KY: sale of horse gone wrong; farm owner shot and killed

[Glimmerglass]

An odd, tad confusing and sad story especially with this being the holdiays:

Lexington Herald-Leader 12-30-08 "Officer shoots, kills Nicholas County woman on her farm" (http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/641613.html)

excerpt

It appears that Hill [an off-duty Boone County Sheriff's deputy], along with his wife and daughter, went to the farm to buy a horse, Nicholas County Sheriff Dick Garrett said. Pollitt's nephew was selling the horse, he said.

For some unknown reason, Pollitt was angry and came out to the barn with a .22-caliber pistol and pointed it at Hill, Garrett said.

"She backed him up with the gun. He told her to put the gun down. She didn't and said 'I'll just end it right here,'" Garrett said. "She thumb-cocked the .22 and pointed it at him and then he did what he needed to do."

Hill shot Pollitt with his pistol, the sheriff confirmed.

Garrett said he was unclear what the dispute was about.

WLWT NBC 5 in Cincinnati video report (http://www.wlwt.com/video/18382002/index.html)

[SGray]

what were they doing "buying" a horse a 11:45pm?

[Anselcat]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28431817/
WLEX-TV
updated 9:29 a.m. ET, Tues., Dec. 30, 2008

An off-duty Boone County Sheriff's deputy is being questioned after a Nicholas County woman was found shot to death on her farm late Monday night.It happened just before midnight on Headquarters Road Monday. The Nicholas County Sheriff says the deputy had bought a horse from 55-year-old Brenda Pollitt's nephew.

Police say Pollitt told him to pick the horse up by midnight or she would kill it.

Police say when the deputy, Scotty Hill, went to pick up the horse, Pollitt walked out with a gun. They say Hill told her several times to put the gun down and when she aimed it at him, he shot her.

[Tamara in TN]

what were they doing "buying" a horse a 11:45pm?

dont'cha know??? horses is always cheaper closer to midnight;)

best

[Lori B]

all very sketchy. Somehow I think there is more to this story than what has been reported so far.

[cloudyandcallie]

The article said the victim had ordered her nephew to be off the property by midnight.

Was the nephew selling her horse? Or did she have a lien on the horse?

[abbydp]

This wouldn't be any chance be the farm that someone posted about recently, horribly concerned for her own horse? If I remember right there was something about mental illness and firearms and being worried about being shot if she picked up her own horse.

[Appsolute]

Even before I read the post above, I thought "this lady sounds as crazy as my mother in law"!

My guess is mental illness is the key to making this story make sense. And any one who deals with some one that is mentally ill, and not treated, knows they don't make any sense!

Honestly I feel for the shooter, what can you do when some one is crazy and pointing a gun at you? Mentaly ill people are unpredictable.

Thank God my MIL does not have any guns!

[cloudyandcallie]

This wouldn't be any chance be the farm that someone posted about recently, horribly concerned for her own horse? If I remember right there was something about mental illness and firearms and being worried about being shot if she picked up her own horse.


wrong state.

alter is safe and so are her horses.

[spookhorse]

It's weird, but there is one degree of separation between me and this woman I have never met... I found out this morning that she owned my gelding, Buddy, as a two year old.

My friend/co-worker Rodney called me this morning to tell me that. I think he knew her personally as he is from Carlisle where this happened.

I want to call him back and ask for more info on Pollitt, but I worry it may upset him if he knows the woman or her family well.

[Woodland]

There must be more to this story. The links say that the off duty officer's horse was evicted from the farm and the officer had until midnight to remove his horse or it would be a carcass.

So he shoots the BO :confused:

Hmmm....there is something so wrong with this story!

[county]

In this state you can buy a horse at any time of the day.

The reason he shot the barn owner was she had a gun pointed at him, cocked it, and threatnen to shoot him. Shooting her sounds to me like the smart thing to do.

[Shire]

I just saw this on the news tonight but it was so vague I didn't get the whole story. (which isn't unusual! The news writers are a bit iffy here!) It will be interesting to hear the rest of the story.... Let us know if you hear anything more.

[Budrow]

Something just doesn't add up here.

[equinelaw]

This wouldn't be any chance be the farm that someone posted about recently, horribly concerned for her own horse? If I remember right there was something about mental illness and firearms and being worried about being shot if she picked up her own horse.

Not the same person, but that is why we are always so so over-protective when disputes occur and people say "you should just go match up there and get your horse"!

These things actually happen and we all need to be careful when tempers are up and people are armed. Not an anti-gun jab--just a word of caution.

[spookhorse]

After knowing several Lexington Police officers, all I gotta say is *never ever* make one nervous by pointing a gun or other dangerous object in their direction.

I know a of Rottweiler who almost lost its life when it threatened us on a Search. Luckily it backed off so our resident SAR Police officer didn't shoot it...

[kcgold]

update WLEX18 TV

Boone County sheriff's Deputy Scotty Hill was loading the horse onto a trailer in rural Nicholas County when 55-year-old Brenda Pollitt confronted him late Monday, according to Kentucky State Police.

Hill was buying the horse from Pollitt's nephew, said Nicholas County Sheriff Dick Garrett.

Earlier in the day, the nephew had been ordered by his aunt to move out of her house by midnight and to take his belongings - including the horse, said state police Lt. Bart Taylor.

Pollitt warned her nephew she would kill the horse if it wasn't offer her property by midnight, Garrett said. So the nephew contacted Hill, who arrived late Monday to pick up the animal, the sheriff said.

Pollitt showed up and declared that the horse wasn't going anywhere and pulled out a .22-caliber pistol, he said. Hill told her to put down the gun, but instead the incident escalated, the sheriff said.

"She said, `I'll just settle this now' and she brought the weapon up and thumb-cocked the weapon," Garrett said. Hill then drew his off-duty pistol and opened fire, Garrett said.

Pollitt was shot multiple times and died at the scene, said Nicholas County deputy coroner Kevin Hatchett.

No one else was injured, and the horse was unharmed.

Pollitt apparently didn't fire any shots, Taylor said. He said the investigation was continuing.

No charged have been filed.

At one point, Hill tried to defuse the confrontation by unloading the horse, Taylor said.

"We believe that he recognized ... if there was a misunderstanding between the woman and the nephew, he didn't need to be in the middle of that," Taylor said.

"And he attempted to remove himself from that by doing what she had demanded."

Pollitt continued her threats, however, and Hill, when "faced with a deadly threat, responded accordingly," Taylor said.

Hill, a five-year veteran of the Boone County sheriff's department, was placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the state police investigation, according to Boone County Sheriff Michael A. Helmig.

Taylor said that state police would turn over its findings to prosecutors, who will decide whether to present the case to a grand jury.

"We are investigating this as we would any other shooting incident, regardless of anyone's occupation," Taylor said. "There are no considerations given to that."

Investigators interviewed both Hill and the nephew, he said.

Taylor said he doesn't think Pollitt realized Hill was a sheriff's deputy.

Hill's wife and daughter had accompanied him to the farm to pick up the horse, Taylor said.

[BelladonnaLily]

Well, if what the article says is accurate, I'd say the Deputy was justified in shooting her.

My father always taught me "Never shoot to wound, always shoot to kill". It would be damn shame to wound the guy threatening you, and still get killed. I would think that police officers follow the same logic.

Sounds like she was a lunatic. She probably threatened the nephew to have the horse out, but really didn't want the horse out...she just wanted something to threaten him with. Then when the horse was truly leaving, she got pissed. What a nutjob.

[cloudyandcallie]

The shooter wasn't a deputy in the county in which he shot the woman, according to some of the posted news reports.
Unless Kentucky allows deputies to have state-wide jurisdiction, which my state (georgiia) does not, a deputy outside of his county is a civilian, and therefore a trespasser on the woman's property. Sounds like he got in the middle of a domestic dispute, but he should have left the property immediatelly if the owner ordered him to. Or called 911 for help. If she didn't know he was law enforcement (even if he was not acting in that capacity) then she might have been ordering him off of her property and protecting her property? Too much speculation.

Did she order the deputy off of her property?

The reports are confusing.

[ise@ssl]

I don't agree with your comment about trespassing. The woman told her nephew to get the horse off the property by midnight or it would be killed according to the write up presented. It would appear the owner of the horse had little time to make arrangements but found this buyer and he came to get the horse.

Let's be real here - we've had horses picked up and dropped off at all hours due to shippers having delays or problems - so getting a horse at that hour isn't such a strange thing. The woman drawing a loaded gun and pointing it at the man and cocking the gun was a threat to his life. I'm sure he also thought of his wife and child with him and their safety.

Sad situation all around.

[trubandloki]

I just saw this on the news tonight but it was so vague I didn't get the whole story. (which isn't unusual! The news writers are a bit iffy here!) It will be interesting to hear the rest of the story.... Let us know if you hear anything more.

The news is iffy every where, not just where you are. :yes: Getting a whole accurate story would be nothing short of a miracle.


C&C - it does not say anywhere that the deputy was acting as a deputy. He was simply there to pick up a horse he purchased is how I read it. The update seems to imply he was trying to do as she asked when she pointed the gun at him.

[caffeinated]

Sounds to me like the lady wasn't all there in the head.

It's sad, but if what the deputy says is true- I think he was pretty well justified.

I hope his wife and daughter are OK, too. That had to be more than a little traumatic for them.

[arabhorse2]

Kentucky is a commonwealth, as is Virginia. Sheriff's Deputies in VA have jurisdiction in the entire state, not just the counties where they're employed. I imagine Kentucky is similar.

Sheriff's Deputies are allowed to carry their weapons at all times, regardless of where they are or what they're doing. So, for him to have his weapon on him was completely normal.

To say this man was trespassing is really grasping at straws, C&C. He was there at the request of the nephew, to pick up a horse. Crazy woman threatened him with a gun, so he shot to kill. I don't see the officer at fault here.

[Trakehner]

Crazy is crazy.
She threatened to kill the horse her nephew sold if it didn't leave by midnight(heresay).

The nephew told the buyer he had to get the horse out NOW...which he did, bringing his wife and daughter...kinda' stupid to bring the family along where somebody might be nuts!

He loaded the horse and the woman has a pistol and cocks it, even when he offered to unload the horse.

He shot the dangerous idiot! GOOD! Too many police are being killed due to paranoia in being sued and waiting a bit too long to act. He protected his wife and kid, he protected himself from someone pointing a pistol at him who then thumb-cocked it. That qualifies as a deadly threat.

I carry a pistol (legally). I brought it one night when friends called me to rescue their friend's and their horses. Very abusive boyfriend, horses also threatened with death if she left him, and going near the property to get them while he was at his church (go figure that one) and we were quickly down the road. Stupid girl went back to him and my friend's retired horse stayed up with them.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. You don't point guns at cops or innocent people...no matter how mad or psycho.

[gieriscm]

Crazy is crazy.
She threatened to kill the horse her nephew sold if it didn't leave by midnight(heresay).

Backed up by more than one witness. Having said that, if a BO says that she'll shoot my horse if it's not gone by midnight, I'll lead or ride it off the property if I can't find transport.

The nephew told the buyer he had to get the horse out NOW...which he did, bringing his wife and daughter...kinda' stupid to bring the family along where somebody might be nuts!

His wife is also a cop in a different jurisdiction. Maybe they couldn't find a sitter for the daughter on short notice? Also, none of the articles I read indicated that the deputy/purchaser knew he was walking into a potential domestic violence problem.

He loaded the horse and the woman has a pistol and cocks it, even when he offered to unload the horse.

The deputy tried to de-escalate the situation and actually did unload the horse and the nutso farm owner's nephew took control over it. Nutso farm owner still didn't back down.

He shot the dangerous idiot! GOOD! Too many police are being killed due to paranoia in being sued and waiting a bit too long to act.

IMO he waited too long, and was legally in the clear to use lethal force once nutso arrived with the gun.

[Curb Appeal]

I see nothing in the articles that I have read which would indicate that the deputy was doing anything wrong.
He was there to buy a horse which had been ordered off the property by midnight.
He tried to defuse the situation by unloading the horse.
Woman pointed a .22 at him and cocked it.
Police officers are always trained to shoot to kill. There is no "shoot to wound". If you are going to shoot someone, you had damned well be prepared to kill them. Many departments require their officers to carry their weapons when off duty.

I feel for the deputy and all others involved. It is a tragedy, but I think this deputy did the right thing.

[county]

If someone has a gun pointed at me and says their going to kill me bet the farm if I have the chance I'm going to kill them first.

[BuddyRoo]

I would also venture to guess that the nephew (the seller) failed to mention that there would be a crazy armed woman on the property....because I seriously doubt that a LEO would walk into a situation like that w/o enlisting help.

In my experience, LE doesn't like to get into that kind of mess BEFORE the mess begins.

I'd also guess that had the guy called 911 at the moment he felt threatened, he'd be dead and we'd be reading about how idiot woman was shot and killed by cop wife and deputy husband is dead.

Pure speculation on my part...but it's a fun game to play...so my guess is that nephew called deputy...said the horse HAS to be out of here by midnight dude. Come and get it or we're going to shoot it. Deputy, liking horses (and not unlike what many of us would do) thought "Crap! better load up the famdamily and git that horse outta there safely!"

It is NOT default mode to think "Hey, I might get shot while I go move my horse"

Though perhaps it should be. Cripes.

[findeight]

Just saw another news item on this and...

Looks like buyer had already been down to the property and dealt with nephew (I guess) when he arranged to buy the horse. Yeah, buyers wife is also a cop but I'd bet they had no idea this was anything but a "get down and pick this horse up" tactic.

Boone County spokesman says it appears to be justifiable as once a gun is cocked while pointed at you by an assailent saying they will shoot, any military or law enforcement officer is trained to shoot in response. Investigation under way in co operation with the Nicholas County agencies but looks like his actions were proper.

They did have some film of horses on the property and they looked well fed enough although knee deep in mud. Nothing that screamed crazy so you wouldn't make it a family adventure to get a new horse. Who knew....

[KellyS]

Police officers are always trained to shoot to kill. There is no "shoot to wound". If you are going to shoot someone, you had damned well be prepared to kill them. Many departments require their officers to carry their weapons when off duty.


Amen to the above. My husband is a police officer...he always says that the most important thing in his job is coming home at the end of a shift. People often say, well, he's an officer in a "safe" township; unfortunately, a friend of his in a neighboring "safe" township was gunned down, leaving behind his wife and children.

He's also told me...if you are going to shoot someone, shoot to kill. It's all too often that someone shoots to wound, and then the person shot gets the gun away from them and kills them.

Finally--"People will spend years judging an action that took you seconds to decide" in regard to shooting someone. This deputy had seconds to decide whether to shoot someone that was threatening him and his family with a cocked, loaded gun. I am so glad that he and his family are all alive.

[Trakehner]

I am so glad that he and his family are all alive.

AMEN!

[arabhorse2]

He's also told me...if you are going to shoot someone, shoot to kill. It's all too often that someone shoots to wound, and then the person shot gets the gun away from them and kills them.

A friend of mine who is a deputy sheriff has also told me this, as well as my SO, who isn't a LEO.

My mantra is that unless I'm target practicing or cleaning my guns, if I pick one of them up, I plan to shoot something/someone and I'm not shooting to maim.

Call me bloodthirsty, but guns are tools to be used when the need arises. I haven't yet seen the need to use mine on a human, and would never use one to "scare" anyone with.

If you take it out, be prepared to use it. Brandishing it about is just likely to get you shot from the person who doesn't see a need to wave theirs around.

[secretariat]

Seems pretty normal to me. It's Kentucky (and before you flame me, look at my address. I've lived here for 60 years).

[JohnDeere]

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

This could be a siggy line! :winkgrin:

[findeight]

Seems pretty normal to me. It's Kentucky (and before you flame me, look at my address. I've lived here for 60 years).

Rural Ky at that...not talking across the river from Cincy or Louisville or downtown Lexington.

Talking out in the country and I'd bet 911 was not any kind of option even if it was available and within cell service area...nearest Deputy probably part time and 15 miles away.

Sounds like nobody locally has much of a problem with this one.

[riverbell93]

Sounds like a mess, and a good reason to resist being pressured into panic mode. That whole "gotta pick the horse up right now or it dies!!!!" reaction
apparently cut off all rational thought in the nephew and the cop. I don't know if the nephew realized that his aunt was getting angry enough to pull a gun, but he clearly knew something was up. So he calls the cop to help him get the horse (why? for protection? because the cop's buying the horse?) and the cop brings his family (which was a bad call, no matter how you try to defend it) and it sounds like the sheer presence of strangers escalated the situation. I'm not blaming the cop for shooting the woman once she'd pulled a gun, but he showed very poor judgement in going along with the nephew. Plenty of people might have done the same thing, but you'd think as a cop he'd have the training and experience to think past the emotional 'gotta save the horse" reaction to the dangers of a domestic situation.

[JSwan]

Kentucky is a commonwealth, as is Virginia. Sheriff's Deputies in VA have jurisdiction in the entire state, not just the counties where they're employed. I imagine Kentucky is similar.

Sheriff's Deputies are allowed to carry their weapons at all times, regardless of where they are or what they're doing. So, for him to have his weapon on him was completely normal.

To say this man was trespassing is really grasping at straws, C&C. He was there at the request of the nephew, to pick up a horse. Crazy woman threatened him with a gun, so he shot to kill. I don't see the officer at fault here.

Agreed. And I'm glad no one else was hurt, including the horse.

[arabhorse2]

Sounds like a mess, and a good reason to resist being pressured into panic mode. That whole "gotta pick the horse up right now or it dies!!!!" reaction
apparently cut off all rational thought in the nephew and the cop. I don't know if the nephew realized that his aunt was getting angry enough to pull a gun, but he clearly knew something was up. So he calls the cop to help him get the horse (why? for protection? because the cop's buying the horse?) and the cop brings his family (which was a bad call, no matter how you try to defend it) and it sounds like the sheer presence of strangers escalated the situation. I'm not blaming the cop for shooting the woman once she'd pulled a gun, but he showed very poor judgement in going along with the nephew. Plenty of people might have done the same thing, but you'd think as a cop he'd have the training and experience to think past the emotional 'gotta save the horse" reaction to the dangers of a domestic situation.

Um, read waaay too much into scenarios there, riverbell?

I have a feeling the nephew told the officer that the horse needed to be picked up by midnight, and not much else.

Trust me, any LEO who's been told, "We have to move the horse NOW, 'cause my aunt's crazy and has threatened to SHOOT the horse!" is going to come with backup, not his family.

[TheJenners]

This could be a siggy line! :winkgrin:
We use it all the time in law enforcement. Trust me, if someone had a gun on me, I'd shoot as soon as I could. Ditto a knife, to be honest. We are LEOs, we get to go a step up the force ladder. We don't lose fights. Has nothing to do with a horse or machoism or anything other than I want to live, I want my family (had I a family and had said family been with me) to live and not see me shot down. As a LEO, I say he did the correct thing.

[Lori B]

Well, sounds like the woman waving the gun was one of the millions of untreated mentally ill. Or under-treated. And that's exactly how mental illness can end up being fatal.

[Appsolute]

Agreed,I don't know what the situation was here. But having delt with mental illness in the family, there is help for those who accept it, but unless they are a threat (which has to be proven), you can't force treatment.

And trying to convince some one who is mentally ill, and irrational to do some thing rational can be quite trying!

Often times things escalate like this because they can not be forced into treatment untill some thing major happens.

Here in the land of the free, you are free to be as crazy as you want untill you kill (or attempt to) yourself or some one else :(



Well, sounds like the woman waving the gun was one of the millions of untreated mentally ill. Or under-treated. And that's exactly how mental illness can end up being fatal.

[spook1]

Hi All
As a LEO...most all I know carry firearms off duty. Given what Little info was givin he was justified. I can say if someone sold me a horse and said " you gotta get this horse out by midnight" may raise a red flag. But again we don't know that was even the way it was put to the deputy. He may have been told something totally different (like a LEO has never been told a story...lol). I would think that in some way he thought he was getting a horse and the family was excited and went with him.
I feel sorry for all involed...:(

[Anselcat]

I have sympathy for the dead woman's family, as it sounds like she was mentally ill.

But I think the police officer took the only option available, faced with a person acting aggressively and pointing a gun at him. My sympathies to the officer's family as well.

It's just tragic all the way around.

[kcgold]

Rural Ky at that...not talking across the river from Cincy or Louisville or downtown Lexington.

Talking out in the country and I'd bet 911 was not any kind of option even if it was available and within cell service area...nearest Deputy probably part time and 15 miles away.

Sounds like nobody locally has much of a problem with this one.


I live three miles from where this happened....yes, we're rural, but not third world - we do have 911 and cell service (we're only 30 miles from Lexington) :).

And let's just say that the locals are not all that surprised, and we'll leave it at that.

[silver2]

Well, sounds like the woman waving the gun was one of the millions of untreated mentally ill. Or under-treated.
Or she was tweaking her head off on meth. That's how the story ends around here usually.

[slc2]

There is no reason to assume this woman was mentally ill. She may have been, but calling her 'psycho', 'crazy', 'nuts', there's no reason at this point to assume mental illness had anything to do with it. If she wasn't diagnosed with something, didn't have a history (at 55, if she were ill, she most likely would have had some encounters with 'Services' at some point in her life already - most mental illnesses develop in young adulthood, not at 40 or 50 or 55, yes, I said most, not all).

There are a large number of shooting tragedies in which no one is mentally ill. That isn't a requirement. Alcohol is far more often a factor in shootings, or just temper.

People don't need to be drunk OR mentally ill to get into a tragic situation, lose their temper, or do something impulsive and violent. People seem to have to assume if someone does something like this they must be 'nuts'. In fact, that's not the case. People can get very angry, and do things for that reason alone.

[luvmytbs]

When this first hit "the wire", the story was a little different than what has been posted here.

According to the initial story, the deputy was a friend of the nephew's and agreed to remove the horse from the aunt's property. The deputy went to the property unannounced. He should have knocked on the woman's door to let her know he was there, which according to the local "chatter", he didn't. The nephew did not accompany the deputy, when he pulled in with the trailer.

I am sorry, but how was that woman to know this wasn't some horse thief? She does own horses herself after all.

Furthermore, according to the "chatter" the deputy shot her eight times.

[SGray]

that whole 11:45 pm thing still sits wrong if all was on the up and up with the 'buyer'

and as a person that keeps horses at home - I would be out there with gun if someone pulled up with a trailer at midnight - though I would have my phone in other hand, having already dialed 911

[equinelaw]

They say if you are gonna shoot someone make sure there is only one version of the story when you are done.

I see no badge no cop car and no uniform then I do not see a police officer.

I actually think it stinks.

I do understand both sides, but without the LEO twist I think we would all be singing a different song.

"Horsewoman fatally shot in boarder dispute"! Midnight intruder says she started it. . . . .

[pAin't_Misbehavin']

I see no badge no cop car and no uniform then I do not see a police officer.

I actually think it stinks.

I do understand both sides, but without the LEO twist I think we would all be singing a different song.

"Horsewoman fatally shot in boarder dispute"! Midnight intruder says she started it. . . . .

Actually it's the presence of the wife and child that makes the nephew and off-duty deputy's story credible for me. Not even my crazy relatives invite the fam along to a shoot-out. On purpose.:lol:

Otherwise, I'll grant you we'd have only the word of the shooter and the possible accomplice.

[RosewoodFarm]

How can we be sure the nephew is telling the whole truth? Is it possible the aunt told him to be out by midnight and he decided to take what he believed to be his horse without her permission? What is the back story that lead up to her telling him to get out. NOW.
As stated above, the aunt may have had no way of knowing the guy was a deputy and only saw a theif trying to make off with one of her horses or someone trying to help her nephew pull a fast one. She can't tell her side of the story now; she's dead.

Kay

[findeight]

Short follow up story on this today...

Investigation continuing but it appears the LEO had purchased the horse from the nephew but had not picked it up yet. Nephew was asked to leave and get the horse out by midnite or it would be shot. He relayed that to the deputy who came down after his shift to pick it up.

Least that is what the press says as of now.

[luvmytbs]

In the initial media interview with the nephew (which I can't find now), the nephew NEVER mentioned anything about his aunt having threatened to shoot the horse. You'd think that would have been the first thing he would have spoke about on camera.

Fishy, very fishy.

[hitchinmygetalong]

In the initial media interview with the nephew (which I can't find now), the nephew NEVER mentioned anything about his aunt having threatened to shoot the horse. You'd think that would have been the first thing he would have apoke about on camera.

Fishy, very fishy.

Perhaps in the shock of the whole event the nephew didn't think to fill in the reporters on all the details of the situation. Just because the media doesn't initially report it, it doesn't mean it is a fabrication when the details emerge.

[equinelaw]

Well, I hope it gets cleared up because right now I do not know who I can shoot and who I cannot.
I always thought it was "shoot em all and let god sort em out" but now a new rule has emerged.

Now you must ask if they are police before shooting them. Might as well be a hooker!

[pAin't_Misbehavin']

Well, I hope it gets cleared up because right now I do not know who I can shoot and who I cannot.
I always thought it was "shoot em all and let god sort em out" but now a new rule has emerged.

No, that's not actually the rule - just the opinion of our Attorney General.:lol::yes:

You're not actually allowed to use deadly force to protect property. But you can to protect your own life or that of another. So, on the facts as we know them, gun totin' auntie was in the wrong, deputy was in the right.

[equinelaw]

No, that's not actually the rule - just the opinion of our Attorney General.:lol::yes:

You're not actually allowed to use deadly force to protect property. But you can to protect your own life or that of another. So, on the facts as we know them, gun totin' auntie was in the wrong, deputy was in the right.

And those are the facts as told every time I have to shoot someone dead. It only varies of they survive:)

If its good enough for Texas its damn time we had it in SC too!

I actually am somewhat confused. He wins because he shot first. If she had shot first she could have claimed bugler or something dangerous. I can't even spell criminal law stuff.

Lets go sue someone. I can handle torts. I wonder her family is going sue him?

[pAin't_Misbehavin']

And those are the facts as told every time I have to shoot someone dead. It only varies of they survive:)

If its good enough for Texas its damn time we had it in SC too!

I actually am somewhat confused. He wins because he shot first. If she had shot first she could have claimed bugler or something dangerous. I can't even spell criminal law stuff.

Lets go sue someone. I can handle torts. I wonder her family is going sue him?

Oh, I agree. And the fact that the shooter was a LEO who undoubtedly knew what he needed to say to make it a good shooting makes me suspect the story more than I would had it been two average citizens involved. But the shooter did bring his family, which to me suggests he didn't go there expecting to kill the lady.

I also agree about those buglers - damned annoying, especially the ones who practice too early in the morning.:winkgrin: I say we shoot them.:yes:

I'm taking today off from suing people.:winkgrin: But not to worry, I'll be back at it on Monday.:)

[cloudyandcallie]

Kentucky is one of about 15 states that have enacted the "castle law" for deadly force in defense of your home or business.
A land owner or home owner or barn owner can point a gun and order people off of her land and can shot them if they threaten her or her property.
In Kentucky, deputy sheriff's have no authority outside of their own county, and so this deputy cannot claim that he was acting under color of law. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 70.00 et seq.
After a deputy sheriff was convicted of ccw in another county, Ky enacted a law to allow deputies to carry their guns concealed state wide, but that doesn't give them the authority to enter another person's property at 11:45pm without the permission of the property owner.
And his wife is a cop in a town. I'm sure she was carrying that night, and where was her cell phone? The minute the BO pulled out a gun, the wife should have called 911, exited the truck, and backed up her husband, that's correct police procedure.
Did the deputy notify his sheriff that he was going to move this horse at 11:45pm?
Did he notify the part time sheriff in the county in which he shot the BO that he would be picking up the horse and might need help?
While alterforget name, couldn't get leo to help, uh, the alter who couldn't get a cop to go with her to get her horses, and also supernatural who couldn't get help, if a leo calls for help, he gets it, period. So this off duty, no jurisdiction cop, a civilian under these circumstances and in that county, could have gotten a uniformed deputy to go with him to get the horse.
I'd like to know the entrance wounds, frontal or dorsal?
I don't know all the facts and neither does anyone here. I think it is interesting though that people assume that the BO was either crazy or on drugs, what about the nephew and the leo?
Let's see where the bullets entered and exited. Of course, the victim cannot tell us her side of the story, but the bullet wounds can. You can't change the track of the bullets.
And why was the nephew getting evicted?
And nope, it is not reasonable to sell or move a horse at 11:45pm without a uniformed deputy there on duty. I moved my friend's horse about 11pm with a uniformed deputy and his uniform car so that my friend would not be killed.
Easy for those of us who can get cops to come help out, hard for civilians who cannot get help.
The off duty dep. has a farm called Texas Star stables in another county.

[SGray]

No, that's not actually the rule - just the opinion of our Attorney General.:lol::yes:

You're not actually allowed to use deadly force to protect property. But you can to protect your own life or that of another. So, on the facts as we know them, gun totin' auntie was in the wrong, deputy was in the right.

ahhhhh - but you can in Texas - the Castle Doctrine

law passed within the last couple of years

[equinelaw]

More then a couple of years:)

Suul8tr:)

He could have brought his family because he had no premeditated plans to shoot anyone.That does not mean he was not prepared to use deadly force when the time came.

And why aren't LEOs trained how to shoot not to kill? That would be a useful skill.

[rothmpp]

When I took my certification class for a CCW permit my instructor was a former LEO. One thing that he stressed for personal protection is that you should shoot to kill if protecting yourself. Don't try to wound the person. He also instructed to empty the gun, don't assume one shot did the job.

I initially thought the same thing - why is he buying a horse at 11PM? The thing is - there are only a couple of people who know what actually happened, and at least one of them is not talking. He may actually be held to a different standard than an average citizen since he is a LEO.

[cloudyandcallie]

ahhhhh - but you can in Texas - the Castle Doctrine

law passed within the last couple of years

And that's the law in Kentucky.

[Jumpin_Horses]

And that's the law in Kentucky.

michigan too... we also have the no retreat law.. I think that means we dont have to give them the opportunity to run....

[equinelaw]

No fair! We don't get to shoot anybody.

[findeight]

And why aren't LEOs trained how to shoot not to kill? That would be a useful skill.

Because they are trained to use deadly force only if they think the assailant is going to kill them...and will still do so if only wounded.

I wouldn't want to be the LEO to test that one out and see if it's true or not.

And I can shoot but hate guns.

Anyway, you bet there is more to this story....and somebody from the area has already posted it is not surprising anybody locally.

[equinelaw]

Anyway, you bet there is more to this story....and somebody from the area has already posted it is not surprising anybody locally.[/QUOTE]

I think they'd say that about most of us too.

He was not wounded. She never fired a shot, he was not on duty or defending the peace. I do not think he is lying, I just think he got a free pass because he is LEO. I do not think that is fair. I think he of all people should have been trained to avoid such situations.

I don't really think it funny because they LEOs here tell me to buy a gun to defend myself and now if I use it I have to make sure I shoot first and shoot the mostest?

Used to be a crazy lady with a shotgun was good enough.

[Rallycairn]

Another one here who thinks this all smells very fishy.

[Jessi P]

What kind of person takes his wife AND kid along to do ANYTHING at 11:45pm? Not that it is relevant to anything, but it's the first thing I noticed. And I think it's rather odd that he emptied 8 shots into the woman. Something definitely strange there...

[xeroxchick]

Castle Law or no Castle Law, if someone is on my property, especially in my house, I do not give them an interview to see what they are planning. Let's see...
"Are you a Ted Bundy or just here to steal the electronics?"

They initiated the situation, they get the rounds.

As far as this horse sale gone bad, it's not adding up.

[SGray]

is this at least going to be presented to a Grand Jury?

[Cherry]

I could be wrong but I think the dead woman got the short end of the stick here.... :eek: Anything the nephew said is hearsay in court, right???

Perhaps the LEO was used by the nephew to get rid of auntie before she could get rid of him. Maybe she hadn't changed her will yet; could be he thought he'd get something (or everything) if she were dead..... Maybe he sold her personal mount without telling her--for some people on this board that's worth brandishing a gun! :winkgrin: :yes: :lol: I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory but the LEO could have been set up. I know, I know--I watch too much TV. But weirder things have happened! ;) :yes:

Lots of unanswered questions. I don't think the LEO knew what was happening--I think he thought it was just a pickup of a horse that morphed into something he didn't expect (but maybe the nephew knew better but withheld that information). If it sounds too disjointed to be true it generally is, and this story just sounds too disjointed to me.... :uhoh:

I knew there was a reason I didn't like selling horses..... ;)

[cordial]

I live three miles from where this happened....yes, we're rural, but not third world - we do have 911 and cell service (we're only 30 miles from Lexington) :).

And let's just say that the locals are not all that surprised, and we'll leave it at that.

What do you mean...The locals aren't at all surprised/???
Just curious.

[pAin't_Misbehavin']

Anything the nephew said is hearsay in court, right???

Depends. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. I'd argue that I was offering the aunt's threat to shoot the horse, not to prove she actually meant to shoot the poor beast, but to show her state of mind at the time she made the statement.

[2ndyrgal]

I do not know the woman that was shot. I do however, know some UL officers from Boone Co.'s sheriff's dept. The feedback I got was that if this man shot someone, it meant he truly DID fear for his life and the lives of his family members in the truck. These men do not draw and fire their guns lightly, nor would they do it in the presence of their teenaged daughter unless it was absolutely necessary. So enough of the the BS conspiracy theory. If you point a gun at someone and cock the trigger, then you deserve what you get. There are nut jobs everywhere, we've got Santa shooters and Aspen bombers, and I bet more than one of us has picked up or dropped off a horse in the wee hours of the night or morning, God knows I have. Apparently the woman's quarrel was with her nephew, she just went off on the wrong person. I grew up in a household of hunters with strict instructions regarding guns. Don't aim at anything you don't intend to kill. There was no reason for her to have a weapon, this man carries one every day. It's his job.

[equinelaw]

Why does she need a reason on her property to carry a gun? Are guns illegal up there?

He shot her 8 times. Damn right he was scared. 8 times. At her own barn. Maybe he should not have been there at all.

I hope I never have to shoot anyone at my home, but I do not want them to shoot be either. Too OK corral. But without the OK.

[ChelseaR]

But you see the point is not that she had a gun but that she aimed it at him - you don't aim a gun at anyone you are not intending to kill - never - whether on your own property or otherwise. Pointing a gun at someone as a threat is never a good idea - either shoot them or don't - anyone LEO or military trained to use a firearm will react the same way the cop did in this instance.

He wouldn't have thought about it - he wouldn't have had time to do anything other than react - that's what training is for - and it is the only reason these guys survive sometimes - you don't have time to second guess yourself in this sort of situation - you react according to your training or very likely you die.

[2ndyrgal]

having a gun. Fine. Pointing it at someone and cocking the trigger, not fine unless you a) have a good reason, b) pull the trigger. And eight shots sound like a lot unless you consider how very quickly those eight shots happen. LEO, Military, if they have been trained properly, revert to training in the face of danger.

[summerhorse]

No fair! We don't get to shoot anybody.

We can but we have to drag them inside the house and make sure they (Law enforcement) know we thought our lives were in peril! But at my gun class they also said if you shoot, shoot to kill.

[BasqueMom]

My gun class instructor said the same thing--shoot to kill. The targets we used were in
the shape of a person with the center being just below the chest. At one time, shoot for the head was taught but after a couple of LEO's lost their lives aiming for the head and
having their shots go high and the bad guy had time to do them in. This class also said
to say "Stop or I'll shoot" before firing. Expect to take a trip to the station for questioning afterwards and call a lawyer according to the video, but still better than dead.

Grew up in the city and my dad was told the same thing by our local police--shoot to kill.
Basically, wait til they are in the house and if they fall backwards out the door, drag them in. That was decades ago--am sure they would easily see that the person had fallen
other than where he lays when the police arrive.

Like everyone I know who has a gun, we hope never to need it. Having lived alone for many years, I slept better knowing it was in the nightstand drawer.

[cloudyandcallie]

michigan too... we also have the no retreat law.. I think that means we dont have to give them the opportunity to run....

Georgia too. Is Michigan located in the south?

Usually the rights of the property owner, here the BO trump all other rights.

But here an off-duty leo was involved, and he'll walk, even if the rumors of shots to the back, unsubstantiated as of yet, are true. Let a civilian try that and it's prison for sure.

[2ndyrgal]

because there is way to much speculation and crap. And CC, here in a little farming community in KY, three thugs broke into a WWII vet's house in the middle of the night to steal his gun collection. Guy woke up, shot at the intruders. Cops followed the BLOOD TRAIL to catch one, one ended up at the ER and they narc'd out the third. Yep, one of them was shot leaving, and not a charge was filed against the homeowner. (think about how stupid you'd have to be to try to steal GUNS from a VETERAN, and you know how stupid it is to point a gun at someone you don't know that is causing you no harm).

[Gruff Pastures]

What does LEO stand for?

[Jessi P]

LEO = Law enforcement officer. :winkgrin:

[cloudyandcallie]

LEO = Law enforcement officer. :winkgrin:

And this thread is relevant about what to do and what not to do in retrieving or buying or moving a horse. Look at Supernatural's problems and our alter's problems just a few months ago in the midwest.

People need to be very careful in removing their horses or horses belong to others from a stable, whether or not the BO is angry, normal or mentally ill.

It's not necessary for anyone to be killed if you can get an on duty cop to go with you.

[kcgold]

It's not necessary for anyone to be killed if you can get an on duty cop to go with you.

so, let's say the on-duty Nicholas County sheriff HAD accompanied the off-duty sheriff to the farm, and the woman still came out screaming and waving the gun and then cocked the trigger at them. How would the outcome be any different?

btw, the coroner's report is out, and she was shot five times, not eight.

[kcgold]

But here an off-duty leo was involved, and he'll walk, even if the rumors of shots to the back, unsubstantiated as of yet, are true. Let a civilian try that and it's prison for sure.


coroner's report says she was shot five times, three front entry wounds, two back entry wounds.

edit to add: I should add that this was a report released by the county coroner, not the official medical examiner's report - state police haven't released it yet.

[Thomas_1]

mmmmm and that was defensive and reasonable??!!

[kcgold]

why isn't it?

[Bluey]

coroner's report says she was shot five times, three front entry wounds, two back entry wounds.

edit to add: I should add that this was a report released by the county coroner, not the official medical examiner's report - state police haven't released it yet.

When you are shooting someone, first, you are trained to keep shooting, as one shot or a few sometimes won't stop someone.

Second, people confronting you don't just stand there still. Your shots make them move around and some may hit in front and some behind, even if they were not trying to turn and run, may even been running at you as they spinned.

All I am saying is that to know what really happened, there will be more that has to be determined, hard to say from just ONE fact.

[kcgold]

those are my thoughts, too, Bluey....I think it's hard to figure out what happened simply from that report.

[luvmytbs]

So who is taking care of all her horses now?

[Thomas_1]

why isn't it?3 shots from the front and 2 in the back.

I've never known anyone yet who can shoot you if they're got their back facing you.

That sounds like a very determined attempt to kill someone or someone who went into a panic and just continued firing.

[cloudyandcallie]

In my state, coroners do not have to be doctors, I have a friend who is retired from the highway dept. who is a coroner in his county, and a lot of people are declared natural deaths without autopsy by a medical examiner, which means some murderers get away with it in the country.

In this case, the Ky medical examiner should be able to tell how many bullets were frontal and how many were dorsal. And the distance, from the victim's clothing.

This type of shooting by LEOs happens occasionally in my state, and I've seen all the TV reports of the ones in NYC, and the problem is that when the person turns to run, some cops overreact, they are angry and they are scared, but then they are usually "on duty".

If a BO comes out and pulls a gun on a uniform officer wearing a uniform and his badge (or a detective who displays his badge and IDs himself as an officer of the law) who is ON DUTY, not off duty and with no jurisdiction, and the on duty officer shoots her in the front, that's justified. Those are not the facts here.

But I've never seen a grand jury indict a cop for overkill, shooting someone in the back if the person had a gun. It's called "getting out of jail free" in Georgia.

Since this off duty cop had no authority there, it will be interesting to see what the grandjury does in that county. In rural Georgia, unlike Atlanta, it's "who got killed and did they deserve killing."

But the whole moral of this story should be: If you are going to get a horse and there might be trouble, then get an on duty cop to go with you. And an off duty cop knows this better than a civilian, and chose not to take a deputy from that jurisdiction with him. Makes me wonder about his judgment besides sleeping on duty as he's been disciplined for.

And I know poor alter and supernatural had some great difficulties in getting LEOs to help them, altho supernatural got the sheriff over in WVA to help her out since she knew him.

[JSwan]

One thing I never trust the media with is getting their facts straight. Especially the first reports of a story such as this.

I think the only "safe" guess is that there is more to the story. Shots in the back are odd but who knows how all this really went down.

None of us can make the determination whether or not the act was justified. I'm just glad it wasn't worse.

As far as "shooting to wound", that's a great way to further a plot in a movie, but in real life it's a good way to get an innocent bystander or yourself killed.

What I was taught was aim center mass. The reasons aren't horse related but unless things have changed in law enforcement, (and they may have) that was standard practice in my day.



because there is way to much speculation and crap. And CC, here in a little farming community in KY, three thugs broke into a WWII vet's house in the middle of the night to steal his gun collection. Guy woke up, shot at the intruders. Cops followed the BLOOD TRAIL to catch one, one ended up at the ER and they narc'd out the third. Yep, one of them was shot leaving, and not a charge was filed against the homeowner. (think about how stupid you'd have to be to try to steal GUNS from a VETERAN, and you know how stupid it is to point a gun at someone you don't know that is causing you no harm).

[equinelaw]

Huh, so warning shots, drop your weapon, all that stuff is no longer needed? You see someone with a gun and its an automatic death sentence even if they are not firing at you?

And these guys are so sharply trained just just the sight of a gun pointed at them makes them fire uncontrollably> Hope they don't take their kinds hunting or stuff like that.

And the have all the rights of an on duty police officer all the time? From when? From the date they join the force or after 6 weeks of training or at some later date?

If things have gotten this bad we need to pay more taxes and have more police officers.

[silver2]

I've never known anyone yet who can shoot you if they're got their back facing you.
Assuming he emptied his clip at center mass, as trained to do, then it's very possible. The first couple shots cause the woman to spin around and the last shots went into her back at an angle. Now if they are at right angles and dead center between the shoulder blades it's a different story ;)

If someone points a gun at you and cocks it all they have to do is twitch and you have a good chance of being killed or maimed. Only on TV do people recover from gunshots in 3 weeks, in reality no. If the person pointing the gun at you is acting crazy or might be high then you cannot talk to them rationally and the odds are that they will keep firing at you and those around you even if wounded. I don't know how you guys want someone to react under those circumstances? Shoot the gun out of her hand and wrestle her to the ground, lol.....

I too think this thread has gotten to be a bit of an anti-gun rant rather than a discussion of the incident. Violence happens even without guns- northern england is by FAR the most violent place I have ever lived, or even been and I've been a lot of places, and they have pretty strict gun control. So the kids just stab each other with sharpened screwdrivers or whatever.

[Jaegermonster]

The shooter wasn't a deputy in the county in which he shot the woman, according to some of the posted news reports.
Unless Kentucky allows deputies to have state-wide jurisdiction, which my state (georgiia) does not, a deputy outside of his county is a civilian, and therefore a trespasser on the woman's property. Sounds like he got in the middle of a domestic dispute, but he should have left the property immediatelly if the owner ordered him to. Or called 911 for help. If she didn't know he was law enforcement (even if he was not acting in that capacity) then she might have been ordering him off of her property and protecting her property? Too much speculation.

Did she order the deputy off of her property?



The reports are confusing.

There was a federal law passed within the last couple of years that allows off duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry nationwide. You might want to look that one up.

Also in many states if you are actively employed as a law enforcement officer your credentials are the same as a concealed carry permit. You might want to see if your state is one, I believe that Ga is.

[JSwan]

Well, since none of us know the facts, especially me, I can't really respond. I also don't know anything about how law enforcement officers are trained in that state, what requirements there are for the academy, and I cannot peer into his soul. ;)

I think that if someone pointed a weapon at me and said "they're going to settle this right now"..... it would be a good idea to take them seriously. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty confident the "shoot to wound" stuff is only seen in Hollywood, or maybe sniper school. You aim center mass and you put the person down and you do it to protect yourself, innocent bystanders, and the general public. It's also not as easy as it appears in movies.

I'm sure if anyone is interested in learning more they could follow up with a local gun range. I'm sure at least one local range offers firearms training. Folks could go the route I did but it requires you to sign up for several years and wear shapeless drab clothing.

[Jaegermonster]

Huh, so warning shots, drop your weapon, all that stuff is no longer needed? You see someone with a gun and its an automatic death sentence even if they are not firing at you?

And these guys are so sharply trained just just the sight of a gun pointed at them makes them fire uncontrollably> Hope they don't take their kinds hunting or stuff like that.

And the have all the rights of an on duty police officer all the time? From when? From the date they join the force or after 6 weeks of training or at some later date?

If things have gotten this bad we need to pay more taxes and have more police officers.

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you are armed and don't fire back, you need to get shot just for being stupid. As a police officer, we have to believe that playtime is over if someone is pointing a weapon at us. We don't always have a chance to issue commands and all that. The best thing for folks to do is not go around pointing guns at other peopple and they don't have these kinds of problems.
Off duty officers have the same rights to defend ourselves as the general public.
And no, no warning shots. That crap is only on TV. Bullets land somewhere, warning shots are dangerous.
What rights or authority officers have and when they have it depends on their particular state law and their department.
No I don't think anyone fires "uncontrollably", too much drama in that statement.

You probably should stick to equinelaw.

[Jaegermonster]

michigan too... we also have the no retreat law.. I think that means we dont have to give them the opportunity to run....

Um no the no retreat law means YOU don't have to try to get away from the person attacking you before you tear their behind up. It has nothing to do with letting them run away or giving them an opportunity to run away.
And the Castle Doctrine is nothing new, it comes from English Common Law and has been around for years. You have always always always had the right to defend yourself in your home, hotel room you may be staying in, as a guest in someone elses home, anywhere that could be considered a temporary or permanent residence.

Some of you people need to spend less time posting and more time looking up laws and educating yourselves before you post about them.

[Jaegermonster]

Well, I hope it gets cleared up because right now I do not know who I can shoot and who I cannot.
I always thought it was "shoot em all and let god sort em out" but now a new rule has emerged.

Now you must ask if they are police before shooting them. Might as well be a hooker!


You don't have to ask jack. If you think you need to defend yourself, do it, but be able to justify it.


We have a saying, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

[MistyBlue]

But here an off-duty leo was involved, and he'll walk, even if the rumors of shots to the back, unsubstantiated as of yet, are true. Let a civilian try that and it's prison for sure.

Simply not true. IIRC you're an attorney? A criminal one? If so, you should know that prison or not is determined by the judge and the jury and not the circumstances...those are given by the attorneys with the help of professionals in various sciences.
The shots in the back come into play *if* they were the fatal shots. If one of the frontal shots were determined to have been the COD then the extra shots to the back will not matter. Shooting a corpse is not jury-worthy. Also depends on the order of shots fired...who's to say the first shot didn't cause the person to drop their firearm and they were turning to retrieve it when a back shot hit?

Huh, so warning shots, drop your weapon, all that stuff is no longer needed? You see someone with a gun and its an automatic death sentence even if they are not firing at you?

And these guys are so sharply trained just just the sight of a gun pointed at them makes them fire uncontrollably> Hope they don't take their kinds hunting or stuff like that.

In law enforcement, military and advanced protection training...warning shots are for those fleeing a scene or for those not armed with deadly projectile weapons such as firearms. (warning shot fired at someone approaching with a knife) Deadly force is justified if the person isn't even holding a gun but reaching for one. IN many to most cases, deadly force is justified if the person was reaching for something and it's later determined it wasn't a firearm. A PO is not supposed to wait to see what the person is reaching for...or to wait to see if they shoot first. And deadly force is also justified if they're aiming a gun at someone else, holding a visible firearm and seeming to be ready to aim it at people other than the PO, etc. A PO does not have to be shot at in order to return fire.

Does anyone read anything on how many LEOs are lost annualy to gunfire? Have someone point a deadly weapon at you and let me know if you start going through a check list in your head on whether or not you can use deadly force. Tell the tons of widows and widowers who lost their LEO spouses to gunfire that the public has the right to determine when and why and how they defend themselves. And stop watching TV shows to determine what exactly deadly force is...try walking a few beats in a LEOs shoes in dangerous area and let me know how everyone will react when someone is holding a firearm.
Just because she was a horse person and a female does not mean she was probably harmless. He astoundingly waited until she loaded the chamber before firing...most would have shot the second they saw a deadly weapon pointed at them.
And even though I am not a LEO...had I been there with MY spouse and child and someone was holding a gun in their hands...they'd probably be shot also. Because I'm not only trying to save my own life but the life of my family. Anyone "off" enough to use a firearm pointed at people picking up a freaking horse (they weren't trying to steal it at gunpoint or threatening her safety in any way that I've read) is most likely going to shoot my child and spouse after shooting me and that's something nobody should have to think 3 times about before reacting to.
Was it justified? If the reports are correct and she definitely pointed a firearm at someone and then "cocked the trigger" it's justified. A person has the right to protect themselves. How was the person supposed to leave? Back away slowly, turning your back on a loaded firearm held by an unstable person is insane. He had his wife and child with him. He was not trying to take the horse by gunpoint. He didn't pull his weapon first from what I've read. And besides on TV...no LEO in this country shoots guns out of hands or uses a warning shot with a cocked firearm pointed at him/her.

[armandh]

ever done the FATS ? [firearms training simulator]

a wall sized video display with real shoot/don't shoot situations.
you have a gun with compressed air recoil and later video play back to show where the shots went. fractions of seconds to decide on the use of lethal force.

good training has an equal number of shoot and don't shoot situations
so as not to train in a bias to shoot.

gratitious extra shots are not legal and count against you.
civilians would probably slide on that, not so sworn officiers.

I've done the training, I don't envy those who have to deal with it for real

[JSwan]

I did that and MOUT.

The first time I completed a MOUT exercise I sat down and said a little prayer that I NEVER had to do that for real.

[BuddyRoo]

This is probably irrelevant...

But.

Have you ever had a gun trained on you?

How do you know if someone is bluffing or not?

I had a gun held to my head once. I was unarmed. I was told I would have my brains blown out and be chopped into little pieces. He was bluffing.

now? If I were armed? And someone pointed a gun at me? My training (that I've paid for) says that I shoot. Empty my clip at someone who has raised a gun to me because in theory--you do not train a weapon on someone you do not intend to kill. Therefore...if a gun is trained on you, you shoot. Period.

Not really relevant here I guess...other than, if I were in this guys shoes and somoene pointed a gun at me, I'd assume they intended to kill me. And at that point, it's game on.

[Janet]

Have you ever had a gun trained on you?
Yes.
I gave him my money.

[equinelaw]

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you are armed and don't fire back, you need to get shot just for being stupid. As a police officer, we have to believe that playtime is over if someone is pointing a weapon at us. We don't always have a chance to issue commands and all that. The best thing for folks to do is not go around pointing guns at other peopple and they don't have these kinds of problems.
Off duty officers have the same rights to defend ourselves as the general public.
And no, no warning shots. That crap is only on TV. Bullets land somewhere, warning shots are dangerous.
What rights or authority officers have and when they have it depends on their particular state law and their department.
No I don't think anyone fires "uncontrollably", too much drama in that statement.

You probably should stick to equinelaw.

That's is how other posters explained it to me. They are conditioned to fire at the sight of a gun pointing at them and soot back without thought. You got a problem with that talk to them.


C&C was a prosecutor in a large dangerous city for 20 years. I am quite sure she does not get her ideas from "TV". I am also quite sure there are many civil suits for unjustified shootings by police. That ain't on TV either.

I don't care what is going through your mind. If you are on my property and acting in a manner that I feel puts me in danger I have the right to shoot you. If you are not identified as a police offer then I am hearing I should just draw my gun and blow you away with as little warning as possible or I will be the one dead.

Thanks for coming and sharing that with us! It since to know you want the world a safer place for all us non LEO's:)


Now as for "shooting to wound". I do not expect anyone but an excellent shot with quite a bit of training could do that. I expect most LEO's are there to protect the public and do have massive amounts of training. How many shots would have stopped this women exercising her valid legal right to carry and gun and defend her home? I don't know.

I would not expect anyone who pays for a course in shooting to be able to do more then hit the largest mass and run. I would not expect soldiers to have an interest in the outcome of their shots either.

But you cannot make it a rule that aiming a a gun at any person who is a LEO is subject to the death penalty with no consequences for the shooter. because we know damn well if she had shot first she'd be tried with vigor for murder. And she was within her legal rights.

[equinelaw]

You don't have to ask jack. If you think you need to defend yourself, do it, but be able to justify it.


We have a saying, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

Well then "we" must have not noticed that was already posted on that thread and was taken form a thread last week were we wisely told a person to not sneak in at midnight and load up her horse. TV has re-runs. You must be TV!:)

Your way worked out so much better. Only 1 dead instead of none!

[equinelaw]

Simply not true. IIRC you're an attorney? A criminal one? If so, you should know that prison or not is determined by the judge and the jury and not the circumstances...those are given by the attorneys with the help of professionals in various sciences.
The shots in the back come into play *if* they were the fatal shots. If one of the frontal shots were determined to have been the COD then the extra shots to the back will not matter. Shooting a corpse is not jury-worthy. Also depends on the order of shots fired...who's to say the first shot didn't cause the person to drop their firearm and they were turning to retrieve it when a back shot hit?



In law enforcement, military and advanced protection training...warning shots are for those fleeing a scene or for those not armed with deadly projectile weapons such as firearms. (warning shot fired at someone approaching with a knife) Deadly force is justified if the person isn't even holding a gun but reaching for one. IN many to most cases, deadly force is justified if the person was reaching for something and it's later determined it wasn't a firearm. A PO is not supposed to wait to see what the person is reaching for...or to wait to see if they shoot first. And deadly force is also justified if they're aiming a gun at someone else, holding a visible firearm and seeming to be ready to aim it at people other than the PO, etc. A PO does not have to be shot at in order to return fire.

Does anyone read anything on how many LEOs are lost annualy to gunfire? Have someone point a deadly weapon at you and let me know if you start going through a check list in your head on whether or not you can use deadly force. Tell the tons of widows and widowers who lost their LEO spouses to gunfire that the public has the right to determine when and why and how they defend themselves. And stop watching TV shows to determine what exactly deadly force is...try walking a few beats in a LEOs shoes in dangerous area and let me know how everyone will react when someone is holding a firearm.
Just because she was a horse person and a female does not mean she was probably harmless. He astoundingly waited until she loaded the chamber before firing...most would have shot the second they saw a deadly weapon pointed at them.
And even though I am not a LEO...had I been there with MY spouse and child and someone was holding a gun in their hands...they'd probably be shot also. Because I'm not only trying to save my own life but the life of my family. Anyone "off" enough to use a firearm pointed at people picking up a freaking horse (they weren't trying to steal it at gunpoint or threatening her safety in any way that I've read) is most likely going to shoot my child and spouse after shooting me and that's something nobody should have to think 3 times about before reacting to.
Was it justified? If the reports are correct and she definitely pointed a firearm at someone and then "cocked the trigger" it's justified. A person has the right to protect themselves. How was the person supposed to leave? Back away slowly, turning your back on a loaded firearm held by an unstable person is insane. He had his wife and child with him. He was not trying to take the horse by gunpoint. He didn't pull his weapon first from what I've read. And besides on TV...no LEO in this country shoots guns out of hands or uses a warning shot with a cocked firearm pointed at him/her.

Misty, why would you even ask if she was an attorney? When she talked about her many many years as a prosecutor you told her to shut up about it. As a federal clerk she did the research and she wrote the opinions. As a prosecutor she knows a damn bit more then most of the rest of us what really goes on. Just because she is nice, never for one second think she is stupid. She WAS the one who decided who would be tried and who wouldn't, for over 20 years. You can argue with her opinions and her advice, but she has one hell of a legal mind and the top class experience to know exactly what she talking about. When she says "they" think "we" and when she says "we"think "me". You know her name Go look at how many opinions have her name on them as lead prosecutor.


And once again, you miss the point. Wearing the uniform or identifying your self as a LEO is warning that you are not to be shot at or threatened. Its is illegal to even threaten a LEO if that fact has been made obvious.

But this was just some guy in her place at night and in her state she had the right to shoot him. Her mistake was to not just do it. We do not know what did happen, what might have happened or what could have happened, but every time it is reinforced that baking away slowly is not an option to even try, then its one step closer to just draw and shoot no matter what.

Had she followed the advice given here she could have legally blown him away in front of his family. One of them was going to die and as an unidentified LEO he had no more legal right to be the survivor then she did. Would everyone be happier if she followed this advice and shot him with no warning? It was the warning that got her killed. She had no obligation to treat him as a LEO. He was not identifiable as such.

How horrible if he had tried to back away and she lowered the gun could it have been. That gun was not going to be any more ready to shoot then it already was.


There simply has to be an option that does not require people to be dead. Having an on duty identifiable cop is one option. Taking on step backwards to see if that will help is another.

It sounds like he did try to comply with her demands, but again, as they say "make sure there is only one side of the story if you shoot someone"

[Jaegermonster]

This is probably irrelevant...

But.

Have you ever had a gun trained on you?

How do you know if someone is bluffing or not?

.

Not really relevant here I guess...other than, if I were in this guys shoes and somoene pointed a gun at me, I'd assume they intended to kill me. And at that point, it's game on.


Yes.
I'm not willing to take that chance. I have to assume they are not bluffing.
I shot him.

[Jaegermonster]

Well then "we" must have not noticed that was already posted on that thread and was taken form a thread last week were we wisely told a person to not sneak in at midnight and load up her horse. TV has re-runs. You must be TV!:)

Your way worked out so much better. Only 1 dead instead of none!


Actually I did see it on this thread after I posted it. Lost interest in the other thread apparently before it was posted there. But it's not a new saying. I actually heard it at work. I first heard it in the police academy. I've been a cop for 20 years.

[JSwan]

Can you guys go join a little "I love me" BB or something so you can pimp for each other?

I thought the link the OP provided was interesting and very sad, but last time I checked this wasn't a BB to bitch about law enforcement, especially from people who can't tell which end of a gun to point away from them.

It's painfully obvious that what some of you really want to talk about is yourself and your political views. At least make it horse-related for crying out loud, it would be a tad bit more interesting.

[shireluver]

Huh, so warning shots, drop your weapon, all that stuff is no longer needed? You see someone with a gun and its an automatic death sentence even if they are not firing at you?


At the PD I work for it sates right in the SOP's that a warning shot is not allowed. Remember, what comes up must come down.

As for the person who keeps stating that he should have taken an on duty deputy with him. Here you would need a Writ of Assistance from the court for a civil standy. Officers and Deputies can not decide ownership of property (which horses are)

[KellyS]

Well, I can tell you that if I had to hire a lawyer, it wouldn't be equinelaw.

Talk about drawing conclusions about a situation you know very little about. And then using it as a rant against law enforcement officers. Not a great way to promote your skills.

[Jaegermonster]

That's is how other posters explained it to me. They are conditioned to fire at the sight of a gun pointing at them and soot back without thought. You got a problem with that talk to them.


C&C was a prosecutor in a large dangerous city for 20 years. I am quite sure she does not get her ideas from "TV". I am also quite sure there are many civil suits for unjustified shootings by police. That ain't on TV either.



According to your blog, you are a "newbie attorney" so you should not be relying on other posters on an internet bb to explain the law to you, IMHO.

And I don't need you to explain to me how cops are "conditioned". We are not automatons. I probably know more about police training than you do, seeing I have been a cop for 20 years and am one of the ones doing the training. I am certified to teach firearms, taser, baton, chemical weapons, groundfighting, knife fighting, and although it's not relevant to this thread, i can also teach DUI, Radar, Vascar and Laser. I have served as a consultant on many of the training manuals and scenarios used by machines such as the FATS and other sim machines used by law enforcement agencies nationwide. So come tell me again about how cops are trained.


LEO or not, this guys job had noting to do with what happened. He was faced with a person pointing a gun at him and stating she was "going to end it right now". Anybody who wouldn't shoot first if they had a chance deserves to get shot and eliminated from the gene pool. He just happens to be a cop so now everybody wants to hang him.

[Moderator 1]

No longer horse-related.