Family mourns man killed in officer-involved shooting

[unfy]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/family-mourns-man-killed-in-officer-involved-shoot/nWfbD/

Brief Synopsis:

70 year old veteran with a clean record calls 911 to report that he had shot and killed a pitbull that attacked him.  He's told to disarm over the phone.  Officers arrive on the scene, the guy's gun is in his waistband.  Officer tells him to relinquish his weapon, which he does not - the officer moves to disarm the man.... man responds by pointing the weapon at the officer.  Officer responds by shooting / killing him.


My own comments: *sigh*

[HuskerXDM]

And it appears he was on his own property when it happened.

[unfy]

'sigh' seems to sum it up best.

Officer probably shouldn't have tried to disarm him, he probably shouldn't have pointed it at the officer, etc.

Basically, tragic.  Dunno about TX law or Houston law for if either person was out of line, but still... just ... sigh

[Husker_Fan]

I would expect any officer would disarm me after I called 911 to report I shot anything.

[CitizenClark]

.

[Phantom]

He was Open carrying on his own Property.

They do still allow Open carry in Texas right ?

Doesn't 911 tell officers any thing ? 
He said he was attacked by the pitbull.
That in it's self should have been a reason why he didn't want to disarm himself.

he wasn't a concealed carry permit holder as far as we know so he might not expect to be disarmed.

He may have thought the officer was trying to confiscate his weapon not just secure it ....I've dealt with officers that had god complexes before in my past.

I can't help thinking in this case the officer Handled this Badly VERY BADLY!.
 

   

[A-FIXER]

The LEO first mistake was trying to take the pistol, he could have asked the fella, '' I understand you adreliene is high and for my safety could you please put the firearm in your home as if the dog was to get up I can handle the problem'' but it sound like the LEO had his weapon drawn , not to say the elderly man wasn't shook up and with no video of him drawing he didn't stand a chance.

[unfy]

The lack of details has had me refraining from defining comments... not knowing the situation and all.

Was the older gentleman addled ? Was the officer over bearing (the afore mentioned god complex) ? What was the conversation between them before the old fella got shot ? Who had their weapon drawn first ? Was there confusion about why he was being asked to disarm (mentioned above as well) ?

Is this an example of what will happen if they attempt a door to door style (obviously not so blatantly) confiscation style thing ?

It's been close to a week, I'll prolly try to dig up updates to the story in next few days.

[Dan W]

They do still allow Open carry in Texas right ?

Texas is not exactly friendly to open carry...they even make it a crime to open carry or inadvertently print with a valid CCW permit.

It is an issue that the Texans have been wrestling with for that last several years, but in any case I would agree that open carry on your own property should have been legal

[gigabelly]

Being a Native Texan, I can tell you that most of the peace officers understand and agree with open carry.  At least out in West Texas where I am from.  Now, I moved here from Houston (A cesspool in my opinion). That is a different world. They are such a large city that they are like most major metro areas, however, they do have the castle doctrine and you can even defend your neighbors home with deadly force if they are out of town.  And, the rules change at night, though I don't recall what the exact difference is, it goes along the lines of shoot first, ask later.

That would be nice here, if we ever HAD to use it.  I would not want to use these rights in any state, for the record, but if I had to defend myself, it would be nice if my government didn't try to imprison me for my self defense.  Taking a life is a tragic event for everyone involved and then the legal ramifications would just make it soooo much worse

[Husker_Fan]

Don't you see a problem with this? Why does the cop have any more right to his gun than you do to yours? If anything, he should be more constrained as a matter of law because he is acting as an agent of the state.

I'm not a big law enforcement cheerleader, but the officer was invited onto the property with a report of at least on shot being fired. No, I don't have a problem with that. He doesn't know if the dog shooting was part of a neighbor feud or other situation. Whether it was the right decision by the officer to ask the man to disarm I don't know.

Even if the officer shouldn't have disarmed him, you don't point a gun at the police and not expect to get shot.

[RedDot]

Just seems like both parties contributed to what ends up being a lose-lose outcome...

[bullit]

gigabelly...nice to know you are fellow Native Texican.....
My two cents after reading ONLY the link provided.  Not sure where "Houston" entered into this unfy.   The incident happened in Austin.  Knowing the specific area of the city where this happened, it would be analogous to this happening in any quiet neighborhood in Lincoln, Omaha, Fremont, etc.  Now a few things to consider....the gentlemen violated a city ordinance discharging a firearm in the city limits.  Been this way going on nigh 40 years.  My cousin who lived not to far from here was cited back in the early '80s while he was in high school when he went out in the backyard and took out a squirrel with a .22 LR.  Anyway, the fact that a firearm was discharged is going to send the PO PO. 
Similar to any one of us being involved in a Self Defense shooting, they are going to arrive and make the scene secure FIRST, then sort out the good guys/bad guys, etc.   Mr. Schaefer's problem occured when "he refused to surrender his gun and then aimed his weapon at the officer, officials said".  Arguing/standing up for rights, etc, etc is not all that LOGICal while having guns aimed back at you by those who gave you a lawful directive.
The man did NOT violate any open carry law as he was on his property, although OC is illegal in Texas.  Whether he had a CHP is irrelevant to the story as reported.  Castle Doctrine, etc really does not apply here.  The fellas problem occurred when he FAILED to comply with the officer's commands....period.  Whether we agree or disagree about rights being violated, etc (I get it), that can be sorted out later, but at least everyone goes home alive.  When he went for his gun, he "asked" for it.  This sad play of events however is no different than what I hope all of you with a NE CHP were told when you took your course.  As mentioned above, if an officer is on the scene and he wants to take "command" the situation, let him.  And please, don't reply back with rogue cops taking over the world fantasy cable TV shows and you gotta right to shoot back, etc. 
Now after spewing my unsolicited comments, 70 ain't that old now that I am 43 .  Wonder however, if he may have been experiencing some form of dementia.

[Hank]

Well said Bullit
I guess the guy couldn`t practice the three S rule.

[wallace11bravo]

Bullit summed up the majority of my thoughts, but I will ad the following:

(As it appears at this time, and likely there is a lot of incorrect, omitted, or unavailable info)

Although the officer followed the Use of Force Continuum; verbal de-escalation from a defensible position would have been a more appropriate response in this situation than attempting to manually disarm a passively resistant but not yet actively hostile contact. Manually disarming someone should generally be a "no other practical option" decision, especially when lethal weapons are involved.

Verbal de-escalation techniques, like many other things, are woefully under-emphasized in law enforcement training for most departments, although LPD is an exception. It will generally get you much further, with much less expense in resources, than manually attaining compliance, and it is more conducive to the Community Based Policing model. I make these claims based on statistics on use of force complaints and their correlation with more emphasis on verbal de-escalation, as well as case examples from LPD.

Emphasizing verbal de-escalation is a two edged sword, however, as it cannot be solely relied upon, and a decent percentage of officers who are wounded or killed by an assailant were put in a position where they failed to escalate their use of force properly. Like most things in training, there is a delicate balance to maintain.

Tried to keep it short and sweet. I was not there, and I am not disparaging this particular officer or his department, but I do feel every situation deserves a solid AAR.

[SS_N_NE]

Am I wrong that pointing a weapon at a person satifies the requirements for the use of deadly force?
If someone pointed a firearm at you for any reason, what would be your response? Survive or not?

[wallace11bravo]

Am I wrong that pointing a weapon at a person satifies the requirements for the use of deadly force?
If someone pointed a firearm at you for any reason, what would be your response? Survive or not?

Assuming the article is correct, the weapon was not even in his hand until the officer attempted manual disarming the individual.

When Whitted went to take the gun, Schaefer pulled it out and aimed it at the officer, Acevedo said. Whitted then shot and killed Schaefer.

[SS_N_NE]

Assuming the article is correct, the weapon was not even in his hand until the officer attempted manual disarming the individual.Quote (selected)When Whitted went to take the gun, Schaefer pulled it out and aimed it at the officer, Acevedo said. Whitted then shot and killed Schaefer.

Isn't "pulled it out and aimed it at the officer"  "in his hand"? I can understand questioning accuracy of an article. But "pulled it out and aimed it" is the point where you decide if your life is threatened no matter how it got to that point.

[wallace11bravo]

Isn't "pulled it out and aimed it at the officer"  "in his hand"? I can understand questioning accuracy of an article. But "pulled it out and aimed it" is the point where you decide if your life is threatened no matter how it got to that point.

Exactly, the weapon was not in his hand until the officer attempted to manually disarm.

As stated before, the officer was fully justified, legally and morally (remembering that morality is just a matter of opinion), however, there may have been better options than trying to manually disarm a passively resistant subject.

http://www.mwts-training.com/training-blog/manuallydisarmingathreat