Why are you judging me? I only offered an equally plausible scenario for the Deputy's actions, JUST LIKE YOU.

You have been passing judgements on my posts, I thought well I might as well do the same.


Again, there's not enough information to support a single thing you've posted,

But, don't let something minor like a complete lack of facts stop you from pontificating and posting your anti-police, biased accusations.

There is no conclusive evidence to prove the deputy sheriff's recounting of events either.  All we have to consider is the circumstances that led to the fatality.


There's no difference between your rush to judgement in this case and the Jussie Smollett hoax. You are using an incident to push an agenda before all the facts are known.

What anti-police agenda do you speak of?

If you are accusing me of being a strict adherent to due process of law and against any movement of law enforcement becoming judge, jury, and executioner; I am guilty as charged.


We need to be better than that.

That's the first thing I am total agreement with you in this thread.

You have been passing judgements on my posts, I thought well I might as well do the same.

The capitol shooting is very questionable to me for the reasons stated prior such as 102lbs, possibly crippled, and drunk.  It's possible that lethal force was indeed justified, but odds wise its very unlikely.  There are small guys that are very skilled at fighting and jiu jitsu, but that is uncommon.  A drunk person at the capitol isn't an immediate threat where you don't have time to call for backup or aren't able to stay at a distance.

My theory is there's a lot of drunks and homeless that are chased away all the time.  This small guy didn't seem like a threat so deputy  was going to kick him out by himself.  Guy surprised the deputy and put up resistance and the deputy panicked and shot.  Probably was truly in fear for his life, but didn't use good judgement.

Exactly, there has never been any question whether the suspect was illegally drinking on government property and needed to escorted off the premises.

What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available.  The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen.

Moreover, I find it extremely fascinating to see how a well-trained hand-to-hand combat officer of the law could be compromised in a headlock given the physical and cognitive limitations of the suspect.  Let's get real here, the suspect was not an MMA champion and the deputy sheriff was not the average undertrained person who works for minimum wage as a security guard for Walmart.

A fatality has occurred yet again since the beginning of 2019 and its not something, especially the responsible citizens in the firearms community who are fighting to protect the 2nd Amendment should condone.  Law enforcement as well as 2nd Amendment supporters should have one thing in-common, which is to protect life, not take it the first chance they get.

Exactly, there has never been any question whether the suspect was illegally drinking on government property and needed to escorted off the premises.

What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available.  The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen.

Moreover, I find it extremely fascinating to see how a well-trained hand-to-hand combat officer of the law could be compromised in a headlock given the physical and cognitive limitations of the suspect.  Let's get real here, the suspect was not an MMA champion and the deputy sheriff was not the average undertrained person who works for minimum wage as a security guard for Walmart.

A fatality has occurred yet again since the beginning of 2019 and its not something, especially the responsible citizens in the firearms community who are fighting to protect the 2nd Amendment should condone.  Law enforcement as well as 2nd Amendment supporters should have one thing in-common, which is to protect life, not take it the first chance they get.

I find it interesting that you are allowed to make allegations and suppositions that are automatically true and those that are reported in the news and by the authorities are automatically false...

and you have made those statements in this last post at least 3-4 times in this thread already, repeating them does not make them more true...

can we just agree that we should wait for the facts?

I find it interesting that you are allowed to make allegations and suppositions that are automatically true and those that are reported in the news and by the authorities are automatically false...

What allegations am I making up?

The suspect has a history of being disabled, was drinking alcohol, and very small in stature.     FACT

The suspect was not an expert in hand-to-hand combat.     FACT

The suspect did not have any convictions of assault or battery.     FACT

The deputy sheriff was equipped with less lethal tools for self-defense.     FACT

The deputy sheriff did not call for assistance and approached the suspect.     FACT

The deputy sheriff choose to use his firearm resulting in the death of the suspect.   FACT

The deputy sheriff did not state using any of his less lethal weapons (i.e., pepper spray or baton).     FACT

What am I missing?

Exactly, there has never been any question whether the suspect was illegally drinking on government property and needed to escorted off the premises.

What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available.  The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen.

Moreover, I find it extremely fascinating to see how a well-trained hand-to-hand combat officer of the law could be compromised in a headlock given the physical and cognitive limitations of the suspect.  Let's get real here, the suspect was not an MMA champion and the deputy sheriff was not the average undertrained person who works for minimum wage as a security guard for Walmart.

A fatality has occurred yet again since the beginning of 2019 and its not something, especially the responsible citizens in the firearms community who are fighting to protect the 2nd Amendment should condone.  Law enforcement as well as 2nd Amendment supporters should have one thing in-common, which is to protect life, not take it the first chance they get.

define a "combat officer".

My mistake, there should have been a comma between combat and officer; hand-to-hand combat, officer of the law.


 I agree with some of your points and you bring a balanced perspective. I don't agree that the majority of posters are rallying for LE to shoot in response to a threat.
I agree that LE is there to protect life. But according to the news article the suspect put the LEO in a situation which warranted the response from said LEO. It's against the law to drink in the public but the suspect disregarded that law through his physical interaction with the LEO. The outcome would definitely be different had the suspect heeded the LEO's directions.

Ren, that is the area that I question.  The deputy sheriff claims that the suspect was not compliant, which is highly possible, but goes on to say that the suspect attacked him and secured a headlock, which forced him to apply deadly force.  This is all hearsay by the deputy sheriff.

Once again, we are talking about a drunk and disabled individual all of a sudden uncharacteristically attack a law enforcement officer.  I am not sure this is consistent with his court history, which he had prior infractions with the law with alcohol before, but none with assault or battery.

Granted anything is possible in dealing with intoxicated suspects, but it is hard to envision a 5'3", 102 lbs. man with a limp somehow getting a jump on a hand-to-hand trained deputy sheriff.  Unless that deputy sheriff was equally small in stature and totally looking in the opposite direction, there should be no reasonable way the smaller unskilled suspect get and maintain a headlock on the larger deputy sheriff, resulting in the deputy sheriff making the decision to lethally shoot the suspect to protect himself.  I guess the deputy sheriff was not familiar with the infamous low front kick used by Agent Deedy at MacDonald's.

What allegations am I making up?
What am I missing?


stalked by shoot first, ask questions later police officers

police officers shoot the perpetrator first, before he accelerated his vehicle

Both officers were in fear of their lives?  REALLY.

police did trap the perpetrator using their vehicles, but one officer deliberately put himself in harms way within the police vehicle barricade.

hearsay by the police officers involved

Police must be always put on their toes when they choose to execute somebody, instead of bringing a suspect to due process of the law, no matter what the risks may be. 

he lost his balance and instinctively lunged or grabbed on the deputy sheriiff to regain his balance, which might have been wrongfully misinterpreted as an attack through which the deputy sheriff ended that person's life

another incident of questionable judgement at the hands of law enforcement resulting in an avoidable fatality

But I guess for the supporters with the shoot first and ask questions later approach to law enforcement in this forum, lets see if HPD can break the all-time record for police shootings and/or fatalities in this year. 

how can one justify using lethal force against such a short and light crippled adversary

Maybe he woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning

Maybe he was too excessive in his commands or was actually begging for a confrontation

If you are drunk, you are not in your right mind and not in-control of your faculties; hence, it should be no surprise to the deputy sheriff to receive non-compliance.  Moreover, this is even more reason for the deputy sheriff to have prepared for a potential physical altercation,

clumsy and uncoordinated at best, which is much less a match for our trained deputy sheriff.

presumably was trained in close quarter grappling skills

If the sheriff's deputy was properly trained in situational awareness, he would/should have been able to reasonably size up and at least make a determination of the victim's overall physical capabilities.

The alternative would either be to shoot first and ask questions later, which what did happen or leave the man alone to do as he pleases

he obviously felt no immediate danger or why would have he moved into hand-to-hand combat range if he thought otherwise

well-trained hand-to-hand combat law enforcement officer

he willingly choose his firearm over the other less lethal tools on his person

there is no reason to believe that he would not either strategically retreat upon assessing what he was up against or call for immediate support.

The deputy sheriff's reported actions showed that he did not see no immediate physical danger or concealed weapons; felt confident going into hand-to-hand combat range; somehow got overpowered by a clearly physically disabled and alcohol impaired individual; but decided to employ his firearm killing the suspect when his less-lethal options were available.

slowly uncovers your firm bias to the use of deadly force for any circumstance and that the use of less-lethal means of defending oneself against an unarmed opponent is never appropriate

number of members of this forum is just hoping all law enforcement officers behave as Judge Dread of DC Comics, where cops function as judge, jury, and executioner

What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available.  The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen

So says the thought policeman, when the statements posted does not agree with him.


So what are you going to do, shoot me first and ask questions later because you don't like my position on this issue?

so you agree that none of what I posted is FACT
doesn't that make you the thought policeman?

That is your entitled interpretation of the things I posted.  The assessment and positions I posted regarding the fatality at the capitol were all based on the available facts made public up to this point.


especially given the fact that I never said I don't like your position on this issue...


So, do you or do you not concur with my position challenging the legitimacy of the deputy sheriff's use of deadly force on his alledged claim that a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled drunk with no prior history of assault and battery that walks with a limp somehow got him into a headlock through which he felt he was about to die, if he did not use his firearm?

So, do you or do you not concur with my position challenging the legitimacy of the deputy sheriff's use of deadly force on his alledged claim that a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled drunk with no prior history of assault and battery that walks with a limp somehow got him into a headlock through which felt he was about to die, if he did not use his firearm?

...
can we just agree that we should wait for the facts?

He already answered that (same position I've been stating from the beginning):

What additional facts are you waiting for?

You already know almost everything there is to know in regards to the 5'3", 102 lbs. part-time homeless, disabled individual with no prior conviction of assault or battery who happened to satisfy his love for alcohol at the capitol on that fateful day.

You already know the disposition of the deputy sheriff, who was given your standard hand-to-hand combat training and equipped with less lethal weapons of pepper spray and a baton, in addition to his firearm.

You already are aware of the official statement given to the public that the deputy sheriff alleged that his approach to the suspect was without back-up and ended in an altercation with the suspect and put in a headlock.

You also know that the suspect was unarmed with a deadly weapon and yet the deputy sheriff felt he was going to loose his life if he did not end the suspect's life with his firearm, despite the fact he had a choice to use his pepper spray and/or baton.

The only fact I am waiting for now is for the authorities to claim he had a concealed gun so they can further demonize gun ownership and their gun confiscation agenda.

So, in your world, the press gives you 100% complete and accurate information before any investigating is done by the police?

Good news!  We can just use newspaper reports and TV video from lawyer offices to take people to court. No need to look for witnesses or physical evidence.

Such a time and money saver!