• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officer kills woman inside her Texas home after welfare call

marke said:
My intention is to push back on foolish hateful rush to judgments that show a typical unreasonable hatred for the officer based upon biases against police officers which are misguided, unhealthy and damaging. Police officers make mistakes and sometimes the mistake is to refrain from drawing their weapons before they are shot and killed by an assailant. Police officers are trained to draw their weapons in dangerous situations with potential hazards which put them in deadly danger of being assaulted or killed.

Sadly, officers have made bad snap judgments in such cases and innocent people have been killed. Thankfully, some officers responded with deadly force and were saved from being killed by a suspect. Sadly, some officers do not react quickly enough to potential dangers and end up being killed.

This officer saw a gun. That gun was pointed at him. He has less than a second to respond. I give the officer some leeway for not having time to fully assess the danger before firing,
Click to expand...

Disclaimer - I'm very pro-police. This specific officer was an idiot.

The woman, seeing an armed man in dark clothing sneaking into her back yard, gun out, would have been fully within her rights to shoot him. He (obviously) posed a threat to her and her grandchild. Based on that call and that bodycam footage, I don't think any grand jury would have indicted her. IMHO a neighbor would have also been within their rights to shoot the officer (who didn't identify himself), assuming they didn't know he was an officer.

The officer should have used judgement that a person within the house could be the resident - he responded to a call TO CHECK ON THE WELL BEING OF THE RESIDENTS. The officer absolutely created a dangerous situation, then compounded it with an itchy trigger finger. He had lots of other options. There's no excuse.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) makes the assumption that the police are always[/i[ responding to a crime in progress and thus a "perp" is, in fact, present wherever they are "responding". This apparently was not the case in this instance, and the only people present inside that house were its occupants who were subjected to a "welfare check". How, exactly, was a person inside of their own home who *gasp* left the door open deemed to have been "posing a threat"?
Click to expand...


Correct and had the officer followed basic protocol when doing a welfare check this wouldn't have happened. He failed to knock on the door, he failed to announce himself as a FWPD officer. Instead he proceeded to go into the backyard and peek in windows. Now if I'm the homeowner and heard someone outside my window I'd be arming myself also. This officer failed to announce himself as a police officer even when he told the person to drop the gun. This woman had no idea who was outside her window.
 
Terryj said:
Correct and had the officer followed basic protocol when doing a welfare check this wouldn't have happened. He failed to knock on the door, he failed to announce himself as a FWPD officer. Instead he proceeded to go into the backyard and peek in windows. Now if I'm the homeowner and heard someone outside my window I'd be arming myself also. This officer failed to announce himself as a police officer even when he told the person to drop the gun. This woman had no idea who was outside her window.
Click to expand...

The word "gun" was not mentioned in the boby cam footage released - the officer said "show me your hands" immediately prior to killing her. If anything, that indicates that the shooting was not in response to seeing a gun.
 
Terryj said:
Correct and had the officer followed basic protocol when doing a welfare check this wouldn't have happened. He failed to knock on the door, he failed to announce himself as a FWPD officer. Instead he proceeded to go into the backyard and peek in windows. Now if I'm the homeowner and heard someone outside my window I'd be arming myself also. This officer failed to announce himself as a police officer even when he told the person to drop the gun. This woman had no idea who was outside her window.
Click to expand...

Agree up to where you say he said "drop the gun". That's incorrect.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The word "gun" was not mentioned in the boby cam footage released - the officer said "show me your hands" immediately prior to killing her. If anything, that indicates that the shooting was not in response to seeing a gun.
Click to expand...

Agree. Saying "show me your hands" kind of makes it obvious he wasn't seeing a weapon pointed at him. If he was seeing one it seems his command would have been "drop the weapon".
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Well alot of these cops have to act scared. Their volenteer for-hire job gets them 5,000-10,000$ pension a month FOR LIFE. Accidentally shooting an innocent person is probably more important than losing that free 5-10k a month off taxpayers backs after retiring after 20 years. They arent scared for their life they are scared of losing their pension. :p
Click to expand...

LOL if only that was true this woman would be alive but i see the swipe you are taking and get it. in SOME areas the pensions have made a NEW type of individual go out for law enforcement because they see it as a cush job and retirement and they find out they are wrong.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I see that the usual note


"The 'Presumption of Innocence' rule only applies to OUR Guys if an allegation is made against one of THEIR Guys then that is sufficient proof that they are **G*U*I*L*T*Y** (even if there is absolutely no evidence to support the allegation or if the allegation has been raised [and disproved] previously) to justify locking them up without wasting time, effort and/or money on stupid things like trials."
​

is missing from your post.
Click to expand...

Hillary and the DNC in 2016: We know Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians to pervert the election. Now appoint a special prosecutor to find the proof.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
True, but you CAN reduce the chances of that fallibility occurring if you train them sufficiently so that they can make accurate judgments as to when there is "a NEED to apply deadly force as a last option" (as opposed to "a CHANCE to apply deadly force as a first option").

However, if you prefer to live in a society where the police are poorly trained and then use that poor training as an excuse for stupidly killing people that didn't need to be killed, that IS your choice and I wish you the joy of it.

I don't chose to do so.
Click to expand...

Here is how scenarios play out, second by second:

second 01: Cop encounters unknown person with a gun.
second 02: Cop orders unknown person to drop gun.
second 03: Cop is waiting for the person to drop gun.
second 03.5: Cop is shot and killed.
 
dcsports said:
Disclaimer - I'm very pro-police. This specific officer was an idiot.

The woman, seeing an armed man in dark clothing sneaking into her back yard, gun out, would have been fully within her rights to shoot him. He (obviously) posed a threat to her and her grandchild. Based on that call and that bodycam footage, I don't think any grand jury would have indicted her. IMHO a neighbor would have also been within their rights to shoot the officer (who didn't identify himself), assuming they didn't know he was an officer.

The officer should have used judgement that a person within the house could be the resident - he responded to a call TO CHECK ON THE WELL BEING OF THE RESIDENTS. The officer absolutely created a dangerous situation, then compounded it with an itchy trigger finger. He had lots of other options. There's no excuse.
Click to expand...

You are right. The woman could have shot the cop and there is room for allowing that such action in the heat of the fast-paced moment would have made that justifiable. Likewise, given the fast-paced evolving scenario the fact that the cop reacted swiftly to what he thought in the moment was a threat to his life could have also been seen as understandable.
 
marke said:
How can we insure the safety of our officers if they are sent on calls involving unknown threats and possible deadly responses from quick-acting perps with guns? We can tell them to stand down and not go investigate any calls at night or where there is a possibility that someone might point a gun at them without giving them warning or time to assess the threat. That is being done more that we might realize and neighborhoods are becoming more like killing fields of lawless gangs because of it.
Click to expand...

Part of being a law enforcement officer is risk. There is always a risk, on every call. That does not mean they are free to open fire any time they wish. It does not mean they can gun down people because they are scared. 95% of officers know this. They accept this risk. They do their jobs properly, efficiently and safely with this risk. They do it properly when they are scared. They do it at night perfectly fine.

Whether it be a cop, a regular citizen, or anyone else everyone has a right to self defense. However self defense doesn't mean a person can murder another person because they are easily scared. It doesn't mean a person can shoot another person because they are scared of skin tones, or scared of women. It doesn't mean a person can gun down another person because it is impossible to rule out whether they have a gun or not or if they might pose a threat. Self defense means you were in actual danger. Not perceived danger because you are scared of everything. This woman lost her life for failing to close a door. \

Really take a minute and think about the position you are taking.

Failing to close a door = death at the hands of the state with no right to defense
Murder = Not a crime.
 
Kreton said:
Part of being a law enforcement officer is risk. There is always a risk, on every call. That does not mean they are free to open fire any time they wish. It does not mean they can gun down people because they are scared. 95% of officers know this. They accept this risk. They do their jobs properly, efficiently and safely with this risk. They do it properly when they are scared. They do it at night perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

Officers are taught to respond to threats of deadly force with countering threats or even acts involving deadly force. If an officer perceives a threat which is not there and he responds with deadly force then he may end up in jail. That is the risk every officer must take and it should keep officers on their toes. If this officer saw the woman with the gun and thought she was posing an imminent danger to himself and/or the other officer then he was right to respond by shooting. We have courts, not lynch mobs driven by public hysteria and bias, to determine the facts in the case and whether or not the officer was right in his response.
 
marke said:
Officers are taught to respond to threats of deadly force with countering threats or even acts involving deadly force. If an officer perceives a threat which is not there and he responds with deadly force then he may end up in jail. That is the risk every officer must take and it should keep officers on their toes. If this officer saw the woman with the gun and thought she was posing an imminent danger to himself and/or the other officer then he was right to respond by shooting. We have courts, not lynch mobs driven by public hysteria and bias, to determine the facts in the case and whether or not the officer was right in his response.
Click to expand...

Oh just stop with the dramatization. He blundered his way into murdering that poor woman. Plain and simple.
 
marke said:
Here is how scenarios play out, second by second:

second 01: Cop encounters unknown person with a gun.
second 02: Cop orders unknown person to drop gun.
second 03: Cop is waiting for the person to drop gun.
second 03.5: Cop is shot and killed.
Click to expand...

Cute, but what does that have to do with this situation?
 
marke said:
You are right. The woman could have shot the cop and there is room for allowing that such action in the heat of the fast-paced moment would have made that justifiable. Likewise, given the fast-paced evolving scenario the fact that the cop reacted swiftly to what he thought in the moment was a threat to his life could have also been seen as understandable.
Click to expand...

She had a defense. It was her home, in the middle of the night. Someone in dark clothing broke into her back yard and sneaks up on her window with a gun, and starts screaming at her.

He does not have that same luxury. He should expect to encounter a homeowner, and have the presence of mind to not be startled and shoot her.
 
marke said:
Officers are taught to respond to threats of deadly force with countering threats or even acts involving deadly force. If an officer perceives a threat which is not there and he responds with deadly force then he may end up in jail. That is the risk every officer must take and it should keep officers on their toes. If this officer saw the woman with the gun and thought she was posing an imminent danger to himself and/or the other officer then he was right to respond by shooting. We have courts, not lynch mobs driven by public hysteria and bias, to determine the facts in the case and whether or not the officer was right in his response.
Click to expand...

Again, he has to have some presence of mind to recognize that a resident might be at home. He needs to take the time to identify real threats, not shoot at the first person he sees. As you point out - it's a risk he takes. He wasn't responding to a closed store with the door open - he was responding to someone's home.

And again - there's no indication she was holding the gun.
 
marke said:
Officers are taught to respond to threats of deadly force with countering threats or even acts involving deadly force. If an officer perceives a threat which is not there and he responds with deadly force then he may end up in jail. That is the risk every officer must take and it should keep officers on their toes. If this officer saw the woman with the gun and thought she was posing an imminent danger to himself and/or the other officer then he was right to respond by shooting. We have courts, not lynch mobs driven by public hysteria and bias, to determine the facts in the case and whether or not the officer was right in his response.
Click to expand...

If he was following his actual training, not your imaginary training, this would have been averted.

Chief was planning to fire him for not following processes, or training. He was charged with murder. And he wasn't charged with murder and had his chief explicitly say he didn't follow it for no reason.

Here is an example.

If you hear a person in your yard snooping around, and you have no idea who this person or their intent is, should you have the right to arm your self? Yes or No?
 
dcsports said:
Again, he has to have some presence of mind to recognize that a resident might be at home. He needs to take the time to identify real threats, not shoot at the first person he sees. As you point out - it's a risk he takes. He wasn't responding to a closed store with the door open - he was responding to someone's home.

And again - there's no indication she was holding the gun.
Click to expand...

Seems she was likely holding a gun from what I read, however, I don't think it matters.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Oh just stop with the dramatization. He blundered his way into murdering that poor woman. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Too many people are blundering their way into condemning the cop before allowing him to defend himself in court. That kind of pre-judgment may be OK in places like China and North Korea but it is condemned here in America
 
dcsports said:
She had a defense. It was her home, in the middle of the night. Someone in dark clothing broke into her back yard and sneaks up on her window with a gun, and starts screaming at her.

He does not have that same luxury. He should expect to encounter a homeowner, and have the presence of mind to not be startled and shoot her.
Click to expand...

I'm sure all these facts and others will come out in the legitimate trial, not in the kangaroo court conducted by select mobs and TV commentators in the barnyard.
 
dcsports said:
Again, he has to have some presence of mind to recognize that a resident might be at home. He needs to take the time to identify real threats, not shoot at the first person he sees. As you point out - it's a risk he takes. He wasn't responding to a closed store with the door open - he was responding to someone's home.

And again - there's no indication she was holding the gun.
Click to expand...

I am aware of what the amateurs in the street are saying, but I still have not heard the facts and arguments presented by the duly appointed defense attorneys.
 
Kreton said:
If he was following his actual training, not your imaginary training, this would have been averted.

Chief was planning to fire him for not following processes, or training. He was charged with murder. And he wasn't charged with murder and had his chief explicitly say he didn't follow it for no reason.

Here is an example.

If you hear a person in your yard snooping around, and you have no idea who this person or their intent is, should you have the right to arm your self? Yes or No?
Click to expand...

There are justifications in similar scenarios for the homeowner firing first and justifications in similar situations for the cops to fire first. All the facts and arguments must be presented in court for a legal verdict to be rendered. This case cannot be solved in the barnyard with all the animals braying their own individual opinions.
 
marke said:
There are justifications in similar scenarios for the homeowner firing first and justifications in similar situations for the cops to fire first. All the facts and arguments must be presented in court for a legal verdict to be rendered. This case cannot be solved in the barnyard with all the animals braying their own individual opinions.
Click to expand...

What are you crying about? No one dragged this officer out into the street and tried to institute mob justice. He was taken into custody peacefully at his lawyers office. He was processed and now hes out on bond awaiting trial. :roll:

What news can't report on it and people can't have opinions unless you approve of them? **** off. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom