Cops kill rancher trying to put down bull

[Gonad the Barbarian]

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?

Who's better qualified to handle raging bulls, cattle ranchers or cops?

 

[CZroe]

Who's better qualified to handle raging bulls, cattle ranchers or cops?

"Better qualified" does not mean bullet-proof and immune to crossfire.

 

[CZroe]

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







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.







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.

Thanks for being reasonable. It could be a tragedy, it could be an outrageous crime. I happen to think that they weren't bent on murdering ranchers and torturing injured bulls, so I'm more inclined to wait for details and give them the benefit of the doubt before expressing outrage.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

"Better qualified" does not mean bullet-proof and immune to crossfire.

But it does mean he's the one that should be doing the shooting, which is why the sheriff's dept called him there in the first damn place.

 

[CZroe]

But it does mean he's the one that should be doing the shooting, which is why the sheriff's dept called him there in the first damn place.

Or things went to hell before he got there. Reminder: time exists.

 

[Gryz]

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.

That's basically the same as what I said.
Something happened that either disgrundled or surprise the cops. A gun that was fired. Or words that were said. Or an unexpected movement. And a startled cop would start shooting.

Does that mean the rancher was an idiot ? Maybe. Nice country you guys live in, when being an idiot is just cause for executing someone on the spot. In the land of the free, you better do exactly what the police tells you. Because if you disagree, or if you are a second too slow, of if you speak back, or if you make a mistake for whatever reason, the penalty is death.

Was your post a troll post? Or, are you really that stupid?

No. I still think that fear is the cause of all these incidents where police shoots citizens. They are so scared, they will take absolutely no risk, and start shooting as soon as they lose control.

People have suggested this is because many young cops have fought in Iraq or Afghanistan before. They just act in their daily job as if they are still in a warzone.

 

[CZroe]

That's basically the same as what I said.
Something happened that either disgrundled or surprise the cops. A gun that was fired. Or words that were said. Or an unexpected movement. And a startled cop would start shooting.

Does that mean the rancher was an idiot ? Maybe. Nice country you guys live in, when being an idiot is just cause for executing someone on the spot. In the land of the free, you better do exactly what the police tells you. Because if you disagree, or if you are a second too slow, of if you speak back, or if you make a mistake for whatever reason, the penalty is death.

No. I still think that fear is the cause of all these incidents where police shoots citizens. They are so scared, they will take absolutely no risk, and start shooting as soon as they lose control.

People have suggested that that is because many young cops have fought in Iraq or Afghanistan before. They just act in their daily job as if they are still in a warzone.

Being an idiot around guns with guns could get you killed in almost any country.

 

[master_shake_]

"Better qualified" does not mean bullet-proof and immune to crossfire.

crossfire?

DEPUTIES SHOOT YANTIS

The rifle’s barrel was about 2 feet from the bull, and Jack Yantis’ finger was on the trigger.
“Everything was going as planned. … I did not notice any conversation at all” between Jack Yantis and the deputies, Paradis said. “Then the one cop turned around and grabbed his shoulder and jerked him backwards.”
The deputy came from behind, spun Yantis around and grabbed the rifle’s scope, Paradis said.
The deputy pushed Yantis. The rifle was still in Yantis’ hands, its barrel pointed at the ground. Yantis was trying to regain his footing.
Paradis said he does not know whether the rifle fired, but he thinks it might have discharged accidentally when the deputy grabbed Yantis and spun him, or when one of the deputy’s bullets pierced Yantis’ hand holding the rifle, hitting the gun and damaging it.
One deputy began shooting at Yantis, then the other deputy started shooting.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article43654638.html#storylink=cpy​

an eye witness didn't see crossfire.

‘IT WAS A SENSELESS MURDER’

One deputy said he had been grazed by a bullet, Rumsey said. “I asked him, ‘Where?’ I said, ‘That’s bull----.’ There was no blood, no torn thread, no powder burn. There was nothing.”
After the shooting, Paradis said, the deputies’ demeanor was “smug” and “almost celebratory.”
A deputy walked over, pulled Yantis’ rifle from under his body and threw it into the grass.
“There was no shootout. It was a senseless murder,” the Yantis’ daughter, Sarah, told the Statesman.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article43654638.html#storylink=cpy​

hopefully they take lots of pictures of the officers fictitious bullet wound.

 

[CZroe]

crossfire?



an eye witness didn't see crossfire.

I welcome such details. Was this the eyewitness that someone said was family and would repeat the same allegation we have in the OP?

Throwing a rifle away from a downed individual is a way to make sure that that individual can't resume firing if he survived. It's not "smug/celebratory."

 

[Subyman]

Starting to sound like another hysterical cop that can't keep it together under any pressure at all. Kind of like the lady cop that shot the man she was tasering while he lay on the ground.

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...ing-him-in-back-while-tasering-him-acquitted/

 

[Capt Caveman]

crossfire?

an eye witness didn't see crossfire.



hopefully they take lots of pictures of the officers fictitious bullet wound.

Everything in that article is what the lawyers of the family have stated, interesting that includes no eyewitness testimony from non-family that were present.

 

[master_shake_]

I welcome such details. Was this the eyewitness that someone said was family and would repeat the same allegation we have in the OP?

Throwing a rifle away from a downed individual is a way to make sure that that individual can't resume firing if he survived. It's not "celebratory."

yeah he's the nephew he watched it happen.

so he's not a reliable witness right?

clearly he's a liar.

 

[waffleironhead]

But it does mean he's the one that should be doing the shooting, which is why the sheriff's dept called him there in the first damn place.

Depends on your definition of "take care of". I see it as come remove the carcass after it is put down. Then again I live in a rural area and the police know how to properly put down animals. It would never be the expectation that the farmer would do the shooting.

 

[Gryz]

Starting to sound like another hysterical cop that can't keep it together under any pressure at all. Kind of like the lady cop that shot the man she was tasering while he lay on the ground.

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...ing-him-in-back-while-tasering-him-acquitted/

• She thought Kassick was reaching into his pocket to draw a weapon, or, more specifically, a gun.
• When questioned, she said Kassick had not displayed a weapon at any point. She further explained she did not see him show anything that could have been considered a weapon.
• She fired two shots from her pistol because Kassick would not show his hands and she thought he was reaching into his jacket for a gun.

Seems clear to me. She didn't see a gun. She was only afraid that Kassick *might* have a gun. So she shot him. To be safe. Scared cop, who shot a civilian, because she was afraid. I think many of these shooting can be explained by fear.

 

[Darwin333]

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?

Bringing it on himself?? They asked him to go out there and help, when he got there the animal needed to be put down so he sent for a rifle. What's there to argue about? Maybe the guy was a little pissed at the inhumane way they (might have) were treating his animal but I have a hard time thinking, at least at this point, that he "brought it on himself".

This is quite literally a case of "if he would not have agreed to assist the police he would still be alive". I'm not saying that he didn't do something emotional or even dumb but they called him and then he got dead. We know that much is absolute fact. Let this be a lesson to everyone....

 

[Humpy]

I feel pretty bad for the bull.

 

[IronWing]

I feel pretty bad for the bull.

I feel bad for the people who ran into the bull. Open range laws kill.

 

[Darwin333]

How are you so sure something prosecutable occurred?


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.

Putting a car in "drive" and then driving it in a direction that no human being is in is not using said car as a deadly weapon. WTF is wrong with you to even say some nonsense like that? Using that logic I can reasonably fear for my life in every traffic jam I've ever been in and ever will be in.

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.

Why don't you check out the backstory on the 6 year old kid that got 5 bullets in him and his father that caught 2 and the only criminal charges are against 2 cops for 2nd degree murder and attempted 2nd degree murder. The poor dad they tried to kill and the poor child that was just buried today have yet to be charged with a single crime. Bias you say, I agree, you just have the wrong party.

 

[Darwin333]

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!

Since we are all just assuming shit, I am going to go ahead and assume that a rancher has a pretty good idea on how to put down an injured animal without getting himself killed by said animal. To back up my assumption, the animal didn't kill the rancher who was attempting to put down said animal.

Or he decided to go all Rambo on a couple of cops out of nowhere because, well just because he decided to go psycho that night and the cops where being very diligent and caught him before he caught them...... Oh yeah, this is after the cops called him to assist them.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Jesus Loves cop too....

 

[Darwin333]

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?

You don't think that in said chaotic situation that the trained and professional law enforcement officials could possibly not shoot the guy they asked to assist them?

He was a professional rancher which is why they called him for help. They are supposedly trained and professional police officers and they killed the guy they called for help.

I'll eat my words if it comes out that this guy somehow did something that gave them actual reasonable cause to shoot him. You want to know what this should teach everyone, don't fucking help cops...... ever or you could likely end up dead.

 

[Darwin333]

Thanks for being reasonable. It could be a tragedy, it could be an outrageous crime. I happen to think that they weren't bent on murdering ranchers and torturing injured bulls, so I'm more inclined to wait for details and give them the benefit of the doubt before expressing outrage.

I might go a bit overboard making my points but I don't think the cops set out to do either of those either. My personal opinion is the cops made a mistake or two which caused a reaction from the guy which caused the cops to escalate things (because they don't deescalate these days) and then reaction. Either that or potential crossfire (least likely scenario imho) or an accidental discharge which led to sympathetic fire or whatever they call it.

Regardless of the reasons, they called a guy to help, help which required a gun, and then killed him. As of yet I have seen nothing that said the guy pointed his gun at an officer. If that was his intent he would have picked at least one of them off before they even knew he was there. Every rancher or farmer I've ever known is one hell of a shot.

Again, I'm just speculating. I have no idea what the actual facts of the case are. We have the witnesses words to go by and what has been released by the police so far. Both stories are likely to be very biased in their favor.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

the only criminal charges are against 2 cops for 2nd degree murder and attempted 2nd degree murder. The poor dad they tried to kill and the poor child that was just buried today have yet to be charged with a single crime. Bias you say, I agree, you just have the wrong party.

In a rural, conservative area, this part speaks absolute volumes.

Not that I believe a jury will actually convict them of murder/attempted murder, but the fact that they are already charged is huge. I can't remember too many times where a cop actually gets convicted of murder while on duty. Wikipedia can only list 14 instances. JUST 14! This is a group that is taught to use violence to get their way. A group that has domestic violence rates far higher than the general population. And yet we are to believe that they are ANGELS when it comes to killing people? Fuck that.

 

[Darwin333]

In a rural, conservative area, this part speaks absolute volumes.

Not that I believe a jury will actually convict them of murder/attempted murder, but the fact that they are already charged is huge. I can't remember too many times where a cop actually gets convicted of murder while on duty. Wikipedia can only list 14 instances. JUST 14! This is a group that is taught to use violence to get their way. A group that has domestic violence rates far higher than the general population. And yet we are to believe that they are ANGELS when it comes to killing people? Fuck that.

I don't know, I have hope about this particular case. They seem to be doing everything right so far and the local DA won't be prosecuting so the conflict of interest thing is at least minimized. Just listening to the head of the State Police about the video, sounds like they have a really good case. Then there are all kinds of rumors that this might have been some sort of personal grudge.

 

[OutHouse]

Starting to sound like another hysterical cop that can't keep it together under any pressure at all. Kind of like the lady cop that shot the man she was tasering while he lay on the ground.

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...ing-him-in-back-while-tasering-him-acquitted/

yea that story really pisses me off. and this one is creeping up there to the same level.