Bystander Fired Deadly Shot, Not Officer (Baton Rouge, La.)

[shadowrider]

There were two big developments Monday in the case of a motorist who was shot and killed along Greenwell Springs Road Friday after a fight with a police officer. Investigators say an autopsy shows the deadly bullet was fired by a bystander, not the officer. Police also announced that no charges would be filed in the case, either against the police officer involved or the bystander who fired the fatal shot into the head of George Temple.

East Baton Rouge Sheriff's spokesman Greg Phares says Officer Brian Harrision was escorting a funeral procession Friday when he pulled Temple over and wrote him a ticket for breaking into the procession. According to Phares, that's when Temple attacked Harrison. Police say Perry Stevens was walking outside of the Auto Zone on Greenwell Springs Road when he heard Harrison yelling for help. Harrison was reportedly on his back with Temple on top of him. That's when Stevens went to his car and grabbed his .45 caliber pistol.

According to Col. Greg Phares, "[Mr. Stevens] orders Mr. Temple to stop and get off the officer. The verbal commands are ignored and Mr. Stevens fires four shots, all of which struck Mr. Temple."

Perry Stevens fired four shots into Temple's torso. Officer Harrison had already fired one shot into Temple's abdomen. With Temple still struggling with the officer, Perry continued to advance toward the scuffle.

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4527526

And not one innocent bystander wounded.

[upaloopa]

1. Good old days of armed vigilantes returns how nice

[gejohnston]

2. I don't think you understand what vigilante means

but if you think a civilized person would stand around and watch the officer get maimed or killed, that's on you.

[shadowrider]

3. So you'd prefer this police officer die?

Telling.

[bongbong]

4. LOL

> So you'd prefer this police officer die?

Nice Strawman.

BTW, PROVE that the police officer was going to die.

[shadowrider]

5. I wasn't talking to you

[bongbong]

6. OK

I'm still looking for the DU rule that you can only "talk" to posters who you're already talking to. Can't seem to find it - do you know where it is?

[HALO141]

31. stop trolling

[glacierbay]

32. I wouldn't worry to much about him

he's probably pretty close to joining Hoyt and bupkus on the group banned list. Won't break my heart.

[HALO141]

34. meh... He just needs to get called out on his behavior more often.

He doesn't bother me.

[glacierbay]

35. Me either

I just refuse to engage him in any kind of conversation in this group.

[Jenoch]

7. That's the point,

the cop was getting the shit beat out of him and the perp would not stop, even after the cop shot him and the bystander shot him. If he's not going to stop after all of that, then of course the bystander had to make sure he stopped. Do you believe it is ok to assault a cop? Does a CCW person have to wait until it appears the cop is going to suffer imminent death or permanent brain damage? You have a skewed view of life.

[bongbong]

12. Houses built of Strawmen - SOP for gun-relgionists

> Do you believe it is ok to assault a cop? Does a CCW person have to wait until it appears the cop is going to suffer imminent death or permanent brain damage? You have a skewed view of life.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[ManiacJoe]

16. Pot, meet Kettle.

[bongbong]

19. Sorry charlie

Show me where I made a rebuttal post using a Strawman.

You'll need to do a lot of searchin'!

[Jenoch]

23. What a ridiculous comeback.

You have stated that the CCW holder should not have defended the cop so we have to assume that you think it was ok that the cop was assaulted and he probably would not have sustained permanent injuries anyway. Better to have a cop beaten up than a dead perp. Well, the perp had plenty of opportunities to stop assaulting the officer and to live to tell the story. He did not stop his assault and neither you nor anyone else knows how it would have turned out had the CCW bystander not taken action.

[bongbong]

25. Straw

> You have stated that the CCW holder should not have defended the cop

Where? Give me the number of the post that says that.

> we have to assume that you think it was ok that the cop was assaulted

More Strawmen from gun-relgionists. Typical, in fact I'd be disappointed if I didn't get at least 10 Strawmen built for my benefit every day by gun-worshipers in their endless quest to be emotion-filled, whiny children too afraid to walk in public without a gun.

[Jenoch]

37. Post #4.

You requested proof that the cop was going to die. We can only assume that you thought it was ok for the cop to be assaulted as long as he did not die from the assault, otherwise, why would you ask the question?

An assault does not have to rise to the level of death in order to legally defend yourself using a firearm. One only has to believe they are in great bodily harm in order to use a firearm (in most jurisdicitons). Besides that, how does the cop KNOW the assault will not result in his death?

[rDigital]

10. The officer was legally justified to use deadly force in his predicament,

therefore anyone coming to his aid is justified in using deadly force to defend the officer. If you plan on attacking a police officer, make sure you have your affairs in order. You're not likely to survive the encounter.

[bongbong]

11. More assertions, as always, from gun-relgionists

> he officer was legally justified to use deadly force in his predicament, therefore anyone coming to his aid is justified in using deadly force to defend the officer.

Prove it.

[rDigital]

13. More shenanigans from gun grabbing extremists

There's nothing for me to prove. Reality is your proof. The man is not in jail nor charged with a crime. Many are calling him a hero, including me.

[bongbong]

14. OK

> There's nothing for me to prove.

I'm glad you agreed that you can't back up your claims.

Don't worry, no gun-relgionist can prove that their Security Blankets are needed.

[rDigital]

15. Cool story, bro.

[geckosfeet]

26. If, god forbid, if, you are ever in the position that police officer was in, what would you do?

[bongbong]

27. Can't tell you

> if, you are ever in the position that police officer was in, what would you do?

Since I am not a trained police officer, I cannot answer.

[geckosfeet]

28. Think about it. Run? Fight? Beg for mercy? Scream for help? All of the above?

No question that it is a difficult thing to consider, but not a completely unrealistic one.

[glacierbay]

29. All of the above

and have someone like that heroic citizen would come to my aid.
I've had civilians help me out when I've gotten into a scuffle with someone I was arresting and was damned glad for the help.

[geckosfeet]

30. Kind of my point. If I was in the cops situation and needed help

I would not care if the person who came to my aid was armed or not.

I know I very likely would be.

Armed.

That is.

[ManiacJoe]

17. Is your knowledge of the law really that poor?

Take a few minutes to browse your state laws. They are online. Educate yourself.

[glacierbay]

18. Just how anyone can question, ridicule, or condemn this man for coming to the aid`

of this police officer is beyond me. For someone to hate guns and gun owners that much that they would actually cast aspirations on this heroic citizen for possibly saving a cops life is breathtaking.

[bongbong]

20. Burden of proof

> Take a few minutes to browse your state laws. They are online. Educate yourself.

I looked and looked! Couldn't find a thing about it!

So, once again - PROVE IT.

[rDigital]

21. You lose, Sweetie

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/02ff1ca7-b17e-46e2-9f1f-505beac65926/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Booklet.aspx

Page 25, Conditions for Self Defense or Defense of another. These laws are almost boilerplate for every other concealed carry state.

I'm sure you'll find a way to move the goal posts or get booted from the conversation to avoid having to answer.

Very poor quality of trolling today.

[bongbong]

24. LOL

> These laws are almost boilerplate for every other concealed carry state.

Prove it.

[spin]

22. Why should anyone bother?

A poster will take the time and effort to formulate an intelligent post and you will simply rely with a short, snide and insulting reply and attach one or more of smilies to it. You insist that he proves his statement is valid but provide absolutely no evidence that it isn't.

I suspect that you are far more intelligent than most of your posts suggest from a few of your comments. You might become a strong voice for those who favor strong gun control laws in our nation. Try to live up to your potential. Take a little more time to write a truly intelligent reply and support it with links that support your viewpoint. Also try to do so in a more polite manner.

Let me assure you that I could easily argue for strong gun control far more effectively than you currently do. However I support the gun rights side of the debate so I am not about to do that. That should be your job.

I would like to improve the level of discussion in this group. When those who support strong control gun control post good arguments, it challenges me to question my own views on the topic. After posting here on DU for several years I have modified my views on gun control and actually now no longer support all the viewpoints of the NRA and many who strongly support gun rights. Of course I still am still not convinced that another "assault weapons" ban, a ban on high capacity magazines, a requirement that a civilian could only own a limited amount of firearms or ammunition and requiring all firearms to be registered would result in a decrease in firearm violence in our nation.

I fear that this post is largely a waste of my time. You will either ignore it or laugh at it. While that is your choice and should be, I feel you could do far better.

[eqfan592]

41. Even if bongbong ignores you, this was still a very well written post.

I think a lot of us on this forum in general (myself included) could stand to raise the level of discourse some, and your post is a good reminder of that.

So thank you again for another very well written post.

[spin]

42. I suppose there is some fun in writing short, somewhat humorous posts that often ...

could be viewed as insulting. This is common on the net on many forums and many topics. The internet is an anonymous virtual Wild West where there are verbal shootouts at every intersection at all times of the day. Sometimes the sheriff and his deputies who enforce the laws in the various internet towns do step in a kick a poster out of their city limits but the bad guys often disguise themselves and sneak back in.

I have always been a strong supporter of RKBA and also am a life long Democrat from a long line of Democrats most of whom owned firearms for target shooting and self defense at one time in their lives. I found that posting in favor of RKBA on conservative forums offered little challenge as almost everybody agreed with me. One major drawback to posting on such forums was the strongly far right views on other topics that the posters expressed.

One day I discovered DU and shortly the Gungeon. I realized that my if views on RKBA were valid, they should be able to stand up to criticism by other very intelligent posters who disagreed with me. Over the years I have had to do a LOT of research to support my beliefs on the subject and there have been times when my points proved invalid. Therefore I modified them.

Posting here in the Gungeon has proven rewarding and educational. I can also venture from the Gungeon and discuss other issues on many topics with some very intelligent liberals. By reading the posts and asking questions, I have, once again, learned a lot.

Of course I have often been insulted in the Gungeon. I have a very thick skin and consequently such rudeness has little or no effect on me. I have never alerted on a post nor do I plan to. I also have never placed another poster on ignore. I sometimes do appreciate a truly original insult and compliment my opponent for his wit. I do try to be polite when I reply.

The only insult that truly bothers me is when another poster calls me a racist. I currently live in a large home that was once a hotel. My family has often tried to help those who were in need by allowing them to live with us for little or no charge. Over the years my family has tried to help many people including Blacks and Hispanics and offered them a place to stay for a period of time. Sometimes this has worked out well and sometimes not. My family and I have many close friends of all races.

To me the Bill of Rights was one of the most liberal and progressive documents ever written. I also believe that the First and the Second Amendments are in that order for good reason. Of course the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in a far different age and have been reinterpreted and improved on over the years. I believe that many of the Founders were opposed to the concept of slavery but political reality limited their ability to stop this practice and offer all people the same rights at that time and in that place.

I always welcome intelligent posters here in the Gungeon no matter what side they support. It is also true that the volatility in this group is discouraging to many and drives them away. The administrators may be able to eventually overcome this but it will be a daunting task.

[sir pball]

33. For the love of..

I generally have a rule against posting here (meaning DU in general); I usually only feel like chiming in when I feel like debating a point, but there's really very little "debate" to be had here - if one doesn't agree with the premise in a thread 100% you might as well be bashing a wall. That being said, I absolutely can't resist your stubborn, childlike, repetitive, lazy demands of Proof...so here you go..

§20. Justifiable homicide

A. A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

--Louisiana Revised Statues Article 14 Section 20 Part A(1)

§22. Defense of others

It is justifiable to use force or violence or to kill in the defense of another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means himself, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

--Louisiana Revised Statues Article 14 Section 22

So, do you reasonably believe that a police officer on the ground still being violently beaten by a man who has already been shot once without stopping is (a) in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) decisive force that could foreseeably result in killing is necessary to save the officer from said danger? Simple yes or no question.

[sir pball]

38. I'm sorry, was that not proof enough for you?

I didn't really expect a reply anyway, but maybe if I ask you'll humor me with an insight into the obvious that my clearly inferior thuggish violence-worshipping gun-addled brain can't comprehend..

..what, exactly, WOULD suffice as "Proof" for you?

[leftyohiolib]

45. prove that he wasnt

[glacierbay]

9. That's pretty sick

You would prefer the officer possibly die?
The citizen did not take the law into his own hands, he came to the aid of a police officer fighting for his life.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilante

vigilante
? Example Sentences Origin
vig·i·lan·te
? ?[vij-uh-lan-tee]
noun
1.
a member of a vigilance committee.
2.
any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

Tell us, by what standard do you think this is an act of armed vigilante?

[jody]

8. Perry Stevens should have called 911 as all gun-grabbers would have done. nt

[Kolesar]

36. Flame bait ... gungeoneers S.O.P. ... eom

[Reasonable_Argument]

39. He has a point

Since you don't carry a weapon what else would you have done other than call 911 and watch the officer be killed?

[jody]

40. If you weren't armed, what would you have done? Many anti-RKBA types when faced with that incident

come face to face with them selves like an ostrich trying to hide from reality.

[chrisa]

46. How the heck can you respond to a thread this old?

[url][/url]