Cops kill rancher trying to put down bull

[woolfe9998]

According to someone else on here, we can't hold these cops to any accountability, because that would be bad.

According to whom, exactly?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

With so many police and responders there, hopefully some video comes out. Hard to know how it went down. The rancher was armed and loaded, which was probably a bad idea when interacting with police on a public road way.

Apparently not a bad idea as far as the sheriff's department was concerned:

An Adams County Sheriff’s Office dispatcher called. One of the family’s bulls had just been hit by a car on the highway, and the Yantises needed to go take care of it.

Until they, you know, killed him while he was attempting to take care of it.

 

[RampantAndroid]

cops are armed like military now.

so yeah that's all they had.

and their side arm

The cops in the town I went to school in (small town in PA, 2000 people at the school) were armed with two M16s and a 12GA (Maybe a Mossberg 590) in EVRY patrol car. This was in 2004-5 I saw this. The town has no amount of crime, and there has never been a shooting at the school. Certainly nothing to warrant two fully automatic rifles.

 

[Darwin333]

cops are armed like military now.

so yeah that's all they had.

and their side arm

Most cop cars I see have a shotgun either in the trunk or in the front seat. My grandpa had a farm with cattle and I can tell you that shooting a bull with a pistol is just going to piss him the hell off. Maybe a 44 mag at point blank to his head? But 9mm and 40 cals while you're try to stay away from the pissed off beast, yeah not gonna do shit. I wouldn't even trust a 5.56 personally although it stands a much better chance IF you can hit it in the right spot which is generally hard to do after you've pissed it the hell off.

 

[Darwin333]

Ah. So the bull was home safe and no longer a threat until they shot it. I'm glad someone understands what's going through a bull's mind when it moves to a particular unmarked patch of ground.

So your argument is that they didn't know if the bull was going to get up and start charging everyone again so they made damn sure that it did?

On the flip side of all of these arguments about the police, is it more rational to think that the rancher showed up, with his wife watching no less, with intentions to harm and/or kill the police? At some point the police had to have reasonably thought that in order to shoot him.

While I personally would never have a firearm in my hand while around LEO for any reason except at the range (and even then I'm nervous) but didn't they call this guy to take care of his rampaging bull? You kinda need a rifle to do that.

 

[Darwin333]

With so many police and responders there, hopefully some video comes out. Hard to know how it went down. The rancher was armed and loaded, which was probably a bad idea when interacting with police on a public road way.

They called HIM and asked HIM to take care of his rampaging bull. Did you think he was going to sweet talk it or something?

 

[OutHouse]

The cops in the town I went to school in (small town in PA, 2000 people at the school) were armed with two M16s and a 12GA (Maybe a Mossberg 590) in EVRY patrol car. This was in 2004-5 I saw this. The town has no amount of crime, and there has never been a shooting at the school. Certainly nothing to warrant two fully automatic rifles.

Fail. Cops do not pack full-auto M-16's.

 

[cubby1223]

This thread is the perfect example of what's wrong with some of our resident posters' mentalities of "if you are not 100% with me then you are against me."

This is why we can't have nice things around here!!!!!

 

[CZroe]

So your argument is that they didn't know if the bull was going to get up and start charging everyone again so they made damn sure that it did?

So your argument is that they hated bovines and wanted to murder him so they lured him out and executed him while tormenting his bull?

On the flip side of all of these arguments about the police, is it more rational to think that the rancher showed up, with his wife watching no less, with intentions to harm and/or kill the police? At some point the police had to have reasonably thought that in order to shoot him.

And here is the root of the problem. Your mind is so twisted that you can't imagine any scenario where they weren't deliberately taking aim at him and executing him. As far as we know he got caught in the crossfire yet you can't even consider anything other than this being a case of police intentionally shooting an armed man. Even if it is, you don't know how it went down. The police may have seen the man approaching the bull and one ventured close enough to pulled him away for his own safety. The rancher may have been upset (understandably) and an argument ensued where the police further away could only see an irate man with a shotgun raising it and turning around while aiming at police. I don't know, you don't know, yet somehow you think you know. Shameful.

While I personally would never have a firearm in my hand while around LEO for any reason except at the range (and even then I'm nervous) but didn't they call this guy to take care of his rampaging bull? You kinda need a rifle to do that.

And who says that had anything to do with it? He could have just jumped in and got caught in the crossfire.

 

[K7SN]

I highly doubt the interactive went down like in the OP:

"The rancher, with tears in his eyes, rested the muzzle of his rifle on the bull's head as it peacefully lay on the ground, breathing heavily. As the rancher mercifully tensed the trigger, he was murdered by police."

I don't think the police murdered the man while we was in an Ole Yeller moment. Curious to see how this thing played out.

I agree with you; the above quote is biased. I've seen injured bulls and they are seldom peaceful, there is no evidence the rancher had tears in hos eyes nor was he murdered.

Why these officers would stop this person from doing what he was called to do should be of great concern. Most rural law enforcement know ever rancher, they sometimes deliver UPS and Fed packages (saving the UPS or Fedex driver an hour drive) because their patrol route takes them by rancher home and they get to know those they serve (They might even get a cup of coffee and slice of pie). That's how rural west worked. The facts aren't in but this may be the first cop shooting in Adams County so I don't think it is the norm.

I suspect the dispatcher assumed these officers understood the procedure and after asking the brand, called the proper person. He brought his skid-steer to retrieve the bull and butcher it since it represents a couple thousand dollars as meat. Any experienced law enforcement would know you put a bullet in a filet mignon or gut shoot a bull which will just make it more angry and cause adrenalin to rush through his body making the meat less tasty. Shooting the bull thusly probably cost the now dead rancher more than the AR-15 the bull was shoot with. A bullet to the proper place in head doesn't destroys any thing but offal, quickly and humanly put the animal down. Since they say it was a bull and not a steer then the loss to the rancher was much.

The officers involved behaved badly; this might be malfeasance and I suspect shooting a bull who is injured and not threating, the hurt bull was going home, is an unlawful action. These officers might even be guilty of manslaughter, and there fore technically murder if the state should decide these cops interfered because putting the bull down was preventing them from their fun; continuing to commit an unlawful act where a fatality occurs is consider murder, not manslaughter, when any person is killed. Now really that would not happen but it is in our laws.

This posters rant follows:

The incidents of this kind of a problem are caused because what being a policeman has been distorted by the media, the movies and people with an agenda so some that apply are trigger happy, what-to-be Dirty Harry punks who have an image of a badge and have been influenced by 50 years of TV and Movies which have move away from Dirty Harry who was, if you watch the movies, always be censured, because he acted more aggressively and not like Joe Friday, not that he crossed the line as most Hollywood and TV shoe routinely show police doing today.

Our society of today is shaped not by the tolerance and respect of 50/60 years ago but by the 'perceived reality' of our entertainment industry; the difference after the scene is filmed those shot those shot don't get up, collect their pay and go home. The difference between 'real-life' and 'fiction-writing' has been blurred.

This gives us a society that becomes polemic in nature; we don't discuss to figure out what went wrong; more and more each year are taking polemic sides as evidenced by this thread.

End rant.

For a different less biased account of the shooting: http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/loca...r-involved-shooting-in-adams-county/75036826/

If you have time to read all the dribble in the OPs post you'll find some pearls of wisdom. The urban want to be police who become Feds have to be trained to be humans again; once trained they de-escalate. It is not like 40 years ago when we honored those few lawman for the sacrifices they made and the risks they took; today it is the often the public at risk but it doesn't reflect most of a police and with the exception of a very few cases it is the immature rookies who are involved. Why can't we see that, why can't we un-brainwash our police so that even a justified shooting is wrong if there were ways to de-escalate and solver the problem without bloodshed.

People who are pushed push back; most people who are treated with respect even if they are outside the law will to comply. Today, people perceive a threat and many react in a foolish way; couple that with a trigger happy person with a badge and you have trouble. Maybe instead of choosing sides we should work together to solve this problem.

I only got to last Sunday 11/8/2015 the more you're on that site, the more slow running adds and such which makes it progressively difficult; I gleamed the comment below from a poster on OPs link. I don't agree completely but I am sure I could discuss any disagreement I might have with Christopher.

The sheriff's office does not ]want to talk about this, but here is my take. The two deputies were probably recent hires who have no idea about rural issues and likely as not have a deep, abiding hatred of rural people. So they saw the rancher as The Other, as The Enemy.

In the United States, "law enforcement" is increasingly becoming brutal, cruel, ruthless, and parasitic. This is not the sign of a free society.

It is really despicable, and I saw the same cycle 20 years ago. I took my toddler son on a springtime vacation drive in '95 into central Nevada, and in Ely some locals were telling me about Federal employees transferred there, throwing their weight around and abusing local people before they even learned their names.

The result was that the Fed's kids got bullied out of school, and the businesses in Ely refused to sell to these people, forcing them to leave town. But it was all earned. One Ely resident told me that these outsiders one day showed up at his house, saying "Hey, a$$hole, you need to grub out these apple trees. They are using too much water. Get the trees gone or you will be arrested" as the first words they ever spoke to him.

When I got back to the office a week later, I heard of the Oklahoma City Bombing. I told people in the office that it was not a surprise to me given how abusive the Feds had become.

I think it is shameful that the Adams County Sheriff is going down that same path, treating those his department is supposed to be serving as enemies, and doing such monstrous injury to a local rancher who from what I heard was a pillar of his community.

It is disgusting that the politicians want to involve the United States in troubles all over the world, while these abuses by American law enforcement, including theft, rape, and in this case murder, are done to American citizens. It is a sign that our culture is on the decline.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Good grief, everything has got to be looked at through that "big government intruding on us rural folks" lens doesn't it? Maybe if there were some more "big government" hiring and training standards set for local law enforcement, and maybe more "big government" prosecution of local law enforcement offenses, incidents like these could be reduced or avoided.

 

[Victorian Gray]

An article with the family's account of events:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article43654638.html

 

[railer]

Yes, but as usual let's go full blown cop hate mode without having all the information. I would say it has been a 50/50 split as to whether the police are in the wrong. I haven't seen where anyone has attempted to justify this shooting, only state there wasn't enough/possibly incorrect information.

How is it 50/50?

I'm thinking of the most recent case where the cops shot the 6 YO kid: Cops wrong
The case in SC or somewhere where the older black guy was shot in the back after running away from a traffic stop: Cops wrong.
That University of Cincinnati case where the motorist was shot in head after putting his car in gear and driving away: Cops wrong.

I'm sure there are a couple more legitimate ones, but that still makes it a .0000001/100 split, and no where near 50/50. Heck, in the last two examples above, the victim did something completely illogical prior to getting shot.

If I were a cop-hater I wouldn't get my panties in a wad prior to all the facts coming out here, because historically that doesn't pan out too well.

I do agree that the initial reports here do not make the cops look good.

 

[Gryz]

The simplest explanation is often the correct one.

Cops are scared shitless of the citizens they are supposed to protect.
Cops are scared shitless of anything that moves.
Cops are scared shitless of everything else too.

A gun got fired by accident.
A cop got startled.
He immediately started shooting at the first thing that moved.
As soon as he shot his gun, all the other cops got startled too, and unloaded.

Some unimportant guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time died.
Who cares ? Certainly no cop.

 

[DrPizza]

The simplest explanation is often the correct one.

Cops are scared shitless of the citizens they are supposed to protect.
Cops are scared shitless of anything that moves.
Cops are scared shitless of everything else too.

A gun got fired by accident.
A cop got startled.
He immediately started shooting at the first thing that moved.
As soon as he shot his gun, all the other cops got startled too, and unloaded.

Some unimportant guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time died.
Who cares ? Certainly no cop.

I'll agree that the simplest explanation is often the correct one. Since the first 3 statements by you are a huge reach, let's go with something simpler:

Rancher was an idiot. He disagreed with the cops and got into an argument over the bull. Unfortunately, he forgot that it's going to be a bad day if you're arguing with the police while carrying a rifle - one threatening gesture with that rifle and your day is over.

Furthermore, if you read other reports, there was an exchange of gunfire - he fired at the deputies as well. If they just opened fire on him as you claim, he wouldn't have had a chance to switch his aim from his bull to the deputies before being hit multiple times.

According to a friend of the deceased, "Somebody said he was the kind of guy that wouldn't back down, and I think that would be a good euphemistic way to put it," Dale Fisk, who said he had known Yantis his whole life."

Further, according to his own nephew, "Law enforcement should be trained to de-escalate situations," said Rowdy Paradis, a nephew of the Yantis' who says he was a witness. (10 feet away.) So, you have a blood relative stating that there was a situation between the deputies and the rancher. There's always the question of whether or not the deputies could have effected a different outcome. Nonetheless, this sounds very much like a clear case of him bringing it on himself.
Was your post a troll post? Or, are you really that stupid?

 

[Ham n' Eggs]

these cops sound like complete nut jobs. a bull with a shattered leg that is lying on the grass with a rancher on the way, zero reason to start unloading rounds into it. sounds like the cops just wanted to shoot that poor animal full of holes for sadistic pleasure. shooting up the bull like that when the situation was stable was plain stupid. what idiots.

 

[CZroe]

Good grief, everything has got to be looked at through that "big government intruding on us rural folks" lens doesn't it? Maybe if there were some more "big government" hiring and training standards set for local law enforcement, and maybe more "big government" prosecution of local law enforcement offenses, incidents like these could be reduced or avoided.

How are you so sure something prosecutable occurred?

How is it 50/50?

I'm thinking of the most recent case where the cops shot the 6 YO kid: Cops wrong
The case in SC or somewhere where the older black guy was shot in the back after running away from a traffic stop: Cops wrong.
That University of Cincinnati case where the motorist was shot in head after putting his car in gear and driving away: Cops wrong.

I'm sure there are a couple more legitimate ones, but that still makes it a .0000001/100 split, and no where near 50/50. Heck, in the last two examples above, the victim did something completely illogical prior to getting shot.

If I were a cop-hater I wouldn't get my panties in a wad prior to all the facts coming out here, because historically that doesn't pan out too well.

I do agree that the initial reports here do not make the cops look good.

I haven't looked in to those cases but if you put a car in gear when a cop tells you to stop it is the exact same as refusing to drop a weapon when a cop tells you to drop it. Vehicles are deadly weapons. If they refuse the command it stands to reason that they may be willing to use their vehicle as a weapon or otherwise endanger an officer to make their escape and the shooting was justified.

Matter-of-fairly saying that they were "wrong" on that tells me that you may be wrong about the others I am unfamiliar with too and a pattern emerges for why you might think that the statistics are in your favor. Why is it *your* verdict on each case that counts toward the statistics? That, right there, is exactly why you think the statistics bear you out: your bias.
Thank you. Try again.

The simplest explanation is often the correct one.

Cops are scared shitless of the citizens they are supposed to protect.
Cops are scared shitless of anything that moves.
Cops are scared shitless of everything else too.

A gun got fired by accident.
A cop got startled.
He immediately started shooting at the first thing that moved.
As soon as he shot his gun, all the other cops got startled too, and unloaded.

Some unimportant guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time died.
Who cares ? Certainly no cop.

An even simpler explanation is that he got caught in the crossfire but I wouldn't know given the few details I have.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

How are you so sure something prosecutable occurred?

I'm not, but I am sure something preventable occurred.

 

[CZroe]

these cops sound like complete nut jobs. a bull with a shattered leg that is lying on the grass with a rancher on the way, zero reason to start unloading rounds into it. sounds like the cops just wanted to shoot that poor animal full of holes for sadistic pleasure. shooting up the bull like that when the situation was stable was plain stupid. what idiots.

"Zero reason" because... you say so? How do you know? It sounds like they had ample reason. It was endangering the people injured in the crash and the first responders as it angrily charged/attacked. Laying on the grass at some point changes little to nothing. As far as you know it was snorting furiously while getting back up to charge again.

 

[CZroe]

I'm not, but I am sure something preventable occurred.

Thanks, but that's not a good indicator for whether or not someone did something wrong. Most anything is preventable with hindsight. An injured raging bull at the scene of an accident sounds down-right chaotic.

 

[Ham n' Eggs]

"Zero reason" because... you say so? How do you know? It sounds like they had ample reason. It was endangering the people injured in the crash and the first responders as it angrily charged/attacked. Laying on the grass at some point changes little to nothing. As far as you know it was snorting furiously while getting back up to charge again.

it was lying on the grass. It was not endangering anyone while lying on the grass. it also sounds like you don't know much about farm animals, at all.

 

[CZroe]

it was lying on the grass. It was not endangering anyone while lying on the grass. it also sounds like you don't know much about farm animals, at all.

I'd agree if you could show that because it was lying on the grass at some point that there's no way it became a renewed threat, especially once the rancher approached with his gun.

Logic. Reason. ImAGinATioN!

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Thanks, but that's not a good indicator for whether or not someone did something wrong. Most anything is preventable with hindsight. An injured raging bull at the scene of an accident sounds down-right chaotic.

The sheriff's department asked him to go there and take care of the animal. But instead of allowing him to do so the cops on the scene shoot and kill him. You don't need hindsight here.

 

[CZroe]

The sheriff's department asked him to go there and take care of the animal. But instead of allowing him to do so the cops on the scene shoot and kill him. You don't need hindsight here.

You don't think a raging bull at an accident scene qualifies as a chaotic and dynamic situation where things may change before he gets there?

 

[Darwin333]

So your argument is that they hated bovines and wanted to murder him so they lured him out and executed him while tormenting his bull?

I wasn't making an argument, simply countering yours.

And here is the root of the problem. Your mind is so twisted that you can't imagine any scenario where they weren't deliberately taking aim at him and executing him. As far as we know he got caught in the crossfire yet you can't even consider anything other than this being a case of police intentionally shooting an armed man.

I can obviously consider that as a possibility but if it was an accident shouldn't the police release that information? Shit can and does happen when bullets are flying and you have a rampaging bull on your hand. Not that anyone would be really happy about it but it would be understandable.

Even if it is, you don't know how it went down. The police may have seen the man approaching the bull and one ventured close enough to pulled him away for his own safety. The rancher may have been upset (understandably) and an argument ensued where the police further away could only see an irate man with a shotgun raising it and turning around while aiming at police. I don't know, you don't know, yet somehow you think you know. Shameful.

I didn't say I thought I know, you are speculating more than I was and I thought I made it clear that I was speculating.

I do know that when you call a man for help, he shows up to render said help and then you end up shooting and killing him that it's a pretty what the fuck situation.