Jump to content
Erik88

Nashville officer charged in shooting

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

How was he even out on the streets? I thought felon in possession of a firearm carried a 10 year sentence typically. Then he did it again. 

Soft judges!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was such a good boy.  Turned his life around (while illegally carrying a gun).  Multiple felony history.  Failure to obey an officer.  A danger to the public and the officer.  Guilt of conscience...that is why he ran.  IMO no relation to the Garner case.  Justifiable shoot.  Just do what you are told by the police, especially if you are holding a gun.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t tell much from the video so I’ll rely on the media reports.

The suspect made the choice to run. He made the choice to have a gun in his hand. It is reasonable that any person, Police Officer, or citizen, pursuing an armed person that is not dropping the weapon; intends on using it. As soon as he gets to a position of cover it’s reasonable to believe he will engage the person chasing him.

When I was a cop we shot fleeing forcible felons. Home Invaders, Burglars, Rapists, Armed Robbers are absolutely a danger to the public. The fact that they can out run a cop shouldn’t mean they get to have more victims. Tennessee V. Garner stopped that and its needs to be overturned.

We have seen too many cases where there was a public outcry because a Police Officer or armed citizen shot a career criminal because they believed that criminal was threatening their life.  

If you want to handcuff the cops; go ahead. You will have the same situation you now have in Chicago. Also you as an HCP holder will he held to the same standards. If you shoot an armed robber as he is turning to run; you will be charged. That’s wrong. So be careful; be very careful.

Criminals that have guns in their hands and are not following the orders of the Police; will get shot. I have no idea why they decided to charge this Officer so I must assume its politics. (I'll wait to hear why) That’s what happened in Chicago. I don’t think most of us want that here.

I’ll also echo the concerns of others; why wasn’t this criminal in jail? It kind of looks like if the DA or Judges had done their job this career criminal would be alive in prison, and a cop wouldn’t be headed to trial.

Quote

 

Dissent

In her dissent, Justice O'Connor highlighted the fact that police officers must often make swift, spur-of-the-moment decisions while on patrol, and argued that the majority did not properly consider this aspect of the case. Moreover, many cases of rape, robbery, and assault that happen in the home are related to the already serious crime of burglary. The Tennessee statute represents the state legislature's judgment that such crimes may require the use of deadly force in order to protect the public against those who commit such crimes. She also disagreed that a suspect's interest in his own life necessarily allows the right to flee from the scene of a crime when pursued, thereby escaping due process, although the majority did not find nor articulate any "right to flee."

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

 

I’ll also echo the concerns of others; why wasn’t this criminal in jail? It kind of looks like if the DA or Judges had done their job this career criminal would be alive in prison, and a cop wouldn’t be headed to trial.

 

I will absolutely agree with this view right here. If that listed criminal history is correct, he should’v still been in jail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erik88 said:

In the video it appears he has a gun in his hand as he runs. They said a weapon was recovered, 9mm Beretta. Wouldn't that present a significant threat? 

Without weighing in on if this officer was right or wrong...in a country where being armed is (supposed to) be a protected right, think about the downstream consequences of assuming a weapon is gives police the automatic authority to assume a "significant threat" as that term is viewed by a police officer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stuff is really gonna hit the fan when the officer is found not guilty.

Briley and Funk will reap the costly harvest of their pandering/posturing.

I hope the rioters who'll destroy North Nashville leave my side of town alone.

I think buckle up Nashville. Next, they'll oust Anderson, whose already a target, as a peace offering to the black community for failing to secure a conviction. Then Briley will insert some soft on crime puppet and I'll be all "Adios Nashvegas". 

Edited by bud
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, btq96r said:

Without weighing in on if this officer was right or wrong...in a country where being armed is (supposed to) be a protected right, think about the downstream consequences of assuming a weapon is gives police the automatic authority to assume a "significant threat" as that term is viewed by a police officer.

If he was legal, I highly doubt this situation would of happened, first off, there would have been no pursuit, no gun in hand, so I don't see this particular case as an escalading issue. 

Edited by Omega
syntax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Without weighing in on if this officer was right or wrong...in a country where being armed is (supposed to) be a protected right, think about the downstream consequences of assuming a weapon is gives police the automatic authority to assume a "significant threat" as that term is viewed by a police officer.

There is nothing that assumes anything as a “significant threat” that justifies the use of deadly force (Short of being shot at, and some have even questioned that). Each and every incident is different and has to be articulated by the shooter, whether it be a cop or private citizen.

Glen Funk has stated that he will try this case without presenting it to a Grand Jury to be transparent. Now in my opinion that’s not about transparency, if he had a case he could get an indictment. It appears to me he doesn’t think he can get an indictment; so he’ll skip it. He and the Mayor want to pacify the protesters instead of doing their job. But that’s just my opinion based on the news stories.

Edited by DaveTN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Without weighing in on if this officer was right or wrong...in a country where being armed is (supposed to) be a protected right, think about the downstream consequences of assuming a weapon is gives police the automatic authority to assume a "significant threat" as that term is viewed by a police officer.

That is, to an extent, a topic of conversation. But I think the concept of relevance and circumstance are everything here. I even see what you are saying, I think. 

Consider this difference between an officer approaching an individual whom:

A: Is walking around his own property while holding a firearm. Upon being approached by the officer, puts away his firearm while greeting the officer in a friendly manner.

B: Is pulled over for a suspected crime. Instead of addressing and answering the officers concerns, chooses to flee while brandishing the firearm.

Surely you can see the difference in being armed and being armed. Which one is a logical "significant thread"? 

I personally believe that anyone not incarcerated over the age of 18 should be able to possess a firearm. That includes people who have committed crimes in the past. That is my opinion, and I suspect many here will disagree with it. But even if something is legal, if I show up to your house, holding a firearm in my hand, and you don't even know who I am, shouldn't that cause you some concern? Wouldn't you consider me a significant threat, since I am literally holding my handgun in my hand for seemingly no valid reason other than showing you I'm armed, or worse?

What if when you approach me and confront me about it, instead of saying "Oh, I'm GlockSpock, I brought you this gun to see if you wanted to buy it", I chose to dart off in the other direction towards your neighbors house while waving the gun around while running? Wouldn't you be concerned for your neighbors safety?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken this is the case where the DA had to go judge shopping to find a judge that would sign an arrest warrant and I think they said it took 4 judges before he could find one that would sign it. That would be a pretty good indication getting a conviction of the officer would seem like slim to none.....JMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The video made me cringe and I wouldn’t be suprised if he is convicted of a lesser offense. The worst part of this is the actions by the DA. Any case in the past would be presented to the grand jury where only the prosecutors and investigators can attend to present evidence and answer questions. The old saying is the grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, so the rumor is either the  DA didn’t like the current grand jury or he is getting some good PR from the groups.   

 

 He the made them go to a general sessions judge to sign the warrant after a magistrate refused. In Davidson County the system doesn’t work like that. Judges only typically issue bench warrants or maybe probation warrants. Its odd they didn’t follow the system. Also they made the DA investigator swear out the warrant and scratched out the TBI agent’s name and still used his probable cause affidavit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's political, the voting base wanted an arrest at any cost.  When the video was released, no mention of the gun in his hand, but I think they said one was found afterwards.  So from the get go they were trying to railroad the officer.  I was leaning towards the perp's side of things until the police union weighed in with all the facts. His record shows he should have been in prison, if anyone is to blame, it's the ones that had him on the streets.  His record, IMO, should not be considered unless the officer knew who he was pursuing, but it does show he had a reason to run and possibly use the gun to keep from getting arrested.  And now with the rest of the shenanigans to affect an arrest, I am definitely leaning towards the cops side on this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 2 of hearing tomorrow, and judge expected to issue decision Monday as to whether or not it should go to grand jury. 

I got $5 on Delke's exoneration. 

Can't wait to hear Funk and Briley cry. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you know any Metro guys ask about the new rules handed down. They have been instructed to essentially be less proactive.  With the crazy spending and rise in violent crime Nashville will be a gem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pain103 said:

 If you know any Metro guys ask about the new rules handed down. They have been instructed to essentially be less proactive.  With the crazy spending and rise in violent crime Nashville will be a gem. 

Will do. Was glad to hear mnpd officers packed the courtroom today.

Sounds like things are looking up for Delke.

Edited by bud
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bud said:

Will do. Was glad to hear mnpd officers packed the courtroom today.

Sounds like things are looking up for Delke.

Yea, heard one news story say the non zoomed out tape shows the gun in the perps hand while running.  Unfortunately, no matter which way this goes, he is probably not coming back to the force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m a little confused on what’s going on here. I keep seeing in media reports that the Judge will decide if there is enough to send this to a grand jury. I thought the DA had chosen to skip the Grand Jury and this was a preliminary hearing??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I’m a little confused on what’s going on here. I keep seeing in media reports that the Judge will decide if there is enough to send this to a grand jury. I thought the DA had chosen to skip the Grand Jury and this was a preliminary hearing??

 

I'm with ya, Dave. Not sure what changed with Funk's plans, but here's an article from the Tennessean from 20 hrs ago with what's happenening now regarding Delke's hearing and Grand Jury -->

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.tennessean.com/amp/2478126002

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people would only act like they had some sense, we wouldn't need police and judges. Sadly, this will never be the case. I don't like criminals, and am not fond of police or judges either. I only wish they'd all leave me alone.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TGO David said:

So, Judge Blackburn recommended that the Delke case go to the Grand Jury.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2019/01/07/andrew-delke-ruling-daniel-hambrick-shooting-nashville/2500355002/

 

@bud, my condolences on your loss of $5.  I'm glad I didn't make any bets on this one.

Thanks, David :) My wager was certainly ill-advised.

After reading more about standard protocol, i realize it would've been very unlikely for Blackburn to disageee with Funk at this level.

However, I do think that Delke will be exonerated, whether at the Grand Jury hearing or at trial if it goes that far.

Funk's main assertion is that no one, not cops or civilians, can shoot a fleeing person in the back. That's a very feel-good thing for Funk to tell the black community, but legally it isnt true based on how we train officers (perhaps SOP changes after this event, but right now if you're armed, perceived as a deadly threat, fleeing, and refuse to stop and put-em-up you can be shot).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I thought it was a good shoot. The judges ruling made no sense. Be interesting to see how it plays out before the Grand jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion, the grand jury will send this case to trial.  Bad atmosphere out there in john Q public. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am betting it goes to a jury trial. That way anyone that does not like the out come what ever it is they can blame the jury. Myself, I believe that any time a felon with a gun is given a direct order from a police officer and breaks and runs he has just broken a number of laws to add to the felon with a gun. That to me gives the officer all means at his disposal to apprehend said felon which the officer did as he was trained to do. He persued said felon yelling orders to stop   running and drop the gun. The felon did not follow any orders and was there fore shot. I would classify what the officer did as Justifible Homicide in the line of duty on the officers part.

Now with that said I doubt that  it will be found to be that way beause  there is a spineless Mayor and DA that is afraid of doing their jobs and they will throw this officer to the Wolves to keep the peace............JMHO  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funk is wrong.  The US Supreme Court ruled back in the 1980s (in Tennessee v Garner, a case involving Memphis PD) that a fleeing felon can be stopped with lethal force, although only if there is probable cause to believe there's a threat to the life of the officer or others.  I expect the officer's attorney will  argue that he had probable cause because he could see the suspect was armed.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By 4Freedom
      I am considering, once again, relocating to the Nashville area.  I've have lived most of my life in Oregon and have been living in the Puget Sound for the last 6 years (in addition to Idaho for a couple in between)  and now planning on leaving the Puget Sound and the entire Northwest for good.  There are many reasons I am bailing, but with the new extreme gun control/confiscation legislation, very high cost of living, taxes, traffic, etc I am now planning to make my exit for good.  I've been planning this for a while, but didn't have the resources to be able to do it.  I've been considering Nashville and a few other places to relocate and it looks desirable to me in many ways.   I'm planning on making a visit to Tennessee in late March or April and if things look good I would look for a place to live.
      There are several important factors and Nashville looks good in many ways, but I have been bumping into some issues with the Nashville area.  The main problem I see is the lack of outdoor shooting ranges.  I utterly hate shooting indoors and have had nothing but bad experiences.  Maybe, growing up in the Northwest I just had so many options to shoot at decent outdoor ranges and the ranges here are pretty easy to join.  The problem which I am seeing with Nashville and a problem with the Eastern seaboard in general, is the lack of outdoor shooting ranges. In fact, I am starting to wonder if it is possible to shoot rifles at all if you live in the Nashville area?    Some people tell me the only people who can do rifle or outdoor shooting are people who grew up in the area and have friends who let them shoot on their farms or property.  I'm not sure how accurate it is, but that seems to be the situation from many people I have talked to.   I know the West Coast, in general, has the advantage of a lot more rural, unpopulated and public land.  When I lived in Idaho, I could literally drive 15 minutes up a big hill and finding a place to shoot.  I don't think that is possible anywhere in the East coast or Southeast, except maybe the rural Northeast. 
      The Strategic Edge range looks awesome and is not far from Nashville.  However, I spoke with the owner at Strategic Edge range, in addition to having a 1 -2 year waiting list (he said maybe openings will come to sooner), they also seem to do a rigorous amount of checking about you and require long hours of training before you are even qualified to be considered for membership.  Maybe, I also worry that this range, the members will be treated like criminals and the range officers will be over the top.  It may not be like this, but I did join a range once where they treated members like garbage.  Of course, it swings both ways and some ranges don't enforce any rules and members do stupid stuff.  Was a member of a range like that as well.   I guess I have been a bit spoiled living in the Northwest in that I can find an 800 yard range, pay my $100-200 , get a background check (many ranges here don't even do that, but I am ok with it) and be able to shoot.  It seems like it will take a serious amount of effort and a bit of some prayer in order to be able to join a range like Strategic Edge or even many of the other rifle ranges I have seen in Tennessee, especially closer to the big metro areas.   I also don't really know anyone in Tennessee and was told some ranges require character references and interviews.  Once again, these are membership procedures I have never experienced in the Northwest.   It would kind of suck, moving to Tennessee (a place with good outdoor shooting weather) and then being confined to pistol shooting at some crappy big city range where I am side by side with gangbangers and other people who are not safe, inhaling lead and being confined to tight space.  Also, I can forget about draw-shooting or double-tapping, which is an important discipline for me as a conceal carry holder.  This has been my experience when I use to go indoor ranges in Portland, Oregon (where I am from).  Another example of why I hate indoor public ranges is Wade's Gun store in Bellevue, WA (next to Seattle), where a guy committed suicide and wounded the people next to him as the bullet passed through him into the next person.  They also found that many of the employees of Wade's had unsafe levels of lead in their body and the state almost shut the range down.  Also, most of these type of ranges force you to use their ammo , which usually cost 10-30% more of store cost.    I'm not sure if there are any decent indoor ranges in Nashville and I guess an indoor range beats nothing at all.  

      Anyway, I guess this is the biggest strike I have about moving to the Nashville area is my concerns I will not able to do any shooting as long as I live there.   I'm willing to drive about 1.5 hours out of the city, but travelling more than that would be just a pain and means I would only be able to shoot once a month or less.    If anyone can give me any suggestions or knows any ranges in the Nashville area that are accepting new members and don't have insanely rigorous criteria for joining, I would be very eager to know.   I don't really know anybody in Tennessee and have no means to find farms or people's property to shoot on and don't have any personal references or people who can help get me into a club.   Can anyone give advice to someone who is interested in rifle and draw-pistol shooting who is new to Tennessee, like I will be, and wants to find a place they can shoot out to 300 or 400 yards and practice various disciplines, like draw-shoot?    I don't really have time or money to join competitions, and, in fact, that is why I need to get myself back into shooting again and find a good range.
       
      I appreciate the help anybody can give me.

The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines