Yes, condolences to the families and friends of the officers. Condolences also to the family of the shooter; they were victims too. This was obviously a case of domestic violence and abuse. The officers were called because of the abuser's aggression toward his family, and no doubt someone was going to suffer and possibly die whether the officers were involved or not. I sincerely hope they (the family) will find help in dealing with this issue and have support from the community. Those brave officers deserve thanks from all of us for risking their own lives to protect this family.

More suburban thug crime that will never make it to Limbaugh's, Beck or Hannity's shows. Clearly, there's a problem in suburbia, but it's politically incorrect to discuss it.

You're real sorry kind of human being!

I hope the police shot this POS until they ran out of ammo...

My sorrow and sympathy to the family of the slain and wounded officers.

there is nothing more honorable than protecting others Mark S. Freeman you should put your crack pipe away and look at the big picture. your probably one of those people that gets arrested every weekend for public drunk .

If only they'd chose an honorable profession pfft .people like you piss me off

My God Bless a fallen brother.

I am sorry!

To Mark Freeman: every day these guys, and many more, have put themselves in front of a bullet to save even a scum bag like you.

Mark Freeman voted democrat if he voted at all

Ban handguns.

Sounds like a republican sore Loser

Ban takenaka the troll.

In this case everyone was carrying a gun. To bad the guy didn't just turn it on himself.

Baddog40

I think your statement was sarcastic. If it wasn't, it was ridiculous.

actually his sarcasm is more ridiculous...if the deputies weren't carrying guns all 3 would have died....

Two sheriffs officers who carry guns for a living. Are trained in their use. Where killed needlessly because some idiot starts shooting and they get killed. Yet these gun nuts keep stating that, if everyone carried. that you would be safer... Now that is the twisted mind....

Ah it says one died and one is critically injured prairiefire. Ah Horton is correct if none of those officers were carrying guns they would all be dead, so in stead of one dead we would have three dead.

seahorse

Tell me about how the citizens of all of modern Europe have been murdered by their government. And you, of all people, call others "moron."

Guns don't kill people...people with guns kill people with guns. More of those red state gun clinging nut jobs packing heat. The second amendment was written at a time when each individual had to protect his/her home from invaders such as natives, miscreants of all variety etc because we had no organized local government in most townships. We all needed livestock and churned butter at home. We needed to chop wood and be good with an axe. We needed wells and crapped in the back yard.

We now have police forces and monitored alarm systems with cameras and relative safety. Even if you own a gun it must be paired with the willingness to pull the trigger. Most people bent on robbing us and doing us harm come prepared to catch us by surprise and are ready to kill........

What the hell do you mean if everyone carried a gun, this wouldn,t of happened. The officer had a gun, and it happened.

al. I think he means if every family member had a gun, they would have shot each other. Then only the undertaker would have been called in, saving the life of the deputy. It irretates me that morons like this are walking around unchaperoned (with a gun).

Tell me about how the citizens of all of modern Europe have been murdered by their government.

The common people of Europe have generally never had firearms. Dating back to the middle ages when they were developing into somewhat useful weapons, firearms were the province of royalty and nobility. Any man of low blood was prohibited from possessing or carrying a sword, let alone a firearm should he somehow be able to afford to have someone build one for him. The traditional rules of the caste system dictated who owned what status symbols, and peasants only rated ax handles and broomsticks in most places.

The Germanic countries were probably the most liberal in allowing normal folk to possess weapons, though the Scandinavian nations were generally quite good about it, too. In some instances, such as Sweden and Switzerland, most every able bodied male was issued a government owned service rifle (among other military gear) upon coming of age. However, most of the time, it remained property of the government and was eventually returned some years later. Handguns were more badges of authority than anything else through several centuries, essentially a modern adaptation of the sword, and you generally had to be born into the right family to ever be in a position where you could find yourself in possession of one.

Switzerland and Sweden largely stayed out of the world wars because the Axis forces knew better than to mess with them...too many armed men lived there! Other nations weren't so fortunate and the only real armed people who would offer much resistance (i.e: 'willing' to get their hands dirty and actually fight, or be 'volunteered' for the job) were those young men conscripted into the king's army. No one usually opposed the will of the king! But, if they did, too bad for them. The king had all the power and could easily dispose of those subjects who failed to prove their loyalty to him. Uprisings don't work to well when the king's men have all the worthwhile weapons.

Germany and Austria probably had the most widespread private ownership of firearms of all types, and this was greatly restricted in the 1920's and early 1930's. The idea was to try to keep National Socialists and others of that ilk from obtaining them quite so easily. The only problem with that was, of course, that after Hitler and the National Socialists were voted into power in 1933, they were all too happy to keep those laws on the books - after all, THEY were now the government and their weapons were now in official use by members of the Party! Anyone who opposed them was NOT part of the government, and thus outlaws with contraband! Being of the wrong political affiliation and being caught in possession of a weapon that the reigning government felt wasn't in their best interest could be counted on to bring swift and drastic punishment.

After Europe was sorted out after WWII, this continued to be a very large problem in many other parts of the world. Those who possessed weapons under the auspices of whatever dictator or despot running the show were just fine. Anyone the current regime didn't like found with any kind of a weapon was pretty much bound to face interrogation, torture, imprisonment, or execution.

prayers to the families of those officers...what a tragic loss at this time (or anytime) of the year..and to the gun and antigun proponents...this isnt about YOU..

baddog, It use to work, that those that carried guns, that had a law, like Kennesaw , Georgia, all person had to own a gun , to live there. Times have changed not for good any more.

People respected other people , and law ,makers were not putting into laws to corrupt courts, to where they as I was told could do anything that they wanted to anyone in court today that they want to. truth won, and perjury was a crime and prosecuted, not rewarded as it is today.

ILLEGALS ,also come in this country breaking American laws and are rewarded, for doing crimes and they continue as drug lords laugh at the youth they push their drugs on.

WECOME TO COMMUNIST AMERICA TODAY THAT , i will not mention names of those that have done this to America and made their so called NEW AMERICA A UNSAFE PLACE TO LIVE , i KNOW SOME VERY GOOD LAW OFFICERS THAT DO THEIR JOB VERY PROFESSIONALLY, NOT CORRUPT, BUT ALSO KNOW THOSE THAT DO.

I know what happened to America, don't you? no morals , no jesus, brainwashing of american children in schools for generations,that call evil good and good evil, the more you lie and do evil to others especially those in leadership and power , the higher position you get. sounds like organized crime mafia doesn't it. NO ONE DOING THEIR JOB THEY ARE PAID TO DO!

Baddog40 - save your scewed BS logic and take it to a country where it's founders did not have enough foresight to ensure that its citizens were able to resist tyranny at home and abroad if need by via the right to bear arms - like Iraq or North Korea for example. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with people that choose to exercise their Constitutional rights, and I for one am sick and tired of idiots that don't own firearms always trying to disarm law-abiding citizens that DO. In addition, one has to wonder what exactly "acting aggressively towards family members means". Since the only people left alive in this incident were police officers, I'm sure that only their side of the story will bear weight. Although most incidents involving police-citizen shootings are justified in favor of the police, there are literally hundreds of cases every year in the USA where the conduct of the police officers are brought to question - especially when approaching an individual in his own home, on his own property, and possibly legally owning weapons. More to this story I'm sure, and it would be nice if once for a change people would stick to the gist of the article instead of trying to interject their own values, biases, and bull crap.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the shooter was upset with the reelection of Obama?

Perhaps members of his family supported Obama and the shooter got into an argument with them. The police were then called and the shooter surmised that the cops also supported Obama's reelection and vented his rage on them.

Something to ponder..

You bar stool politicians use anything to promote/advance your opinions. NO ONE cares what you think about the Constitution, or any of the Amendments that are attached. A police officer lost his life while performing his duty and that's what you should be focused on and not your selfish viewpoints.

Maybe his daughter brought a dheet-head boyfriend named Hussein home!!!

You may be right marlen,that would be a typical Rethuglican response.

A police officer doing thier job was killed, two families are devistated, why do you ignorant people have to bring politics into it, yes I believe we have the right to bear arms others do not, but that right was not the fault of some screwed up loon doing what he did.

Please leave your politics out of other persons sorrows.

No politics today. We are saddened for the officers and their families. It is a difficult and often thankless job. Our hearts and prayers go out to the families.

Rich, you've just made a typical Dumbocrap comment.

prairie fire...considering you are not taking guns away...yes that would be the safer scenario....give it up...it wont happen without a war...and then your whole argument is POINTLESS

This was my first thought too. I thought the procedure was to ask about and check for weapons immediately. They should assume someone is armed and might go off without notice if they haven't checked.

The way I read it, no one was in custody yet, so nobody had been searched yet.

no one knows what was said. so the guy may of had to defend himself. one thing is for sure if that was the case. that story will never see the light of day.

but don't they usually clear everyone before they start talking...

Ideally, YES, they should.

Unfortunately, things happen that cause that to not be done consistently. The main thing is years of service as law enforcement officers in a community where these things never seem to happen. Clearing everyone is something a rookie officer will enthusiastically do, because he or she is fresh out of the academy where they've just been taught about all this stuff and how officers get killed when these things go south. But after ten or fifteen years on the job where it's never happened, it starts to seem a rather foolish waste of time to take such precautions.

It's called complacency, and the saying is, 'complacency gets you killed!'. Officers are repeatedly told to not let themselves become complacent and fail to take all reasonable precautions when interacting with people in the field, but so many start to adopt the 'it'll never happen to me' mindset.

Oftentimes, this is the result of believing that stuff like this always happens to somebody else.

If the officers would have frisked the people in the house with out probable cause then they would have been sued and would have lost their jobs. We live in a time when law suites rule to world. 20 years ago if a man had a knife and pointed it at someone he would have been killed by the police and they would have been patted on the back. Today if you shoot a man who is pointing a gun at a person people will ask if you could have shot him in the leg or could you have tackled him. The Tazer was created to take down a person with a deadly weapon with out killing them or putting them in danger. Now people are being sued for using them. Today police have to enter every fight with their hands tied behind their backs.

First let me say I'm sorry for the victims here and wish the famies well.

Now, let me say three things first, I agree with nodip in that we will never know what happened in there for real and wether or not it was the cops fault.

Second I wonder if the fact that this man had read how the cops had recently gotten away with SHOOTING A ONE ARMED, ONE LEGGED MAN IN A WHEEL CHAIR ARMED WITH A PEN and a COMPLETEY NAKED WOMAN ARMED WITH "IRRATIONAL ACTS" and AND THE YOUNG MAN WHO "MYSERIOUSY SHOT HIMSELF IN THE HEAD WITH HIS HANDS CUFFED AFTER HE WAS PLACED IN THE BACK OF THE POLICE CAR ( you'd think he would have been searched before that) and just figured well I've got both my arms and legs and Ive got clothes on so I'm definetely gettin shot so I had better shoot first. This may sound like I'm stretching it a bit, or even sound sarcastic but if you think about it, someone under the influence of alchohol who was just told "sit down and shut up and if you move again I'm gonna shoot ya" just might reason this way.

Third I have been in situations like this before where the cops are called to a party, and while sometimes they do a cursory search of the suspect sometimes they dont and sometimes they tell you to sit down on the couch where it is really easy to have a weapon hidden. This is a situation thats troubling. I feel that this police officer should have had the right and innitiative to search/frisk him, BUT, I also dont want the police just having the right to search/frisk everyone at a party they are called to cause some dick cant handle his drink or stop himself from doing so.

Again sorry for the victims families and I wish the wounded officer a complete and speedy recovery.

The problem with this sad situation is that the police trusted the guy because he looked like them! If he had been someone of another ethnic background, they would have approached him with caution. You all can say what you want about me, but it is a fact that most violence is committed by people who someone trust rather than the latter! Heart felt condolences to all of the families who have been impacted by this unfortunate incident.

...that waste of filth should have shot himself and done everyone a favor...

Ahh but he didn't , instead he chose to kill 1 also armed and trained LOE and critically wound another.

Bet it would have been alot harder without a gun.

WilliamOfRites

You sound like you're happy that a LEO got killed. What a sick, twisted mind.

Remind me what the current law of the land is. Oh, let's issue a referendum to revoke all citizens' rights. I am certain that criminals will abide by that, too.

Tibioo1- I did not see WilliamOfRites post as reflective of him being happy at all that the LEO got killed. It sounded more as if he felt as if the LEO would have stood a better chance of protecting the killers family had the killer not been armed with a gun. Remember the guy was scaring his own family to the degree they felt they needed help from the LEO.

This crazed gun wielding loony was scaring his own family and they could not defend themselves against him themselves so they called the law. If he had not been armed he may have presented a threat the family could have contended with but he was packin' heat.

William is right. Has the 2nd amendment in anyway caused the rate of gun deaths to decline? not even close. Has the 2nd amendment made our nation more safe or lead the world in gun deaths? I hope you know the answer or why are you responding? There are other industrialized nations that do not clock our numbers on violent crime because they do not allow there citizens to posses firearms and make it a heavy crime for individuals to do so.

It would take time to deal with offenders, but that we have laws to deal with rapist is why the numbers of rapes is not as high as it would be if we did not have laws on the books to deal with offenders. Rapes still occur, but not on the scale if it were not frowned upon as with some Muslim nations. The lives of women in some cultures makes it almost okie dokie to take some booty if you want it. Slap on the wrist and off you go to the next victim. Saves money on buying drinks.

Sure it sounds like I am happy about rape, but that's not the case. Just saying our society gets what it deserves for allowing certain things to remain valid though the society has evolved from the time the 2nd amendment was written.

You sound like you're happy that a LEO got killed. What a sick, twisted mind

You must be a pro-gun honcho with the critical thinking skills you have on display.

I am clearly stating the exact opposite.

My easily discernable point is that guns in the hands of lay citizenry put even the most trained LOE's at great risk.

Hence the point about the knife as my 2nd statement.

Tibi, carrying a gun is legal, using it to commit murder is not. It is illegal to smoke in a restaurant, but not to carry a gun into a bar. Our priorities are confussed.

It is illegal to smoke in a restaurant, but not to carry a gun into a bar.

In a great many places, it IS ILLEGAL to carry a gun into any establishment that features a bar or derives a significant portion of its revenues from the sale of intoxicating beverages.

In pretty much every place that does not prohibit a gun being carried in a bar, night club, or wherever else (as alluded to in the last paragraph, a fancy restaurant that offers wine with dinner generally does not count as a bar or tavern), if you're licensed to carry a weapon and you take it into such an establishment with you, you'd better limit yourself to one drink or stick to soda because you WILL have your permit or license revoked and quite possibly face jail time if you are caught carrying a weapon while under the influence!

WilliamOfRites

I guess I mis-understood your comment.

"You must be a pro-gun honcho with the critical thinking skills you have on display."

Actually, I am not. I can hear both sides - the pro-gun honchos and the anti-gun folks laud and clear. They both have good points.

Furthermore, I am not a LEO and I never had anyone in LE in the family as far as I can trace it back. We're more like engineers... But, I will acknowledge, that there are some bad apples in LE. However, when one gets killed for a stupid reason, that just bugs me. He was some's son, perhaps someone's daddy, or a best friend. Totally senseless killing.

they dont shoot to kill, they are trained to stop the threat.

It is absolutely true that they are trained to stop the threat.

"Shoot to kill' is half accurate, and of course that means that it is half inaccurate.

A firearm is considered a deadly weapon, meaning that any person of more or less sound mind can reasonably expect that using it on someone else (by shooting them, of course) will result in their death.

If someone is threatening you with what a reasonable man or woman would perceive to be deadly force (gun, knife, bat, or anything else that would likely cause severe injury or death), you can resort to that same level of force to prevent yourself from being a victim, and nothing more.

The law presumes that if you are genuinely acting in self defense, your sole intent was to prevent your own death or grave disability and that you were not, in fact, desiring for your assailant to actually die. If he DOES die as a result of your use of deadly force to prevent his use of the same against you, it is legally treated as an accident, i.e.: you really were not meaning for him to die. Now, if anything you said or did during the encounter could be construed to indicate that you were, in fact, wishing for them to die, you can very easily find yourself being prosecuted for the murder of the person you shot. These things would include anything you may have done to provoke or escalate the situation, any missed opportunities to escape or otherwise prevent the incident from occurring, or excessive use of force once force was resorted to. If you shoot him once or twice and that incapacitates or kills him, that's one thing. If you empty the gun into him, that looks bad. If you reload your gun and empty it into him once again, that action will effectively tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that you wanted him dead and you are now a murderer, not an innocent citizen acting to preserve your own life.

Remember, if you would not be legally justified or excused in killing someone, you CANNOT lawfully use deadly force against them at all, and this includes shooting at them or actually shooting them in any way or in any manner which *should* only result in injury.

This is why police officers carry batons, Tazers, chemical irritant sprays, and are trained in hand-to-hand combat. A sidearm is just a tool, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every troublemaker they make contact with. This principle applies to EVERYONE. If you shoot someone, you'd better be able to convince everyone that you were absolutely certain that YOU were about to die if you didn't pull the trigger on your gun when you did.

Both of you are wrong. We are trained to shoot center mass. You shoot at the larest part of the body to ensure that you hit your target. We dont keep shooting untill the person is dead. We also dont shoot one bullet at a time until the person stops being a threat. Most of the time when a police officer has to shoot at some one they will fire 3 to 5 rounds. That is the standard amount of rounds that are fired in each round in a course of fire at the range.

Where I live they are trained to shoot as many bullets as it takes to stop the criminal.

Both of you are wrong.

Both of who are wrong?

NOTHING you have said is any different that what I have stated.

We are trained to shoot center mass. You shoot at the larest part of the body to ensure that you hit your target.

No kidding? You cannot expect to stop the threat if you can't hit it in a vital area. Yes, you are more likely to hit your target if you're aiming right for the middle of it. If you are a law enforcement officer as you hint when you stated that 'we are trained to shoot center of mass', then I'm sure that one of your trainers has pointed out that some extremely vital areas of a person are located right where the '5' section of a torso silhouette target is. Such as the spinal column and the solar plexus. A good solid hit to either one is going to drop them right now. However, a great many people have survived gunshot injuries to those areas, albeit usually incapacitated not only immediately but rather permanently. A severed spinal column at or below the level of the sternum usually makes a person a paraplegic.

We dont keep shooting untill the person is dead.

And that's different than what I explained how?

We also dont shoot one bullet at a time until the person stops being a threat.

I suppose not...when multiple officers are shooting at a suspect! Or else you're firing a load of buckshot at them.

Of course you're firing one bullet at a time at them. This would be true even if you were using a select fire weapon set on full automatic. Only one cartridge can be in the chamber at a time, and the empty case has to be extracted and ejected before the next cartridge can be stripped from the magazine and fed into the chamber. Seriously, I don't know where you're at, but most of the time officers are firing three to five rounds? In all the years I've been around, every police shooting in the region except one that I can think of has been a one or two round affair. The exception was an officer who was shot in his car by a fleeing robbery suspect pretty much as soon as the kid pulled over; he got out of his car, aimed his pistol back at the deputy's car, and fired a shot which hit him in the arm. The deputy fired five or six rounds back, none of which hit, before his sidearm 'stovepiped' on him.

If you've got to fire three to five rounds to hit and stop an offender, so be it. Presumably only one or two will actually connect and do some damage. If it takes five or six hits to stop people where you're from, I feel sorry for you. Everyone you make contact with must be loaded on narcotics and can't feel pain.

That is the standard amount of rounds that are fired in each round in a course of fire at the range.

That doesn't make it effective, high quality training. Everyone does it, those targets get expensive after awhile. But repeatedly training that way is part of why we have so many cases of officers who start shooting and next thing you know 47 rounds have been fired by four officers at a guy who was just reaching for his billfold. I'd hardly blame the officers, though. If that's how your department trains you to react, what do you expect to happen when in the middle of an apprehension someone who also responded to the scene utters, 'Gun!'. Some of the better training I've experienced has been where the target pops up, and one or two shots pop it back down. Make that one or two hits drop that target. Hopefully the number of shots equals the number of hits!

Hey TiGor,i think you are wrong my friend.If someone breaks into my house with a screwdriver and comes at me with the screwdriver,i could legally pull out a gun and shoot him several times, and tell the cops i wanted to kill him.And there would be no murder charges brought on me.Same thing goes for if a guy is holding a hostage at knife point and i pulled out a gun and shot him several times,and told the cops i was looking to kill him,there would also be no charges brought up.

Law enforcement officers are trained to "shoot to stop" by targeting the center body mass.

Hey TiGor,i think you are wrong my friend.

Really? I'm glad you think that. That way, someday you can actually go do some of these things one day and see how it works for you. People like me who observe and study these things will learn of it and then we can share your experiences vicariously with other people. After all, everything I share is based on lessons other people learned the hard way.

.If someone breaks into my house with a screwdriver and comes at me with the screwdriver,i could legally pull out a gun and shoot him several times, and tell the cops i wanted to kill him.And there would be no murder charges brought on me.

If you are in your own home and someone breaks in, you may use whatever force is reasonably necessary in order to eject them. If they assault you in a manner which makes you legitimately fear for your life or the life of your family members, shooting him would be warranted. Even several times, if that's what it takes to stop the burglar from advancing toward you. However, unless the officer's name is something like Bubba or Cletus and he (as well as his boss) is a relative and/or drinking buddy of yours, you can expect a fairly thorough investigation to follow. Your telling an officer that you wanted to kill him might be kindly overlooked, or they might be given some serious consideration. Odds are very good that the D.A. will be quite interested in exactly what happened in your house, especially if you may have had some personal connection with the intruder you just shot - be it he was an acquaintance, related to you in some way, a former coworker, someone you once employed, someone who 'knew' your wife or daughter at some point. If something like that is the situation and it comes to light, things may get very interesting. It seems half the people who are convicted of murder claim that it was 'self defense'. The authorities have gotten quite good at sorting out what was and what wasn't, and they do this by investigating these things thoroughly. Are you a gambling man?

Same thing goes for if a guy is holding a hostage at knife point and i pulled out a gun and shot him several times,and told the cops i was looking to kill him,there would also be no charges brought up.

If you're LUCKY AS HELL no charges would be brought up.

Look, killing another person is homicide. Homicide is illegal. If it is intentional, it's called murder. If it was an accident that resulted from someone's gross negligence, it's manslaughter. If the authorities conclude that a homicide wasn't intentional, nor was in negligent, then it's called JUSTIFIED and they simply overlook the fact that you broke the law and killed someone because it was an instance where a reasonable person would do so.

Having said that, IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY INVOLVED AS WELL AS THE LOCAL PROSECUTOR. If they don't want to pursue it, they don't pursue it. If they want to charge you with murder, they charge you with murder and you stand trial for it. In some places, it would be unthinkable to charge someone who shot an intruder in their home. In other places, especially places that strongly lean to the political left or where the authorities or even the local prosecutor themselves don't like the idea of people having guns for any reason, charges are almost guaranteed.

I suggest you take me seriously when I tell you that your odds are a lot better if you shoot someone in your home than if you use a firearm to resolve a hostage situation out on the street. This will leave you legally quite vulnerable. You may very well be legally exonerated, if you can afford a good attorney and after you'd paid him handsomely to defend you in court. If you're fortunate enough to live in an area where such a thing is appreciated by the legal system, and in many places, it's not. The cops there may hate when someone else not wearing a badge does their job for them, and the prosecutor may believe there's no place for someone like you walking the streets if his (or her) city.

And, of course, you can expect no matter what happens after you shoot someone that you will be facing a civil lawsuit for personal injury or wrongful death.

Killing someone in self defense may very well leave you alive but next to completely broke and it will be a monkey on your back for years to come. You do it if you have to, but I strongly suggest you do everything you can to avoid it and whatever you do, don't say or do anything that would provide 'ammunition' for police officers or the DA's office since you never know when they might be having a bad day or otherwise have some reason to dump on you. It'll affect you a whole lot more than it'll affect them in the end!

They do have a gun problem.

And apparently for you as well. It must be hard going through life waiting for people to die just so you can have your prejudices reinforced.

It is not a happy day for gun toters ( I am a gun toter with ten years military experience shooting them), but it is not a day for us to reflect upon whether or not we live in a pre revolutionary war era where it may have been necessary to bear arms to kill the bear with arms trying to kill our critters. I have never had to kill a burglar or other citizen. Its a dangerous world in other nations where they do not allow their citizens to pack heat and yet they prosper and do not have as many violent deaths and crimes as we do. The numbers don't lie.

You have a computer.....look it up. What other civilized nation has even close to our level of violent crimes where dozens can be wasted by a single shooter on a weekly basis? Not one. We rule the world in killing our own and will defend this right to the last citizen standing even if we have to kill ourselves to prove it.

I own a gun in the event of a local disaster so I can shoot my otherwise mild mannered neighbors if they become zombies. I am ready for the zombie apocalypse. I do think you have to cut a zombies head off to kill it though so maybe I need a machete instead.

Most of these people would not have died except for the fact that guns are so readily available in this country. The level of gun violence in other countries pales in comparison to ours.

George. Too bad 99% of the situations are wrong!

John N, to put it into perspective, there was 1 LE killed by gunfire today, 39 so far this year. There were probably 28 citizens killed by gunfire today, around 10,000 per year. And there were around 5000-6000 citizens who protected themselves from being a victim of crime today, around 2 million per year.

So guns are so bad why? If LE can ever get violent crime under control, then maybe so many people wouldn't be gun owners. But then again if violent crime was cut drastically, who cares if legal law abiding citizens still owned guns.

It's doubtful LE will ever get violent crime under control. They can't even stop violent crimes in prison where people are locked up in cages, subjected to constant searches and there's a guard for every 5 inmates.

Hey Kevin S,your a morron the middle east kills themselves by the thousands with bombs and machine gun fire eery day.Not to mention the hundreds of people killed by there crazy laws that make it ok to murder,and stone and behead people,and set on fire,and firing squad.If you got rid of the guns(which they never will ) the shooting stitistics for shooting wouldgo down,but the murders would still be there.

So W.T.F, you call a total stranger a moron for espousing a simple opinion. My discussion of zombies alone should have hinted I gives a phuck about this topic aside from it passes time. You, however, may truly be a moron if you think only hundreds in the middle east are killed. I am sure its in the thousands.

I own a gun with two clips of high quality Black Talons so I can make bigger holes and not just harm whomever I have to shoot. I would not want them to suffer. I mostly bought mine because I am prior military and believe in peace through superior firepower.

You are a moron for coming on the web and believing everything you read. But then I could not say something on the web if it wasn't true. BTW, I am also a French model... Bon Jour.

Kevin. So you are comparing the good ol' U. S. of A. to the barbaric middle east countries. Now we have really sunk to the depths! You need to compare us to Germany, UK, France and other industrialized Western nations. Our level of gun violence is appallingly immense compared to theirs.

but our violent crime overall is lower ,so would it make you feel better if someone got stabbed?

Lower than which country? Maybe Afghanistan!

Tony, what does high powered weapons have to do with what happened today? The cop was killed with a handgun, as are that vast majority of gun related homicides. More people are killed by revolvers and .22 caliber bullets than anything else. People killed by high powered weapons make up less than 5% of all gun related murders.

Take your meds. Oh, and learn to write coherently.

Maybe he just need a big hug :P

You can't believe it because you don't deal with the mentally impaired, alcoholics and drug abusers and the just plain evil people who want to hurt and kill others. I can believe it because I deal with all of the above almost every night. It's easy to sit back in the warmth, comfort and safety of your house and say the officers must have done something wrong or this guy would not have pulled a gun and shoot them. YOU ARE SO WRONG!!! The unprovoked and ambushes against police officers are on the rise and you just don't know it because you don't have to worry about it. You have all my partners and me to take care of all the ugliness you don't care to see or want to know about, but it's there no matter how much you may want to believe it's not or that everyone is good. Not everyone is good. It's a shame to say, but that's the truth. SO UNLESS YOU WERE THERE OR KNOW ALL THE FACTS, DO NOT LAY ANY OF THE BLAME ON THE OFFICERS! THERE IS ONLY ONE PERSON TO BLAME HERE AND IT'S THE MURDERED OF A POLICE OFFICER!!

And to the rest of you who are making this a gun issue, SHAME ON YOU! This is not the forum for that topic. THERE ARE PLENTY OF PLACES TO DISCUSS THAT, BUT NOT HERE! Have a little more respect for the officer who lost his life and the other officer who is in critical condition.

GOD BLESS DEPUTY WARD, HIS WIFE AND THE REST OF HIS FAMILY.

id bet a dollar they were trying to arrest the guy. most likely for nothing and the guy didn't feel like going to jail for nothing.

You really aren't serious, right? You two are blaming the police? Get a grip.

how can anyone say who to blame? and if the guy was innocent you can be sure you wont hear about it till judgement day. if there even is such a thing.

warren...oh puhlease...This guy is one of those who arrogantly defies the law even when his own relatives called for police presence. He started shooting because like all "ignernts" in DogPatch, Lil Abner thinks he can just pull out his "weapon" and shoot anyone who steps on his property ...cops or not...think again.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...between red state boozers walking around armed to the teeth and their territorial attitudes, maybe the Gingrichian theory is correct....send them to the planet Mars...they can colonize more "ignernts" there.

Ewent,

There is no need to be so rude and show your bigotry. What do you know of the families involved, the circumstances, the educational attainment of any of the people? You know nothing as most of the rest of us know nothing. Why can't you just say "condolences" to the families?

That is all.

nodipme- can you come up with ANY scenario where the police get called, one gets killed and another critically injured by this guy with his entire family as witnesses and he comes out as INNOCENT??? Seriously, go be a troll elsewhere. Here, it is just disrespectful and gives me another reason to avoid the deep south.

Like that will ever happen. It is a proven fact from Australia and Canada that the only people who will turn in guns are the people who legally possess them and the criminals will still have them. You will never get the guns out of the hands of criminals, especially when you have the current administration trying to run gun smuggling stings that go wrong and our own military weapons are used to kill our border guards. The way the Obama administration is trying to push Muslim culture into our schools and support Hamas by giving our tax dollars to a known terrorist organization is proof enough to what his agenda is. My guns will never be taken from me!

former soldier...The number of Mounties shot to death in Canada doesn't compare to the idiots taking pot shots at law enforcement officers in the US. The same with Australia. Only the US allows drunks, druggies and criminal minds to purchase weapons from gun manufacturers who skirt US laws and sell them on the internet like they are candy.

When a car manufacturer creates a defective model car, he gets sued...all those good ole good ole bois who make huge campaign donations to their favorite political Big Daddies know no one will hold them responsible if they sell assault weapons to someone they didn't bother to check for ID. And don't bother to deny this doesn't happen.

@ Darkscience

There is Nothing out dated about the Constitution. People haven't changed since day one. human beings have a sovereign right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as it is stated. If it comes to anarchy to maintain these rights then a weapon is necessary. We have gone from peace officers to law enforcers in a legal system for profit. Don't ever be foolish to think that you can rely on someone else for the safety of you and your family. Evil people have been killing other people for the same old reasons long before a gun was invented.

ewent, you should check what you say before posting. You can't buy a gun on the internet and have it shipped to your house. It has to be shipped to a FFL dealer and they then do the federal background check on you and only after it's approved can you get the gun. Selling guns on the internet like candy? You couldn't be more wrong.

Good grief ewent, take a pill and get some rest! If you hate guns so much, don't buy one! You sound like an unrealistic liberal anti-gun person (which is certianly your constitutional right to be,) but your crusading tone and statements about which you have no idea as to the truth of, have the ring of nonsense. Get some rest and try again later.

Birds of a feather laid rest together.

naw, they're honkys

Wow, just wow. So I am assuming you know every officer on every precinct? Knowing that ANY officer would walk up to you while you are minding your own business, drinking your coffee and shoot to kill?

A legal "right" to kill you? Seriously? Last I checked there was no amendments made to the constitution like that. That being said, if you were in the act of commiting a crime, there are varying degrees of police intervention, up to and including lethal force depending on the situation.

i have a friend who was shot for no reason whatsoever. he never got in any trouble ever. and he was shot for no reason whatsoever. the cops did not get into any trouble for it. and you hear about innocent people being killed all the time and the cops always get off. if that's not a legal right for the cops to kill i don't know what is. oh and my friend that was shot. is i would say very well off and no lawyer would touch that case. it happened in Maine. take a look at the statistics on police homicides up there. and tell me there's nothing wrong with that picture.

Okay, so you don't like what happens in your neighborhood? Go to the newspaper, but being happy with all law enforcement being killed? Now all everywhere are crooked, and many are trying to help those who need help. I'm sorry about your friend, but that has nothing to do with this article. Since I have no idea what happened with your friend I can't speak to that, but not all officers are like that and there is no need to wish them all dead.

What was your friend's name, county, year of death?

I wish I could take your word for this, as an unbiased source... But you're probably full of crap, so I won't.

i don't wish anyone dead. i wish people that say things means what they say. and does what they say. cops are crooked. they like money just as much as the the next person. they like promotions they like the power they have over other people. do i think all cops are bad? id like to say no. i cant because they have done something illegal whether it was to protect themselves or one of their colleagues. its just the nature of the beast. and that's the sad part.

.... You are aware that evidence of malfeasance is generally a requirement before you make allegations of malfeasance, right dip?

And before you say it: no, evidence of the actions of the minority cannot be extrapolated to the majority.

But please, go ahead and be ignorant; it's funny, if nothing else, to watch someone who will be such a colossal failure outside their mother's basement.

his name is kemp lybrook of somerset county. he didnt die. almost died. just remember there are two sides to every story and the paper doesn't tell it all. and no moms basement for me. this story has nothing to do with you or i. im glad you believe that police are good. i on the other hand have seen and lived a very different story.

You know who usually says "I've lived a different story?"

People who haven't actually first-hand witnessed what they're talking about.

Personally, I've seen good and bad officers. Just like I've seen good and bad people. The majority of the officer's I've known or worked with were good, honest and decent. Think of it like any other large group of people; you wouldn't prejudge an entire group, such as black people, would you?

Also, Kemp Lybrook of Somerset County didn't turn up anything about an officer involved shooting. Citation?

try searching the morning sentinel. and i have unfortunately seen and lived it. this is not about me though. and if a cop lies for another cop that makes him just as guilty doesn't it? i don't consider myself to be racist i've seen too much of that crap to? still this is not about me.

Ditto, no person should be a cop when the system is corrupt top down.

OK, nodipme, you are so full of steer feces! Here is the story and your 'friend' did nothing? What a crock! He was brandishing an assault rifle at 2 officers when he was shot! But you say he "did nothing"? If I brandish an assault rifle at 2 police officers, I would EXPECT to be shot!

SKOWHEGAN — The Attorney General’s Office has identified the man shot by state police Tuesday night as Kemp Lybrook, 28, of Skowhegan.
Lybrook was shot and wounded near his home on the Middle Road, Route 104, in a confrontation with Trooper Mark Sperrey, a member of the State Police Tactical Team, according to Nicole Sacre, spokeswoman for the attorney general.
According to Sacre, Lybrook was brandishing an assault rifle when he was shot as he was approaching Sperrey and a second trooper in a wooded area behind the residence.
Lybrook was taken to the hospital where he underwent surgery for a single gunshot wound. The incident is being investigated by the Attorney General’s Office with the assistance of the Skowhegan Police Department and state police detectives.
Members of the tactical team had been outside the residence for several hours after a request for assistance by the Skowhegan Police Department. Skowhegan officers had visited the residence earlier that day after a report of a despondent man with a gun behaving in a threatening manner, according to Sacre.
Route 104 was closed to all but police and emergency traffic in both directions beginning about 6 p.m. Monday. The road remained closed for several hours.
The shooting happened at a small log home with a large front porch surrounded by trees. The home is more than 100 feet from the road. It is near the Fox’s Den, about 100 yards from the Fairfield town line.

So, nodipme, this went on for hours and the tactical team was called in. Still you claim he "did nothing"! You couldn't be more wrong so stop with the lies!

@nodipme......You are an a** ! "Legal right to shoot & kill anyone" Cops have a right to shoot to stop a threat, I am sorry these deputies did not know this cop-killer was a lethal threat (the family probably should have told the 911 operator that this family member was (a) armed, (b) known to own a hand-gun, then these Officers may have had fair warning exactly what they were walking in to this night. If it weren't for these men & women who are willing to doan a gun & badge this country would be out of control. And you obviously are one of the problems living inside the USA. Its a shame to think one day a Police Officer may have to save your pathetic ignorant life. Oh and if you hate police so much NEVER call 911 for help!

May Deputy Ward RIP, May God bless the officer in critical condition, I will keep him in my prayers. And for the shooter, well I have no sympathy for him! My condolenses to the Deputy's family & his fellow officers. RIP Deputy Ward.

Hey TEXAS...Thanks for finding and posting the article on nodips claim of his friend being such an innocent person....Obviously he was having issues this day seeing neighbors called the police reporting him acting eratic armed w/a gun! (yeah he wasn't doing nuthin when he got shot!!) Nodip you have been proven a liar on here..>Go sit in your house and come up w/other "innocent friend" stories to sell elsewhere! Your friend is lucky a tactical - trained officer shot him and only shot him once!

your stupidity is amazing

its true how does writing a ticket help anyone other then the states coffers?

By writing someone a traffic ticket you can get them to think twice about speeding, thereby possibly saving a pedestrian from getting hit, or another car or a schoolbus or a couple of kids walking to school. On a much broader scale, you're serving the public interest by getting people to slow down and making things safer for everyone.

I wanted at one point to become a law enforcement officer. A police sketch artist. Didn't happen, but I would have liked it.

i can understand that there is maybe a little value to it. unfortunately people who get run over will have it happen regardless of a ticket or not. sad but true.

So you ignore the problem because it'll keep happening, nodipme?

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

your probably right on this one. still i don't think it helps as much as id like. people drive by my house all the time doing at least over 20 mph past the posted speed limit.

I have received plenty of speeding tickets over the past 27 years. None of them have changed my driving habits. I still have a lead foot & always will. That's why I use a radar detector & have been doing so since 1990. I can't count the number of times I've taken the defensive driving class to keep the tickets off of my record. Luckily for the last 10 years or so you can take the class online in a few hours. Is this country great or what? LOL I still have a clean driving record too.

Which is unsafe. WHICH IS WHY AN OFFICER WOULD GIVE A TICKET FOR THAT BEHAVIOR.

Thanks for proving my point?

Another thing to consider--maybe the speeder has a reason to be speeding. A man with a wife in labor, for instance rushing to the hospital; somoene who's just stolen a car or robbed a local store; traffic stops can also turn up DUI's, drug dealers, addicts, people who have kidnapped other peoples' children, parents trying to kidnap their child from a custodial parent and flee the area with the child; human trafficking...there are a million reasons why someone would be speeding, and a million reasons why ticketin the speeder is a good thing.

'people who are get run over will have it happen regardless of a ticket.' I'll have to disagree with you on this. A few years back I was on my bicycle in a residential neighborhood coming back from the grocery store (I don;t own a car or drive, I do everything by bike or public transit.) A car hit me. I landed face-first on the pavement and shattered my right eye socket, and today have three plates in my face holding the right side of my cheek together.

The road I was on intersected a residential street with a speed limit of 20 mph, and the car that hit me was speeding, according to a couple of eyewitnesses (it happened at 2 in the afternoon.) As the guy was a delivery driver for the local take-out place, he and his car were familiar in that area and residents complained more than once that he should get a ticket to make him think twice before speeding down thsat particular road, which is one-way, residential and four blocks away from a school. He never got that ticket.

I've always thought that it was a lucky thing I got hit and not a child...but if a speeding ticket along that road would have kept him from speeding, I would MUCH rather that have happened!!!!

so would i. but there's no guarantee that you or some one else would not have been hit. by either that person or someone else.

Yes, there's no guarantee that I would not have been hit. But there is also no guarantee that I/we WOULD.

Look at how many people each year are pulled over for speeding and in the process of writing a ticket the person is found to have an arrest warrant. (Ever driven down a road and seen a couple of cop cars pulled over with a person handcuffed and sitting on the curb waiting for the paddy wagon? DUI, drugs, or an outstanding warrant are the top three reasons for that little scenario.)

It happens more than you think. So I would respectfully disagree with you that writing speeding tickets doesn't help the general public/other people.

@ Amanda

Good point about catching people wanted for other crimes during a traffic stop. Very true. However, speeding tickets don't alter or change anyone's driving habits. Sure, you might watch your speed for a day or two but then you go right back to your old driving habits.

I honestly wouldn't know, as I have never driven or had a car (do have a license); however, my husband got a ticket for speeding on a country back road going downhill once and he not only rode the brakes going downhill from then on, he avoided that particular road altogether.

But I can see your point, as my boss has a SmartCar and gets at leats two tickets a month in that street-legal golf cart...

That HWY Patrol Officer responds to major traffic accidents (helps victims), pulls over folks going way over the speed limit (helps protect the other motorists who could be struck by the speeding motorist), and depending on what state he is a highway Patrol Officer in he may be responding to smaller towns for their police service requests.

85% of those who do become police officers really do do it to help others. Dont forget there are a million child molestors out there (who do you think deals w/these scums and takes them off the streets?), rapists, thugs robbing elderly folks in their homes, gang-bangers robbing anyone who walks down their street, etc, etc, etc....So yes folks, Police do help us all, you just may not have been a victim of a real serious crime yet. All you nay-sayers here have your take on what cops do, why dont you go ride along with one and see what it is they are dealing with day in & day out, you might give them all just a little respect, But I can guarentee not a single one of you will go home w/clean underware! Just putting in my 2 cents!

@oneslackr...I can't wait till your state suspends your license - you sound like an absolute moron behind the wheel and it is only a matter of time before you hurt or kill some innocent person. Why dont you learn to leave your house a little earlier so you wont always be rushing...But I doubt that will happen, I do see the point in your name on here...slacker is obvious! You should not be so proud of being a speeding driver and it is only a matter of time before you will land your a** in jail by being reckless behind the wheel! Kind of sad way of you thinking and acting!

Americans must be a variant strain of the human species. For America has the highest number of gun crimes in the world. Americans kill more people than any other people on earth. Is it not time to recognise that the ownership of a gun and the killing of other people should not be more important than childhood poverty (25%) and the ownership of the Bible?

For such a religious nation and for a nation make so many lofty claims, Americans live very wretched and violent lives.

A "religious nation"?!? What are you... a comedian?

We are not a religious nation any longer, don't know where you came up with that. I don't know where you come up with America has the highest number of gun crimes in the world either, are all the Muslim countries reporting to you how many people have been killed by their terrorist organizations? Didn't think so.

you are clearly a pos who hasnt and wont amount to anything in life

Adios Five-0

That's not how America works.

.

They should wear leashes and muzzles too.

Robocop.