Police Video Shows Las Vegas Cops Shoot Man Pointing BB Gun at Police Helicopter

 
Some people just can’t handle Las Vegas. And when you add in booze and BB guns, bad things can happen.

Officer Hansen posted in a nearby building and was providing cover for the immediate action team. Lucas exited his third-floor apartment and pointed his firearm towards the citizens in the pool. Officers fired several times striking Lucas who then fled down a nearby stairwell. Once [42-year-old Jody] Lucas reached the ground floor, he encountered Sergeant Trzpis who fired several more rounds. Lucas fell to the ground and was taken into custody. Officers immediately began life saving measures and applied two tourniquets prior to medical arriving. Lucas was transported to Sunrise Trauma where he is currently listed in critical condition.

Lucas has been booked in absentia for:

  • Assault with Deadly Weapon on a Protected Person (4 counts)
  • Assault with Deadly Weapon
  • Resist a Police officer with Deadly Weapon
  • Child Endangerment (2 counts)

Bodycam Shows Man Get Shot After Aiming Gun At LVMPD Cops

 

 

comments

  1. avatar eagle10 says:

    Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes. Before the incident he suffered from acute lead deficiency – not now!😁

    1. avatar Dude says:

      He challenged them with a toy gun. What a nut.

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        It was reasonable and appropriate for the police to shoot him, given the circumstances.

        It was also good of them to take life-saving measures once the punk was down.

        On the other hand, all these charges regarding him using a deadly weapon seem overblown/dubious.. Generally speaking, BB guns aren’t deadly weapons.

        Sure, someone somewhere died from one. You can make that nonsense argument about anything.

        In the heat of the moment, it was reasonable for the police to treat it as a real firearm. It is another thing to exaggerate, calling it a deadly weapon afterwards.

        1. avatar Sam says:

          Understand that the charge of Assault with a Deadly Weapon doesn’t have to actually involve a deadly weapon. If someone uses a candy bar to make another believe they have a gun instead during a robbery, that becomes a deadly weapon because the victim is given reason to believe the assailant has a deadly weapon. An actual deadly weapon doesn’t have to be present, just the reasonable belief that one is present is necessary for that charge in most jurisdictions

        2. avatar Dude says:

          It’s pretty obvious his BB gun identified as an assault weapon.

        3. avatar Art out West says:

          Sam,
          That might be the case according to statutory law, but it is still absurd nonsense.

          Getting shot the heck up is punishment enough for the punk.

  2. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Point is: DON’T point guns at people unless you’re in jeopardy, ( real or toy)
    I myself get edgy when a toy gun is pointed at me,,,,I taught my kids not to point toy guns at people, .

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      Yup you and your kids and anybody who plays with bb guns must pay with their lives. Then we must praise the guys who shoot the kids. Because they are professional hot heads who will gleefully shoot you if you give them any excuse.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Kyle,

        Let’s try injecting a little intelligence into the conversation.

        When a stranger suddenly points a firearm at you, it is a credible and imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, period. Whether or not the firearm is actually a BB gun (or even an inoperative replica) is irrelevant because the victim does not have the luxury of knowing whether or not the object is truly a deadly weapon.

        If I fabricate a fake bomb (complete with what looks like sticks of dynamite, wires, and a timer) and foist that upon you, is that okay since it is actually fake, even though you have no way of knowing that it is fake? The truthful answer is, “No!”

        1. avatar Dena says:

          You are correct

      2. avatar arc says:

        Indeed, the god-like power cops have appointed to themselves needs to be reigned in. Running around summarily executing people of the United States is unacceptable. Of course, the sheep will turn the other cheek before bending over.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You point a gun at me, I am not a cop, I am a man and I will shoot you repeatedly until you stop. And I will never blame anyone for doing the same, nor will I require you to examine his gun closely to determine whether it is real and loaded before I do so. You can keep talking stupid, but you will have a hard time fooling anyone here.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “When a stranger suddenly points a firearm at you, it is a credible and imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, period.”

          Would someone be kind enough to mention this concept to the McMichaels in Georgia, thanks!

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Once you are defined by police as “armed and dangerous” the police response is going to pretty predictable—you’re likelihood of being shot and killed becomes very high. More specifically, as we can see from this video, all the police on the scene were entirely ready to kill this guy. This is what is so dangerous about Red Flag laws which rely on the loosest possible legal justifications for sending armed police to your house. You can become “armed and dangerous” for doing nothing more serious than pissing off a bratty 13 year-old who doesn’t like her stepdad.

  3. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    I couldn’t tell that was a BB gun from the video, at least from my phone screen. I am unsure how well “Assault with Deadly Weapon on a Protected Person (4 counts)” will hold up in court but I don’t think the police should be shamed for shooting this guy.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      What is assault on a protected person anyway? Who was protecting the people? The police? Did they have bodyguards? A protected person should have bodyguards. Is that like a visiting foreign leader or diplomat, or maybe a celebrity?

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Per Nevada law NRS 200.471(2)(b), these persons or professions are considered as “protected”, and are placed in a higher tier above normal citizens (meaning the State of Nevada considered their lives to be at greater value to the community than yours or mine, I guess):

        Jailers
        Firemen
        State officials
        Police officers
        School employees
        Healthcare providers
        Judges
        Doctors
        Taxi drivers
        Sporting officials
        Transit officials

        https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/nevada-assault-on-a-protected-class-with-a-deadly-weapon-lawyers.html

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “All animals are equal.” Followed soon after with :

          “Some animals are more equal than others.”…

  4. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Another oxygen theif who is sadly still with us.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      That reminds me of one of my favorite Chuck Norris “sayisms”.

      Chuck Norris doesn’t breathe. He temporarily holds the air hostage.

  5. avatar Dennis says:

    Natural selection strikes again!👍

  6. avatar John Z says:

    I’m sure the ACLU will be licking their lips, but as the old saying goes; “If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have probable cause to believe that, no [email protected]#$, it’s a duck.”

  7. avatar enuf says:

    Soooo…. were drugs and alcohol a factor or was that idiot pointy a thing that looked like a gun, at cops, just born stupid?

    Seriously don’t see how they could have thought anything other than the gun was a real gun.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Be careful the Libertarians will get upset at you. If you blame drugs for someone’s bad behavior. They support drug use but they want to ignore anyone’s bad behavior as a result of their drug intoxication.

      The man who murdered American Sniper Chris Kyle at his sentencing blamed his marijuana smoking for shooting Chris Kyle. You should have seen the reaction in the Libertarian Reason magazine. Their heads were exploding.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Not being a dyed in the wool Libertarian. I believe the point they make is that. You are responsible for Your actions. Regardless of what chemical you put in Your body. Which I don’t have a problem with. To many criminals blaming drugs,poverty.racism,and any number of excuses for their bad behavior. With even more politicians,lawyers and judges. Allowing those excuses to be the catalyst. For “criminal justice” reform and lining their pockets. He/She was really a good person. They were just deprived of (insert excuse). To justify their criminal activity. Do the crime Do the time. It all starts with choices and when they are bad. Sometimes You end up Dead.

      2. avatar George Washington says:

        And?…… please don’t say you’re making the point that marijuana HAD ANYTHING to do with someone going postal?….. if so, you need mental help….js

  8. avatar Tacoma236 says:

    That was unfortunate for him

  9. avatar pwrserge says:

    So… playing with a harmless toy, bad. Charging a man with a shotgun after breaking into a house, good… Did i get that right?

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      Pretend this guy was black, too, see if that changes your mind.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Calibrate your sarcasm detector kiddo, it’s completely out.

    2. avatar HowManyTrollsAreHere? says:

      So this white guy is waving a gun around with Police present and gets shot by Police. The other is black, out jogging and confronted by 2 white guys who are not Police with a shotgun.

      And you fail to see the differance?

      BTW entering a house under construction is not burglary, trespass at the most. Pretty much anyone here is apparently guilty of burglary according to you.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I’m getting fed up explaining this to you morons. Yes, entering any structure without authority with the intent to commit theft is a felony. The only difference between 1st degree and 2nd degree burglary is if the structure falls under the definition of a dwelling, which a residential house certainly does.

        As for intent, unprovoked flight, such as being confronted by a neighbor and booking it, is evidence of criminal intent. That’s a hard SCotUS precedent.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          “I’m getting fed up explaining this to you morons. Yes, entering any structure without authority with the intent to commit theft is a felony.”

          You were referring to the Arbery incident – which falls within State of Georgia jurisdiction – when you kept pounding that sand yesterday. Unless I’m really, really mistaken, Nevada law is not Georgia law. Even if it were similar, you cannot ascertain intent from interviewing a dead defendant. Arbery was never observed or recorded committing or attempting theft, and he was shot dead and therefore cannot provide any information on what he was thinking at the time.

          Your turn.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          He was observed entering a dwelling without authority. He ran when confronted.

          That’s all the evidence you need to arrest him for burglary. Try harder.

        3. avatar tresk21 says:

          YOU try harder. Watch the video I posted in your other ridiculous comment thread. The law is all laud out for you on a silver platter. We’ll see if you’re man enough to chow down.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’ll take my legal analysis from Robert Barnes. Not some rando.

        5. avatar Hannibal says:

          We all know what you are. You don’t need to explain it to anyone.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          OK, serge, as you say, one more time. So the white pastor from the church on the corner, with his wife and 2-year-old child, saunter through the construction site, curious as to the planned layout of the house. After the rednecks have chased the family down and shotgunned the parents to death, are they required to murder the child as well?

        7. avatar mark s. says:

          Intent ……………. to commit a theft or observing building techniques without permission, scoping out someone’s property for any reason, without permission, is trespass.
          All crimes of lessor or greater magnitude.
          None worthy of a death sentence.
          Attacking someone who is threatening your life with a firearm is self defense.
          It is never a good idea to place oneself into a situation that can lead to this outcome.
          Both parties in this case acted (stupidly) as our past president would say, but only one died as an out come, so the dead man has paid the ultimate price for his stupidity and the one who killed him must pay the price of his stupidity by facing a jury of his peers under a charge of no less than involuntary manslaughter.
          Don’t mow grass barefooted.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        The owner of that house under construction has stated, thru his lawyer, that multiple pesons were recorded on the property, that nothing was ever stolen or damaged and he absolutely did not want the response the murderers engaged in.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          1. A statement through his lawyer that contradicts his earlier personal statements is meaningless.
          2. Does not negate intent. Failing at burglary does not mean that you didn’t have intent to commit burglary.

        2. avatar tresk21 says:

          You can’t murder someone on intent. Even so, he didn’t take anything. He walked through a house under construction. He didn’t take anything, nor could anyone tell if he “intended” to steal anything. Before you start calling people morons you need to look in the mirror, buddy, because you’re making yourself look like a horses ass.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          You can arrest them, and if they attack you while you’re doing so, yes you can shoot them. Welcome to Georgia criminal statutes. In a free country, we don’t coddle convicted felons at the expense of citizens protecting their neighborhood from said convicted felons.

        4. avatar tresk21 says:

          That’s the thing. They didn’t know he was a convicted felon. They just saw some guy go into a house under construction. They didn’t know him. Look, I live in Alabama and will be the first one to come to the defense of someone defending their home. But those two jackasses screwed up. This isn’t “coddling” convicted felons. Those two asshats murdered that guy. Think of it this way. If YOU were out jogging and two douchecanoes tried to stop you with guns, and you didn’t see a way out, what would you do?

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          My jogging routines don’t involve breaking into other people’s property.

          Oh, and the father most certainly knew he was a convicted felon. He was the DA investigator on his probation violation.

        6. avatar tresk21 says:

          Maybe he did know. Doesn’t matter. Innocent until proven guilty in this country, at least right now. They didn’t give him that option. Checking out a house under construction is not B&E, especially if he didn’t even take anything. And you can’t imply intent. That’s some minority report BS. Those two had no good reason to stop this guy, much less shoot him. If you want a break down of it, watch Colion Noir’s video on this. He’s an actual lawyer and can probably argue it better than myself. https://youtu.be/bOPS_V3p9D4

        7. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          “My jogging routines don’t involve breaking into other people’s property.”

          I think most of us here can say the same thing. Arbery trespassed. He did not “break” anything when he entered. You keep calling us morons, but…

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Robert Barnes, an actually practicing Civil Rights attorney disagrees. We have no idea what kind of law Colion practices.

          The standard for an arrest is not and has never been “innocent until proven guilty” tresk21. By you logic any arrest where the suspect is not later convicted is illegal. That’s dumb.

        9. avatar Greta van sustren says:

          Yeah…. he was “out jogging “…..?omfg….. lol…. unreal …. THUG JOGGING I GUESS…..JEEZ….

        10. avatar Miner49er says:

          “contradicts his earlier personal statements”

          Again, you’re sorting facts not in evidence.

          All in a sedative to justify your the serial racism, sad.

        11. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You have said repeatedly that intent is not necessary, between claims that intent is all that’s necessary.

    3. avatar AdamTA1 says:

      With both the idiocy abounds.

  10. avatar MB says:

    Once the moron dropped his gun, why did they keep shooting 30 seconds later when he clearly didn’t have a weapon. If a citizen did that to someone on their property after he dropped the weapon, they would be arrested in almost every state. Not saying the moron didn’t deserve to be shot, just wondering why the double standard, police seem to not follow the law when going after law breakers, and we have video evidence the police broke the law if I’m not mistaken.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      But is it reasonable to assume that the guy who was apparently firing at the police didn’t have another weapon on him? Lucas was still defined as “armed and dangerous” in the moments after he dropped his BB gun he could very well have still been in the fight. Assuming otherwise could get you killed. On the other hand . . . Armed and dangerous is evidently intentionally nebulous. Several years ago a black guy holding a toy gun in a toy department was shot and killed for just this reason. Cops on the hunt are dangerous to everyone around them.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Suppose you are approached by a rough looking guy and shoot him because, “He might have had a gun.” That’s not good enough. You must be able to cite specific behavior on his part or independent information sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that your actions were justified.

        Same with the idea that Lucas “might” have had a second gun. Your default assumption must be that he doesn’t unless you have good reason to believe otherwise.

        1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          Agreed. The polices’ collective decision was obviously that possession and threatening use of one gun is sufficient to suspect Lucas might well have another deadly (gun or otherwise) weapon on him. Once he was defined as armed and dangerous, his life-value was dramatically reduced. In most cases, regaining the life-value afforded to free citizens is almost impossible. Witness the Tuttle’s killing in Houston.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          You: ‘ Suppose you are approached by a rough looking guy and shoot him because, “He might have had a gun.” ‘

          Dr. Jennifer Rager-Kay: “Doesn’t matter. Is this guy wearing a mask? No? Then I’m gonna light his ass up.”

      2. avatar MB says:

        @GH, Based on what you said, if someone holding a stick (could be assault with a deadly weapon) drops the stick after you shoot him in the arm, you are still free to assume he has a handgranade or machine gun stashed in his underwear so it’s okay to shoot him several more times even if he ran away from you. Not legal in any state for a civilian, but it appears the cops assume that scenario and used it. I am big supporter of LEOs doing their job. I just happen to think they collectively stepped over the line here.

        1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          I don’t disagree. My point, in fact, is that once a definition like “armed and dangerous” is made you can expect every cop involved to immediately reduce the life-value of a defined individual. Moreover, it is simply not possible for any cop present to disagree with the shared definition. If you deconstruct the Lucas incident it’s pretty apparent that is what is going on. Significantly, there was no opportunity for Lucas to say something like “King-X, I give up” or something similar. In terms of how the cops defined the situation saying something like that could just mean he was dissembling and looking for another angle of attack. Lucas or anyone else in a similar situation—such as someone being surprised at 5AM with a Red Flag warrant—simply does not have the ability to meaningfully alter the police’s definition of things. Once your life-value is reduced in this way you are perilously close to being killed. And, yep, there’s a huge double standard. But, then, we all know that.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      While I wasn’t there, and can’t speak for the police at all, I can theorize:
      If you point a gun (real or otherwise) at the police, you are considered armed and dangerous. That’s a fact.
      Drop the gun, but continue to run away, does that mean you’re no longer armed and dangerous? Don’t people also conceal guns (even when they are not allowed to)? Should police assume that a person who is considered to be armed and dangerous unarmed just because a gun isn’t visible in a highly charged/tense scenario, where the subject is still running?
      Looked at from the point of view of a police officer, someone who is known to have been armed and actively threatening officers and is refusing to obey commands will still be considered to be armed and dangerous, and threatening officers. Actions have consequences.
      In this case, IMO, he’s lucky he’s still alive.

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        You are right. Lucas is damned lucky to be alive. You are also right that running away in no way implies that he’s not still in the fight—making that kind of naive assumption can easily get you killed. But, alas, that kind of definition most likely wouldn’t apply to a home owner defending his family’s lives against an armed home invader or invaders. If a person shoots at you in your house but then runs away, most jurisdictions expect you to let him go, even if he’s just looking for better cover or angling to find a less well defended part of your house to attack. But I’m not interested in arguing about double standards. I’m just interested an apparent reality that visible in the video. There are other videos where similarly defined individuals were not so lucky.

  11. avatar DCJ says:

    Not quite serge…

  12. avatar Stan says:

    Wow, what heroes! How brave! What gun skills! Against a BB gun.

    But on October 1, 2017 these same outstanding officers didn’t exhibit the same bravery and kill a shooter stuck in a hotel room. The 58 dead victims were not available for comment on these fine policemen.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      The only way you know it was a BB gun is because the story told you it was. The officers on the scene didn’t have the story to tell them it wasn’t a real firearm.
      Are you really that stupid?

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      In all fairness, I own some BB guns for indoor room-clearing training that are licensed from Glock and S&W, and look/operate exactly like the real thing. Heck, the G17 BB gun even says “Glock”, “Made In Austria”, and “G17” right on the slide just like the real thing. You’d have to hold it in your hands to know it’s not.

      If I saw someone pointing one of these at me at night, I’d shoot him, just like the police did.

      https://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Umarex_Glock_17_Gen4_CO2_Blowback_177_BB_Gun/4806

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        “to be fair, to be fair, to be faaair” many air guns will kill.

  13. avatar pwrserge says:

    “The cops are useless!”
    “You should just call the cops!”

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      The cops will shoot someone that aims a gun at them.

      The cops might not shoot that same someone for jogging down the road and not wanting to let two random hicks kidnap him.

      Go away, white supremacist.

  14. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Off topic. But not really. The Libertarian candidate debate is tonight for their presidential nominee. John Stossel is the moderator. Find it on YouTube. 7pm.

    Do Libertarians support the bill of rights? Yes that is an open question. Do they support open borders? I will see tonight.

    1. avatar HowManyTrollsAreHere? says:

      You can read it right here: https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

      There are some seriously dense people in this comment section. BTW the US had more or less an open border policy up to 1920. It was then changed to limit it pretty much to white people only. You of course like to forget those inconvenient facts. The US was a Libertarian country until about WWII since then it has just declined into this semi Police state you Republicans love so much. You all talk about freedom but are deathly afraid of it.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        move to schengen.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Hmmm… what changed between the 1920s and WWII, could it be a massive welfare state? Let me simple it up for you. You can’t have ANY publicly funded services if nobody is paying taxes to fund them. Open borders more or less make taxation impossible. This goes double for any sort of public welfare.

        1. avatar LKB says:

          Yup. Kind of the old saw of “Fast / Good / Cheap — pick two,” the economic reality is:

          Open Borders
          Welfare State
          Functioning Economy

          You can only have any two.

        2. avatar Southern Cross says:

          A thing called Prohibition stopped the tax flow from the sale of alcohol. Then there was less money for government spending. The great experiment was a dismal failure with consequences still being felt today.

    2. avatar fred rose says:

      Just so you know something odd, and since I’m odd, I am qualified to tell you all!

      In 1824 we had a rather unusual presidential election. (google this for more information). What we had were 4 people running for president, Andrew Jackson, John Adams, henry Clay and William H Crawford. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but the electoral vote only gave him 99, while John Adams got 84, Crawford got 41 and Clay got 37. So who do you think should have won?

      Jackson right? wrong, what happened was no one got the needed 51% of the electoral vote to win, so the race went to the the House of Representatives for the final vote, here’s what happened. According to the constitutional law only the top 3 by popular vote could be voted for in the House, so Clay dropped out and threw his vote in the House since he was a representative (he wouldn’t be allowed to vote had he been one of the 3), so Clay used his influence to vote for Adams, and due to Clays vote that gave the majority vote to Adams.

      So why am I telling you this? Because it’s very possible that this could happen this next election if we have 3 strong running candidates. So what this means is this, if Trump, Biden, and a strong third party candidate makes a strong enough showing to steal some of the electoral votes away from the others just enough so that none of the others, and especially Trump, doesn’t get the needed 51%, then the vote goes to the House.

      Guess what party is in control of the house? Guess who’s going to win!

      You think I’m kidding about all of this? The Democrats are already scheming for this to happen! this is why they are looking for a strong third party candidate, and they will put a lot of money behind this sacrificial person, a person who doesn’t have a chance to win, but would steal enough electoral votes to push the vote to the House. The Democrats know they can’t win without this happening, this is their hail Mary pass.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        You ever see that cartoon where someone pushes a stick into the wheel into the bike they’re riding, sending them flying over the handlebars, and then blames (X)?

        Here we will have both of the parties putting up turds for the highest office in the land and one will blame a completely other candidate when they blow the election.

        1. avatar fred rose says:

          The reason we have turds running for the highest office is because truly qualified individuals have run in the past only to have them and their families ruthlessly attacked by whatever opposing party and the media, and they’re all false accusations. Who in their right mind would want to run for president?! Unless of course the person running is a political party related puppet, who doesn’t mind doing corrupt stuff for the party.

          One of the biggest criminals to ever become president is about to be revealed partially for illegal surveillance and Russian collusion, while they can’t charge a former president with crimes, they can charge the staff members involved. This joke of a president did other things to including illegally arming the Mexican cartel and ISIS militants; spent tax dollars illegally to re-settle illegals inside the US; used executive action to restrict the 2nd amendment by trying to shut down gun stores; illegally targeted conservative groups by using the IRS to attack them; secretly obtained phone records from the AP journalists. Plus there were other criminal presidents as well, on both parties, that have gotten away with all sorts of illegal stuff.

          We have a major problem in our federal government, it’s so corrupt I’m seriously doubt the citizens can change it, and most citizens are so blinded by their party lines, they just vote to vote, supporting the same party their family and their culture have voted for for years. As long as Americans remain asleep politicians will get away with murder…literally!

          Think a bit, do your really think that Senator Richard Burr is the only politician that has ever done inside trading? That’s a huge NO! How do you think these guys who become politicians leave the office far far wealthier than they did when they entered? Why do you think it’s worth millions of dollars to campaign? Because they all know they’ll make huge fortunes in the world of politics. Most of its done by, “you rub my back and I’ll rub yours” mentality.

          Our political arena is really just a highly sophisticated crime syndicate with the FBI to protect them.

  15. avatar Wtf?! says:

    “He’s pointing a machine gun at us.” Have we been so manipulated and brainwashed? I’m surprised he didn’t say an “assault machine gun”. Wtf?!

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yeah that’s pretty cringey. A reminder that not all… or even most… cops know much about guns.

  16. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    My AR-15 BB rifle looks suspiciously like my real AR-15 and AR-10.
    My 6 year old nephew loves playing with it….
    He also loves the SW M&P 45 BB gun, which I will admit looks quite real.

    As far as Protected Persons, I suppose the idiot politicians really believe that passing this law would save their lives…..Hahahahahahaha…..There is a new idiot born every minute, and most of them vote to elect their fellow idiots.

    Considering a cop’s duty to protect us, it’s non-existent, as per SCOTUS.
    Lucky for us, most of them are not good shots, however they make up for it in volume.

    On a final note, anyone I don’t know, pointing ANY gun at me is immediately un-protected, and I’ll do my best to terminate with extreme prejudice.

    Have a nice day… 🙂

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      ^^^ 100%

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    Dope — it’s what’s for dinner.

  18. avatar Dave Huff says:

    I can’t bring myself to care…..

  19. avatar fred rose says:

    Ok, I understand from a distance the BB gun looks real, people shouldn’t be pointing anything that looks like a weapon at cops, I got that part; what I can’t figure out is once the perp drops the “weapon” he is no longer armed, the helicopter crew had to have seen he had no weapon, I could tell from the helicopter video that he had no weapon; I could tell from the officer cam that he didn’t have a weapon, and that officer was further away then I think others were who could have seen he was unarmed as well; so why was he killed as an unarmed person?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      No, they could see that it looked like he dropped a gun. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a weapon.

      If you see me with a rifle and I drop it that doesn’t mean I’m unarmed.

      If you point a weapon at the police and decide to surrender, it would be best to do just that instead of running around.

  20. avatar Rick James says:

    Appears to me that he was just trying to suicide by cop. But even then only further chickened out by only pointing at the heli and not the cop.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Don’t point any sort of “gun” at the po-leece. FIFY

  22. avatar Cknarf says:

    He might have been ok if it looked more like a Red Ryder.

    Wait.

    I think that one dude got lit up for holding one of those in a Wal-Mart a few years back.

  23. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    Looks like the Vegas police department is far more motivated to take a kid down with a BB gun than an heavily armed bushwhacker that they waited for over an hour outside his door for him to commit suicide before they moved in on him. I forget, what was the fatality count? A case that they still have not solved to date.

  24. avatar Hannibal says:

    Sounds like he’s lucky to be alive… or unlucky, as pointing a replica gun at cops might be an indicator of attempted suicide by proxy.

    TQs save the day

  25. avatar Joe Greenwell says:

    Darwin Award Winner

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