JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
We have zero way to know any of this. Unless more has "come to light", what we have is legacy news telling us this is what happened. The same legacy news that has such a stellar reputation for lying. I suspect them not being able to get an indictment and him getting his job back says we are FAR from being told the "truth" here.
Bless you!
 
We have zero way to know any of this. Unless more has "come to light", what we have is legacy news telling us this is what happened. The same legacy news that has such a stellar reputation for lying. I suspect them not being able to get an indictment and him getting his job back says we are FAR from being told the "truth" here.
There was some info coming out of the Sheriffs office from the officers on site that provided a little more context as to why they felt they had due cause for an arrest. I'm sure they would initially try to avoid arresting him as a courtesy... unless... they felt there was overwhelming cause and couldn't justify turning that much of a blind eye, but yeah....

The facts are obviously being obscured and not much available to the general public. The way the DEA stepped all over their jurisdiction could also be ample cause to assume it's been simply another case of them protecting their own... the law be damned.

We really don't and likely won't ever know the truth.

Personally though, I have to wonder why a man known to have mental issues, only posed a minor threat to a well trained officer, and was admittedly leaving the area at one point, would warrant lethal force. Simply discouraging the man with a warning shot or disabling him with a leg or shoulder shot is likely to have been effective, and would have allowed the opportunity for mental health assessment/treatment, vs. just dusting the guy(?)

I don't believe a trained officer with a rifle was "in fear of imminent death" to warrant summary lethal force. What IS believable.... a hot head used to being in a position of power was sick and tired of having to deal with the mentally deficient and intrusive man, saw an opportunity to terminate the situation permanently, possibly even prodding the incident a bit to "fit", and now hiding behind the letter of the law.

IOW, his true intent and reason for use of lethal force doesn't "appear" to be in line with the intent of the law protections afforded for a person to legally "defend" themselves... IMHO.
 
...Personally though, I have to wonder why a man known to have mental issues, only posed a minor threat to a well trained officer, and was admittedly leaving the area at one point, would warrant lethal force. Simply discouraging the man with a warning shot or disabling him with a leg or shoulder shot is likely to have been effective, and would have allowed the opportunity for mental health assessment/treatment, vs. just dusting the guy(?)...
The fact that the dead guy had meth on board removes ambiguity for ME. In this circumstance.

 
The fact that the dead guy had meth on board removes ambiguity for ME. In this circumstance.
President_Rodrigo_Duterte.jpg
 
There was some info coming out of the Sheriffs office from the officers on site that provided a little more context as to why they felt they had due cause for an arrest. I'm sure they would initially try to avoid arresting him as a courtesy... unless... they felt there was overwhelming cause and couldn't justify turning that much of a blind eye, but yeah....

The facts are obviously being obscured and not much available to the general public. The way the DEA stepped all over their jurisdiction could also be ample cause to assume it's been simply another case of them protecting their own... the law be damned.

We really don't and likely won't ever know the truth.

Personally though, I have to wonder why a man known to have mental issues, only posed a minor threat to a well trained officer, and was admittedly leaving the area at one point, would warrant lethal force. Simply discouraging the man with a warning shot or disabling him with a leg or shoulder shot is likely to have been effective, and would have allowed the opportunity for mental health assessment/treatment, vs. just dusting the guy(?)

I don't believe a trained officer with a rifle was "in fear of imminent death" to warrant summary lethal force. What IS believable.... a hot head used to being in a position of power was sick and tired of having to deal with the mentally deficient and intrusive man, saw an opportunity to terminate the situation permanently, possibly even prodding the incident a bit to "fit", and now hiding behind the letter of the law.

IOW, his true intent and reason for use of lethal force doesn't "appear" to be in line with the intent of the law protections afforded for a person to legally "defend" themselves... IMHO.
Without knowing all the relevant facts, or as many of the facts as possible, it is better to presume innocence, IMHO. It is what I would want for me if I were in that situation.
 
Without knowing all the relevant facts, or as many of the facts as possible, it is better to presume innocence, IMHO. It is what I would want for me if I were in that situation.
Fortunately, my personal opinion weighs for nothing with any regard to innocence or guilt. It's simply an observation for conversations sake, but worthless in the whole scheme of whatever situation exists and presented for public consumption in the brief media reports. ;)

It's obvious he wanted those circumstances to end. He was presented with an opportunity to do just that, and in a stretch, is more likely than not going to be protected by law.

It's much easier for me to believe that he decided to take advantage of the opportunity a lot more than he was in imminent fear for his life. Ie., More, "I want to, and I can certainly get away with it" than, "that super rock is going to KILL me!! Shoot.. shoot!!!"🤣

YMMV
 
The fact that the dead guy had meth on board removes ambiguity for ME. In this circumstance.
Drug use is considered as a "Graham Factor" where knowledge of past drug use and current intoxication could be considered as part of the totality of circumstances….

Unless you're a LEO in WA as of July 2021. Now, it makes someone a vulnerable adult rather than an enraged tweeker!
 
Drug use is considered as a "Graham Factor" where knowledge of past drug use and current intoxication could be considered as part of the totality of circumstances….
But it does check a box. Graham v. Connor established objective reasonableness standards and intoxication is usually considered an officer safety risk.
Pretty sure that a large majority of members here are not familiar with Graham v. Connor, nor even Tennessee v. Garner... not do they care. Pena v. Leombruni would be a stretch (as would Elliot v. Leavitt)

Still, it's interesting to consider how this whole situation might have played out in different regions in the country. I lived and worked in Mississippi way back when; I'd like to think the sheriffs up here are a different breed.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top