Jump to content
Erik88

Nashville officer charged in shooting

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately for this Officer I expect he will be going to trial. This is not good for cops or citizens.

This Judge went into detail about why the Officer was stopping this guy. It doesn’t matter…period. The Officer could have started chasing the wrong guy, but at the point the criminal pulled a gun; nothing prior to that matters.

She also didn’t think the video was clear that the criminal pointed the gun at the Officer. That also isn’t required. And if the video isn’t clear it should be thrown out.

Her ruling was as ignorant as people that rant about someone getting shot after pointing a gun at cop on a traffic stop and then saying “He got killed over a speeding ticket!” No he got killed for pointing a gun at a cop; and that’s what happened here.

However, I don’t think much can be done about the Judge’s ruling because all she is doing is sending it to a Grand Jury.  

Would a reasonable person (That will be a jury) believe that they were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm if they were in this situation? A person with a gun visible in his hand running from a uniformed Police Officer, who was giving him commands to stop, and the criminal is close to having cover. I don’t see how 12 people could come to a unanimous verdict that the Officer was guilty of anything. But in these times; who knows.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

This Judge went into detail about why the Officer was stopping this guy. It doesn’t matter…period. The Officer could have started chasing the wrong guy, but at the point the criminal pulled a gun; nothing prior to that matters.

 

This.

If it goes to trial, the whole charade of "why was he chasing him in the first place" will cease, as will Funk's "you cant shoot em in the back".

I think Delke messed up in the beginning of the pursuit too, but that's not what he's going to be on trial for.

In my 20/20 hindsight I also think Delke should've let the guy go, but I think its clear he had justifiable cause to shoot. 

As a parent, I feel sorry for the mother and father.

Side note, anyone else noticed the man with Ms. Hambrick, whom I assume is Daniel's father, has what looks like tear tatoos below his left eye? Can't find clear still pics online, because every image is shot to leave off that side of his face. I have seen them clearly on video. If those are the "i killed people" tatoos, that needs to be cleaned up before trial, as that will certainly shape jurors opinions of Daniel.

 

Edited by bud

Share this post


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

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.

 

My prediction is that Officer Delke will be spending time in prison now that it is up to a jury to decide his fate, regardless of what the law says an officer can do to a fleeing felon.  Juries are made up of the public, and the public increasingly cares less about facts or laws and more about feelings and social justice.

This guy is sunk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TGO David said:

My prediction is that Officer Delke will be spending time in prison now that it is up to a jury to decide his fate, regardless of what the law says an officer can do to a fleeing felon.  Juries are made up of the public, and the public increasingly cares less about facts or laws and more about feelings and social justice.

This guy is sunk.

 

I disagree, I believe the public is getting sick and tired of prosecutors bringing these cases to trial.   There have been many cops brought up on questionable, IMO, charges and found not guilty, even in liberal cities where you'd think it would have been a slam dunk for the DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officer Delke was doing aggressive police work.  Thats how good crime fighting works.  You cant simply show up after the crime and clean up the mess.  If you want to inhibit future crime, you have to aggressively proactive.  Most traffic stops are for this reason.  Seriously, do you think it really matters that much if one of two license plate lights is out?  No, it is because many many times, once the traffic stop is effected for a minor violation, interaction with the occupants reveals  reasons for further interaction, often resulting in arrests, and...crime reduction.  If this trend keeps up, we will see an increase in crime.  LEOs will shy away from being aggressive and who could blame them?  I wouldnt be a LEO today and I have retired LEO friends across the nation who say the same thing.  In my time we were always told we were held to a higher standard...we accepted that.  But these days every single action and reaction that happens in a split, stress filled second is Monday morning quarterbacked and analyzed to the point that the criticism for action is overwhelming.  The end result is going to be inaction. Its dangerous enough for LEOs out there now, but this after action over reaction will ruin law enforcement.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Omega said:

I disagree, I believe the public is getting sick and tired of prosecutors bringing these cases to trial.   There have been many cops brought up on questionable, IMO, charges and found not guilty, even in liberal cities where you'd think it would have been a slam dunk for the DA.

I sincerely hope that you are right.  I am finding it very hard to be optimistic about the public these days.

 

Share this post


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

I sincerely hope that you are right.  I am finding it very hard to be optimistic about the public these days.

 

I feel ya on this one! I blame a lot of it on "social" media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

I feel ya on this one! I blame a lot of it on "social" media.

I think a lot of its social media. I also think for some crimes it is because the public could see themselves or their kids committing the same crime. Fleeing in a vehicle is an example. People fleeing in a vehicle are putting the public in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. It should be a felony with mandatory jail time. But it’s tough to get that passed; because parents can see their kids doing it.

I think they think the same thing about people running on foot from the cops; they can see their kids doing it. They don’t understand that adding your kid pointing a gun at a cop or citizen is no longer just running from the cops.

Share this post


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

I think a lot of its social media. I also think for some crimes it is because the public could see themselves or their kids committing the same crime. Fleeing in a vehicle is an example. People fleeing in a vehicle are putting the public in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. It should be a felony with mandatory jail time. But it’s tough to get that passed; because parents can see their kids doing it.

I think they think the same thing about people running on foot from the cops; they can see their kids doing it. They don’t understand that adding your kid pointing a gun at a cop or citizen is no longer just running from the cops.

I’ve seen you mention the deceased pointing his gun at the cop more than once. I don’t remember that being part of Delke’s story at the beginning and the video doesn’t show that happening. Can you direct me to where you got that bit of information? That has always been my hurdle with this case. If the deceased did point his gun at Delke, then it’s absolutely a good shoot, but if he didn’t, that’s where it becomes questionable to me and why I think it should go to trial. If I am misreading your posts, please correct me.

As far as that trial goes, if the history of these types of trials is any indicator, he will get acquitted and the union will get him his job back. 

There are roughly 1000 officer involved shootings per year** and between 2005 and 2017 80 officers were indicted for on the job homicides but only about 35% of those were convicted. It is exceedingly difficult to convict an officer for an on the job shooting.

**https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1077&context=crim_just_pub

*I also feel it is incumbent upon me at this time to make my usual reminder that contrary to propagandist efforts from inside the LE industry, policing in this country isn’t an especially dangerous job. It doesn’t even make the top 10 for on the job fatalities. Truck drivers like myself are more than twice as likely to die on the job as a police officer and we aren’t even top 5. Your trash guy has a statistically more dangerous job than a cop.*

Edited by Chucktshoes
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’ve seen you mention the deceased pointing his gun at the cop more than once. I don’t remember that being part of Delke’s story at the beginning and the video doesn’t show that happening. Can you direct me to where you got that bit of information? That has always been my hurdle with this case. If the deceased did point his gun at Delke, then it’s absolutely a good shoot, but if he didn’t, that’s where it becomes questionable to me and why I think it should go to trial. If I am misreading your posts, please correct me.

As far as that trial goes, if the history of these types of trials is any indicator, he will get acquitted and the union will get him his job back. 

There are roughly 1000 officer involved shootings per year** and between 2005 and 2017 80 officers were indicted for on the job homicides but only about 35% of those were convicted. It is exceedingly difficult to convict an officer for an on the job shooting.

**https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1077&context=crim_just_pub

*I also feel it is incumbent upon me at this time to make my usual reminder that contrary to propagandist efforts from inside the LE industry, policing in this country isn’t an especially dangerous job. It doesn’t even make the top 10 for on the job fatalities. Truck drivers like myself are more than twice as likely to die on the job as a police officer and we aren’t even top 5. Your trash guy has a statistically more dangerous job than a cop.*

While many professions are dangerous, and have more deaths as a result, that does not mitigate the danger of another. And while those professions do have more deaths, they do not have people (at least not many) intentionally trying to take your life.  I'm retired military, and my particular role did not put me in as much danger as the ones we lovingly call "Door Kickers", but the 7.62 rounds perforating my Toyota didn't get the message, neither did those mortars lobbed in at us daily. 

LEO have a dangerous job, one in which more and more of the public is turning against them...until they need them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Omega said:

While many professions are dangerous, and have more deaths as a result, that does not mitigate the danger of another. And while those professions do have more deaths, they do not have people (at least not many) intentionally trying to take your life.  I'm retired military, and my particular role did not put me in as much danger as the ones we lovingly call "Door Kickers", but the 7.62 rounds perforating my Toyota didn't get the message, neither did those mortars lobbed in at us daily. 

LEO have a dangerous job, one in which more and more of the public is turning against them...until they need them.

Yes, falling asleep at the wheel of a >60,000 pound missile traveling 70 MPH because you are stretching your limits for money is not the same as having same missile coming at you while you have a car stopped along the highway for speeding. I had my fair share of those close calls when I was a LEO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’ve seen you mention the deceased pointing his gun at the cop more than once. I don’t remember that being part of Delke’s story at the beginning and the video doesn’t show that happening. Can you direct me to where you got that bit of information? That has always been my hurdle with this case. If the deceased did point his gun at Delke, then it’s absolutely a good shoot, but if he didn’t, that’s where it becomes questionable to me and why I think it should go to trial. If I am misreading your posts, please correct me.

As far as that trial goes, if the history of these types of trials is any indicator, he will get acquitted and the union will get him his job back. 

There are roughly 1000 officer involved shootings per year** and between 2005 and 2017 80 officers were indicted for on the job homicides but only about 35% of those were convicted. It is exceedingly difficult to convict an officer for an on the job shooting.

**https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1077&context=crim_just_pub

*I also feel it is incumbent upon me at this time to make my usual reminder that contrary to propagandist efforts from inside the LE industry, policing in this country isn’t an especially dangerous job. It doesn’t even make the top 10 for on the job fatalities. Truck drivers like myself are more than twice as likely to die on the job as a police officer and we aren’t even top 5. Your trash guy has a statistically more dangerous job than a cop.*

Chuck, one night myself and another Officer was dispatched to a business on a burglar alarm. It was a business where the alarm went off a lot and was always false.

As I approached the building I could see from the street people in the building. The other Officer was right behind me. I blacked out and rolled into the lot. They had seen me and took off running for the door. The first suspect went out the door and I gave chase on foot. The other Officer put his squad on the door and blocked the 2nd suspect inside. 2 white males that appeared to be adults.

We ran across the street (about 100 yards) and into a wide open field. A short distance into the field the suspect stopped and turned and faced me. He was pulling something out of his waistband that I thought was a gun; but I was not absolutely sure. My choice was to do something or wait to see what he was doing. I fired a warning shot into the ground feet in front of him. It went through my mind that we had a department policy against firing warning shots, but my only other option was to kill him. When I did that he turned around and continued to run.

At that time we could shoot fleeing forcible felons; burglary was a forcible felony. As we crossed the field he was approaching a building. My thought was that if he made it to that corner; he had cover to shoot me. I fired at him. The bullet hit the corner of the building as he went around the corner. Other Officers had arrived and were coming around the other end of the building. As I rounded the corner those Officers had him at gunpoint and he had his hands in the air. He had no gun. When I asked him what he was pulling out of the front of his pants he said he didn’t have anything.

Turns out he was a 16 year old juvenile, home on leave from reform school. He was taken to HQ by other Officers and turned over to Juvenile Officers.

Command Officers came to the scene to see what happened with the shooting. When I told them what happened one of them said “We have a department policy against warning shots.” I replied with “Screw that, department policy won’t save me if I’m on trial. I have to be able to use anything I have to keep from killing someone; that is what I did.”

As we were getting ready to leave, the Juvenile Officer radioed us and told us to stay there, he was sending the Fire Department out; they would explain. When they arrived they said “your suspect threw a gun on the roof.” They pulled a loaded 6” Model 66 off the roof.

The 16 year old told the Detectives when he turned on me; he was going to shoot me. He didn’t expect me to fire so he ran for cover. He saw the other Officers approaching from the other way and knew he was caught. Otherwise he would have shot me once he got to cover. As he rounded the corner they weren’t there yet and he threw the gun on the roof. They never saw the gun.

I am alive today because I violated department policy and fired my weapon. So is he, because if I hadn’t been in a wide open field, if there had been people around; I would have shot him. Even though he never got a chance to point his gun at me; one of us would have probably been dead when I rounded that corner. After that incident our department policy was changed.

I didn’t make him burglarize that building; I didn’t make him run, I didn’t make him have a gun, and I didn’t make him try to kill me. He did all that because he was a dirt bag criminal with no regard for life.

The protection of violent criminals has gone too far. Law abiding citizens and cops that have to use deadly force to protect themselves from dirt bag criminals should have that protection; not them. So having been in the same situation this is very personal for me. By the time you see the weapon pointed at you; it’s too late.

I feel terrible that the officials have turned their back on this Police Officer, and all other Police Officers, and sided with a thug carrying a gun. It’s reasonable to believe he would have shot the Officer.

Yes, he will probably he acquitted. But he or no other Officer or citizen should have to go through what is being done to him.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 4:00 PM, DaveTN said:

Chuck, one night myself and another Officer was dispatched to a business on a burglar alarm. It was a business where the alarm went off a lot and was always false.

As I approached the building...

 

Being placed in the position of having to decide life or death isn't easy and I commend you for posting this. Myself, I came half a trigger pull away on a service revolver from shooting a dumbass drunk with a baseball bat. After he dropped his bat and was taken into custody I became so angry with the guy for putting me in that position that I couldn't even talk with him. Other officers handled it from there.

It's pretty darned easy for many people to armchair quarterback a cop. It's another thing to actually do it.

Edited by SWJewellTN
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Chuck, one night myself and another Officer was dispatched to a business on a burglar alarm. It was a business where the alarm went off a lot and was always false.

As I approached the building I could see from the street people in the building. The other Officer was right behind me. I blacked out and rolled into the lot. They had seen me and took off running for the door. The first suspect went out the door and I gave chase on foot. The other Officer put his squad on the door and blocked the 2nd suspect inside. 2 white males that appeared to be adults.

We ran across the street (about 100 yards) and into a wide open field. A short distance into the field the suspect stopped and turned and faced me. He was pulling something out of his waistband that I thought was a gun; but I was not absolutely sure. My choice was to do something or wait to see what he was doing. I fired a warning shot into the ground feet in front of him. It went through my mind that we had a department policy against firing warning shots, but my only other option was to kill him. When I did that he turned around and continued to run.

At that time we could shoot fleeing forcible felons; burglary was a forcible felony. As we crossed the field he was approaching a building. My thought was that if he made it to that corner; he had cover to shoot me. I fired at him. The bullet hit the corner of the building as he went around the corner. Other Officers had arrived and were coming around the other end of the building. As I rounded the corner those Officers had him at gunpoint and he had his hands in the air. He had no gun. When I asked him what he was pulling out of the front of his pants he said he didn’t have anything.

Turns out he was a 16 year old juvenile, home on leave from reform school. He was taken to HQ by other Officers and turned over to Juvenile Officers.

Command Officers came to the scene to see what happened with the shooting. When I told them what happened one of them said “We have a department policy against warning shots.” I replied with “Screw that, department policy won’t save me if I’m on trial. I have to be able to use anything I have to keep from killing someone; that is what I did.”

As we were getting ready to leave, the Juvenile Officer radioed us and told us to stay there, he was sending the Fire Department out; they would explain. When they arrived they said “your suspect threw a gun on the roof.” They pulled a loaded 6” Model 66 off the roof.

The 16 year old told the Detectives when he turned on me; he was going to shoot me. He didn’t expect me to fire so he ran for cover. He saw the other Officers approaching from the other way and knew he was caught. Otherwise he would have shot me once he got to cover. As he rounded the corner they weren’t there yet and he threw the gun on the roof. They never saw the gun.

I am alive today because I violated department policy and fired my weapon. So is he, because if I hadn’t been in a wide open field, if there had been people around; I would have shot him. Even though he never got a chance to point his gun at me; one of us would have probably been dead when I rounded that corner. After that incident our department policy was changed.

I didn’t make him burglarize that building; I didn’t make him run, I didn’t make him have a gun, and I didn’t make him try to kill me. He did all that because he was a dirt bag criminal with no regard for life.

The protection of violent criminals has gone too far. Law abiding citizens and cops that have to use deadly force to protect themselves from dirt bag criminals should have that protection; not them. So having been in the same situation this is very personal for me. By the time you see the weapon pointed at you; it’s too late.

I feel terrible that the officials have turned their back on this Police Officer, and all other Police Officers, and sided with a thug carrying a gun. It’s reasonable to believe he would have shot the Officer.

Yes, he will probably he acquitted. But he or no other Officer or citizen should have to go through what is being done to him.

Dave, 

thank you for sharing that story. I’m glad that you didn’t have to kill that kid that night for myriad reasons. (I suspect that killing that kid that night would have long weighed heavily on your heart no matter how justified.) You do raise some points that I do want to discuss, but I’m going to hold off on them for the moment. (Several others of you also bring up some general issues regarding policing that I have thoughts about. I am not ignoring your posts, but I am holding off for the time being as I have concerns about drifting this topic too far afield as well as some other personal concerns regarding appropriateness.)

I do however want to circle back to the question I originally asked. I haven’t seen where it was alleged that the deceased pointed his gun, only that he ran while holding it. (Since he most likely wasn’t using a holster, it’s not surprising it would end up in his hand, no matter how fatally unwise.) Am I misreading your posts or are you intentionally stating he aimed his gun, and if so where did you see that? I am genuinely curious because that would go a long way to answering my questions and greatly calm my concerns regarding this death. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Dave, 

thank you for sharing that story. I’m glad that you didn’t have to kill that kid that night for myriad reasons. (I suspect that killing that kid that night would have long weighed heavily on your heart no matter how justified.) You do raise some points that I do want to discuss, but I’m going to hold off on them for the moment. (Several others of you also bring up some general issues regarding policing that I have thoughts about. I am not ignoring your posts, but I am holding off for the time being as I have concerns about drifting this topic too far afield as well as some other personal concerns regarding appropriateness.)

I do however want to circle back to the question I originally asked. I haven’t seen where it was alleged that the deceased pointed his gun, only that he ran while holding it. (Since he most likely wasn’t using a holster, it’s not surprising it would end up in his hand, no matter how fatally unwise.) Am I misreading your posts or are you intentionally stating he aimed his gun, and if so where did you see that? I am genuinely curious because that would go a long way to answering my questions and greatly calm my concerns regarding this death. 

Quote

 

In the recording, the officer goes on to explain that he saw Hambrick holding a gun and why he chased after him. He described having "tunnel vision" and immediately focusing on the gun. Delke said Hambrick pointed the gun at his direction and gave a "targeted glance", which he described as someone looking at an opponent to know where to shoot.

“This whole time he’s not going to put it down. At that point I believe he had intent to use it because he hasn’t listened to my commands. I yelled again to drop the gun," said Delke. "Drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the gun or I’m going to shot you; I explicitly told him because, at that point it had risen to the level already in my mind when the gun had been pointed at me already. He refused multiple commands to drop the gun, and now explicitly I told him the consequences of not dropping was going to be and he still refused to do so. In my mind at that moment I knew 100 percent his intent was to use that gun against me."

According to Delke, he fired first because he felt as if Hambrick was an imminent threat. He decided to take action to "beat his [Hambrick] action and fired the shots to neutralize."

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/nashville-police-shooting-officer-charged-with-homicide-to-appear-in-court

 

I remember reading it and hearing it on he news. 

I believe had he not shot the perp the perp would have shot him or tried. I don’t see how anyone can expect a cop or a citizen to wait until the gun is pointed at them. You are trained that can get you killed.

It bothers me because if I was chasing him, he had a gun in his hand, was refusing my orders to stop, and nearing cover; I would have shot him if I knew I could do so without hitting any innocent bystanders. Apparently the DA and Mayor in Davidson County would want me charged with murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were in that position, in this day and age of BLM inciting incidents, as a felon, my first priority, besides not getting caught, would be to ditch a weapon, not run with it. There would be no way in hell I would reach for, run with, or carry a gun in my hand when chased by a police officer unless my intent was to shoot him.  Have you seen these hoods take a weaver stance and aim their weapons?  What exactly are you expecting to see in a video besides arms flailing about? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I would imagine he would opt for a bench trial. No jurors takes emotion and other things out of the trial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pain103 said:

 I would imagine he would opt for a bench trial. No jurors takes emotion and other things out of the trial. 

Not with a judge like the one that sent him to trial!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 8:42 PM, DaveTN said:

I remember reading it and hearing it on he news. 

I believe had he not shot the perp the perp would have shot him or tried. I don’t see how anyone can expect a cop or a citizen to wait until the gun is pointed at them. You are trained that can get you killed.

It bothers me because if I was chasing him, he had a gun in his hand, was refusing my orders to stop, and nearing cover; I would have shot him if I knew I could do so without hitting any innocent bystanders. Apparently the DA and Mayor in Davidson County would want me charged with murder.

The TBI investigator’s testimony casts doubt on Delke’s story regarding the chain of events. I’m not able to say one way or another as I don’t view a badge as an automatic signifier of trustworthiness. Cop or not, anyone in his position has an overwhelming incentive to frame events in as positive of a light as possible. So, I’m of the opinion that at this point he and The People are entitled to their day in court.

 

Now, here’s something where I know we will never agree on, but I’m going to lay it out there anyway. You say you “don’t see how anyone can expect a cop or a citizen to wait until the gun is pointed at them.” I don’t think a citizen can be expected to be held to that standard. The “reasonable person” standard is just and appropriate for the average citizen. A police officer absolutely should be held to a higher standard. If US soldiers in an active war zone are required by their ROE to take fire before engaging with the enemy, I don’t see why it is so unreasonable to require officers to have conclusive proof of imminent threat before killing someone. 

I don’t doubt the testimony that Delke acted as he was trained to do. Cops are trained not to hesitate because as you finished the above quoted statement, “you are trained that can get you killed.” That’s the problem. The training elevates officer safety over public safety. (If you’re wondering why respect for law enforcement is declining, I’d start looking right there.)

I’ve often heard that the first rule of law enforcement is “to go home at the end of your shift.” Well, to use a turn of phrase from our friends from across the pond, that’s utter bollocks. We arm and empower police to use violence up to and including deadly force on behalf of, and for the ends of ensuring public safety.

Public safety, not their own personal safety.

If law enforcement is really the noble profession that it is purported to be then that means officers actually accepting the responsibility and inherent dangers of putting the safety and well being of all others over their own. That means not opening fire at the first sight of a 12 yo kid with a toy gun, or a lawfully armed citizen following instructions to produce his license, or a man in a Walmart holding a BB gun, or a multitude of other examples of officers freaking out like a scared cat and innocent folks ending up dead. 

Some of y’all like to complain about folks like me having an opinion on how cops do their jobs while not choosing to wear the badge. Well, as a member of the general public who has to live (or possibly die) with the consequences from their actions, good or bad, from training or mistakes, I (we) damn well do get to have an opinion on the matter. Don’t like it? I don’t care. Know what I don’t like? I don’t like that some guy who’s been trained to be afraid of his own shadow can kill me because my eyes twitched the wrong way and he gets to go home at the end of his shift with no lasting consequences. If the police actually work on behalf of the public, then the public gets a say on how that work is done, even on Monday morning.

Now, my words may be a bit harsh on this matter, but don’t mistake me. I don’t have an issue with cops as individuals, but I do have a problem with the job they are expected to do and the way they are trained to do it. I believe that policing in America is fundamentally broken in many ways. If there is to be any hope of fixing it, then all the stakeholders have to be at the table and open to frank and honest discussion. 

Edited by Chucktshoes
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

I don’t doubt the testimony that Delke acted as he was trained to do.

I have no problem with what you say as long as that is made clear to Officers before they take the job. If they are expected to wait until the gun is pointed at them; tell them that. That is what this case is telling them. (And that is not a requirement)

They are having trouble getting good people that want to be cops. Let’s see how that works. As a citizen that respects the Police I see that as a big problem. The people deserve good law enforcement; it needs to protect us not violent offenders.

But be aware that if cops are held to that standard; you will be also. Cops are required to move towards the danger; not away. Citizens don’t have that requirement, so we will be headed back towards “Duty to retreat” for citizens; because that’s what you want for cops.

Being a cop is a violent business. You go into it knowing you will be hurt; you don’t expect to be killed.

I’m furious that that judge used that video to say it wasn’t clear if the criminal pointed his gun at the Officer or not. That BS; it’s not required and if that video isn’t clear; it should be thrown out. If that video didn’t exist; there would be no trial. But apparently with that video officials feel they can sit around and try to decide if that criminal pointed his gun at that Officer. I can’t believe that will ever stand.

A Sheriff is facing dismissal, a Deputy was fired and many are calling for criminal prosecution because the Deputy didn’t act fast enough. 14 kids and 3 staff members were killed, 17 others wounded. But hey, the criminal is alive and well. Cops are required to act. If a gunman not following lawful orders to disarm dies; so be it.

I have a niece that was sworn in as a Police Officer Wednesday. I hope the officials in her area don’t side with the violent criminals.

This case is malicious prosecution.

 

 

I’m all for discussing the problems with Policing. And I’m all for charging Police Officers when they commit a crime. But when someone has a gun in their hand, and they are being ordered by someone they know to be a Police Officer to drop it, and they refuse; deadly force is justified.

I don’t have an “Us vs. them mentality”, I have a right vs. wrong mentality”.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 6:16 PM, TGO David said:

My prediction is that Officer Delke will be spending time in prison now that it is up to a jury to decide his fate, regardless of what the law says an officer can do to a fleeing felon.  Juries are made up of the public, and the public increasingly cares less about facts or laws and more about feelings and social justice.

This guy is sunk.

 

Depends on who is on the jury, all it takes is one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the solution to lessen the questionable use of force lies in, as @Chucktshoes suggested, in re-assessing the value of an officers life as compared to citizens, and then allowing new recruits and current officers to decide if they wanna take the job based on the new Common-Sense realization that a cop going home at the end of his shift is not more important than a civilian making it home to his family. If afterwards there's not enough officers, or too much crime, then reassess again.

I also agree with Chuck in that me- the tax payer- is the Coach of the team. I'm not monday morning quarterbacking, I'm reviewing the game tape and adjusting the play of my players to make improvements for the next game. It's my job and my right because I pay the bills. The cops are employees of the taxpayers.

On the other hand Delke was operating under current rules and you can't change the rules in the middle of the game like an elementary school child (or Funk and Briley). In this case, like @DaveTN said, the rules were already laid out and Delke engaged as per his rights. Should Delke's lawyers have thrown in the info (which feels like a lie given how this info came out) that Hamburg pointed the gun at him? I think it was a good move, because it can't be definitively proven that he didnt, and dead men tell no tales. In the end it doesn't matter, because per current procedure Delke was justified.

As i said earlier, personally i think Delke was crazy to shoot him. Although Delke had a right to shoot him, he shoukd have yielded that right. If a criminal is fleeing with his back to you, having not fired shots or done any other violent act, you accept the risk that the criminal may harm someone else vs executing him preemptively. Would Hamburg have gone on to commit a violent crime at some later date if Delke let him go? I think he certainly would have given his path, but he also could've found Jesus.

Here's hoping that at the Grand Jury hearing, only the facts are considered and that it doesnt go to a jury trial. My money doesnt need to be wasted on a jury trial.

Edited by bud
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think the solution to lessen the questionable use of force lies in, as @Chucktshoes suggested, in re-assessing the value of an officers life as compared to citizens, and then allowing new recruits and current officers to decide if they wanna take the job based on the new Common-Sense realization that a cop going home at the end of his shift is not more important than a civilian making it home to his family. If afterwards there's not enough officers, or too much crime, then reassess again.

I also agree with Chuck in that me- the tax payer- is the Coach of the team. I'm not monday morning quarterbacking, I'm reviewing the game tape and adjusting the play of my players to make improvements for the next game. It's my job and my right because I pay the bills. The cops are employees of the taxpayers.

On the other hand Delke was operating under current rules and you can't change the rules in the middle of the game like an elementary school child (or Funk and Briley). In this case, like @DaveTN said, the rules were already laid out and Delke engaged as per his rights. Should Delke's lawyers have thrown in the info (which feels like a lie given how this info came out) that Hamburg pointed the gun at him? I think it was a good move, because it can't be definitively proven that he didnt, and dead men tell no tales. In the end it doesn't matter, because per current procedure Delke was justified.

As i said earlier, personally i think Delke was crazy to shoot him. Although Delke had a right to shoot him, he shoukd have yielded that right. If a criminal is fleeing with his back to you, having not fired shots or done any other violent act, you accept the risk that the criminal may harm someone else vs executing him preemptively. Would Hamburg have gone on to commit a violent crime at some later date if Delke let him go? I think he certainly would have given his path, but he also could've found Jesus.

Here's hoping that at the Grand Jury hearing, only the facts are considered and that it doesnt go to a jury trial. My money doesnt need to be wasted on a jury trial.

It's not that a cop's life is valued more than a criminals per se, it is that someone committing a crime has devalued their own life.  If we start playing this game, soon you will have to make sure it is a fair fight with a home intruder because his life equals yours.  Mistakes get made, sure enough, but to blatantly disregard the fact that criminals have no problem killing LEOs or citizens that get in the way of their crimes is ridiculous.  We have laws, we "hire" people to study, make and teach the best business practices they can to keep the general public safe.  If you don't like the way they do business, it is ok to voice your opinion, and to lobby for changes to be made, but don't be upset when the majority of the public supports the way it is handled and say so as well.   I personally think the TN (mostly Davidson County) justice system is not harsh enough; they allow perps to disagree to get arrested, call their parents (over 18) and 911 because a police officer is asking them to step out of their vehicles, and the judges keep letting dangerous criminals off with light to no sentences, WTF. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's not that a cop's life is valued more than a criminals per se, it is that someone committing a crime has devalued their own life.  If we start playing this game, soon you will have to make sure it is a fair fight with a home intruder because his life equals yours.  Mistakes get made, sure enough, but to blatantly disregard the fact that criminals have no problem killing LEOs or citizens that get in the way of their crimes is ridiculous.  We have laws, we "hire" people to study, make and teach the best business practices they can to keep the general public safe.  If you don't like the way they do business, it is ok to voice your opinion, and to lobby for changes to be made, but don't be upset when the majority of the public supports the way it is handled and say so as well.   I personally think the TN (mostly Davidson County) justice system is not harsh enough; they allow perps to disagree to get arrested, call their parents (over 18) and 911 because a police officer is asking them to step out of their vehicles, and the judges keep letting dangerous criminals off with light to no sentences, WTF. 

 

Don't really know about any of the other anecdotal examples you mention. I'm only speaking as an (almost) lifelong resident of the urban core of Davidson County with multiple family members in law enforcement here. I'm not some bleeding-heart, soft on crime guy. My opinions are purely my own, but they are well-founded and informed.

I support the police and support improved community relations. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. I think the police chief does a great job and is of a similar mind.

Edited by bud

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