I didn't interpret the posting of the gun to be an attempt to discredit the actions of the homeowner.Originally Posted by Zincwarrior
Both parties can be justified in their actions. A homeowner could be justified in raising the gun towards the window, and a cop could be justified in shooting a person through a window that raises a gun towards them.
That's why it's called a tragedy.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
A tragedy indeed. However, the homeowner didn't create the circumstances of the tragedy. The intruder did. The intruder did not have the legal right to be there.
-No warrant
-No pursuit of a criminal suspect
-No permission given or even requested
-Closed gate
-At night
The right to self defense is limited in that the person claiming self defense has to have a legal reason to be there. This is what tripped up the Dallas shooting.
Last edited by Zincwarrior; 10-15-2019 at 03:52 PM.
One takeaway that’s hard to dispute: if you’re hanging out in your house at 2:30am, and hear someone moving around in your fenced yard, and you’re inside a lit room, kill the lights and move to concealment before skinning the old smokewagon. Basic low-light tactics and understanding light discipline would have gone a ways towards increasing margins of error on all sides.
It’s not this poor lady’s fault that she’s never taken a block of low light instruction from some alpha dude, but all of us here now know better, by this unfortunate example. JMO.
Last edited by Totem Polar; 10-15-2019 at 03:54 PM.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
I can't tell if the bedroom light is on. The front lights are on. (about 1.15 is the shooting)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fort-wo...me-2019-10-14/
Last edited by Zincwarrior; 10-15-2019 at 03:56 PM.
Point taken.
Still, standing in a window with (allegedly) a gun in hand, and opening the shade with *any* backlighting/dirty light leakage is tactically unsound, as we see from the results. Again, not her fault, but most def a lesson to be absorbed. Also again, JMO, IANAO, etc.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Sorry I should be clear. I am not disagreeing in any way. Just the bit I saw I couldn't tell if the light was on where the victim was. Note, he points the flashlight at the window inside,screams, and shoots faster than you read this sentence.
This is a good time to point out we don’t know the timing of when the homeowners gun was visible to to officer, or even if it was seen by the officer before he fired.
Regrettably informed conclusions about this event will have to wait until a jury’s rendered a verdict...as it was with Amber Guyger.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I would argue that he had a lawful reason to be there as he was responding to a 911 call. He did not need a warrant as what he was doing would fall under a community care-taking function. I'm not defending what he did or saying I would have done the same thing, but me and a lot of other people that post here have bee in a lot of people's yards at night without a warrant.
https://scholarship.law.marquette.ed...6&context=mulrCommunity caretaking by itself is not an exception to the warrant requirement; rather, it is a description of what police do when they are not investigating crime. Police regularly perform community caretaking activities to help people in danger, to preserve property, or to “create and maintain a feeling of security in the community.” Police also engage in community caretaking when they respond to noise complaints, mediate non-criminal disputes, assist the “ill or injured,” “[take] lost property into their possession,” remove abandoned property, or are called on to act as surrogates for a variety of society’s usual caregivers. A police officer’s community caretaking activity
becomes an exception to the warrant requirement if the officer has to perform a search in order to complete the caretaking activity.
She was in her own house, minding her own business and she should damn well be able to grab a gun when she hears someone in her yard. Yet, you're tactically correct and I agree with you. This thing is such a damned tragedy, all the way around.
Years ago, while responding to a burglar alarm at 0430, a homeowner pointed a cordless phone, that in the darkness looked like the antenna was the barrel of a gun at my partner and I. We had dispatch make a call in, banged on the door, yelled police, etc. before checking the rear of the house. My partner dove onto the gravel, I raised my flashlight and illuminated myself while yelling, "POLICE!" so loud that another cop 4 blocks away on a traffic stop heard me. I remember thinking, "I hope this guy can't shoot," and"This is gonna hurt," as I waited for the bang. It was obvious the guy was in his underwear and I couldn't bring my self to shoot a dude in his own house who had just woken up. These kind of calls suck.
Anyone know what information was initially given to the responding officers by the dispatcher?
Reply With Quote