Shooting incidents in the news.

[Dagga Boy]

So the actual shooting may not fall under the definition of criminal, but not telling anyone and leaving him there shot, sounds like that would be?

Watching him search for the brass really pissed me off. He knew exactly what he did and was trying to make it go away. One of our officers did a similar thing (by the grace of a God no one was hurt), and pissed me off as well at the denial of the officer about screwing up and kept blaming the gun. Part of his punishment was ending up with me to fix the issue. I got some good training stuff out of it that has helped those who have chosen to listen to what I learned. Others will learn the hard way.

[TAZ]

So the actual shooting may not fall under the definition of criminal, but not telling anyone and leaving him there shot, sounds like that would be?

I'm still looking for a real explanation of why shooting someone who didn't need shooting isnt a criminal act. I'm obviously confused. If I were to shoot some person for no reason other than I decided to point a gun at someone for reasons unknown I'd be charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerement...

He knew enough to try and police his brass and keep his pie hole shut, but he's not a criminal. HMMMM

[HCM]

Disregard

[NEPAKevin]

Police shoot and kill heavily armed man in Walmart. (East Stroudsburg, PA)

Police: Shooting of man inside Walmart in East Stroudsburg was justified.

Also, the sister of the deceased has been commenting:

"Unfortunately my brother suffered from depression, multiple personality disorder, and anxiety disorders. He was an alcoholic and when he drank he went in to fits of rage, becoming a different person."

If I heard correctly, she mentioned on FB that she didn't know how this could happen as none of his personalities were violent.

One more reason to shop online.

[Kukuforguns]

I'm still looking for a real explanation of why shooting someone who didn't need shooting isnt a criminal act. I'm obviously confused. If I were to shoot some person for no reason other than I decided to point a gun at someone for reasons unknown I'd be charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerement...

He knew enough to try and police his brass and keep his pie hole shut, but he's not a criminal. HMMMM

There's some subtlety to the issue of whether to prosecute the officer.

First, you have to determine if the actions were criminal. I posted a comment in the LEO Video thread in Law Enforcement indicating that this shooting likely was criminal. The officer put his finger on the trigger without any intent to fire which is pretty much the very definition of violating a reasonable person standard. Reasonable people don't put their finger on the trigger until they intend to fire. That is in fact the policy of the department which employs the officer. The policy and and rule are intended to prevent exactly the type of incident that occurred.

Second, the DA has to determine if there is sufficient admissible evidence to prove a criminal case. There may be a real issue here. Typically statements made by an officer in official reports are not admissible in a criminal case against the officer (the 5th A right to not be compelled to testify against yourself). Accordingly, some of the evidence which shows the officer here acted negligently likely is inadmissible (I'm assuming the officer's statements were limited to official reports). Accordingly, in order to establish a criminal case, the DA would have to obtain an expert witness to testify against the officer that there was no legal justification for shooting the subject and identify the actions the officer took which were negligent and why. The officer would retain his own expert to testify to the opposite. You now have a battle of experts and juries typically are reluctant to convict officers. You can be sure the defense would try to vilify the "victim" by introducing evidence he killed his wife. So, this would not be a slam-dunk case.

Third, the DA has to determine if he should prosecute the officer even if there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt. Absent political pressure, many DAs are reluctant to prosecute officers. Prosecuting an officer will often degrade the relationship between the DAs office and the police which work on a daily basis with the DAs office. I don't know what kind of communications the DAs office has had with the department about the officer's future.

The shooting victim is pretty sure to get a sizable settlement. That will have to serve as justice.

[BaiHu]

There's some subtlety to the issue of whether to prosecute the officer.

First, you have to determine if the actions were criminal. I posted a comment in the LEO Video thread in Law Enforcement indicating that this shooting likely was criminal. The officer put his finger on the trigger without any intent to fire which is pretty much the very definition of violating a reasonable person standard. Reasonable people don't put their finger on the trigger until they intend to fire. That is in fact the policy of the department which employs the officer. The policy and and rule are intended to prevent exactly the type of incident that occurred.

Second, the DA has to determine if there is sufficient admissible evidence to prove a criminal case. There may be a real issue here. Typically statements made by an officer in official reports are not admissible in a criminal case against the officer (the 5th A right to not be compelled to testify against yourself). Accordingly, some of the evidence which shows the officer here acted negligently likely is inadmissible (I'm assuming the officer's statements were limited to official reports). Accordingly, in order to establish a criminal case, the DA would have to obtain an expert witness to testify against the officer that there was no legal justification for shooting the subject and identify the actions the officer took which were negligent and why. The officer would retain his own expert to testify to the opposite. You now have a battle of experts and juries typically are reluctant to convict officers. You can be sure the defense would try to vilify the "victim" by introducing evidence he killed his wife. So, this would not be a slam-dunk case.

Third, the DA has to determine if he should prosecute the officer even if there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt. Absent political pressure, many DAs are reluctant to prosecute officers. Prosecuting an officer will often degrade the relationship between the DAs office and the police which work on a daily basis with the DAs office. I don't know what kind of communications the DAs office has had with the department about the officer's future.

The shooting victim is pretty sure to get a sizable settlement. That will have to serve as justice.

Thanks for that perspective.

[Wondering Beard]

There's some subtlety to the issue of whether to prosecute the officer.

First, you have to determine if the actions were criminal. I posted a comment in the LEO Video thread in Law Enforcement indicating that this shooting likely was criminal. The officer put his finger on the trigger without any intent to fire which is pretty much the very definition of violating a reasonable person standard. Reasonable people don't put their finger on the trigger until they intend to fire. That is in fact the policy of the department which employs the officer. The policy and and rule are intended to prevent exactly the type of incident that occurred.

That part can certainly be used to show liability, I'm not sure it gets to criminality.

[Kukuforguns]

That part can certainly be used to show liability, I'm not sure it gets to criminality.

District Attorney Michael Ramsey's letter explaining his decision not to prosecute (copy here) states that the the officer cannot be prosecuted for negligent pulling of the trigger because that would require "criminal negligence" which requires proof the defendant acted in a way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury and a reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. I was relying on this statement by the DA that there could be criminal liability for negligent pulling of the trigger. My brief review (just now) indicates that my reliance may have been misplaced. Various crimes in California can be based on criminal negligence, but assault, battery, discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, and discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner all require a specific intent (i.e., the intent to fire). So Wondering Beard's incredulity appears to be sound.

[HCM]

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015...able/77380134/

Pack of Dogs Attack Man, and SAPD Officer'

SAN ANTONIO -- A vicious dog attack on the south side overnight that injured a man and a San Antonio police officer could have been prevented, an Animal Care Services official said Tuesday.

Abel Arias, 39, remained in serious condition after emergency surgery at San Antonio Military Medical Center for injuries during the attack in the 700 block of Cantrell that included an exposed skull and a missing ear.

SAPD Officer Matt Belver, a nine-year veteran of the department, also suffered injuries that included bites to his face, arm and both legs.

Belver, even while being attacked by the pack, was able to fire several rounds, killing two dogs and injuring a third. He arrived on scene after responding to a 911 call for dogs barking and a man screaming, officers told KENS 5 overnight.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.modbee.com/news/article49...m_content=link

Training accident where real guns and training guns don't mix. Don't demo with a live gun seems a plan.