# Attn: Lou Castle...



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

maybe you could provide some insight on this one...

tragic end to police stand off. 

http://www.filecabi.net/video/goddammit30.html

oh yeah...others feel free to comment. i just wanted to get uncle lou's attention in the title...


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

wow thats quite a disturbing video... not quite sure if the guy was "left to die" as the caption stated.... i'd really love to know if anyone knows what happened to the dog and why the p.d. fired at the same time they sent the dog... any psd handlers please explain this one....


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

It's all bad. I presume there was no one with experience in the vicinity.


----------



## Derek Sanders (Jul 11, 2006)

I found this online



> Parolee was "armed" with a sandal.--MN
> 
> August 26, 2003 E-mail story Print
> 
> ...


----------



## Doug Wendling (Apr 1, 2006)

Yes, that video was a couple of years old.

Doug


----------



## Liz Monty (Oct 22, 2006)

The story is very sad. I had not heard it before. This may help explain the reason for the dog being accidentally hit with a bullet.
When a dog is sent out to search or restrain a perp, it is known that the dog is always the first line of danger. Sadly, this is often why police dogs are trained. Send the dog to apprehend before police come in. The officer's know that dog may come upon injury or death, but they are there for that reason.
When a man turns to the police and looks like he is holding a gun, the police have no choice but to shoot if they are not able to do anything else. The number of shots fired sounds odd though. Again, sadly, if the perp looks armed and the dog has not detained him enough that he could still turn to face the police, he probably would get shot.


----------



## symeon kazanas (Jul 3, 2006)

I don't think the audio is in sync wiyh the video. Watch it with the sound off, it's less confusing. Plus the guy announced on several occasions that he was armed so.....


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:When a man turns to the police and looks like he is holding a gun, the police have no choice but to shoot if they are not able to do anything else.

What are you, nuts? :roll: 

Like they couldn't have waited.


----------



## Liz Monty (Oct 22, 2006)

Yes, if they are not able to do anything else. That is the catch phrase. There are situations where there can be a standoff, and they can try and wait it out. Or the perp could be taken down by a dog, but it sounds like in this case the man appeared to be holding a gun, someone on the thread stated that he told police it was a gun. The dog was not able to contain the man and the man was able to turn towards the police still holding the "iffy weapon". Maybe the police where in close firing range and felt they had no choice but to take action quickly. I didn't read the article fully, but this can happen. Not all perps are in the right position to wait it out. I think if the situation warrents opening fire, then it does. It doesn't make someone NUTS, if the situation looks like action must be taken. I recall the article stated that the man was involved in a domestic dispute. He was seen as having a firearm (even though it turned out it was a phone). If that man which was able to keep the dog from taking him down and turn to the police decided to re-enter the home. then things could have gotten much worse very quickly. It is never one's projection of what could have been or what should have been, but rather an understanding of how things happen and why. I still say that it is highly likely that the police opened fire because they felt immediate threat to themselves, or that the man could re-enter the home.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote:When a man turns to the police and looks like he is holding a gun, the police have no choice but to shoot if they are not able to do anything else.
> 
> What are you, nuts? :roll:
> 
> Like they couldn't have waited.


yeah, they should have waited for him to shoot them first... :roll:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

As a civilian, I promise to all the LEOs on this forum that I will NEVER second guess you in a situation that I've never been in, and hopefully never will. In particular a situation that shows only one side on the news. 
Not much else to say on the subject!
Thanks guys! :wink:


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

good call bob. my reply to jeff wasn't necessarily meant to comment on this specific video or incident. it was in response to the general statement that police can and should wait if someone points a gun at them (i don't believe that was the case here).

the way i look at this incident is this: it was never a dog call. not all police calls are dog calls. if they felt this guy was armed with a gun (as he claimed he was), it instantly becomes a non-dog call. you don't send a dog into a gun fight. at least not where you know where the suspect is. it's pointless. if it was available, they could have bean bagged the guy or tazered him or simply waited him out. 

the courts have been pretty clear about the police creating exigent circumstances. in this case they felt compelled to shoot the guy because of his movements once the dog was sent in. if the dog weren't sent in, who knows what the guy would have done. we'll never know. 

i qualify my comments with the fact that in any call like this there are a myriad of different factors that aren't shown in a video. i'm merely commenting on what i saw in the video....


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:good call bob. my reply to jeff wasn't necessarily meant to comment on this specific video or incident. it was in response to the general statement that police can and should wait if someone points a gun at them (i don't believe that was the case here). 


My response was for this video and this video only.


----------

