RetArmySgt
Glad to be back.
I dont think that the TASER HPD carries has that kind of range. Maybe one of the Shotgun launched tasers would but I agree with others it was handled properly.
Occupy Houston Man With Rilfe Shot on Video
- Thread starter matefrio
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
What goes up must come down. Those bullets are deadly if they hit someone in the head. I do agree that it's not illegal to carry a rifile in public in Houston unless it's done to incite someone which he was doing.
If he were just carrying the gun and didn't shoot in the air I don't think they would have shot him. If they did then they would have been wrong.
Anyone attempting suicide by cop should be shot in the nuts. They may or may not live depending on how fast they get to a hospital, but I'd bet they'll be regretting their actions the rest of their life either way.
Joseph Bell
Member
It really is dependent of the situation, I have no problem with a CHL holder rushing in to stop a mass shooting, active shooter, etc. However, this appeared to be more of a suicide type situation, other than a hostage or aggressive situation. The video is lacking in context, we really don’t know what took place prior to this, or reasoning’s behind it. However, if I did walk up on a guy holding a rifle to his head and or shooting in the air, I would back off call the police and keep eyes on the situation from a position of cover.
Illegally carrying a rifle downtown is very poor judgement. Discharging a weapon, or holding in a ready to fire position is justification enough if it is public place, and the public is present. The likelihood of any discharge should be suppressed, because a discharge in any direction could have deadly consequences. If police are present the CHL holder should retreat to a safe location. It would difficult for an officer to determine whether or not a second armed individual was an accomplice or not. The officer would be within his rights to engage both armed individuals.
So you are saying that it would be ok to kill him before he committed any crime??
Don't know if he was illegally carrying the weapon. I think his first criminal act was to fire into the water. I don't remember seeing that he intentionally pointed the weapon at a specific individual other than himself.
My point is that any movement of a long gun will probably sweep somebody somewhere in a downtown area. It might have swept that office worker on the 35th floor of an office building 1/2 mile away. Kinda like guns in the showcases at stores, that have the muzzles pointing toward the sales floor, you cannot avoid sweeping the customers, to some extent when you move it out of the case. You can avoid doing it once you clear the cabinet. People get swept at gun shows all the time when they pick up a rifle from a table to inspect it, considering the thing is laying there with hundreds of people walking by it all the time. Once you touch it, the muzzle is probably pointing at yourself and others behind you.
You have an uphill battle if you are going to try to make that argument for the dead guy in question.
Its the totality of the circumstances.
At a gun show and someone inspecting a gun sweeps you on accident is completely different from a lunatic waving an AK around downtown Houston where no gun show is occuring and ignoring police who are trying to get him to put it down.
For this guy...in this case, this isnt even a grey area.....this is black and white.
Its the totality of the circumstances.
At a gun show and someone inspecting a gun sweeps you on accident is completely different from a lunatic waving an AK around downtown Houston where no gun show is occuring and ignoring police who are trying to get him to put it down.
For this guy...in this case, this isnt even a grey area.....this is black and white.
Check your facts, guy is not dead. Shot in ankle.
There are numerous threads on here where people have said about how legal it is to carry a rifle and walk downtown if they wanted to.
Texan2 wrote:
and
It was you that said intend does not matter. Now you are saying that an accident is ok? Don't get your logic on that one. Do we have any proof that he did not "accidentally" sweep anyone, did he intentionally sweep people, or directly point a loaded weapon at an individual with intent to do harm? I don't think the video shows that he swept anyone, except himself,other than by accident.
There was something wrong with this guy, and I think he was at least a threat to himself. He could possibly have become a threat to others, but without proof of that, I can't justify the stance some have of just killing him.
I think that if you were a CHL holder and shot him for just carrying a rifle while walking the streets you would be in deep trouble.
I think that if you were a CHL holder and shot him for discharging the rifle into the pond, you would be is less trouble, but still in hot water.
Does the type of rifle have any bearing on this? (BTW my previous post about it being an AK was a joke, it was most likely a pistol caliber carbine like a KelTech in .40 S&W)
Had it been a historic muzzleloader from the civil war, his grandpa's SXS 12 gauge, evil black sniper rifle, or a .22 LR would it have made any difference? Please don't take the same stand the anti-gunners do and say it does.
Fortunately we have a legal system that attempts to get to the bottom of these things, and sometimes works.
You are taking my quotes out of context.
In as far as he was in that downtown Houston spot, it doesn't matter if it was intentional. He was waving a rifle around in what any ration person would consider a threatening manner. It was not the type of circumstance, such as a gin show where there is no threat implied when you pick up a gun.
He wasn't "possibly a threat" he WAS a threat. Action beats reaction. You dont wait for him to shoot someone to act. He showed that he was not rational nor was he listening to commands by LE. He was waving a gun around in a threatening manner.
As far as my facts being straight....shot in the ankle or dead, I didnt follow the story, just watched the video.
Im am flabergasted that there is a thread that argues this guy wasn't an imminent deadly threat.
If the cops hadnt shot him and he shot some innocent civilian, we would hear how the cops didnt do their job and take him out.
In as far as he was in that downtown Houston spot, it doesn't matter if it was intentional. He was waving a rifle around in what any ration person would consider a threatening manner. It was not the type of circumstance, such as a gin show where there is no threat implied when you pick up a gun.
He wasn't "possibly a threat" he WAS a threat. Action beats reaction. You dont wait for him to shoot someone to act. He showed that he was not rational nor was he listening to commands by LE. He was waving a gun around in a threatening manner.
As far as my facts being straight....shot in the ankle or dead, I didnt follow the story, just watched the video.
Im am flabergasted that there is a thread that argues this guy wasn't an imminent deadly threat.
If the cops hadnt shot him and he shot some innocent civilian, we would hear how the cops didnt do their job and take him out.
Quote from Chronicle article:
"Twohig, who has no known association with the Occupy Houston movement, walked into the park about 5:15 p.m. Monday dressed in a black suit and carrying a .40-caliber rifle, authorities said.
He fired into the air before heading over to a nearby pedestrian bridge, firing into a pond and pointing the weapon at people in the park, police said.
Two HPD special operation bike patrol officers arrived quickly and told Twohig to drop the weapon, but he refused and said, "Shoot me! Shoot me!" according to witnesses and police.
A witness started recording the incident, and police said the video shows the gunman standing on the bridge over the pond, holding a gun to his head. Police yelled at the gunman to drop his weapon, but he moved toward them, according to police.
The officers fired at Twohig, and he fell to the ground, but he stood back up and reached for his rifle and was shot again, police said. None of his injuries was life threatening.
No one else was injured"
His actions showed that he was well beyond the point of questioning whether or not deadly force was called for or not. He was most likely planning much more than what he did, glad he got stopped when he did.
WTF - can't one bullet out of all those fired find the heart, spine or brain???
I think the video clearly shows that the cops did all they could to stop him prior to shooting him. He had a death wish IMO.
"Twohig, who has no known association with the Occupy Houston movement, walked into the park about 5:15 p.m. Monday dressed in a black suit and carrying a .40-caliber rifle, authorities said.
He fired into the air before heading over to a nearby pedestrian bridge, firing into a pond and pointing the weapon at people in the park, police said.
Two HPD special operation bike patrol officers arrived quickly and told Twohig to drop the weapon, but he refused and said, "Shoot me! Shoot me!" according to witnesses and police.
A witness started recording the incident, and police said the video shows the gunman standing on the bridge over the pond, holding a gun to his head. Police yelled at the gunman to drop his weapon, but he moved toward them, according to police.
The officers fired at Twohig, and he fell to the ground, but he stood back up and reached for his rifle and was shot again, police said. None of his injuries was life threatening.
No one else was injured"
His actions showed that he was well beyond the point of questioning whether or not deadly force was called for or not. He was most likely planning much more than what he did, glad he got stopped when he did.
WTF - can't one bullet out of all those fired find the heart, spine or brain???
I think the video clearly shows that the cops did all they could to stop him prior to shooting him. He had a death wish IMO.
It's a matter of when lines were crossed, and how each of us view where those line are in our own mind.
When some have posted that they would have killed him, was at a point prior to his not responding to police commands.
Situation changed when the police told him to disarm. If you think it would have been ok for a CHL holder to have shot him dead while the police were dealing with him, ok fine, not my opinion. Prior to police arriving he had not ignored their commands.
When was it ok to kill him???
When he first got out of his car, or whatever with the rifle?
When he loaded it, if someone saw him, or he did it downtown?
When he first grabbed it by the area where the trigger is located?
When he first put his finger into the trigger?
When he carelessly allowed the muzzle to wave around in the air?
When he pointed it at his own head?
When he negligently discarded a round into the pond?
When he intentionally discharged a round into the pond?
When he did not respond to a command to put the gun down from someone he did now know was LEO?
When he did not respond to a command by a known to him police officer?
When he did not respond to commands by police in a timely manner?
Obviously some people were not all that overly threatened, they stood around and took a video of the deal.
It's a slippery slope. We are not always possessed with infallible clairvoyance in these situations.
edit, I did not read the same article where it said he had pointed it at people, and still don't know if that is true and if he was deliberate in those actions, or just media hype. I think he was more of a threat to himself than others.
Pure conjecture, with zero basis of fact. If he had planned to do much more, then why did he not? If had wanted to shoot people, he had every opportunity to do that, and did not. Don't think that was his intent, but he had to do something to make the use deadly force against him in a suicide attempt appear justifiable.
(Got to go, be back after gun show.)
When some have posted that they would have killed him, was at a point prior to his not responding to police commands.
Situation changed when the police told him to disarm. If you think it would have been ok for a CHL holder to have shot him dead while the police were dealing with him, ok fine, not my opinion. Prior to police arriving he had not ignored their commands.
When was it ok to kill him???
When he first got out of his car, or whatever with the rifle?
When he loaded it, if someone saw him, or he did it downtown?
When he first grabbed it by the area where the trigger is located?
When he first put his finger into the trigger?
When he carelessly allowed the muzzle to wave around in the air?
When he pointed it at his own head?
When he negligently discarded a round into the pond?
When he intentionally discharged a round into the pond?
When he did not respond to a command to put the gun down from someone he did now know was LEO?
When he did not respond to a command by a known to him police officer?
When he did not respond to commands by police in a timely manner?
Obviously some people were not all that overly threatened, they stood around and took a video of the deal.
It's a slippery slope. We are not always possessed with infallible clairvoyance in these situations.
edit, I did not read the same article where it said he had pointed it at people, and still don't know if that is true and if he was deliberate in those actions, or just media hype. I think he was more of a threat to himself than others.
Pure conjecture, with zero basis of fact. If he had planned to do much more, then why did he not? If had wanted to shoot people, he had every opportunity to do that, and did not. Don't think that was his intent, but he had to do something to make the use deadly force against him in a suicide attempt appear justifiable.
(Got to go, be back after gun show.)
Really???? You're obviously NOT reading, you're just aimlessly shooting your words around just like he was pointing is gun; with no clue whatsoever.............
Easy indeed; just wish the cops had better shot placement.
To me, at the point that a weapon was directed in a threatening manner toward any third party, he has crossed the line and is subject to deadly force. Period. Time and again folks (both LEO's and civilians) have been no-billed by GJ's after a shooting, even when the perceived "weapon" turned out in fact NOT to be a firearm, etc.
You, as an unknown individual, act aggessively and then point a gun at me on a downtown street, you WILL cause me to engage you will deadly force. Now...before all you armchair lawyers out there toss in the caveats, there are a ton of 'em. I have had weapons - KNOWN TO BE LOADED - pointed in my direction (and literally in my face), and chose to "talk 'em down" rather than engage. Each incident WILL be different, and must be judged on the totality of the events leading up to the decision to shoot. IMO, at the point that the idiot discharged his gun he was subject to being shot, and not doing so immediately shows the great restraint the officers exercised.
You, as an unknown individual, act aggessively and then point a gun at me on a downtown street, you WILL cause me to engage you will deadly force. Now...before all you armchair lawyers out there toss in the caveats, there are a ton of 'em. I have had weapons - KNOWN TO BE LOADED - pointed in my direction (and literally in my face), and chose to "talk 'em down" rather than engage. Each incident WILL be different, and must be judged on the totality of the events leading up to the decision to shoot. IMO, at the point that the idiot discharged his gun he was subject to being shot, and not doing so immediately shows the great restraint the officers exercised.
SWJewellTN
Active Member
Exactly: isolate, negotiate, tazer. This is murder IMHO.
- Status
