LaQuinta Motel, Arizona Shooting hotel

[BRD@66]

Agreed. While I definitely feel it is legally irrelevant in the trial, it is certainly something that officers and departments (by policy) should seek to end. There's no place for that type of "self-expression" on a duty firearm.

I once worked for an agency who had a patrolman who had the Hemingway quote (“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, etc") framed & on his desk. It looked cool til he had to kill a citizen then the Sgt took the proper action.

 

[sharkey]

Why do you feel the need to make shit up? You must be thinking of someone else. I am clearly in the lawful shooting camp. In fact I bet I am more pro-cop on this incident than you.

Good for you and maybe you are. WTF do I care? I was responding to your post about going to the chief and complaining about the guy’s tattoos which has as much in common with the shooting as the dust cover. Am I confusing you with someone else? Did you not make the tattoo comment? Mea Culpa if that is the case. So you aren’t RenegadeGlocker on another forum? Same avatar so I took an educated guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

I was responding to your post about going to the chief and complaining about the guy’s tattoos which has as much in common with the shooting as the dust cover.

So in your world talking to the chief about the professional appearance of an officer (dust cover, tats) means it is my opinion tattoos ("but blaming this shooting on curse words or as Renegade opined - tattoos is just a bit ridiculous") caused a shooting 2 years ago in another state?

Tell me, if I talk to the fire chief about a fireman who wears a uniform with salsa or ketchup stains on it, does that mean I think salsa or ketchup causes wildfires in California?

I guess coming from a guy who thinks a prosecutor would want to exclude incriminating evidence this is logical.

Yeah, something is "is just a bit ridiculous"

 

[Renegade]

I've noticed that often times you (or anyone) get lumped in to one group or the other based on a single comment.

Yep and internet cops do not like criticism. And like you said one they put you in a group, even if you are on the same side, they argue anything you say no matter how silly it sounds, as we see above.

Now I am going to talk the Water Dept supervisor about the Meter Reader, sorry if that causes a Flood down river.... Sorry I cannot help my self that shit was so stupid.

 

[sharkey]

So in your world talking to the chief about the professional appearance of an officer (dust cover, tats) means it is my opinion tattoos ("but blaming this shooting on curse words or as Renegade opined - tattoos is just a bit ridiculous") caused a shooting 2 years ago in another state?

Tell me, if I talk to the fire chief about a fireman who wears a uniform with salsa or ketchup stains on it, does that mean I think salsa or ketchup causes wildfires in California?

I guess coming from a guy who thinks a prosecutor would want to exclude incriminating evidence this is logical.

Yeah, something is "is just a bit ridiculous"

So I didn't have it wrong. You did make the comment about the tattoos? Yeah I over dramatized a bit implying that you said that the tattoos caused the shooting but my point is that here we are talking about an officer shooting a man for a furtive gesture ( a shooting you say is justified) and you bring up his tattoos like that has anything to do with anything. Of course Chris brings up the dust cover like that has anything to do with anything. I'd love to be that chief you talk to about the officer having tattoos. It would be a great conversation.

As for the prosecutor comment, well I'll go back and re-read your comment. Maybe I got that wrong but don't think I did. To be fair, you posted in the other forum today that blue means republican and red means democrat. Do you remember that.

 

[boomgoesthedynamite]

Tell me, if I talk to the fire chief about a fireman who wears a uniform with salsa or ketchup stains on it, does that mean I think salsa or ketchup causes wildfires in California?

Well, do you have an alibi?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[sharkey]

Well the defense and the judge disagreed, hence whey they petitioned and got it excluded. If it had 0 bearing, they could have left it on gun. Instead they had to tamper the evidence presented to the jury.

Ok, I misread your first sentence. I am big enough to admit it. The defense made a motion to exclude it because they knew it was prejudicial to their client. The prosecution introduced it because they knew it would put the officer in a bad light and that is their job to prosecute. Again it has 0 bearing on the actual shooting and the judge apparently agreed with their motion as he should have.

Now let's go with your last sentence. How did the defense "tamper with the evidence presented to the jury"?

 

[Renegade]

I'd love to be that chief you talk to about the officer having tattoos. It would be a great conversation.

It was a great conversation, though it was with a Lt as I did not see the Chief.

Visible tats are not allowed, but exceptions have been made, one guy has a tattooed wristband. Offensive tats are not allowed anywhere, and nothing on neck or above is allowed.

Modifications to firearms must be approved. Offensive or political inscriptions not allowed, personal ID stuff (badge number, etc) is, certain morale stuff is allowed. Factory Bible quotes are allowed on Trijicon scopes.

I have a great dept. Chief even signed F4s too.

 

[Renegade]

Now let's go with your last sentence. How did the defense "tamper with the evidence presented to the jury"?

Not the defense, but the judge. The homicide weapon is a critical piece of evidence. It was tampered, altered, modified, redacted (choose your word), and not presented to the jury as it was.

Imagine a cop killer with a homicide gun engraved "i am gonna kill a cop today" being excluded from evidence.

You do not want the jury to see the stupid shit you put on your gun, do not put stupid shit on your gun. You do not want to get fired for putting stupid shit on your gun, do not put stupid shit on your gun.

I am in the "Let the jury see ALL the evidence and sort it out camp."

 

[oldag]

 

[BRD@66]

View attachment 126899

Yeah well, that's who we (TGT) are.

 

[AustinN4]

Yeah well, that's who we (TGT) are.

Actually that is a photo from the last range session.

 

[deemus]

How would you know he was unarmed until after the shooting?

It was noted / reported that he had a rifle. You think he might may have stuffed it down his shorts? Seems unlikely.

 

[deemus]

I hear that crap from plastic gun owners. Yet I never see a 1911 jam at the range. None of my do. But almost every single trip I see some tupperware owner with a jamomatic.

I sold my 1911 for that very reason. My buddy was shooting a GLock 21, and me my 1911, shooting rounds out of the same box of ammo. The Glock shot every stinking round, and my 1911 jammed every fourth round.

I sold my 1911 the following weekend, and the weekend after that I bought a Glock 21. Said Glock 21 has never spit the bit, not even once.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

It was noted / reported that he had a rifle. You think he might may have stuffed it down his shorts? Seems unlikely.

It was reported he had a rifle.

Why would your first thought be that he didn't have a pistol in SOB?

 

[deemus]

It was reported he had a rifle.

Why would your first thought be that he didn't have a pistol in SOB?

Valid point.

Honestly, seeing a sobbing man on his belly begging for his life? After seeing his hands behind his back earlier with no gun produced, I likely would not have shot him. But Monday morning QB'ing is easy.

Someone made the comment about the cop's discourse with him being confusing. I think there is something to that. Its pretty easy to confuse a drunk guy. No easy answers on this one, as is the case most of the time.

My dad was a cop for 36 years, so I'm no cop hater. Just a lot of jacked up crap to go around here.

 

[Younggun]

It was a shitty situation all around.

 

[sharkey]

Not the defense, but the judge. The homicide weapon is a critical piece of evidence. It was tampered, altered, modified, redacted (choose your word), and not presented to the jury as it was.

I am in the "Let the jury see ALL the evidence and sort it out camp."

A judge determining what is evidence and what is allowed in court is not defined at "tampering with evidence." There has to be someone (hopefully unbiased and impartial) that determines what is evidence and THAT is the judge. It is not a free for all in a criminal case where the prosecution or the defense get to enter into evidence whatever they want. Again, having an offensive dust cover on your rifle in no way determines whether the shooting is deemed justified or not.

 

[sharkey]

It was a great conversation, though it was with a Lt as I did not see the Chief.

Visible tats are not allowed, but exceptions have been made, one guy has a tattooed wristband. Offensive tats are not allowed anywhere, and nothing on neck or above is allowed.

Modifications to firearms must be approved. Offensive or political inscriptions not allowed, personal ID stuff (badge number, etc) is, certain morale stuff is allowed. Factory Bible quotes are allowed on Trijicon scopes.

I have a great dept. Chief even signed F4s too.

I have no idea what the current policy on tattoos is at my old agency. When I was there, it was no visible tattoos. Why have exceptions been made?

I dunno if changing out your dust cover on your rifle is a modification. That said, as I said on another forum, reprimand the officer because it is offensive but again, it has nothing to do with the shooting.

My point with the tattoos is that though I might find it unprofessional to have tattoos showing on uniformed officers, it is a brave new world and agencies move forward despite what you or I think. It's a lot harder to find qualified applicants when you have a policy that says - no visible tattoos. Obviously there are a lot of good uniform officers that have tattoos.

 

[Charlie Primero]

it is a brave new world and agencies move forward

You really should read this book sometime to understand the Brave New World your acceptance of cultural degeneracy is "progressing forward" towards...

https://www.huxley.net