Texas Police Officer shoots 93 year old woman - Polidicks

[QUOTE=CNN](CNN) -- A police officer who fatally shot a [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/07/us/texas-police-shoot-elderly-woman-93/index.html"]93-year-old woman at her home[/URL] in Texas is defending his use of deadly force and lashing out at the City Council that fired him. Stephen Stem was dismissed from the Hearne Police Department on Saturday. He argues his termination was unjust. "The knee-jerk reaction to terminate Mr. Stem was not about whether Ms. Golden chose to create and perpetuate a life-threatening situation. That is a clear and indisputable fact. "Rather, the city's decision was about appeasing certain members of the community who want to make this case about Ms. Golden's age, the fact she is African-American, or the fact she is a woman. "None of those factors played a role in Stem's decision to use deadly force," Robert McCabe, Stem's attorney, said in a statement Sunday. His comments come as Texas Rangers continue an investigation into why Pearlie Golden, a longtime resident in this small town of about 4,600 people between Dallas and Houston, was shot multiple times at her home Tuesday. A man believed to be a relative of Golden's made a 911 call asking for help from police, Robertson County District Attorney Coty Siegert said. "What I understand is (Hearne police) were called out because a woman was brandishing a firearm," Siegert said. "An officer asked her to put the handgun down, and when she would not, shots were fired." Hearne City Attorney Bryan Russ Jr. said Stem told Golden to drop her weapon at least three times. Stem fired three times, and Golden was hit at least twice, he said. She was transported to a hospital, where she died. "Police not only have a duty to protect themselves from imminent harm, but also innocent citizens who rely on them 'to protect and serve,' " Stem's attorney said in his statement. The case eventually will be presented to a grand jury, which is standard procedure when dealing with officer-involved incidents, according to Russ, the city attorney. "I would expect people to be upset about this, a young police officer shooting a 93-year-old lady," Russ said. "I'm upset about it. Most of our citizens are upset, but at the same time, I don't believe all the facts have come to the surface yet."[/QUOTE] Video in [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/11/us/texas-fatal-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews"]Source[/URL]

I don't care WHO you are. Its REALLY fucking hard to spin it into such a way as to say "this old lady was a HUGE threat guys, I had to shoot her." edit: [QUOTE=alastorL;44793536]Well, a 93 year old woman with a gun is still a lethal threat if she can pull a trigger, so I'm having a hard time not being on the cop's side here.[/QUOTE] Oh shit....I missed that bit somehow. Well...I guess hes not without justification. I have a REALLY hard time picturing such a thing though.

[quote] "What I understand is (Hearne police) were called out because a woman was brandishing a firearm," Siegert said. "An officer asked her to put the handgun down, and when she would not, shots were fired." Hearne City Attorney Bryan Russ Jr. said Stem told Golden to drop her weapon at least three times. Stem fired three times, and Golden was hit at least twice, he said. [/quote] Well, a 93 year old woman with a gun is still a lethal threat if she can pull a trigger, so I'm having a hard time not being on the cop's side here.

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;44793532]I don't care WHO you are. Its REALLY fucking hard to spin it into such a way as to say "this old lady was a HUGE threat guys, I had to shoot her." Fucking despicable. Assholes like this give good cops a bad name.[/QUOTE] wtf do you want them to do she had a gun and wasn't going to put it down

~snip, Im Dumb~

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;44793550]Its called firing a none lethal shot, like in the arms or legs[/QUOTE] This story again?

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;44793550][b]Its called firing a none lethal shot[/b], like in the arms or legs for her to die she probably got shot in the chest or somewhere in the torso or head, the cop fucked up, I mean the old lady shouldn't have been aiming a gun at a cop but still[/QUOTE] oh god not this again

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;44793550]Its called firing a none lethal shot, like in the arms or legs, the cop fucked up, I mean the old lady shouldn't have been aiming a gun at a cop but still[/QUOTE] A shot in the arm or legs is still pretty likely to clip an artery and have them bleed out. It's not quite as safe as seen in the movies, unless the cop knows [i]precisely[/i] where the arteries are AND is a crack shot.

[QUOTE=alastorL;44793565]A shot in the arm or legs is still pretty likely to clip an artery and have them bleed out. It's not quite as safe as seen in the movies, unless the cop knows [i]precisely[/i] where the arteries are AND is a crack shot.[/QUOTE] That's true, but I mean if your uncertain about where to shoot someone as a police officer, I dont think thats very good in all honesty

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;44793550]Its called firing a none lethal shot, like in the arms or legs for her to die she probably got shot in the chest or somewhere in the torso or head, the cop fucked up, I mean the old lady shouldn't have been aiming a gun at a cop but still[/QUOTE] She's 93. Almost anywhere is going to be a lethal shot. On anyone, anywhere can be a lethal fucking shot. She had a gun - you shoot fast and you shoot for what you can hit. There isn't time for "aw shit I better make sure I don't kill the lady who's possibly about to kill me at any moment, using my super-arm-aimbot".

wouldn't a nonlethal shot have caused her to react? like... squeeze her hands possibly? and maybe he did try to shoot her in the leg, it says he shot her 3 times, but not to what the succession of the bullets were, maybe he shot her in the leg once, and then she still tried to hold her gun up so he double tapped her

[QUOTE=DylanWilson;44793632]wouldn't a nonlethal shot have caused her to react? like... squeeze her hands possibly?[/QUOTE] she was 93. u get shot, thats about it. ur brittle as shit.

Ok so let me get this straight facepunch... You believe in the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms and routinely oppose any sort of legislation which attempts to take guns out of the hands of private citizens (partly on the grounds of the inability for the police to adequately protect everyone at all times); but because this woman had a gun and refused to put it down, we should cast little to no scrutiny on the officer who shot her and people are ready to proclaim, based on the few facts which are available in that article, that the officer was completely justified in his decision?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;44793648]Ok so let me get this straight facepunch... You believe in the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms and routinely oppose any sort of legislation which attempts to take guns out of the hands of private citizens (partly on the grounds of the inability for the police to adequately protect everyone at all times); but because this woman had a gun and refused to put it down, we should cast little to no scrutiny on the officer who shot her and people are ready to proclaim, based on the few facts which are available in that article, that the officer was completely justified in his decision?[/QUOTE] Yes. Pointed gun at officer = intent to kill, officer shot her = self-defense. It's clear-cut and completely justified.

[QUOTE=DylanWilson;44793632]wouldn't a nonlethal shot have caused her to react? like... squeeze her hands possibly?[/QUOTE] same could be said about any shot. "lethal" doesn't mean you instantly die

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;44793648]Ok so let me get this straight facepunch... You believe in the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms and routinely oppose any sort of legislation which attempts to take guns out of the hands of private citizens (partly on the grounds of the inability for the police to adequately protect everyone at all times); but because this woman had a gun and refused to put it down, we should cast little to no scrutiny on the officer who shot her and people are ready to proclaim, based on the few facts which are available in that article, that the officer was completely justified in his decision?[/QUOTE] For starters, we aren't a hivemind. I'm a strong opponent of private citizens holding guns - I just don't actively contribute to conversations about it (as most members of Facepunch don't). The few facts in the article is all we have to go on. The original article (about the shooting) also has these same few facts. Noone here is suggesting we stop any investigation or appeals due to what's in the article, we're just discussing the case on what little facts we know. Why do you believe the accounts in the article when it's about an unjustified shooting?

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;44793660]Yes. Pointed gun at officer = intent to kill, officer shot her = self-defense. It's clear-cut and completely justified.[/QUOTE] Except it doesn't say in the article that she pointed it at an officer, merely that she was "brandishing" it; which could mean anything. He was dismissed by the police department itself. Do we, as random fucking people on the internet, have any reason to trust our own interpretation of the events we read about in a CNN article over the investigation performed by the very department he worked for?

[I][U]Jesus[/U][/I] [I][U]Christ.[/U][/I] Does the source mention what kind of firearm she was brandishing? I find it hard to believe that a 93 y/o woman was aiming a goddamn 12 guage at anything but the floor, if she could even pick it up [I]that [/I]much. The cop should be absolutely mortified. The fact that he's causing an uproar about this proves what an unconscionable piece of shit he is.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793695]So let me get this straight sigmalambda, your want to shit all over the second amendment is so strong that you're willing to bring it up in a completely non relevant fashion. Failure to follow a lawful order to put your weapon down is hostile intent, hostile intent is grounds to be fired upon.[/QUOTE] I'm not "shitting on" anybody's precious second amendment, I'm just saying that I think rights the second amendment confers are respected... unevenly to say the least.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793712]To brandish- wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.[/QUOTE] Thank you for the effort you made copying and pasting a dictionary description into this thread as if a specific dictionary definition has any bearing on a word's use by an indignant police officer but I'm saddened to inform you that your effort was wasted; I don't know how to read.

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;44793532]I don't care WHO you are. Its REALLY fucking hard to spin it into such a way as to say "this old lady was a HUGE threat guys, I had to shoot her." edit: Oh shit....I missed that bit somehow. Well...I guess hes not without justification. I have a REALLY hard time picturing such a thing though.[/QUOTE] A gun in the hands of a toddler can kill. This woman SHOT rounds off!

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793748]Because cops just walk around killing 93 year old women for no reason.[/QUOTE] But this 93 year old black woman can't possibly have a reason to distrust cops and be hesitant to put her gun away? You know the kinds of things some cops did to black people in the south 50 years ago? Why does the cop get the benefit of a doubt but not a 93 year old woman?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793782]Probably because she fired two rounds before he shot her.. but she's 93 and black, that's totally an excuse to fire a weapon within city limits, while you're being ordered to drop your weapon by a cop.. yes lets excuse it.[/QUOTE] It doesn't say that anywhere in the article on the OP.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793818]Watch the video.[/QUOTE] I did and all I see is the district attorney saying "I'm not sure what happened." Again, what is it that absolutely compels you to trust your own judgment of this series of events, as relayed to you over the internet, [I]over the judgment of the city council?[/I]

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;44793772]But this 93 year old black woman can't possibly have a reason to distrust cops and be hesitant to put her gun away? You know the kinds of things some cops did to black people in the south 50 years ago? Why does the cop get the benefit of a doubt but not a 93 year old woman?[/QUOTE] Yes clearly this 21st century officer of the peace is there to take away her guns and rape her because she's a defenseless black woman and he's a big mean government agent of evil corporate interest based solely on their geopolitical location's history! Generally you listen to police when they say put the gun down, I don't know about you but brandishing a deadly weapon at the police is usually not going to get you a favourable response regardless of who you are.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793865]Considering the city councilers might lose their jobs if they don't vote him out because of all of the un-informed fucking idiots walking around screaming for this guy's badge, no I don't trust their judgement at all. Considering they didn't wait for the investigation to occur, considering that if said investigation found him guilty of killing an innocent woman he'd go to jail, no I seriously doubt their judgement in all aspects.[/QUOTE] So you'll more readily doubt the judgment of a council of officials and justify that with an imagined conspiracy that's the product of social decline than doubt the judgement of a single police officer in the field? You have to at least acknowledge that you are choosing one conjecture over another; vehemently preferring one partially-informed set of assumptions to another partially-informed set of assumptions. You're aware of that, right? [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=draugur;44793893]Yes clearly this 21st century officer of the peace is there to take away her guns and rape her because she's a defenseless black woman and he's a big mean gov...[/QUOTE] If you're not going to at least be fair to my arguments then I'm not even going to finish reading yours.

It doesn't matter how old a person is: [video=youtube;L6z8q4lOrDU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6z8q4lOrDU[/video]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793912]You do realize that they fired him without an investigation at all. They literally fired him with 0 facts. They knew as much as we did when they fired him, they didn't wait for the investigation to occur, which means if it comes back and he was in the right, he's going to sue the shit out of them for wrongful termination, and he's going to win. I'm all for holding cops accountable, but if you're going to do that, you have to go through the legal process, instead you allowed for essentially a "mob rule" by having an open city council meeting that was full of protesters clambering for his badge.[/QUOTE] Yeah I mean I personally don't get why people would feel unsafe with a police officer who shot someone very old. Scared of a police officer? Well though luck buckaroo [QUOTE=ilikecorn;44717398]Why would I care? I'm dead.. I'm pretty apathetic about death because it happens EVERY DAY, THOUSANDS OF TIMES. The only people who care about you are your immediate family. You can walk around and say "oh but I really care about everyone I meet", bullshit, you don't break down and cry every time you see a bum on the street, you don't invite every homeless person into your home, you don't morn the loss of every human being who dies, so don't act like humanity is special, I certainly don't, nor do I make exceptions for myself/family.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793912]You do realize that they fired him without an investigation at all. They literally fired him with 0 facts. They knew as much as we did when they fired him, [/QUOTE] So they know exactly as much as you do right now and they were unjust to say [quote]Fire this guy[/quote] But you, knowing exactly as much as they do, are completely 100 justified to proclaim: [QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793818] This guy was unjustly terminated by the city council, before an investigation could occur, and I hope he sues the ever living fuck out of the city and wins.[/QUOTE]. So how much do they know again? Do they know absolutely nothing or do they know exactly enough to make sweeping proclamations of innocence on internet forums?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;44793847]I did and all I see is the district attorney saying "I'm not sure what happened." Again, what is it that absolutely compels you to trust your own judgment of this series of events, as relayed to you over the internet, [I]over the judgment of the city council?[/I][/QUOTE] It's easier and "safer" for them to just terminate him instead of dealing with the potential flak and ending up with another Zimmerman style case where everyone basically attempts to burn an innocent at the stake. If they didn't terminate him they would also get flak for letting him stay, putting their own positions in jeopardy. It's easier to fire someone and deal with a "wrongful termination" style issue than it is to deal with a "they are letting a racist old-person-killing pig run free after brutally murdering a poor innocent old lady" type issue.