If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Where did I say that? Do you think a cop came around a corner, saw him holding a gun,then just started blasting away? I don't like a lot of shit cops do, but I really don't think the majority of them are evil,bloodthirsty bastards.So you're saying he should have been psychic, and since he wasn't he deserved to be shot?
Where did I say that? Do you think a cop came around a corner, saw him holding a gun,then just started blasting away? I don't like a lot of shit cops do, but I really don't think the majority of them are evil,bloodthirsty bastards.
Not trying to play the "what if game" but consider the facts so far:
neighbors reported hearing gun fire
police respond, saying they found an armed man and had a confrontation with him.
Witnesses say they heard "a volley" of gun fire
Man was shot with a single gunshot wound to the back, perferating the lung.
You don't stand there and shoot at someone, you actively seek cover. It's possible there was an exchange for fire and during the exchange he turned to get cover and was hit at that point. A hit to the back does not mean the man was standing with his back to the police, only that his back was to the police at the instant the bullet struck him. While I don't expect details to be very forth coming, a hit to the back does not immedately condeme the shooter.
If the suspect shot at police, that would be the main focus of the story. Police and media never fail to mention a cop being shot at. The only time you see details suppressed in a fatal shooting it's because a cop killed someone under dubious circumstances. When the tables are turned every single possible second of media coverage is used to bury the non-cop. That's my point.
Doesn't matter. In that exact scenario replacing a cop with a neighbor or other citizen ends in the civilian being arrested.
When a man is shot in the back on his own property, I fail to see how it's justified baring a hostage situation, which this clearly was not. Police are supposed to defend life and liberty, not take it.
It's not the job of a neighbor or other citizen to confront a man with a gun in a situation like this. As was posted before, this was a tightly compacted area. This guy wasn't plinking. It sounds like he wanted police attention and he got it.
How do you know there were no other civilians present at the scene that could have been in danger or hav ebecome a hostage? Are you privy to details the rest of us are not?
mark056 said:I am always amazed that everyone who slams the media takes it a full value when a story like this breaks.
One of the Ayoobisms (to use Mike dr. grant's term) is that autopsies can be subjective. Sometimes back shots are really exit wounds (even with hollowpoint ammunition) or the person being shot turns and suddenly when the other shooter engages. Another more likely scenario is that the shooter was engaged with the police in one direction, while other police officers were approaching the shooter from a different angle and engaged the shooter from his rear. A perfectly legitimate tactic.
According to the generally accepted police rules of engagement, an armed suspect who is waving a gun around at police is generally subject to getting shot. Like Jose said: "In for a pound." The idea of a back shot somehow not being part of the "code of the West" or something has crept into gun culture. In all probability he was given the opportunity to put the gun down before he was shot. The objective is always to neutralize the threat, not follow the rules of the Code Duello.
I am always amazed that everyone who slams the media takes it a full value when a story like this breaks.
One of the Ayoobisms (to use Mike dr. grant's term) is that autopsies can be subjective. Sometimes back shots are really exit wounds (even with hollowpoint ammunition) or the person being shot turns and suddenly when the other shooter engages. Another more likely scenario is that the shooter was engaged with the police in one direction, while other police officers were approaching the shooter from a different angle and engaged the shooter from his rear. A perfectly legitimate tactic.
According to the generally accepted police rules of engagement, an armed suspect who is waving a gun around at police is generally subject to getting shot. Like Jose said: "In for a pound." The idea of a back shot somehow not being part of the "code of the West" or something has crept into gun culture. In all probability he was given the opportunity to put the gun down before he was shot. The objective is always to neutralize the threat, not follow the rules of the Code Duello.
It could be that something as serious as the shooting of another human being they don't want to rush out with a story until they fully investigate and can provide an accurate explanation. I disagree with a lot of what the police do and the attitude many of them have against mere civilians, but I'm not what you would call anti-cop. I work third shift and one night my wife needed the police in the middle of the night due to an attempted break in. She didn't call the fire department, a plumber, or a dentist. She called a cop, and they came and did their job in a very polite and professional manner.I never said it would be unjustified in every situation to shoot someone in the back. What I did say was that when it is justified there is an immediate statement about what happened. You don't even need media coverage to post such a statement on your departments website. No story = we have something to hide and we're busy making one up.
Giving info to the press is the same thing as making statements to cops. Both will do thier best to shove it up your ass.
Add me in the line of agreeing with the above post...I am always amazed that everyone who slams the media takes it a full value when a story like this breaks.
One of the Ayoobisms (to use Mike dr. grant's term) is that autopsies can be subjective. Sometimes back shots are really exit wounds (even with hollowpoint ammunition) or the person being shot turns and suddenly when the other shooter engages. Another more likely scenario is that the shooter was engaged with the police in one direction, while other police officers were approaching the shooter from a different angle and engaged the shooter from his rear. A perfectly legitimate tactic.
According to the generally accepted police rules of engagement, an armed suspect who is waving a gun around at police is generally subject to getting shot. Like Jose said: "In for a pound." The idea of a back shot somehow not being part of the "code of the West" or something has crept into gun culture. In all probability he was given the opportunity to put the gun down before he was shot. The objective is always to neutralize the threat, not follow the rules of the Code Duello.
Really? So it's understandable for cops to go around killing people and telling the media "don't worry 'bout it"? This is the second NH police shooting in less than 3 months where the details seemed fishy, information was withheld, and the whole thing just disappeared.
When making a statement they're not giving information to the press, they're giving it to the people.
Add me in the line of agreeing with the above post...
You can't honestly expect to have REAL answers to a shooting that happened YESTERDAY... You relize this is real life, not "CSI" TV, investigations take more than an hour...You would be lucky to get a motor vehicle accident report with in 24 hours...or would you prefer they release information that is incomplete/wrong/based on conjecture not fact???
Evidently it is easier for some of you to think that cops from 3 agencies decided to get together yesterday and randomly murder some happy go lucky guy who was just plinking off his porch, than it is for you to believe that some guy went "nuts" and started shooting around in his trailerhood and he got shot by police...
It may take more than an hour for all the facts to come out, but how long does it take to look and see that the cops fired X rounds and the dead guy had fired Y rounds? How long did it take the cops involved to tell the other responding officers what happened? Why couldn't that be repeated to the media? This crap of officers KILLING A PERSON (that is a HUGE ****ING DEAL) and then turning around and declining to explain what happened is sickening. With the amount of details released, the authorities might as well have told the media to go F themselves.
I used to work in a dog kennel, and if I stomped a dog to death I guarantee they'd want answers right that second... not in a week.
Unfortunately sir, your concept of investigation and police procedural appears to be limited to what you have seen on television or in the movies. I am not a police apologist, but I do know something about procedure, and you sir do not have a clue what you are talking about, You no doubt are a true red blooded Son of Liberty who knows that a man standing on his front porch was gunned down by a bunch of jack booted cops (in NH of all places) because that is what you want to believe and you will never let the facts surface. It may be presumptuous of me, but I am willing to bet that you see yourself as one of the three percent who will never yield to tyranny and are itching for "go-time" whatever that means.
You response is quite emotional and not rational and you are seeing in this what you want to see to fuel your own worldview, IMO.
That fishy part is the story that you tell yourself, So that you can be right. You don't have any experience in these things or you would not be making the comments that you are. Most importantly YOU WEREN"T THERE AND NIETHER WAS I. As such I will not make comments as to whether it was a good shoot or not.
No comments should be made until the investigation is completed, But you wouldn't understand that would you.
Like I said you weren't there and niether was I. We don't know if the person was squared off with another officer and an officer coming around the trailer, made the shot, DO WE? You just want to rush to judgement, haven't we seen enough of this lately. That is why the remark about you wouldn't understand. You are showing that you refuse to think about all the possibilties that could have been involved in that incident.