Man with a gun call ends tragically?

[palerider116]

When I was a certified, commissioned LEO, our department procedures and guidelines were more restrictive on the use of deadly force than the statutes concerning the same civilians had to abide by, with one exception.

That exception was fleeing felons. We could shoot (use deadly force) in the instance of a fleeing felon where a civilian in the same circumstances would have been prosecuted if they did so and it was brought to the attention of the "wrong" members of LE and DA's office.

Some LEO's and DA's will actually use logic when applying the law. They don't necessarily prosecute every violation.

The problem is, people want to color all LEO's and LEA's the same color. Yep, there are bad ones and evil as they come. Then there are some that are honest, fair, and hardworking.

If the same logic was applied, the gun owner who just robbed the local convenient store is the same as the OC'er eating at his favorite restaurant.

Yep. Hypocrisy.

 

[Kirbinator]

Has anyone addressed the claim of "you just killed a kid!"? Was this guy driving with a full load of watermelons?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

A bad shoot is a bad shoot - no matter who is involved. There should be clear standards for a self defense shooting, and for apprehending a fleeing violent felon that are universal for all.

Just remember, a police officer is prosecuted in court just like any other person. If he cannot be afforded the same expectations for self defense, he must be tried in a different court system, by his own peers (LE). A non LEO citizen would not constitute a "peer" because that non LEO citizen would not be able to relate to the officer.

Only if you buy into that bogus argument that LEO are not civilians. A jury has nothing to do with relating to your "occupation". If this was the case than a self employed person when charged with evading taxes, or unsafe enviroment, etc, should only have a jury of other self employed people who understand how hard it is to be self employed.

The fact of the matter is we see excuses and rationalizations for officers actions time and time again in court and in media and on here. It appears to me you want equal across the lines judgement of peoples actions, John Doe if charged with shooting someone with a water nozzle should be afforded the same defense as a Cop, but in reality it doesn't happen that way. Hence the frustration of with the citizenry with the ever growing bureaucracies of law enforcement.

 

[palerider116]

There are 50 different states, and countless local governments. Not every jurisdiction treats a self defense situation that way. I've seen self defense situations where no weapon was produced, but was verbally implied and the belligerent was shot.

After speaking to the homicide investigators, the citizen went home to his own bed.

If a LEO did that, you would scream MURDER. This citizen was threatened to be stabbed, walked back to his car and retrieved his firearm, and the bad guy kept advancing. Mack the Knife had 6 holes in him. Investigators said good shoot; prosecutor said good shoot.

So to speak about this in absolutes, it can't be done. What is good in one jurisdiction may be different in another. The case I mentioned was even more extreme than a water nozzle. No weapon in hand, threats made, and kept advancing.

I'd have reasonable doubt if anyone was prosecuted on this case - don't care who it is or what their profession was.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

Where does everyone get this idea that when you go to trial you are tried by a jury of your 'peers'? It's not true. It's actually very misleading, because for most of us a jury of our actual peers would mean instant 'not-guilty' verdicts.

We have a legal right to trial by jury. The jury is selected from among random people who happen to live in the same area the court is held. The are selected by a series of questions meant to determine (among other things) that they have absolutely no prior connection to you, or the crime you are being tried for.

 

[eye95]

Where does everyone get this idea that when you go to trial you are tried by a jury of your 'peers'? It's not true. It's actually very misleading, because for most of us a jury of our actual peers would mean instant 'not-guilty' verdicts.

We have a legal right to trial by jury. The jury is selected from among random people who happen to live in the same area the court is held. The are selected by a series of questions meant to determine (among other things) that they have absolutely no prior connection to you, or the crime you are being tried for.

We get it from the Magna Carta which specifically mentioned that juries were to be of peers. While the US Constitution and the Alabama Constitution do not mention that the jury be made up of peers, this concept has survived in common law. The problem comes in when the question is raised, "What are peers?" Courts can, do, and will in the future determine that the makeup of juries haven't been representative enough of the kind of person the defendant was.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

It was my understanding that that portion of the magna carta guaranteed that nobles wouldn't have to face a jury of commoners (and vice versa). Since we live in America, and everyone is 'equal', we don't have to worry about that. I seem to remember some contention about OJ's jury not being the right color, when a true jury of his 'peers' would either be professional athletes, or (going back to the class system) his wealthy white neighbors. Would a jury of wealthy white businessmen have convicted Kenneth Lay? Would a jury of Italian 'businessmen' have convicted Al Capone of tax evasion?

Maybe, but we'll never know because they were tried by a jury of random schmucks.

 

[eye95]

It was my understanding that that portion of the magna carta guaranteed that nobles wouldn't have to face a jury of commoners (and vice versa). Since we live in America, and everyone is 'equal', we don't have to worry about that. I seem to remember some contention about OJ's jury not being the right color, when a true jury of his 'peers' would either be professional athletes, or (going back to the class system) his wealthy white neighbors. Would a jury of wealthy white businessmen have convicted Kenneth Lay? Would a jury of Italian 'businessmen' have convicted Al Capone of tax evasion?

Maybe, but we'll never know because they were tried by a jury of random schmucks.

The term "peer" actually did refer to social class at the time. It was rightly perceived that a member of the peerage could not possibly understand the life of a commoner well enough to judge intent or frame of mind, and vice versa. Natural animosities between the classes might actually result in unjust harshness in verdicts.

We don't have that rigid class system that England had at the time. We still, however, have cultural sub-groupings that could unjustly result in lack of understanding or animosity. The "jury of your peers" today simply means a jury not stacked with folks who could not possibly understand your situation or who are predisposed to wish you ill.

Today's concept is actually more refined and protective.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

There are 50 different states, and countless local governments. Not every jurisdiction treats a self defense situation that way. I've seen self defense situations where no weapon was produced, but was verbally implied and the belligerent was shot.

After speaking to the homicide investigators, the citizen went home to his own bed.

If a LEO did that, you would scream MURDER. This citizen was threatened to be stabbed, walked back to his car and retrieved his firearm, and the bad guy kept advancing. Mack the Knife had 6 holes in him. Investigators said good shoot; prosecutor said good shoot.

So to speak about this in absolutes, it can't be done. What is good in one jurisdiction may be different in another. The case I mentioned was even more extreme than a water nozzle. No weapon in hand, threats made, and kept advancing.

I'd have reasonable doubt if anyone was prosecuted on this case - don't care who it is or what their profession was.

I don't disagree with you on most your points except saying I would scream murder if it was a cop. I am saying police are supposed to hold more restraint and be held to a higher standard than a citizen yet, as pointed out John/Jane Doe would be sitting in a jail cell while this is settled.

Yes I know of a few situations where "civilians" have been told good shot there are many where it was good shots and they are prosecuted for murder yet police in way less dangerous situations in the same district are put on paid leave, and many times "slapped on the wrist".

 

[since9]

The section in reference to fleeing violent felons and self defense reads:

Section IIB
"Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given."

There's a lot of leeway for judgment in these words, judgment I sincerely hope and pray law enforcement officers use well enough to accept a modicum of risk so as to avoid blowing away a young man holding the sprayer from a garden hose, particularly when they had enough time and distance from the suspect to take measures other than firing upon him.

 

[palerider116]

There's a lot of leeway for judgment in these words, judgment I sincerely hope and pray law enforcement officers use well enough to accept a modicum of risk so as to avoid blowing away a young man holding the sprayer from a garden hose, particularly when they had enough time and distance from the suspect to take measures other than firing upon him.

Evaluating an object in someone's hand does require due diligence and a margin of risk. To fire at someone because they may have a weapon certainly doesn't fly, but on the other extreme, waiting till you get fired upon doesn't fly either. There has to be a realized threat - that threat may be genuine, or in this case, a garden hose. I wasn't there to see where the officers were positioned, and what exactly they thought they saw. The taking of someone's life isn't to be done lightly in the civilian world. In the military, war is a completely different animal. But enforcing the law is not a war, its a duty that some decide to have put upon their shoulders at their own decision.

It reminds me of what Captain Kirk told the young captain on Star Trek Generations: "risk is part of the game". If you can't accept that and operate within a window of some risk, LE is definitely not for that person.

 

[NovaCop]

This is your second attempt to unjustly justify an action that resulted in the death of an unarmed citizen. Heaven help us should anyone ever have to sneeze around dusk and they bring dark handkerchief up to their face!!!

BLAM!

Judge: "Why did you shoot her, Officer Doe?"

Off Doe: "I reasonably believed the little old lady was pointing a gun me, your honor."

Judge: "Oh, well ok then. Case dismissed."

Forget about the fact the little old lady was dressed in black because she was attenting a funeral...

I know I'm overstating the point, but I'm making another: Circumstances don't matter. It's the LEO's responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to mitigate whatever circumstances. If it's night and you're hearing sharp reports of gunfire, there's not a lot of mitigation one can do. But on a calm, well-lit afternoon, with no such reports, there's a whole lot of mitigation which can, and should have been done.

Yet it wasn't. Rather, they jumped to an errant conclusion and started blasting away.

I guarantee you if any citizen in the U.S. had done the same thing in the same situation, they'd be headed straight for jail for Murder. Maybe not premeditated, but definately murder, and the point that's been made is that LEOs have a greater, not lesser responsibility, to exercise diligence and caution.

If that's taking another minute to grab a pair of binoculars, then take another minute to grab a pair of binoculars. Meanwhile, let the guy on the porch make pointing gestures. In the last 10,000 years of recorded history, pointing, even with both hands, has yet to result in a single loss of human life.



I hear you. More than a few of them couldn't handle a rational discussion on the issue. Way too much cage-rattling. They seemed to take things pretty rationally with last year's OC thread, but this was too much, perhaps too close to home, and many members on the forum just lost it.

HAHAHAHA. Notice that in your post, you need to change the "players" to be an "old lady" who "sneezes" in order to remotely support your argument?!?! You are dead wrong. You can "Monday morning quaterback" all you want, but legally, it depends on who was involved and what they believed was happening. We are humans. Life and death situations are made within seconds and not always clear. The courts understand that, although, some "internet tough guys" might not aka YOU. Grow up, Peter Pan.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

HAHAHAHA. Notice that in your post, you need to change the "players" to be an "old lady" who "sneezes" in order to remotely support your argument?!?! You are dead wrong. You can "Monday morning quaterback" all you want, but legally, it depends on who was involved and what they believed was happening. We are humans. Life and death situations are made within seconds and not always clear. The courts understand that, although, some "internet tough guys" might not aka YOU. Grow up, Peter Pan.

When you are a public servant we have the right to Monday quarter back all we want, we have the the right and duty to scrutinize and analyze your every move in your service to the public.

You miss the whole point and try vaguely rationalize that it's ok because some of the players were cops, cops need to be held to a higher standard, any "civilian" that shot this guy would be sitting in jail being tried for murder. Maybe he would be absolved maybe not. The courts are not as quick to judge and prosecute cops as they are civilians. But nice Ad hominem attack. Please for heavens sake don't give that tired whiny line about how we don't know what it's like.

 

[eye95]

HAHAHAHA. Notice that in your post, you need to change the "players" to be an "old lady" who "sneezes" in order to remotely support your argument?!?! You are dead wrong. You can "Monday morning quaterback" all you want, but legally, it depends on who was involved and what they believed was happening. We are humans. Life and death situations are made within seconds and not always clear. The courts understand that, although, some "internet tough guys" might not aka YOU. Grow up, Peter Pan.

It will all come down to "reasonable belief." The judge and/or the jury will make the determination as to whether the belief was reasonable. If you see a picture of this nozzle, you will notice that it looks remarkably like a gun. Furthermore the police are saying that he was point the nozzle at them with a two-handed grip. Witnesses stated that they believed that the drunken man was pointing a gun at the police.

I would be hesitant to pass judgment either way in this case without much more information, however the above facts in isolation would lead me to believe that the officers had a reasonable belief that they were a trigger-pull away from dead.

Like I said, though, I'd need a lot more information before I'd believe that the police didn't create a no-win situation with their actions.

 

[since9]

Evaluating an object in someone's hand does require due diligence and a margin of risk. To fire at someone because they may have a weapon certainly doesn't fly, but on the other extreme, waiting till you get fired upon doesn't fly either. There has to be a realized threat - that threat may be genuine, or in this case, a garden hose. I wasn't there to see where the officers were positioned, and what exactly they thought they saw.

No, but there have been many reports depicting what happened, including the fact that they'd already taken about 14 minutes after arriving on the scene to do... ???

Before the blew the guy away. Meanwhile, he was oblivious to their presence, as they'd never taken the first step to make their presence known.

How long does it take to say, "This is the police! Put down your weapon!"

Fourteen minutes? I doubt it, particularly when they never got around to challenging the victim in the first place, and never uttered a thing before they blew him into the afterlife.

It reminds me of what Captain Kirk told the young captain on Star Trek Generations: "risk is part of the game". If you can't accept that and operate within a window of some risk, LE is definitely not for that person.

Neither is the military. We had ROE (Rules of Engagement), and they were very clearly laid out in black and white. None of us ever wanted to push the limits on them, ever.

However, we pressed on, risking our lives. Some of us lost our lives. It's the risk we took to serve our country.

I'll tell you what we did NOT sign up to do: We did NOT sign up to blow away potential threats to our lives long before they ever proved to be actual threats to our life.