No Charges For Deputy Who Shot Homeowner From Outside the Home

Courtesy Greenville County Sheriff and YouTube

Back in July, I wrote about in incident in South Carolina where a deputy shot a homeowner from outside the man’s home. Now, local authorities have opted not to charge the deputy in the shooting.

The Greenville News has the story:

A Greenville County deputy who shot a Simpsonville homeowner through his front-door window has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

The State Law Enforcement Division investigated the shooting and submitted findings to the state Attorney General’s Office, which recommended that no criminal charges be filed against Deputy Kevin Azzara.

“It is my legal opinion that the officer used lawful force under the circumstances. As such, we are not recommending initiation of criminal charges against the officer,” Jerrod Fussnecker, an assistant attorney general, wrote in a disposition letter to SLED that was obtained by The Greenville News.

Initially, the department’s public information officer Lt. Ryan Flood said this of the incident in a video interview to Fox Carolina:

…”The deputy was soon greeted by the homeowner who immediately jerked open the door, presented a handgun and pointed it directly at the deputy. At which time the deputy fired at least one shot, striking the occupant.”

The Sheriff’s office put forth that narrative for 45 days…until it released bodycam video of the incident. That laid bare the department’s utterly false narrative.

Here it is. NSFW (audio, graphic injury).

And now the local State’s Attorney has decided not to file charges against the officer.

The Greenville News reports that the officer didn’t even face internal discipline from his department.

Tench has recovered slowly, and one bullet will remain permanently lodged in his body, Ashmore has told The News. He spent the first 30 days of his recovery with both bullets in his body, he said.

Prior to the SLED investigation’s completion, Azzara was cleared of any policy violations through an internal-affairs investigation with the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office.

The homeowner will pursue his civil claim for damages in court. Meanwhile the rest of us should take away a valuable lesson.

As I wrote earlier:

I know a lot of gun owners and pretty much without exception, if you show up un-announced late at night, the person answering the door (not necessarily opening the door, but merely answering it) will have tooled up before doing so.

As such, we all risk being shot if seen through windows while holding a gun. So the moral of the story: Don’t allow visitors a clear line of sight into your home from the exterior.

While Dick Tench may never recover completely, if we can avoid injury ourselves by learning from his experience, that will have to qualify as a win.

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    Dont think oirdinary people will get the same considerations. Nor a hug from a judge after conviction.

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      Exactly this. I’m wondering if I should go through the Sheriff Academy on the volunteer/honorary program so I can be quasi-deputized and get with the same punitive immunity.

      On a more serious note, though, the DA opted against charges even for the lies on the LEO’s report? So what’s the lesson to be learned here?

      1. avatar Arc says:

        The lesson: DAs and pigs are just another flavor of criminal.

        1. avatar De bee says:

          Look up a case 10 years or so ago in Hollywood ca when officer went to a loud party call late Halloween night walked down a dark side driveway to the back of the house having never rung the door bell and he gunned down someone he could see at the party in the brightly lite house dressed as a cowboy “draw his gun” ( I am sure the dead guy never saw the cop and never knew what hit him). Cop got off

      2. avatar In for a Penny, In for a pound says:

        Gusty-“So what’s the lesson to be learned here?”

        The lesson is if you are not known felon that if the police are on your property to invoke your Second Amendment on them with a rifle or shotgun slugs. Since, there aren’t Kevlar masks, a .22lr up top would defend Liberty just fine as well.

        1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          Another lesson – get rid of those ridiculous side windows around the doors of your house. Why in the hell do you want ANYONE to be able to look into your house and see what you are doing. If that home had nothing but the solid door, the homeowner could have questioned whoever was at the front door.

          Biggest problem is that cops don’t care about you or your rights – this officer was completely in the wrong for shooting through that window without identifying himself and should have been charged and convicted of lying, falsifying documents, and aggravated assault and attempted murder. The only reason that a cops job is difficult is because most of them are not intelligent enough to be doing that job.

    2. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      From “The Structure of Criminal Justice”
      “The major components of the justice system
      The justice system’s major components—police, courts, and corrections—prevent or deter crime by apprehending, trying, and punishing offenders.
      Police departments are public agencies whose purposes are to maintain order, enforce the criminal law, and provide services. Police officers operate in the community to prevent and control crime. They cooperate with prosecutors in criminal investigations, gathering evidence necessary to obtain convictions in the courts.”
      Police work for the justice system and thus are on the same team as the prosecution. After the Texas conviction, these prosecutors did not want to see one of their own convicted again, as is likely if they took this case to trial, so they opted not to charge. That, unfortunately is the prosecutor’s prerogative; however the prosecutor does not make the law and their interpretation of the law does not set precedent, only the courts have that mandate. Unfortunately, many will interpret the actions (inaction) of the prosecutor as law and many will be emboldened to emulate the actions of this officer.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        In case anyone misinterprets me, only the legislature makes the law.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In case anyone misinterprets me, only the legislature makes the law.”

          Nah, you had it right the first time.

        2. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Well “Court made law” is definitely a thing in our system. I’m not sure on the data behind it but I’ve read that actually a *majority* of our laws are actually court made law. Which either way, I’ve always found that court made law is a strange thing in our constitutional republic. Court made law is a very British style of law making and I would’ve expected that would be one of the things this country would want to do away with. But it has not. I’ve also wondered why there’s seemingly no drive to do away with court made law here.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But it has not. I’ve also wondered why there’s seemingly no drive to do away with court made law here.”

          Political cover. Serves everyone but the citizenry well.

        4. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          Sorry, I forgot the rule about [sarc]

        5. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Well, only the legislature writes down the actual words that later become law, but that’s nowhere near the whole story.

          The executive branch interprets the law on a daily basis. First, the executive branch does so when deciding whom to arrest and whom to prosecute. Those decisions can vary widely from the text of the actual law. That isn’t technically the executive branch making the law, but they surely are molding your experience of the law in real life, which in the moment is the more relevant power.

          Second, many laws use intentionally ambiguous terms or at least provide the executive branch with latitude to write the implementing regulations. For example, many laws prescribe that something be “safe” or meet “reasonable” standards. It’s up to the executive branch to assign numbers and details against which real life actions will be compared for legality. In that case, the executive branch does write if not the actual law, then at least the fine print standard of the law you’re held to account to. That’s what matters. We see this in enforcement actions, but also in agency written opinions, as with the bump stock re-imagination of the law.

          Then there are state Attorney General opinions, which vary by state. In Texas, they’re persuasive, but not controlling, upon courts. They can provide an affirmative legal defense where the law does not explicitly provide one, if you abide by them and later face legal action. They can demonstrate your lack of acting in good faith if you act contrary to them. So in this way, the executive branch is making law, in practical terms.

          It’s all very complicated. Bottom line is that it’s more complex than the simple separation of powers paradigm one’s high school civics textbook teaches.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The guy didn’t die and he wasn’t black so we’re all good.

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Another win for cops going home safe after shift. As to the last sentence in the article, holding a gun inside a home does not ever constitute an imminent threat to people outside. This episode, regardless of “lesson learned” is not a “win” for lawful gun owners.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “As to the last sentence in the article, holding a gun inside a home does not ever constitute an imminent threat to people outside.”

      Amend this to “does not usually” and I would agree with you entirely.

      The cops need some leeway on this a “zero tolerance” policy in either direction ignores reality. However, in pursuit of that reasonable policy that results in people actually, I dunno, maybe kinda trusting law enforcement… this dude needs to get nailed to a cross.

      Sorry, unless the “reasonable man” test has become the “reasonable trigger-happy-subhuman-moron-with-poor-eyesight-and-a-anxiety-problem” test this guy should, bare minimum, be out of a job.

      I’d have a lot more sympathy for the cop if he’d apologized.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Amend this to “does not usually” and I would agree with you entirely.”

        Understand your line of thought, but….

        Can’t think of a circumstance where the mere holding of a gun poses an imminent threat. Pointing at the closed door? No. Looking through the window? No. Pointing the gun at the window? No (lotsa circumstances where pointing that gun at a window threatens no one).

        This is stacking up to be a “I shot him because he might do something, at some moment, that may put me at risk; shoot first, ask questions later.” (or….”Guns first, due process later.”)

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          In this particular case I agree with your assessment.

          However I did have the pleasure of having a neighbor who was a drug dealer and an outright racist. He definitely pointed a gun AT ME through a window with the intent to frighten me. That’s a crime window or no.

          The next day was the day he flashed that same pistol at me and my friend, and stated to us point blank “You white boys gonna get what you deserve”. Another clear threat of violence. That was also the day he learned what “Peace through superior firepower” means.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “He definitely pointed a gun AT ME through a window with the intent to frighten me. That’s a crime window or no.”

          Sabolutey !! Agree with you there.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Generally I’m just not a fan of hard ROE that fail to take into account the nuance of potential situations.

          I mean a known criminal points a gun through a window at the cop and the cop has to wait to get shot before firing back? Common, no but possible and certainly the kind of thing that will get cops all agitated and shit.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I mean a known criminal points a gun through a window at the cop and the cop has to wait to get shot before firing back?”

          Not at all. My concept is that without imminent threat, cops are no more justified in shooting suspects than are legal gun owners. Somehow, we, the country, are edging to some sort of idea that cops need a safety zone around decisions that are not permitted the private citizen who is faced with the possible use of a firearm in defense.

          So if police are at my front door, knocking, and I am standing in my living room, peering through the picture window, pointing a gun outward, yet not at police, just standing there with my gun, cops should not be allowed to shoot on a “maybe”.

          If the situation were to be that I am on your doorstep, knocking, and you are at the window pointing a gun somewhere other than at me, I have no justification to draw and fire at you “in self-defense”. In such a situation, I am at worse disadvantage than a cop on a mission. The cop anticipates the potential for an armed confrontation, and “is ready”. I am not on a mission, just knocking, as in returning your garbage can that fell into the street. I am not condition red or black. Being less anticipatory than the cop on mission, my decision regarding whether to draw and fire will be subject to the highest level of skeptical review, “What happened to make you feel imminently threatened, and justified to use deadly force?” Answer, “The guy had a gun pointed out the window, away from me, and I didn’t want to wait to be shot before responding.” Why should a non-threatened cop be allowed to shoot on a “maybe”?

          Put this in a more related context: Cop on mission arrives at the front door and knocks. Without immediate response, the cop moves to the window and sees me pointing my gun at the front door, standing a few feet back. The cop is at the oblique, no longer “in the line of fire”. Does the situation justify the cop shooting the through the window at the homeowner? Where is the imminent threat? Can, should, the cop back away, return to the vehicle and radio for assistance? Is there a reasonable alternative to shooting on a maybe?

        5. avatar Reno1947 says:

          Cops do need a wall of protection its called a wall of lead

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Cops do need a wall of protection its called a wall of lead.”

          You’re talking outbound, right?

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam, we’re in agreement on this.

          What I’m saying is that if such a “window rule” was made you know it would be made by lawyers and bureaucrats with no real-world experience would find a way to make the rule “Under no circumstances may you…” or find some even worse way to fuck it up. And that’s just stupid.

          If the cop (or anyone else) can rationally justify opening fire under the same standards as a *regular* civilian, then I’d say it’s good to go. That means that they can articulate a rational reason for believing that death or great bodily harm was eminent to themselves or someone they fired to protect and that firing their gun was a prudent thing to do under the circumstances. The standard for that should be the same for LE.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The standard for that should be the same for LE.”

          Yeah, well….cops are highly trained, so they should be given more leeway than citizens.

      2. avatar arc says:

        An apology is an admission of guilt.

      3. avatar Red says:

        Disagree. Unlike the practice for many decades, police now shoot first and ask questions later. They have no respect for lives other than their own. Chalk it up to the police becoming militarized and WE are the enemy.

      4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “I’d have a lot more sympathy for the cop if he’d apologized.”

        I’ll wager they are taught to *never* apologize for *anything* while in uniform.

        Why give the defense lawyer some free potent ammunition for acquittal in court?

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          What is the best legal option and what is right are often two very different things.

    2. I have a CCW, and if someone comes to my door, I do not open it and stand directly behind if, my weapons is holstered, and never in plain sight. But I can have it in my hand in less then 2 Seconds and I carry with a round chambered and safety on. You come to my dorr without any kind of warrant and your not coming in period, police or no police.

      1. avatar John Parker says:

        Agreed. Best to avoid contact with police on your property when they don’t have a warrant. In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that:

        1) Police have no obligation to protect citizens beyond that which the police themselves decide.

        2) Police are not required to have an understanding of the laws they’re tasked with enforcing.

        3) Police can break the law to enforce the law.

        4) If police lie when interviewed about what happened, it cannot be used as evidence against them in criminal proceedings.

  3. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    So this finding abrogates South Carolina’s “Stand Your Ground” law for certain protected class of people. Since there are other protected classes I wonder what other classes are covered here?

  4. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Just another cop who should die in prison but is getting away with his crimes.
    It is past time to disarm all cops. Citizens ahould be armed, not government employees.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Shouldn’t they be held to a higher standard? They have more training (legal, mental, physical) than we ignorant peasants do.
      What’s the history on the homeowner? Is he a known crazy violent domestic abuser that just got out on parole?

      1. avatar RCC says:

        Victoria
        From linked article cop went to wrong address. Couldn’t figure out how to read street number let alone that there was obviously nothing happening at the house.

        1. avatar Omer says:

          So I guess training officers receive does not include basic math or number recognition.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Several years ago, the residents of one of our neighbors across the street did something that caught the police’s attention and brought a car and two uniforms. Problem is, the two cops couldn’t read the clearly posted address numbers on the front of the houses, and went to the next house inhabited by an elderly woman in her early 80s. For the next ten minutes, we watched as they berated and humiliated her by insisting that she was harboring their wanted person in her home. When she finally understood where the confusion lay and informed them that they were at the wrong house, they simply walked off her porch without any apology whatsoever.

          True story. It disgusted me for a long time afterward and has affected the way I interact with LEOs now.

        3. avatar Flying Fish says:

          @Haz
          When faced with similar situation as your neighbor, they did not apologize either, they just simply arrested me. Oops!

      2. avatar Red says:

        They have training all right: To shoot us first and ask questions afterwards, because they have a few hand to do so.

      3. avatar SoBe says:

        As a physician I am held to a higher standard, Good Samaritan laws not withstanding. If you (assuming you are not a healthcare provider) and I independently stumble upon a person in need of CPR and assuming you have never been CPR trained and that I am CPR-D healthcare provider and ACLS professional provider certified you can bet if any untoward complications result, even if you just punched the victims chest haphazardly and called 911, vs., I provide full CPR and ACLS with all adjuncts and medications, we will be held to a different standard, and unlike the police case presented, in my example the more highly trained person will be held to the higher standard. Even if my actions were more likely to save that person’s life.
        For this reason I agree that the police should be held to a higher, not lower standard.

        1. avatar sparkyinWI says:

          It would be nice if that was the case. It is the case in almost any other profession so not sure why the folks we as a society authorize to carry a gun and have a badge are not held to higher standards. And even more disappointing many of them do not believe that they should be held to a higher standard or that any of their actions or decisions should be reviewed in hindsight.

          Yet pretty much any other profession or service has its actions, its services, its decisions reviewed in hindsight.

  5. avatar Mark N. says:

    I suspect that his civil rights action against the officer (who will be protected by the Department’s insurance policy) will be successful. I am guessing that the officer was cleared of charges not because he did not act negligently (he did) but to protect the department itself from liability on civil rights claims that could be leveled against it for inadequate training and supervision. Part of the story that is elided here, as I recall, is that the officer had no reason to be at that house (i.e. wrong address), and he did not have a warrant to enter for any reason. Add to that is that it is undeniable that we have the right to be armed inside our homes, and the officer does not have the right to shoot through the window or door because he FEARS what might happen when the door opens.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I recall this story clearly, and consider it as another example of the importance of having blinds/curtains closed at night so as to disallow any line-of-sight into your home. You never know if anyone (LEO or criminal) is lurking outside with their own weapon.

      ESPECIALLY when walking through your home with a weapon to investigate something.

      1. avatar arc says:

        Leo and criminals are one in the same.

      2. avatar balais says:

        Absolutely.

        Make your home a fortress. Steel up the door jambs, security film the windows and blind them, install cameras, invest in quality locks, install good lighting. Personally, I built a fucking brick wall around my house with a gate because I got tired of the bullshit (solicitors, etc), even though that route is very expensive compared to the other more reasonable options I listed above.

        And I know its not related to this case, but never answer the door. Fuck em.

    2. avatar sparkyinWI says:

      Yet the past year or so has numerous incidents where officers have a shot a person because they “saw a movement that looked like it could be a draw stroke” or some other BS like this.

      For example, the SWAT team in KS that went to the “swatted” house did that and shot a person living in that house dead, no accountability for the officers. An officer in Milw in the past two weeks drew on and shot at a person who made what looked like to him a draw stroke, missed, and shot a by-stander.

      Neither one ever saw a weapon or real deadly threat in either case. They just assumed one because of how they interpreted an arm movement. If I as a CCW drew on and shot someone off a movement I thought was maybe a draw stroke, my new residence would be sing-sing.

      Something is lacking. It may be training, it may be the material of the officers they are hiring now, do not know. One thing that I do know is lacking is accountability. If there was real accountability there would be less of this type of thing happening.

      Tom Givens and Chuck Haggard as trainers for example heavily emphasis your accountability for every round. For perhaps needing to change your position from where you shoot even due to what is behind someone you might need to engage. To the distance you are at, all sorts of things because if you miss or if a round goes through the bad guy; you cannot just have it go into the Walmart behind them for example. So why LE are not training to and following this standard is beyond my understanding.

  6. avatar Xaun Loc says:

    If the homeowner were black and the cop white, we’d be seeing federal charges brought, but since that isn’t the case here it’s all business as usual.

  7. avatar Otto Lode says:

    I’ve had cops pounding on my door at 3am saying my phone dialed 911 back when I actually had no phone not even a landline (I was in an RV) and when I turned on my blinding porch light the cops started cussing me out for blinding them !

    In this case the cop needs to be disposed of I sure wish the wife met him with a 12 gauge or heavy caliber to penetrate his armor we cannot have chitbag cops like this in our neighborhoods I pray this POS pig gets a slow bleedout ASAP

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “I’ve had cops pounding on my door at 3am saying my phone dialed 911…”

      I’ve had 911 call me on my cell phone to ask me why I called 911. I told the 911 person that it would have been impossible for me to do so, because she just woken me up. I was working rotating shifts at that time.

      Is that a common thing to happen?

  8. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Scumbag cop deserves two bullets in his dumbass. Eye for an eye.

    If it were reversed, and the homeowner shot the cop, the homeowner would be serving life in prison (that is if the cops buddies didnt murder him first).

  9. avatar RB says:

    Another example why you need a front door camera at a minimum. Plus security screen to talk through.

    Qualified immunity should go. A really bad court decision in 1982. If police were personally liable for their actions I suspect a lot would think more about what they are doing.

    All uniformed police should have body cameras. If the camera “mysteriously” stops no charges can be laid. In one of the more outrageous Chicago cases I think it was 19 cameras suddenly failed.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      “In one of the more outrageous Chicago cases I think it was 19 cameras suddenly failed”

      Is that the one where they were basically using the guy for slow-fire target practice after he collapsed on the road?

    2. avatar Merle 0 says:

      Not a bad idea. Also a good idea is to have a tall fence with a locked gate at the entrance to your property. Chain link or privacy. I’d prefer chain link because you can see what’s going on. That will at least give you some stand off. Throwing in some cameras with the ability to talk through would be a great bonus. Also while people laugh at the tacticool crowd, why not add in a vest? I keep a vest with plates at the ready (if you have time to put it on of course).

    3. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Agreed on a front door camera, the kind that detects motion, alerts your phone app and lets you talk through it. I have Kuna/Maximus motion detection light cameras around my home.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Agreed on a front door camera, the kind that detects motion, alerts your phone app and lets you talk through it.”

        If that camera is a ‘Ring’ camera, you may want to ditch it :

        https://www.cnet.com/news/you-shared-ring-footage-with-police-they-may-share-it-too/

  10. avatar Ark says:

    Should have tried eating ice cream first.

    If the homeowner was black, this case would have gone VERY differently. But, he’s a middle aged white guy, the lowest-value demographic, so.

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      If the homeowner was black he could have started the shooting and the media would still be calling for the cops head.

      But it’s a white guy so nothing to see here.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        The only white on white violence people like to talk about is school shootings. Even Republicans don’t like to talk about police shootings.

  11. avatar CLarson says:

    Yeah, scumbags (whether they wear a badge or not) shouldn’t be able to see you before you can see them. It’s your house, make sure its actually a castle.

  12. avatar MMurcek says:

    The type that wants a badge wants it for exactly this reason.

  13. avatar John says:

    So anyone seen with a gun is shot on sight even on private property?

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      You don’t have permission to have a gun around a cop. They can take your gun from you for officer safety according to the supreme court.

      You no longer effectively have the right to own and carry guns nor use them in defense against the state or even criminals. Public safety is more important. Police are the only ones that are allowed by society to run around with guns and enforce justice.

      Guns are now for sport and hunting. You don’t need a gun to protect life, liberty and property. It’s illegal in many cases to use a gun in an offensive manner.

      So, yes, anyone without a government uniform will be shot if the government decides they should be shot.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        You don’t have permission to have a gun around a cop. They can take your gun from you for officer safety according to the supreme court.

        Er, no. That’s not correct. Under Terry v Ohio, “Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous.”

        Merely being armed is insufficient. An officer must have specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is not merely armed, but also and separately, dangerous.

        Now, the Fourth Circus made a tenuous argument in US v Robinson that “armed and dangerous” means “armed, therefore dangerous”, but to my knowledge, SCOTUS has not ruled thus. SCOTUS is too busy letting the circus courts make a mockery of their gun-related decisions with impunity.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Legally and practically speaking are two different things. No, the police cannot disarm random people walking down the street. But if you are detained for pretty much any reason you would have a great deal of difficulty challenging a LEO’s decision to disarm you as long as you are lawfully detained.

      2. avatar Merle 0 says:

        I think we’re getting a little over board here with all that. For the record I think this situation is disgusting too. I’m not personally familiar with that area but I’ve lived in the south my whole life and very few LE really care about people who carry. I’ve open carried around LE in Georgia without issue several times. I’ve been stopped while conceal carrying in FL a couple times, each time the conversation went in depth about our favorite guns. I get that other areas of the country aren’t like the south and that even in the south you have some hyper liberal jurisdictions but there’s no need to declare we should all fear carrying because of LE.

        1. avatar Flying Fish says:

          I don’t live in Broward County, but was involved in a horrendous automobile accident that I am still not sure how I survived uninjured, traveling into Broward. Someone totaled my car on a main highway. In Florida were are not obliged to disclose CCW status until asked, but many knowledgeable lawyers have advised me doing so before asked is a smarter option. As soon as the first, then the second FHP officers arrived I immediately informed them that I was carrying. They did not ask to see it, they did not want to disarm me. It was no different than if I had commented that the mosquitoes 🦟 were pretty bad last summer. They were more concerned with my safety and figuring out the cause of the accident. The first FHP officer even apologized as she pushed the wreck of what once was a nice car off the road.
          My experiences with police in my lifetime have been hit or miss, considering one of my ex-father-in-laws was a policeman, but this accident was one where I was shown that some can be very professional, concerned about real public safety and could give a hoot if I carried a firearm as long as I was acting like a law abiding person.

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    That sucks but… I kind of feel like Carlin asking “Where does the surprise part come in?”.

  15. avatar Chief Censor says:

    I think the Texas cop who’s being solely blamed for the killing of an older couple in their home, shot and killed a homeowner that thought criminals were breaking into his house when he went to his room to grab his gun to protect himself from the home invasion. They shot him through the window before he could get to his safe/gun. I don’t think they ever found the man to have broken any laws for police to be there in the first place. Eventually, that cop and his team ended up murdering an innocent couple (and their dog) in their home after falsifying a warrant and covering up the crimes after the shooting while the police chief was on scene.

    From what I saw, Greenville is very corrupt and protects bad cops.

  16. avatar JoeWay says:

    Hope the civil suit wrecks the cops life beyond repair. What a J. O.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      It won’t, this sworn civilian probably won’t even get a slap on the wrist for his offense. If there’s any penalty it’ll be borne by the taxpayers, as usual.

  17. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    So, other than that this officer was on duty and acting under the auspices of said duty as an LEO (and, that the innocent person in this incident survived the unlawful use of deadly force), how is this incident any materially different from the Amber Guyger/Botham Jean incident?

    Wasn’t South Carolina also the state where the police officer shot the old man who was reaching for his cane? And the state where the Walter Scott incident happened? And where the officer shot the guy outside his car at the gas station?

    It seems to me that perhaps it is a bad idea to find oneself interacting with armed South Carolina police officers.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Generally speaking I think the problem with cops is that they’re people yet they’re expected by all sides to be superhuman. IMHO a lot of the problems with police could be deescalated if all sides looked at cops as just regular old people holding a shitty job.

      In my experience, regardless of what side of the law you’re on, interacting with the cops is always a sign that things have taken a turn for the worse. Either shit went sideways and you called the cops or shit went sideways and someone else called the cops. Cops never show up and talk to you just to say “Hi, how ya doing? Great weather today, huh? How bout that local sports team?”.

      1. avatar Ransom says:

        I dunno. I treat Cops Like normal people and have rarely had a negative encounter. Just Like other normal people, some are cool and some are dicks. But they do change their attitudes toward you if you look at them with disgust, distrust and contempt. They deal with scumbags all the time and that’s how said scumbags act around them.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Indeed. That’s my experience too and I see no particular reason to expect that cops will make exactly 0 mistakes in any and all situations and then crucify them when they do.

          I don’t trust the police per se but then I don’t trust anyone right off the bat. Just like any other group of people, winners, losers, bad eggs, good eggs, people having a bad day, people having a good day, smart, dumb, in the middle, knowledgeable or ignorant. Then seem to run the gambit in all the same ways any group of people you might run into does.

      2. avatar Red says:

        Superhuman? Hardly. Just shoot to kill, because you can. You can get away with it. That is their training and they don’t really care. They will lie and protect each other. Screw law enforcement. The militarization of the police is now complete. We are the enemy, and they love to hunt us.

      3. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        I agree that cops are generally normal people and likely match closely a cross section of normal society. Thus, since they are not super human, their judgement capabilities cannot be any better than the society from which they are drawn. Since, they are no less prone to error than the citizenry from whence they originate, they should be no less liable to the same laws that govern those citizens. In a Democracy and a Democratic Republic we must have equal laws enforced equally for all. No one is more equal than anyone else, to quote Orwell. To think otherwise is a very dangerous slippery slope.

      4. avatar Dan W says:

        They are legally mandated to not discriminate in their behaviors. Obviously they should be discriminating between threats and non threats, but that is not allowed.

        We’re all niggers now. That’s what civil rights got us.

  18. avatar big john says:

    This screams of corruption. They set the jury to win. Happens all the time. South Carolina people are just stupid.

    1. avatar Merle 0 says:

      You’ve clearly never been to New Jersey.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You’ve clearly never been to New Jersey.”

        Do Peace Corps and VISTA still do basic training in Camden?

  19. avatar OBOB says:

    I love how they LIED!!!! that first night

    …”The deputy was soon greeted by the homeowner who immediately jerked open the door, presented a handgun and pointed it directly at the deputy. At which time the deputy fired at least one shot, striking the occupant.”

    change “jerked open door” too “jerk cop fired blindly into a home not knowing his target and having a safe avenue of retreat AKA he cold have backed up and been 100% safe!”

    I hope the homeowner wins millions!

    1. avatar In for a Penny, In for a pound says:

      Hopefully, he invests some of that money in a local criminal organizations shot callers hand to get justice on his behalf.

  20. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Remember, only cops should have guns.

    DESTROY that cop in civil court.

    Attach all of his property to PARTIALLY satisfy the judgment, then put it in a pile and BURN it.

  21. avatar Truckman says:

    that idiot did not announce that he was a law enforcement officer and therefore was in the wrong and should have been charged with attempted murder tried and convicted and be serving time in prison. Also, that’s the reason if I have to go to my door they are going to know I am coming because of the fact that I will set off my alarm system with a warning lead is fixing to come thru the door

  22. avatar Hannibal says:

    Walking up to a door visibly carrying a gun is stupid. Having windows where someone can see you walk up to the door, in fact, is pretty dumb if you are concerned about security.

    1. Yep. Just because you have the green light doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look both ways before entering the intersection.

  23. “the rest of us should take away a valuable lesson. […] Don’t allow visitors a clear line of sight…”

    When cops get to shoot innocent people in their own homes without any cause, and then lie about it…

    I fear many gun owners are going to take a very different lesson from this.

    1. avatar Mercury says:

      Indeed. The moral for anyone who is paying attention goes “Police will murder you in cold blood in your own home for no reason other than they believe you posess the physical means to do them harm. Prepare and respond accordingly.” Merely going with “Don’t let the psychos have a clear shot” is a rather absurd half measure for the latter portion. Besides, by the exact same logic that makes this acceptable conduct, so too is firing blindly into your curtain covered window because they hear movement and know you have guns. Hope your wife and kids can’t be hit from the windows, otherwise you might want to look into bulletproof glass.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      I would say Philandro Castile and Tamir rice would agree with your statements. If they hadn’t been shot by cops.

  24. avatar Nanashi says:

    Blue Privilege.

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    I expected that the Amber Guyger case stood for the proposition that cops could no longer shoot anyone they wanted to shoot just for giggles.

    Maybe I was being premature.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The difference is that Amber Guyger shot a black man in Dallas. The case and the trial was politicized from start to finish. What people define as real is real in it’s consequences. This is called “The Definition Of The Situation” and goes a long way to explaining what was in her mind when she entered “her” apartment. At the moment she pulled the trigger she was in her apartment and he wasn’t supposed to be there. There was no way this psychologically sound explanation was ever going to be accepted in that Dallas courtroom. I hope it gets accepted on appeal.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        No, she was in HIS apartment (intoxicated if I remember correctly) and she shot him to death. She should be thankful for the light sentence, find herself a prison “daddy” and get on with her life.

      2. “This is called “The Definition Of The Situation” and goes a long way to explaining what was in her mind when she entered “her” apartment. At the moment she pulled the trigger she was in her apartment…”

        Incorrect. First, her story changed significantly several times. To “reasonably” believe she was “in” her own apartment, her original version, and the second, required her to “reasonably” ignore — by my count — 22 visual cues that she was at the wrong apartment; the final cue being that her key did not unlock the door but prompted a red warning light.

        A 23rd cue would have been the differing furniture layout once the door was open.

        Her final story eliminated the red lock light cue, but was proven false by earwitness testimony, witness video, the 911 recording, and forensic evidence. Lies on that scale — and far beyond merely misremembering under stress — do not indicate a “reasonable” belief that one acted properly.

        She, and her partner, deliberately deleted evidence; again, not an indication that she or he thought she’d acted “reasonably.”

        Responding officer body cam recordings showed two interesting points, in my thinking. One was that Jean may not have even been visible from where Guyger claimed to have fired (and forensic evidence indicates that she didn’t fire from outside as she testified). The other was that, far from providing CPR (or even stuffing the bandage she carried into the wound), Guyger was obstructing officers from reaching Jean; they had to order her away so they could do CPR.

        From post-trial juror statements, they chose to believe she made a mistake in thinking it was her apartment, but specifically rejected the argument that it was a reasonable error. That is why they convicted her, but gave her a lesser sentence than the prosecution asked for.

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        Of course someone wants to play the race card.

        But help me to understand why this police officer was found guilty in a similar situation.

        “But on Friday, Mr. Noor, now an ex-officer and convicted murderer, was sentenced to about 12 and a half years in a Minnesota prison for the death of Justine Ruszczyk, an unarmed woman he killed while on patrol in 2017.”

      4. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The difference is that Amber Guyger shot a black man in Dallas.”

        My only view into the episode is/was via internet and streaming video. Gotta say, Guyger should not have been on any police force, should not have possessed a firearm (no, I wouldn’t deny her 2A right). The woman, from available accounts, was not of the proper mind set to deal with police stresses (nor those of a person prepared to use deadly force). The fact that she lost complete situational awareness (read reports she was gabbing or texting on her phone right up to the apartment door), to the point of not actually knowing where she was seems unreasonable for a police officer. Then she shot a stranger who, again from reports, was not making any threatening moves (imminent danger?). There were/are reports Guyger shouted, “Show me your hands”, twice, followed immediately by shots (death justified because of lack of instantaneous compliance, but no threatening move?).

        No safety zone for police that isn’t available to private citizens. Either the threat is imminent, or the “defender” was negligent at the very least. If cops get tolerance because of the stresses of the job, citizens should get tolerance because of the highly unusual stresses that befall a non-cop faced with shoot/don’t shoot. If cops get 72 quiet hours after a shooting, same is justified for non-LE.

        1. “There were/are reports Guyger shouted, “Show me your hands”, twice…”

          That was what Guyger claimed. Earwitnesses said they did not hear her say that. Prosecution noted that while questioning her.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That was what Guyger claimed. Earwitnesses said they did not hear her say that.”

          Even worse.

        3. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          “If cops get tolerance because of the stresses of the job, citizens should get tolerance because of the highly unusual stresses that befall a non-cop faced with shoot/don’t shoot.”
          A non law enforcement person should in an ideal world have no worry of ever encountering the “highly unusual stresses” a police officer is likely to encounter in their normal line of work. All of us know that depending on day to day circumstances, this is not always entirely true regardless of whether everyone does in fact worry.
          Since police are not conscripted and we assume voluntarily adopt their vocations, they therefore accept these “highly unusual stresses” as part of their job as for example an airline pilot would be expected to accept the “highly unusual stresses” of flying an airplane as part of their job.
          Since a non law enforcement person is not expected to routinely encounter these “highly unusual stresses,” they and not the law enforcement officer should be granted any tolerance. And if any such tolerance is granted to the latter, the former is due them as well as these “highly unusual stresses” are an not expected part of their lives.

      5. avatar Chief Censor says:

        I guess you didn’t watch much of the trial because she was saying/posting contextually racist comments and wanted to kill citizens. She wanted to be a door kicker. She finally had her chance to clear a building like an operator and shoot an American dead. She thought she would be considered a hero by her buddies on the crime response team and her partner/lover she had an affair with. She did not follow her department’s policies and training nor did she use logic. She completely ignored all the details that let her know she was committing multiple crimes when she invaded an innocent Christian man’s home and murdered him while he was in his underwear watching TV and eating ice cream. She then continued to not follow department’s policy and training by leaving him to die as she went to contact dispatch and her partner/lover through her personal phone to make up a story that would help her defense. Eventually her partner/lover and her destroyed the evidence [text messages] after their conversation. While she was talking to dispatch she was more worried about herself than the dying man in “her” apartment.

        From what I can tell, Amber decided to become a cop after men abused her when she was young. Her personal experiences inspired her to get a badge and a gun to take revenge on the evil men of this world. She even dropped out of school to immediately take the opportunity to go to academy. Her mother appears to be a drug addict, was divorced from Amber’s father and didn’t work. Her mother brought bad men into Amber’s life, at least one of them abused her. Amber’s father was not around. It appears Amber became a heavy drinker (she also used to smoke weed before becoming a cop) and she had a sexual affair with her married partner (who has children).

        So, no, Amber was not a good person like the man she murdered. The Christian man she murdered was a good man living a life of righteousness. Amber is the opposite type of person. Botham did more good than Amber ever could and he did it for free because he was attempting to live a Christian life. That white girl cop was more of a danger to society/us than the black Christian man she murdered. Not every black man is a “thug” like Amber thought.

        Amber played judge, jury and executioner. The government and her lawyers say she wasn’t on duty, which would make her a vigilante in the current politics of America. We are told we can’t be vigilantes, if we act as such we will be charged and convicted of murder because we “took the law into our own hands.” Even if she was acting as a law enforcement officer, as it states in Dallas PD policy, she did not follow their rules when she went into that apartment and immediately shot who she found inside.

        This government official is guilty and admitted so. She shot to kill, that was her intention when she went in. She cannot be found innocent and under Texas law she is guilty of murder. However, the jury decided to effectively give her a minimum of 5 years in prison for the murder of an unarmed civilian minding his own business in his castle.

        Race should have no part in the outrage. This is about government summarily executing civilians in their castle unjustly and immorally. Americans should be equally outraged in the Greenville, Houston and Dallas cases. How can you not be? White, brown, yellow, black Americans are being executed in their castles when they have done nothing wrong… No one is safe unless they have a badge; not even in their own homes minding their own business and following the law as much as everyone else. Nor are your dogs and children safe.

        And those people wearing a badge want us to be disarmed. The audacity of this current government…

        1. avatar balais says:

          Yours is the best comment on this thread. Hands down.

          With draconian gun measures implemented, shit like this will become even more commonplace, and, depressingly enough (and ironic), it will most profoundly affect the working poor, black americans, and those who usually fare the worst from moral panic legislation.

          Despite their incessant virtue signalling, which is really a deceptive facade, leftist (not liberal) and authoritarian gun controllers don’t GAF about blacks or minorities. They’re just cardboard cutouts for their ulterior motives and will gladly throw them to the wolves of the state when the opportunity arises.

          The blue line is *not* on your side as a gun owner or anybody really that fights for civil liberties. Look at how they imprison government whistleblowers now for christ’s sakes. Our current government is not representative nor is it legitimate.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Legally, the Guyger shooting had nothing to do with her being a cop. She was not in the performance of her duties, ‘accidentally’ broke into a guy’s apartment, and shot him dead for no reason. This is a wholly different situation that was well within the duties of a police officer, even if those duties were not performed as one might hope.

  26. avatar NORDNEG says:

    I’m not taking sides here, but, how many of these commentators here have ever had a gun pointed at them., just queries?
    Live & Die situation’s are pretty hairy…

    1. avatar Steve says:

      I’d downvote you if I could. There’s a HUGE difference between having a gun pointed at you and someone holding a gun on the other side of a f*cking wall from you. Seriously, no one freaks out when the guy in the lane next to you at the range is holding, or even firing a gun literally 3’ away from your head. Proximity is NOT the same thing as danger.

    2. avatar OBOB says:

      Yes buy a gang-member running by my house shooting at a drug dealer….don’t ask why I lived there

      BUT I just stepped to cover like a SANE smart person would (unlike the cop) and was safe

      All the cop had to do was move a literal 2 feet and he had cover!

    3. avatar Chris Morton says:

      I’m not in the habit of shooting people without justification and then lying about it.
      But then I’m not a cop.

    4. I have. But what does that have to do with this case, where cam footage proved the resident didn’t point the gun at the prowler?

    5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I have. Not fun at all. Fortunately, the guy didn’t pull the trigger and was only aiming it at me in a show of dominance, but it was a wake-up call for me to be more aware of the people in my surroundings.

  27. avatar Reno1947 says:

    A day coming when cops are shot down like rabid dogs

  28. avatar former water walker says:

    Wait a minute…haven’t I heard from a bunch of you white boy’s about “stop & frisk” is a swell way to keep the colored rabble in check?!? White men wouldn’t put up with that BS. You can’t have it both ways. Farago got constantly accused of hating cop’s on TTAG. NOW it’s everyone hates ’em. Except the Baptists😄

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      Anti discrimination laws just means everyone gets treated like a nigger.

    2. avatar Dave G. says:

      @ Former Water Walker:
      “Wait a minute…haven’t I heard from a bunch of you white boy’s about “stop & frisk” is a swell way to keep the colored rabble in check?!? ”

      Nope. You never heard that from this “white boy” (actually sort of pink), and you never will.

      1. Not from this beige guy. I’ve always considered it a constitutional and moral abomination.

        Moreover, when the federal judge ended NYC’s practice on the grounds of unconstitutionality, it was because it couldn’t even pass an intermediate scrutiny test of government need to protect public safety because by NYPD’s own numbers, it was INEFFECTIVE.

        NYC’s stop&frisk was harassment, not policing.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yep, Rudy Giuliani’s unconstitutional actions not only harmed innocent people but were illegal and a complete waste of time and money. Just like most of his statements and actions today, up to and including treason and obstruction of justice.

          “Giuliani’s stop-and-frisk program that he championed empowered police to effectively harass millions of Black and brown people in New York City until it was ruled unconstitutional in 2013. But by that point, the damage was done, with about 90 percent of those stopped and frisked found to be “completely innocent,” according to the New York Civil Liberties Union.”

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          The low number of “stop-and-frisk” incidents in one year was about 97,000 in 2002, when Giuliani was already out of office. That year, he was succeeded by Michael Bloombag. Under Bloombag, the number of stop and frisks rose to just under 700,000. That’s seven hundred thousand for the numerically impaired.

          And you blame Giuliani?

        3. NYC’s stop&frisk was harassment, not policing.

          But..but that was just a common sense, sensible measure to deal with the gun violence epidemic, just like universal background checks, bans on assault weapons, bans on high capacity magazines, red flag laws, etc.

          How can anyone object to common sense?

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “How can anyone object to common sense?”

          Because they have no sense.

        5. avatar former water walker says:

          He he…just messing with you boy’s. You pink and beige guy’s obviously weren’t around when RF railed aqainst the po-leece😄

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “when RF railed aqainst the po-leece”

          To me, that was one of RF’s most endearing qualities. I am still an RF fan.

        7. John in Ohio
          Thanks for the link. I’m watching all of Dr. Warner’s videos.

  29. avatar bill says:

    Police are far and away the most dangerous demographic in our society. Stay safe and keep out of the blue!

  30. avatar Will Drider says:

    45 Days of Official Dept cover-up! Why did the Dept LIE to the public by presenting the “Officers” narrative that was known to be false as soon as the Body Cam was played-Back?
    What’s the reason for a Cover-up: IF THERE IS NO UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OR IMPROPER USE OF LETHAL FORCE? I’d like to read the Reports specificly identified homeowners THREAT that is used as “justification” for the use of lethal force. These facts will bode ill for those named in the Civil Suit.

    Sends the unfortunate message that LE with guns drawn outside your house ARE a direct Threat regardless of the reason for them being present in the area. Sad state of affairs.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      It’s SOP for the police to lie to the public.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Unfortunately, this is true. In addition to my own personal interactions with LEOs over my lifetime, I had a sobering conversation with a retiring Detective who had been on the LAPD force for 30 years. He said they’re trained to use whatever “tools” necessary to elicit the truth from suspects, even if it means outright lying on the part of the LEOs.

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          Neither are police averse to lying under oath, as in the case of the Chicago cop who tried to stomp the barmaid to death… unless one believes his “fable” that a 110lb. woman was able to “toss” a 300lb. man around “like a rag doll”.

  31. avatar Kyle says:

    Disgusting.

    We’re it anyone but a cop, the charge would be 2nd or 1st degree murder.

    Period, full stop.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      I’m reminded of that quote from “Blade Runner”:

      “If you’re not cop, you’re little people.”

  32. avatar balais says:

    Still think the blue line is on your side? it isn’t. Never was.

  33. avatar Loren Cheek says:

    This is how they are doing it to us people, by coming up with this garbage they are setting the stage for cop being able to do anything they want! They hope we just take this in stride and go about our business without going the next step! This should be fought to the highest court in the land, one that knows and understands the constitution and what it says. Like I read someone else say , most of the peope I know that answers the door at night are armed. You would be stupid not to be. Just read the news one time. This cop should get what he deserves not a pass.

  34. avatar 24and7 says:

    I would find a damn good lawyer and sue the piss out of him and the Sheriff’s Department..and a file federal complaint as well..

  35. avatar Glow says:

    Taxidermy dog stuffed with tannerite.

    When the pheds interrupt your Bible study.

  36. avatar Charles Willoughby says:

    What happened to pulling the police car into the lawn in front of the door, lights flashing and use the loud speaker. Safer for all.
    The homeowners physical life has been changed forever, the officer will always be known as a squirrel within his department, lawyers will make lots of money from civil proceedings.

  37. avatar Aleric says:

    One of the reasons I chose a front door with faceted glass inserts that you can see shapes but not clear images when looking out and no one can see inside from the outside. Never liked side windows to door because it gives home invaders the chance to break out the glass to get access to the door and this shows its even deadlier.

    The Cop NEVER even gave the homeowner the chance to drop his weapon he jumped back and shot at the same time and the home owner never even had the gun pointed at him. Add in they went to the WRONG HOUSE and didn’t announce themselves when there was NO EVIDENCE of a break in.

  38. avatar Alan says:

    I wonder as to the following. How low might this fiasco push citizen/police relations?

  39. avatar Dave in SoCal says:

    Looks like that brief moment of accountability in the Amber Guyver case is gone.
    LEOs everywhere breathe a sigh of relief.

    The Babylon Bee nails it:

    https://babylonbee.com/news/legal-experts-warn-amber-guyger-verdict-sets-dangerous-precedent-of-justice-being-served

  40. avatar Nelson says:

    As Farago would say: should have been DGU vs the govt terrorist faggot.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I’ll drink to that. 🙂

  41. avatar Robert says:

    Obviously this County and this DA does not believe in THE CASTLE DOCTRINE.
    Abuses like this have been reported [in my memory] as far bach as 1970, or earlier.
    BATF broke into a man’s apartment and shot the resident in the area of Washington, DC. It turned out he had a black powder revolver, and they broke in while he or his wife were in the shower. [I’ve forgotten the specific details 50 years later.]
    BIG BROTHER just keeps getting away with this time & time again.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      The Kenyon Ballew case.
      They accused him of having a live hand grenade.
      He had a novelty hand grenade and black powder for a muzzle loader.

  42. avatar KarlB says:

    I would love to have the best and he brightest look at the difference between the outcomes of two cases: Amber Guyger’s in Dallas and Jordan Fricke’s in Milwaukee. One gets 10 years and one gets life without a chance of parole.

    Police officers are super duper special.

  43. avatar 2Dogs says:

    Cops have privileges, power and prestige that trump your Constitutional rights. These are not defined in the Constitution. You can whine about but accept it. Avoid confrontations, including armed confrontations, with these people because you will lose. Even if you win you lose. Cop comes to your house? Remove any perceived threats or the officer will. You want the cop to leave? The cop wants to leave alive. Dealing with a crooked cop? Deal with it later.

    1. avatar Flying Fish says:

      In Florida soon to be Florizela, 776.051 states “A person is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.”
      That is any type of force, much less deadly force.
      Generally good luck in fighting the good faith part exclusion if this happens to you here.

      1. avatar Flying Fish says:

        Florizuela

      2. avatar balais says:

        Wow as if racist, POS boomerville, tubesock crowd pandering florida needed to get any crazier, thatll be icing on the cake.

        Combined with very strict proposed gun legislation (AWBs), itll be open season on minorities and working poor.

        Color me unsurprised since the ‘tard former Massholes, Jersey-ites, and others from people’s ‘republics’ with all the money will be pushing these laws hard. There’s not a discriminatory and classist bullshit law that these fucksticks aren’t in favor of, judging by the current state of the shitholes they flee.

    2. avatar balais says:

      Very true and scary

      And IMO, cops, courts, and legislators are playing a very dangerous game doing this considering the powder keg that is america right now. Military age males with nothing to lose who are one recession away from losing everything will have little patience getting fucked with, then you have violence. There is a reason law enforcement departments (and radical anti-establishment groups of all political spectrums) are arming to the teeth.

      As a staunchly pro-peace person, this is so depressing

    3. avatar Chris Morton says:

      But deal with it good and hard in every venue available to you, especially civil court.
      Cops aren’t going to figure out that they aren’t above the law until they start not being able to feed their kids because they tried to be above the law.
      And if the departments won’t fire bad cops?
      How long could the police in your community operate if NOBODY would sell them so much as a toothpick?
      No accountability should mean no bread, burgers or beer.

  44. avatar Crimizen Elephent says:

    You All have this situation Completely Wrong: this was a Case of “Pre-Emptive Return-Fire”.

    It was OBVIOUS the Crimizen (Criminal-Citizen) was going to Prevent the Deputy from making it home in time for Dinner by Murdering him, the other Household Occupants, and as many of the Neighbors as he could get away with.

    Why ELSE would he have been Armed so close to Midnight? The Crimizen certainly wasn’t going to the Range…..

    The Deputy should probably be Awarded a Medal for saving most of that Neighborhood from Certain Gruesome Death. I’ve played “Vice City” – I know how this goes down.

  45. avatar sparkyinWI says:

    @Rattlerjake — The only reason that a cops job is difficult is because most of them are not intelligent enough to be doing that job.

    Amen to this and the rest of your post. You are right the cops nor any of our political leaders care about our rights and also do not care that they are working for us.

  46. avatar P says:

    Homeowner shows more trigger discipline with a stranger at the door in the middle of the night, blinding him with a bright light.

  47. avatar Mikial says:

    Of course there are no charges, he’s a cop and the victim is just a law abiding gun owner in the security of his own home. He needs to sue the city for as much as he can possibly get.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email