Kerrville Police Shooting Caught On Tape

Wow. This is amazing....

tsavo wrote: "If it was such a clean shooting nobody here would be questioning it, and all of the officers would have fired. I find it funny how dave_in_delaware says that he can see how the officer "thought he was raising a gun". So lets just give officers the right to kill people anytime they "think" something might be happening, without actually witnessing it first"

Hmmm.... Without sounding defensive, I find it funny how tsavo can say this.

Why would all the officers have to fire on the guy? The one shot dropped the kid. Why fill him full of holes when he went down w/ one rifle shot? The threat was reduced. No need for excessive force. Who's to say one of the other officers wasn't about to shoot when he heard the rifle shot?

And the Officers WERE witnessing it first. They were there. They witnessed the kid ignore the commands to disarm and put his hands up. They witnessed him moving his arms. They witnessed the gun in his hand. We all witnessed it in the video. If a cop witnesses someone w/ a gun in his hand, and commands him to drop the gun and raise their hands, and the person refuses and is still moving around, the officer has the RIGHT to shoot to protect himself and other people.

And after 5 commands from police to "raise your hands" and "drop the gun" and not doing it, and the kid still moving his arms WITH a gun in his hand, WHY should the police still just wait around to see what happens? If YOU were that Police Officer, would you have waited until the kid raised his weapon and fired at you, or your fellow officers, before acting? If you had hesitated or waited, and one or more of your fellow police officers, or innocent bystanders, were injured or killed, would you still be talking about a police officer's right to kill and not witnessing things first hand? The kid had plenty of warnings and time from the Officers to obey. He didn't. How long should they have waited after shouting the commands to disarm and doing something to minimize the threat? Should the kid have asked "Can I have 15 minutes to think about it?" while still moving his arms around, with the gun in his hand?

I hope no one ever breaks into your house w/ the intent to do you bodily harm, tsavo, because it sounds like you'd wait until the intruder raised his gun and shot it at you before you witnessed the bullet coming towards your head and thought something was happening. :eek: Of course, by then, it would be too late. Tombstone inscription: "Didn't think he was raising a gun"
 
How do you know the officers saw the gun? Did you talk to them, are they your friends? For all we know they could have been saying that just assuming he had a gun because they were told he was armed, which is most likely the case. They didn't see jack **** because he barley moved his arm. They assumed he had a gun in his hand because they were previously informed that he was armed.

The only angle that anybody could tell if he had a gun for sure or not would be the complete opposite side of his body and there was nobody standing over there.

As far as the scenario where a stray bullet goes into a house and kills someone-what do you want me to say-**** happens. There's no way you can prevent random events like that from happening. Based on your logic officers should kill every single person they pull over that they feel "might" be reaching for a gun beause they could get off a random shot and hit a bystander :rolleyes:
 
jsp98m3 said:
Actually I tend to lean against CCW. I didn't until I joined this forum. I was staunchly pro-CCW until I joined this forum. Now I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Please, don't let a bunch of rambo-minded, scenario posting, Tactics & Training Forum junkies lead you to believe that I shouldn't be able to protect myself. I'm fighting for that right in my state as we speak.

This is a good example of how the Tactics and Training forum should be limited to ACTUAL tactics and training... not a bunch of typists talkin' about how they'd do this or that. Some of the posts... wow, they're just ridiculous, and this is the result.

Just to guess, 99% of the people here probably have no tactical training whatsoever. Yet they post away about how no man alive can match their speed and agility in a hi-stress shoot out. They talk about how "there's only gonna be one side of the story told to the cops" with a bunch of these :D ,following the comment (you know what they're inferring).

People read this crap and think CCW is not a good idea. Can you blame them?

And this statement is scary, because it's easy to see how one can come way with this mentality after browsing through TFL for a few minutes especially in the Tactics & Training forum:
tsavo said:
...most people think a ccw license is a license to kill let alone a police badge.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, and the cop should have waited to shoot. :mad:
If you disagree with this, and your an active CCW holder - you better take a long hard look at your state laws.
 
Why would all the officers have to fire on the guy? The one shot dropped the kid. Why fill him full of holes when he went down w/ one rifle shot?
Click to expand...
Here is what I am saying. Four cops have guns drawn on him. Four cops are making decisions on the spot as to when to fire. One cop makes the decision before the other three. Given the tendency of cops to start shooting as soon as they hear gunfire from their comrades (I believe it is called sympathetic fire?) especially when they are keyed up and adrelnalized and ready to fire on the instant - isn't it interesting that none of the other three did?

I would have expected that if the four cops felt that their lives were in danger they would have all begun firing simultaneously. Since only one cop fired one shot, it looks like he got trigger happy to me. To me, the video also shows that he fired too soon. I have a hunch that he was so full of adrenaline that he was over-squeezing the trigger and the gun went off before he actually intended to shoot - which could also explain the bad shot at that distance.

A lot of posts have made the point that the guy in the car should not have exited the car with a gun, should have put his hands up, should have dropped the gun, etc - and they are all 100% correct. This guy is obviously massively unbright. A lot of posts have also made the point that when cops yell at you, you should follow their orders - again 100% right, I agree. This guy did everything wrong. .

With all that said and agreed to - that shot was premature, at no point in the video does he present an immediate threat to the cops; and it is apparent to me that the other cops agreed it was premature since they didn't start firing too.

BAD SHOOTING
 
Do you think the GRAND JURY which reviewed the shooting had more information available to them (as well as a higher quality video) than you?
 
The news report mentions that he DID have a small gun in his right hand. I'm guessing (ok, assuming) that the police officer yelling at him to "Drop it" wasn't just saying that for the heck of it. Why say "drop it" if there isn't an obvious firearm? Couldn't police be using a scope, or binoculars, to see the gun? And how do you know they didn't see anything? Were you there? Did you talk to them? I couldn't see any of the officers in that video. So who knows where they were and what they were doing/seeing? It's all a moot point right now anyway, as this happened back in January. If the police already knew he was going to commit suicide, his own mother might have made the call to the police and mentioned that he had a gun for all we know. Obviously the police were alerted to the situation, otherwise how would they have known to stop THAT car?

Anyway, my postings are just my opinions. I didn't see the police report or the phone conversation log, and I wasn't there. I was just going on what I saw/heard in the video. I forsee this thread going to 10 pages. I'll pull back from this one now, and let you professionals handle this.

And yes, all the officers are my friends.
 
The cops that didn't shoot, why not?
Click to expand...

1. Fear of prosecution.
2. Fear of liability.
3. Fear of guys like you second guessing them after the fact.

These fears sometimes override the fear of death. Fortunately more than one cop was there. The others werte likely hoping someone else was going to shoot so they wouldn't have to.

4. Didn't think it was going to happen.

Quite often one cop will shoot and another will stand there oblivious, because it hasn't sunk in yet that it's happening, NOW. Later, cop number two usually says thanks, you saved my life.

With all that said and agreed to - that shot was premature, at no point in the video does he present an immediate threat to the cops; and it is apparent to me that the other cops agreed it was premature since they didn't start firing too.
Click to expand...

When someone has threatened to kill cops, has a gun in his hand, he is a threat. Cops are safe behind cover? Hope bad guy doesn't get lucky- you have to stick something from behind cover to shoot. What about the rest of the neighborhood? You want to let this guy start spraying bullets around before you're convinced he's dangerous? By then the 9 year old girl down the street is dead. You gonna tell her momma why?

This guy had to be stopped. Sad? Yes. Do I like it? No.

BAD SHOOTING
Click to expand...
You keep saying that. Yeah. What, do you start cheering when you think the cop was right? When is it a good shooting? If it's a shooting someone got shot, and that's never a good thing.
 
Quote:
The cops that didn't shoot, why not?



1. Fear of prosecution.
2. Fear of liability.
3. Fear of guys like you second guessing them after the fact.

These fears sometimes override the fear of death. Fortunately more than one cop was there. The others werte likely hoping someone else was going to shoot so they wouldn't have to.

4. Didn't think it was going to happen.

Quite often one cop will shoot and another will stand there oblivious, because it hasn't sunk in yet that it's happening, NOW. Later, cop number two usually says thanks, you saved my life.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps they were trained well? We did several simulations with partners at the academy. Several times, I did not have to shoot because my partner had the best shot and took it. And the threat was stopped before I had to fire. Perhaps it is unlikely, but it might as well be thrown in with the others.
Also an option is the fact that the other officers were in fact waiting for the gun to come further up, or any myriad of other reasons. Speculate all you want, the best answer would be directly from those officers.
 
Do you think the GRAND JURY which reviewed the shooting had more information available to them (as well as a higher quality video) than you?
Click to expand...
Grand Juries do what they are told to do most of the time. I have no faith in Grand Juries, they are typically rubber stamps for the prosecutor.


1. Fear of prosecution.
2. Fear of liability.
3. Fear of guys like you second guessing them after the fact.
Click to expand...
These are all possibilites of course. I do not think cops are above being second guessed, if there actions weren't reviewed and "second guessed" then we would have cops doing whatever they felt like doing, whenever they felt like doing it, without any repercussions at all. Besides, saying they shouldn't be second guessed isn't to the point of whether it was a good or a bad shooting.

When someone has threatened to kill cops, has a gun in his hand, he is a threat. Cops are safe behind cover? Hope bad guy doesn't get lucky- you have to stick something from behind cover to shoot.
Click to expand...
It isn't words that are threatening, it is actions - this guy showed some rather lame judgment, but at no time in that video did he present an immediate threat to the cops.

Or perhaps they were trained well?
Click to expand...
Now that is a real possibility. However, Kerrville is a small and quiet town. These guys having serious training that is kept up to date is possible - but how likely?

You keep saying that. Yeah. What, do you start cheering when you think the cop was right? When is it a good shooting? If it's a shooting someone got shot, and that's never a good thing.
Click to expand...
I do keep saying, because I keep thinking it was a bad shooting. A good shooting is one where the cops shoot when they should shoot, and hit what they should hit, which in my opinion is a lot more often than not. Don't take it personally Wayne, it's just a conversation where we have different points of view. My point of view is a bit more immediate than yours because I drive through that part of the country from time to time, and I am not too happy to know that there is a cop out there that is trigger happy, and a bad shot to boot. Cops who can not control themselves in a tense situation should not be armed, they need to find another career.

One other tiny little thing - why wasn't he charged with resisting arrest, or assault with a deadly weapon, or assault, or.....anything other than misdemeanor possession of a firearm?

I still say it is a bad shooting - but will do it in lower case. :)
 
Last edited:
I finally got to listen as well as watch the video. I have no problem analyzing police actions as that is how we learn. While thinking about this today, here is something else I thought about as to why the other officers did not shoot.

First, I think that perhaps I would have waited perhaps half a second longer than the shooter, with the following GIVENS: He did have a gun in hand and had threatened to kill police officers. Let me first say that I did not see a gun. However the fact that he did have a gun is not really in question. The officers, media, and family members all say he had a gun.

Now, a fact. Only one officer fired. The others did not. Why? Well, perhaps some of the factors listed above. Here is another one. I am kneeling behind my car with my pistol on the BG, deciding whether to shoot or not. Just as I'm thinking it's getting to the "can't wait any longer" point. I hear a crack and simultaneously see the BG go down. Seeing as how this was a close range shooting, I would think the sound and sight were very close. (the whole, "if you heard the shot, you are ok" thing). Once I see the BGs face explode and body slump to the ground, I figure I don't need to shoot anymore.

Just one more option as to why the others didn't shoot.
 
A real possibilty too, jcoii.

It looks to me though that the shot came so soon that the other cops hadn't reached the tipping point yet. Has anyone noticed if the rifle was scoped?
 
Quote:
Do you think the GRAND JURY which reviewed the shooting had more information available to them (as well as a higher quality video) than you?
Click to expand...
Grand Juries do what they are told to do most of the time. I have no faith in Grand Juries, they are typically rubber stamps for the prosecutor.
 
So its a conspiracy? Do you have any clue how many brownie points the average prosecutor will get prosecuting a cop? We are'nt even on the same team, regardless of what you see on "Law and Order"

Its called a nolle pross, and grand juries do it all the time.
 
I don't have any problem with analyzing the shooting, or keeping guard to ensure police don't overstep the law. But this is a guy who has expressed interest in killing cops, has a gun, has it in hand, and is capable of killing in 1/2 a second. You won't convince me he's not a threat.
It isn't words that are threatening, it is actions - this guy showed some rather lame judgment, but at no time in that video did he present an immediate threat to the cops.
Click to expand...
Let's say, for sake of argument, no one saw the gun. That someone wasn't off camera telling officers they saw a gun. Heck, let me give you some rope and let's assume there is no gun at all. Threatening to shoot cops, then holding something hidden from view in a manner consistent with holding a gun poses a threat. If the threat could be be carried out within your reaction time it is immediate.
One other tiny little thing - why wasn't he charged with resisting arrest, or assault with a deadly weapon, or assault, or.....anything other than misdemeanor possession of a firearm?
Click to expand...
Moot point.

A friend's ex wife tried to do him in. Emptied a 357 at him through his car window in a gas station parking lot. Missed. Rounds ended up in the dash and the driver's seat he was sitting in, and the seat next to him as if the bullets went through him. A stray bullet was found in a car that was passing by on U.S.1. She got in trouble for firing within 1000 feet of a domicile. Because the ex wasn't charged with assault, does this mean she was never a threat to him? Does this mean she wasn't a threat to passing motorists? Does this mean he wouldn't have been justified in shooting back? Does this mean cops wouldn't have been justified in shooting her? Of course not. The charge doesn't mean a thing.

She blatantly violated the law and was an obvious threat, more so than the Kerrville guy. Got a misdemeanor charge. The charges don't indicate a threat either way.

BTW, would they have been justified when she yelled "I'm gonna kill you, you bastard!" (not exact words) and pulled the gun out of her purse? Or would you have police wait until she pointed it at him? Or until the first couple of shots? Would it be different if you were there?

My point of view is a bit more immediate than yours because I drive through that part of the country from time to time, and I am not too happy to know that there is a cop out there that is trigger happy, and a bad shot to boot.
Click to expand...

When you're driving through Kerrville with that "trigger-happy" cop, don't threaten to shoot cops, don't pull your gun out and don't ignore them when they tell you to drop it. If you do, you might get shot. If you do get shot, you better hope he's a bad shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top