Video shows cop shoot without warning at man firing into air

[Ohio Joe]

Police in Ohio have released body camera footage showing an officer firing multiple rounds through a wooden privacy fence without warning at someone shooting gunfire into the air on the other side

CLEVELAND -- Police in Ohio released body camera footage Thursday showing an officer firing multiple rounds through a wooden privacy fence without warning at someone shooting gunfire into the air on the other side.

James Williams, 46, of Canton, was shot in the chest minutes into the new year and pronounced dead at a nearby hospital. The video was released by the Canton Police Department.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/video-shows-cop-shoot-warning-man-firing-air-82115635

So... Not smart to fire guns into the air to celebrate new years but... Yeah, cops shooting without warning is still very fucked up and should be prosecutable.

[MagickMuffin]

1. Hell with the warning, he was firing into a wooden fence

No wonder how many would have died because of his reckless behavior.

[Nevilledog]

2. Wut?!?

It was the cop shooting into the fence.

[MagickMuffin]

8. If I'm understanding the story correctly

Police in Ohio released body camera footage Thursday showing an officer firing multiple rounds through a wooden privacy fence without warning at someone shooting gunfire into the air on the other side.

[Nevilledog]

10. I thought you were talking about the dead guy. My bad.

[SYFROYH]

3. Voluntary manslaughter.

If the victims wasn't pointing his gun at you or someone else there wasn't a reasonable threat.

FU officer.

[WarGamer]

5. +1000

[ZonkerHarris]

7. Jail time.

[Demsrule86]

18. No it isn't either...the person firing gun was a big risk to people in the area...no sympathy.

[SYFROYH]

34. It was reckless behavior for sure but not a direct threat to an individual

It would be akin to shooting a drunk driver instead of trying to get them to stop because them might hit someone.

[Demsrule86]

54. Shooting guns in a neighborhood is a direct threat to all neighbors...the guy was an idiot.

My niece lived in Georgia and people in her neighborhood slept in the basement during New Years ...and people died every year in Georgia and other places by such careless and selfish acts. I have no sympathy and believe the cop did his job.

[SYFROYH]

67. It looks like we disagree.

But a simple a simple command of, “Police. Cease fire. Put your gun on the ground,” was low cost and could have saved a life.

FWIW: i live in GA still

[NoRethugFriends]

122. those bullets do come down you know

[SYFROYH]

127. Of course, but the vast majority of them hurt no one.

There are sometimes some people injured and a few who died.

My point is that the police should have announced themselves and commanded a cease fire before using lethal force. They did the opposite.

The video shows the officer approach the tall privacy fence in a residential area as the sound of multiple gunshots ring out. Smoke from what appears to be a gun can be seen spurting into the air above the fence.

The officer then fires multiple shots through the fence. After firing, he yells, “Police, get down now! Police, Get down now!”

[Demsrule86]

132. The vast majority of them...are you fucking kidding me...what you expect his neighbors to

play Russian Roulette...trying to avoid those small numbers of bullets (so you say). ' Sometimes people are injured a few die' ...really.How many people have to die for the gun fetish? if you are shooting bullets into the air and a 'few' bullets might kill one of your neighbors which is the case here...the cop certainly acted correctly and responsibly...don't shoot guns in the air. It is dangerous and foolish. And I live in Ohio..this isn't some boondock area with only a few people. Canton is a city. It seems to me the man was terrorizing his neighbors and he will get no sympathy from me.

[SYFROYH]

142. I simple police announcement and command before killing him is all I ask for.

Its really not that much to ask for.

You think this has something to do with gun rights or gun fetishes. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been stopped, cited, or arrested.

This is about policing and killing civilians without even announcing the police presence.

[PTWB]

150. Have you ever been mere feet away from someone firing rapidly firing a rifle?

The sound is deafeningly loud. There is no way the suspect could have heard any verbal commands or orders issued while he was doing that mag dump.

[SYFROYH]

159. Jesus H Christ. Yes, at ranges with hearing protection and

...one still hears the range master.

I can't believe anyone who has fired guns has not been at a range where this very scenario happens.

[PTWB]

164. Your experience is very different from mine.

The only way you're going to hear the rangemaster in the middle of a rapid fire mag dump is if you're using electronic hearing protection that muffles loud sounds and amplifies quiet sounds.

If you're shooting at a slower pace, say, one shot every second or more, you could hear the range master in between shots. But you're not going to hear him when you're firing with quarter second splits. It's just not possible without electronic hearing protection.

[SYFROYH]

169. Even its true that he wouldn't have heard the police...

...I still expect the police to announce their presence and command a cease-fire before killing a civilian who is not directly threatening the police.

And if I were on a jury, I would think the facts of the situation, as we know them, would lead to voluntary manslaughter.

[PTWB]

175. Why would you expect that?

That has no bearing. The police are not required or expected to give any warning when intervening in an imminent threat like this. If the fellow was pointing the rifle up in the air and not firing then I would agree with you completely. The proper police response would be to order the suspect to drop his weapon. While the suspect is actively firing his weapon, though, the need to issue verbal commands before addressing the threat simply evaporates.

I linked several cases in this thread where people were killed and maimed by so-called New Years Eve celebratory gunfire. Every shot fired by that suspect is creating an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the folks in the surrounding area.

How would you feel if the officer had allowed the suspect to finish dumping his magazine in order to give verbal commands, only to find out later that one of those final bullets came to rest in a child sleeping in his bed, or in a janitor waiting at the bus stop, or in a cab driver picking up a fare from a bar?

It's sad that this person has died but their actions are solely responsible for their death. They chose to rapidly fire a rifle, blindly and indiscriminately, in the middle of a city! If that doesn't meet the standard of creating an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury, I don't know what does.

[SYFROYH]

181. There was no imminent threat.

People die from others speeding or drunk driving, but police don't shoot them before trying to stop them without lethal force.

[PTWB]

184. There was an imminent threat.

And police do shoot drivers, drunk or otherwise, when their actions create an imminent threat. The police shot at the Waukesha driver as he was barreling along the parade route, to use a recent example.

Would they have been justified shooting at the same driver going along a country road with no one around? No, certainly not. But by driving recklessly through a densely populated area, they’re creating an imminent risk of death or serious injury. And the police officer shooting at that driver was justified in doing so.

Similarly, if the decedent in this case had been firing into the air while out in the country, deep in a rural area with a very low population density, you’d have an argument that he wasn’t creating an imminent danger. But this wasn’t put in the country. This was in the middle of a densely populated city.

[SYFROYH]

185. Your example proves you wrong.

In your example the police identified a specific potential victim of the driver, not a hypothetical one as you have with the Canton shooting victim.

Ill stop arguing with you about this because i think we've both made out points.

[PTWB]

187. I think we must be talking about different cases.

The case I'm talking about was the Waukesha parade vehicular homicide case where the police fired at the vehicle in order to stop it. There was no specific potential victim identified as a target of the driver that was used to justify that shooting.

That shooting was justified because the vehicle was traveling into a densely populated parade route and was creating an imminent threat of death or serious injury to people in the general area. And this shooting was justified because suspect in this case was creating an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the people in the general area by indiscriminately, blindly, and rapidly firing a rifle in the middle of the city.

[SYFROYH]

189. I could be wrong but in Waikesha the driver had already hit people and was still on the parade route

When police intervened.

[PTWB]

190. There were no people immediately in the path of the vehicle when the police shot.

But there were people still in the area.

[Demsrule86]

182. Have you ever been around with an AR-15 being fired...I doubt he would have heard it.

And why should the cop take a chance that a guy firing a gun will not turn around and shoot him...the shooting was justified. The man shot was engaging in illegal and dangerous behavior.

[SYFROYH]

183. Yes, and people can hear someone shouting at them.

I go to outdoor public ranges often where it is not uncommon that some new gun owner starts to rapid fire shoot and the range master shuts it down with a verbal command.

[marie999]

135. Have you ever talked to a person firing a weapon feet from you?

They can't hear you.

[SYFROYH]

139. Yes and yes they can. Have you?

Even people with hearing protection can hear range masters issue cease fire orders.

[Dial H For Hero]

144. He was firing as fast as he could pull the trigger, 3 or 4 times per second.

I am quite familiar with firearms, and I'm quite confident the sound of the rifle going off only a foot away from his ears every quarter second would have overpowered any shouts from the officer 20 feet (or so) away.

[SYFROYH]

157. If we're talking about experiences, I've seen range masters

shout from that distance for a cease-fire when someone rapid fired at a range. At the public ranges I attend, it's really not uncommon for that very scenario to happen.

But here is the thing: Even if he wouldn't have heard the police, the police should still announce their presence and command a cease fire before opening fire if there is not a direct threat. The police were definitely not in danger at that point and there was only a small chance of the victim's gunfire injuring someone else.

[marie999]

145. When I was in the army, the range master used a loudspeaker.

[SYFROYH]

147. Most range masters don't have to.

[Dial H For Hero]

141. Let alone one being fired 3 or 4 times per second.

[Solomon]

40. Doubling down because you expressed an opinion before the facts came out. Stop digging. Yeah it is

stupid for people to fire guns in the air for new years. Lots of people do it and I heard several shots even in my neighborhood. But the cop here shot through a wooden fence without warning and killed the guy. The guy as reckless as he was, didn't kill anyone. Prosecute him but his death was in no way justified.

[Demsrule86]

55. Not at all. The guy was firing into the air...an AR15 no less...dangerously stupid so I have no

sympathy whatsoever for a guy that would endanger his neighbors.

[uponit7771]

76. Stupid, illegal but not a death no due process death sentence.

[Demsrule86]

134. He had a gun and was firing it...endangering a city neighborhood. This isn't in the country...

the cop had every reason to open fire. Why should the neighbors live in terror so he can shoot a bullet in the air which could well come down and kill one of their children? He brought it on himself.

[Solomon]

269. I'm not expressing any sympathy for the victim. It's due process I care about and you should too.

Arrest and prosecute the guy - not summarily execute him. Funny how you say the victim was reckless, but the killer wasn't. I don't think anybody is saying the victim was not reckless. But it's not a death sentence until trial and jury. I will never agree that some two bit ass with a badge has that kind of authority.

[marie999]

161. So, the cop should have waited until he killed someone?

[ForgedCrank]

105. I think the cop

was supposed to wait until the guy pointed the gun directly at a person and pulled the trigger. Only then he can react. Well, if he's still alive anyway.

[WarGamer]

4. When the only tool you've got is a hammer...

This happens waaaayyyy too frequently.

I support police 99.9% of the time but these bad apples spoil the harvest.

[PTWB]

6. What kind of warning would you expect the suspect to hear over his rapid fire blasting?

If the cop had failed to take action after having had an opportunity to intervene, and one of those bullets had struck an innocent person somewhere in the city, the cop would have had to live with that for the rest of his life.

Durham woman, 73, killed by celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve

https://abc11.com/shooting-durham-fatal-new-years-eve/11414599/

Boy, 10, struck by falling bullet on New Year's Eve

https://www.wbrz.com/news/10-year-old-boy-struck-by-falling-bullet-on-new-year-s-eve/

A Houston Woman Was Killed by Celebratory Gunfire on New Year’s Eve

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/houston-woman-killed-celebratory-gunfire-new-years-eve/

This shooting was 100% justified and 100% the fault of the active shooter who was firing indiscriminately with his rifle.

[ZonkerHarris]

9. So shooting blindly through a fence without IDing a target is the right way?

Last edited Thu Jan 6, 2022, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Spray fire into a private home and property with knowing what you are shooting at?
You say 100% justified and proper.
Okay, good to know
so I won't listen to your opinion on much going forward.

[PTWB]

11. Was it really shooting blindly?

We could see the smoke from the suspect's rifle on the camera. Where is the camera positioned on the officer? Is it worn at chest level, as some body cameras are? Is it mounted on his uniform's shoulder epaulette? Is the camera worn over the ear and thus at eye level, as some are?

We know that he wasn't firing into a "private home" and we know that he was able to identify his target accurately enough that his shots hit that target and stopped the person from firing their rifle indiscriminately.

[NutmegYankee]

13. There could have been other people or a child standing there.

Reckless beyond belief. It also wasn't confirmed whether the rifle was firing actual bullets or blanks.

[PTWB]

16. Do you have any information that suggests the shooter was firing blanks?

And are you suggesting that the police should somehow ascertain whether an active shooter is firing blanks or bullets before they stop that shooter?

There is no question that police misconduct, corruption, racism, and brutality occur at an alarming rate. Unarmed Black Americans, and Americans of all races, are killed with shocking regularity.

But we cannot feign outrage every time the police kill someone who was so clearly and unequivocally in the wrong.

This person was firing a rifle indiscriminately in the middle of a city. Those bullets are going to land somewhere. I already posted 3 recent stories of people injured or killed by “celebratory gunfire” and there are scores of other examples.

Any one of those bullets fired by the suspect could easily have been lethal.

This was an active shooter stopped by the police. Full stop.

[NutmegYankee]

19. Can you prove to me they were not?

You can't. It an assumption.

Per DHS, the definition of an active shooter is as follows:
An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area

Grossly Reckless behavior if he was shooting actual rounds into the air, but not a clear attempt to kill people - not one that could justify the blind shooting. There wasn't even an announcement from the officer or a chance to end this peacefully.



But hey, back a bad shooting to your hearts content. I'm not going to be convinced.

[PTWB]

21. That isn't how that works.

You made the claim and the onus is on you to support it.

The shooting was clearly justified. What would you say if that shooter had killed or maimed someone? How about if they’d killed or maimed someone after the police had a chance to stop them but didn’t?

[NutmegYankee]

23. Nope. I made no claim.

It also wasn't confirmed whether the rifle was firing actual bullets or blanks

That's not a claim. It's a statement that neither scenario was confirmed.

[PTWB]

26. Suggestion, then.

There is no evidence the shooter was firing blanks and if he were, it would not change the police response because that is knowledge the officer could not have possessed at the time.

[NutmegYankee]

28. Which goes back that the officer shot through a blind wall (fence) with little info.

Would you still feel the same if a 10 year-old child had been standing next to him and caught a police bullet in the head? Would you back the cop's action just as fervently?


Or did he just get lucky?

[PTWB]

33. The officer shooting would have still been justified.

But the outcome would certainly have been tragic had that occurred.

Would it have been any less tragic if a sleeping child several blocks away had been struck in the head by one of the decedents bullets?

Why is it that you’re admonishing the police for shooting “blindly” at an active shooter, but you don’t acknowledge that the shooter was firing far more indiscriminately and far more blindly?

Remember we don’t know what the officer could see, exactly. Early in the video he described being able to see the suspect put the rifle down (before the shooting took place). A body camera worn at chest level will have a completely different vantage than what can be seen at eye level when looking over a fence, for example.

[NutmegYankee]

35. Excuse me?

I stated the shooter was grossly reckless in an earlier post. Look, if you can’t be honest and stop misrepresenting my position, we have nothing further to discuss. I can’t stand mendacious people.

[PTWB]

44. Nor can I.

One cannot argue two conflicting positions at once. If the officer's actions are reckless and dangerous, then the suspect's actions are infinitely more reckless and dangerous. And the shooting is justified if the suspect's actions are reckless and dangerous.

We know for a fact that the suspect had no idea where his bullets were going to land. It was the suspect, not the officer, who was actually firing indiscriminately and blindly. It was the suspect who was actually putting everyone in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.

We also don't know exactly what the officer could see. What we do know is that he could see enough that he was able to shoot at and hit his target and not hit anyone else.

Indulge me in a little experiment, will you?

Stand near a fence and take a picture with your camera phone held at chest level. Compare how much you can see from chest level with how much you can see with your eyes. You'll be able to see a lot more with your eyes. Now observe how much you can see through the slats in that fence with your eyes compared to how much the camera picks up. Again, you'll be able to see a lot more with your eyes.

[inthewind21]

146. Ridiculous

[PTWB]

151. What is?

[USALiberal]

36. So if his son was with him you are ok with shooting going through fence??

[NickB79]

38. If he's rapid firing an assault rifle illegally with his son next to him

And his son gets shot, the dad bears the blame. He created the dangerous situation, he is responsible.

[USALiberal]

50. Lol, ok

[Demsrule86]

52. How about if the reckless shooter had shot an innocent kid sleeping in his/her bed?

Yeah in this instance, I back the cop. And if you look at my post you will note I took a great deal of heat recently for saying a cop was wrong...but not in this case...don't shoot guns in the air in the city...it is illegal and dangerous to your neighbors.

[marie999]

140. What, cops are supposed to wait before they shoot a shooter to make sure they are not firing blanks?

Get real.

[dumbcat]

173. Unless the rifle had a blank adapter installed

which probably would have been reported, it must have been firing live rounds for it to cycle/function in rapid fire. Blank adapters on civilian AR-15s are very, very rare.

[Demsrule86]

15. The guy shooting in the air had no business doing this...he risked the lives of every person in this

the area so I have little to no sympathy. It is illegal to shoot guns 'in the air' on New years eve or any time and damned dangerous.

[maxsolomon]

22. but "everyone around here does it"

per his wife.

you're saying that doesn't make it ok? what about my right to bear arms?

[Demsrule86]

43. Hehe...fuck the right to bear arms...kids should be able to sleep in their beds without getting

shot by some A-hole shooting a gun illegally into the air...

[maxsolomon]

46. that's gun-grabber talk

the death of someone else's child is simply the price we have to pay to hypothetically overthrow a tyrannical gubmint at some future point...

[Demsrule86]

49. Personally, it is lucky that this idiot didn't manage to shoot innocent kids...I really have no

sympathy and hope with every fiber in my being America will be done with guns.

[uponit7771]

75. So fuck due process right ?! REALLY ?!

[Demsrule86]

136. Are you kidding...he had an AR-15 and was shooting in the air in a city neighborhood...

he brought it on himself.

[inthewind21]

153. So

You agree. Fuck due process.

[PTWB]

154. Due process is not a consideration.

The due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment do not come into play in police use of force cases. They haven't since the 1989 SCOTUS ruling in Graham v. Connor.

[Demsrule86]

178. Due process comes after an arrest-this has nothing to do with due process...the bottom line is this,

was the shooting by the police officer justified? I believe it was.

[uponit7771]

195. They're being technical with the definition of "due process" but I think word whipping shows ..

... a weak position.

The LEOs life wasn't in imminent danger of death and no one else's was either, it was reasonable looking that the BC footage for one to say the leo had more time to assess and "I was afraid for my life" while firing through a fence isn't going to cut it in front of a jury IMHO.

[uponit7771]

191. Still not a death sentence

[marie999]

133. If he didn't ID the shooter, how did he shoot the right person?

[USALiberal]

27. Nice try!! Nt

[uponit7771]

74. Stop PTWB, ... no, just stop

[Hoyt]

12. I take pretty much same position on these things, if a victim or perp has a gun,

police probably aren’t going to spend a millisecond trying sort things out.

Leave your gunz locked up, don’t carry them in public, don’t shoot them when it endangers others, don’t let a gun related subpoena or charge go unanswered, don’t sell them to others, don’t carry hoping to be a hero, etc.

[Demsrule86]

17. +1000

[Dial H For Hero]

51. "Don't sell them"?

What in the world is wrong with selling some of my guns?

[Demsrule86]

57. Why I suppose you could sell them to anyone you want...hopefully the buyer won't shoot up a

school or what have you. You would not have some of those guns if SCOTUS had not made a huge mistake

[Dial H For Hero]

59. The only SCOTUS ruling on guns in quite some time was the Heller decision.

Even if that decision had gone the other way, it would not have affected me personally, as I live in Colorado.

[Demsrule86]

60. I refer to the right for an 'individual' to bear arms...a militia is not an individual...our laws

are just crazy.

[Dial H For Hero]

61. The Heller decision forced areas with highly restrictive gun laws such as Washington DC to permit

their residents to legally acquire handguns, but even had they allowed such regulations to remain in force such a ruling would not have affected the vast majority of the US. I would have still been able to purchase the same firearms.

[EX500rider]

188. Point to me one time in US history when you had to be in a militia to own firearms

I expect you'll agree the Founder Fathers knew what they meant when they put the 2nd in the Bill Of Rights, so when it was signed did they then make militia membership mandatory for firearms possession?
No they did not.

[Hoyt]

62. Hero, you are a gun promoter/apologist, wear body armor, gun profiteer,

and maybe worse.

I don’t think any of that is good for our society. Sorry.

[PTWB]

64. What do you say to all the firearm owners who vote Democratic?

20% of Democrats personally own firearm(s). 31% of Democrats live in a firearm owning household. 27% of Independents personally own firearm(s). 39% of Independents live in a firearm owning household.

It's safe to say that easily a third of Democratic voters are firearm owners or live in firearm owning households. How do you feel about that, and is it worth it to alienate those voters because they don't pass a purity test?

Our party is a big tent party. And a lot of the folks under that tent own guns.

[Hoyt]

66. If one straps a gun on to walk out the door, they're a blight on society. Sorry.

[PTWB]

70. I vote Democratic in every election and have for many, many years.

I'm in favor of common sense gun control. I'm pro-choice. I take very progressive views on nearly every issue you could name. I want Medicare for all, a universal basic income, and I lament the institutional racism present in our criminal justice system.

I also have a concealed carry license and carry regularly.

Am I a blight on society?

[48656c6c6f20]

71. I say it's not enough

We need everyone to have at least 5 guns, 1000's of rounds and no restrictions period. I want to regulate guns by attrition. So I say are them all and let God sort them out. Then I'd enough sane people survive we can talk about gun control.

[Dial H For Hero]

82. Hoyt, you have admitted to committing robbery.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

I’m happy to compare the morality of my lifestyle to yours any time.

Gun promoter/apologist? I’m certainly an enthusiast, and I believe that anyone who is legally allowed to do so should have the right to bear arms. No apologies for that.

Wear body armor? I certainly own body armor, but I almost never wear it. Even if I did, what would be immoral about stopping a projectile from killing me?

Gun profiteer? That’s just silly. I’ve collected guns for over 40 years, and I’ve liquidated most of them. In doing so, I sold them at the market price, which has resulted in me making a profit, granted…but I’ve also done so with comic books. Does that make me a comic book profiteer?

[Hoyt]

116. Once again Hero, you missed context of post. IAE, you are a gunner and you promote more gunz.

Always gratified that gungeoneers keep links to my posts.

[Dial H For Hero]

119. Please explain that context for the benefit of the studio audience, then.

[Kaleva]

14. Not going to feel sorry for any adult who does something stupid with a gun

People just can't get it in their heads that mishandling a gun can result in severe, sometimes, deadly, unintended consequences.

[gulliver]

20. Firing into the air is deadly for one thing.

The bullet that comes back down at its escape velocity can easily pierce someone's skull. The deceased was an idiot at best (assuming he really was firing into the air).

It's easy to say you should give a warning to someone currently firing an AR-15 when you're on the other side of a fence from them. That doesn't sound easy to actually do though. It really depends on the cop knowing the guy was firing into the air which, although deadly dangerous to innocents, might allow for a "Hey Stupid, put down the gun right now!" Unfortunately, the cop would have to wonder if the next shots were coming through the fence at him or going into a civilian on the other side of the fence.

The story doesn't say why the cops were there in the first place. Did they just happen to be walking by the fence when they heard gunshots coming from the other side? Was there some kind of threat? Were the cops called on the house?

I need more info on this one.

[Marthe48]

41. WTRF link

https://www.wtrf.com/news/ohio-headlines/ohio-wife-says-police-killed-man-as-he-fired-gun-into-air-to-ring-in-2022/

This story says the police were called by a neighbor about gunshots

[gulliver]

68. Thanks

"officers were investigating reports of gunfire"...not sure if that means specifically at that house or just in the neighborhood. Given it was just after New Year, there could easily have been others firing shots I would imagine.

[Marthe48]

80. Yeah-Ohio

fireworks and gunshots, day in and day out

[lagomorph777]

166. I think the ammosexual firing his gun in a residential area got what he asked for.

I've had it with ammosexuals and their gun fetish.

[maxsolomon]

24. Do cops freak out and shoot 1st when there's active gunfire? Yes.

Is firing into the air on NYE illegal? Not sure.

Is it stupid and dangerous? Without question.

Cue the inevitable "if he was White he'd be alive" hypotheticals...

[Demsrule86]

45. It is illegal to fire a gun into the air in the city in Ohio. I live in Ohio.

[maxsolomon]

48. I'm never sure any more.

It seems like it should be illegal, but it's America and it's guns, so...

Good to know.

[marie999]

174. You are right, no White person has ever been shot by a cop.

[NickB79]

25. All of a sudden, DU is siding with the guy with the AR illegally firing dozens of rounds

This place, I tell ya.

[USALiberal]

29. Read the story again!! Nt

[NickB79]

31. I did. I also watched the video earlier today

The guy was dumping 30 rd mags so blaringly loud he would have been near deaf afterwards.

But please continue to defend the guy who was "only" spraying dozens of bullets into his neighborhood, and all the family homes it contained.

[USALiberal]

32. So shooting through a fence....

Without knowing any idea who is behind the fence is a great plan! Lol!

Think about it!

[NickB79]

37. To stop a guy raining bullets into his neighborhood?

I suppose he could have kindly knocked on his door, waited patiently while he finished emptying his magazine, and asked very politely to not endanger a bunch of lives, if you don't mind, if it's not too much of an inconvenience.

[USALiberal]

42. Nice try....

How about you walk up close to the fence and see what’s going on?
Or your great plan is to have the cops for example hearing gunfire behind a door they should just open fire on the door. Brilliant I think you’re right I’m sorry I Doubted you.

[Demsrule86]

47. Well the cop shot the perp or shooter didn't he? I bet the neighbors were scared to death.

[maxsolomon]

65. "Everyone around here does it"

-Dead dude's white.

[sarisataka]

39. It is amazing how easily

a person indiscriminately firing a "weapon of mass destruction" in an urban environment can become no major issue. It is something that should be approached methodically as there isn't much, if any, danger to the community.

[maxsolomon]

69. I'm not sure if this is sarcasm.

But I know your positions on firearms; maybe it isn't.

There is a non-zero danger to the community. There are documented deaths from Celebratory Gunfire.

[sarisataka]

83. It is rather thick

With sarcasm- I am quite against firing guns in public.

I had to note however that there are several posters who normally rail against weapons "designed for the battlefield " are not terribly concerned about firing said weapon randomly in a populated area.

[maxsolomon]

117. thanks for clearing that up.

I think we're on the same page regarding celebratory gunfire from MSSAs.

[sarisataka]

126. Yes, I believe we are,

I have had to deal with celebratory gunfire from assault rifles. The real ones, not MSSAs. Luckily for all parties it resolved better than this situation as my response was going to be delivered from a belt fed machine gun. It was however a very near thing.

[48656c6c6f20]

72. Guns guns guns!

[uponit7771]

77. False, we're siding with due process and proper policing not idiots doing idiotic things. When it

... comes to black folk or black folk area's we BARELY get the "due process" part and people bend their backs to call that "justified" so they feel safe with the fucked up unprofessional policing rife in this country.

[Demsrule86]

138. I am sorry you feel this poor man shooting guns and endangering ever man, woman, child and pet

in the neighborhood didn't get his due process...really I am. But I am delighted he was stopped before he killed an innocent person.

[inthewind21]

162. Drama major?

[Demsrule86]

176. I beg your pardon. I have degrees in Chemistry, Mathematics and a minor in biology and

biochemistry...loved science and hehe sarcasm. Seriously, the bottom line for me is the guy who was shot had no concern for any of his neighbors or people a couple of miles down the road that could have been killed by his irresponsible behavior...so I have no sympathy for him.

[dsp3000]

30. I'm not going to defend the moron who got shot...

nt

[Dial H For Hero]

53. The guy was an idiot and paid the price for his actions. The officer did nothing wrong.

[uponit7771]

78. This is false on its face, not announcing PD and firing blind through a fence is something wrong

[Dial H For Hero]

84. Firstly, there wasn't the slightest chance that the guy could've heard the policeman while firing

his rifle. Secondly, the guy was pumping dozens of rounds into the air, putting people down range at risk of death. The officer stopped that threat. Pretty good shooting for firing “blind”.

[uponit7771]

85. Neither of those reasons mean a death sentence without due process.

[Dial H For Hero]

93. This incident has nothing to do with due process or the lack thereof.

[uponit7771]

96. This is false on its face, shooting in the air doesn't mean the officer becomes executioner

[Dial H For Hero]

102. Does not shooting into the air put people down range at risk of death?

In any case, the officer in question was not an “executioner”. He fired his sidearm until the threat was neutralized. It’s not as if he walked up to someone tied up and kneeling, and put a round into the back of their head.

[uponit7771]

103. Of course but not eminent danger of being killed and the reason the officer had to proffer

... the false justification that the shooter was a danger to him KNOWING that "shooting in the air might hit someone" reason would get torn to shreds on the stand as reasons for eminent danger to someone else.

That reasoning goes well on a forum but not policing process's, the video shows the AR was never pointed towards the cops or anyone else.

The LEO didn't have justification to shoot the millisecond he got out of the patrol car.

[Dial H For Hero]

108. If the officer could see where the AR was pointed, how could he have been firing "blind", as you

asserted earlier? Both statements can't be true.

[uponit7771]

110. Don't remember saying the LEO was firing blind, lets say he wasn't shooting blind the ...

... shooter still didn't present an eminent danger to the LEO or *EMINENT* danger to anyone else.

IE, the reason the LEO had to proffer "... I was afraid for my life ..." which I don't think is going to get him far seeing the weapon was never pointed at him.

[Dial H For Hero]

113. You said he was firing blind in post #78.

I would also point out that someone firing a rifle can change their point of aim in a fraction of a second.

[uponit7771]

115. You're right, I forgot about the "through a fence" part which further invalidates the LEOs proffered

... reason of "...afraid for my life..." justification.

The officers life wasn't in eminent danger

[Hassin Bin Sober]

56. Better direct video:

I’m having a hard time feeling sorry for the idiot firing an AR15 in the air.

But the cop was reckless too. It was midnight on New Year’s Eve and the guy was shooting in the air. Kind of obvious what was going on here.

A kid or kids could have been standing around him - like we used to stand around our neighbor’s dad when he would fire his shotgun on New Year’s Eve. Yeah, I know now my neighbor was an idiot.

[PTWB]

58. How many people are killed or maimed every year by "celebratory gunfire?"

A quick google search turns up numerous examples of that happening.

We don't know what the officer could see or couldn't see (a camera at chest level could see much less over a visual obstruction than the eyes). We don't know what the officer could see through the slats in the fence, because again, the eyes will pick up much more detail than a camera will.

We do know that the suspect was firing a rifle indiscriminately and extremely rapidly in the middle of a city. We also know that the officer could see enough that he was able to shoot at and hit his target and not hit anyone else.

[uponit7771]

79. We also could see what I said yesterday, the lack of announcement or orders to stop ....

... and cease what was happening.

That's not due process and when it comes to black folk its accepted way too damn much in our society.

I knew it when the PD didn't proffer the body cam footage right away it wasn't a clean shot, like the ABA mentioned in the release.

[PTWB]

81. Thanks for your response.

I linked you the video two days ago when it was released but you didn’t respond to that post. The video was released incredibly quickly.

Have you ever been in the immediate vicinity of someone rapidly firing a rifle? It isn’t like the movies. Rapid fire from a rifle like that is deafeningly loud.

There is exactly zero possibility that the officer could have effectively communicated any sort of verbal warning or order. There’s no chance it could be heard over the gunfire and there’s no time to wait for the person to finish mag dumping.

It’s sad that this person was killed. It really is. But they were rapidly, indiscriminately, and blindly firing a rifle in the middle of a city. They were an active deadly threat to everyone in the area where those bullets were landing.

You may have missed it earlier but I posted a series of articles about people who were recently killed and wounded by so-called celebratory gunfire.

If the cop had failed to take action after having had an opportunity to intervene, and one of those bullets had struck an innocent person somewhere in the city, the cop would have had to live with that for the rest of his life.

Durham woman, 73, killed by celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve

https://abc11.com/shooting-durham-fatal-new-years-eve/11414599/

Boy, 10, struck by falling bullet on New Year's Eve

https://www.wbrz.com/news/10-year-old-boy-struck-by-falling-bullet-on-new-year-s-eve/

A Houston Woman Was Killed by Celebratory Gunfire on New Year’s Eve

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/houston-woman-killed-celebratory-gunfire-new-years-eve/

This shooting was 100% justified and 100% the fault of the active shooter who was firing indiscriminately with his rifle.

[uponit7771]

86. None of that means a death sentence without due process

[PTWB]

88. This police shooting was justified. This was not excessive force.

Since Graham v. Connor in 1989, even excessive force cases do not fall under the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Excessive force claims fall under the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Due process is not a consideration here. You can read more about that here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor

The Court rejected the notion that the judiciary could use the Due Process Clause, instead of the Fourth Amendment, in analyzing an excessive force claim: "Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process', must be the guide for analyzing these claims."

[uponit7771]

89. Not without due process, following policy and fair treatment it was NOT justified. Also "justified"

... usually means the minimum reason to shoot when it comes to a black person.

I'm sick of us getting the minimum reason to pull a trigger and kill us

[PTWB]

90. Due process is not a factor.

I just linked you the Supreme Court case that shows you that due process is not a factor.

Police shootings that are excessive force violate the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment. That has been the law of the land for over 30 years.

[uponit7771]

91. This is false on its face

[PTWB]

92. How?

I provided you with a link to the Supreme Court decision that supports my position.

Do you have anything to support your position?

[uponit7771]

94. The officers justification for shooting, like Chauvin's, doesn't show in the video seeing the weapon

... wasn't ***POINTED*** at the officer or anyone else.

The officer didn't proffer the "bullet might hit someone" reasoning for being under threat for himself or someone else cause he knows that doesn't stand up in court

[PTWB]

95. What does that have to do with due process?

You’re arguing a violation of the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment, but you keep alleging that this case represents a violation of due process.

How do you reconcile that?

[uponit7771]

98. No I'm not, you're arguing amendments I'm arguing established process's and the officers false

... claim that his life was under danger.

[PTWB]

99. What?

You’ve posted that this shooting violated due process in this very thread eight times in seven posts.

A due process violation is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Now you’re claiming you’re not “arguing amendments?”

[uponit7771]

101. I'm talking about established process's in law enforcement in this situation. One of them is

... to not just get out of the car and shoot at the first thing they see when their lives or anyone else's is ***NOT*** in eminent danger.

That wasn't the case here, the proffered reason for the cops shooting was false and "the bullet shot in the air might hit someone" justification wouldn't stand up in court as "eminent" danger to someone else for a number of reasons

Just to be clear what my position is when I talk about due process

[PTWB]

104. I see where the confusion arose.

What you’re describing has nothing to do with due process, so every time you said that the shooting violated due process (and did not elaborate on what you meant), it masked what you were really trying to say.

Let me summarize your position so that I know we are both on the same page. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.

Your position is that this shooting violated the Fourth Amendment and was not reasonable. You believe that to be the case because you do not believe the shooter’s actions were creating an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Is that correct?

[uponit7771]

106. Everything except the " ... violated fourth amendment and ..." part.

[PTWB]

107. Now I'm really confused.

You’re arguing that the shooting wasn’t justified while also arguing that the shooting did not violate the Fourth Amendment?

[uponit7771]

109. No, I don't know how 4th amendment plays a part in this case and it might even be ...

... justified under 4th amendment and still not legal like in the Wright case; the LEO was convicted because of lack of eminent danger relative the reaction.

[PTWB]

111. I explained that to you earlier in the thread.

In 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that excessive force claims fall under the Fourth Amendment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor

The Court rejected the notion that the judiciary could use the Due Process Clause, instead of the Fourth Amendment, in analyzing an excessive force claim: "Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process', must be the guide for analyzing these claims."

The Court then explained that, "As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." The Court also cautioned, "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

You cannot argue that the force used was unreasonable and excessive and also argue that the force used does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

[uponit7771]

114. OK, the shooting was unreasonable and LEO reasoning proffered was false. I don't know how that

... pertains to the constitution and I don't think anyone has to argue that it does for the shooting to be illegal.

I'm looking at the Kim Potter charges and the constitution isn't mentioned in the prosecutors charges, this shooting looked like second degree murder apples to apples to me.

[PTWB]

118. That isn't how that works, Uponit.

Police officers that use excessive force aren't criminally charged with violating the Fourth Amendment or the constitution. The Fourth Amendment sets the standards by which police use of force is judged. I've explained that to you several times in this thread.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor

The Court rejected the notion that the judiciary could use the Due Process Clause, instead of the Fourth Amendment, in analyzing an excessive force claim: "Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process', must be the guide for analyzing these claims."

The Court then explained that, "As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." The Court also cautioned, "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

First, let me say that Kim Potter was absolutely guilty and was properly convicted. The murder of Daunte Wright is a perfect example of a police killing that was clearly and unequivocally excessive force.

You may be surprised to learn that the keystone of the prosecution's case against Kim Potter were their allegations that she violated the Fourth Amendment's reasonable officer standard when she murdered Daunte Wright. I'm not sure if you watched the trial or not, but the prosecution went to great pains to make sure that the jury heard expert testimony specifically about how Potter's actions violated that standard.

Read more here:

https://mtstandard.com/news/national/expert-kim-potter-was-not-justified-in-using-deadly-force/article_e06b82b1-1130-52c1-8eab-2175119b6644.html

“The use of deadly force was not appropriate and the evidence suggests a reasonable officer in Officer Potter’s position could not have believed it was proportional to the threat at the time,” said Seth Stoughton, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

[...]

Stoughton also testified at Chauvin's trial, saying he judged Chauvin's actions against what a reasonable officer in the same situation would have done and repeatedly found that Chauvin acted excessively when he held Floyd facedown with a knee across his neck for more than nine minutes.

On Wednesday, Stoughton reminded jurors that Potter warned that she was about to use her Taser on Wright, and said a reasonable officer would not have decided to use a Taser if they thought there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

What's more, Stoughton said, “a reasonable officer in that situation would not have believed" those threats existed.

Back to the case at hand, are you trying to argue that the suspect who was blindly, indiscriminately, and rapidly firing a rifle in the middle of a city was not a danger?

[uponit7771]

121. No, my position is clear without using the tittle and jot & pure diction of law to describe it; ...

... the LEO wasn't in danger enough to reasonably claim he was afraid for his life, that's not what the video shows.

Also my understanding Potter was claiming she was afraid for the lives of the LEOs around her as a justification for pointing anything at Wright. That turned out not to be reasonable because of the actions they took and the actions she took after the shooting.

I don't see how a guy firing through the fence can claim either ... we'll see

[PTWB]

124. The officer reasonably believed that the suspect was creating a danger of death or serious injury.

The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard is the specific issue at hand. You may dismiss the standards set by the Fourth Amendment as "tittle and jot & pure diction of law" but that doesn't change the fact that those standards are what will determine whether or not this force was justified.

[uponit7771]

125. That's not what the LEO claimed as justification for shooting and you understand "danger of death"

... is not what the litmus is for LEO shooting, come on.

I don't think we'll see any level on this, we'll have to wait and see what any new evidence will show.

[PTWB]

129. What do you mean?

If someone is acting in a manner that creates a danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others, then deadly force is justified in order to stop that person from creating that danger. That is the standard.

What do you suggest the standard is?

[uponit7771]

192. We both understand "eminent death" is litmus for shooting, "danger of death" could be anything ..

... driving after a drunk driver is that.

That doesn't justify laying lead into someone's car unless they're being a complete idiot and coming at people.

I don't see how the LEO was reasonably in eminent danger of death with someone firing in the air. Additionally the BC footage, the inactions of LEOs around him (a key in Potter case) and witness's at the scene lead me to this on the face conclusion.

we'll see

[PTWB]

193. Surely you mean imminent, yes?

Are you trying to say that the shooter in this case was NOT creating a danger of death or serious injury to those in the area? Or are you acknowledging that the shooter was creating a danger of death or serious injury, but you're trying to argue that danger was not imminent?

[uponit7771]

194. That word too, and no the shooter wasn't creating an imminent danger of death to the leo, ..

... that's the shooting justification the leo reported.

The LEO didn't claim ***imminent*** danger of death to those around him in his report from the article.

[PTWB]

196. Do you have a copy of the police report or interview with the officer?

I'm curious what you're basing that on. I'd be quite surprised if the officer did not tell investigators that he was in fear for his life as well as the lives of the public.

I'll disagree with you on both points. It was reasonable for the officer to believe that the shooter presented an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to himself and everyone in the area.

[uponit7771]

198. Going by what Chief claimed speaking for the LEO, its in the OP link (quote inside)

From the OP article

Canton Police Chief Jack Angelo said Saturday the officer was outside his cruiser and confronted someone firing a weapon. He said the officer feared for his life.

I'll disagree with you on both points. It was reasonable for the officer to believe that the shooter presented an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to himself and everyone in the area.

If he had clear view of what was going on I'd lean thinly on your assesment side but firing through a fence with no clear view of what is going on is going to be hard case to make IMHO.

The AR15 guy could've been defending himself, that's the reason scream police stop or whatever.

Hmmm matter of fact this defense didn't work in the case of Mohammed Noor and he had view of the person !!

I know they're different states but Noor had view of the person and just thumps and loud noises didn't justify shooting her.

I looked at the video again, there's no gun barrel or anything above the fence ... it was too high.

Nah, I think this goes to trial if no plead out.

[PTWB]

201. Does the article say that the officer did not fear for the lives of those around him?

The officer almost certainly did say that he feared for his own life. That is more than enough to justify this shooting, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that he also said he was in fear for the lives of those in the area.

Your comparison to the Mohammed Noor case is curious. The victim in that case was not firing a weapon and was not creating an imminent danger of death or serious injury.

Are you trying to say that the police officer responding to a shots fired call, who then encounters someone rapidly and indiscriminately firing a rifle is the same as, and I'm quoting you, "humps and loud noises?"

And I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment that this case will go to trial if the officer doesn't plea out. My assessment is that this case will never result in criminal charges in the first place, thus it will not go to trial and not result in any sort of plea. It's possible that the suspect's family will file a civil suit against the city and it's possible the city will settle that suit if they determine it is in the taxpayer's best interests to do so, but I'll say there is zero chance that they will admit any wrongdoing if they settle. Most likely the civil suit will be thrown out and there will not be a settlement.

[uponit7771]

206. The victim in this case is ... NOT ... seen firing a weapon either. Looking at BC footage again ...

... there's no way this LEO is going to claim he saw a firearm through that fence.

The fence is not something we can see through with BC footage and I don't see the LEO saying he saw clearly the guy was shooting a weapon.

https://www.wlwt.com/article/officer-shoots-man-firing-ar-15-rifle-into-the-air-nye/38686222#

Also, fireworks were legalized by the gov late November ... this is bad shooting.

This is more bullshit justification of shooting a black guy from the M$M yellow journalism, this was a solid fence ... there's no seeing clearly what was going on.

[PTWB]

211. That's not correct.

The officer said on camera that he saw the suspect with a rifle. He said it before the shooting. The officer can tell the difference between fireworks and gunshots from mere feet away. Anyone can.

And the suspect's own wife said that he was firing an AR-15.

Are you really trying to argue now that the suspect was not firing a rifle, but was innocently lighting off some fireworks?

[uponit7771]

214. Nah, he didn't see that suspect fire the rifle and that "fireworks to firearms" statement is going

... to get ripped on the stand.

I know personally it will

Are you really trying to argue now that the suspect was not firing a rifle, but was innocently lighting off some fireworks?

No

I'm saying I didn't see someone shooting a rifle behind the fence, I think I read in an article or a post that the weapon could be seen behind the fence and now I know different.

There's no clear view of a weapon going off behind the fence, the LEO has to make the argument that it was and from the video I don't think he can.

Oh and "sounded like" didn't work for Noor either

[uponit7771]

202. Link to video from OP, nah ... there's no clear view of a firearm and fireworks were legal

... at the time.


https://www.wlwt.com/article/officer-shoots-man-firing-ar-15-rifle-into-the-air-nye/38686222#


LEO messed up

[PTWB]

203. Incredible.

The officer was responding to a shots fired call. The officer on the video we're talking about says he SAW THE SUSPECT WITH A RIFLE. And the officer certainly can tell the difference between a rifle and fireworks from mere feet away.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the suspect was shooting off fireworks and not firing off a rifle despite all evidence to the contrary? Please.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

97. Like I said, I don't feel sorry for the jerk.

But there was wrong on both sides. And the city will likely be paying a hefty settlement.

If the cop could see so we’ll, as you surmise, he could see the gun was aimed at the sky. I mean, it was obvious from what us normal people could see just from the video. I’m not aware of any municipalities with a shoot to kill order for celebratory gunfire, are you? Because if that’s the case, I think there should be some sort of announcement made.

It’s my understanding we pay police to use their brains. Midnight New Year’s Eve/Gun aimed in the air. Gee, what could that be?


Yeah, yeah, I know. People can die from those rounds coming back down. But let’s be honest, that’s a one in a million occurrence. Like someone analogized upthread, far more people are killed by drunk drivers (10,000 plus) but we don’t gun down drunk drivers on sight.

The cop could have waited to seconds until the guy was empty again. Yeah, yeah, I know, those few extra rounds could have killed a bus load of children out for a midnight buss ride.

Like I said, now several times, the guy shooting in the air is an asshole. He’s dead, so that kinda ends the discussion on him, doesn’t it?

Now for the cop. the cop is going to have to explain why he thought a guy shooting in the air was an immediate threat to him that necessitated immediate unannounced deadly force. I guess this will result in Schrödinger's deadly force - the cop could see so well that he was able to safely identify a target but not see so well to know that gun was being pointed in the air. And the cop will have to identify a policy that says shoot on sight for celebratory gunfire due to the possibility of freak accidents.

To be clear, I’m very against celebratory gunfire in the air.

But I’m also against shoot first and ask questions later police policy that only prioritizes “the cop going home at the end of his shift” that results in people shot dead in Walmart holding a toy gun, or 14 year old girls getting shot while trying on dresses, or children with toy guns getting shot on sight when a cop rolls up in a park - and all the other hundreds of examples THAT FAR OUTWEIGH any deaths from celebratory gunfire.

[USALiberal]

63. +1000, many people here don't care if there was anyone standing by him.

[Demsrule86]

148. The cop managed to shoot only the person firing the gun in the air so it

doesn't seem he was firing blind...I don't believe he was. This is not a racial incident...this is about a man endangering an entire city block and beyond by firing an AR15 in the air. A bullet fired from an AR-15 can travel over two miles. The guy was engaged in a dangerous and stupid action with no consideration for any of his neighbors...near and far. Sorry, the policeman acted correctly.

[USALiberal]

152. Sorry, the cop was wrong. nt

[marie999]

168. No, the cop did exactly what he was supposed to.

He shot a person who was firing a weapon. The cop is not supposed to wait until he kills someone. You fire a weapon in public and I am there I will shoot you.

[USALiberal]

170. LOL, ok! nt

[Demsrule86]

180. I would agree. While I think guns are out of control. I have owned guns when I lived in the

middle of nowhere. A gun saved my life once. But this shooting of guns in the air for recreation with no regard for public safety is one of the many reasons why I think guns need to be strictly regulated...some have no common sense and should not have guns.

[marie999]

226. I have had a CWP for over 40 years starting in South Florida.

I have had to draw my weapon only once. I was at a condo meeting when I disagreed with the board on what basic cable was. They were offered a great price on a premium package if everyone took it. They were getting ready to vote on it when I explained to them that the law states they can make everyone get the basic cable plan only. The treasurer got upset with me and punched me. I drew my weapon and he immediately backed off. I wasn't hurt so instead of a trial I took him to arbitration. I was nice and settled for $50,000 from him and another $50,000 from the condo.

[uponit7771]

200. In the LEOs BC footage there's no weapon to be seen behind the fence (link) and firecrackers

... were legal at the time.

https://www.wlwt.com/article/officer-shoots-man-firing-ar-15-rifle-into-the-air-nye/38686222#

All this family has to say is Williams was popping off fire crackers at the time and the LEO goes to jail

[EX500rider]

204. Except you can see a rifle discharging in the vid nt

[uponit7771]

208. Nope, I don't see a weapon in the video no one can, the fence is too high and its solid ...

... that could've been firecrackers that were legalized by the gov late Nov.

This LEO isn't going to have a clear shoot case here, he should've announced no doubt.

[EX500rider]

217. I didn't say it was a clean shoot

However I can plainly see a rifle being fired into the air by the muzzle blast, something firecrackers to not do, plus the dead man will be found with a discharged rifle and test positive for gunpowder residue and I bet they won't find any firecracker debris.

[uponit7771]

221. Got you, the guys an idiot for shooting up in the air but I don't think that means its a death ...

... sentence.

The LEO should shouted something first or started screaming especially seeing fireworks had been legalized by the gov.

The fact that he can't see a weapon takes away the LEOS "reasonable imminent danger death" argument IMHO.

We'll see

[uponit7771]

73. BOOM !!! I knew it and posted this at the time the PD didn't show the BC footage.

[USALiberal]

149. No, a bullet shot straight up does NOT have the same speed falling! nt

[Dial H For Hero]

155. Presuming it's shot at a precise 90 degree angle, it's very unlikely to cause injury. But:

If it's fired at a more shallow angle, it's lethal to a range of a couple miles or so.

[marie999]

156. People have been killed by bullets that were shot in the air.

Do you disagree with that?

[USALiberal]

158. They were shot at an angle, not straight up! nt

[marie999]

165. Were all his shots straight up?

I never fired an AR-15, but I have fired other rifles. I never fired one that stayed on target when rapid firing. Does the AR-15 stay on target when rapid firing?

[PTWB]

167. You just made his point.

Shots fired at an angle are far more deadly than shots fired straight up in the air. Rifle shots fired at an angle can maintain their lethality for over a mile. And the shooter in this video was firing at an upward angle. You can see the spurts of smoke are at what appears to be a ~60 degree angle.

[bluestarone]

100. I just gotta make ONE comment here

I CANNOT believe how many here support the cop shooting through the God Dam fence! NOT knowing what or who was on the other side! UNFUCKING believable!

[uponit7771]

112. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾 Also the guy wasn't presenting an eminent danger to the LEO or anyone else

... and the LEO lied in the report saying he was afraid for his life.

The guy was a 100% stupid ass for firing in the air and in public and endangering (not eminent) his neighbors but to fire through a damn fence unannounced the millisecond the LEO got out of the pc is far from reasonable.

[Kaleva]

120. Don't conflate lack of sympathy for an idiot with a gun for support for shooting through a fence

The police department will investigate the matter and take or not take action.

In the meantime, maybe some can learn from this and in the future, not treat a deadly weapon like it's a celebratory toy.

[uponit7771]

123. There are too many arguing the shooting was justified, it wasn't on the face of it ...

... looking at the facts people can see in video.

The LEO is claiming he was afraid for his life, I don't see how in the BC footage.

I'm sick of LEOs shoot everything moving attitude as soon as they flinch and get scared

[Kaleva]

130. I'm not one of those who claim the shooting was justified.

I am very confident though that no reputable gun training program teaches that celebratory gunfire is safe.

I've been very consistent over the years in arguing that if one decides to get or even just handle a gun, they need training and to handle the gun safely and to treat it like it is, a deadly weapon.

[Red Mountain]

128. Agreed

I'm also not a big fan of cops shooting first and asking questions later. It's been problematic in the past and continues to create new issues.

This officer used extremely poor judgement, IMHO.

The city will pay out a lot of money for this.

I'd like to see individual cops carry malpractice insurance. The employer might pay the premium but it would be a good way to track the bad cops and weed them out before they cause multiple issues.

[Ohio Joe]

163. Agreed - nt

[inthewind21]

172. Amazing

How many here are perfectly ok with no due process and allowing police to be judge, jury AND executioner. You're right, unfucking
believable.

[Dial H For Hero]

179. As has already been explained multiple times in this thread, due process did not apply in this

incident.

[Dial H For Hero]

131. Experts weigh in:

https://www.cantonrep.com/story/news/2022/01/06/david-yost-law-enforcement-experts-comment-james-williams-shooting-ohio-attorney-general/9104071002/

….. "This officer is all of the sudden looking for the person that potentially already fired shots according to the report or dispatch, and all of the sudden this officer is hearing an immense amount of firing going off — and he's very close to it — and if he felt that it was a potential deadly danger or (presented) serious injury to himself, he's going to be totally justified in firing back at that subject to protect him and or others," Dimoff said.

….

According to Dimoff, it's not a matter as to whether the subject could hear the officer's commands or not, it is a matter as to whether or not the officer had time to yell any commands because the aggression was happening all of the sudden.

"It's happening in succession. The subject didn't shoot one bullet and stop, shoot another bullet and stop, it was the succession of very powerful firing — from a very powerful firing rifle," he said.

….

"This officer has reason to believe his life is in danger if he is that close to someone who was recklessly — almost insanely — firing 30 rounds from that rifle ... and that everyone else's lives in the neighborhood and people's lives who might even be more than one or two miles away or more than two miles away. That would be consistent with an officer firing to protect life, to protect against death or serious injury," Kapelsohn said.

[USALiberal]

143. Nice try!

[Ohio Joe]

160. Well... If the repug AG of Ohio says not to question cops...

[SYFROYH]

186. Its not surprising these folks are giving the killer cop the benefit of the doubt

I think we can and should expect more from out police.

[uponit7771]

197. LEO stated in the report that "I was afraid for *MY* life" and excuse of "others" wasn't stated ..

... "others" is what Potter gave as an excuse but this idiot leo put on the report that HE was afraid.

The officers reason to believe his life is in danger has to be reasonable, not get out of a pc and start bussin on everything moving like he did.

[PTWB]

205. Oh, now you do have access to the report?

Please link the police report documenting the interview with the officer in which he says he was not afraid for the lives of others. Thanks in advance!

[uponit7771]

207. No, again ... its his Chief speaking for him

[PTWB]

210. My mistake.

When you wrote, and I'm quoting,

"LEO stated in the report that "I was afraid for *MY* life" and excuse of "others" wasn't stated .."

I understood that to mean you were talking about what the Law Enforcement Officer said in the report, and not what a different officer said at a press conference some time later.

Let me ask now just to clarify, so we are on the same page here, do you have access to any evidence that the officer did not say that he was in fear for his life as well as the lives of those in the area?

[Bettie]

137. Cop shouldn't have shot through the fence

but also, people who just shoot their guns into the air to 'celebrate' need to knock it the fuck off. What is wrong with them? Someone who does that is NOT a 'responsible gun owner'.

So, I have much less sympathy for the wanna be Yosemite Sam than I might for another person.

[Celerity]

177. The cop fucked up by not announcing. Plus he saw the shots were going up in the air. The city will

likely pay out a shedload of cash to make it all go away.

The shooter was a fucking brain-dead FOOL by the way.

Wtf is wrong with people and guns in the United States of Gunhumpery???

[uponit7771]

199. +1, I just looked at the video there's no barrel above the fence so how does the LEO even

... know those were shots vs firecrackers?

The "sounded like shots" justification didn't work for Mohamed Noor in MN I don't think it'll work for this guy either.

Wtf is wrong with people and guns in the United States of Gunhumpery???

The USSC is full of a bunch of assholes who don't understand the word "... a well regulated militia..." and too many punk as pols who wont force them to define what that means.

[PTWB]

209. Uponit, please don't do this.

The officer was responding to a shots fired call. The body camera video you're talking about captured the officer saying that he saw the suspect with a rifle. He said it prior to the shooting. The officer can certainly tell the difference between fireworks and a rifle being fired rapidly from mere feet away.

Let's not forget that the suspect's wife, Marquetta Williams, said that her husband had been using her AR-15 rifle to fire celebratory rounds.

If you're trying to argue that the suspect was innocently lighting fireworks, and not shooting a rifle, you're not going to find any takers here.

[uponit7771]

212. Unn, I saw the wrong video from another thread or another post on this story but there's no

... doubt there's NO CLEAR VIEW of a firearm behind the fence.

I looked at a shortened view of the video in the link I posted upthread, that is WAY MORE CLEAR than what I inititally saw.

If you're trying to argue that the suspect was innocently lighting fireworks, and not shooting a rifle, you're not going to find any takers here.

I am going to claim there was no clear view of a weapon and the claim I read earlier that a weapon could be seen above the fence was false.

I see this too much, the PDs get out a narrative and the M$M picks it up and runs with it especially when black guy is killed.

The LEO didn't know what was going on behind the fence, I don't believe he did knew what was going on for a millisecond.

I'll wait

[PTWB]

213. How tall was the officer?

[uponit7771]

215. Not taller than the bottom of the window it seems, I've changed my position to hard wait. I read

... another narrative from another article or post and got the wrong impression on what had happen but the shorter video clears it up for me.

I don't believe the LEO didn't saw a weapon at all, its not show in BC footage and I was under the impression that it was.

I'll wait

[PTWB]

219. We're just approaching this from two completely different viewpoints.

Every piece of evidence we have, every single one, indicates that the officer knew that the suspect was firing a weapon and not lighting fireworks.

You claim that the officer could see nothing over the fence but you don't know how tall the officer was. We know that the body camera was affixed to his chest, far below eye level. We also know that the officer saw the suspect with a rifle and could see the suspect over the fence. He said exactly that in body camera footage we're talking about.

You also have no idea how much the officer could make out through the slats in the fence.

Your argument that the suspect could have merely been lighting fireworks is at odds with every piece of evidence we have.

1. The officer was responding to a shots fired call.
2. The officer arrived and heard gunshots from the suspect's residence and saw the suspect putting down a rifle prior to the shooting.
3. The officer again heard gunshots and could see enough of the suspect that he was able to fire and hit that suspect without hitting anything else.
4. The suspect's own wife said that the suspect was firing an AR-15 rifle.

You're not going to convince anyone that the officer could possibly have confused fireworks for gunshots. It just isn't going to happen and is not an argument based in reality.

[uponit7771]

222. No, my claim is I don't see a weapon on the other side of the fence ... PERIOD.

Lets say it was, the LEO had time to assess and walked closer to the firing of the weapon and didn't announce ... like WTF?!

There's all kinds of wrong shit going on here, I'm pissed cause I think I was shown the wrong video by M$M at first.

This shit happens to much when there's a bad shot

I'm in hard wait mode,

Again, my claim is I don't CLEARLY see a weapon being fired behind that fence the article I read neither did the LEOs see Williams by the gun or near it.

Man, I wish I could get the article I read earlier ... just damn

[PTWB]

223. I see where we're getting off track.

You're under the impression that what you see has any bearing. It doesn't. You're seeing what happened through the lens of a camera that is mounted far below the officer's eye level. You admitted that you have no idea how tall the officer is and you have no idea what the officer could see at the time the shooting took place.

1. The officer was responding to a shots fired call.

2. Prior to the shooting the officer said on his radio that he saw the suspect with a rifle.

3. He said he could see the suspect's head over the fence. If he could see the suspect's head, he could certainly see a rifle aimed at an upward angle which would extend far above the suspect's head.

3. The officer heard gunshots prior to the shooting.

5. The suspect's wife said the suspect was armed with a rifle.

6. The investigators found the rifle in question.

Suggesting that the officer couldn't have known the suspect was shooting at the time this took place is simply contrary to reality based on the evidence we have.

[uponit7771]

224. We'll see, the initial report was skewed towards the police and I got the impression that a weapon

... could be seen and the LEOs life was in some kind of danger.

I don't see the LEOs life being imminent danger looking at the most recent video, this shooting wasn't clean at all.

I'll wait

[PTWB]

225. The weapon was seen by police.

It's not surprising that you got that impression!

[uponit7771]

227. There's no proof it was seen by the police at the time of the shooting, BC footage doesn't show

... that and no BWC's don't hang 2 feet below LEOs neck.

We'll see, this guy better be 6'6 or something to claim he saw a weapon over the fence at the time of shooting.

and again

Even if he see a weapon there was opportunity to de-escalate this situation, I don't see that being taken.

[PTWB]

228. Yes there is proof that the weapon was seen by the police.

The body camera picked up the muzzle blasts. Muzzle blasts come from a weapon. The body camera is positioned far below the officer's own eyes. If the body camera picked up the muzzle blasts, the officer's eyes were certainly able to see the muzzle blasts and much, much more.

The body camera also gives us evidence that the officer could see over the fence because, even before the shooting took place, he said he could see over the fence. He said he could see the suspect's head, and said he could see the suspect with a rifle.

[uponit7771]

229. "The body camera picked up the muzzle blasts", I don't see a weapon. There's no amount of

... explanation that shows a weapon through BC Footage.

and

... even if there was there was opportunity to deescalate and it wasn't taken.

Bad shooting

[PTWB]

230. What do you think muzzle blasts are produced by if not a firearm?

The body camera captured muzzle blasts from a firearm and the officer reported seeing a rifle. The suspect's own wife said the suspect was shooting a rifle. The officer was responding to a shots fired call.

The officer's eyes are far above the body camera and could certainly see more than was visible to a camera mounted in the middle of his chest.

Are you really arguing that the suspect was not shooting a rifle?

This shooting was justified by any legal measure.

[uponit7771]

231. I don't see a muzzle in the video and there was opportunity to deescalate if there was

[PTWB]

232. You see numerous muzzle blasts in the video, yes?

[uponit7771]

233. In the video I posted I see numerous blast and don't see a muzzle at all

[PTWB]

234. So you see the muzzle blasts. Good.

Do you acknowledge that the camera is mounted at chest level, below eye level?

[uponit7771]

235. No, I see blast you're defining them as muzzle blasts .. I don't see a weapon in the BC footage

...let the LEO explain how he could see it through the fence if he's not like 6'7 or something

[PTWB]

236. They're unequivocally muzzle blasts.

What do you suggest they are, if not muzzle blasts?

We know that the LEO could see over the fence because before the shooting he said he could see the suspect's head and said that the suspect was holding a rifle. How could he see the suspect's head and see that he was holding a rifle if he could not see over the fence?

The only thing we don't know is exactly how much he could see over the fence and how much he could see through the slats in the fence. We know for a fact that the suspect was shooting a rifle at the time he was shot.

[uponit7771]

237. Nah, could've easily been a fireworks cake ... can't see a muzzle.

[PTWB]

238. Goodness.

A fireworks cake? Really?

[Dial H For Hero]

239. Perhaps it was a high capacity semiautomatic Roman Candle.

Perfectly plausible…

[PTWB]

240. I'm at a loss here.

A fireworks cake...

1. Officer responds to a shots fired call.

2. Officer hears gunshots himself.

3. Officer sees suspect with a rifle with his own eyes.

4. Body camera captures footage of the muzzle blasts coming from the rifle.

5. The suspect's own wife said he was shooting a rifle.

6. Investigators located the rifle in question.

But we've got someone here who says that the suspect was not shooting a rifle, and was instead merely celebrating the holiday by lighting a fireworks cake. A. Fireworks. Cake.

[Dial H For Hero]

243. In my experience, there is no argument so absurd that someone will not make it on the Internet

and then continue to defend it in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

This one does take the cake, though.

[PTWB]

244. Indeed. This one takes the fireworks cake.

[uponit7771]

241. Oh yeah, the LEO better be ready to defend against that seeing Williams didn't die near a gun

... was seen by the LEOs and EMTs inside the house.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/05/ohio-police-shooting-new-year-rifle

...His wife said he fired four shots into the air and turned to follow her inside, then told her: “I’ve been shot.”...

Unless this LEO can CLEARELY see through this fence and ID Williams as the shooter AT THAT TIME then he's in even more trouble IMHO if the bullets inside of Williams are from the LEOs firearm.

The video I saw there were way more than just four blasts into the air behind the fence ...

Interesting.

[PTWB]

242. Have a look at the video here.

https://imgur.com/a/JfioIn2

I trimmed it out so that it only captures the suspect and the officer shooting. You can listen with sound and watch it on repeat if you like.

You can see the muzzle of the firearm in this video.

[uponit7771]

246. Alright, I don't and I used to clean M16 muzzles as part of MOS. This shooting isn't clean enough

... especially after the BS statement from the PD.

Looks like ANOTHER situation were LEO needlessly escalated when there was ample opportunity to do the opposite.

I'm done

[PTWB]

247. This shooting is completely justified by every legal standard.

I'm glad that the officer was able to intervene before someone was injured or killed.

[uponit7771]

248. Nah, LEO needlessly used deadly force he can't even argue he was in danger seeing no proof ...

... a weapon was being used or even if it was it wasn't pointed at him or anyone else.

We'll see

[PTWB]

249. We will see indeed.

Heck, we've already seen. The shooting was captured on camera. There is no debate about whether or not the suspect was shooting.

He was not playing with a fireworks cake.

[uponit7771]

250. "There is no debate about whether or not the suspect was shooting." Yes there is, there's no proof

... that it was Williams who was doing the shooting at the time the LEO stupidly and needlessly shot into the fence.

You might claim you can see a muzzle (I don't) but I ... NO DOUBT ... don't see Williams doing the whatever behind the fence.

His wife said he was turning around to go into house when said he got shot and died on their living room floor.

Nothing about this shooting is clean and some of the stories don't match up ... so far the wifes claims have been 100% correct.

[PTWB]

251. The officer could see his head on the other side of the fence.

That's already been established by the body camera video.

Now that you're abandoning your firework cake argument, are you saying that the active shooter was someone other than Williams?

[uponit7771]

252. I don't see **WILLIAMS** head behind fence at time of shooting in BC video, and the LEO didn't say

... he ID'd WILLIAMS behind fence at the time doing the shooting.


The wife said

James Williams came back inside the house, his wife said, then decided to go back outside and shoot some more. His wife said he fired four shots into the air and turned to follow her inside, then told her: “I’ve been shot.”

“I could see the blood splattering across his shirt,” Marquetta Williams said. “He collapsed in the living room.”

None of what the wife says matches the BC footage

[PTWB]

253. We've already established that what you see is not what the officer saw.

We talked about the body camera being affixed to the officer's chest, far below his eye level. We also talked about the officer being able to see Williams' head and rifle on the other side of the fence, as evidenced by the radio traffic at the beginning of the video.

1. The officer was responding to a shots fired call.

2. Prior to the shooting the officer said on his radio that he saw the suspect with a rifle.

3. He said he could see the suspect's head over the fence. If he could see the suspect's head, he could certainly see a rifle aimed at an upward angle which would extend far above the suspect's head.

3. The officer heard gunshots prior to the shooting.

5. The suspect's wife said the suspect was armed with a rifle.

6. The investigators found the rifle in question.

Pray tell, who do you suggest was the active shooter if not Williams?

[uponit7771]

254. "... He said he could see the suspect's head over the fence...." Could you point this out? tia

I don't see that in any the links I've read.

Thx in advance

[PTWB]

255. Did you watch the video?

He says it on the video before the shooting starts. Surely you've watched the body camera video after we've been discussing it for the last two days!

[uponit7771]

256. I'm referring to at the time of the shooting could he see the person shooting was Williams, I don't

... see that in BC footage.

The assumption is the person the LEO saw before he rounded the corner and started shooting was the same person on the other side of the fence.

It looks like the wife's account doesn't jive with that, seeing she claims Williams only shot four shots

We'll see ... shooting wasn't clean, LEO didn't even see who he was shooting at

[PTWB]

257. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

We know he saw the suspect with a rifle on the other side of the fence because he said he could see those things over the radio before the shooting began.

How, exactly, do you suggest that he could see across the fence prior to the shooting but could not see across the fence during the shooting?

What evidence are you using to support your position?

[uponit7771]

258. No, he didn't say he could ID the person on the other side of the fence once he rounded the corner

... as Williams after he started shooting.

Matter of fact the LEO says in the video, "... I went up to the porch and saw him putting the rifle away" once he went up to the porch ~ :10 in the video below

https://www.wlwt.com/article/officer-shoots-man-firing-ar-15-rifle-into-the-air-nye/38686222#

I don't see Williams face through the fence in BC footage the LEO claims he saw someone putting the riffle away when he went up to porch.

[PTWB]

260. Are you claiming someone else was the shooter now, or do you acknowledge that it was Williams?

Before you answer, remember that his own wife said that he was shooting an AR-15 rifle.

Also, you left off the first half of the officer's radio transmission man! Why would you omit that?

Here's the first half of that transmission:

"I saw the male's head through the fence after I heard the shots."

Yes, he said he went up to the porch and saw him putting the rifle away. He sure didn't say he saw Williams putting away a "fireworks cake," did he?

The rapid gunfire began again moments after the officer finished that radio transmission. The officer went up to the aforementioned fence, observed the suspect firing his rifle, and then shot the suspect before he could kill or maim any of his neighbors.

[uponit7771]

261. I don't know if it was Williams, I don't see his face on the other side of the fence and the LEO ...

... says he saw whomever put the gun away when he went up to the porch.

"I saw the male's head through the fence after I heard the shots."

Ah, I don't see that as him IDing the shooter as Williams or the same person he saw put away the rifle before the noise (or fireworks cake) went off behind the fence.

...The officer went up to the aforementioned fence, observed the suspect firing his rifle, and then shot the suspect before he could kill or maim any of his neighbors.

Great, at least we're not debating whether the LEOs life was in "imminent danger of death" any longer cause it wasn't.

His neighbors weren't in imminent danger of death either IE the reason his Chief didn't claim that in their push.

[PTWB]

262. FIREWORKS CAKE AGAIN!

The only reason we're not talking about the imminent danger of death or serious injury is because you've stopped talking about it. You've elected to claim that the suspect firing the rifle was actually not firing a rifle, but rather, was playing with a fireworks cake. And that the suspect was not Williams, the person shot by the police, but was actually someone else (who? you haven't said).

I'm happy to engage with you on this topic as much as you'd like as long as we're talking about things that are real.

I'm not even sure what a fireworks cake is. Does it look, sound, and function like an AR-15? In that case, a fireworks cake may very well be a deadly weapon!

[uponit7771]

263. YES, I'm not taking any word of this PD because their push was BS. They didn't do what the ABA

... said do and just play it neutral and let folk see BC footage right away.

This shooting looks shitty on its face looking at it through BC footage, the LEO had opportunity to deescalate and didn't take it that makes it look sus from get.

Does it look, sound, and function like an AR-15?

Close, there's one called the Bellagio I can see that looking SIMILAR at certain points of it going off (not exact) like what was going on behind the fence.

Look, I'm not calling the actions behind the fence fireworks I'm illuminating the fact that the LEO didn't deescalate and it very well could have been ... I don't know ... I can't see a muzzle and since the M$M has already yellowed this story I'm not taking what they said at face value either.

Back to who it was behind the fence,

Are you claiming Williams put away the rifle then brought it back out and started shooting again?

Sounds like two different people on the face of it no?

The wife's account does not match up with at all what is shown in the BC footage

tia

[PTWB]

264. So you think that someone other than Williams was shot by the police?

The person firing the rifle at the time of the police shooting was the one shot by the police. We know this because we saw the shooting happen.

I have to ask, if you don't think that the person shooting the rifle behind the fence was actually launching fireworks, why do you keep suggesting they were launching fireworks?

[uponit7771]

265. No, I'm sure Williams was hit by LEO bullet ... or hell, even one of his own I'm just not ...

... sure it was at the time of the shooting in the BC video giving the wife's account is so much different from the BC footage.

We know this because we saw the shooting happen.

I saw the LEO shoot into the fence, I didn't see the face of the person being shot AT THAT TIME.

The LEO claims he saw the person he had a rifle put it away in the house

Williams could've been hit by a LEO bullet, but maybe at a different time or hell even his own.

There's no way the wife is going to get "four shots" wrong, the number of shots in the BC footage sounded more like 40.

Again, I'll wait ... I'm open to facts

I just know the LEO could've deescalated and chose not to, that happens too many times in the US

[PTWB]

266. What's your alternate theory then?

Williams was shot by someone else at some point prior the police arriving and shooting at someone else who was firing dozens of shots with a rifle?

Why would some random, unidentified person exit Williams' house, stand in Williams' backyard, and begin shooting a rifle in celebration if Williams himself had just gone inside after having been shot by himself or someone else?

[uponit7771]

267. 1 would be Williams was hit by his own bullet or someone firing randomly in that hood ...

...

2. He was hit by LEO bullet ricocheting off something as he was turning to go into the house with his wife.

3. he was hit while firing off some device behind the fence by the LEO who failed to deescalate when the opportunity arose

4. His wife shot his ass while he was turned around doing something stupid

5. All of the above.

No really, I don't know ... I'm willing to wait though. I think the wife's account is valid and so is the BC footage so something has to jive.

That's why people shouldn't blindly fire into shit not being able to CLEARLY see the other side especially when their life isn't in imminent danger.

[PTWB]

268. Amazing!

So one of your theories is the following:

Williams was actually shot by his wife as the police officer was arriving. The officer who reported seeing the suspect through the fence actually saw Williams' wife and saw her putting the rifle up when he approached the porch. The gunshots he reported hearing upon his arrival were not celebratory fire but were actually the shots fired by the wife when she shot Williams.

The wife had someone else exit the house immediately after she shot Williams and gave that person a different rifle. That person then began blasting in celebratory fire as a diversion to distract the officer who had just arrived. The officer fired at that person but missed. That person then disappeared.

Does that accurately reflect your alternate theory? If so, let me be the first to reject that theory.

I do think it is interesting that you believe Williams' wife's account that he only fired four shots, but you're also entertaining an alternate theory that she herself shot him.

[madville]

216. That's an important factor

If the officer’s eyes are a couple of feet higher than the body camera lens then he may very well have been able to see the rifle and suspect over the fence.

[PTWB]

220. Indeed.

And we know from the body camera video that the officer said, prior to the shooting taking place, that he could see the suspect and see that he had a rifle. Unless they're arguing that the officer committed premeditated murder and just made up those facts prior to the suspect coming out and shooting his rifle again, I think it is unequivocally clear that the officer knew the suspect was firing a gun and was not innocently lighting off fireworks.

[madville]

218. One less idiot in the world

No sympathy, he was a danger to the community, we see stories every year about people being hit by stray bullets on NY eve.

[LuckyCharms]

245. Bottom line: Both the cop and the shooter made tragic errors.

1) The flash and gun smoke from the shooters gun indicates that the bullets were travelling in an arc.

2) If a gun is fired straight up into the air at a perfect 90 degree angle (very difficult to do), the bullet will travel straight up, stop at some point, and tumble as it falls back to the ground. The tumbling action will slow the velocity of the downward descent. If it hits someone, it most likely will not kill them, but could indeed injure them.

3) A shot fired into the air at any angle other than 90 degrees means that the bullet will travel in an arc, and will and will tend to maintain lethal velocity until it hits something or somebody. It is not unusual for people to be killed this way.

4) The cop shot through the fence without knowing how many people were behind it, and also without knowing the exact location and intent of the shooter.

Both individuals made tragic mistakes.

[uponit7771]

259. 4 is what I get sick of, that's sloppy policing. I'm not surprised at idiots doing idiot crap but ..

... professionals are supposed to keep their heads and follow process's etc for a reason.

When it comes to black people those process's etc get thrown out the door too many times.