Shooting Involving Off-Duty LEO in Philly

[vontar]

As I read it the guys gun was unloaded, planning a trip to the range. This being in the wonderful state of NJ, he was probably unloaded trying to play by that states strick rules. I am not even going to bother to look up the rules for NJ.

[TNFF319]

Why did the cop feel the need to make contact with the guy in the first place? He was walking from a friends house with the gun. How is that threatening anyone?

[DaveTN]

We only have of side of the story. I doubt we will get the other side of the story unless there is a trial. If there isn’t a trial I doubt we will ever hear the other side.

It does make good press though.

[Tnscooter63]

We only have of side of the story. I doubt we will get the other side of the story unless there is a trial. If there isn’t a trial I doubt we will ever hear the other side.

It does make good press though.

+100

the best thing for me is to learn from this what I would do where I live, with what I carry and being every situation is different I still dont know for sure what I would do, whether hit the ground or fight, my mind may say fight but my body dont always follow so fast. I would have to give the leo the benefit of the doubt till proven guilty, to many people feel just the opposite for the poor victim, makes me wonder why anyone would want to be a leo but where would we be then?

[CQB Elite]

Why did the cop feel the need to make contact with the guy in the first place? He was walking from a friends house with the gun. How is that threatening anyone?

This is a heavy discussion topic on another forum I visit. I didn't check to see if the news story was in the 1st post but here is my summary of the even:

The Philadelphia, PA, news is reporting that an off duty officer shot a man during what they report as an argument over a parking space. The off duty officer was helping a relative move in. The person shot came home from the grocery store with his girlfriend. The story gets blurry after that. Feel free to search for Philadelphia news and read the story for yourself.

[CQB Elite]

Man shot by off-duty officer is in an induced coma | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/27/2011

The story was in the first post.

[vontar]

Another reason CC is better the OC when it is allowed.

Out of sight, out of mind.

[Mark A]

Why did the cop feel the need to make contact with the guy in the first place? He was walking from a friends house with the gun. How is that threatening anyone?

This is where I'm at until more verifiable facts emerge. On the surface it sounds like a busybody sticking his nose where he shouldn't have

Mark

[Guest Overtaker]

Another reason CC is better the OC when it is allowed.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Another reason OC needs to be commonplace.

Lots of OC in Phoenix, AZ = police don't give much thought to citizens carrying a firearm because it is commonplace.

Hardly any OC in Philadelphia = everyone with a gun is a criminal and this happens.

[Guest UberDuper]

I've seen maybe 10 people OC'ing in AZ over the last 7 years.

And by the anecdotal stories I've seen here and on AZ gun boards, AZ OC and CCers get a lot more hassle from the police.

[Major Kong]

If the cop is lying (which I happen to believe he is) I hope the victim owns a precinct and the cop is unemployed by the time he's done with his lawsuit.

[DaveTN]

If the cop is lying (which I happen to believe he is) I hope the victim owns a precinct and the cop is unemployed by the time he's done with his lawsuit.

Where did you see the cops side of the story?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't mind jumping to conclusions.

That dude was an idiot for running into his house. If reports change, so will my opinion.

Sent from my Etch a Sketch

Trouble is with drawing that conclusion is as dangerous as any other. That was an article in a news outlet.

Is the article factual? Do you believe everything you read? Who told the truth?

I think the cop has a problem with credibility, but I don't know for a fact anything more than what was printed

any more than you do. So, calling that guy an idiot for running back into his house is just as absurd as believing

anything else in that story. Were they across the street from each other, or next door?

How did the cop identify himself? He said he did, anyway. Is one of these people any more credible than the other?

Hell no! All you have is a story from one man's perspective and interpreted by a reporter. Innocent until proven guilty.

Need more info.

[Guest monkeyhumper]

Trouble is with drawing that conclusion is as dangerous as any other. That was an article in a news outlet.

Is the article factual? Do you believe everything you read? Who told the truth?

I think the cop has a problem with credibility, but I don't know for a fact anything more than what was printed

any more than you do. So, calling that guy an idiot for running back into his house is just as absurd as believing

anything else in that story. Were they across the street from each other, or next door?

How did the cop identify himself? He said he did, anyway. Is one of these people any more credible than the other?

Hell no! All you have is a story from one man's perspective and interpreted by a reporter. Innocent until proven guilty.

Need more info.

I guess I'm not getting the 'danger' here...

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold legal weight with regards to my opinion, does it?

I seriously am failing to see the 'danger' of giving a 17 year veteran the benefit of the doubt, just as I see no 'danger' in thinking the cop has credibility issues.

[trblmkr13]

I think the article is poorly written, I have more questions than facts after reading it

[vontar]

Where did you see the cops side of the story?

About the 4th or 5th paragraph

The officer told investigators

....

I don't want to quote too much keeping with forum rules.

http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-27/news/29478789_1_police-officer-police-shooting-shooting-range

I think the article is poorly written, I have more questions than facts after reading it

That is a sign of a good writer. Keeps you hungry for more so you will come back. To bad they forget to follow up with new material.

Edited April 29, 2011 by vontar

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess I'm not getting the 'danger' here...

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold legal weight with regards to my opinion, does it?

I seriously am failing to see the 'danger' of giving a 17 year veteran the benefit of the doubt, just as I see no 'danger' in thinking the cop has credibility issues.

You got one man's side of a story(cop) seen through

the eyes of a reporter and can draw a conclusion, or

rather claim the other one to be an idiot. I guess you

would make a good juror.

I wouldn't have commented if you said "if he did that".

Judgmental where the whole picture isn't available.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk