Asking the Right Questions About a Shooting

RicInOR · Mar 18, 2015

The article focus on police shootings, but this also applies to self defense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ng-the-wrong-question-about-police-shootings/

"Seth Stoughton. He made a point that I think is critical in how we think about these incidents: We shouldn't be asking if the police actions were legal or within department policy; we should be asking if they were necessary."

Monica Cowles · Mar 18, 2015

We ask if it was legal, because that is what he will be judged by...and since one of the 'legal requirements' is that one felt their or an innocent person's life was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, I would submit that this also satisfies the 'necessary'...

Just Jim · Mar 18, 2015

Everything done to the Jews in Germany was legal under German law under Hitler. If you want laws that favor the people then vote in law makers that stick with the constitution. If you don't want constitutional law then vote for socialist liberals... like Hitler.

U201491 · Mar 18, 2015

Just Jim said:
Everything done to the Jews in Germany was legal under German law under Hitler. If you want laws that favor the people then vote in law makers that stick with the constitution. If you don't want constitutional law then vote for socialist liberals... like Hitler.

Hell they do that anyway. Obama got elected twice (still throwing up)
That is the single thing that truly convinced me of how many mentally damaged people there are
in the US.

The Constitution should be the backbone of everything that is done by LE in ALL matters pertaining to the citizenry. But that is not the case. All things can be accomplished within the confines of the Constitution, but to Socialist/Marxists/Communist/Liberal extremists it is a total inconvenience and they feel the laws of the republic are not good enough for them and that they are exempt. The LE that do follow it, I have the utmost respect for.

Just Jim · Mar 18, 2015

Taku said:
Hell they do that anyway. Obama got elected twice (still throwing up)
That is the single thing that truly convinced me of how many mentally damaged people there are
in the US.

The Constitution should be the backbone of everything that is done by LE in ALL matters pertaining to the citizenry. But that is not the case. All things can be accomplished within the confines of the Constitution, but to Socialist/Marxists/Communist/Liberal extremists it is a total inconvenience and they feel the laws of the republic are not good enough for them and that they are exempt. The LE that do follow it, I have the utmost respect for.

And those who voted for bummer are paying the price just the same way those who voted for Hitler did. Funny how history repeats itself, remember how it all ended up for the Germans?

U201491 · Mar 18, 2015

Just Jim said:
And those who voted for bummer are paying the price just the same way those who,voted for Hitler did. Funny how history repeats itself, remember how it all ended up for the Germans?

Yeah just wait til they feel the impact

We see it coming they get to do shock and awe the experience.
Should be fun to watch when it all sinks in.

RicInOR · Mar 18, 2015

@Monica Cowles
I don't think we should stop asking that - legal.
The officer probably responded in a legal and appropriate (meeting departmental guidelines) manor - to any officer involved shooting.

But, we need to ask additional questions -

Why is a cop even there? There can be many good reasons for this, but because he wanted to see what was going on isn't a good one. And there have been too many cases where a medical response was the correct one and instead a LEO arrived.

But was it reasonable, necessary? What were the alternatives?
What I believe that is too often forgotten, is that police have time on their side. Could they have waited?

From a defensive shooting perspective
What are you going to have to defend? We all say and were trained that we are responsible for each and every bullet. Well, what about pointing a gun at someone and not shooting. You have to defend that action. Oregon does not have "Brandishing" as a crime, but there are others which amount to the same thing.
How about just pulling the FA?

We would have to defend our actions, those same questions need to apply to officers as well.

bolus · Mar 18, 2015

what, no questions about why the person didnt have better mental health care before he got shot?

It has been a few years since one of my patients killed a home care mental health nurse who was visiting the patient. Has anything changed since then? well, mental health care in my county has worsened.... home care for mental health patients no longer occurs (replaced with nothing).... and I'm now armed.

Why am I the only one to see this problem?

when I emailed my rep, I asked why would they focus on more background checks when the majority of firearm deaths are suicide. back ground checks wont do anything for the suicide rate. even if it did, the patient may not be able to kill themselves but still want to. That's like taking away the death penalty for an innocent person, and putting them in jail for life instead.

U201491 · Mar 18, 2015

bolus said:
what, no questions about why the person didnt have better mental health care before he got shot?

It has been a few years since one of my patients killed a home care mental health nurse who was visiting the patient. Has anything changed since then? well, mental health care in my county has worsened.... home care for mental health patients no longer occurs (replaced with nothing).... and I'm now armed.

Why am I the only one to see this problem?

when I emailed my rep, I asked why would they focus on more background checks when the majority of firearm deaths are suicide. back ground checks wont do anything for the suicide rate. even if it did, the patient may not be able to kill themselves but still want to. That's like taking away the death penalty for an innocent person, and putting them in jail for life instead.

I didn't like the politics in the movie, but yeah the "Patch Adams" Scenario........
Actually helping people is too easy for the gov, and it would eliminate some of their control agenda by making sure crime and mental health issues continue. I mean if they eliminated either how would they scare the people into voting in more taxes and make more absurd laws??????

Monica Cowles · Mar 18, 2015

RicInOR said:
@Monica Cowles
I don't think we should stop asking that - legal.
The officer probably responded in a legal and appropriate (meeting departmental guidelines) manor - to any officer involved shooting.

But, we need to ask additional questions -

Why is a cop even there? There can be many good reasons for this, but because he wanted to see what was going on isn't a good one. And there have been too many cases where a medical response was the correct one and instead a LEO arrived.

But was it reasonable, necessary? What were the alternatives?
What I believe that is too often forgotten, is that police have time on their side. Could they have waited?

From a defensive shooting perspective
What are you going to have to defend? We all say and were trained that we are responsible for each and every bullet. Well, what about pointing a gun at someone and not shooting. You have to defend that action. Oregon does not have "Brandishing" as a crime, but there are others which amount to the same thing.
How about just pulling the FA?

We would have to defend our actions, those same questions need to apply to officers as well.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that LEO are called as first responders necessary to ensure a situation is safe and secure in order for medical to respond. Medical/Fire will not go into a potentially dangerous (as in being shot or attacked) environment, they leave that up to LE. :s0012:

Most LEO have better things to do than hang around 'wanting to see what is going on'. And there are a minority of loose cannons in every area, but overall, I feel that LE is a necessary part of a civilized society. Usually the ones who have a problem with LE are those who have a problem with authority in general.

RicInOR · Mar 18, 2015

I would ask, why are they there? This isn't to be read, why do we have police. It is to ask are the officers the best people to respond to a known situation.

For unknown/unclear situations I am sure the police will be first on scene - they are already out and around.

I called the non-emergency number last fall (I guess we haven't really had a winter) because in the heavy rain an entire lane and half a left-turn lane was flooded. Would the police been the best to respond?
What was needed was someone to clear the drain. Could the police been first to come out? Sure, maybe.

Outdoor Channel's Best Defense aired an episode today, where one guy comes up and starts pummeling another guy, the second guy's buddy draws his legally carried firearm. Question - why? Was it the right thing to do? Were there other options? He'll have to answer those questions to a DA, or to a jury.

What they did and why, what options where available and not taken and why need to be asked, and reported to those of us who pay the salaries.

ps
Short answer: Yes, I have problems with authority.
I am not about to go and taunt an officer, nor disobey a lawful order. Talking to a cop doesn't get my 4th amendment all riled up.
But, I question authority.

RicInOR · Apr 23, 2015

Here is another case where I am sure those who participated did the "right" thing, followed procedures.
But is this the right outcome, the best result?

http://roadwarriorvoices.com/2015/0...est-over-husbands-death-in-airplane-bathroom/

Monica Cowles · Apr 23, 2015

Truly an unfortunate situation in an imperfect world.

Sometimes I find I need to get away from the screen, with all it's bad/unfair/evil/scary news, get outside, get some fresh air, go for a walk, or do something fun.

Bad/unfair/evil/scary will always be a part of life. How we deal with it/obsess over it has the potential to send us to the asylum, the grave, or the hospital...adding to the bad/unfair/scary of it all....

If one can do something practical to change a bad situation, great, if not, does it serve a purpose to worry/fret/stew/rant or work others into an emotional frenzy over it? Honestly asking here, not trying to be snarky.

Just Jim · Apr 24, 2015

Monica Cowles said:
Truly an unfortunate situation in an imperfect world.

Sometimes I find I need to get away from the screen, with all it's bad/unfair/evil/scary news, get outside, get some fresh air, go for a walk, or do something fun. Bad/unfair/evil/scary will always be a part of life. How we deal with it/obsess over it has the potential to send us to the asylum, the grave, or the hospital...adding to the bad/unfair/scary of it all....

If one can do something practical to change a bad situation, great, if not, does it serve a purpose to worry/fret/stew/rant or work others into an emotional frenzy over it? Honestly asking here, not trying to be snarky.

It's why I have a lab for a friend, as a dog they are great companions and the size of him means you will go on long walks. While it's easy to blow off steam here with like minded people I feel far better after a long dog walk. Gives me time to enjoy the outdoors and look at the neighborhood plus have short visits with those neighbors outside.

Seems a lot of the world on the net is an ugly place but it's the price you pay to stay informed. While conversations can be uncomfortable it's interesting to understand how others think. Today's world everyone has their ear to a phone or face to a screen, not much real face to face social interaction.

Most people will get away from the putor and go for the phone to stay close to the tribe. We are all different now and changing more and more every day.