OCer gunned down in the street by police near Seattle

[Hayseed_40]

He was OC'ing and he was the first to get shot. Just sayin'

Also looking at the map, he was a block away from the school where he was shot.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Where in the press report does it say "at the officers"?

The link in your post #31 says
[h=1]reveals rifle ‘leveled at officers’[/h]

 

[JMoses]

Where's the original poster, eating his plate of crow still?

 

[SteveM4A1]

Where's the original poster, eating his plate of crow still?

Why? In the beginning the news made it seem like the guntoter didn't deserve to be shot. Then witnesses heard the guy shoot first, now it was leveled at officers haha. I dont believe the event took place at all! They are all crazy

 

[HoughMade]

The link in your post #31 says
reveals rifle ‘leveled at officers’

Let's keep up. The original story linked said that it was not believed that the guy had aimed or fired, but it did not say "at the officers". In context, it appears that the statement about not aiming or firing may have been in reference to the original 911 calls. This seems to make sense given that further investigation showed that that the citizens who made the calls were not threatened in any way.

Now, later on when it says he leveled the gun- then there is the reference to "at the officers"- 2 different articles, it would seem, 2 different points in the incident being described.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Let's keep up. The original story linked said that it was not believed that the guy had aimed or fired, but it did not say "at the officers". In context, it appears that the statement about not aiming or firing may have been in reference to the original 911 calls. This seems to make sense given that further investigation showed that that the citizens who made the calls were not threatened in any way.

Now, later on when it says he leveled the gun- then there is the reference to "at the officers"- 2 different articles, it would seem, 2 different points in the incident being described.

So you believe the person speaking on behalf of the police department was only issuing a statement based on the 911 calls? I don't know which police spokesperson story to believe, the 1st one they released or the updated one saying the guy leveled the gun at the police. Why would the police issue a statement about such a thing without at least most of the facts? I bet most police departments wouldn't even be foolish enough to release an initial statement saying it looked like the officers might be at fault, they would wait and see what information is missing if any.

 

[KG1]

He was OC'ing and he was the first to get shot. Just sayin'

Also looking at the map, he was a block away from the school where he was shot.

Not sure if serious but just in case. This has nothing to do with the OC/CC argument. I believe he was carrying a .22 rifle.

Level and or point a firearm at any police officer whether OC/CC using a handgun/rifle and expect to get a not so pleasant reaction in return.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Not sure if serious but just in case. This has nothing to do with the OC/CC argument. I believe he was carrying a .22 rifle.

Level and or point a firearm at any police officer whether OC/CC using a handgun/rifle and expect to get a not so pleasant reaction in return.

but in the 1st report from the police they said he never aimed or fired the gun

 

[2A_Tom]

I think there must have been an accomplice because he waz carrying a 22 and the ear witness distinctly heard a a blast that he knew was either a high power rifle or a shotgun.

Why are they not searching for his accomplice. He is probably crawling across the school grounds in a gilly suit. A bright yellow gilly suit with windows down both sides.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I think there must have been an accomplice because he waz carrying a 22 and the ear witness distinctly heard a a blast that he knew was either a high power rifle or a shotgun.

Why are they not searching for his accomplice. He is probably crawling across the school grounds in a gilly suit. A bright yellow gilly suit with windows down both sides.

I concur

 

[j706]

My post was made before the second article and video was posted. In the first, it says verbal confrontation, and that the gun-toter did not aim or shoot the weapon according to the police spokesman. So that is why I made the comment I did, because the evidence at that time was what was posted in the first story. Not hypocritical when the police spokesman says that and I concede to his statements and not make up my own idea of what happened.

Never ever rely on a ANY news story to come to any kind of conclusion about anything.

 

[MTC]

Hmmm, food for thought. While carrying a rifle [STRIKE]near an elementary school[/STRIKE] [anywhere]...don't get in a pissing match with the responding officers. Move that rifle in the wrong direction and you will have a bad day.

Not meaning to tromp on your post, but to adjust wording to what I'd thought to be an unwritten rule everywhere. (Applies to other weapons, too.)

If one knowingly or intentionally points a gun at another human being, either by leveling or aiming, expect to get yourself shot in lawful self-defense.

I believe that statement is even codified in Indiana law, though I personally don't need it to be, since this was instinctively understood.

Never ever rely on a ANY news story to come to any kind of conclusion about anything.

No kiddin'. (Not counting the constant theme of gunzz-R-bad, mmmkay? Except for police and military, of course.)

Re: The thread title.

When I see "____ gunned down in the street [or anywhere] by police" I picture an armed gang just pulling up and blasting away.
Maybe that's what the OP wanted.

The problem I have with such sensationalism (if not outright lying as has occurred before) is that it not only contributes further to the "boy who cried wolf" caricature, but also the damage to LE/public relations that must be repaired if we are to have any hope of regaining our rights.

(I do have a few objections to certain police procedures, but due to what I've seen here over the last four years, will confine them to private conversations with LEOs and attorneys.)

 

[HoughMade]

An update- the "Open Carrier" has been charged. Witnesses reported that he "leveled" the gun at officers and was then shot.

EDMONDS POLICE CONTINUE PROBE INTO OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING | BREAKING NEWS | Sky Valley Chronicle Washington State News

When doing a search for an update on this story, Google returned numerous hits from gun related sites in the first couple of days after the incident with a common theme: "Man Open Carrying Shot", "Open Carrier Gunned Down". Etc. It wasn't just here, it was all over the place and particularly heavy in the northwest (for obvious reasons).

Since the news reports started including the information about him leveling the gun at officers, the rhetoric seems to have quieted down quite a bit. We jump allover the media (rightfully) for reporting there was an AR15 used at the Navy Yard when there was not one, yet we in the gun community jump to all kinds of conclusions well before the facts are known. Sure, professional journalists should know better, but so should we.

The rush to be first seems to outweigh the desire to be accurate in the news and on discussion forums....no surprise there.

 

[yepthatsme]

An update- the "Open Carrier" has been charged. Witnesses reported that he "leveled" the gun at officers and was then shot.

EDMONDS POLICE CONTINUE PROBE INTO OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING | BREAKING NEWS | Sky Valley Chronicle Washington State News

When doing a search for an update on this story, Google returned numerous hits from gun related sites in the first couple of days after the incident with a common theme: "Man Open Carrying Shot", "Open Carrier Gunned Down". Etc. It wasn't just here, it was all over the place and particularly heavy in the northwest (for obvious reasons).

Since the news reports started including the information about him leveling the gun at officers, the rhetoric seems to have quieted down quite a bit. We jump allover the media (rightfully) for reporting there was an AR15 used at the Navy Yard when there was not one, yet we in the gun community jump to all kinds of conclusions well before the facts are known. Sure, professional journalists should know better, but so should we.

The rush to be first seems to outweigh the desire to be accurate in the news and on discussion forums....no surprise there.

There is a huge difference between being a journalist and being paid to report the facts as compared to a gun forum that are voicing opinions on their reports. We wouldn't have anything to talk about if we waited for all of the facts.

 

[88GT]

There is a lot of inner angst on this forum. It seems anytime there is a guy walking around armed he is assumed to be in the right.

Not always the case folks. I do wish the media would show the times when it is the case though.

We should assumes he is in the wrong? I don't believe there's a middle ground. And if you do, please explain the criteria for determining half-innocent. Which ought to be interesting since I think that's a lot like "kind of pregnant."

Yup, that muzzle comes near me, it's going to end badly for you.

Must be nice.

 

[warthog]

We shouldn't assume at all was the point. We should wait for all the information to come in then decide what is right or wrong about it.

That just seems like common sense to me. You?

See it appears now that he leveled the gun at the officer before he was shot. I will need further info and to actually read through the thread again to figure things out, for myself. Who knows what else was done or said to set him off? Maybe the sheep just got scared and the officers over reacted? Maybe he was making trouble or looking for it? All I have are the reports. I tend in the end to simply read everything then decide that unless I manage to actually find a kernel of truth in all the half truths reported or perhaps I might see something happen one day, I tend not to judge either way.

If it matters to anyone, I can post what I think then but I am more likely to just read up and decide then add the incident to the pile of experiences.

 

[SteveM4A1]

We shouldn't assume at all was the point. We should wait for all the information to come in then decide what is right or wrong about it.

That just seems like common sense to me. You?

See it appears now that he leveled the gun at the officer before he was shot. I will need further info and to actually read through the thread again to figure things out, for myself. Who knows what else was done or said to set him off? Maybe the sheep just got scared and the officers over reacted? Maybe he was making trouble or looking for it? All I have are the reports. I tend in the end to simply read everything then decide that unless I manage to actually find a kernel of truth in all the half truths reported or perhaps I might see something happen one day, I tend not to judge either way.

If it matters to anyone, I can post what I think then but I am more likely to just read up and decide then add the incident to the pile of experiences.

Sorry, but from past posts I cannot take anything you say seriously.

 

[lonehoosier]

Yup, that muzzle comes near me, it's going to end badly for you.

I hope it takes more then that. If I had that attitude there would be blood running down range.

 

[lonehoosier]

Sorry, but from past posts I cannot take anything you say seriously.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Dirtebiker]

I'm not taking sides but,
notice the wording.
The story does not say he ever "pointed" the rifle at the officers. It says he refused to "lower" it, and "leveled" the rifle.
Could that possibly mean that he had the rifle on his shoulder and refused (or even, didn't hear, and didn't respond) to lower or put it down. Then possibly lowered it to a parallel angle to the ground, therefore "leveled" the gun?
just a thought.
how far away from the suspect were the officers? Those of us who are hard of hearing may not have been able to clearly hear what the officers wanted. Of course you can assume that any uniformed officer would want you to put your weapon(?) down.
I can't blame cops for being edgy, and even somewhat quick to pull the trigger when they feel threatened, nervous, and/or scared.
I know the word "level" is sometimes used when talking about sighting down a rifle, but if he pointed the gun at the officer(s), it would (to me) make more sense to say "pointed".
am I wrong?