3 ms·

Footage of the shooting: https://youtu.be/r0M6OfQLUGI https://youtu.be/r0M6OfQLUGI (warning, graphic content). This is crazy, the guy walked out with the gun b

Footage of the shooting: https://youtu.be/r0M6OfQLUGI https://youtu.be/r0M6OfQLUGI (warning, graphic content). This is crazy, the guy walked out with the gun but was pointing it down at the ground. You can hear the cops telling him to drop the gun but started shooting at the exact same time, they gave him no time to respond and likely the guy didn't even know they were there. The officer in this shooting needs to be charged with Murder as I don't see how you could make the argument that the office thought he was in danger. In the video the officer arrives on the scene and literally five seconds later starts shooting, this is not a "DROP THE GUN", suspect lifts weapon and officers fire. This is "DROP THE GUN" while you're already unloading your mag.

throwaway_4ever 4y ago
Police pull up to sounds of a rifle shot; active shooter. They hear another loud shot. 4 seconds later, someone is peeking around the corner, their hands on the trigger and grip, 30 degrees pointed up. That's 1/4 second away from returning fire, with the firepower to kill every police that showed up, and if they let that happen, any number of civilians thereafter.
- AustinDev 4y ago
  'with the firepower to kill every police that showed up' This claim is dubious. Police officers in Austin wear Level 3A plates which can stop 5.56 which is likely the round that AR-15 is chambered in. Landing 5 headshots in quick succession without getting taken down is something you only see in movies.
  - 8ytecoder 4y ago
    Aren’t officers also trained to seek cover first?
    - AustinDev 4y ago
      I didn't want to go into that. I just wanted to point out that it is absurd to claim that this random civilian could gun down five police officers in the matter of half a second and not get taken down.
- floor2 4y ago
  Except in this case, the person they murdered was holding that gun in self-defense from the actual criminal. Millions of Americans have some sort of weapon for self-defense. That might be a gun in their home. That might be pepper-spray in their purse. That might be picking up a knife or golf club when they hear a window break in the night. The police shouldn't shoot first and ask questions later. They should always, always, always establish what is going on and who is a threat before killing an innocent person who was trying to defend themselves against an attacker.
foxyv 4y ago
This guy wasn't just holding a gun. This was an active shooter who may or may not be actively killing people. They don't have a crystal ball, or access to the Ring camera to know what we know. They don't know if anyone is in the house. They just hear this dude shooting and he comes out of the porch with his finger on the trigger and the gun at a low ready position. Charging them with murder would be insane. One of the drills that police are taught is how quickly a person can move from a low ready like this to aim and shoot. It is literally faster than you can react and pull the trigger to stop him. Worse, a shooter usually can kill you before he even feels your first bullet. To get a sense of this, watch Jerry Miculek do a V-Drill from a low ready. https://youtu.be/TuNSB9jkpyQ?t=66 https://youtu.be/TuNSB9jkpyQ?t=66 Try to pause the video after the first beep and before he shoots. Keep in mind, the police have almost zero information about this person's level of training or state of mind other than that he is already firing his weapon.
- x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
  In light of Uvalde, we've seen police show incredible restraint whenever an active shooting is in progress. We can't use the idea of people being hurt as contributing to a sense of urgency.
  - foxyv 4y ago
    In light of Uvalde, I'm betting a lot of Texas police departments are less likely to give armed active shooters the benefit of the doubt. Uvalde was a different kind of cowardice. Those were police who would rather keep themselves safe than children.
    - japaneseminisub 4y ago
- mindslight 4y ago
  > They just hear this dude shooting and he comes out of the porch with his finger on the trigger and the gun at a low ready position So if there is some shooting going on, the police are somehow justified in shooting everyone that has a gun? If this is the case, why can't they just shoot each other first and save society from their incompetence? > Charging them with murder would be insane. Uh, second degree murder is exactly what they did. In this country, the government is supposed to be subservient to the People - police officers should have more legal scrutiny of their behavior than the average citizen, not less. Reread this story, replacing "police officer" with "private citizen". A private citizen shows up to the home of someone and shoots them, then claims justification because the victim was merely holding a gun? That's second degree murder. Doubly so in Texas.
x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
The way the deceased goes around that corner, he's not even thinking that he's going to take any fire from that direction.

throwaway_4ever 4y ago

Police pull up to sounds of a rifle shot; active shooter. They hear another loud shot. 4 seconds later, someone is peeking around the corner, their hands on the trigger and grip, 30 degrees pointed up. That's 1/4 second away from returning fire, with the firepower to kill every police that showed up, and if they let that happen, any number of civilians thereafter.

AustinDev 4y ago
'with the firepower to kill every police that showed up' This claim is dubious. Police officers in Austin wear Level 3A plates which can stop 5.56 which is likely the round that AR-15 is chambered in. Landing 5 headshots in quick succession without getting taken down is something you only see in movies.
- 8ytecoder 4y ago
  Aren’t officers also trained to seek cover first?
  - AustinDev 4y ago
    I didn't want to go into that. I just wanted to point out that it is absurd to claim that this random civilian could gun down five police officers in the matter of half a second and not get taken down.
floor2 4y ago
Except in this case, the person they murdered was holding that gun in self-defense from the actual criminal. Millions of Americans have some sort of weapon for self-defense. That might be a gun in their home. That might be pepper-spray in their purse. That might be picking up a knife or golf club when they hear a window break in the night. The police shouldn't shoot first and ask questions later. They should always, always, always establish what is going on and who is a threat before killing an innocent person who was trying to defend themselves against an attacker.

foxyv 4y ago

This guy wasn't just holding a gun. This was an active shooter who may or may not be actively killing people. They don't have a crystal ball, or access to the Ring camera to know what we know. They don't know if anyone is in the house. They just hear this dude shooting and he comes out of the porch with his finger on the trigger and the gun at a low ready position. Charging them with murder would be insane. One of the drills that police are taught is how quickly a person can move from a low ready like this to aim and shoot. It is literally faster than you can react and pull the trigger to stop him. Worse, a shooter usually can kill you before he even feels your first bullet. To get a sense of this, watch Jerry Miculek do a V-Drill from a low ready. https://youtu.be/TuNSB9jkpyQ?t=66 https://youtu.be/TuNSB9jkpyQ?t=66 Try to pause the video after the first beep and before he shoots. Keep in mind, the police have almost zero information about this person's level of training or state of mind other than that he is already firing his weapon.

x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
In light of Uvalde, we've seen police show incredible restraint whenever an active shooting is in progress. We can't use the idea of people being hurt as contributing to a sense of urgency.
- foxyv 4y ago
  In light of Uvalde, I'm betting a lot of Texas police departments are less likely to give armed active shooters the benefit of the doubt. Uvalde was a different kind of cowardice. Those were police who would rather keep themselves safe than children.
  - japaneseminisub 4y ago
mindslight 4y ago
> They just hear this dude shooting and he comes out of the porch with his finger on the trigger and the gun at a low ready position So if there is some shooting going on, the police are somehow justified in shooting everyone that has a gun? If this is the case, why can't they just shoot each other first and save society from their incompetence? > Charging them with murder would be insane. Uh, second degree murder is exactly what they did. In this country, the government is supposed to be subservient to the People - police officers should have more legal scrutiny of their behavior than the average citizen, not less. Reread this story, replacing "police officer" with "private citizen". A private citizen shows up to the home of someone and shoots them, then claims justification because the victim was merely holding a gun? That's second degree murder. Doubly so in Texas.

x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago

The way the deceased goes around that corner, he's not even thinking that he's going to take any fire from that direction.