Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

20 Year old Irish man,shot dead by US police

123457

Comments

  • #182
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,575 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    pirelli wrote: »
    Ignoring people is polite stevec.
    Like I could have ignored you, but instead im going to staple that tin foil hat onto your head. Point proven.
    Ow
    /hurts

    Can I ask you a serious question - have you any personal connection to this or is it a moral thing?

    I am willing to debate this as adults. I feel you are just disregarding the witness statements as piffle and making up your own set of events to justify your point of view. Please - prove me wrong and have something to back it up with.


  • #183
    CtrlSource
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭CtrlSource


    SteveC wrote: »
    1. If what seamus said is true and shooting him the first time did not incapacitate him, what would you suggest he do? Call him names?

    Eh no. After a number of years in police academy and a number years experience on the street, i would hope i'd have a few more ideas than a) shoot and oh if that doesn't work, then b) call him names! i know you're being sarky but sheesh, you're not seriously suggesting that shooting a guy who's not carrying a gun is the only sensible thing to do, are you?
    2. Shooting to kill? If an officer has made the decision to shoot, he aims for centre body mass as it is the most effective way of stopping an attacker. This has the unfortunate side effect of hitting a major organ and therefore being lethal. Shooting to wound is only in the movies.

    Ease up on the CSI there buddy! Saw you used the term 'perp' earlier too :rolleyes:

    Again, are you suggesting that officers don't sometimes shoot to wound and not kill?


  • #184
    yayamark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,013 ✭✭✭yayamark


    So after all yer bitching and giving out about the cop it turns out the shooting was justified.

    Wheres yer apologies now.

    Form an orderly line please


  • #185
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    CtrlSource wrote: »
    Again, are you suggesting that officers don't sometimes shoot to wound and not kill?
    Are you suggesting that US police officers ever shoot to wound? Have you ever read a guns thread on AH before?


  • #186
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,575 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    CtrlSource wrote: »
    Eh no. After a number of years in police academy and a number years experience on the street, i would hope i'd have a few more ideas than a) shoot and oh if that doesn't work, then b) call him names! i know you're being sarky but sheesh, you're not seriously suggesting that shooting a guy who's not carrying a gun is the only sensible thing to do, are you?
    you tell me - you seem to know a lot about this so answer my question please.

    Again, are you suggesting that officers don't sometimes shoot to wound and not kill?
    I'm suggesting that when an officer makes the decision to use his firearm then he intends to use lethal force - whether it works or not is irrelevant to his decision making process.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    a5y
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 945 ✭✭✭a5y


    SteveC wrote: »
    1. Ignoring people is downright rude.
    3. If you want it locked then report some posts giving reasons why - I'm sure the AH mods are aware of this threads existence.

    I think the thread should have been locked some time ago, but I will respect the mods judgement in not locking it.

    I don't like it because I think its just turning the news of a violent death (something that in real life is taken very seriously) into an online off topic three ring circus. My reason for wishing the thread to be locked is because off topic threads are covered in the AH Charter.

    But I'll respect their judgement if they do not think it is necessary. If you think my use of the ignore feature (which the mods and admins allow all users to use) is rude, then I'd ask you to extend the same respect for the mods' judgement in allowing me and every other user to use the ignore list feature.
    pirelli wrote: »
    By adding names to your ignore list i assume that includes the admins and moderators on the previous page,

    Ignoring admins and mods is the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears when a Garda is talking to you. I don't know why you'd assume I was adding mods to my ignore list.


  • #188
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    CtrlSource wrote: »
    i know you're being sarky but sheesh, you're not seriously suggesting that shooting a guy who's not carrying a gun is the only sensible thing to do, are you?

    Given distances, how much time you have, and what you're holding in your hand at that exact moment, it may well have been.
    Again, are you suggesting that officers don't sometimes shoot to wound and not kill?

    I won't say it's never happened, but any instances I can think of have been ones where there has been a stand-off, that plenty of time has been taken to aim, and usually it is done with a sniper rifle. These are rather rare instances. I've certainly never heard of a beat cop training to 'shoot to wound.'

    NTM


  • #189
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    SteveC wrote: »
    To me it doesn't look like he had much opportunity to holster his weapon and revert to a non leathal defence - e.g. mace or nightstick.

    Right. Standard OP: have your gun out, your dispatch tells you the lunatic has a samurai sword.

    Its not a video game: in video games I just press Q on my keyboard and bam ive gone from holding my rocket launcher to a melee weapon. Welcome to Real life though were those kind of actions take time.

    Also, you have no way of knowing the close quarter lethality of this lunatic, as I'll allude to below*
    If it happened as described, I don't think the officer had much choice in how he was to defend himself. He certainly couldn't risk a hand to hand struggle in case his weapon was compromised and the guy started shooting randomly at the 13 witnesses who were there.

    True as well. As above the only way to enter hand to hand on such short notice? Probably to drop his gun on the ground, where it can easilly be picked up - and used - by anyone. Not really the way you want to go.
    bugler wrote: »
    When you arm your police, this is what is going to happen (and I'm not stating on opinion on whether armed police are good or bad).

    You can bet that Gardai face situations like this every night of the week. They don't have guns, they have to deal with it the old fashioned way.

    In America, if you attack or threaten a police officer, you are likely to be shot.

    If you're dumb enough to think the gun is an empty threat, as a suspect, then you probably got what you deserved. What do you think would happen to the safety of american cops if suddenly police had a reputation for trying to fist fight you when you come running at them? Lots of dead cops.

    You have to remember the situation in America is different; here in Ireland theres laws to forbid concealed weapons and firearms. That, and its a small ****ing island, its relatively easy to enforce.
    seamus wrote: »
    Without having seen it first-hand, it is a tough one to call, as it all depends on what kind of timeframe the events took place in.

    Indeed, he shot him five times in total. Eyewitnesses said that he didn't even react to being shot, which would probably be fairly terrifying for the officer. This is also what leads me most strongly to believe that he was probably completely off his head on something.
    *Right here: a lunatic eats 5 bullets before going down? How intelligent then is it to get into a fist fight with something like that? For all you know the suspect could overpower the cop and snap his neck, which doesnt take a gross amount of force to do afaik.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    There's no excuse for murder, he was unarmed, the cop was an x cage fighter, if anybody could have controlled the situation without lethal force it was that cop....

    If it was a garda this would never have happend, America really needs to have a good long hard look in the mirror....

    Voilence breeds voilence, the sooner they realise this the better....

    Gun Laws in america are a whole issue in and of themself.

    Again, Cage Fighter or not, you never underestimate your suspect's lethality. Or you can end up dead.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    should the cop have backed off when it was obvious that he was on something, maybe call for a mediator?

    Before or after the lunatic made a raving battle cry and lunged at the officer? Officers are mediators. The next best thing is a Hostage Negotiator afaik.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Ohh I wonder where he would have got the gun from, you don't bring a gun to a fist fight....

    ............from the cop?
    pirelli wrote: »
    I read the rerports and they did indicate that the person kelly saw was later identified as Andrew Hanlon. I just dont believe it, as she only got a brief look at him for only a brief moment.

    Morgue much?
    <More CSI bullplop>

    Unless youre a highly trained forensic investigator with clearance to the evidence in this case, you know as much as me about the particulares: squat.


  • #190
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    seamus wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that US police officers ever shoot to wound? Have you ever read a guns thread on AH before?
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Given distances, how much time you have, and what you're holding in your hand at that exact moment, it may well have been.



    I won't say it's never happened, but any instances I can think of have been ones where there has been a stand-off, that plenty of time has been taken to aim, and usually it is done with a sniper rifle. These are rather rare instances. I've certainly never heard of a beat cop training to 'shoot to wound.'

    NTM

    Overheal wrote: »


    Right. Standard OP: have your gun out, your dispatch tells you the lunatic has a samurai sword.

    Its not a video game: in video games I just press Q on my keyboard and bam ive gone from holding my rocket launcher to a melee weapon. Welcome to Real life though were those kind of actions take time.

    Also, you have no way of knowing the close quarter lethality of this lunatic, as I'll allude to below*


    Morgue much?

    .

    Right laddies, here it is , An official training manual on whether to shoot or not to shoot. No more references from overheals fertile imagination required.

    http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Ogs-OzA2aBsJ:www.learning-for-life.org/exploring/lawenforcement/study/shootordont.pdf+police+when+challenging+a+suspect+shoot+to+injure+or+kill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=ie

    Morgue?.

    He had a dark jacket on. That's all they needed to identify him.
    Then stick a holiday snap of him in with a few obvious mug shots and there is still a one in 5 chance that the witness will pick him. If that fails the cop says are you sure, just think it over, are you sure it's not no 3.


  • #191
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    pirelli wrote: »
    Right laddies, here it is , An official training manual on whether to shoot or not to shoot. No more references from overheals fertile imagination required.

    I believe this paragraph from said study guide rather sums things up rather succinctly, and supports the position that I and others have taken on the purpose of shooting.
    linked study guide wrote:
    This guideline simply means that when a law enforcement officer fires his/her weapon at someone, the officer doesn't shoot to kill, doesn't shoot to wound, but shoots to stop the suspect’s activity, thereby eliminating the imminent danger
    If that fails the cop says are you sure, just think it over, are you sure it's not no 3.

    That's called 'leading' and is unlawful. Even a pathetic defense lawyer (who is required to be present for it) can get it barred from evidence.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    pirelli wrote: »
    The statement was a press release and not evidence in a court. The grand jury were to decide if excessive forse was used. They did not question the authenticity of the evidence.

    The cop that shot him parked right near to the kelley house.
    He would have had to return to the residence to get to his police vehicle and had more than an oppourtunity to plant the blood.

    Pirelli, by your own style of condemnation I can accuse you of being a sex offender and show no evidence, and still assume you'll be found guilty besides all the evidence to the contrary.

    I can only assume you've some link to the victim and have no ability to accept the reality of the situation. It's sad that someone had to die, but it happened and blaming an innocent man because you can't accept the truth is no way to go about your life. You need to step away from the keyboard and look out your window.


  • #193
    CtrlSource
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭CtrlSource


    seamus wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that US police officers ever shoot to wound? Have you ever read a guns thread on AH before?

    Yes. No.

    SteveC wrote: »
    you tell me - you seem to know a lot about this so answer my question please.

    i will. When you grow up ;)

    SteveC wrote: »
    I'm suggesting that when an officer makes the decision to use his firearm then he intends to use lethal force - whether it works or not is irrelevant to his decision making process.

    Okay. He/she knows it's a potentially lethal force. He/she doesn't neccessarily believe it will be fatal though.

    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Given distances, how much time you have, and what you're holding in your hand at that exact moment, it may well have been.

    I won't say it's never happened, but any instances I can think of have been ones where there has been a stand-off, that plenty of time has been taken to aim, and usually it is done with a sniper rifle. These are rather rare instances. I've certainly never heard of a beat cop training to 'shoot to wound.'

    Is it really true that they're trained to use lethal force always when discharging a weapon? Is that always the intent (i know it's always a potential consequence)?

    i don't believe that shooting this man dead was justified, or an appropriate response to the threat he posed. May he rest in peace


  • #194
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    humanji wrote: »
    Pirelli, by your own style of condemnation I can accuse you of being a sex offender and show no evidence, and still assume you'll be found guilty besides all the evidence to the contrary.

    I can only assume you've some link to the victim and have no ability to accept the reality of the situation. It's sad that someone had to die, but it happened and blaming an innocent man because you can't accept the truth is no way to go about your life. You need to step away from the keyboard and look out your window.

    Humanji your a sad worthless ***** and no I am not a sex offender. My condemnation is to shoot this asshole down like he shoots people. If you accussed me of being a sex offender I would take the polygraph and prove I was innocent. Then with no physical evidence I would begin on a course of seeking retribution for your callous accusation .

    All these have a go freaks should sit a polygraph and have a set of general questions asked. One question would be did you fabricate or move evidence.

    It seems that he would pass, but there is the delicate of possibilites that he might fail. Life also is delicate. These delicate possibilities matter or at least should.


  • #195
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    pirelli wrote: »
    <snip> My condemnation is to shoot this asshole Police Officer down like he shoots people. If you accussed me of being a sex offender I would take the Polygraph...<snip>

    Polygraphs are inadmissible in a court of law.
    Right laddies, here it is , An official training manual on whether to shoot or not to shoot. No more references from overheals fertile imagination required.

    Mom always said I was the creative one in the family.

    As for the training manual thats all well and good. But honestly why cant we leave it to the investigation team in oregon to verify whether Gonzalez was in the wrong?
    Morgue?.

    well yeah, I just took it in the context that they confirmed the guy he had shot dead was yer man.

    But seriously how many raving lunatics with such and such a description do you meet in an average day to merit wondering if this is the guy youre after or not?


  • #196
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    Overheal wrote: »
    Polygraphs are inadmissible in a court of law.


    No! they are admissable in court . All machinations of data are valid in a court of law. In the united states the defendant and the prosecutor must both agree to the evidence being used. i would imagine something similar along those line operates in most courts.


    They just say that they are not admissable in court, because it might be cosntrued as implicating oneself and a mainly because of all the corrupt officals out there that would run a mile if asked to do a polygraph.

    Politicians
    Supervisors
    Managers
    Forensic scientists
    Medical examiners
    Crime scene investiagtors
    Prosecutors
    witnessess

    So many powerful people have so much to lose with the introduction of the polygraph, it sits idle in some countries, like ours. Even Russia uses the polygraph and if you ever want to go to russia, be prepared to have to sit a polygraph examination. There is no reason to infringe on peoples privacy, but should be used to catch the corrupt politicians and corrupt police and forensic people.


  • #197
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    only insofar to say that the polygraph can be used as part of an evaluation of your character, etc.

    however if you are asked if you commited a crime under polygraph and the machine spits out a Lie, that is not admissable as a conviction, because of the ability to fool polygraph tests.

    But, Ill leave it to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Admissibility_of_polygraphs_in_court

    edit: ooh actually, this might be of interest pirelli. beside generally being inadmissable or unreliable:
    Wikipedia wrote:
    Sexual offenders are now routinely polygraphed in many states of the United States and it is often a mandatory condition of probation or parole. In Texas, a state appellate court has upheld the testing of sex offenders under community supervision and has also upheld written statements given by sex offenders if they have committed a further offense with new victims. These statements are then used when a motion is filed to revoke probation and the probationer may then be sentenced to prison for having violated his or her probation.

    A significant number of Federal appeals courts have upheld polygraph testing for Federal probationers as well. The most recent decision was by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a New York sex offender.

    The UK will soon allow compulsory polygraph tests for convicted sex offenders released on license.[36][37]


  • #198
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    Overheal wrote: »
    only insofar to say that the polygraph can be used as part of an evaluation of your character, etc.

    However if you are asked if you commited a crime under polygraph and the machine spits out a Lie, that is not admissable as a conviction, because of the ability to fool polygraph tests.

    But, Ill leave it to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Admissibility_of_polygraphs_in_court

    edit: ooh actually, this might be of interest pirelli. beside generally being inadmissable or unreliable:

    I hope your not being cynical overheal and have realised your mistake and have not introduced wikipedai as to try pass off the fact that it contradicts the part of your post I quoted above.

    Yes I read your wikipedia:

    In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court.

    Europe:
    It also states that polygraph evidence can also be used in any lawsuit as opinion evidence.


    This topic does interest me, this thread is rapidly going off topic.


  • #199
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Is it really true that they're trained to use lethal force always when discharging a weapon? Is that always the intent (i know it's always a potential consequence)?

    Yes, and sortof. We've gone over this before.

    It's legally considered a use of deadly force because death is not an unlikely outcome of shooting at people, whether you have a particular intent to kill them or not (I was aiming at his leg, but accidently hit his femoral artery and he bled to death). However, the desired end-state is not a dead target. The desired endstate is a target which no longer poses a threat to you. He/She/It may be dead, or he/she/it may not be dead. At the time you stop pulling the trigger, you don't care, the only factor to consider is the threat to you or others, not the condition of the person you were shooting at. If not dead, the fact that at the time you fired you considered it a matter of preservation worthy enough to use deadly force does not entitle one to make sure that the target actually is dead, which is why it's not called 'shoot to kill.' If the guy survives, so much the better. The catch is that if there is a threat, you try to remove it as quickly as possible, which means multiple shots, centre mass. This happens also to be where most of the vital organs are, hence death is not a particularly unusual result.

    NTM


  • #200
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    pirelli wrote: »
    I hope your not being cynical overheal
    nope. thought it would interest you. When I am cynical I let you know it :pac:
    Manic Moran wrote:
    At the time you stop pulling the trigger, you don't care, the only factor to consider is the threat to you or others, not the condition of the person you were shooting at. If not dead, the fact that at the time you fired you considered it a matter of preservation worthy enough to use deadly force does not entitle one to make sure that the target actually is dead, which is why it's not called 'shoot to kill.' If the guy survives, so much the better.

    Makes sense. When the guy kept coming, Gonzalez kept shooting. May as well been screaming Im Tony ****ing Montana at him. Granted he may have been as good as dead after the first 2/3 shots but that didnt eliminate him as a threat. We can argue about it here in writing for weeks, but its about what happens in the heat of the moment.


  • #201
    dee_97880
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭dee_97880


    pirelli wrote: »
    They is racist to all races is all.
    Must not have been in Silverton. :) Havent talked to anyone that didnt like AJ even if he was a little different. Those who do not like the USA shouldnt visit and the people that you met that are racist should stay in their close minded town. My friends and family accept everyone and the traveling I have dont I have had few problems. Some rude people in some countries I was in but for the most part everyone nice. Same as the states here I have visited. I have found some rude people but the majority seem very nice. Maybe the factor is the attitude of the visitor.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    JackKelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,225 ✭✭✭JackKelly


    it's such a complete joke. A disturbed man, who has just jumped down from a tree and doesn't have a weapon can be shot 5 times followed by the Policeman being cleared of any wrong doing. It's a sick country.


  • #203
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    TimAy wrote: »
    it's such a complete joke. A disturbed man, who has just jumped down from a tree and attacked a police officer and doesn't have a weapon can be shot 5 times followed by the Policeman being cleared of any wrong doing. It's a sick country.

    fixed it for you dude

    he made his choices it is NOT difficult to NOT get shot by a police officer


  • #204
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    pirelli wrote: »
    Humanji your a sad worthless ***** and no I am not a sex offender. My condemnation is to shoot this asshole down like he shoots people. If you accussed me of being a sex offender I would take the polygraph and prove I was innocent. Then with no physical evidence I would begin on a course of seeking retribution for your callous accusation .

    All these have a go freaks should sit a polygraph and have a set of general questions asked. One question would be did you fabricate or move evidence.

    It seems that he would pass, but there is the delicate of possibilites that he might fail. Life also is delicate. These delicate possibilities matter or at least should.

    Reported, and I never called you a sex offender. I pointed out that by your logic I CAN accuse you of being one and not have to provide any evidence, and I can simply claim that all your evidence is invalid because you tampered with it. For some bizarre reason you have no problem with people making up accusations.


  • #205
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    pirelli there are loads of possibilities and different versions that MIGHT have transpired thats why eyewitness's and evidence is important.

    in this case the eye witness's and evidence appear very straightforward hence why the officer was cleared of any wrong doing.

    please explain why you automatically assume that evidence has been tampered with and even more so why you feel witness's are lieing....it dosnt make sense


  • #206
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    The police officer had a taser on him. He should have used the taser.

    He has since been arrested for sexual assault, and is considered too dangerous to release. Recently he was trying to buy an assault rifle. He is a crazy mofo. But did anyone really think he was going to get convicted? Not a chance.

    ...

    Did anyone see the Irish guys sister? Hot!


  • #207
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    dublindude wrote: »
    The police officer had a taser on him. He should have used the taser.

    He has since been arrested for sexual assault, and is considered too dangerous to release. Recently he was trying to buy an assault rifle. He is a crazy mofo. But did anyone really think he was going to get convicted? Not a chance.

    ...

    Did anyone see the Irish guys sister? Hot!

    links? proof? evidence?

    He is under arrest on suspicion of sexual assault as far as we have been informed unless you have some fresh source of information


  • #208
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Overheal wrote: »
    links? proof? evidence?

    He is under arrest on suspicion of sexual assault as far as we have been informed unless you have some fresh source of information

    I saw it on RTE news.

    Yes, it's only suspicion of sexual assault, but still, he is considered too dangerous to release on bail? The evidence against him must be fairly strong.


  • #209
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,575 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    dublindude wrote: »
    I saw it on RTE news.

    Yes, it's only suspicion of sexual assault, but still, he is considered too dangerous to release on bail? The evidence against him must be fairly strong.

    I'm sorry but WTF has that got to do with him defending himself from attack by a madman running at him doing karate kicks.

    I know nothing about the 'sexual assault' alligations - they have absolutely no bearing on this discussion.


  • #210
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    SteveC wrote: »
    I know nothing about the 'sexual assault' alligations - they have absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

    You don't think it's weird that another court has said he is unstable, overly aggressive, and too dangerous to be released on bail?

    I agree sexual assault has nothing to do with killing the Irish lad, but he's considered too dangerous to be on the street. Surely that might suggest he may also have been a bit unstable when he chose to use his gun instead of his taser?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    It looks like he was responding to a reportedly aggravated situation, and had his weapon drawn when the guy came at him. There is no reasonable way to holster the pistol and draw the tazer. You use what you have in your hand.


Advertisement
Advertisement