Eloy shooting (courtesy kpho.com)

Click here for the lapel-cam video from the recent officer-involved shooting in Eloy, Arizona. [You may recall this incident from our post Self-Defense Tip: Don’t Go Looking for Trouble.] The question handing over the shooting: did Officer Richard Timmes identify himself to homeowner Victor Arenas before opening fire at 4:30 in the morning? The video is conclusive: he did not. However . . .

The video indicates that Arenas shot first. That said, here’s the sum total that was said before the gunfight . . .

Arenas: “What are you doing shining that (bleep) light on my (bleep) house (bleep).”

Timmes: “What are you doing? Put the (bleep) gun down.” (shots fired)

No question: Officer Timmes should have immediately ID’ed himself the instant Arenas opened his mouth. It seems the cop operated under the [usual[ assumption that the person he was confronting – in the dark at 4:30am – recognized his authority. That said, it’s not clear if there was any verbal exchange between the two men prior to this recording.

Also, if someone’s firing a gun at you, the time for conversation is over. It appears that Arenas opened fire without knowledge of an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm. A lesson for us all, really.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

118 COMMENTS

  1. The officer was walking down the middle of the very public street, sweeping the area with his flashlight after being called to the area for a burglary report. The deceased shouted expletives at the officer while the officer was in the middle of the street, then fired at least one shot. The officer fired back. This happened very quickly.

    • Exactly. Violent criminals do not walk down the street and shine bright flashlights on people’s homes. Furthermore, violent criminals walking down the street do not engage in dialogue with people. Ideally, the officer would have immediately identified himself. Nevertheless, I think there were ample reasons for the homeowner to NOT start shooting. I assign about 98% of the blame on the homeowner for this shooting.

      • What is wrong with you people? Watch the video a few times, the homeowner doesn’t fire until the cops gun comes up into the flashlight beam. Arenas is woken up at 4:30 in the morning, and then is blasted in the face by a narrow-beam high powered flashlight, there is no way he would be able to see who is behind the flashlight, then the cop puts his light up into the beam when he sees Arenas’ gun. Arenas NOW can see something, a gun illuminated by the flashlight, pointed right at him. At this point Arenas fires (and from what little you can see on the video it looks like he fired off into the air), and the cop fires back.

        While I do not do not deny that the cop fired back, not first, if the damn cop had just said “Eloy PD” as the first words out of his mouth, it might have been nobody getting shot.

        What officer is trained that on the first sight of a gun the appropriate action is to stand right there, draw your gun, and say something stupid? Square range training much? At the least, my gut instinct is to move first.

        • The victim could not see the officer’s handgun. First of all, it was hardly visible to the camera only two feet away. More importantly, the human eye in the dark will not be able to see a dimly lit object right next to a spotlight beam from 50 feet away.

          Alternatively, if the officer’s light provided enough illumination for the homeowner to see his black pistol, then it also provided enough illumination to see his uniform.

          The homeowner failed to identify his target and what was beyond. And he paid the ultimate price.

        • So, let me make sure I understand you.

          You are advocating the right of a person to shoot at a guy in the middle of the street who happens to be putting a flashlight on his house?

        • Arenas was NOT “woken up” at 4:30 in the morning. The news reports said he had just come home from a party. He had not gone to bed yet.

          Methinks we should wait for the toxicology report.

      • I hate to break it to you, but thieves in fact do. They even shoot people in their driveways and stuff.

  2. Who’s the bleep now? you stupid bleep. now look at you, bleeping bleeding and bleep all over the bleeping place. bet you wont be so bleeping stupid again.

    • It’s a good shoot. And I guess the average Amerikan would consider me a cop hater.

    • On behalf of the Austro-Libertarian anarcho-capitalists, I’d have to agree with you.

      The cop didn’t appear to be doing anything aggressive. So the deceased was not justified in shooting, and the cop was justified in returning fire.

      But both men were in a stupid situation that they could and should have avoided.

      According to the news story, the cop was looking for evidence from a break-in at a nearby store. Whoever ordered the cop to perform that search at 04:30, alone, over a non-violent crime, should be reprimanded. He put the cop’s life at unnecessary risk.

      • “But both men were in a stupid situation that they could and should have avoided”
        Really, a cop doing his duty in a stupid sitch? Dude I’m no cop lover, but you are dead wrong about the cop.

        • Read for comprehension. Jason said the cops superiors (and/or PD SOPs) need to be bitchslapped for sending the cop out on a moronic task and getting a citizen (stupid citizen) shot.

          Use available COVER at ALL times.

    • This “cop hater” nonsense from you police worshippers is getting old. Protip: pointing out the obvious, blatant, daily abuses of “power” by the police is not “cop hating”, it’s reality. Refusing to put blinders on does not make you a “cop hater”.

      If there’s a case where the cop is not at fault, they’re not at fault. When they are, they are.

      • See, here’s the thing: while I agree with you 100% on the abuses of power, there are a large number of people that lump all police officers into that category. These are the people who routinely refer to police as pigs.

  4. Dont leave your house in the middle of the night armed with a gun unless you have a damn good reason to do so. Tragic, but a good shoot nonetheless.

    • “Dont leave your house in the middle of the night UNARMED unless you have a damn good reason to do so. Tragic, but a good shoot nonetheless.”

      There. Corrected…

      • If the homeowner had just stayed in his house instead of going looking for trouble, he would probably still be alive today. Besides, its a lot safer to take up a defensive position and call the cops instead of going outside to be possibly ambushed. No property is worth dying for.

        • “No property is worth dying for.”

          I’m not disagreeing with your central point, ie staying inside rather than going out, but I am personally a bit sick of this “no property worth dying over” bit.

          There are several things wrong with this sentiment.

          First, and by far foremost, you don’t know that all the bad guy is after is your property. There is some recent data suggesting that for street robberies, for example, the current stat is about 50-50 that you will end the encounter without a trip to the hospital (or morgue) even if you comply with EVERYTHING the bg asked of you.

          But there’s also a secondary consideration that often gets pushed under the rug with “property crimes.” They are STILL crimes, and they are generally committed by people that are showing a flagrant disregard for others and society’s rules.

          So, while the TV or whatever may not be worth a human life in THIS instance, letting crimes go unchecked, without ANY challenge whatsoever just because it is “stuff” may in fact be VERY costly in the long, inter-generational run.

          Turning a blind eye to classless behavior is not improving our society, nor is it INCREASING our chances of avoiding violent, dangerous conflict. Ignoring property crime because “it’s just a TV” works for “right now,” but breeds more of the same.

          No, I’m not saying we should blast to bits every burglar or thief. But, to completely “ignore” a crime in progress is not the best answer, either.

          As we’ve said…the cops can’t protect us OR our stuff. Who then? Do we really just let bad guys take our stuff? By force?

          I’ve known people that say exactly that. All *I* am saying is that it is a far more thorny question and should merit more consideration than it generally receives.

        • Damn. Well thought out, really strong points I had never really considered in this debate before. Thanks, JR.

          BTW…I shot you.

        • JR,

          I agree 110%. In many cases the victims of robbery are quite literally destitute and any loss can be quite catastrophic for them … even potentially life threatening. For example if your monthly income is $1500 and your monthly expenses are $1500, there is no “cushion” to replace stolen items. Think about it: everything is necessary to someone who only makes $1500 per month. Do you forego food the next few months to make up your loss? Medication? Do you skip going to the doctor next month when you are gravely ill and hope that you somehow recover?

          It’s one thing when a burglar tries to sneak away with a $300 item from a person who makes $8,000 per month. It is different when a burglar tries to sneak away with a $300 item from a person who makes $1,500 per month.

        • Your property represents the part of your life you expended to gain it. Therefore, when someone steals from you they are in fact stealing part of your life. And so I agree with JR that sometimes you have to protect your property or even others property from theft and put and end to this anti-society behavior. The police only have the powers we delegate to them while we still retain the use of those powers.

        • “Your property represents the part of your life you expended to gain it. Therefore, when someone steals from you they are in fact stealing part of your life.”

          Very nicely put.

          Thanks for that; that sums up where I was trying to go with my bit.

        • “No property is worth dying for.” In point of fact, terminally false. If I’m off in the boondocks of the southwest desert, looking for fossils, say, and I spot somebody stealing my jeep, I’m darn well going to stop him if I can, if necessary by killing him. My jeep, and the supplies thereon, may be the only things that are keeping me alive in that situation, and to let somebody just ride off with them because “property isn’t worth killing over” may indeed wind up with me dead. There is a reason they used to hang horse thieves, and it had everything to do with odds of survival for the victim.

        • No property is worth dying for Postchild for the insurance industry?

          Is stealing your selfdefense firearm in cluded in this “give up your property”? If so why did you buy one? Just lay in a stock of Depends (and lube).

        • JR,

          I’m all for blasting away at people stealing your stuff, but before doing so, you really ought to be pretty darned sure the guy you are shooting at, is in fact doing so. And making sure of it, before leaving your cover kitted out in a way that could cause reasonable people to perceive you as a threat, hence shoot you.

          First, unless you live in the middle of a thousand acre spread, if you want to protect your yard, start with building a tall, rather impenetrable fence. Preferably one outsiders can neither see nor shoot though. That way, determining if someone is in fact intruding, is much more clear cut.

          In a world where everyone’s intentions were 100% clear to everyone else, you could well parade around you unfenced quarter acre front yard with a drawn gun at 4 in the morning, without concern to passers by on a sidewalk 5 feet away from you, but even in non dystopias, things aren’t so easy.

          Hence, to be on the safe side, bring those things valuable enough to start a gunfight over behind some sort of clear and lockable boundaries, such as inside, unless you have a reasonably walled, or large, property. While refusing to stoop the the depths of idiocy, that permeates those that thinks zoning laws preventing walled gardens (or anything else) is somehow the business of anyone but yourself.

          • You’ve missed JR’s point and mischaracterized the sort of situation he was describing.

        • “No property is worth dying for” so by logical extension, dying for this property of land we call “the United States of America” is not worth dying for? Subjugated but alive being the motto. I’m glad the founding fathers didn’t share your sentiment…

    • Don’t leave your house at 4:30am to investigate a prowler without a 1000 lumen flashlight.
      Looks like the dead idiot fired a warning shot. Another self defense no no.

  6. “He didn’t have time to identify himself,” says the chief. BULLSHIT!! The first words out of his mouth should have been “Police officer, put the gun down!”

    Now, what the deceased did was even more wrong, but the officer made a big mistake that possibly could have prevented a death.

    • I dont know. Even if that was the first thing out of the officers mouth, the homeowner shot almost immediately after the officer started talking.

      It’s possible but, in my mind, highly unlikely. But who knows?

      • In this particular case I’m not sure that even if the officer had identified himself with his first words the dead guy wouldn’t have shot, but I take issue with the statement that the officer had no time. Make time! I also think that police should look at this and identify themselves first, they could possibly avoid a similar situation.

  7. I say good shoot. All the cop knew before he fired was that someone was yelling angrily at him, pointing a gun, and then he was being shot at. I imagine the cop was still in his OODA loop when he realized he was under fire, and he acted appropriately given what he knew at the time. It would be nice if an innocent man didn’t have die, obviously, but the homeowner did a very stupid thing.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  8. Probably should have said “Police, put the gun down” but I might not have thought of that if there were bullets headed my way. That’s all the cop did wrong.
    The dead guy did a lot of things wrong.
    No one was breaking into his house, should have stayed inside and called 911.
    Don’t go outside your house waving and shooting a gun at an unidentified person in the middle of a public street.
    Baby momma made a bad choice in baby daddy.

  9. If the officer was in fact in the street, Arenas had no business drawing on him. I’d imagine any officer who’s encountering a person with a gun in the middle of the night showing aggressive behavior would have done the same in taking him down.

    • Street, sidewalk, or yard doesn’t make a difference. What matters is aggressive behavior. If the cop wasn’t acting aggressively, it wasn’t legal to shoot at him. And there’s no evidence he was…but it would be nice to know what the lapel camera recorded before that.

  10. It’s very confusing. It’s confusing that Americans may go into a catatonic state over the sound of gunfire on tape.

    I can’t tell what happened in the film, but if Paul McCain says, “good shoot!”, I know for SURE something is amiss.

    FOR. GOD’S. SAKE. Why would you defend the incomprehensible?

    I remember now! You’re a government troll!

  11. The last time I went outside to check out a “suspicious noise” was Jan, 1975 in the south side of Chicago. Nothing bad happened to me, but I soon realized the folly of my being out there in the “hood” and have never done it again. I’ll turn on outside lights and peep thru windows, but I’m staying behind locked doors.

  12. Good shoot! Good shoot!! Good shoot!!!

    You people are like Military Macaws who’ve picked all their feathers off, so you can look like the cops you worship.

    GOOD SHOOT GOOD SHOOT GOOD SHOOT!! PLEASE complete the officer training course, so you can go out AND SHOOT PEOPLE YOUR OWN SELVES!

    We KNOW you wanna do it. Only COWARDICE is keeping you from it.

    I said, COWARDICE!

    • As soon as someone shoots at you the discussion is over and it’s time to fight.

      That’s true if you’re a cop or a homeowner.

      Mr. Arenas is dead because he violated one (well, several) of the four rules. He did not identify his target before he shot.

    • I have the impression that you, Mr. Burke, have had one or more ‘bad experiences’ with someone wearing a badge and/or having government-granted powers of arrest; Perhaps you could share the circumstances with us sometime, the facts unshaded by fading memory or personal bias, so that we could determine if your vituperative commentary has some validity or if you are just, ah, ‘different.’

      I think that you forget, from time to time, that many here are current or retired cops, who HAVE received the training; Some, I am quite sure, HAVE shot people–some even at night, at close range. in the face of incoming gunfire. There are others here, of course, who are NOT current or prior cops, but, having the gift of logic, can view a set of facts and determine the difference between a tragic GOOD shooting and a tragic BAD one. Both are tragedies, but the word ‘good’ merely implies that the shooting, no matter how tragic, was ethically, morally, and legally justifiable, no matter who did it. On the other hand, a ‘bad’ shooting implies that the legal, or moral, or ethical grounds to shoot did not exist.

      This was a tragic, ‘good’ shoot. Here’s why:

      In this particular case, it makes absolutely no difference if the officer identified himself orally (although it would have been nice to add that touch to the justification), or if he had been in the yard earlier, or if he’d shone his flashlight in the house windows; There was no justification for him to be fired upon, as he was a non-proximate, improperly identified, non-immediately-threatening person standing in a public thoroughfare. As such, the aggressor was the homeowner, and the officer was justifiably defending himself. In fact, even if he’d not BEEN a police officer, there was ample justification for him to return fire.

      Let’s modify the scenario only slightly; Let us say that the officer is now just a neighbor, out with his flashlight searching for a strayed child or pet. Would you open fire on a person with a flashlight standing in the street in front of your house? A rational person would not.

      I realize that I may have wasted all of these black pixels, but having seen you respond rationally to other threads after a time, I thought I’d try.

    • Absolutely true, and if other officers look at this and remember to identify themselves first we may avoid similar situations in the future.

    • The first thing out of his mouth should have been police and not a bunch of foul mouthed belligerence. That LEO is lucky he wasn’t dealing with someone with 5 ounces of tactical skill or his light would have got him drilled had they been trying. If LEO go around spotlighting houses, they should turn the bubblegum machine on.

  14. Would have been ideal for the officer to try and identify himself but when someone’s shooting at you ‘ideal’ is no longer the case. In any case, shouting ‘police’ doesn’t mean you are actually a cop- isn’t that what people here always say when they talk about what they’ll do if someone breaks down their door shouting it?

    Dead guy thought he was billy-badass because he had a gun. Sorry, someone shining a flashlight around from the street is not reasonable cause for anything, much less opening fire without having a good view of your target. At least he’s the only one who got killed.

    • You hit the nail right between the eyes.

      I’ll hypothesize further: If any (non-cop) citizen were in the same situation, where someone yells at them and opens fire, would they not be justified in returning fire in self defense?

        • I should clarify.

          In California, maybe, maybe not.

          In Florida- More than likely yes

          And everywhere in between

      • Whether the cop identified himself or not is a red herring. The cop appears to be walking down the road, with a closed fence/gate thing between him and angry man. Angry Man opens up for the unforgivable offense of using a flashlight on a dark street. Maybe there is some other video evidence from before what we see that changes things, although it appears as though the officer was just walking straight down the street when the video begins, and Angry Man’s appearance surprised him.

  15. The vid was hard to decipher but I figured it out. One distant shot at the po po from the home owner. All following muzzle flashes are return fire by the cop.

    Night sights???

    These shootings are so freaking intense and scary. I see a need to take a class.

    • I agree. I used to believe I didnt need a flashlight on or near my HD guns, but heard a noise one night and fumbled around trying to open my case in the dark changed that toot sweet.

      • Every single home defense gun must have a light attached…and you must have a separate flashlight for the majority of situations when you need to light up somebody without pointing your weapon at them. Shit, I wish I had bright lights on the back of my car so when that asshole behind me cooks the back of my neck with his halogen high beams, I can blind that MF. So If I was that home owner and somebody was waking me up at 4 am shining a light in my window, I would beam it back at him. Good flood lights is good for home defense and in this case, better than a gun.

        • I have never been a fan of the light directly on my gun. I would rather not get shot in the face. Off gun is a lot more versatile.

          • If you are aiming your gun at a target and that target is aiming his gun at you, why would you wait for him to shoot you in the face?
            You can’t identify the target without proper illumination and you will get identification and proper aim simultaneously whit a mounted light. You can use both hands to aim and shoot with a mounted light.
            So you think you can survive an attack aiming a light around with one hand in one direction and then be able to wheel your gun around with the other hand, maintain illumination on the target, get your sights on target, and get accurate shots on target one handed before getting shot. I hope you train that way if that is how you plan to operate. Good luck with that. Me…I want to see where my gun is pointing in the dark. And I want both hands on my weapon. If the bad guy has time to aim at my light, I have time to shoot him first since I already have my sights on him.

    • “These shootings are so freaking intense and scary.”

      Yes they are. Every single one of them.

      Internet bravado about what “I will do” is blind, unsubstantiated speculation over 99% of the time.

      Gunfights are scary, chaotic, nothing at all like one expected, etc. That’s the take-home lesson I’ve gathered from those that have survived them.

      It ain’t tv or movies. It ain’t static range practice. It ain’t IDPA or any other simulated environment.

      I’ll requote you due to the importance of your words:

      “These shootings are so freaking intense and scary.”

  16. This is EXACTLY why I’m installing a rail, (that arrives today in the mail) on my SAM7R so I can use a Surefire light on it and my sidearm also.
    Most shootings happen in dark or low light. That is a bad disadvantage. The cop had good light, the victim didn’t.
    We had a pastor killed by a cop here in Spokane Valley a few years ago. He was shot on his property at night by a cop who was watching for burglars. Had the pastor had a good light, he would have seen it was a cop and did the right thing and he wouldn’t be Purina Maggot Chow now.
    I’m buying a Surefire X300 JUST because of this type of situation.
    It’s the cops that pose the threat. You never know when those douche bags are going to be sneaking around your property at night. You have to KNOW what you are dealing with before you start walking around in the dark armed.

    • …or just not go walking around in the dark at all. Had the homeowner actually shot and killed the officer, he’d be looking at a life sentence right now.

  17. And what the heck kind of backdrop is that behind the officer’s photo? It looks like someone ate a dozen flags and then vomited.

    • Not when some idiot starts shooting at you for walking down the middle of a public street.

  19. Context is everything here people.

    What’s missing is the minutes of footage leading up to this, which might paint the situation in a different light. It’s not released for a reason.

    My guess is that the cop was actually in the guys yard and had his light shining through some windows. The now dead guy thinks it one of the neighborhood hood rats and steps out with a his gun and yells at what he thinks is a punk with the flashlight.

    Dead guy yells at cop. Cop shines him sees his gun, draws his own yells “What are you doing?” Instead of “Police Department”. Its only then the first shot is fired. Last time I checked I can yell Police or Police Department faster than I can yell What are you doing?

    Until, the full video is released I wont say good or bad shoot. But the chiefs argument of didn’t have time to identify himself is complete BS.

    • You make one excellent point, that if you’ve got a flashlight shining in your face it is very hard to identify whoever is holding that light. And I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the cop was in his yard first. We need the full video.

  20. In this unfortunate example, I don’t think it matters if the policeman identified himself. If the police officer just happened to be an ordinary citizen in the middle of the street, say looking for a lost pet or something, he or she should be able to defend themselves from homeowners taking potshots at them from their front lawn. I agree with Robert: “Also, if someone’s firing a gun at you, the time for conversation is over. It appears that Arenas opened fire without knowledge of an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm. A lesson for us all, really.”

    • looked like the muzzle flash was not centered on the homeowner’s face which leads me to believe that is was not an aimed shot. I believe he tried to scare off the “prowler”. Otherwise, why did he only shoot once? He did not die immediately from his wounds. The original story said he went back inside after the shooting.

  23. Good shoot or bad shoot? I cannot say for sure based on the information. But, if I had to take an educated guess, this would be mu best guess. 20 years ago or so, a police officer probably would have taken cover, called for backup, accessed the situation, and only as a last resort, fired in self defense or the defense of another life. Today, police train to essentially stand in the open and slug it out with the smallest of provocation typically emptying the gun, reloading, and firing again. In my day, we were taught to use the minimum force necessary, but today, not so much. So, my guess is this: 20 years ago, this officer would face an inquiry alleging excessive force; today, they’ll probably make him an instructor.

    • 20 years ago, we probably wouldnt have people shooting at cops for shining flashlights around in the middle of the streets.

    • What utter nonsense. You cannot possibly have been a cop 20 years ago. I came on in 1975 and the FIRST course of action has always been to return fire.

  24. wait, did the homeowner seriously shoot at someone for shining a damn flashlight around?
    If so, no sympathy at all. The guy was in a public place, not breaking into a property, etc. If he’d been a non-leo it would *still* be a good shoot.

  25. I don’t think the cop can be faulted. Maybe his supervision for sending him out at night like that but not him.

    He had a flashlight and appeared to be in the middle of the street. If he looked/did something suspicious, call the cops and hunker down.

    It’s easy to reconstruct but we weren’t there and though the cop did not identify himself, at that point after he challenged the homeowner, they were just words, then the homeowner shot at him. I doubt if the cop was looking through windows.

    It’s just the fog of war at civilian time at night.

    Not to worry, the police will kill you.

  26. +1 Dev. Was the cop geared up? How long does it take to yell “police”? NONE of us knows exactly what happened. I can’t say for sure if it was good or bad.

  27. I’ll say it again, ‘on foot police’ should have helmets with red and blue lights on the sides…put a backlit star just above their forehead. No need to announce they’re police…its apparent. Its for officer safety, the children and its tacticool.

  28. Let me tell you that as a cop, I sometimes walk down city streets at 4 am with a flashlight. That’s a prime time for crimes to occur, and also a common time for police to investigate. I’m inclined to return fire if someone shoots at me. My duty gun had a streamlight attached for greater accuracy and illumination. My personal guns either have attached lights or I use the Olight M20S on might nightstand in a cigar grip. I’ve investigated a few noises at night. I use the flashlight first, with the gun at the ready, and I don’t shoot at I identified targets.

    I figure if I were to shoot at a police officer in the street or on the trail behind my house – both public access points – that return fire would be coming my way post haste. There may have been more that the cop could’ve done to avoid the shooting, but it looks like the majority (or all) of the blame rests solely with the man who shot at the police officer.

    That’s my take so far, and I’ll freely admit that my opinion is based on limited information.

    • I’m pretty sure he draws, and unless my ears deceive me…chambers a round before he yells “What are you doing.”

      It sure sounds like he’s racking the slide before the first shot was fired.

  31. Since when do cops WALK? And alone. As unlikely as a flying unicorn landing on your patio.

  32. Here is an undisputable fact, had the deceased stayed inside and protected his household, we would be talking about something else today. He would have gone back to bed after determining there was no danger. Instead, he went outside from the safety of his home assuming there was a danger. The testosterone was obviously flowing (or beer); he was the man in-charge and was going to take care of whatever was happening. You have to ask this question. Why did he go from a known area of safety to an unknown area of danger? Why did he escalate an unknown situation? Because he assumed there was a danger or he was just pissed off over someone shinning a flashlight towards his residence. When a person willingly inserts himself into an unknown danger for no good reason other than just because he can, that is called stupidity. Stupidity + Assuming = DEAD, in this case. Stupid is as stupid does! I place no blame on the LEO.

    What if there were teenagers outside shinning the light just being jackasses. Well, guess who would be facing homicide charges, need extra time for that question?

    This is not about the police officer overstepping his authority. This is not about the officer being negligent. This is about a jackass shooting at an unknown danger he created.

    • It most definitely is about the cop being negligent. Had he properly identified himself instead of asking a dumb question, this entire situation may not have happened. You can’t expect someone to not be pissed off after some unknown person lighting up their house before the sun’s up and then asking a stupid question instead of saying why they were there.

      If it had been some kids just playing around, I still would’ve walked out with gun in hand to ensure my own safety.

      • You thinking is illogical and baseless. Being pissed off at someone shinning a light into your house from the street does not overrule the necessity to use common sense. Why would you walk outside and inject yourself into what you perceive as a dangerous situation. Logic would dictate that you avoid danger and take the necessary steps to use the minimal amount of force necessary to ensure a positive outcome for yourself. In walking outside you are defending nothing, you are creating a danger from a situation that on its’ face a simple shinning of a flashlight. It is quite evident that the man initiated a pissing match over the light and lost. He created his own danger and went full-steam-ahead into it.

        Take the time to put aside you hatred for the police and think logically, not emotionally. If there is an unknown person on the street outside of your house shinning a light into a window, what do you do?

        A. Use your critical thinking skills and get you family into a place where they are safer and if needed defend you and them with whatever force is required to ensure a positive outcome.

        B. Use no critical thinking, be the man that only takes an offensive stance and walk outside blindly right into an unknown danger.

        If the cop got killed, exactly how would you explain “B” to a Jury? I can hear the prosecutor now. So let me get this straight, you thought there was someone outside that was dangerous? In fact so dangerous, you needed to have a firearm to protect your life. Tell me sir, why would someone with the foresight to recognize a very dangerous situation walk blindly into that situation? Wouldn’t you be reckless with your own safety and that of your family? Wouldn’t a person with a modicum of intelligence take a position of cover and have the element of surprise on his side if the need arose?

        Again, the man went outside and got into a pissing match that got him killed. He went looking for danger and it found him. Remember, stupid is a chronic disease for which the only cure is man’s own mortality.
        .

  33. Kinda curious here but if you catch someone creeping with a flashlight in your front yard and 4:30 in the morning are you supposed to immediately drop your guard and welcome him open armed? Really what difference does it make if the cop announced himself?

    I have lived 3 lives
    1) Grew up in bad neighborhoods of L.A, Chicago, and Florida where chances are at 4:30 someone creeping around your house meant you had to act fast otherwise someone might end up beaten, raped, or dead. Your a good guy trying to get out of the slums and there is no reason for a cop to be creeping around your home so 9/10 it is a bad guy and a claim of being a cop is just to BS you.

    2) Lived in the burbs of Illinois, high and mighty where life is good and the only chance of crime is if the surrounding bad neighborhoods want to invade (which actually did on occasion happen as they would break into my garage or vehicle) but for the most part 4:30 in the morning you see someone creeping this may be the only scenario where you have time to maintain self control, make sure it is not a neighborhood kid and if the creeper identifies himself as a cop 50/50 he could be.

    3) The country life of sweet TN, no neighbors and 30 minute response time. You built your house to appease your wife, not like the bad ass castle you wanted it to be so there are lots of windows. You have someone creeping outside your house and you want to investigate to get a full grip on what your dealing with before you loose a handle on the situation. Your not a criminal and so there is NO reason for a cop to be creeping in your yard….wait a minute…didn’t I catch my daughter downloading a copy of frozen? Okay so 1/10 chance the guy claiming to be a cop is for real, I guess I should put my arms down now on the one tenth chance this guys in legit?

    Finally in Chicago there was a store called the Alley I believe which was some punk/goth store and they sold some nice cop shirts, blue with the Chicago PD on one side and the Chicago flag on the other not to mention some nice fake badges, not that I would know a real badge if I ever saw one.. again I am not a criminal so no matter where I am or what I am doing, no knock raids or creeping cops you “announce” yourself and I will maintain my skepticism.

  35. While I love guns, I find it hard to digest the absolute brainless -‘good shot’ comments and the parroting of support for a blatantly negligent cop that killed someone. Is this really the readership for this site ? Blind authority figure worshiping individuals that cannot see that a life was lost. Sad commentary in itself of the pro 2A crowd. Furthermore, if you all blindly trust authority figured with firearms and do not hold them accountable how is it going to being about any respect for the people that function in such roles. No wonder the cops are increasingly hated in this country from NYC to ABQ.

  36. Guy comes outside talking like he’s a gangster pointing a gun at someone in a public road. I would have ventilated him too, but I wouldn’t have waited for him to pull the trigger. Good shoot.

  37. This was not a good shoot at all.
    A legal shoot perhaps if the cop claims self-defense because he
    certainly forgot his training.

    I do not hate cops I just recognize them for what they really are.
    A legal gang that has moved from protect and serve to
    shoot first & ask later quasi-commandos.

  38. I still have to give fault to both parties. The officer doesn’t identify himself and the homeowner doesn’t shoot until the gun is pointed at him. I don’t think many here would disagree that a gun being pointed at you is possibly grounds for personal self defense.

  39. I really doubt that was the cop u hear chambering a round in his gun, cops gun will already have a round chambered. More likely it was the other guy charging his gun.

  40. Agreed…good shoot. You come out like that, pointing a gun at a person in the street and fire off a shot – you deserve to get shot. Sometimes stupid has sad and fatal consequences.

    For you idiots that said he should have declared himself and talked down a fatal shooting, get real. When someone is shooting at you, you shoot back. That split second of communication could have been the cops life – after all, he already had lead hurled in his direction.

Comments are closed.