bullets13

Hamshire Fannett:

Week 1: La Marque
Week 2: @Vidor
Week 3: LCM
Week 4: @Stafford
Week 5: @Hitchcock

It was stacked this year. 

48 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Sooooo, I’m in Austin driving down S Congress and pass a LIVELY ELEMENTARY school and these elementary age kids are holding a teacher approved Ice Protest. Cool if that is your thing, but that age holding up F Ice signs really shows what these kids are being taught…

I parked further down on Congress and they were let out to march down the street. As they passed they were screaming, they asked me if I supported ice….I said of course, and kids kept walking but an adult lady told me to kick rocks with curse words I’ve never heard of…..lol. So peaceful, it’s a wonder anyone gets hurt (sarcasm) 

my buddy who lives in austin calls it "performative outrage." seems like a pretty perfect term for it.

1 minute ago, Porter said:

They could have took her out at any angle from behind. They didn’t even have their guns drawn telling people to get back from the door. 

she also wasn't going through the window at that time. we can go back and forth about what ifs and why nots. still won't change my opinion that it was an easily justified, although decidedly ugly shooting. 

5 minutes ago, Porter said:

I guess what’s odd is why didn’t the officers behind Babbitt shoot her or have their guns drawn to shoot her? The officers knew that Congressmen and Congresswomen were on the other side of the doors where Byrd fired from. I am actually surprised that one of the officers didn’t get hit with the bullet. 

that actually could have something to do with why they didn't fire. the officer who fired was able to do so at an angle where he had a wall as a backdrop behind his target. If the officers from behind the mob had fired they would've been sending bullets into the room that the other officers were trying to protect.

1 minute ago, thetragichippy said:

Sooooo, I’m in Austin driving down S Congress and pass a LIVELY ELEMENTARY school and these elementary age kids are holding a teacher approved Ice Protest. Cool if that is your thing, but that age holding up F Ice signs really shows what these kids are being taught…

I parked further down on Congress and they were let out to march down the street. As they passed they were screaming, they asked me if I supported ice….I said of course, and kids kept walking but an adult lady told me to kick rocks with curse words I’ve never heard of…..lol. So peaceful, it’s a wonder anyone gets hurt (sarcasm) 

that's wild. 

28 minutes ago, Porter said:

Obviously we’re not going to agree but the video footage shows officers standing in front of the doors while people gather then they move to the side and watch some of the agitators break glass. Then there are tactical officers right behind Babbitt by the stairwell. Obviously none of them felt threatened. The tactical officers are literally there seconds after she is shot then carry her body down the stairwell. I just think it was a senseless overreaction on the officers part. 

 

goes back to the old "awful but lawful" situation. can an officer who's shot someone verbalize an adequate reason for doing so? This officer had plenty of valid reasons to articulate. you can feel it was an overreaction, heck, everyone can. I don't want you to get the impression that I saw the shooting and cheered it on or something. I didn't like the Babbitt shooting, I've just always felt it was pretty easy to justify. The officer can say "I don't know why the officers on the other side of the door didn't act, but I was inside the chamber with my gun drawn protecting evacuating members of congress behind a barricaded door. an angry mob of more than a dozen people were using unknown weapons/items to break through the door and barricade we'd erected to protect our politicians. Despite several clear, lawful commands, the mob eventually broke through a window and attempted to breach the room, despite seeing several officers with firearms on the other side. With the reports of gunshots and officers being attacked I'd been receiving I felt that both myself and the civilians I was protecting were in immediate danger. I fired one shot and the entire mob stopped attempting to breach the room." You may second guess his explanation, but it was enough to keep charges from being filed, and no officer would be charged in an identical situation anywhere (unless it was strictly political, as we may end up seeing in Minnesota).

4 hours ago, baddog said:

I came through Silsbee on my way to and from Black Gold BBQ (excellent food) and I saw no illegals, so I didn’t get to use my whistle.

Stop there about every second time I go to the deer lease. the boys have gotten spoiled from me showing up with brisket and ribs.

16 hours ago, Porter said:

What about the officers behind Ashley Babbitt in this video? Did they feel threatened?

Here’s another video of her.

 

I can't speak to their frame of mind or decision making. I'm also not saying Babbitt deserved to be shot. But an angry mob was breaking through a barricaded door into a chamber where members of congress were being evacuated from. They did this despite seeing officers with guns drawn on the other side. The totality of the circumstances, and especially with police receiving reports of gunfire, it was justified. 

24 minutes ago, baddog said:

Have you ever conceal carried on your person? If so, did you tuck it in the backside of your pants? That doesn’t seem like a logical place to carry. I’m going out on a limb and say Pretti had another gun in front. People resisting keep their hands in front to make it difficult to cuff them behind. With hands tucked in front and possibly another gun, I can see how he was shot very easily.

If he had a second gun Trump would’ve jumped all over it, and the border patrol as well. Anything to make this ugly event look a little better for him. They put out a pic of his gun almost immediately. If there had been two you better believe they would’ve let us know 

This doesn't change my opinion of his shooting, but you can't say he wasn't warned...

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Thank you.

Long version explaining why or short version?

I don’t take the side of officers because they are or were officers.

As an example using the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, on a different sports forum when it first hit the news but was reported as self defense with the retired officer being cleared, I said that it was murder and the DA covered it up. I was chastised for my opinion and the thread was removed after it got fairly heated but not by me. I merely noted my opinion based on the law. After it made the news, the state stepped in and took over the case. The action was fairly swift and indictments came in short order. Not only with three people involved convicted and given life sentences, the DA was removed and charges were filed on her.

I found out that the thread had been deleted when I went back to copy my original comments which were time stamped. I was going to show that I called a retired police officer a murderer when the story was reporting it is self-defense as determined by the DA.

I have arrested two former partners and recommended criminal charges on two coworkers.

I have no issue with calling an officer out for being wrong but the emotion goes both ways. There are people who don’t know the law, don’t like the law or make decisions based on of they like or hate the person in question. Another example is the previously discussed officer on trial from Uvalde. The law in many people’s eyes doesn’t seem to matter as the hatred for the outcome does.

So the long or short version? 😎

How about the abridged TVC special version? 😉

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

Clarify for me:  the Ashley Babbitt murder, you were for law enforcement?  And what happened with these two people you are against law enforcement?  

I know this wasn't directed at me, but:

Babbitt: the best "good shoot" of the three. Part of an angry mob using clubs, chairs, motorcycle helmets, etc. to breach a barricaded room where capital police (who the mob could see) waited with drawn guns shouting lawful orders while trying to protect members of congress. Babbitt ignored those orders and was the first one through the window. By that point officers had no obligation to wait and see what the mob would do when they made it inside. 

Good: Also a clearcut "good shoot". I don't believe for a second she intended to hit an officer, and it can be argued to some degree that the cop put himself in a bad position by walking in front of her car (i mostly disagree with this argument). But she fled from officers trying to detain her, and there's clear video of her hitting the officer with her car before he shot her, and clear video of her gunning the engine when it happened. 

Pretti: This is an ugly, ugly shooting. He appeared to be attempting to help a woman, was quite possibly only struggling because he'd been pepper sprayed and then had about 8 guys kicking, pistol whipping and hitting him, and then was shot because a gun he didn't brandish was accidentally discharged by an officer pulling it out of his holster. It's hard to defend the actions of the BP agents on this one. That said, due to the totality of circumstances I do think the officer who shot will be able to make a pretty decent argument that this was a justified shoot. It will likely end up as "lawful but awful", but I could see some officers charged in this one, and possibly some of those charges even sticking. 

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

No sarcasm.  Without any video, it’s my opinion that she was shot by a rogue cop.  

How have you never seen the video? This video is worth a watch. This is a fairly conservative lawyer who breaks down shootings and other political and criminal things. If you don’t want to spend 20 minutes watching the whole thing, I’d start around the 3:30 min mark and watch until about the 8:00 min mark. It shows the shooting to some degree. It definitely shows the mob trying to break down the barricaded door and the cops with guns already out on the other side. If you really want a clear look of her climbing through the window and falling back out of it, you can find it online.

9 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

We’re not that far apart… I feel like the shooter in the first incident put himself into a really, really bad spot by positioning himself in front of a car for any reason, but specially if it was potentially going to flee like in this case… I personally though that she turned her wheels and tried to avoid him.  I don’t like the fact that he fired into the car as she was driving by. I’m all in favor of shooting a murderer if he’s attempting to flee and potentially hurt more people. I’m not as excited about shooting someone who’s attempting to flee a basic traffic stop. It’s just too much. Do I think that the officer positioned himself in harms way to justify shooting a “f b” as he called her? No. My opinion is that he was very poorly trained. 
 

The one on Saturday was just a train wreck. It’s hard to justify, other than to say “accidents happen,” I guess. 

I don’t think she was trying to avoid him, I think she didn’t see him. She was more than likely concentrating on the officer yelling orders at her through her open window and trying to open her door. He wasn’t in front of her car at that time, he was walking in from the right as the other officer was a foot away from her on the left yelling. She pulled out and away from the closer officer, directly at the officer who shot her. She hit the officer, clearly, and his first shot went through the front of her window. The reaction time it takes the brain to quit shooting was well within the timeframe of his 3 shots. I’d be upset about two shots into the window if her continuing to turn the car hadn’t changed what was in front of him, if that makes sense. In the space of about a second he went from shooting straight into the windshield to shooting through the driver’s side window of a rapidly rotating car without really changing the angle he was shooting much (and a split second after said car had hit him). 

3 minutes ago, Reagan said:

I wonder if there’s any video of this shooting?

Not sure if that’s sarcasm or not. Still dodging my question. 

4 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Interesting that she was the only one shot in this mob attack.  

She was the only one who tried to go through the window where police had guns drawn and were actively yelling commands and protecting congress in rooms behind them. Once she was shot the mob quit trying to break through the door and climb through the window.  You ignored my question. If me and 20 of my buddies come to your house and break your window what are you going to do when the first person comes through that window? Frisk them for firearms or protect your family? 

6 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

I value your perspective as an instructor of policemen. I expect you to be more sympathetic to the blue whenever any latitude can be given, but I still like to hear what you think. 
 

Can you give your opinion on the two Minnesota shootings? Do you agree with the tactics of the shooter in the first episode (standing in front of the car, shooting as the suspect flees, etc).  Same thing with the second incident… how do you feel about the agent that shoved the lady to the ground which seemed to trigger the whole confrontation? The pistol whipping, the celebration by agents immediately after, etc. Were these incidents handled “by the book,” or do you feel the actions by agents were outside the bounds of what you’d expect from LEOs?

The officer in the first shooting wasn’t “standing in front of the car”. He was in fact walking in from the side until she gunned it forward and turned her wheels. But even if he’d stood stationary directly in front of her while she was parked, his shooting was obviously justified. The second shooting is a lot worse. I still think it’s gonna get ruled justified, but it’s much less clear cut, and the officers did a much worse job before, during, and after the incident. For what it’s worth, I’m comfortable saying I believe neither shooting victim was trying to hurt law enforcement. 

21 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Justified ruling, well we know how the system works.  But, correct me if I’m wrong, she didn’t have a gun and she didn’t attack law enforcement.  

Capital police were protecting members of congress, and had barricaded doors and were posted up with guns drawn. An angry mob broke a window and she was the first one through, despite lawful commands to stop. Officers had no way of knowing whether she was armed or not, but they certainly knew she was breaking through despite their commands, and that if she led an angry mob through they could overpower officers and possibly hurt the people the officers are paid to protect. If she’d been a democrat a lot of guys would be saying she got what she deserved. It’s a very similar situation to this one, where everyone on here is saying “it wasn’t a great shoot, but if he’d just complied…” and what she was doing was way worse than what Pretti did. But even if you don’t agree with me (and the law, and the courts), what would you do if me and 20 buddies came over to your house and broke through your barricaded window and tried to come inside? You gonna let me get all the way in and try to find out if I’m armed? 

18 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Tell me about Ashley Babbitt!

Justified. Just as the Good shooting was. This one is fuzzier, but will likely be ruled justified as well, although it’s a bad one. 

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Protest and die. The New Society.

More like “interfere with active law enforcement operations and if things go completely wrong you could die”

11 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I’ve had a concealed carry permit for a long time…..I’ve never thought while carrying my gun I would need more than what my concealed weapon will carry.
 

I’ve also when pulled over ever refused to comply to the officers orders….where is your gun? It’s in my console. Ok, don’t reach for yours and I won’t reach for mine….deal!
 

I’m smart enough to know  it would not end good if I reached in that console…..

I’ve always got an extra mag or two floating around somewhere 😀

11 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Man, this rings of Cardinalbacker.🙂

Yeah, I’m having flashbacks listening to these posts 

12 hours ago, Big girl said:

What do you think about this guy being executed after he was disarmed?

I think you don’t know what executing is. But as to why he was shot, I know that one officer yelled “gun!”, and within a second or two of that another officer disarmed him, during which the gun went off. I believe the officer who fired the shots either saw the pistol taken and in the struggle mistakenly thought that the victim had pulled it from the holster, or didn’t see the gun but heard “gun” and then almost immediately heard the shot and thought the victim was pulling the trigger. I don’t think the victim “deserved” to be shot, and I don’t think it should’ve happened under these circumstances, but I do think there’s going to be a pretty strong argument for ruling the shooting as justified. It’s not really any different than a lot of the cases we see where some kid who’s afraid of the cops runs when he’s pulled over for speeding or fights the cops because they’re busting him on a misdemeanor marijuana charge. The situation escalates needlessly and all of a sudden something that shouldn’t have been a big deal at all puts a cop in a situation where they have to make a split-second decision based on the information they have and their reasonable belief that they’re in danger. Oftentimes when we can go back and look at it from a different angle (and in slow motion), the cop could’ve done something different. But they wouldn’t have had to make a split-second decision if the person they were dealing with didn’t put them in the situation to begin with. Sometimes cops get it wrong, and sometimes it’s still justified. I think that may end up being the case here.