OK...

I hear what the shouted commands were...I hear that they were repeated more than once.

Barring anything else, it seems like the guy dropped his pistol. (Question...why was he trying to intervene? Was he related to someone there? Had he been attacked?)

He dropped the pistol. He apparently picked up.

Folks...

When an officer tells you to DROP THE WEAPON, don't argue. Don't protest. LAY THE WEAPON DOWN.

If you lose control of it, and LE is nearby, put your foot on it and GET YOUR HANDS UP.

DON'T continue to hold the firearm.

DON"T start turning with it in your hand.

LEAVE IT ALONE.

The grand jury will decide if the officer's actions were reasonable. Barring actual video of the shooting itself, no one else can say.

Bad news, all around.

When I read what Steve said, the first thing that I thought of was limited title bar space.

But that was instantly followed by the thought that once you started writing the post, instead of just continuing using the acronym... The first time, you should have spelled it out. Then resumed the acronym from then on. To give the rest of us with thicker heads, a clue, and a fighting chance to figure out what the heck LAC meant...



True.

But personally I think it is less cloudy than that.

The "officers" were standing there the entire time. They saw who was fighting. They saw the dropped gun. They knew the guy had not had the gun out, threatening anyone.

They apparently instantly assumed he had probably drawn the weapon, and intended to use it, but had dropped it.

Ok, I can't argue with that assumption. But in light of the fact that the guy had not been waving the gun around and/or threatening anyone with it, they took lethal action WAY too quickly.

My assumption has to be, they were young, Inexperienced. Stuck on a college campus. Bored. Wanting to be 'taking a bite out of REAL crime, not just dealing with drunk/high millennials. Angry at everyone for all the above. And just champing at the bit for a chance to shoot someone.




And THAT... That right there...

Was going to be exactly what I was going to suggest.

Cops are already there. In that situation, that is EXACTLY what I would have done.

Well, in that situation, I would not have been physically involved and this probably wouldn't have happened. But you know what I mean.

In that situation, I would have been well aware that the cops were right there. And I would have instantly put my foot on it so no one else could pick it up. Then drawn the cops' attention to the fact that I had dropped it.

I would not even have ATTEMPTED to pick it up.

I know for a fact this is what I would have done... Because I have already been in a somewhat similar situation. (Didn't drop it, but it became unconcealed. And I was in the vicinity of 'trouble'. And this was back when, "Concealed means concealed".) And as aware as I was about all the rest of the surrounding 'danger'... I was just as aware, if not more so, of the presence of the cops, and how they would react. (I drew the attention of the nearest cop. Kept my hands well away from it. And let him take it from the holster.

In a bad situation, I see the cop as an ally. Albeit one who doesn't know me, doesn't know my background, and might well just kill me if I seem the tiniest bit a 'threat'. LOL It is in my interest to make sure they KNOW I am in no way a threat, and will help them if I can.


I would also expect in that situation, (The OP.), for the cops to pick it up themselves, and to confiscate it. I would hate it, but would have to accept that I might lose the weapon entirely, because of my own stupidity. (Not likely campus cops would EVER give the weapon back.)

I didn't lose my weapon. They gave it back almost immediately, without a word. But they DID take my driver's license and CPL, to verify. (Had it never become unconcealed, I never would have said anything.)

Minor correction. I fully believe any reasonable man would consider them as the primary threat given they have a ranged and lethal weapon in their hand during a violent encounter.


EXACLTY! Someone get this man a prize.

Quite honestly, in a violent situation and reasonable man will perceive a man with a gun in his hand as the largest and a lethal threat. Does not matter how the gun got in his, hand or why it is there. the gun holder is now the biggest threat in the situation. It does not matter if that person was trying to break up the fight originally or not, that has ZERO bearing on if they are a threat. Even with the purest intentions having that gun in your hand escalates the encounter to lethal force.

That is exactly why I asked the questions I did in the Tumwater thread. Having a gun in your hand when Leo are close is a serious situation. It is also worth nothing that dgeos specifically mentioned he did not draw his weapon immediately while in the store that day. In a "post action" situation one person hold a gun on another stationary person, the LEO are going to give commands and the gun holder better follow them, but they are going to give the gun holder time to react one would hope. With a rolling street fight with tons of people around in and out of the fight and one of the people in the middle of it suddenly has a gun, well they are not going to be patient or relaxed in any way. They have zero way to know if you suddenly are pissed off enough to take it lethal, all they know is you now have a gun in your hand.

Hopefully we all here can learn a bit from this just like from the tumwater shooting.

One big takeaway I have not seen mentioned is his piss poor retention. Seems to me that right from 1st section of video you can see his pistol flopping around in the breeze clipped to his pocket? Folks please if you are going to excercise your right to carry be smart about it, use a decent holster with solid retention. If you have to keep touching your weapon to keep it secured you do not have proper retention. You should be able to run, jump, crouch, roll on ground without having to adjust your weapon. (well maybe other than hold your side in pain after you roll over on the gun smashing it into your side) Ultimately, his poor choice in holster is likely the primary cause of him losing his life as (imho from video) it is what cause the weapon to be out on the ground for him to have to pickup to begin with. If he did not lose control of his weapon then the shooting would not have happened.

I don't see it that way myself. Reason being is we have no idea WHAT the LEO there actually saw with regards to the event and when/how the gun came out. None of the video I saw showed a gun in anyone hand, just jumped to that far away video right before the shooting happened. Only reason I knew one guy had a gun was due to the title and text I read so I was LOOKING for a guy trying to separate the fighting. The Leo onsite may not have been in a vantage to see the gun on his hip, or it fall out, they just are suddenly faced with a guy holding a gun during a violent encounter.

Hindsight is 20/20, and we cannot use our already jaded and educated (good or bad) viewing of a video as evidence of wrong doing. We already have previous knowledge of "facts" or info, so regardless of if we are pro one way or another, our viewership and perception has been altered.




I implore every single member of this board to keep this in mind, LEO are not YOU seeing thru your eyes, and you are not them seeing from their eyes. Know and accept that ahead of time and let it shape your actions. Consider what someone outside of your viewpoint could be seeing during an event, it could very well save your life.

Fair enough.

This member has it. And he GETS it.

The first time I responded to a mass fight, myself and three other officers arrived and were running up to the scene. I guess I could describe it as agitated people standing around a bunch of boiling bodies.

We go hands on--gently--and start pulling people apart. Fortunately, it was not TOO heated up, so once we pulled people away from each other, they stayed apart. Of course there was yelling and posturing, but no physical contact. I started to calm down just a bit...

...until I looked down in the dirt and saw what appeared to be a brand new, fresh, .223/5.56 cartridge. My blood ran cold, and I started to: (a) Let my partners know without being TOO obvious, (b) keep calm, and (c) look for anything that might point to the threat. Now why, you may ask, did I immediately interpret this as a threat?

This was at the beginning of my law enforcement career--but after my military career. I was well aware of the capabilities of the .223 round. We were issued Level II body armor at that time.

In short...can you say hot knife through butter?

At the moment I saw the cartridge I also realized that it was nighttime (New Year's Eve/New Year's, 1997-1998), visibility was VERY poor, and there was the potential for someone to use a lethal threat at a range I could not counter with my service pistol--heck, from a place I could not even SEE.

If ANYONE had their hands wrapped around ANYTHING that looked like a firearm, they were going to be confronted at gunpoint.

No, we never saw a rifle...but something like that keys up officers REALLY fast.

Nothing induces loose bowels really quick, than to see a firearm displayed or present during a volatile call.

PSU names campus officers involved in deadly shooting.
Taken from the fox 12 website.


Shawn McKenzie is a campus police officer and has been with the department since 2016, PSU said. McKenzie has been a non-sworn officer of PSU's Campus Public Safety Office since 2002, the university confirms.

James Dewey, the second officer involved in the shooting, has also been with the department since 2016. Dewey has been a non-sworn officer of PSU's Campus Public Safety Office since 2014.


Now correct me if I’m wrong. But non sworn officers generally haven’t been through the academy, nor are they post certified(so basically security guards).

Perfect example of why people who carry weapons for work need more than a few hours “training” in the use of force.

Another example of why not to carry around drunks. And to have a good holster.

Non-sworn?

WTF?

OK, are they police or security officers?

I believe the part about "with the department" since 2016, means that's when they became sworn officers.

The other part is that prior to that, they each were non-sworn Campus Safety Officers, one since '02, & one since '14.

In 2016 they became Campus Police Officers.

Odd that they had 2 relative newbies together.

I wonderr how long they've had Campus Police, perhaps it's a new thing....