No one injured when S. Carolina deputy shoots at man 5 times

No one injured when S. Carolina deputy shoots at man 5 times | WCBD News 2: BLUFFTON, S.C. (AP)

The sheriff of a South Carolina county is defending the deputy who shot at a man five times after authorities say the man pointed a pistol at the law enforcement officer. No one was injured. 

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a problem when a L.E.O. shoots at someone who is pointing a gun at him ... and misses?

 Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner tells The Island Packet the initial investigation shows the deputy did nothing wrong during the shooting early Saturday at the Vista View Apartments in Bluffton. 

Well ... the deputy missed his target.   Considering that he was engaging in return fire directed at someone who was shooting at him, there are people who would consider "failure to successfully elimate an active threat" to be the "wrong" response.

( So much for the "The Only Ones Qualified" argument. )

 Tanner says the deputy was not put on leave and remains active. 

That doesn't speak well for a Department which apparently considers "the deputy who can't shoot straight" to be a valuable member of the department.  The article does not suggest that the deputy was required to receive remedial training in firearms accuracy.

A news release says the unnamed deputy investigated when he saw two men sitting in a vehicle in a parking lot. The release says one man fled, and the deputy chased him and found the man lying on the ground, pointing his pistol. The 18-year-old faces several charges, including fleeing to evade arrest.

Assuming that "... (t)he 18-year-old ... " refers to the felon who was arrested for 'pointing his pistol' (presumably at the officer), it seems reasonable that "fleeing to evade arrest" would be the least of the charges; how about "attempted murder of a police officer"?

The duty of a sworn police officer is to uphold the law and go home to his family at the end of his shift.   The Liberal Media may applaud the officer for his humanity in sparing the felon the violent end which he had earned, but the officer failed in his duty; anyone who points a gun at a police officer will shoot a police officer; if not this one, then the next.

And to shoot at a man with a gun five times, and to miss, is to allow that felon to learn to be more heartless the next time he has an officer in his sights.

Who says no one was injured by an officer who failed in his duty?
Ask the next cop who meets that felon over a gunsite.

New Questions arise in Justine Damond death

Justine Damond: Killer cop Mohamed Noor ‘didn’t respect women’ | Daily Telegraph:

On Thursday, Officer Harrity’s lawyer described their fear of being attacked as “reasonable” given a spate of recent cop killings. Mr Noor’s gun was on his lap — and not in his holster — at the time on the incident.

What?  
This adds a whole new perspective to the situation.  It strongly suggests that Noor was not only anticipating, but EXPECTING that he would be attacked.   And it makes one wonder why his partner didn't object to his unprofessional behavior at the time.  Note that the press still refers to "Officer Harrity", but "Mr Noor".

Just one more reason to question why there was no more experienced officer in the patrol car; someone who possessed the experience and judgment ... and seniority ... to suggest that Noor was over-reacting.   As in: Stand Down!

 But claims of an ambush yesterday infuriated Ms Damond’s family, whose newly hired high-profile lawyer told US television they “have no basis in fact” and were “ludicrous”. Lawyer Robert Bennett told CBS that Ms Damond’s family does not want Officer Noor to stay in the force and they are considering a civil lawsuit over her death. “This is an unbelievable situation,” Mr Bennett told CBS yesterday.

On the Other Hand: What?
"claims of an ambush" had "no basis in fact" and were "ludicrous"?

Ms. Damond called TWICE to the police emergency phone number  ... once to report a possible felony assault, and again to make sure the police were on the way.   That sounds to me as if the 911 call suggested that an ambush was possible.   (Which does not excuse Officer Noor's over-reaction .. he obviously did not see a gun ... were there not enough lights in that alley?   Of course, a Policeman's Lot is Not A Happy One.  They are sometimes required to enter dark alleys; that's why they are issued flashlights.)

In the first call at 11.27pm Saturday, she said she feared someone was being raped behind her house in south Minneapolis. Eight minutes later she called again to make sure police were coming.
“Hi, I can hear someone out the back and I’m not sure she’s having sex or being raped,” Ms Damond said at the start of the call, at 11.35pm.

I can understand how the Damond Family would wish "Officer Noor" to be removed from the police force, but I don't understand how the Daily Telegraph can believe two impossible things before breakfast.

“This is an unbelievable situation,” Mr Bennett told CBS yesterday.

And that is the first believable thing I can understand about this entire tragedy.


I think there are three, perhaps four, lessons we can all take from this:

1. Ms Damond, out of a keen sense of social responsibility, made the fatal mistake of entering a possible crime scene which SHE reported; she paid for that mistake (she thought someone was being raped, yet she ran into the alley while wearing her pajamas?) with her life;
2. Officer Noor should never have been allowed out  of the station house without an experienced (read: not gullible) keeper;
3. Officers in a patrol car do not typically carry their duty weapons in their hands; unless they are being fired upon, they usually wait until they exit the patrol vehicle before drawing their duty weapon.  This is called "Don't Shoot Your Buddy", aka "Rule One".   Had Officer Harrity been more experienced, and/or clearly Senior, he might have tool Officer Noor to "Keep Your Pecker In Your Pants, Dude!"  (Or words to that effect.)    This is another of the unfortunate side-effects of the recent spate of patrol officers being murdered
4. The press will print what they have, and if they have nothing to print, they will make it up.  If it bleeds, it leads.   The truth doesn't matter.  Accuracy doesn't matter.   Appropriateness doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is selling newspapers (or hits on a website, or readership, or viewer count ... it's about the numbers, Baby!)

Senior officers need to take command of their individual units; it's not enough to hold the command office, they need to actually command their subordinate officers.   When a patrol officer rides with his gun in his hand, that's something that his superiors need to know about ... and stop!

Responsible Concealed Carry Drivers who are pulled over for a traffic stop

Posted as in informational text for those who carry a concealed weapon.
[H/T: thegunfeed]

If you haven't already seen this article, check it out; it may save you some embarrassment in the future. Even if you think you already know what is 'the right thing to do' if you're stopped by the police while you're legally carrying a firearm on your person, it should reinforce the message:

why be confrontational?

(Introduction from the video:)

"If you conceal-carry, and if you drive and  you're pulled over by a Law Enforcement Officer, what do you do?  What do you do, what are the things you DON'T do, that are going to keep you safe and are going to keep the Law Enforcement Officer safe?"

CPSO: How should you react when pulled over with a firearm in yo - KPLC 7 News, Lake Charles, Louisiana:

The Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office has teamed up with Legally Armed America to create an instructional video on how you should act if you get pulled over and have a firearm. The video demonstrates the difference between a compliant and non-compliant driver. It also explains some dos and don'ts if you have a weapon on you when you get pulled over.

I won't steal the traffic from the original article, so go to the above CPSO link to find the video.

"When you have nothing to gain by being non-compliant ... why be non-compliant?"

The ultimate message, of course, is: "don't be THAT GUY!"

Cops won't use "Deadly Force" because of fear of "social media"

Some police today are so conscious of "Social Media" that they would rather take a beating with bruises than take a beating with social ostracism.

This is "Chi-town"?

Chicago police officer feared using gun while being attacked | abc7chicago.com:

"She thought she was going to die. She knew that she should shoot this guy, but she chose not to, because she didn't want her family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on national news," Supt. Johnson said. 

I know I couldn't do the job.  
Being a police officer .. that's the toughest job in the world. And I'm not "up to it".

But to learn that some police would rather risk their own life, instead of just shooting the asshole who is pummeling them, is something that I've never considered.

 A nearby business captured surveillance video of the incident. The owner didn't see the incident firsthand, but saw how the incident unfolded on the surveillance video.
"It is terrible. It is total disregard for law enforcement. They put their lives forward every day for us and to see somebody do this, to pummel the police officer is terrible. It is a terrible thing," business owner Louie Rainone said.

I want to be proud of this officer, who is willing to give her life at the hands of a brute who thinks nothing of pummeling a sworn officer to the point of ... possible ... death.   But at the same time, I'm appalled that she would make that terrible choice and let this VIOLENT BRUTE go free.

How is it, that we are so conflicted with the duties of our police, that we cannot support them in the execution of their duties?

Why do we ask so much of them, that they are willing to risk death, and accept the certain infliction of pain and Public Mortification, for the sole purpose of protecting their fellow officers from social ostracism?

Can't we just let them do their job, and take into custody the obvious "Bad Guys" without concern for how their legal actions would look bad in the Press?

Since when has the Fifth Estate taken a greater importance than the reasonable imposition of Law and Order?Surely, there are opportunities for sworn officers to abuse the power of their office.

I'm know a number of Police Officers, and I've known them to be honorable, and compliant with the duties of their office.   I live in a small town, in a small state, and perhaps police in other jurisdictions are less ... attendant to the duties of their office.  

But I've never met a police officer who was other than polite, respectful, and competent.