Police: Officer Shoots Hammer-Wielding Man

Luckily, this cop didn't drive by a construction site. It would have been a massacre!

Bang Bang wrote:

Luckily, this cop didn't drive by a construction site. It would have been a massacre!

When was the last time you were assaulted by a deadly weapon? This officer acted properly to the actions of the deceased.

John Doe wrote:

<quoted text>
When was the last time you were assaulted by a deadly weapon?...

You mean assaulted right after I went uninvited into somebody's home? Umm, let me think. I've got it now. Never.

Atticus Finch wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean assaulted right after I went uninvited into somebody's home? Umm, let me think. I've got it now. Never.

And can you point out where in this story does it say the police man ever went IN the mobile home? And even if he did, he was an on-duty, in uniform police officer and he tried to kill him rather than for what reason(s) why the cop was there.

It dosn't say he didn't go in, which means, in my opinion, that he went in.

The article also does say whether the visibility was such that hammerman could see that it was a popo, and not a robber, before he attacked with his mighty hammer.

Also, "shouting" seems like a pretty flimsy basis for going into a home without a warrant.

There is a lot of investigating to do here. Not real sure that GBI is up to it. May peechsweet justice reign down on all involved.

Atticus Finch wrote:

It dosn't say he didn't go in, which means, in my opinion, that he went in.
The article also does say whether the visibility was such that hammerman could see that it was a popo, and not a robber, before he attacked with his mighty hammer.
Also, "shouting" seems like a pretty flimsy basis for going into a home without a warrant.
There is a lot of investigating to do here. Not real sure that GBI is up to it. May peechsweet justice reign down on all involved.

The officer involved never went into the house. There were several witnesses that were not police officers that heard this individual yelling. The deceased has a long history of mental illness and has been arrested on several occasions for attackng his family with weapons. The officer was outside of the residence talking to the deceased through the door, then the deceased came out the door and attacked the officer. Looks pretty cut and dry as a lawful use of force

This seems way out of character for the Erik I once knew. I do not know the details and I am not judging anyone. My prayers our out for all involved including the officers.

Erik, sorry you life had to end this way RIP.

Atticus Finch wrote:

It dosn't say he didn't go in, which means, in my opinion, that he went in.
The article also does say whether the visibility was such that hammerman could see that it was a popo, and not a robber, before he attacked with his mighty hammer.
Also, "shouting" seems like a pretty flimsy basis for going into a home without a warrant.
There is a lot of investigating to do here. Not real sure that GBI is up to it. May peechsweet justice reign down on all involved.

You really are freaking annoying, you know that?? Once again, you mislead people deliberately to further your anti-cop quest. First, you don't know if he was shot inside, or outside. So cut your sh*t making allegations one way or the other.

The FACT is the cops were called to the residence because there was shouting heard. The cops didn't just show up on their own, dumbass. They responded because SOMEONE CALLED FOR HELP! The cops have a DUTY to investigate. What were they supposed to do?? Say, "no, sorry, we don't respond to calls where someone only hears shouting??" Get a freaking clue. Oh, let's not also forget this guy was well known to have mental issues to his neighbors!! One neighbor I saw reported him creeping around the trailer park last year with a butcher knife.

In closing, cut your crap. Stop making up facts, like you always do.

Hey, dumbass Finchy!

Here's the WSB article that says the perp attacked the officer with a hammer AS THE OFFICER APPROACHED THE HOME. Did you get that?? Is that clear enough for you?? It didn't say he attacked the officer as the officer entered the home. It says he attacked the officer AS THE OFFICER APPROACHED!!!

Caught making up facts....LYING AGAIN!!!

My mistake. I thought I saw on Fox 5 that a woman said she called 911. See Finchy, I can admit when I make a mistake. I guess that's what makes me a better person than you!

Apparently the officer was nearby and overheard this guy going nuts. I did see neighbors state on the news this guy was nuts. Oh, and his mother said he has, "mental problems."

Oh look, here's a Fox 5 story that says the PERP CAME OUTSIDE AND ATTACKED THE OFFICER!!

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Officer_...

Poor Finchy!!! It's so sad you have to lie to seem like you know what you're talking about! Do you have a made up boyfriend too?? Do you tell your friends and family you have a sexy, successful boyfriend that you made up in your imagination??

The Sage wrote:

Oh look, here's a Fox 5 story that says the PERP CAME OUTSIDE AND ATTACKED THE OFFICER!!
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Officer_...
Poor Finchy!!! It's so sad you have to lie to seem like you know what you're talking about! Do you have a made up boyfriend too?? Do you tell your friends and family you have a sexy, successful boyfriend that you made up in your imagination??

Maybe that is true and maybe it is a lie. This is one of the reasons that a thorough investigation is needed. The investigators should see whether the man's family agrees that he had a hammer and that he went outside. Keep us posted on that.

Atticus Finch wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe that is true and maybe it is a lie. This is one of the reasons that a thorough investigation is needed. The investigators should see whether the man's family agrees that he had a hammer and that he went outside. Keep us posted on that.

As I have read through these, you are the first one saying what happened pertaining to the fact the policeman went into the trailer. Yet now you are telling this other person "a thorough investigation is needed". Why do you say that now rather than earlier when you talked ahead of yourself?

NOTE wrote:

<quoted text>
As I have read through these, you are the first one saying what happened pertaining to the fact the policeman went into the trailer. Yet now you are telling this other person "a thorough investigation is needed". Why do you say that now rather than earlier when you talked ahead of yourself?

Let me go through this real slow, NOTE, and, please do your best to follow.

I said that because the media was keeping mum on whether police were in or out of the motorhome, that my opinion was that they went in. I stated my opinion at that tie, which was that they went in, but, importantly, I gave my reason for having that opinion, which was that news accounts were not saying.

Then something changed. Specifically, one media outlet started reporting that the police claim that the hammerblow happened outside. Now why was this a change? Can you figure that out, Note. Didn't think so. here let me help: that was a change because the media saying that police said the hammer blow was done outside is a different thing than not saying anything about whether the hammer blow was in or out. Saying something about the particular issue is different than saying nothing. That is the change.

Because the media changed, my opinion changed. To explain more fully, my opinion at the time was based on what the media was saying at the time. I was careful to explain this when I expressed the opinion. That is why I told not just my opinion, but the reason for my opinion -- so that people would know that if the facts underlying my opinion changed, then my opinion was also subject to change. So, as explained above, the facts underlying did, in fact, change, and (surprise! surprise!), my opinion changed right along with that underlying change.

So what did my opinion change to? It chnged from having the opinion that the police went in, to having a neutral opinion about whether or not the police went in. To explain in more detail, there is a 50% chance that the police are telling the truth and a 50% chance that they think the can get away with a selfserving lie here. I would like a searching and rigorous investigation.

I will end on a word of caution: this new opinion may change again. If a video of the shooting surfaces on Yotube, then that may change my opinion one way or the other. If eyewitnesses from the family talk to the media or file a complaint, then my opinion may change.

Thank you for your patience, NOTE. I can only iagine how difficult it must have been for you to follow all this and I appreciate your efforts in this regard.

Atticus Finch wrote:

<quoted text>
I said that because the media was keeping mum on whether police were in or out of the motorhome, that my opinion was that they went in. I stated my opinion at that tie, which was that they went in, but, importantly, I gave my reason for having that opinion, which was that news accounts were not saying.

You go Finch! You figured it out, maybe. You at least admit that, yes, you put words out there that were not in the original story, you were only using your opinion and not willing to look both ways or at least wait and get the entire story. Talk talk talk talk talk talk. While do you not think a little bit before you talk?

Here is a clue about what the family said, they knew an incident like that would happen sooner or later. Never mind the incident where the deceased chased his family around their trailer with a butcher knife, or any of the other times he has interacted with the police.

John Doe wrote:

Here is a clue about what the family said, they knew an incident like that would happen sooner or later. Never mind the incident where the deceased chased his family around their trailer with a butcher knife, or any of the other times he has interacted with the police.

Erik was a friend. He had mental issues no doubt, he got hooked on meth or so I was told. He was a good person, he would have never attacked the officer in his right mind. The officer had no choice, I would have done the same thing. He will be greatly missed.

Yeah, I thought Lisa's comments were interesting on that other board. Sounds like there are no witnesses other than the shooter -- which means they will have no problem clearing this one.

Finchy, YOU MADE UP FACTS AGAIN!! The media didn't change it's story!! You only saw ONE media report that was silent on whether the shooting happened inside or outside. Every other media report I have seen said it happened outside!! Event he night it happened on the news they said it happened outside!! That is one of your pathetic problems!! When you don't know something, you just make sh*t up to suit your needs!! Here, let me make a post using Finchy's retarded logic: The news report said nothing about the dead perp having a knife, so I am going to assume he also had a knife! Oh, it didn't say anything about him having a hand grenade, so he had hand grenade too!! See, two can play your stupid game, Finchy!

This guy's neighbors were terrified of him because he was known to roam the trailer park with a butcher knife. Neighbors stated this on the news! He was CRAZY!

The Sage wrote:

Finchy, YOU MADE UP FACTS AGAIN!!...

No. I stated an opinion and told everyone what the opinion was based on. Just like you have the opinion that it was a good shoot. We will never know for sure if there were no witnesses besides the dead guy and the shooter.

How long does it take to move a body out of a motorhome? Does the investigator usually look for blood in the motorhome if the policeman says that the shooting was outside?