In reading the article it does not explain what caused the shooting but it did indicate other firearms were present. If he came at the officers with weapons they had every right to shoot him. NOW BEFORE YOU GET ALL UPSET .... it is my opinion that police do NOT need to shoot to kill. A simple shot or 2 to the arms or legs will normally disable the person enough that they can take them into custody and no lives are lost. As for the mask incident .. people need to learn to go along with the new laws .. the same as we have done for many years every time there is a new law. It would also be of great benefit if the stores would set up an entry person who can hand the customers a mask and explain the new policies. That is a good way to get people familiar with how things need to be for a while. Soon it will be come state law and no longer just up to the individual businesses so like it or not .. and believe me I know there are quite a few of you who will have a comeback .. get used to it. The sooner we get this virus under control the sooner we can get back to normal lives and until people begin to cover up to help slow it down .. the sooner that will happen. Ok ... bring it on .. come at me .. I know you will
LOL. I'm not coming at you, just pointing out some things.. If.the police could have confirmed the man had gun in hand they'd probably have done so. The language used is sloppy. Guns were 'present'? What does that mean? Could the.police have found guns in the man's house after they shot him? The police report is so far too vague to come to definite conclusions. Maybe subsequent investigation will bring out more of the truth of what really happened.
Exactly my point .. the article says this that and the other thing but says a lot of nothing leaving all sorts of speculation. I would be interested in seeing a final report on this incident .. and it is sad that a life was lost.
If he had attacked the police that would be the first thing in the report. Now if they would have left him alone he would be alive to-day. Needless death.
I also questioned the possibility that this poor old fellow was actually armed. The report does not say that he was armed, just that they recovered weapons at the scene. This sounds like they went into his house and searched. Since Canada has also been faced with rioters, just like we have been in the United States, it is quite possible that he might have been carrying a weapon in his vehicle , to protect himself if necessary. This would also explain why he had a weapon in his hand when confronted by police, since he would have been taking the gun inside of his house when he got home. By the time that they actually confronted the man, he was no longer even at the store or threatening any of the employees. We are talking about a 73 year old man here, and two young and healthy policemen. Unless he was actually threatening them with a weapon (which the report did not say), they should have been able to easily handle this situation in another way besides shooting and killing this poor old man. Even the workers from the store said that he should not have been shot and killed for just objecting to wear a mask in the store. At his age, it is quite likely that he would have had heart or breathing problems, and that is why he was objecting to wearing the mask. Even with my loose face-covering (profile picture ), it is still hard for me to get enough oxygen when I wear it, and I am gasping for air just from walking from the car to the fitness center in my mask, so I can totally understand why another elderly person might not have wanted to wear a face mask. Here is a video that shows the officer’s body cam, and they are telling the man to drop the gun. It is hard to see what he is actually holding, but he does have something in both hands, although he is not pointing the weapon at the police, or doing anything threatening that I can see. The video mentions about the same thing happening in Michigan the day before; so it sounds like killing non-muzzled people is going to become the norm from now on.
I understand the sentiment but so far as the police shooting an arm or a leg, it’s not quite that simple. IF, the old guy did indeed threaten the police with a pistol, the police are trained to shoot center mass for two reasons: (1) Center mass is easier to hit and (2) following the first train of thought, if a policeman misses, bullets have a tendency to hit other things like other people. I’d venture to write that only a few, if any, police officers can proficiently hit a target as small as an arm or a leg without an occasional miss and a miss can cause an innocent life to be lost. For a policeman to discharge his weapon indoors (or outdoors for that matter) there has to be an immanent threat to the life of either another person or the officer. Now the question of whether there really was an imminent threat is still in the air.
Contrary to what television might have taught you, very few policemen are able to draw their weapon and shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand. In fact, most cops complete their careers in law enforcement without ever having shot anyone, and many have never even drawn their weapon in the line of duty. Apart from the shooting range and the fact that they have to qualify and re-qualify with a weapon from time to time, gunplay is not a central emphasis of their training. I won't name the city because I don't want to embarrass anyone, but I was asked to join the SWAT team of a major US city. They wanted to have a paramedic with them whenever they went out and, in anticipation of being with them during the action, we had to qualify with a handgun and an assault rifle. We were, in fact, given a stipend to buy our own weapons because, not being commissioned police officers, they couldn't issue us a weapon. We had to qualify at the range, the same as the police did and, although I hadn't shot a weapon during the 12 years I was in California, I did as well as at least half the cops who were qualifying at the same time, and that was on the first round. I don't think they were any worse than the typical police department, however. Even for those who are proficient in the use of a weapon, aiming at a small body part, such as a hand, an arm, or a leg, would require careful aiming, particularly given the likelihood that these body parts would not be stationary. By then, they - or someone else - could be dead.
Put an officer in a high crime area to work and see just how many times in a single day or even in a week, he/she has to take their service gun out of the holster. "In Progress" calls can definitely have arriving officers pull their gun out.
My experiences come from the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, which is a very high crime area, but the fact that most cops never fire their weapons in the line of duty was from a national statistic.
I think that maybe Cody is misinterpreting the action of releasing the safety / retainer strap on the holster in preparation for drawing their service pistol with actually removing the weapon from the holster. I knew a lot of the cops in the French Quarter of New Orleans and only know of a couple who had to actually draw their weapon.
Well, since neither of us work in law enforcement, neither of us really know. Anyway, I do know the difference between lifting off the hammer safety strap and actually drawing the weapon. From what I understand, there are many law enforcement people, especially Highway Patrol, that will lift off the hammer safety strap when walking up to a vehicle if the officer feels there could be a cause to draw their service weapon, like at 3AM in the morning on a traffic stop. And, on top of that Bobby, there are many times, on Monday morning, where I will read a story about a gun battle between officers and a suspect that happened over the previous weekend.