CCW holder shoots off-duty cop (brother-in-law)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You guys wanna insult me be my guest. I can take it. Apparently you have never been hit in the face with a strong stream of water from a hose. He would let go.

I used to have garden hose fights as a kid. It was annoying being hit in the face with the "jet" nozzle setting.

Add many years, a couple hundred pounds, an evil wife beating temperment, and an alcohol fueled rage, and I heavily suspect not only would I not let her go, but would squeeze tighter if I were on the receiving end just out of irritated spite.

I mean no insult to you personally, only to the lambasting of the shooter in this event for not using a garden hose.

.
 
I'm adding a hose to my tactical wheelbarrow.

Quick!! get me a hose!! He's killing her!!

All family functions will now only be held in halls with hose attachments and at least 20 feet of hose (tueller drill).

Sorry, the hose is over the top.
 
NineseveN I agree with everything you just said. I don't think everyone stamps every shoot as good. But people do seem to do it quickly with little info. This particular case clearly is too muddy to be able to do that. And I never stated I thought it was unjustified. On it's face it appears to be justified, but the story is incomplete at best. It appears on several occasions the police dropped the ball.

When I suggested that one should consider possible alternatives to shooting someone I was insulted and my suggestions attacked. Makes me wonder if those people see any solution to any confrontation besides shooting someone.

Oh and I have been in plenty of fights. A couple I thought I wouldn't walk away from. One that I certainly wouldn't have had the police not shown up in record time. A car accident and a guy twice my size, whacked out on PCP is a recipe for a damn good beating. While he was knocking the stew out of my friend on the other side fo the car I sneaked up behind him and hit him in the head with everything I had, all I got out of him was a grunt, an extremely sore hand, and thrown over a car. He kicked my butt until the cops got there. A siren never sounded so sweet. Burying him in bodies is the only way to stop him without killing him. And guess what, that's what the cops did. It took at least 4 of them considerable time. Pepper spray seemed ineffective. I guess after going a few rounds with this guy a big drunk doesn't scare me that much.
 
only to the lambasting of the shooter in this event for not using a garden hose.

Show me where I lambasted him. Post #89 is the first mention of a hose.

If you don't agree with me state your arguments why you disagree. Insulting me isn't exactly taking the high road.

I used to have garden hose fights as a kid. It was annoying being hit in the face with the "jet" nozzle setting.

Add many years, a couple hundred pounds, an evil wife beating temperment, and an alcohol fueled rage, and I heavily suspect not only would I not let her go, but would squeeze tighter if I were on the receiving end just out of irritated spite.

That's a relevant argument and I see your point.

Wasn't a .75 caliber garden hose the weapon of choice for the Lawn Ranger ?

That's a juvenile personal insult. You might wanna check the title of the board before posting this kind of drivel.
 
A garden hose would be appropriate when two more or less euually-matched drunk guys were rolling, boxing, or otherwise dueling/play-fighting on your lawn. A garden hose is not the appropriate response if you believe one person is attempting to kill another. The idea of the garden hose is to shock someone and "wake them up" so they take a moment and get a chance to think about what they're doing. It's not used to stop someone who knows what he's doing, has done it before and is doing his best to kill someone this time.


Now, let's get a quick reality check on "head locks" and "chokeholds."

Some of you, when hearing "headlock," are picturing a folkstyle wrestling headlock. As someone pointed out earlier, this would be with the victim's head against your ribs, your arm over the head against the neck and nestled under the jawline, your other arm encircling under their opposite arm and hands clasped.
This, as pointed out, is the only legal hold in folkstyle wrestling because it is not a choke hold or a serious neck crank. It's used to control and direct the victim's body. However, if you're a LOT stronger than your victim, you could probably crank the neck pretty hard even from here.

However, a "headlock," if the victim is facing her tormentor, could also be what submission wrestlers call a "guillotine." In applying a guillotine, the idea is to have the opponent's head against your ribs, one arm looped around the neck, and the hands clasped. You want the wrist of the choking arm turned so that the wrist bones cut into the neck. Both their arms need to be outside the hold for this to work.

The standard teaching in BJJ is that once you get the guillotine sunk, you need to fall back to "guard" position--your legs around his hips, controlling his body. Then you arch your back and the pressure all goes to his carotids and his airway. Because you control his hips with your legs, he can't roll back and make room very well, which would counter the choke.

Again, though, if you're a lot stronger or your opponent doesn't know the counter, that's not necessary. You can power through it and he'll sleep. Keep cranking after he sleeps, and he dies. It's not as easy to "snap" someone's neck as a lot of people think (Steven Seagal movies to the contrary) but if you have control of his body structure I'm sure it can be done--and again, that goes double if you're much bigger and stronger. I'm about 330 and I can power through a guillotine on most of my classmates, but I'm not allowed to do so because it probably wouldn't work on someone my size.


Now, for how long it takes to reach unconsciousness:

It's easy to go out by accident even when you're sparring with someone who expects you to tap and will stop when you do. You can get light-headed in a couple of seconds. I've felt the tunnel closing a couple of times already, and last night one of my training partners actually had everything go black and the sound cut out on him. We were face to face so I had a good view of his face and released it at that point.
The instructor told us last night that ten seconds is the rule of thumb once you think you've got it sunk in--if you're in and choking and he's lasted ten seconds "and he no tap and he no sleep, something wrong. Do something else."


Anyway, I'm his size and now have a small amount of grappling training. I'd be hard pressed to choose between trying to take his back and sink my own rear naked choke, for example, or drawing a pistol if I had one. Standing rear naked works, but only if you can sink it, and you have to think about his wife, too. Of course shooting right next to her is probably not any safer. If you yourself are too injured or too hampered by your brace, the decision gets easier. But the shooter knew this wife-beater better than I do, which could be good or bad. Might turn out that he knew enough to know he had to go straight to lethal force. Might turn out that he knew more about the officer's domestic life than the press does and this led him to decide it would be better if the officer died instead of just stopping.

His superiors can say what they want, but I doubt they're sleeping well at night. If they'd taken this guy seriously, this might not have had to happen. Their attitude that it wasn't a big deal and he should slide by with some counseling was almost guaranteed to lead to someone's death. I'd have bet on it being the wife's.
It's too bad the wife didn't leave him before it came to this, but such is life.
 
1. We have very few actual facts from the news accounts, and those facts we do have are of questionable veracity
2. I have never been in a "real fight", unless you count that time in 8th grade when another kid pushed me into a locker
3. I have no idea what water sprayed in someone's face will do

That said(tm)...

Based on the accounts available, it looks to me like a good shoot.

As someone else said above (Beerslurpy, maybe?), I'd rather be the guy who shot the cop to save my sister, than the guy who stood by and did nothing while his sister was beaten/choked to death.
 
Erebus, it's really nothing personal.
It's all just about the hose, not you as a person.

Heck, TallPine's "Lawn Ranger" pun wasn't even remotely about insulting you.

Sorry you're taking personal offense where none is intended.

.
 
I'm adding a hose to my tactical wheelbarrow.

I for one, would make sure you grab a can of coffee.... Never know when that'll come in handy.

I hear they are so dangerous, they are on police watch lists!


Ok, now that I've had my fun:
I really don't see how a hose could do much of anything to stop a determined drunk guy from doing anything.
 
Best, I've been trying to choke people for fun twice a week for a month now. Dead sober, and if anyone hit me with a garden hose, the only way it would stop me is if I decided to go for him instead.

Of course, in this situation, that might have been a significant improvement.
 
Best, I've been trying to choke people for fun twice a week for a month now. Dead sober, and if anyone hit me with a garden hose, the only way it would stop me is if I decided to go for him instead.

And if I was your BIL I would probably be aware you likely could thump me because of your training and practicing. In which case I would play cat and mouse with you until the cops show up or shoot you. But if you are thrashing and moving around with someones head pulled in close to your body I don't like my chances of hitting the victim. I would prefer getting you seperated first. Maybe that wouldn't be an option and judging from the shooter being injured likely wasn't. But I would try like hell to find a way real quick.

Also has anyone seen any mention anywhere if the wifebeater was carrying? As a LEO certainly he could have been. But I didn't notice a mention of if they found a gun on him. Last thing I would want is to get in a gun fight with a cop. He could very well outshoot me. Especially if I have an injury.
 
Last thing I would want is to get in a gun fight with a cop. He could very well outshoot me.
You aren't really that bad of a shot are you? :eek: And you know that you can correct the problem with practice. :D

<yes, it's a joke>
 
I assumed that the cop was carrying, just from previous experience. In each of the other stories about his drunken assaults where police were called out, he had his sidearm.

Therefore, I have no reason to think differently this time.
 
NineseveN I agree with everything you just said. I don't think everyone stamps every shoot as good. But people do seem to do it quickly with little info. This particular case clearly is too muddy to be able to do that. And I never stated I thought it was unjustified. On it's face it appears to be justified, but the story is incomplete at best. It appears on several occasions the police dropped the ball.

The thing with news stories is, all we’ll ever have is a limited account of the facts, so the choice is to either never discuss these things at all, or go with what we have and leave room for a change of assessment based on any new evidence. I don’t mind being wrong if the information I’ve based my opinion on is faulty.


When I suggested that one should consider possible alternatives to shooting someone I was insulted and my suggestions attacked. Makes me wonder if those people see any solution to any confrontation besides shooting someone.

I can see how you feel insulted, but I think it was more insulting the idea than the person that brought it up. I doubt I’d like it if I were in your shoes though. The thing with this is, we don’t really know if the shooter mentally explored alternative measures. We don’t know what he knew at the time. We don’t even know if after he said ‘Let her go or I’ll kill you’ whether or not the cop dropped the female from the hold and then made a move towards the shooter. Just because the news story doesn’t say it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I’d have a hard time believing that the shooter shot the cop while he was holding the female and there was not collateral damage, not with multiple shots unless the guy was an excellent shot, at very close range or the cop dropped the female after the first shot and stood there (which might explain the murder charge).


Oh and I have been in plenty of fights. A couple I thought I wouldn't walk away from. One that I certainly wouldn't have had the police not shown up in record time. A car accident and a guy twice my size, whacked out on PCP is a recipe for a damn good beating. While he was knocking the stew out of my friend on the other side fo the car I sneaked up behind him and hit him in the head with everything I had, all I got out of him was a grunt, an extremely sore hand, and thrown over a car. He kicked my butt until the cops got there. A siren never sounded so sweet. Burying him in bodies is the only way to stop him without killing him. And guess what, that's what the cops did. It took at least 4 of them considerable time. Pepper spray seemed ineffective. I guess after going a few rounds with this guy a big drunk doesn't scare me that much.

Well now I know where you’re coming from. Keep in mind, based on this guys past behavior, perhaps the shooter was afraid that he wouldn’t have been able to last until the cops got there, and if he fell, then the cop would possibly have his gun. I know I wouldn’t want to take that risk and I’d rather be the guy that shot the aggressor than the guy that got his face kicked in and his gun used to murder his family members or friends. Based on what I have read so far, I can see where the shooter’s head was at, but I could be wrong.
 
Ezekial said:
90% of the people on this board could have gotten the girl away from him, without shooting him, in a very minimal amount of time.
I very strongly disagree with that rather cavalier statement. I'm 6-3" 225 pounds, ex-military, in reasonable shape for my advancing years, and I for sure would not choose to take on an enraged gorilla hand-to-hand if I had an alternative on my belt. When's the last time you fought an enraged 300-pound drunk?

And did you miss the part obout the shooter having an injury, and wearing a neck brace?
 
liberal shenannigans

Wouldn't "liberal" shens involve letting him go free? You know, giving him his "liberty"?

With the facts presented, it sounds like a clean shoot. Situations reversed, the LEO certainly wouldn't be in jail. I guess that is the privledge that comes with being one of the more equal pigs, (No pun intended.)

As for the "eye-poking" and "hose-wetting" ideas, you guys are dead wrong. You might have had it work for you, but if you did, you got lucky. I have had to restrain drunks plenty of times. I have yet to meet any violent drunk who will cease their violence after being hosed down with a garden hose, and I have seen 160lb drunks who will not quit choking someone out even when you eye gouge, or testicle stomp. Many drunks feel no pain. The 160lb guy in question had to be slammed into the bulkhead about 5 times until his body literally gave out and he let go.

And having been in a neck brace before, I can assure you there is no way in hell you can adequately defend yourself against a 250lb drunk, with that a neck injury and a brace on.

But believe what you want. Sounds like a clean shoot to me. A tragedy, for sure, but a clean shoot.
 
I work in a city jail/state correctional facility. I have seen/been involved in enough fights with people who have been highly intoxicated that I would have to say good shoot. One incident involved a 19 or 20 year old who blew a .35- not a typo. A .35. He could not have weighed more than 150 to 175 pounds. It took myself (6'6" 300 pounds), a city jailer (5'8" 200 pounds) and a police officer (smaller guy, but a Marine nonetheless) to restrain him after he punched the jailer in the face one night. Whoever said someone who is very drunk is like someone doped up on meth or pcp is correct.

We don't know if the shooter was legally drunk. There is a difference between drinking and drunk. Even if the shooter was legally drunk he did stop a possible murder from happening. No bystanders were injured (though if he was intoxicated they may have been in danger-it is all speculation), and the person presenting the threat was stopped cold. Sober or drunk I hope I would have what it taked to end this type of thing from happening to anyone. The woman was being choked. Deadly threat=deadly force. I have had quite a bit of Defensive Tactics training because of the job, and even with that I would not use it to stop a deadly threat unless it was the only means available.
Wristlocks, arm bars, pressure points, bracchial stuns, strikes to the common peronial, etc., have little or no effect on someone who cannot feel them.

My personal experience, my .02, YMMV, etc.

ETA: A local officer was arrested recently for beating his soon to be ex-wife. He was terminated on the spot, as he should have been.
Also, the drunkard mentioned above wound up having to be tazered again, about 8 or 10 hours after the incident in the drunk tank (he was tazered at the scene of the arrest). Never underestimate a drunk.
 
While he was knocking the stew out of my friend on the other side fo the car I sneaked up behind him and hit him in the head with everything I had, all I got out of him was a grunt, an extremely sore hand, and thrown over a car. He kicked my butt until the cops got there.

And you are giving this as a reason why the shooter should have "snuck up behind him and hit him in the head with everything he had", or sprayed him with a hose or whatever? :scrutiny:

By your own description, the guy you fought could have ignored you long enough to snap your buddy's neck had he been choking him rather than beating him. Instead he decided to cease beating your buddy and throw you over a car and commence kicking your butt next.

And yet you insist the better option for the partly disabled shooter was to have ignored your own experience and gotten the same lack of effect (and potentially lethal outcome with the same (or lesser. really, a garden hose?:rolleyes: ) tactics?

Don't mean to pile on and I don't mean my pointing out the inconsistency of thought process being used to be insulting. It's just that sometimes shooting actually IS the appropriate response. There's no need to look ridiculously hard for reasons why it isn't.
 
Quote:
.45, you mean like the big drunk cop could twist and break the woman's neck (intentionally or unintentionally) while Chuck Norris is karahtay kicking and eye gouging?


The same thing can happen with a gunshot. There are degrees of risk to any action.

Merely another point. "Yours is quite valid."


a shot to the cortex would stop all motor response instantly. if you have to stop someone "dead in their tracks", place the muzzle at the base of the brain behind the ear, so that the bullet goes in just behind one earlobe, and comes out just behind the other. anyone shot that way with a 38 spcl or equivalent handgun will drop instantly, without reflexive response. a 22/32 might do the job, but we should err on the side of excess with a bigger fellow.
 
Hi everyone

Definitely an interesting post. I don't think that there are enough facts yet, but after listening to the recording my gut says it's justified. Unfortunately, I have lived through family violence with and without booze and guns, when I was a teenager. I can say that things can become very intense very quickly. I can vouch for drunk people being almost immune to pain, and, having scrapped with some myself, can say that it is definitely not for the faint of heart. As for a big drunk guy throttling my sister, I'm not sure that I could consider all of the other options...
Still, the shooter could have had an agenda, so I will wait for more intel
 
True, we do not know the whole story. We are judging from the data we have, and from that data, I feel he was totally justified. That is what this discussion is about.

Of course, there could have been a better solution: the wife should have divorced the cop, got a restraining order, and moved to the west coast. There are always "should have done" possibilities, but if the accounts we have read are at all accurate, then I have to support the defender.

There was danger of death or serious injury. Ohio law allows the use of deadly force to protect a third party under appropriate circumstances.

Ken
 
Carebear read posts #44 & #89. IN 44 I defended the shooter. In 89 I wasn't refering to this particular case when mentioning possible alternatives off the top of my head because as I stated clearly there isn't enough information avaliable to say whether there were alternative actions he could have taken. At that point I wasn't even aware of all the prior incidents the wifebeater had so I more or less assumed it was a one time deal. I have stated more than once that I think it appears from what info is avaliable to be justified. The prior injury and the strong possibility that the wifebeater was armed leaves him with very few options if any at all. In his position unless I know for absolute sure that he isn't armed I would assume he is. And would have to assume that as a LEO he should and probably does know how to use his weapon effectively.

If the shooter was drunk it will haunt him in court for sure. Had it been the other way around and the off duty LEO shot his wifebeating and CCW permit holding(hence likely armed) BIL he wouldn't be sitting in jail. If he was drunk he might face some charges but I have my doubts.
 
a shot to the cortex would stop all motor response instantly.
That's one hell of an accurate shot on a guy that's moving around.


if you have to stop someone "dead in their tracks", place the muzzle at the base of the brain behind the ear
And the odds that a 300lbs raging drunk will let you walk up and do this are? This sounds more like an execution than a shooting.
 
Erebus,

My apologies. This thing got long enough I started replying to other replys instead to original comments. I need to remember to reread the direct posts first.

Sorry about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top