Everything comes down to perception (in the moment)...whether real or imagined. The rest is post mortem.Originally Posted by Mystery;
That's true in any event.
Everything comes down to perception (in the moment)...whether real or imagined. The rest is post mortem.
That's true in any event.
Last edited by blues; 10-15-2019 at 10:23 AM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
For those interested in what the legal standards for the use deadly force are, as viewed by the courts, I would suggest this text:
https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Other.../dp/1611636825
https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Other.../dp/1611636825
I used to teach a roughly two hour class to citizens on use of force followed by time in our simulator. It was one of the most enjoyable things in my job, and one of the very few things I miss about it. The level of restraint shown daily by LE compared to the actual pure legal threshold for the use of deadly force would probably surprise most people who are not familiar with the subject.
@Stephanie B, I for one, do not want anyone to lose their rights to redress. No one will ever hear me say cops are infallible, nor that there are not, and unfortunately will always be, bad actors who somehow find their way to the job and commit criminal acts. But, to expand on your examples, the events you bring up do not typically turn into media circuses with all kinds of opinions coming in from left field. Aviation and medical incidents are reviewed by entities that are peers to those involved. All I want to see is similar objective peer conducted investigations such as medical review boards and entities such as the NTSB.
Last edited by CWM11B; 10-15-2019 at 10:34 AM.
Not that much familiar except reading some articles and reporters reading aloud department's policy on use of force whenever officer involved shooting happens.
About fake gun, if someone threatens with a fake gun and he's shot, it's a threat, hindsight or not.
Like that 13 year old boy with a fake gun who was killed. Even though the situation could probably have been handled better (in 20/20) but I'm on officer's side.
In this situation, a resident inside her own home is shot and killed.
We'll know if there was a threat and if there was, I hope the officer decided accordingly and if it's a mistake, deadly mistake needs justice.
Similar incident happened here few months ago, https://www.denverpost.com/2018/12/0...ng-gary-black/ but there was a firearm and officers repeatedly asked to drop the gun.
Officers didn't know he has hearing problem and shot him. Sad but there was a guy with gun who didn't respond to officer's commands and it was justified.
If there's anything to help officers to avoid tragic situations, hope PD works on that.
Situation like this is bad for the officer was well.
He lost his job and now facing charges plus backlash from people.
Right. I explain this when teaching defensive force law using examples where either party to a deadly force encounter could be justified in using deadly force. It's possible in this case that had a person inside the house returned fire at the officer, that their actions would be justified. That's just how our system works (and should work in my opinion). People should not be judged based on knowledge that they didn't have at the time. That being said, unless additional favorable facts come out that support the officer, I don't think his actions will be found reasonable.
Texas, like most states that I'm aware of, requires a specific intent to kill for murder. If you mistakenly kill someone in "imperfect" self-defense, then you often admit to the relevant facts needed to prove than intent (intentionally using a deadly weapon against another person). Some jurisdictions do allow imperfect self-defense claims to mitigate a murder charge, while most do not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_self-defense
This is why I advocated for the mandatory use of body cams for all officers all the time when on duty. People often accused me of being anti-cop because I advocated that position. My justification was simple and continues to this day; Officers are bestowed a special authority in our society and as a result, must simultaneously be granted additional protections against false complaints of abuse and be held to an extremely high standard of objectivity and restraint.
The fact was then and is now, that body cams are among the most effective way to achieve these simultaneous goals, by providing an independent 'third party' to police-citizen interactions. The fact that body cam footage exonerates officers more often than it incriminates officers, provides a better foundation for public trust, and demonstrates that it was a correct choice.
I know it can seem like the folks are against you, but like 90% of the people I know, don't even watch the local news. They watch Youtube, read Facebook, CNN, or listen to NPR. And believe it or not, quite a few positive body cam videos are out there and are shared on those services. My radically liberal left coast friend, regularly sends me links to body cam footage of officers doing the right thing that are shared with her on Facebook (I'm not super active on FB anymore, so I don't really know what all is there). The point being, I think a lot of folks are seeing precisely what you're seeing, they may not have the statistics for it all in their brains.Funny thing though, you never see a single body cam video on the news showing a cop doing the right thing.
My interactions are biased, but in my experience the first thing people ask for after a police shooting these days is, "Where is the bodycam footage?" - When a white University of Chicago PD officer was forced to shoot a black UC Student about 2 years ago, there was a massive uproar. Which died as fast it started, when dash and body cam footage were released, shooting the suspect was wearing a mask, rubber kitchen gloves, carrying a pipe, and charging at an officer from 15-feet away, and was shot while the officer back pedaled. Even the unreasonably biased recognized that this event was only preventable from the perspective of the shootee not the shooter. For me this event sticks out in my mind, because initial protests were vehement and radical, only to just get SHUT DOWN by the independent footage provided from the cameras.
The footage was on the local news and even Rahm Emmanuel said, "I agree with investigators that the evidence indicates the officer did nothing wrong." Rahm Emmanuel...
I don't think you understand what justifies deadly force.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
Have Keyboard, Will Travel
There's nothing civil about this war.
I don't but the fact is an officer who understands use of deadly force went there for a wellness check but instead shot and killed a resident in her own home who was playing video game with a child.
I guess common sense goes out sometimes in the field.
We'll see how the case goes along. We all are arm chair monkeys on the keyboard anyways.
Last edited by Mystery; 10-15-2019 at 11:39 AM.
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.
Last edited by TGS; 10-15-2019 at 11:38 AM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Reply With Quote