Ft. Worth Police Officer Shoots Woman Through Her Window

[paherne]

So, if a doctor operates on you and screws it up, you're good with not seeking redress because you didn't go to med school and you've never held a scalpel and carved into a living human?

If a pilot screws up and crashes, killing a bunch of people, you're OK with that because you don't know how to fly, let alone hand-fly an instrument approach to minimums?

Is it fair to criticize a politician if one has never run for office?

Because, it seems to me, that is the standard that you're advocating.

Doctors and medical professionals screw up and kill about 125k Americans per year. Police kill about 1k people per year and of those, maybe 50 are questionable. 5-10 get prosecuted for bad shoots. So, more people (51 avg.) get killed by lightning than die in bad shootings by police.

People are having an emotional reaction to this because an innocent, upstanding good citizen with a bright future who was minding her own business in he own home was killed by a police officer responding to a call for service. This is not supposed to happen and it freaks people out. It freaks them out so much that even though the former officer was about to be fired, was arrested and NO COPS ARE DEFENDING HIM OR HIS ACTIONS, people still bring up the Thin Blue LIne thing or cops are stupid, EVEN THOUGH THIS FORMER OFFICER HAS A DEGREE IN PHYSICS FROM UT according to a google search of his name. When LE officers, former and past, relate actual experience and knowledge about the justice system and how it works, they are accused of supporting this guy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is why we can't have nice things, and why we can't have discussions about race, politics, etc. Because feelz.

Asking someone's frame of reference is absolutely relevant. It goes to the reasonable officer standard and the reasonable person standard when applied at law. When they sue for medical malpractice, do they call in cops to testify as expert witnesses aginst the defendant? I would venture a guess that most of the cops on this board are probably certified experts in one or more areas of LE that relate to this shooting, so yes, it does matter what your experience is. You have every right to be upset about how this situation turned out; I'm pissed off. But, no, most don't have knowledge about patrol procedures and handling suspicious circumstances that are one of the most dangerous calls a cop can go on because there is so little information.

And none of this excuses the fact that this former cop went a welfare check and killed an innocent person, pretty much the exact opposite of what he was supposed to do. He's a FAILURE in every way and the world would have been better off if he had decided to teach high school physics, instead of being a cop.

I hope this post brings understanding and not conflict. I understand why people are so upset. Your anger is justified.

[Mystery]

But that is in contrast to your previous statement that you feel it is sad that:

The fake gun is not a bonafide threat; it's a fake gun, it cannot hurt anyone. It is a perceived threat...it is your belief at the time of incident that it is a threat. This is exactly why the law revolves around "someone's belief" being enough for justification to the use of force.

What matters is whether someone can prove that belief to be objectively reasonable.

I see your point. Belief should be from something, not just from imagination.
There was no mention of weapon, fake or not, in this case.
The video had a picture of a gun inside the home without any relation to the shooting, as far as the news reported.
As far as proving, it won't bring a life back and I don't think any officer feels okay to kill someone by mistake as long as it's justifiable.

[CWM11B]

On the subject of welfare checks, in a neighboring community yesterday, a deputy went to serve a civil process. Subject came out shooting. SWAT called out. Two of their guys shot. Shooter was killed. Later that night, same agency, deputy called on a welfare check. Rang the bell and announced. Subject came out shooting, got himself shot dead for his efforts. A good friend of mine is out on that one now. Each and every call for service is its own unique event with multiple variables. In my experience and observation, the average citizen, while completely within their rights to question events, wants a template to cover situations. No such thing exists, and never will.

[blues]

On the subject of welfare checks, in a neighboring community yesterday, a deputy went to serve a civil process. Subject came out shooting. SWAT called out. Two of their guys shot. Shooter was killed. Later that night, same agency, deputy called on a welfare check. Rang the bell and announced. Subject came out shooting, got himself shot dead for his efforts. A good friend of mine is out on that one now. Each and every call for service is its own unique event with multiple variables. In my experience and observation, the average citizen, while completely within their rights to question events, wants a template to cover situations. No such thing exists, and never will.

An old partner up in NYC went out to help complete a background check on a potential recruit. Just a few questions to dot the i's and cross the t's.

Knocked on a door, explained to the resident why he was there, was invited in and then held at gunpoint for many hours because the individual "knew why he was there". He eventually was able to talk himself out of the residence to safety.

None of us had an idea that he was in any peril when we went home for the day.

The D.A. and U.S. Attorney declined prosecution.

There is (really) no such thing as routine.

[TC215]

On the subject of welfare checks, in a neighboring community yesterday, a deputy went to serve a civil process. Subject came out shooting. SWAT called out. Two of their guys shot. Shooter was killed. Later that night, same agency, deputy called on a welfare check. Rang the bell and announced. Subject came out shooting, got himself shot dead for his efforts. A good friend of mine is out on that one now. Each and every call for service is its own unique event with multiple variables. In my experience and observation, the average citizen, while completely within their rights to question events, wants a template to cover situations. No such thing exists, and never will.

In February of this year, an officer at a neighboring agency was shot and killed walking up to the house on a welfare check. You just never know.

[Gray Ghost]

This is a tragic situation for everyone involved. The former officer made a split-second decision, motivated I suspect by fear, and it is going to cost him dearly. The woman he shot obviously lost everything. There are no winners.

I am not sure the federal "objective reasonableness" test of Graham v. Connor applies to a state law self-defense standard. That is section 1983 due process law.

In every state I am familiar with, and for full disclosure I am only licensed in Virginia and New York, the test for deadly force is whether you had a reasonable belief that you or another innocent person was in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. The "reasonable belief" part is really two elements:

1) Did you believe it?
2) Was that belief reasonable based on the attendant facts and circumstances?

This ends up sounding a lot like the Graham v. Connor standard, but it is going to be a function of state law.

I did a quick lookup of Texas law on the subject to confirm. It appears that the law of self defense is codified in Texas, rather than arising purely from Common law:

A justification defense exists if appellant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary for protection against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.

Reed v. State, No. 01-13-00208-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9734, at *6-7 (Tex. App. Aug. 29, 2014); citing Texas Penal Code § 9.32(a). Thus Texas law requires us to ask the same two questions: 1) Did the shooter believe the force was necessary?, and 2) Was that belief reasonable?

I strongly suspect that the former officer did in fact believe deadly force was necessary. We'll know more when his post-shooting statement comes out. What the jury will decide, and what has already been tried in the press and on the Internet, is the question of whether his belief was reasonable. It looks like it probably wasn't.

The lesson I take from this is the grim reminder that you will experience consequences for the rest of your life based on the decision you make under extreme stress in a very compressed time frame. All of us who practice defensive pistolcraft should take heed. The fact that the shooter was an LEO at the time he pulled the trigger doesn't seem to be a huge factor here.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Please follow the links to the book CWM11B recommended. Please. Urey Patrick and John Hall are actual subject matter experts on the use of deadly force by cops.

I'd suggest a couple reads through paherne's post above. I haven't sen anyone in the profession posting defenses of what happened.

Based on what little I've seen and the way FWPD edited the video, I have my thoughts on what happened. And while they are different than some other people, they do not lead towards excusing, forgiving, condoning the event. Not at all.

[paherne]

The story gets worse:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...d-authorities/

8 year old confirms his aunt retrieved her gun and pointed it toward window.

[LittleLebowski]

We are staying civil in here, right?

[Hambo]

I don't...

At least you admit that now. One unfortunate part of the internet is that everyone, regardless of their level of ignorance, feels that what they want to say is useful or relevant. The truth is that opinions are not facts, nor are they of any particular relevance.

We all are arm chair monkeys on the keyboard anyways.

Not so fast. There are members of this forum who have first hand experience in use of force. Better still, there are members who have investigated use of force by their or other agencies, or are SMEs and teach use of force.