Perhaps the police reacted too quickly, but the guy was standing there with a gun when they arrived.

yup

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2766240.1472171042!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/indy26n-2-web.jpg

Guess what he looks like before clicking on the link.

He just looks guilty. I mean, look at that lethal weapon he's holding . . . cunningly disguised as a walker.

Step 1. Call the police to report a man with a gun in your driveway.
Step 2. Get a gun and go stand in your driveway.
Step 3. Act surprised when you, a man with a gun in the driveway, get shot by the police you called about a man in your driveway with a gun.

Some people really are not smart enough to own a gun.

But they followed not ONE basic procedure upon entering the premises. They had no right to shoot him.

Some posters acted like I didn't care that a black man was shot, but that wasn't the case at all!

I would also try to be unarmed whenever cops are nearby, or if I thought they were on the way. Armed "suspects" are shot by cops at far higher rates! They're paranoid sometimes. They're people too, and they don't want to die.

With more detail in this story, however, it's pretty ridiculous that the cops didn't at least shout at him to drop the gun! Talk about an itchy trigger finger!

I'm pleased that the poor guy is still alive anyway!

There are rules about how and when police can use lethal force. Standing while black and frankly standing while armed are not among them. Police are required to identify themselves. Unless the person is an immediate threat to the public, they must give instructions about what the person should do before just shooting them, e.g., drop your weapon. They cannot just randomly shoot people who 'look scary.' The shooter is not qualified to be a public servant. I am so sick and tired of police officers who behave like movie characters. If it is legal to have guns in this country, then you can't just shoot every black man that has one.

the scene of a crime that they were responding to.
Now here is another question, why the hell didnt you take the the gun with you into the garage if you knew the cops were enroute? Your life wasnt in danger in the house so would it have killed you to wait for the cops to come?
That aside the cop should be suspended and put on desk duty for the next 6 months to a year because police panicking and shooting someone like this shouldnt be tolerated.

Or identified themselves as police officers.

They did neither according to the reports.

Which was why he went out with his gun.

Anything broken or stolen outside is not imo worth risking your life or the life of a loved one for as the guy could have been working with someone else and they could have been laying in wait.

violation of the public safety but people need to learn they arent rambo also and when they call the cops they should let them handle it.
Take Zimmerman for example, imo he should have been found guilty because he wasnt in any danger in his car and he should have remained in it and let the cops respond to deal with it but because he didnt a young kid lost his life.

It's a sad story, and hopefully there will be some more information that might shed light on what exactly happened and why.

Disgusting.

100%

"Drop you..." BANG!

"Officer down!"

They're people, too. That's the problem for both sides of the debate.

I mean, neither of us known what actually happened, so maybe we'll have a better sense after there is an investigation.

still and its precisely done in that manner so as to avoid people panicking and shooting blindly.

They operate under color of the law. They have powers the rest of us do not have. They must uphold the highest standards to justify the power we give them over our society. If we do not have high expectations for them, then why do we have them at all and not just roaming armed vigilantes? "Public servant" means something.

I hope.

---- they shot you because they panicked when they saw someone (a Black Man) carrying a gun ------

Notice how the cops rarely say to a black man, "Throw down your weapon!" before they shoot?

And people have the right to own and use them, or they don't. You can't be selective. He was using a gun in defense, and you suggest he deserved to get shot? Which is it, you support gunz or you don't? Should there be a color clause in the 2nd amendment? This amendment applies to only those we think can pass the color test? Which is it? The gunz crowd sure confuse the fuck out of me,

address the changes to guns and our country that have taken place since it was written as I suspect that had most of the founding fathers known about things like the AK-47 they would probably not have approved.
Also no, the gentleman did not "deserve" to get shot but he does deserve to be called out on his foolishness for not staying inside once he and his wife were relatively safe as he had no idea if the guy was alone.

who believe we all have the right to guns, so they should not panic when one of has a gun. It's like OMG he has a gun, shoot. Of course he as a gun and a 2nd amendment right to have it. That's not enough for a cop to believe they're in danger.

My neighbor is a nurse who works late. She came home one late night but was scared to exit her car due to some shady character hanging around the garage. She called police but they never showed up in the half hour she waited it out before finally going in the house.

A mutual cop friend we know half jokingly told her to say she thought she saw a gun. He said that will get every cop in the area to show up.

I used to think it was good advice. Not so much anymore.

You can't make excuses for police who violate protocols. "Poor judgment" is not punishable by death or grievous bodily injury. He did not deserve to get shot.

Sadly the problem isn't likely to improve anytime soon either I fear.

Were the cops war veterans?

I don't know if they are ex-military but many police are, and it is a problem when military trained to kill on sight in a war zone, comes to America. Here is part of the problem. (old link).
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2...
Military veterans to get priority for police jobs under COPS grants Federal grant program to put more cops on the street emphasizes jobs for military veterans who served after 9/11. Unemployment among recent veterans stood at 12.7 percent in May. By Kevin Loria, Contributor June 25, 2012
Recent military veterans will have top priority for jobs under a federal program to put more police officers on patrol on America's streets.Under the Justice Department's COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program, 629 of the 800 police jobs funded for the next three years –all the newly hired officers – must go to veterans who served at least 180 days' active duty since 9/11. This is the first time the 18-year-old COPS program has required cities and counties seeking grants to hire veterans exclusively.
................................
President Bill Clinton signed off on the program as part of a package of anticrime legislation in 1994. It did not get as much funding under President George W. Bush, but the current vice president doesn’t see it going away anytime soon.
“It’s popular with the public, needed by veterans, and will benefit the community all around,” said Biden..You can't demilitarize if you're hiring mostly people straight out of the military.

Never heard of the term Rules of Engagement. Military members most certainly may not kill on sight.

First there is the matter of the various treaties which comprise the laws of war. Second despite what many may think, people in the military are not mindless sociopathic robots.

Good theory, but read this to see how it was applied in Viet Nam. This is the training I referenced. I'll bet it wasn't much different in Iraq or any war. Also, I wonder what kind of individual is attracted to an all volunteer army knowing what the job could involve regardless of how needed the service is. Same with the police force. It is almost like wanting to be a cop should disqualify you from the job. I am not being disrespectful to these people just wondering why their job often goes so wrong. BTW I am a vet (Army 67-69), two of my brothers also served, and one was a cop who died young on the job.

Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (American Empire Project) Hardcover – January 15, 2013
by Nick Turse (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/0805086919

is a simplistic answer.

Now there is more training in when force is allowed, stricter oversight and often very restrictive orders when troops may fire. Of course the system isn't foolproof as some high profile events have shown.

Many kids joined (in the 80's-90's) with combat the furthest thing from their minds. Even now there are some who expect they can serve their time in a peaceful, non-combat role. Many know combat is possible and just hope they will never face it.

There are those who sign up all gung-ho eating red meat and ready to kill. Hopefully they get weeded out in training. IME those are the ones that piss themselves and cower when things go south. Alternately they may panic and start shooting at everything.

I will get that book; it appears it will be very interesting.

Thanks for your service

zones are much stricter that the ones that police officers are subject to while carrying out their duties. That's why I find it absurd that anybody would defend these guys shooting without identifying themselves or before they have any idea of what's going on in a situation just because they feel threatened in that particular moment. A soldier, sailor or marine who did the same would be court-martialed.

No matter. The cops are no longer properly trained.

Ask the NRA for a comment about this.

Or ill trained cops?

As to the police, and their response,I was not there. Were you?

required to pass strict safety requirements just like the police should in theory have to pass, I say in theory because it looks like the cop in this case is due for a refresher course.

Are you opining that guns for self defense is a fantasy, or that carrying a gun is never a solution?

Even using a gun isn't a solution it's merely an answer but not a very good one since the odds are if you have to use it to generate your reply to someone already aiming a gun at you it's a bit to late.

I guess its not too late after all.

Guns are not the solution. But, according to Pew and Gallup surveys, majorities of gun owners report buying guns for self-defense. The illusion of safety is what gun makers are selling.

That's no illusion.

Plus, does this defensive use of firearms outweigh the 30,000 gun homicides every year?

You said this:

I replied with this:



Just because you failed to put 2 and 2 together doesn't mean they don't add up to 4.



First, there aren't 30 thousand gun homicides every year, there are ten-ish thousand.

Second, the lowest estimates put defensive use of a firearm at over double that figure, so yes, it does outweigh it.

An interesting tactic.

The minute you address them for what they actually are, I'll treat your argument like you have done so and address it.

But I'll not entertain this "they're all the same" premise you and so many others seem to be laboring under, because its a false premise.

when innocent people get shot, thats so sad

Sue sue sussudio!