MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

An Orange Country Deputy Shot an Unarmed Marine in Front of His Children Last Week

On February 7, an Orange County deputy, still unnamed, fatally shot an unarmed former Marine in front of the latter's children while all three of them sat in the Marine's car.

Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr. was driving at 4:45 a.m. with his two children and he had apparently crashed his van through a gate and ended up in a school parking lot. He then exited the van, stood on the football field for a while, and then started to return to the van, ignoring orders from the deputy (and three others who had arrived) to stop.

The deputy says he feared for the safety of Loggins' 9 and 14-year-old children because Loggins has been making "irrational statements" and was about to drive away. 

Loggins' friends say he was an extremely religious man who liked to take his daughters for walks in the early mornings at that school and talk to them about the Bible. Former colleagues also say he was great soldier who always listened and obeyed orders. 

Some news reports suggested that the deputy's fears for his own safety were what motivated the shooting. However, no weapon was found on Loggins and sounds like the safety of the children is being made out as the main motivation by police (not that it couldn't have been both). The deputy is now on administrative leave pending an investigation. 

It's possible that Loggins was having some sort of nervous breakdown. It's even possible that his children were in danger. But since it it apparently needs to be repeated, what good are police if they can't help someone in mental distress and turn so quickly to lethal force? Where were the deputy's less-lethal weapons if these now-fatherless children really were in trouble? Considering some recent, nasty police incidents in Orange County, you have to wonder how this investigation is going to turn out. Shooting into a van when there are children in the back seat is a very desperate move. Hopefully it was justified. It certainly makes you wish for mandatory cameras on every police officer.

[Updated] It seems that the dashcam captured "the entire incident." I guess we'll see.

Reason.tv on the killing of Kelly Thomas by Fullerton, California police:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    So this could be the one time that using a taser was actually appropriate, but gunning him down was the first option. Fuck.

  • ||

    Somebody needed to "make his bones".

  • ||

    No see tasers are used to torture people that pose no threat. Guns are used for what tasers were supposedly meant to due (subdue people without lethal force).

  • ||

    Same ole thing ahead!

  • ||

    I should have listened. To my credit I didn't read the whole thing.

  • ||

    Nonsense! This thread finally and irrefutably resolves the ancient "Dunph v. Everyone Else Here" feud which has been going on since the first creatures crawled out of the sea.

  • ||

    aw, spoilers

  • ||

    Maybe this will cheer some of you up - Citizens defend against cops: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2.....=obnetwork

  • ||

    Did the cop have a taser on him?

    They're not ubiquitous, you know.

  • ||

    The question is, why didn't you shoot an unarmed marine in front of his children last week?

  • ||

    The question is, why didn't you shoot an unarmed marine in front of his children last week?

    Because airplane tickets from Kabul to L.A. are expensive.

  • ||

    An Orange Country Deputy Shot an Unarmed Marine in Front of His Children Last Week

    ..and nothing else happened.

  • ||

    Who wants to bet the deputy became enraged and consciously, premeditatively committed murder? Being a truly just republic, we can expect him to be tried and executed, right? Right?

  • ||

    Of course, the law applies equally to all people in this great republic! Lady Justice is Blind!

    Hahaha, what a joke.

  • ||

    the evidence the deputy was enraged? oh yea, there isn't any

    the facts apparently not in dispute was the guy crashed through the gate of a school in his vehicle at 4:45 am (which is certainly bizarre and at least suggestive of intoxication and/or mental disturbance. or maybe he just hates gates@!), then exited his car, allegedly made irrational statements (further providing evidence he was mentally unhinged and considered along with his driving through the school gate does provide more evidence he was a danger to the kids back in the van), that he was given orders NOT to return to the vehicle and to stop, that he ignored those orders, and that the cop, allegedly fearing for the safety of the kids in the vehicle if he was to return to it WITH THEM INSIDE, took the guy out.

    justified? who the fuck knows. but based on the fact pattern as presented, i see nothing obviously problematic about it.

    the police help people in mental distress all the time. i did last night, taking a guy itno protective custody after his wif relayed his claims he was going to kill himself, and try to take any cops with him, and we did it without a taser (being fired. we did laser him), let alone a gun, and he suffered no injury whatsoever.

    and that happens a metric assload of times but you DON'T read about those incident here.

    in this incident, assuming he was about to reenter the vehicle, which if the cop believed he was a danger to the kids, who were captive inside, it would give him the means to cause them injury or death, and certainly considering his behavior prior to being shot, as well as allegedly being given multiple orders which he refused to comply with, and that there probably was not a less lethal option AT THAT DISTANCE that was feasible,

    well... sad for him, but i'm glad the kids are ok. would he have injured the kids? i have no idea

    i also have no idea if the deputy reasonably believed that was a legitimate danger, because we don't know enough facts.

    but IF it was, the shooting will be justified.

    officers use lethal force in an astonishingly small %age of encounters with EDP's, even violent, lethal force threatening EDP's (as we dealt with last night, with no force beyond mere handcuffing and verbal orders), but yes... sometimes these people force our hand

    sad, but usually justified.

  • ||

    Instead of this "justified" shtick let's look at the facts of what happens when an unarmed person is shot and killed:

    If the shooter is a cop: time off for investigation, small possibility for charges
    If the shooter isn't a cop: manslaughter charge, minimum

    Your whole "duh it was dark and he was following procedure" argument is just a red herring to avoid the fact that there is now a class of people in this society to whom the law doesn't apply.

  • ||

    simply false. i already cited two cases recently here in the pac NW where unarmed persons were shot by noncops and no arrest or charges were made.

    furthermore, in one of the shootings (guy acutally used a bow and arrow), it would have been unjustified if a cop did it (tenn v. garner) but the noncop was held to the LOWER standard and was thus not charged

  • ||

    Good god,
    This meme is getting old, dunphy. No dashcam, no witnesses, nothing to base your claims off of except the claims of law enforcement.
    The facts evident are 1) a man is dead with bullet holes in him, 2) his children were in the back seat, 3) a cop shot him, and 4) there was no weapon found on the dead guy.

    If you wanted to provide evidence to counter the obvious problem we tend to have with one class of citizens getting specialized treatment when it comes to killing others, you should provide some evidence that fits the fucking criteria:
    1) Citizen A attempts to stop citizen B.
    2) Both citizens are in public.
    3) Citizen A pulls a weapon on an unarmed man who made no threats
    4) Citizen B was unarmed.

  • ||

    i already gave cites to sloopy

    the oregon case a man shot a guy (bow and arrow) who had burglarized his neighbors UNOCCUPIED house, never presented or showed a weapon and was running away OUTSIDE when the neighbor shot him after demands to stop.

    no charges

    again, this double standard does not exist vis a vis deadly force.

    note that in THIS shooting here, a cop would not have been justified, because we are restrained by tenn. v. garner, which puts a GREATER restriction on us, then THIS person had, since tenn v. garner does not apply to him (4th amendemnt case)

    hth

    Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur said she will not prosecute a Kelso man who shot an arrow into the buttock of a suspected fleeing burglar late last year, but insisted Friday she is not encouraging vigilante justice.

    In an interview, Baur said her decision is by no means a license for Cowlitz County residents to open fire on people they believe to be committing crimes.

    "If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."

    Kelso police said that around 11:45 p.m. Dec. 13, Scott Allen Schwingdorf, 33, heard glass breaking at his neighbors' vacant home in the 1100 block of 10th Avenue North and spotted Galen Louis Crayne of Longview walking away from the residence with a brown box tucked under his arm.

    Schwingdorf, who had armed himself with a hunting bow, shot a fleeing Crayne in the left buttock with a broadhead arrow, police said.

    Crayne, who survived the shooting, broke the arrow off and fled in a truck that was waiting at Cliff's Hilltop Market about two blocks away, authorities said.

    In a carefully worded statement released late Thursday, Baur said Washington State law allows citizens to "use reasonable force to defend property they own or have been entrusted with."

    "It appears that Mr. Schwingdorf acted to stop a person he believed was fleeing after committing a residential burglary at a house he had agreed to watch," Baur's statement said.

    Baur said Schwingdorf chased Crayne for about a block, calling repeatedly for him to stop, then fired his bow once on 10th Avenue near the corner of Burcham Street. (Previous accounts in the newspaper misstated where the shooting occurred.)

    Schwingdorf shot Crayne, also 33, from a distance of about 90 feet, Baur said.

    In her statement Baur said: "Had Mr. Schwingdorf acted with intent other than to stop a fleeing felon, or had the force used resulted in death, or had any of his assumptions been incorrect, his actions would be outside the realm of necessary or reasonable, and the charging decision would likely be different."

    Crayne, who faces trial in September for residential burglary, could not be reached. His mother, Jacquelyn Crayne, of Longview, said she is angry with the prosecutor's office for not filing charges against the man who shot her son.

    "We don't want people out burglarizing places," she said. "But it is not somebody else's responsibility to do something about it. You should never be allowed to do what that man did. He is by no means trained to recognize or assess a situation properly. It's not his right."

    Schwingdorf declined to comment on the record Friday. Juries in several Cowlitz County cases this year appeared to side with defendants claiming to protect themselves. In one case a jury acquitted a man accused of waving a gun at nightclub bouncers who had just forcibly boosted him from a club. In another, a Woodland man who shot a home builder four times and claimed self-defense was sentenced to nine months in jail after a jury chose to convict him of a lesser charge.

    Jacquelyn Crayne said Baur feared that Cowlitz County juries favor defendants claiming to protect themselves or their property. Baur, she said, "didn't want to lose a case."

    Baur said earlier this year that she was taking the previous cases into consideration in weighing whether to charge Schwingdorf. But she said Friday that "losing a case is not something I've ever been afraid of."

    Baur, who is being challenged for re-election in November by public defense attorney Tom Ladouceur, said politics did not influence her decision. "If I was worried about that, I would have done something in December... (and) it would have died down by now," she said. "I wanted to take my time with this one and take everything into consideration."

    In this narrow set of circumstances, Baur said, the law simply "does not support a conviction." She cited a state law that allows citizens to use force to protect "personal property lawfully in his or her possession" as long as "the force is not more than is necessary."

    In a statement, Baur said that on the night of the shooting, Schwingdorf was in his garage when he heard glass breaking at his next door neighbors' house, which had been left vacant by a recent fire. The neighbors had asked Schwingdorf to keep an eye on the residence, the statement said.

    Schwingdorf, according to Baur's account, told his mother to call 911. He grabbed a bow and arrow, which was nearby in the garage, and stepped outside, where he found Crayne, authorities said.

    (Police reports have identified the suspected burglar as Crayne, but Baur said her written statement to the newspaper does not mention Crayne's name because his case has not yet been resolved and she is ethically barred from commenting on it publicly.)

    Schwingdorf told Crayne to stop, Baur's statement said. Instead, Crayne ran. Schwingdorf gave chase and called repeatedly for him to stop and put down the box, but Crayne continued running, Baur said.

    "To prevent the man from escaping with his neighbors' property, Mr. Schwingdorf shot an arrow at him," Baur's statement said. "The arrow struck the man in the buttocks, causing serious injury."

    Crayne broke off the arrow's shaft and fled in a truck, the statement said. Crayne was arrested in February on suspicion of burglary.

    Jacquelyn Crayne said the arrowhead remained lodged in her son's pelvis for nearly six months until he underwent surgery to remove it.

    "He still has a limp," she said.


    Read more: http://tdn.com/news/local/arti.....z1mJcApNFf

  • ||

    in brief, oregon law ALLOWS noncops (although i would assiume an offduty cop protecting his neighbor's property would be held under the loser noncop standard of force) to use such force for a NONVIOLENT crime, when the person is FLEEING and no threats or show of violence have been made.

    if a cop did the exact same thing, this would violate the standard set in tenn. v. garner, where cop shot a fleeing (nonviolent) felon in the back and SINCE that case, cops CANNOT do that.

    in many cases, NONcops can. as in this case.

    QED.

  • ||

    The only reason why there is case law to cite in the first place is because THEY WERE ARRESTED AND TRIED IN COURT. Does this not go through your head? It's not up to fucking department policy to decide whether or not it's a justified shooting.

    Department policy isn't the fucking law.

  • ||

    That's fucking great for Oregon, isn't it? Tell me how that's supposed to strengthen your argument relative to this case in California again?

  • ||

    This can't be the real dunphy.

    In the case you cited, someone was fleeing with another person's private property.

    In this case, there was no theft.
    Once again, get some relevant evidence.

  • ||

    your level of intellectual dishonesty is telling

    THIS person was neither arrested, nor charged, and he used deadly force where a cop woul;d NOT have been justified

    if you can't admit that, go bitch to somebody else.

    you made a false claim, i refuted with evidence and you yea but

  • ||

    whoops:
    1) Citizen A attempts to stop citizen B."

    Looks like I didn't say "arrested". Only you.
    The claim is not false. No one is being dishonest except you, buddy.
    I've tried to take you as seriously as possible here, but you're as brainwashed as the rest.

  • ||

    The fact that you can't comprehend the difference between a private citizen attempting to prevent a robbery on private property and a cop shooting a citizen for supposedly ignoring his attempts to detain him in public is fucking scary.

  • ||

    I mean... god damn scary.. really..

  • ||

    He only speaks cop.

  • ||

    Cowlitz County is in Washington, not Oregon.

  • ||

    GREAT WALL OF TEXT

    But, from it:
    "If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."

    Compare and contrast with:

    the deputy reasonably believed that was a legitimate danger

    You are holding the cops to a lower standard.

    The citizen must be right, the cop merely must believe a legitimate danger.

    You are a fucking liar.

  • ||

    FYI, robc: I've had this same argument with dunphy on more than one occasion. Do not expect him to come back and address that quote.

    Oh, and the whole story is basically a "we wanted to charge him, we really did, but didn't think we could win."

  • ||

    ... and we did it without a taser (being fired. we did laser him)...

    What's "laser him" mean?

  • ||

    Aimed at him and GET ON THE GROUND, GET ON THE GROUND MUTHAFUCKA'd him.

  • ||

    point the taser red dot laser at him and tell him if he did not keep his hands up, he would be tased.

    we used pretty good tactics to close the distance to where that was effective

  • ||

    Did you call the President and have him stand by with the nuclear codes, just in case the mean old crazy got too close to you? Officer safety, and all that, you know?

  • ||

    no, i did call your mom and tell her to wipe your mouth as you were slobbering all over your safety keyboard (tm) again, in the basement

  • ||

    We're down to "your mom" quips now?

    Boy, oh, boy, pig -- somebody's desperate, eh?

  • ||

    We're down to "your mom" quips now?

    Boy, oh, boy, pig -- somebody's desperate, eh?

  • ||

    i lowered myself to the vicinity of your discourse, with the 'shit" references, etc.

    iow, i figured if i lopped 30 iq points off and talked more slowly and profanely, you might have a better chance of grokking my point

    hth

  • ||

    Does "hth" indicate the occurrence of your hourly aneurysm, or what the fuck is that?

  • ||

    > we used pretty good tactics to close the distance to where that was effective

    You're our kind of guy, dunphy. We're having a meeting and would love for you to attend. Do you like beer halls?

  • ||

    Dunphy you just wasted alot of words trying to justify a cop who shot an unarmed man in front of that unarmed man's daughters because the cop thought the unarmed man was yelling loud. Also the father, whose daughters witnessed his massacre at the hands of some worthless pig, was a decorated Marine.

  • ||

    i'm not trying to justfy anything. i said ad nauseum, i don't KNOW if it's justified

    the fact pattern as presented, makes it likely it was, but there are way too many gaps to know for sure.

    when a shooting or use of force, appears unjustified, i say so.

    in the instant case, there is nowhere near enough info to know with any certainty. the best i can say is that it is more likely than not it is justified, assuming the facts as presented are reasonably accurate

  • ||

    Are you trying to see how much noxious bullshit you can fit into a single thread, or what? Because you're doing extremely well, and I'm pretty sure this is a new record for you.

  • ||

    quit your bitching. if you can't stand the laws surrounding the use of deadly force in cali, then work to change them

    the petulant whining gets old

  • ||

    Ah yes, the old "If you don't like the laws, then work to change them" nonsense. Nevermind when laws are immoral and/or unconstitutional.

    Would you have told the founders to plead with King George? Would you have told runaway slaves to return to their masters and beg for freedom? Would you have told the Jews in Warsaw to plead their case to the court and/or voting public?

    You disgust me, you pig.

  • ||

    Wait a minute, what law are we supposed to be trying to change?

  • ||

    Hope you get raped by a fag with AIDS, PIG bastard.

  • ||

    Hope you get raped by a fag with AIDS, PIG bastard.

  • ||

    I got news for you brother - even if its justified, it ain't justified.

  • oncogenesis||

    the cop, allegedly fearing for the safety of the kids in the vehicle if he was to return to it WITH THEM INSIDE, took the guy outmurdered a non-violent human being.

  • ||

    sad, but usually justified.

    Cop crashes his cruiser through a gate. He has kids in the back seat; whether they're his or not is unknown. Concerned, armed citizen happens upon the scene. Cop is ambling about dazed, mumbling incoherently. Citizen orders cop to stop, cop instead moves toward vehicle with kids inside. Concerned citizen, fearing for the safety of the kids in the car, opens fire, killing the cop.

    Astonishly rare occurence, but sometimes people's hands are forced.

    Sad, but probably justified.

  • ||

    "then exited his car, allegedly made irrational statements (further providing evidence he was mentally unhinged and considered along with his driving through the school gate does provide more evidence he was a danger to the kids back in the van), t"

    Or maybe he whacked his head in the accident and needed medical treatment. Unless the dashcam shows otherwise, I'm assuming the cop escalated the situation far beyond what was required.

    On the plus side, eventually the Marines are going to get tired of this shit and start doing something about the hometown chickenshits.

  • ||

    How about just shooting out the tires? That seems to be police procedure for high-speed car chases, but not when the car is parked?

  • ||

    Did anyone consider that the man might have been injured in the crash? Maybe that's why he was making "irrational statements" whatever that means. Maybe he was suffering from PTSD in the first place. In any case, he did not deserve to be killed. I'm sure that the policeman could have shot to wound if he was so concerned. Instead, he kills the guy. I'd like to see the policeman's record and education and training.

  • ||

    This is why we have to have rules and laws, Bingo! So that the powerful can ignore them just like they always do, but we get to pretend they actually matter.

  • ||

    which law was ignored?

  • ||

    Sweet baby Jesus, you cannot possible be this fucking retarded.

  • ||

    Uhh, the one where you don't fucking kill people outside of self-defense.

  • ||

    there is no such law.

    under constitutional law, and case law, while the cops are generally more restrained than noncops in use of force during situations like this (see: tenn v. garner etc. or the recent utah case i cited where a noncop used deadly force where a cop would not have been justified, but i digress),they can use deadly force for a # of reasons, among those are when they have reasonable belief that the subject of the deadly force presents a threat of death or serious bodily injuries to others. in this case, those others would be the kids in the vehicle, you know the ones who were in his car when he crashed through the gate etc.

    it would be helpful if you had even a cursory understanding of the laws surrounding deadly force before coming to conclusions regarding same

  • ||

    ugh... oregon, not utah

  • ||

    More obfuscatory horseshit. Nobody this retarded is a cop. I call spoof.

  • ||

    See, the difference between me and you is that you use legality to define your own opinion over whether or not the action is moral. And certain members of a large public sector union are given a large amount of leeway in whatever discretion they use.

  • ||

    i didn't say it was or wasn;'t moral.

    i realize you can't fucking read, but this is a stupid response even for you.

    and that's saying a lot

    again, i never said this shooting was or wasn't moral.

    i never even said it was or wasn't JUSTIFIED.

    keep living in your fantasy world. must be nice

  • ||

    Not moral. Therefore, not justified. If you keep saying it was justified according to the law, it makes it look an awful lot like you are defending the pigs' immoral actions.

  • ||

    Worth re-posting

    If more of you guys acted like this around armed citizens with cameras, dunphy, you'd have a case.

  • ||

    You have to admit he's a scary dude, what with the bald head and nurse's scrubs.

  • ||

    C'mon HM look at him....he was asking for it...what with being black and all.

  • ||

    All your balls are belong to us.

  • ||

    i love the histrionic and bizarre is writing in this blurb (calling it an article would be a bit too generous)

    my favorite is referring to the person who got shot as SGT.

    since when do we refer to former marines by their military rank?

    if the deputy was a former marine ( i have no idea if he is, nor is it relevant) would we refer to him by that rank as well?

    is it supposed to engender some sort of extra special respect for the person who got shot?

    oh, the deputy didn't shoot John Doe, he shot SGT. John Doe, a FORMER marine.

    wow.

    what was lee harvey oswald's rank in the marines? do we read stories about how private lee harvey oswald shot kennedy?

    one thing i can agree with lucy about. more cameras , and more video of these incidents, the better. it helps discover truth, helps punish the guilty and helps exonerate the innocent

  • ||

    Bad spoofing. I am getting to be more and more of the mind that registration here would not be so bad.

  • ||

    since when do we refer to former marines by their military rank?

    Standard military practice. My dad gets referred to by his last rank all the time despite being retired for 10 years.

  • ||

    Really? My father, also long retired, only gets referred to by his rank when taking advantage of privileges related to his service (PX access and so on).
    Of course

  • ||

    [accident early submission]

    ... he retired as a Commander. Perhaps it's different for O6+s and for very senior enlisted or warrant types.

  • ||

    reason isn't the military.

    again, if the deputy was a former marine captain, i am reasonably confident steigerwald wouldn't have said "captain XXXX" shot the guy.

    his identity as a former marine (now, steigerwald is apparently admitting error. he may have been active duty. whatEver) is completely irrelevant to this story, such as referring to him as a former marine is not problematic. using the title of "SGT." when referencing that he got shot is an appeal to emotion and authority all mixed together

    it's pretty transparent polemics, even for steigerwald

  • ||

    Are you seriously this fucking retarded?

  • ||

    derp derp

  • ||

    Yeah, because pointing out an incident of a badge-touting stormtrooper executing a soldier on-leave at home is Lucy making cheap appeals to emotion.

    Eat shit.

  • ||

    i'm sorry, you are butthurt, pumpkin.

    have a scone.

  • ||

    I bet you're a pedophile dunphy. You send off that kind of vibes, pig faggot.

  • ||

    There are shitloads of veterans working in law enforcement.

    A lot of religious guys too.

  • ||

    Seems to me every time a police officer (former, ex, retired, etc) is killed, no one ever fails to mention his length of service and rank. I guess it could just be dunphy's tired of having to face the facts that he's not a true 'tough guy'.

  • ||

    He surfed 1000 foot waves in the Pacific. He's got nothing to prove.

  • ||

    and power-cleaned mt. Rushmore.

  • ||

    I don't give a single microscopic fuck about the man's past occupations -- whether he was a sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, a baker, a cross-dressing exotic dancer, or a skydiving instructor. Where the fuck do you get the nerve to write this sort of disingenuous bullshit in response to events like this?

    1) Prefixing Loggins' name with his military rank annotates him as the former Marine being referred to in the introductory sentence. You're fully fucking aware of this. You're not a moron, Dunphy. Cut the shit.

    2) Everything I've ever read pertaining to Oswald mentions, or extensively describes and analyzes, his military history. "Private Oswald did this", and, "Private Oswald did that" seem perfectly normal to me.

    A man was murdered by what appears to be a deleterious piece of shit with a badge, and THIS is your point of contention? Fuck off.

  • ||

    there is no reason whatsoever to believe he was murdered.

    that's just hysterical rubbish

    he may have been, but there is no reason to believe it , based on the allegations presented in this article.

    it's a pretty weak puff piece. balko could do better

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Balko could definitely do better. This is, however, a blog post based on several media reports, some of which seem to have conflicting information. Yes, sorry that I mistakenly wrote former and forgot to correct it. But considering that you have no idea what "hysterical" or "histrionic" or "puff piece" means, maybe you shouldn't talk about word definitions either.

  • ||

    "hysterical"

    Uh oh, I think the writers at Jezebel would like a word with dunphy over his word choice.

  • ||

    You don't get it. Kiss his ass and "admit" Deputy Hurrrrrrrrr is a crime-stopping hometown hero, and his appraisal of your journalistic skills will go up ten thousand notches.

  • ||

    jezebel can go suck on their ovulars.

  • ||

    RIGHT, lucy. please edumacate me.

  • ||

    Looked to me like she already took your ass to school.

  • ||

    from your vantage point, i am sure it does.

    funny how that works.

  • ||

    Cop Vantage trumps all other vantage points. NOW GET DOWN ON THE FUCKING GROUND YOU GODDAMN PEASANTS.

  • ||

    STOP

    RESISTING

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    it's a pretty weak puff piece. balko could do better

    We need to add this to the Reason drinking game.

  • ||

    Like we need a reason to get shitfaced!
    Does anyone here post sober?

  • ||

    Does anyone here post sober?

    I'll admit that I rarely do. I am, however, sober right now, which I am coming to regret.

  • ||

    I did once. I think....?

  • ||

    Money was tight a few weeks ago and I was forced to drink Old Milwaukee since it was on sale...so...yeah, I was definitely SOBER that day!

  • ||

    Damn, Lucy, good work. PWND

  • ||

    But considering that you have no idea what "hysterical" or "histrionic" or "puff piece" means, maybe you shouldn't talk about word definitions either.

    Considering the high emotion-affirmation-to-fact ratio in the post, "puff piece" is not too far off. I mean seriously, all that's missing in the hagiography of the guy who got shot is whether he worked in a soup kitchen.

  • ||

    Tulpa, isn't it about time for your 3,000 harumph stick-up-your-ass stick change?

  • ||

    that's just hysterical rubbish

    That's our job. It's what we do.

  • ||

    It is good to see righteous anger. You are a good person.

  • ||

    Everything I've ever read pertaining to Oswald mentions, or extensively describes and analyzes, his military history. "Private Oswald did this", and, "Private Oswald did that" seem perfectly normal to me.

    Seriously? I didn't even know Lee Harvey Oswald was in the military.

  • ||

    Your homework is to watch Full Metal Jacket, then.

  • ||

    I thought this was really common knowledge...

  • ||

    Fuck, man. Even Quantum Leap did an episode about Oswald's time in service!

  • ||

    I like how you referred to the deputy by his rank, but think it wrong to do the same for an NCO in the USMC. Calling him SGT is akin to calling someone Dr. It's common practice.

    When you start calling cops Mr. as opposed to their bullshit rank, then you can talk. Because that rank doesn't mean a thing to people outside of your little club, dickhead.

  • ||

    It's incredible to me that one of the most liberal states has the most deranged, completely out of control police in America.

    I'm truly stunned, because you wouldn't think that a guy like Moonbeam would tolerate this crap.

  • ||

    I suspect your understanding of Moonbeam and the left in general is somewhat lacking.

  • ||

    w3rd. jello biafra predicted this shit years ago

    although i am not sure if the deputy was wearing suede denim

  • ||

    Your levity in discussing this matter lets us all know you really are a cop and not a spoofer. Keep cracking jokes as we discuss a man being gunned down, asshole. Your true colors need to show.

  • ||

    There was a time when liberals and especially goo-goo progressive types like Jerry Brown truly cared about police brutality. Maybe things have changed that much and they just don't any more.

  • ||

    if and when there was evidence this was a case of police brutality, you might have a point

  • ||

    This fantastical degree of incredulity is characteristic of zealous apologists. Terrific.

  • ||

    i am not an apologist. you are a bigot. because i can criticize and recognize police misconduct. you, otoh, assume police misconduct without evidence. you prejudge. that's essentailly a reverse apologist, so to speak

  • ||

    1) "because i can criticize and recognize police misconduct."

    1) I called you an apologist, not a developmentally retarded child. Apologism doesn't require complete denial, by any definition. Nice try.

    2) "you, otoh, assume police misconduct without evidence"

    I assume police misconduct, you insidious asshole, when people are murdered by police officers.

  • ||

    The officer's story has a very bad odor, but we really don't know all the facts. For instance, what if the guy said he felt like killing his kids, then walked to the vehicle ignoring orders to stop and prepared to drive away?

  • ||

    Then back the fuck off because you don't kill someone just because they said something. He couldn't have done anything about it, except for ensuring the worst case scenario by killing him.

  • ||

    You can kill someone over a credible threat to immediately inflict harm on yourself or other innocents.

  • ||

    There was no credible threat here. Just a shitty circumstance that the pig acted too quickly on.

  • ||

    Then you tase him, you fucking retard.

  • ||

    Actually Mike M. I was serious. The left loves high crime rates and will create environments that cause it to rise if they dont think it is high enough (fast and furious). They will have 'security' agencies harass and humiliate the ordinary citizen (TSA). They will choke off the supply of life saving drugs. etc etc.

    Having a brutal police force that also grinds the citizenry into the dirt is just part of the game of making sure the rabble know their place.

  • ||

    I know it's OT, but Fast and Furious is probably the result of groupthink, cowardice, hubris, and mendacity. You know, qualities that bureaucrats and politicians covet and exemplify.

  • ||

    I agree with you completely. There may be alternative reasons well, but they are likely harder to identify, so we should just stick to your reasons. Besides, your reasons are better, more thought out than anybody else's, even those dunderheads who call themselves "experts". Besides, even if your reasoning isn't technically correct, we don't have to tell anyone. It's not like people are going to hold you to it, so what they don't know won't hurt them.

  • ||

    I could probably be convinced of that if Obama had not slipped up with the 'under the radar' remark.
    Those slimy fucks planned it. Considering all else they have done, it is par for the course. There really isnt anything I would put past them.

  • ||

    Hence the "mendacity" part of F&F.

  • ||

    I'm truly stunned, because you wouldn't think that a guy like Moonbeam would tolerate this crap.

    He's far too preoccupied with getting the fast choo choo built and the California Budget of Everlasting Doom to be concerned with the piddlin concerns of a single dead citizen. I'm sure that there are "programs" for his children.

  • ||

    since when do we refer to former marines by their military rank?

    He was still in the service. Orange County is to the north of Camp Pendleton.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Look, don't you get histrionic, too.

  • ||

    The deputy is now on administrative leave epending an investigation.
  • ||

    if he was still active, then you got the facts wrong (how utterly unsurprising) by referring to him as a FORMER marine (setting aside the orange COUNTRY thang.

    bring back balko. he was more rigorous in researching his facts, by a LONG shot

  • ||

    Hey dunphy, just take your cop apologist bullshit and cram it wherever your species traditionally crams things.

  • ||

    ahh yes, the bigot cometh.

    when you have an example of me being a police apologist, cite it.

    there is no rational basis for concluding anything vis a vis this shooting, as to whether it was justified or not

    assuming the fact pattern as presented by steigerwald, it is more probable it was justified than not, but it's pretty thin either way, at this point.

    regardless, if he DID crash through the gate at odark thirty (see i can do the military stuff too just like lucy derp derp), with his little kids in the car, exit the car, make irrational statements, and then refuse commands not to return to the vehicle, the deputy was forced to make a shoot/don't shoot decision, and whether or not it was justified is dependant on a host of factors we simply don't know yet

    but feel free to kneejerk, that the evil copz must be guilty and to wallow in your bigotry and ignorance.

  • ||

    Not following a cops orders is apparently grounds to be executed on the spot. Got it. Good to hear the truth from one of our boys in blue.

  • ||

    Usually, Bingo, Dunphy makes his apologism sound authentic/partially convincing. This time, it's just full-retard. Don't expect any of it to make any sense whatsoever.

  • ||

    um, no

    his grounds for being lawfully shot would be based on the totality of circs known to the officer at the time he pulled the trigger.

    disobeying the order is not the issue, since if he had disobeyed the order to stop, but had walked AWAY from the vehicle, deadly force almost certainly would have been UNjustified.

  • ||

    See what I mean, guys?

  • ||

    Only the cop could know if it was justified! Got it. Why do we even have a justice system if justice is now applied on the spot at the officer's discretion?

    This is what cops actually believe
    This is what a cop actually thinks

  • ||

    Heil Polizei!

  • ||

    not, but whether it was or wasn't justified is the same metric in ANY deadly force incident, cop or not

    it's based on the facts and circumstances as known TO THE PERSON aplying the force at the time of the decision to shoot

    that's just as true for cops, or anybody else.

  • ||

    "that's just as true for cops, or anybody else."

    Your entire problem is that you seriously believe this. In modern society, this is tantamount to Heaven's Gate-grade self-delusion.

  • ||

    noncops usually have a LOOSER not a tighter standard as in...

    Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur said she will not prosecute a Kelso man who shot an arrow into the buttock of a suspected fleeing burglar late last year, but insisted Friday she is not encouraging vigilante justice.

    In an interview, Baur said her decision is by no means a license for Cowlitz County residents to open fire on people they believe to be committing crimes.

    "If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."

    Kelso police said that around 11:45 p.m. Dec. 13, Scott Allen Schwingdorf, 33, heard glass breaking at his neighbors' vacant home in the 1100 block of 10th Avenue North and spotted Galen Louis Crayne of Longview walking away from the residence with a brown box tucked under his arm.

    Schwingdorf, who had armed himself with a hunting bow, shot a fleeing Crayne in the left buttock with a broadhead arrow, police said.

    Crayne, who survived the shooting, broke the arrow off and fled in a truck that was waiting at Cliff's Hilltop Market about two blocks away, authorities said.

    In a carefully worded statement released late Thursday, Baur said Washington State law allows citizens to "use reasonable force to defend property they own or have been entrusted with."

    "It appears that Mr. Schwingdorf acted to stop a person he believed was fleeing after committing a residential burglary at a house he had agreed to watch," Baur's statement said.

    Baur said Schwingdorf chased Crayne for about a block, calling repeatedly for him to stop, then fired his bow once on 10th Avenue near the corner of Burcham Street. (Previous accounts in the newspaper misstated where the shooting occurred.)

    Schwingdorf shot Crayne, also 33, from a distance of about 90 feet, Baur said.

    In her statement Baur said: "Had Mr. Schwingdorf acted with intent other than to stop a fleeing felon, or had the force used resulted in death, or had any of his assumptions been incorrect, his actions would be outside the realm of necessary or reasonable, and the charging decision would likely be different."

    Crayne, who faces trial in September for residential burglary, could not be reached. His mother, Jacquelyn Crayne, of Longview, said she is angry with the prosecutor's office for not filing charges against the man who shot her son.

    "We don't want people out burglarizing places," she said. "But it is not somebody else's responsibility to do something about it. You should never be allowed to do what that man did. He is by no means trained to recognize or assess a situation properly. It's not his right."

    Schwingdorf declined to comment on the record Friday. Juries in several Cowlitz County cases this year appeared to side with defendants claiming to protect themselves. In one case a jury acquitted a man accused of waving a gun at nightclub bouncers who had just forcibly boosted him from a club. In another, a Woodland man who shot a home builder four times and claimed self-defense was sentenced to nine months in jail after a jury chose to convict him of a lesser charge.

    Jacquelyn Crayne said Baur feared that Cowlitz County juries favor defendants claiming to protect themselves or their property. Baur, she said, "didn't want to lose a case."

    Baur said earlier this year that she was taking the previous cases into consideration in weighing whether to charge Schwingdorf. But she said Friday that "losing a case is not something I've ever been afraid of."

    Baur, who is being challenged for re-election in November by public defense attorney Tom Ladouceur, said politics did not influence her decision. "If I was worried about that, I would have done something in December... (and) it would have died down by now," she said. "I wanted to take my time with this one and take everything into consideration."

    In this narrow set of circumstances, Baur said, the law simply "does not support a conviction." She cited a state law that allows citizens to use force to protect "personal property lawfully in his or her possession" as long as "the force is not more than is necessary."

    In a statement, Baur said that on the night of the shooting, Schwingdorf was in his garage when he heard glass breaking at his next door neighbors' house, which had been left vacant by a recent fire. The neighbors had asked Schwingdorf to keep an eye on the residence, the statement said.

    Schwingdorf, according to Baur's account, told his mother to call 911. He grabbed a bow and arrow, which was nearby in the garage, and stepped outside, where he found Crayne, authorities said.

    (Police reports have identified the suspected burglar as Crayne, but Baur said her written statement to the newspaper does not mention Crayne's name because his case has not yet been resolved and she is ethically barred from commenting on it publicly.)

    Schwingdorf told Crayne to stop, Baur's statement said. Instead, Crayne ran. Schwingdorf gave chase and called repeatedly for him to stop and put down the box, but Crayne continued running, Baur said.

    "To prevent the man from escaping with his neighbors' property, Mr. Schwingdorf shot an arrow at him," Baur's statement said. "The arrow struck the man in the buttocks, causing serious injury."

    Crayne broke off the arrow's shaft and fled in a truck, the statement said. Crayne was arrested in February on suspicion of burglary.

    Jacquelyn Crayne said the arrowhead remained lodged in her son's pelvis for nearly six months until he underwent surgery to remove it.

    "He still has a limp," she said.


    Read more: http://tdn.com/news/local/arti.....z1mJcApNFf

    this would be an unjustified shooting if a cop did it (bow and arrow or gun.)

    this guy wasn't restrained by tenn v. garner. cops are

  • ||

    Wow, a case law citation! That applies here because, as with a normal citizen, the cop was arrested and tried in court, right?

    Oh wait, he is a cop so he is given the benefit of the doubt and never goes to trial in the first place.

    Double-standard? Never!

  • ||

    It would be unjustified except.....in the cop's version the guy would have been in the dark, and the cop would have 'seen' a gun. I know this because we had that very case here a few years back.

  • ||

    Cop crashes his cruiser through a gate. He has kids in the back seat; whether they're his or not is unknown. Concerned, armed citizen happens upon the scene. Cop is ambling about dazed, mumbling incoherently. Citizen orders cop to stop, cop instead moves toward vehicle with kids inside. Concerned citizen, fearing for the safety of the kids in the car, opens fire, killing the cop.

    Astonishly rare occurence, but sometimes people's hands are forced.

    Sad, but probably justified.

  • ||

    Can you not read your own cite?

    "Had Mr. Schwingdorf acted with intent other than to stop a fleeing felon, or had the force used resulted in death, or had any of his assumptions been incorrect,, his actions would be outside the realm of necessary or reasonable, and the charging decision would likely be different."

    Christ man. That is exactly the thing non-cop apologists have a problem with. If you guys were just taking down thieves and brigands, we wouldn't have a problem. That's the lose standard we have a problem with. "whoops, guess he wasn't the guy. Oh well, clean shoot."

  • ||

    In modern society, this is tantamount to Heaven's Gate-grade self-delusion.

    He's a self-proclaimed libertarian who says shit like "the vast majority of laws are just". Of course he's vastly deluded.

  • ||

    Sure it is. Except that cops are given much more discretion.

    Apparently, a cop is automatically presumed to be acting in a manner with accordance to the law no matter what the fuck he does apparently.

    If I shot an unarmed guy there is little doubt in my mind that I would be arrested on the spot.

    How is this not a double-standard?

  • ||

    What you're saying, Bingo, is as basic and obvious to this topic as the Sun being a star is to astronomy. There's no arguing with it. But apologists don't confine themselves to logical argumentation. They're full of shit.

  • ||

    this guy shot an unarmed guy. he wasn;'t arrested.

    but keep living in your fantasy world

    note in THIS case, there was NO evidence this guy was a danger to anybody

    it's irrelevant because under oregon law, a noncop doesn't need to prove that to use such force.

    cops are restrained by tenn v. garner

    you aren't (assuming you aren't a cop)

    Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur said she will not prosecute a Kelso man who shot an arrow into the buttock of a suspected fleeing burglar late last year, but insisted Friday she is not encouraging vigilante justice.

    In an interview, Baur said her decision is by no means a license for Cowlitz County residents to open fire on people they believe to be committing crimes.

    "If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."

    Kelso police said that around 11:45 p.m. Dec. 13, Scott Allen Schwingdorf, 33, heard glass breaking at his neighbors' vacant home in the 1100 block of 10th Avenue North and spotted Galen Louis Crayne of Longview walking away from the residence with a brown box tucked under his arm.

    Schwingdorf, who had armed himself with a hunting bow, shot a fleeing Crayne in the left buttock with a broadhead arrow, police said.

    Crayne, who survived the shooting, broke the arrow off and fled in a truck that was waiting at Cliff's Hilltop Market about two blocks away, authorities said.

    In a carefully worded statement released late Thursday, Baur said Washington State law allows citizens to "use reasonable force to defend property they own or have been entrusted with."

    "It appears that Mr. Schwingdorf acted to stop a person he believed was fleeing after committing a residential burglary at a house he had agreed to watch," Baur's statement said.

    Baur said Schwingdorf chased Crayne for about a block, calling repeatedly for him to stop, then fired his bow once on 10th Avenue near the corner of Burcham Street. (Previous accounts in the newspaper misstated where the shooting occurred.)

    Schwingdorf shot Crayne, also 33, from a distance of about 90 feet, Baur said.

    In her statement Baur said: "Had Mr. Schwingdorf acted with intent other than to stop a fleeing felon, or had the force used resulted in death, or had any of his assumptions been incorrect, his actions would be outside the realm of necessary or reasonable, and the charging decision would likely be different."

    Crayne, who faces trial in September for residential burglary, could not be reached. His mother, Jacquelyn Crayne, of Longview, said she is angry with the prosecutor's office for not filing charges against the man who shot her son.

    "We don't want people out burglarizing places," she said. "But it is not somebody else's responsibility to do something about it. You should never be allowed to do what that man did. He is by no means trained to recognize or assess a situation properly. It's not his right."

    Schwingdorf declined to comment on the record Friday. Juries in several Cowlitz County cases this year appeared to side with defendants claiming to protect themselves. In one case a jury acquitted a man accused of waving a gun at nightclub bouncers who had just forcibly boosted him from a club. In another, a Woodland man who shot a home builder four times and claimed self-defense was sentenced to nine months in jail after a jury chose to convict him of a lesser charge.

    Jacquelyn Crayne said Baur feared that Cowlitz County juries favor defendants claiming to protect themselves or their property. Baur, she said, "didn't want to lose a case."

    Baur said earlier this year that she was taking the previous cases into consideration in weighing whether to charge Schwingdorf. But she said Friday that "losing a case is not something I've ever been afraid of."

    Baur, who is being challenged for re-election in November by public defense attorney Tom Ladouceur, said politics did not influence her decision. "If I was worried about that, I would have done something in December... (and) it would have died down by now," she said. "I wanted to take my time with this one and take everything into consideration."

    In this narrow set of circumstances, Baur said, the law simply "does not support a conviction." She cited a state law that allows citizens to use force to protect "personal property lawfully in his or her possession" as long as "the force is not more than is necessary."

    In a statement, Baur said that on the night of the shooting, Schwingdorf was in his garage when he heard glass breaking at his next door neighbors' house, which had been left vacant by a recent fire. The neighbors had asked Schwingdorf to keep an eye on the residence, the statement said.

    Schwingdorf, according to Baur's account, told his mother to call 911. He grabbed a bow and arrow, which was nearby in the garage, and stepped outside, where he found Crayne, authorities said.

    (Police reports have identified the suspected burglar as Crayne, but Baur said her written statement to the newspaper does not mention Crayne's name because his case has not yet been resolved and she is ethically barred from commenting on it publicly.)

    Schwingdorf told Crayne to stop, Baur's statement said. Instead, Crayne ran. Schwingdorf gave chase and called repeatedly for him to stop and put down the box, but Crayne continued running, Baur said.

    "To prevent the man from escaping with his neighbors' property, Mr. Schwingdorf shot an arrow at him," Baur's statement said. "The arrow struck the man in the buttocks, causing serious injury."

    Crayne broke off the arrow's shaft and fled in a truck, the statement said. Crayne was arrested in February on suspicion of burglary.

    Jacquelyn Crayne said the arrowhead remained lodged in her son's pelvis for nearly six months until he underwent surgery to remove it.

    "He still has a limp," she said.


    Read more: http://tdn.com/news/local/arti.....z1mJcApNFf

  • ||

    Hey you fucking retard, post the link, not the whole article. Goddamn, you fucking cops are fucktarded.

  • ||

  • ||

    "disobeying the order is not the issue, since if he had disobeyed the order to stop, but had walked AWAY from the vehicle, deadly force almost certainly would have been UNjustified."

    If he just got in the car, deadly force was not justified.
    If he drove away, deadly force is not justified.
    Vehicle police chases are not justifiable either. Find some other way to get him.

  • ||

    it's based on the facts and circumstances as known TO THE PERSON aplying the force at the time of the decision to shoot

    Why? Why are "circumstances" part of the equation? Does that mean if a person (non-cop) makes an honest mistake that they will not be held accountable for their actions? You know, because the circumstances as known to them at the time of their action were misrepresentative of reality? And will their word be good enough if there is no evidence to support their claim that they were in danger? Because we know that a cop's word is as good as gold, even though we have loads of evidence that reports are regularly falsified and video evidence contradicts their narrative.*

    *When the dashcam is not mysteriously damaged, destroyed or turned off prior to a skull-bashing.

  • ||

    @ Dunphy

    You are a disingenuous fuckstain.

  • ||

    "Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

    "Your Honor, I believed that the suspect posed a significant threat."
    Wow, what a restraint that court case is.

  • ||

    "Your Honor, I believed that the suspect posed a significant threat."

    Not quite. More like, shooting officer: "Inspector, I thought the guy was gonna get away."
    Inspector: "He was a significant threat, right?" [vigorously nods head off-camera]
    Shooting officer: "Yeah, yeah he was."
    Inspector: "This investigation is closed. Thank you for your time. Now get back to that paid vacation and we'll let you know when you have to go back to work."

  • ||

    if he was still active, then you got the facts wrong (how utterly unsurprising) by referring to him as a FORMER marine

    I have no dog in this race, but anyone is a "former" anything after they're dead.

    Jus' sayin'

  • ||

    Officer Shitstick's too busy teaching Lucy how to write articles to realize that, Mulatto. Don't be so demanding.

  • ||

    it's nice to see the frothy bigots start to unleash the name calling, usually scatalogical.

    that's about the level of discourse i expect

  • ||

    No, I can assure you it's not scatalogical as a matter of habit or course, but because you remind me most of a shitstick.

  • ||

    have a scone, pumpkin. it will help erase the taste of #$#$($ from your mouth

    hth

  • ||

    Comebacks, how the fuck do they work, pig?

  • ||

    Oh yeah well eat a scone RPA! That's right. A delicious scone will shut you up. Scone-eater. Have some coffee while your at it. Dunk it. Dunk that fucking scone. You feeling ashamed yet? Keep dunking that fresh scone and drinking your coffee. Bitch.

    PWND

  • ||

    Nothing he can suggest I do could possibly be worse than carrying out the drug war for his government.

    I'll eat shit and wash it out with coffee-dunked scones, but I'm not a cop. Thank Jesus.

  • ||

    too busy teaching Lucy how to write articles

    Er, aren't we constantly criticizing the writing of NYT writers and other ideological opponents?

    It's not at all inappropriate to call out a writer who screws something up. Like Lucy did.

  • ||

    Lucy, I prefer the term, verklempt.

  • ||

    works for mike myers

  • ||

    Wow Ms Steigerwald.

    You fucked up one of the few facts you put in the story, and then you make fun of others for taking you at your word?

    Not the apex of your professionalism.

  • ||

    You leave my future ex-wife out of this.

  • ||

    pay attention

  • ||

    if they can't help someone in mental distress

    Hey, the guy isn't mentally distressed anymore, what more do you fucking peasants want?!

  • ||

    The cop just got his paid vacation. I think he got his reward for saving the man from his own evident insanity. Heil Polizei!

  • ||

    the cop also had a responsibility (moral) to help the kids in the van and protect them from serious injury and;or death

    IF he had a reasonable belief that if he did not shoot the guy, who was returning to the vehicle the kids were in, that that guy did present such a danger, the shooting will be ruled justified

    that's the metric that will be applied, all other shit aside

  • ||

    If I have a reasonable belief that the black guy in a hoodie walking hastily towards a convenience store is going to pull out a lightsaber and kill the buyers inside using Force Lightning, and I shoot him, I'll be exonerated as well, right?

  • ||

    you're not going to convince anyone that in the long line of tools this guy has at his disposal, that the gun was the best choice.

    stop trying.

  • ||

    In my CCW class we were told to be damn sure we knew what was happening before we even thought of pulling a gun or we could get in a shitload of trouble.

    But I guess a cop can walk up to a situation he where has no clue, somehow ascertain all motives because his badge gives him omniscience, put a couple of rounds into an unarmed man, and that is just fine.

  • ||

    i doubt your CCW class taught you the full extent of when you were and weren't justified in shooting.

    as noted in the above oregon case, i cited, it'[s a good example of where a noncop WAS justified but a cop wouldn't be

    read it

  • ||

    Okay great, but in the Oregon case an arrest was made and the plaintiff brought to trial. This is what happens to normal citizens when a shooting happens that isn't obvious self-defense.

    At what point is this cop being arrested and brought to trial?

  • ||

    If it turned out that, in the OR case, the brown box was not in fact a stolen item, the guy who shot him with the arrow would have been fucked. Whether he had reason to believe it was stolen or not wouldn't matter.

    In this case it's likely all the cop will need to show is that he had a reasonable belief there was danger to the chilluns.

  • ||

    If it turned out that, in the OR case, the brown box was not in fact a stolen item, the guy who shot him with the arrow would have been fucked.

    Made this point upthread before reading yours. Glad to see you caught that as well.

  • ||

    You make me sick to my fucking stomach. If there's a God, I hope to him and all his angels nobody is ever unfortunate enough to encounter you in anything more serious than a bar brawl.

  • ||

    That's quite an argument.

  • ||

    There was a moral responsibility to allow for the possibility that no one would have been hurt at all. Instead, a precautionary execution was made.

  • ||

    *Grimly nods*

    *Approvingly smirks*

  • ||

    Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a second: Let's say that the "irrational statements" Sgt. Loggins made were to the effect of 'I'm going to drive this car off a bridge'. So the kids are in danger. Would the deputy be justified in using deadly force then? Or should he have shot out the van's tires? Why didn't he pull out the taser or pepper spray? After years of Balko, and now Lucy, I can only come to the conclusion that in Cali the insane are killed on the spot.

  • ||

    that in Cali the insane are killed on the spot.

    --------------

    Only the insane? Dream on. This is becoming rudimentary police procedure.

  • ||

    You hit on my problem with this situation.

    Even if you accept the story from the police at face value (...) you end up asking "why did you think shooting him was the best choice?"

    There was really no other choice?

    I have a hard time picturing a scenario where that makes sense.

  • ||

    An unarmed guy had his back to him, clearly he was going to do a backflip and pull out a katana from his chest cavity and deflect the officers bullets with his ass plasma shield.
    The officer was right to fear for his life.

  • ||

    Also, Force Lightning.

  • ||

    STOP RESISTING!!!

  • ||

    But since anyone who willingly stays in California must be insane...

  • ||

    He would be justified to use non-lethal force, like a taser or a baton.

  • ||

    Maybe now you sons a bitches will start to understand - OBEY THOSE FUCKIN ORDERS BOY!

  • ||

    the guy was unresponsive to police commands.

    but what about the kids?

    "We want to get your dad some help, please get out of the vehicle and come to us so we can help him."

  • ||

    CHILDREN! PLEASE GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND AND PUT YOUR GOD DAMNED HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK, WE ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU!

  • ||

    Pisses me off when I have actually seen pigs yell and scream and shove young kids with the get on the ground shit just because they are with a parent who is getting arrested.

  • ||

    I'd also like to point out that this dunphy is obviously a spoofer, as the Real Dunphy has been too busy with his personal crusade to elimnate police corruption for months now.

  • ||

    good example of a use of force by a noncop that WAS justified.

    guy had ZERO evidence the suspect was armed, the suspect was running AWAY, he had presented no threat, and had committed a nonviolent crime on an UNOCCUPIED house

    yet, the guy was legally justified in using deadly force (bow and arrow IS deadly force).

    not arrested OR charged.

    this , yet again, shows the lie of the cops have greater discretion vis a vis deadly force. in many instances they don't

    in fleeing felon situations, cops are restrained by tenn. v. garner. noncops are NOT restricted by it

    if a cop shot this guy, it would NOT be justified

    Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur said she will not prosecute a Kelso man who shot an arrow into the buttock of a suspected fleeing burglar late last year, but insisted Friday she is not encouraging vigilante justice.

    In an interview, Baur said her decision is by no means a license for Cowlitz County residents to open fire on people they believe to be committing crimes.

    "If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."

    Kelso police said that around 11:45 p.m. Dec. 13, Scott Allen Schwingdorf, 33, heard glass breaking at his neighbors' vacant home in the 1100 block of 10th Avenue North and spotted Galen Louis Crayne of Longview walking away from the residence with a brown box tucked under his arm.

    Schwingdorf, who had armed himself with a hunting bow, shot a fleeing Crayne in the left buttock with a broadhead arrow, police said.

    Crayne, who survived the shooting, broke the arrow off and fled in a truck that was waiting at Cliff's Hilltop Market about two blocks away, authorities said.

    In a carefully worded statement released late Thursday, Baur said Washington State law allows citizens to "use reasonable force to defend property they own or have been entrusted with."

    "It appears that Mr. Schwingdorf acted to stop a person he believed was fleeing after committing a residential burglary at a house he had agreed to watch," Baur's statement said.

    Baur said Schwingdorf chased Crayne for about a block, calling repeatedly for him to stop, then fired his bow once on 10th Avenue near the corner of Burcham Street. (Previous accounts in the newspaper misstated where the shooting occurred.)

    Schwingdorf shot Crayne, also 33, from a distance of about 90 feet, Baur said.

    In her statement Baur said: "Had Mr. Schwingdorf acted with intent other than to stop a fleeing felon, or had the force used resulted in death, or had any of his assumptions been incorrect, his actions would be outside the realm of necessary or reasonable, and the charging decision would likely be different."

    Crayne, who faces trial in September for residential burglary, could not be reached. His mother, Jacquelyn Crayne, of Longview, said she is angry with the prosecutor's office for not filing charges against the man who shot her son.

    "We don't want people out burglarizing places," she said. "But it is not somebody else's responsibility to do something about it. You should never be allowed to do what that man did. He is by no means trained to recognize or assess a situation properly. It's not his right."

    Schwingdorf declined to comment on the record Friday. Juries in several Cowlitz County cases this year appeared to side with defendants claiming to protect themselves. In one case a jury acquitted a man accused of waving a gun at nightclub bouncers who had just forcibly boosted him from a club. In another, a Woodland man who shot a home builder four times and claimed self-defense was sentenced to nine months in jail after a jury chose to convict him of a lesser charge.

    Jacquelyn Crayne said Baur feared that Cowlitz County juries favor defendants claiming to protect themselves or their property. Baur, she said, "didn't want to lose a case."

    Baur said earlier this year that she was taking the previous cases into consideration in weighing whether to charge Schwingdorf. But she said Friday that "losing a case is not something I've ever been afraid of."

    Baur, who is being challenged for re-election in November by public defense attorney Tom Ladouceur, said politics did not influence her decision. "If I was worried about that, I would have done something in December... (and) it would have died down by now," she said. "I wanted to take my time with this one and take everything into consideration."

    In this narrow set of circumstances, Baur said, the law simply "does not support a conviction." She cited a state law that allows citizens to use force to protect "personal property lawfully in his or her possession" as long as "the force is not more than is necessary."

    In a statement, Baur said that on the night of the shooting, Schwingdorf was in his garage when he heard glass breaking at his next door neighbors' house, which had been left vacant by a recent fire. The neighbors had asked Schwingdorf to keep an eye on the residence, the statement said.

    Schwingdorf, according to Baur's account, told his mother to call 911. He grabbed a bow and arrow, which was nearby in the garage, and stepped outside, where he found Crayne, authorities said.

    (Police reports have identified the suspected burglar as Crayne, but Baur said her written statement to the newspaper does not mention Crayne's name because his case has not yet been resolved and she is ethically barred from commenting on it publicly.)

    Schwingdorf told Crayne to stop, Baur's statement said. Instead, Crayne ran. Schwingdorf gave chase and called repeatedly for him to stop and put down the box, but Crayne continued running, Baur said.

    "To prevent the man from escaping with his neighbors' property, Mr. Schwingdorf shot an arrow at him," Baur's statement said. "The arrow struck the man in the buttocks, causing serious injury."

    Crayne broke off the arrow's shaft and fled in a truck, the statement said. Crayne was arrested in February on suspicion of burglary.

    Jacquelyn Crayne said the arrowhead remained lodged in her son's pelvis for nearly six months until he underwent surgery to remove it.

    "He still has a limp," she said.


    Read more: http://tdn.com/news/local/arti.....z1mJcApNFf

  • ||

    Posting the same shit over and over again doesn't make it anymore relevant.

    Normal citizen shooting someone: an arrest is made on the spot and it goes to trial if not obvious justified self-defense. Burden of proof is on the shooter.

    Cop shooting someone: Maybe an arrest after a prolonged internal investigation. Burden of proof is on the (now dead) victim.

    Not a double standard!

  • ||

    Is it Godwinning if I use Himmler? "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. - Heinrich Himmler

  • ||

    Fascist!

    [stamps foot, holds breath, wets pants]

  • ||

    In many states you're not permitted to use deadly force to protect property. WA is an outlier in that regard.

  • ||

    people have made the repeatedly false claim that "citizens" can't shoot unarmed people without being arrested and/or charged.

    i have presented evidence to the contrary

    there are TONS more cases.

    i have alredy presented several others in other threads.

    read the evidence, or don't

    but the lie has been repeatedly refuted.

  • ||

    In her statement Baur said: "Had Mr. Schwingdorf acted with intent other than to stop a fleeing felon, or had the force used resulted in death, or had any of his assumptions been incorrect, his actions would be outside the realm of necessary or reasonable, and the charging decision would likely be different."

    Who's being intellectually dishonest again?

  • ||

  • ||

    people have made the repeatedly false claim that "citizens" can't shoot unarmed people without being arrested and/or charged.

    OK, a cop crashes his cruiser through a gate. He has kids in the back seat; whether they're his or not is unknown. Concerned, armed citizen happens upon the scene. Cop is ambling about dazed, mumbling incoherently. Citizen orders cop to stop, cop instead moves toward vehicle with kids inside. Concerned citizen, fearing for the safety of the kids in the car, opens fire, killing the cop.

    Sad, but probably justified. Right, Dunphy?

  • ||

    Why is the cop driving around in his cruiser with his kids?

  • ||

    Why is the cop driving around in his cruiser with his kids?

    In my city, police officers are given cruisers as personal vehicles. They use them off-duty and to tote their families around. Im sure many other cities and counties have similarly liberal policies regarding personal use of police cruisers.

  • ||

    That's insane.

  • ||

    That's insane.

    That, or just a poor use of taxpayer money. But it's also why the scenario I described above is perfectly plausible.

  • ||

    Im sure many other cities and counties have similarly liberal policies regarding personal use of police cruisers.

    My hometown had this setup as well.

  • ||

    Don't confuse the issue with perfectly rational comparisons.

  • ||

    You posted evidence of people shooting people who aren't posing a threat, which is shitty.

    But it is still different from cases like this where pigs are deliberately confronting people and then shooting them because they can't handle the situation. In these situations the pigs never even have occupational consequences, forget about them being charged.

    "Officer safety" is put too high above everything else.

  • ||

    Dealing with mentally ill people, particularly PTSD, can be extremely difficult. The skill set for police work and psychotherapy are fairly disjoint, so it's beyond the pail to be expecting cops to have some special means of dealing with dangerous mentals that ordinary people don't have.

  • ||

    . . . so it's beyond the pail to be expecting cops to have some special means of dealing with dangerous mentals that ordinary people don't have.

    But maybe there should be some expectation that they make an actual effort to determine whether or not they're actually dealing with a "dangerous mental" before simply gunning a man down. Seeing a person stumbling around a vehicle that had clearly just been involved in some sort of accident might be a strong clue that perhaps this guy wasn't simply a dangerous schizo.

    But "officer safety," I guess.

  • ||

    But maybe there should be some expectation that they make an actual effort to determine whether or not they're actually dealing with a "dangerous mental" before simply gunning a man down.

    And logic would tell you it would be better determined by multiple people as opposed to a single officer.

    Of course, the parents of Kelly Thomas probably thought that as well. Ditto the family of John T Williams. The list goes on...

  • ||

    The Kelly Thomas story is NOTHING like this.

    There are times when there isn't time to puse for reflection. This was one of those times. Unless you'd be OK with a cop sitting idly by while a guy who said he wanted to drive his car off a cliff got in his car with two kids and drove away because they hadn't gotten a second, third, and fourth opinion about his mental state and had everything notarized.

    What's that you say? There's no evidence the guy said something like that? You're right. And there's no evidence for any of the extra "facts" you guys are making up about the story either. So pipe down.

  • ||

    Of course, the parents of Kelly Thomas probably thought that as well.

    The only difference with Kelly Thomas is that (IIRC) he was known to his attackers to be mentally ill. And about a buck forty, soaking wet, which is why it took five of them to "bring him into compliance."

  • ||

    And the fact that there is no plausible set of unknown facts under which the force used against Thomas was justified.

  • ||

    Besides drunks and a few thugs, mentally unstable people are the other main "hostile" people they may encounter. I expect them to use common sense, not panic, and not assume that everyone who is uncooperative is a problem. Even if he did say something crazy, fuck the cop for acting on that alone. People say crazy shit. It wasn't the cop's call to execute the guy.

  • Rather||

    There are cops who know how to deal with the mentally ill, or veterans suffering from PTSD
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012.....latestnews

  • ||

    If the shooting is not found to be justified, then cops may have to actually think before they act.

    That is not acceptable.

    They must be able to trust in instinct and training.

    So if anything was at fault, it was the training.
    It certainly wasn't the officer's actions, for his actions only reflect his training.

    In fact, the true victims here is the officer. Not the children who lost their father. Fuck them.
    The true victim is the poor policeman who was put into a situation where he had to act based upon training and instinct.

    What a poor tortured soul.

  • ||

    God bless the Fraternal Order of Police. They're out there doing God's work, putting thousands of civilians in their place, in some of the toughest neighborhoods in America.

  • ||

    There are still facts to come in but this one sure smells fishy. Making irrational statements before driving away with one's own children is hardly grounds for killing.

    However, shame on the author for bringing up his veteran status and religion as if they hold any bearing on the events. There are a shitload of veterans in law enforcement and many devoutly religious too...who cares?

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Shame? Come on, man. I'm reporting on what media is reporting -- the religious aspect ties into the fact that he used to hang out and talk God with his kids in the early mornings. The veteran status both a convenient description and true. And considering the levels of propaganda related to veteran and cops, I find it notable when one kills the other... Like the Occupy Oakland dude. If you respect veterans and soldiers so much, who do you side with in these conflicts? Who do you implicitly trust?

    It interests me. It doesn't mean his life had any more worth than anyone else's.

  • ||

    the religious aspect ties into the fact that he used to hang out and talk God with his kids in the early mornings.

    Which also has nothing to do with the incident. When my parents talked God with me, they usually didn't punctuate it with crashing into a school fence. Or maybe he was speaking in tongues when the officers told him to stop?

    If he was possessed by a demon, you know what happened to those pigs in the Gospel.

    If you respect veterans and soldiers so much, who do you side with in these conflicts?

    I side with the truth.

  • ||

    Well, at least he wasn't a grandmother.

  • ||

    Lucy, this is Tulpa. He likes scolding others more than most people like sex. In his past life, he was a catholic nun. If this is your first one, consider yourself lucky.

  • ||

    How does it not have a bearing on the events?

    The part that brings up his religiousness establishes why he and his daughters were at the school so early in the morning (though not why he had to crash through a gate).

    The part about his military service and references by colleagues about his performance also establishes his character.

    They are, essentially, providing his side of the story against the cops' side, which if you care about the truth, is important to include don't you think? Especially since he's not around to give his side anymore.

    It just sounds like you're picking nits that don't need to be picked.

  • ||

    What matters is whether the cop had reason to believe, at that instant, that he posed a threat to the kids.

    Character, religion, doesn't matter.

  • ||

    Until we see the, hopefully unedited, dash-cam video, we don't have any actual information to establish if he had reason. Since it's not available yet, it's perfectly normal for both sides to explain their side of the story. Cops say he was acting belligerent, friends and family say that's contradictory to his normal behavior.

    If all you want is an article stripped down to the bare facts, then I can do that for you:

    "Man shot and killed by another man in school parking lot early in the morning."

  • ||

    If the cop was pursuing on foot there won't be any dashcam footage.

    I agree with Lucy and dunphy about the helmet cams. But you know a lot of cops won't like that idea and there will be a lot of unfortunate malfunctions, too.

  • ||

    Unedited? Surely you dont think there is a chance it will not get lost, misplaced or accidentally fall into the break-room microwave.

  • ||

    LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!

  • ||

    I'm not sure if Orange County just isn't dangerous for red heads and black men

  • ||

    Are there any good apples in the barrel? Doesn't seem so. These kapos of state power are not our friends.

  • Ken Hagler||

    "Considering some recent, nasty police incidents in Orange County, you have to wonder how this investigation is going to turn out. "

    Unfortunately, no, I don't.

  • ||

    Now that these girls have no dad, they'll be really safe!

  • Greg Gauthier||

    Yet another recorded incident, in which no consequences will accrue to the police officer in question. Wasn't I reading a case here yesterday, in which a simple housewife was shot to death through her car window for refusing to cooperate with an officer?

    Reason included a video about the Kelley Thomas case at the bottom of this story. In it, Jarret Lovell claims cell-phone cameras indicate a shift in power from police to the individual. This is just factually false. No such shift has occurred at all.

    One clear indication of this, is the fact that prosecutions and jail sentences of recorded police officers since the trial of the officers videotaped in the Rodney King case have NOT escalated with the rising number of recorded incidents.

    All the cameras have done for us, is to make absolutely EXPLICIT exactly what it is that we ask cops to do for us in this society:

    If a man does not cooperate with me, Murder him.

  • Jolly Roger ||

    Every week there's another cop killing another innocent citizen out of frustration and rage, and these incidents are increasing in frequency because the cops keep getting away with it. It's time for the citizenry to "shoot first and ask questions later" whenever a cop approaches them. The only other option is to be killed yourself, or be thrown into prison for something you didn't do.

  • ||

    what ever happened to firing a warning shot? guess thats just for the movies

  • ||

    Once again, we are left with the fact that a citizen would be locked up and indicted for manslaughter at an absolute minimum, no question, with these facts.

    There was absolutely no basis for the cop to conclude that he was in imminent danger. None.

    As for the kids in the van, they were in the back seat. Its entirely possible that the cop didn't even know they were there, so any claim that he killed their father to protect them requires some support.

    As does the assertion that he said something "irrational." What exactly did he say? Is there any confirmation of it? Because, if this is going to be used to justify a killing, we better be pretty damned clear on what it was.

    Its actually worse if the cop did know the kids were there, because that makes his shooting a reckless endangement.

    The double standard is in full play here. No question about it.

  • ||

    "Former colleagues also say he was great soldier who always listened and obeyed orders."

    He WAS NOT a "soldier." He was a Marine.

  • ||

    Story is incredibly bizarre without more details. A guy crashes through a gate and they let him wander out of sight for a full five minutes? But when he made some strange statements, that means to shoot him before he can drive off?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online