To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#451
#451
WATCH: Deputy Sobs After Shooting 70-Year-Old Who Grabbed Cane From Truck

Deputy opens fire on a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran after he mistakes the man's cane for a shotgun.


Dramatic dash cam video shows a South Carolina traffic stop gone horribly wrong.

In the video, a deputy opens fire on a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran after he mistakes the man's cane for a shotgun.

Vietnam veteran Bobby Canipe was driving back home to North Carolina from the Daytona 500 in Florida when he was pulled over by a deputy in York County, South Carolina for an expired license plate............
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#453
#453
davethevol said:
After watching that video, I'd chalk it up to being an unfortunate accident and not put too much blame on the cop. I can easily see how that could have been mistaken for a rifle from a distance.
Click to expand...

An innocent man was shot, 6 shots were fired with none returned! There is only one person to blame and it's the trigger happy cop. If 1 round was fired, maybe but with 6, the cop was trying to kill an unarmed man. Attempted murder in my book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#454
#454
hog88 said:
An innocent man was shot, 6 shots were fired with none returned! There is only one person to blame and it's the trigger happy cop. If 1 round was fired, maybe but with 6, the cop was trying to kill an unarmed man. Attempted murder in my book.
Click to expand...

I can see both sides of this. In the video it does look like a firearm of some sorts and the driver did point it right at the deputy. Nighttime under those conditions? It could lead a person to believe there was an imminent threat.

Take off your "I hate cops" glasses for a minute and put yourself in the cops shoes. Did it appear to possibly be a weapon? Just answer that simple question.

The deputy did realize just how wrong he was though in the aftermath. What I didn't think was right was the other responding deputy trying to rationalize it "everything's okay; you did what you had to do" and kept repeating it. That had me a bit bothered.
 
#456
#456
Grand Vol said:
I can see both sides of this. In the video it does look like a firearm of some sorts and the driver did point it right at the deputy. Nighttime under those conditions? It could lead a person to believe there was an imminent threat.

Take off your "I hate cops" glasses for a minute and put yourself in the cops shoes. Did it appear to possibly be a weapon? Just answer that simple question.

The deputy did realize just how wrong he was though in the aftermath. What I didn't think was right was the other responding deputy trying to rationalize it "everything's okay; you did what you had to do" and kept repeating it. That had me a bit bothered.
Click to expand...

First I don't have my "I hate cop glasses" on, I have my reasonable glasses on. I stated if 1 round was fired, I could maybe understand and call it a mistake but MULTIPLE ROUNDS were fired with no return fire!

Two problems I have:

1- The deputy is incompetent and dangerous with a firearm. He fired multiple shots at a pretty much stationary target and scored what? 1 hit? Where did the other rounds go, it was a busy highway.

2- Why did he continue to fire after receiving NO, none, zero return fire?

After the first shot, there is no excuse for the subsequent shots. He was trying to kill the man!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#458
#458
hog88 said:
First I don't have my "I hate cop glasses" on, I have my reasonable glasses on. I stated if 1 round was fired, I could maybe understand and call it a mistake but MULTIPLE ROUNDS were fired with no return fire!

Two problems I have:

1- The deputy is incompetent and dangerous with a firearm. He fired multiple shots at a pretty much stationary target and scored what? 1 hit? Where did the other rounds go, it was a busy highway.

2- Why did he continue to fire after receiving NO, none, zero return fire?

After the first shot, there is no excuse for the subsequent shots. He was trying to kill the man!
Click to expand...

So would a reasonable person, in the dark and after pulling over a vehicle for expired tags, react in a different manner when someone reaches back into a vehicle and pulls out a long wooden object that resembles a firearm? And then points it directly at you.

Go ahead and Monday morning quarterback that one.

And on your other points:

1. You overestimate the proficiency of cops with firearms. I don't need to track this down for you since it's pretty evident in many shooting encounters. Adrenaline flowing, target looked to be about 50-60 feet, nighttime when sights are not as effective. Lots of factors there. Now police marksmanship is a different point for a different thread.

2. How long did it take to fire those six shots? Second and a half? Maybe two at the most? Was there enough time to return fire? Those situations are over in generally less than two seconds. Should he have waited for the person to shoot at him? Never mind, I know your answer to that...
 
#460
#460
Grand Vol said:
So would a reasonable person, in the dark and after pulling over a vehicle for expired tags, react in a different manner when someone reaches back into a vehicle and pulls out a long wooden object that resembles a firearm? And then points it directly at you.

Go ahead and Monday morning quarterback that one.

And on your other points:

1. You overestimate the proficiency of cops with firearms. I don't need to track this down for you since it's pretty evident in many shooting encounters. Adrenaline flowing, target looked to be about 50-60 feet, nighttime when sights are not as effective. Lots of factors there. Now police marksmanship is a different point for a different thread.

2. How long did it take to fire those six shots? Second and a half? Maybe two at the most? Was there enough time to return fire? Those situations are over in generally less than two seconds. Should he have waited for the person to shoot at him? Never mind, I know your answer to that...
Click to expand...

Expired tags, sure sign of a dangerous felon. :eek:lol: You can do better than that.

How about the cop retreat behind cover at least after the first round was fired? But no, this was a spray and pray. Never mind the danger he put the passing motorist in, what would your defense be if a passing child would have been hit by one of those rounds?

Correct, most LEO are incompetent dangerous boobs with a firearm.

Yes the old man had plenty of time to return fire if he had a weapon, he was "pointing it right at the cop as you say, he didn't go down after being hit.

You are flailing at the wind to justify this shooting which I absolutely do not understand. You were never on that side of the blue line!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#464
#464
hog88 said:
Expired tags, sure sign of a dangerous felon. :eek:lol: You can do better than that.

How about the cop retreat behind cover at least after the first round was fired? But no, this was a spray and pray. Never mind the danger he put the passing motorist in, what would your defense be if a passing child would have been hit by one of those rounds?

Correct, most LEO are incompetent dangerous boobs with a firearm.

Yes the old man had plenty of time to return fire if he had a weapon, he was "pointing it right at the cop as you say, he didn't go down after being hit.

You are flailing at the wind to justify this shooting which I absolutely do not understand. You were never on that side of the blue line!
Click to expand...

I have the ability, unlike you, to put myself in the shoes of the officer and see things from his perspective. Unfortunately, your jaded outlook on anything LEO prohibits you from doing that. Because you automatically think he is wrong even if everything was right. And to answer your question, no, there wasn't enough time between the point where the man swept him with the tip of that cane and the time in which the shots were fired.

And expired tags. Vehicle wasn't stolen? How long out of date were they? Were there other suspicious indicators that the report didn't mention? Was the registered owner perhaps someone with known mental deficiencies that came back when the tags were run? Did the deputy order him out of the vehicle or did he get out on his own? Is every criminal going to fit into your profile of a disenfranchised urban black youth?

I can't have these discussions with you because you frankly are worse than anyone on here in looking for the smallest perceptions of wrongdoing on the cops side. And I have the ability to look at this from multiple angles even though you refuse to see that.

Oh, and on that second video you asked me to comment on, did you miss the point where the reporter discussed whether the DA was going to file criminal, yes I said CRIMINAL charges against the officer?

Guess that one slipped by. Very liberal of you to omit facts in your outrage.
 
#465
#465
Grand Vol said:
I have the ability, unlike you, to put myself in the shoes of the officer and see things from his perspective. Unfortunately, your jaded outlook on anything LEO prohibits you from doing that. Because you automatically think he is wrong even if everything was right. And to answer your question, no, there wasn't enough time between the point where the man swept him with the tip of that cane and the time in which the shots were fired.

And expired tags. Vehicle wasn't stolen? How long out of date were they? Were there other suspicious indicators that the report didn't mention? Was the registered owner perhaps someone with known mental deficiencies that came back when the tags were run? Did the deputy order him out of the vehicle or did he get out on his own? Is every criminal going to fit into your profile of a disenfranchised urban black youth?

I can't have these discussions with you because you frankly are worse than anyone on here in looking for the smallest perceptions of wrongdoing on the cops side. And I have the ability to look at this from multiple angles even though you refuse to see that.

Oh, and on that second video you asked me to comment on, did you miss the point where the reporter discussed whether the DA was going to file criminal, yes I said CRIMINAL charges against the officer?

Guess that one slipped by. Very liberal of you to omit facts in your outrage.
Click to expand...

I am slightly jaded against cops, I'll admit that. I just want them held to the same standards as any citizen would be. If this were not a cop he would most certainly been charged without question. When you get ready to pull the trigger you have to be 100% sure! What is wrong with demanding those standards in cops?

And what was the DA's answer? I did miss that.
 
#466
#466
hog88 said:
I am slightly jaded against cops, I'll admit that. I just want them held to the same standards as any citizen would be. If this were not a cop he would most certainly been charged without question. When you get ready to pull the trigger you have to be 100% sure! What is wrong with demanding those standards in cops?
Click to expand...

And that's the point. They are automatically guilty in your mind, evidence be damned. You will Monday morning quarterback each and every decision they make because you have already determined their guilt before even knowing the facts.

And I'll go to my standby of "you cannot expect a citizen to be put into that type of situation."

But you know, let's game this out. Say you are out on your property and you find a vehicle out there with expired tags. You are a private citizen, but hold the landowners rights and the castle doctrine applies. There have been some trespassers lately and perhaps even some theft of your property. You approach the person and they start reaching into the bed of a truck and point an object at you that appears to be a firearm. And you shoot, obviously better than cops because you are an excellent marksman. It turns out to be an old man with a cane that you shot because you thought he was pointing a gun at you.

Wouldn't you want the cops to investigate things from your perspective instead of automatically tossing you into jail?

hog88 said:
And what was the DA's answer? I did miss that.
Click to expand...

Which does prove my point that you are so incensed with outrage before even knowing all the facts of the matter. And since this investigation is ongoing, nothing has been determined yet. Now I'll also say we have a single side to this story. And as always, until ALL the facts are known, it's not possible to pass judgment.
 
#467
#467
Grand Vol said:
But you know, let's game this out. Say you are out on your property and you find a vehicle out there with expired tags. You are a private citizen, but hold the landowners rights and the castle doctrine applies. There have been some trespassers lately and perhaps even some theft of your property. You approach the person and they start reaching into the bed of a truck and point an object at you that appears to be a firearm. And you shoot, obviously better than cops because you are an excellent marksman. It turns out to be an old man with a cane that you shot because you thought he was pointing a gun at you.
Click to expand...

Not trying to completely derail where you're going with this but I believe in most, if not in fact all, states CD does not extend onto one's property. I'm sure there is more consideration given than in "general public" but I think it's still a distinction worth making.
 
#468
#468
hndog609 said:
Not trying to completely derail where you're going with this but I believe in most, if not in fact all, states CD does not extend onto one's property. I'm sure there is more consideration given than in "general public" but I think it's still a distinction worth making.
Click to expand...

Castle doctrine was probably the wrong term, but no duty to retreat/stand your ground actually exists in many States when it comes to property rights.
 
#470
#470
Obsessed said:
It extends out in your yard in Oklahoma
Click to expand...

Castle doctrine? Actually only covers your house and attached structures (garage, carport, etc).

SYG does extend to your property though.

It was in the CCW info packet.
 
#472
#472
hog88 said:
An innocent man was shot, 6 shots were fired with none returned! There is only one person to blame and it's the trigger happy cop. If 1 round was fired, maybe but with 6, the cop was trying to kill an unarmed man. Attempted murder in my book.
Click to expand...


You're a fool.

If a law enforcement officer has reached the point he feels he needs to use deadly force then he uses deadly force. He doesn't try to shoot the gun out of his hand, or just "wing him," or maybe shoot him in the leg, or take a shot and see what happens.

If they are using deadly force they are trying to kill. That is how they are trained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#473
#473
lawgator1 said:
You're a fool.

If a law enforcement officer has reached the point he feels he needs to use deadly force then he uses deadly force. He doesn't try to shoot the gun out of his hand, or just "wing him," or maybe shoot him in the leg, or take a shot and see what happens.

If they are using deadly force they are trying to kill. That is how they are trained.
Click to expand...

Hope you don't use that in court counselor. You are trained to shoot 'til you believe you've "ended the threat". Ending a threat is self-defense, trying to kill is an execution. In the former death may be the result whereas in the latter death is the intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#474
#474
lawgator1 said:
You're a fool.

If a law enforcement officer has reached the point he feels he needs to use deadly force then he uses deadly force. He doesn't try to shoot the gun out of his hand, or just "wing him," or maybe shoot him in the leg, or take a shot and see what happens.

If they are using deadly force they are trying to kill. That is how they are trained.
Click to expand...

You are the fool, no where did I say wing or shoot the gun out of his hand. I stated I might be able to understand 1 shot, not multiple with no return fire. What this demonstrates is the LEO is incompetent with a firearm!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#475
#475
hog88 said:
You are the fool, no where did I say wing or shoot the gun out of his hand. I stated I might be able to understand 1 shot, not multiple with no return fire. What this demonstrates is the LEO is incompetent with a firearm!
Click to expand...

That old man holding his cane looked pretty intimidating there hog.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement

Back
Top