, Snell said."
:dunno:
Post by: CP on September 11, 2013, 09:05:48 AM
At approximately 7:30 a.m. Sept. 7, multiple calls came into 911 that a man was walking in the area of 1200 block of Puget Dr. brandishing a rifle. Edmonds Police located the man and, after a brief verbal confrontation, shots were fired. The 27-year-old Edmonds man was shot and seriously injured and transported to Harborview Medical Center. The two Edmonds officers, a sergeant and a corporal, were both placed on administrative leave, as is standard procedure.
The incident remains under investigation by SMART, a team of investigators from various Snohomish County law enforcement agencies who respond to and investigate use-of-force incidents in the county.
The road at Olympic View Dr. and Puget Dr. has been closed until further notice.
Post by: BsB on September 11, 2013, 09:10:34 AM
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
Post by: CP on September 11, 2013, 09:13:42 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on September 11, 2013, 09:21:03 AM
Post by: Skillet on September 11, 2013, 09:51:58 AM
Other reports stated he was "carrying" the rifle but the key to the shooting is police allege that the man leveled the rifle at officers before he was shot.
That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Thanks!
Post by: jason stevens on September 11, 2013, 05:39:26 PM
Post by: Pigfuz on September 11, 2013, 05:49:24 PM
Post by: Skillet on September 11, 2013, 05:51:23 PM
Here's the only update I could find. In this case, they do allege the man had a history of mental illness, "leveled his weapon", a .22 rifle, at the officers. NRA isn't in the habit of defending rights for mental patients, so they are off the case here.
http://edmonds.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/man-shot-by-edmonds-police-remains-hospitalized-charges-expected (http://edmonds.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/man-shot-by-edmonds-police-remains-hospitalized-charges-expected)
There has to be video of this somewhere out there. Cell phone, surveillance, etc. Too many people, too public of a street.
Post by: csaaphill on September 18, 2013, 12:27:13 AM
:yeah:After all the cops getting shot if the man was told to put it down? If I was the cop I would shoot him to . Really hope that was the case and not a unjustified shooting.
I don't believe the cops have a legal right to force a guy carrying legally to give up his weapon. :dunno:
unless he's threatening to shoot people then they do.
seems like a shot over the bow to those of us who want to open carry!
Post by: csaaphill on October 01, 2013, 03:55:48 PM
Post by: JLS on October 01, 2013, 04:01:53 PM
After all the cops getting shot if the man was told to put it down? If I was the cop I would shoot him to . Really hope that was the case and not a unjustified shooting.
I don't believe the cops have a legal right to force a guy carrying legally to give up his weapon. :dunno:
I would explain it to you, but then I'm just another pathological liar. :rolleyes:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2013, 04:22:31 PM
Post by: Crunchy on October 01, 2013, 04:52:04 PM
Other reports stated he was "carrying" the rifle but the key to the shooting is police allege that the man leveled the rifle at officers before he was shot.
I'm sure the police are claiming that. I have never met a cop yet that wasn't a pathological lair so we will probably never know the truth.
You haven't met a cop that wasn't a liar?? I am betting you have had more than a few "misunderstandings" with LE to have such a negative opinion.
Post by: returnofsid on October 01, 2013, 05:19:24 PM
After all the cops getting shot if the man was told to put it down? If I was the cop I would shoot him to . Really hope that was the case and not a unjustified shooting.
I don't believe the cops have a legal right to force a guy carrying legally to give up his weapon. :dunno:
I respectfully disagree. In any situation, involving firearms, I believe an officer has the right to take control of any weapon, for safety reasons. This isn't to say that the weapon would not be returned to the owner, as soon as the officers duties are complete. I do believe an officer has the right to maintain a safe environment, for all involved, up to and including commanding someone to place a weapon on the ground, temporarily.
If a person is being ordered to do something, by a law enforcement officer, the person does it, or faces the consequences. If a person is holding a firearm, and decides to disobey a direct order from a police officer, whether a lawful order or not, those consequences could prove deadly.
Post by: Mike450r on October 01, 2013, 05:24:28 PM
After all the cops getting shot if the man was told to put it down? If I was the cop I would shoot him to . Really hope that was the case and not a unjustified shooting.
I don't believe the cops have a legal right to force a guy carrying legally to give up his weapon. :dunno:
I respectfully disagree. In any situation, involving firearms, I believe an officer has the right to take control of any weapon, for safety reasons. This isn't to say that the weapon would not be returned to the owner, as soon as the officers duties are complete. I do believe an officer has the right to maintain a safe environment, for all involved, up to and including commanding someone to place a weapon on the ground, temporarily.
If a person is being ordered to do something, by a law enforcement officer, the person does it, or faces the consequences. If a person is holding a firearm, and decides to disobey a direct order from a police officer, whether a lawful order or not, those consequences could prove deadly.
Ding Ding Ding we have a winner with the correct answer, which also means we have a LOSER with the incorrect answer.
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 01, 2013, 05:33:08 PM
Post by: JLS on October 01, 2013, 06:11:21 PM
Don't cops wear cameras now?
Some do, some don't. The majority don't.
Post by: stevemiller on October 01, 2013, 06:39:43 PM
Post by: scout/sniper on October 01, 2013, 06:44:41 PM
Post by: JLS on October 01, 2013, 06:49:09 PM
They dont when they dont want something shown.they do happen to have them when they do want to show.And I believe all LE cars have them.
No, all LE cars don't have them.
Post by: Crunchy on October 01, 2013, 07:14:43 PM
Post by: Crunchy on October 01, 2013, 07:19:19 PM
They dont when they dont want something shown.they do happen to have them when they do want to show.And I believe all LE cars have them.
Need to get your facts straight.
Post by: jjaba on October 01, 2013, 08:11:54 PM
Post by: stevemiller on October 02, 2013, 02:07:49 AM
I bet no more than 20 percent state wide have the cameras. Anyone want to lose some money?where did you come up with these numbers? :dunno:
Post by: seth30 on October 02, 2013, 02:18:11 AM
Post by: stevemiller on October 02, 2013, 02:25:25 AM
Ok,since you know so much why dont you tell us all the facts,and then tell us where you got them facts.In my studies i do get quite a bit of this info.I dont and never have had probs with any type of Le,lived with a fed. cop over in Tacoma when teenager and have a few long time LE friends.theres cops that like them cops that dont like them and the state loves them.lawsuits have steadily been declining since implementing them.the state has spent 12 million on cameras and video equipment,plate scanning equipment etc. hows that for facts?Are they straight? Oh and also the video cams cost about $400 each.And they are installed by the same people that repair there lights,radios,etc.And 20% is actually quite a few,1 out of 5 cars,and when 3 show up at a scene odds are 1 has a camera.They dont when they dont want something shown.they do happen to have them when they do want to show.And I believe all LE cars have them.
Need to get your facts straight.
Post by: JoeE on October 02, 2013, 05:02:49 AM
I bet no more than 20 percent state wide have the cameras. Anyone want to lose some money?where did you come up with these numbers? :dunno:
It's probably less than 20%. And I came up with those numbers by looking at thousands of police cars from multiple jurisdictions over the last ten years.
Post by: floatinghat on October 02, 2013, 07:22:14 AM
Ok,since you know so much why dont you tell us all the facts,and then tell us where you got them facts.In my studies i do get quite a bit of this info.I dont and never have had probs with any type of Le,lived with a fed. cop over in Tacoma when teenager and have a few long time LE friends.theres cops that like them cops that dont like them and the state loves them.lawsuits have steadily been declining since implementing them.the state has spent 12 million on cameras and video equipment,plate scanning equipment etc. hows that for facts?Are they straight? Oh and also the video cams cost about $400 each.And they are installed by the same people that repair there lights,radios,etc.And 20% is actually quite a few,1 out of 5 cars,and when 3 show up at a scene odds are 1 has a camera.They dont when they dont want something shown.they do happen to have them when they do want to show.And I believe all LE cars have them.
Need to get your facts straight.
Can you rewrite this it could be interesting. I get it am and maybe running out to work but I would like to make sure I understand what you are saying. Without question I am not trying to sound like spelling or grammar police.
Post by: csaaphill on October 02, 2013, 08:36:09 PM
One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
"The state calls its own violence `law', but that of the individual `crime'"
"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.
& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.
A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.
Post by: stevemiller on October 02, 2013, 08:53:45 PM
Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."Exactly.All you armed forces,LE officers and such know all about this.If the order is unlawful you do not obey without breaking the law. :yeah:
One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
"The state calls its own violence `law', but that of the individual `crime'"
"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.
& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.
A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.
Post by: csaaphill on October 02, 2013, 09:23:31 PM
I am completely Pro-Gun however guys that open carry rifles just to make a point are not helping our situation at all. they are just trying to be a jack** :yike: Because "Its legal". There are better ways to get our point across. And although there is not much detail I am sure the guy probably refused to put his gun down when asked just because "Its legal." There were some guys in protland doing this earlier this year.Our forefathers were deemed wackos and sicko's extremists and such, Fighting tyranny will never be looked at as mainstream it will always be looked down upon. It only gains ground when the opposing side is winning and the hip thing to do then.
Waiting around for armed resistance to look cool or accepted in the mainstream is like waiting for Obama to resign it wont happen.
Were never going to look good to those who are anti gun or teetertottering of who to side with.
I think it was Franklen who said if were to hang might as well hang all together rather than one at a time!
To wait for acceptance we might as well cave in then.
Point is when do people disobey and when do people comply? Seems like complying has been done and look at the mess were in sheeples come out of the wood work!
If they'd have complyed at Lexington where would we be?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2013, 05:51:48 AM
I am completely Pro-Gun however guys that open carry rifles just to make a point are not helping our situation at all. they are just trying to be a jack** :yike: Because "Its legal". There are better ways to get our point across. And although there is not much detail I am sure the guy probably refused to put his gun down when asked just because "Its legal." There were some guys in protland doing this earlier this year.Our forefathers were deemed wackos and sicko's extremists and such, Fighting tyranny will never be looked at as mainstream it will always be looked down upon. It only gains ground when the opposing side is winning and the hip thing to do then.
Waiting around for armed resistance to look cool or accepted in the mainstream is like waiting for Obama to resign it wont happen.
Were never going to look good to those who are anti gun or teetertottering of who to side with.
I think it was Franklen who said if were to hang might as well hang all together rather than one at a time!
To wait for acceptance we might as well cave in then.
Point is when do people disobey and when do people comply? Seems like complying has been done and look at the mess were in sheeples come out of the wood work!
If they'd have complyed at Lexington where would we be?
I don't believe anyone's yet declared war on our government. Open carry is legal in our stat BUT, if you're given an order by an officer to put your firearm down and you refuse, you're a complete idiot. Whether or not the order is legitimate or not doesn't matter and that can be dealt with later. When an armed police officer feels threatened and gives a direct order to do something, you comply and object later.
Post by: Mike450r on October 03, 2013, 08:06:46 AM
If that person refuses the request, a command to comply with a pistol aimed at center mass is a reasonable response by the officer. If a threat is perceived after that then lethal force is the next step.
I have no idea how the investigation will end up in this particular case but I really do not feel a person's rights are violated by being temporarily disarmed of a rifle for officer safety in a situation like the one described in the story related to this shooting or the scenario I described above.
Post by: floatinghat on October 03, 2013, 08:46:44 AM
If a person is walking around town with a rifle and a police officer comes up to them and says "Sir, I would like to ask you a few questions. Please place the rifle on the ground while we talk" I do not feel that person is being harassed or denied of any rights whatsoever.
If that person refuses the request, a command to comply with a pistol aimed at center mass is a reasonable response by the officer. If a threat is perceived after that then lethal force is the next step.
I have no idea how the investigation will end up in this particular case but I really do not feel a person's rights are violated by being temporarily disarmed of a rifle for officer safety in a situation like the one described in the story related to this shooting or the scenario I described above.
:yeah: how could this be viewed as unreasonable?
Post by: Netminder01 on October 03, 2013, 08:53:19 AM
As was already stated, always follow the LE commands. If they were wrong, take it up with the department after the incident. Proving a point about legality in this fashion hurts our cause and gives ammo to the anti's.
:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2013, 08:55:08 AM
As was already stated, always follow the LE commands. If they were wrong, take it up with the department after the incident. Proving a point about legality in this fashion hurts our cause and gives ammo to the anti's.
:yeah:
:yeah: and apparently, it causes unwanted ventilation. :yike:
Post by: JLS on October 03, 2013, 08:56:35 AM
As was already stated, always follow the LE commands. If they were wrong, take it up with the department after the incident. Proving a point about legality in this fashion hurts our cause and gives ammo to the anti's.
:yeah:
Look at it this way, if they LEO is wrong, sue the chit out of him and his agency and use that money to buy a new gun, support the NRA, or whatever else suits your fancy.
Post by: csaaphill on October 03, 2013, 06:49:46 PM
As was already stated, always follow the LE commands. If they were wrong, take it up with the department after the incident. Proving a point about legality in this fashion hurts our cause and gives ammo to the anti's.
:yeah:
Look at it this way, if they LEO is wrong, sue the chit out of him and his agency and use that money to buy a new gun, support the NRA, or whatever else suits your fancy.
Post by: JJB11B on October 03, 2013, 07:07:31 PM
Post by: csaaphill on October 03, 2013, 07:12:07 PM
Why would you want to open carry? It attracts attention that none of us need and all these videos of people that go out in public with video camera just to try and aggrevate an officer into making a mistake make me sick. They are distracting Law Enforcement from doing their jobs. I know it is a legal right to open carry and I sometimes do. Generally when I am carrying a large revolver when I am going to the mountains or something. I carry constantly but I prefer to conceal carry. Even in the summer in SE Washington. I just don't understand the point of walking around town with a rifle. Get a life. I hope this shakes out to be legitamite. I hope the injured man recovers. I hope for the officers sake that they were operating within the parameters of the law. :bash:because a right not used is a right lost!
Post by: JJB11B on October 03, 2013, 07:19:44 PM
Post by: csaaphill on October 03, 2013, 07:41:41 PM
its the wussifying of amerika.
much like all the brewhaha over kids havig a gun on a key chain, or the kid that got suspended while using a air softpellet gun while waiting for the bus. neighbore called cops school got wind of it they suspended the kid for up to a year. For one he was in his own yard pellets were plastic he also had a backstop catching them as to not let them accidently hit nothing.
gun was never at school!
people with their political crap will make things out of nothing.
Thats what happens when Disney runs the show!
Too from what I've seen on this story who knows if he wasn't being safe? Meaning people will call the cops over the stupidist things too.
Theres another video but on this one the sheriff acts correctly and not ego triped just wanting a confrontation. Can't tell me the ones violating peoples rights aren't polticaly motivated and showing us who will enforce unconstitutional laws and who wont.
Post by: JJB11B on October 03, 2013, 07:47:18 PM
Post by: JJB11B on October 03, 2013, 07:51:56 PM
people calling the police are more likely anti gun in the first place so wouldn't matter.I agree. and most LEO's are men and women just like us. They do their job for the right reasons. There also those that do it becuase they think it makes them powerful
its the wussifying of amerika.
much like all the brewhaha over kids havig a gun on a key chain, or the kid that got suspended while using a air softpellet gun while waiting for the bus. neighbore called cops school got wind of it they suspended the kid for up to a year. For one he was in his own yard pellets were plastic he also had a backstop catching them as to not let them accidently hit nothing.
gun was never at school!
people with their political crap will make things out of nothing.
Thats what happens when Disney runs the show!
Too from what I've seen on this story who knows if he wasn't being safe? Meaning people will call the cops over the stupidist things too.
Theres another video but on this one the sheriff acts correctly and not ego triped just wanting a confrontation. Can't tell me the ones violating peoples rights aren't polticaly motivated and showing us who will enforce unconstitutional laws and who wont.
Post by: csaaphill on October 03, 2013, 07:59:13 PM
I think this is to put fear into people who might have to put their gun in the trunk say at a shop ing center while on the way to hunting or something. Personally I cringe when I have to do something like that because someone sees me and even if I'm not doing anything just placing the gun from the front seat to the trunk or the back of my pickup until I get back they would call the cops saying oh shooter!
I do it quickly so as to not draw any attention, but still fear that will happen sometime!
Post by: returnofsid on October 03, 2013, 08:00:13 PM
Post by: NWHydroprint on October 03, 2013, 09:43:55 PM
I just feel there is two ways to look at this.
Post by: JLS on October 03, 2013, 09:45:06 PM
As was already stated, always follow the LE commands. If they were wrong, take it up with the department after the incident. Proving a point about legality in this fashion hurts our cause and gives ammo to the anti's.
:yeah:
Look at it this way, if they LEO is wrong, sue the chit out of him and his agency and use that money to buy a new gun, support the NRA, or whatever else suits your fancy.
How cute. You're using pictures now to reinforce your message :tinfoil:
Which makes more of an impact, someone being an idiot and getting shot, or winning a wrongful seizure lawsuit and the department pays dearly and is forced to provide better training for their officers?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2013, 05:59:04 AM
Post by: csaaphill on October 04, 2013, 08:30:10 PM
The kid with the bb gun was shooting at other kids, at an established school bus stop.no uh uh not not even wrong story if what you say has some truth in it no that is not what happened will link
http://bearingarms.com/virginia-beach-kids-suspended-facing-expulsion-from-school-for-shooting-airsoft-guns-on-private-property/ (http://bearingarms.com/virginia-beach-kids-suspended-facing-expulsion-from-school-for-shooting-airsoft-guns-on-private-property/)
This is so stupid it’s giving me a headache:
Like thousands of others in Hampton Roads, Khalid Caraballo plays with airsoft guns. Caraballo and his friend Aidan were suspended because they shot two other friends who were with them while playing with the guns as they waited for the school bus.
The two seventh graders say they never went to the bus stop; they fired the airsoft guns while on Caraballo’s private property.
Aidan’s father, Tim Clark, told WAVY.com what happened next lacks commons sense. The children were suspended for possession, handling and use of a firearm.
Khalid’s mother, Solangel Caraballo, thinks it is ridiculous the Virginia Beach City Public School System suspended her 13-year-old son and Aidan because they were firing a spring-driven airsoft gun on the Caraballo’s posted private property. “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school.”
The bus stop in question is 70 yards from the Caraballo’s front yard.
I’m not sure which infuriates me more: the school administrators that think they have the authority to suspend a child doing something entirely legal on his family’s private property, or the woman who called 911 on the boy, knowing it was an airsoft gun, just because it made her feel “uncomfortable.”
Tags: Airsoft Guns
not the exact story I wanted but in a hurry but that's the story I was talking about!
Post by: csaaphill on October 04, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
I may be spending too much time on the site. I had a dream last night that I got stopped for speeding on a motorcycle. They took my gun and my knife and wouldn't give them back. :yike::dunno: :IBCOOL:
Post by: christopheri on October 04, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
I may be spending too much time on the site. I had a dream last night that I got stopped for speeding on a motorcycle. They took my gun and my knife and wouldn't give them back. :yike:
Maybe tonight you will get them back. :chuckle: