No, he had it at parade rest. The Salon moonbat even states it as so. It is even possible she doesn't report that the police saw it had it's safety on and could have even been unloaded. Regardless, by the time the long gun was pulled up into an aggressive position, the guy would have been taken down. It's also important to note (again, moonbat omission) that the only law the man was breaking was being drunk - as the open carry law allowed him to have the weapon. Much different than places where it is restricted/illegal. Then, the moonbat author (and poster) point this in comparison to what happened in the Walmart where the black gentleman was shot while carrying a pellet gun in what is obviously a failure on the part of the police - and that officer should face the penalty. It's like comparing the french fries you get in Mc Donald's in New York to the fries you get at Burger King in San Diego. Too many variables to expect the same exact product. Edit: Left out of the moodbat editorial: so the officer knew the old coot. and: Hoyt probably knew that from the start (or the coot told him) and that was why he was more relaxed.
Additionally, I don't see where he got his gun back - it says the cops refused to give it back to him.
This is not " - the very definition of a good guy with a gun" A vast majority of gun owners are very responsible adults, and know that guns and alcohol don't mix. This statement alone confirms the spin the writer is conveying, and brings the entire article in question.
To review: That’s very different from what happened to Kaijame Powell, the young black man from St. Louis with mental problems. A shop owner called the police to report a shoplifter and said he had a knife. The man walks around on the sidewalk in an agitated fashion. A few minutes later a police car races up the street and stops at the curb in front of him, two officers jump out with guns drawn shouting, “Put down the knife!” He says, “Shoot me, shoot me,” and he walks toward the car and they fire their guns, killing him on the spot. The whole altercation took 30 seconds. The St. Louis police chief said that the video of the incident was “exculpatory” and explained that the officers could not have done anything different (like use the tasers they carried on their belt) because nothing else was “guaranteed” to stop the victim. . . . another African-American man named John Crawford was shopping in an Ohio Wal-Mart while talking to his wife on the phone. He’d picked up a BB gun the store sells and apparently some patrons were afraid and called police. The wife heard the cops order him to put down the weapon and he immediately shouted, “It’s not real.” Then they opened fire and killed him. (Another shopper collapsed and died as she tried to get away from the gunfire.) Crawford had two young children and a third on the way. Michael Brown was, of course, unarmed.
Sorry, officer, I didn't know that knife was loaded. I should have had the safety on. You'll have to excuse me now, everything is going dark . . .
DB, what you seem to be missing is most of us are appalled by police overreaction and over eagerness to use deadly force. Lucrum has a thread devoted to the issue. You want to make it all racial, but it clealry isn't. They are shooting people's pet dogs for no good reason. And you can repeat that Michael Brown was unarmed all you want, but if two young gangbangers start a fight with a lone cop and break his face, then one charges him, what is the cop supposed to do? You still haven't answered that. The cop had no way of knowing that Brown wasn't holding a bladed weapon in his massive hand either. The pattern of retreat then charge could suggest that he pulled away to get his blade then charged with it concealed.
There's nothing to answer. There's no evidence that "two young gangbangers start a fight with a lone cop and break his face". As far as the "not racial" part, it's funny how the white guys gets warnings and the black guys get dead.