• 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

mike2810 said:
"I have stated that imo the murder or manslaughter is appropriate." , Where are you confused.?
Click to expand...

Well I underlined and bolded it for you. Not sure how much more obvious I could make it for you.

:shrug:


mike2810 said:
The statement I made regarding the charges against the resigned LEO was made before the fact it was not a welfare check that was being done. It also was made prior to the release of what the nephew told the investigator about the gun and what the aunt did.
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** what was called in or whether or not she was holding a gun? The call is merely a starting point. A woman calls in saying someone is breaking into her house you can't just show up and shoot the guy because maybe it's her husband and it's a domestic dispute not a break in. As the officer on the scene you job is to figure out what is actually going on.

Secondly, gun are legal in this country, especially for defending ones home. Even if she was pointing the gun at the officers head, he's the one who was poking around her house unannounced. She had every right to be armed and concerned and she showed a hell of a lot of more restraint by not shooting at the person walking around outside with a flashlight than the cop who shot half a second after stumbling upon the home owner.


mike2810 said:
One reason I generally hold back with opinions till the investigation is done. Most posters make posts just on news releases. The discussions start way early in the investigation process. From what I have read so far the LEO at best should be charged with manslaughter. The investigation should look into what did the neighbor report to the dispatcher. What did the dispatcher say to the LEO's upon dispatching them to the house.

imo, the LEO did not respond appropriately. Not identifying himself as a police officer. The quick response from show me your hands to firing.
Clear enough for you.
Click to expand...

****er should be convicted of murder. That's a clear statement. Three paragraphs of maybe it was the dispatchers fault or the home owner for being armed, really isnt. None of those should matter when a home owner is dead for leaving their ****ing door open.
 
Master Debator said:
Well I underlined and bolded it for you. Not sure how much more obvious I could make it for you.

:shrug:




Who gives a **** what was called in or whether or not she was holding a gun? The call is merely a starting point. A woman calls in saying someone is breaking into her house you can't just show up and shoot the guy because maybe it's her husband and it's a domestic dispute not a break in. As the officer on the scene you job is to figure out what is actually going on.

Secondly, gun are legal in this country, especially for defending ones home. Even if she was pointing the gun at the officers head, he's the one who was poking around her house unannounced. She had every right to be armed and concerned and she showed a hell of a lot of more restraint by not shooting at the person walking around outside with a flashlight than the cop who shot half a second after stumbling upon the home owner.




****er should be convicted of murder. That's a clear statement. Three paragraphs of maybe it was the dispatchers fault or the home owner for being armed, really isnt. None of those should matter when a home owner is dead for leaving their ****ing door open.
Click to expand...

Are you SURE that the officer didn't think that they were at their own house because they had parked their patrol car on the wrong side of the street and wasn't just "standing their ground" in an act of "self defence" when they saw someone they thought was an armed intruder doing something that, under the stress of the moment, they perceived as a threat to their lives and the lives of the hundreds of innocent bystanders?

BTW the FWPD is doing everything possible to ensure that the officer gets the best possible defence by making public statements that there was absolutely no way that the officer's conduct was justified. A few more weeks of that and it will be almost impossible to empanel an unbiased jury.
 
marke said:
The woman deserves sympathy as does the man.
Click to expand...

Distinct echoes of


"In this time of national sadness, let us not be distracted with petty bickering over minor matters."

[The above is "Stock Phrase #47" in "The All Purpose Phrase Book For Government Members and Political Candidates".]
​

ring loudly in everyone's ears.

Will you be adopting the position of one poster (with reference to the young man killed in the UK car accident) that there is no point in putting this officer in front of a court because that will not bring the dead woman back to life?
 
marke said:
I think both individuals, the cop and Mrs. Clinton, should answer valid concerns and charges in court.
Click to expand...

So you will NOT, then, "no longer be posting regarding any alleged financial wrong doings (or any other alleged wrong doings) associated with Ms. Clinton and will refrain from doing so until the jury comes back in with a verdict of 'Guilty'", am I correct?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Are you SURE that the officer didn't think that they were at their own house because they had parked their patrol car on the wrong side of the street and wasn't just "standing their ground" in an act of "self defence" when they saw someone they thought was an armed intruder doing something that, under the stress of the moment, they perceived as a threat to their lives and the lives of the hundreds of innocent bystanders?

BTW the FWPD is doing everything possible to ensure that the officer gets the best possible defence by making public statements that there was absolutely no way that the officer's conduct was justified. A few more weeks of that and it will be almost impossible to empanel an unbiased jury.
Click to expand...

FWPD moved quickly to 'cover themselves'. They are worried about (1) the department being blamed for the officer's actions, and (2) the civil trial.

They don't care about the officer - he's on his own. (I don't know that it would make a difference where the trial is held anyway.) This will make it interesting in the civil case - I'm sure the officer will be the # witness for the family.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Are you SURE that the officer didn't think that they were at their own house because they had parked their patrol car on the wrong side of the street and wasn't just "standing their ground" in an act of "self defence" when they saw someone they thought was an armed intruder doing something that, under the stress of the moment, they perceived as a threat to their lives and the lives of the hundreds of innocent bystanders?

BTW the FWPD is doing everything possible to ensure that the officer gets the best possible defence by making public statements that there was absolutely no way that the officer's conduct was justified. A few more weeks of that and it will be almost impossible to empanel an unbiased jury.
Click to expand...

So you are mad at the truth? The cop never announced himself at the door, and snooped around. Then did an illegal shooting. These are facts. The best he can hope for is negligence on his part, being scared, and getting a reduced sentence. Unless some crazy Hail Marry fact comes out.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
So you are mad at the truth? The cop never announced himself at the door, and snooped around. Then did an illegal shooting. These are facts. The best he can hope for is negligence on his part, being scared, and getting a reduced sentence. Unless some crazy Hail Marry fact comes out.
Click to expand...

But are you SURE that the officer didn't think that they were at their own house because they had parked their patrol car on the wrong side of the street and wasn't just "standing their ground" in an act of "self defence" when they saw someone they thought was an armed intruder doing something that, under the stress of the moment, they perceived as a threat to their lives and the lives of the hundreds of innocent bystanders?

Or am I being too subtle for you?
 
marke said:
Cops have killed innocent people by mistake possibly dozens of times in my lifetime, but cops practically never kill innocent people on purpose. That is the leftist lie that wicked racist bigots want to promote in contradiction to the facts.
Click to expand...

So certainly much more, and more frequent, and even different training is needed. Or do you just find the overall innocent dead "the cost of doing cop business?"
 
marke said:
We'll see what the jury says after hearing all the evidence. The cop appeared to call for the woman to put up her hands but when she did she was pointing a gun at him. How long should he delay before responding to the obvious deadly threat? Long enough to get shot first since he had no idea if she intended to pull the trigger immediately or not? What would cause a person to point a gun at a cop after being told to show empty hands?
Click to expand...

He shouldnt shoot at all. He has no idea who she is...in other words he breaks one of the biggest rules of carrying a gun...*identify your target*....

He could have taken cover and reassessed. He had time to call out to her, he could have moved to a safe position first. Until he knew who he was shooting at.
 
marke said:
That's the real problem. Police officers, unlike Monday morning quarterbacks, rarely have time to fully assess the dangers before having to react to defend themselves from what appears to be an immediate legitimate life threating situation.
Click to expand...

That's why they have training, to know how to react to make time to assess instead of shooting the second they feel fear.
 
Lursa said:
He shouldnt shoot at all. He has no idea who she is...in other words he breaks one of the biggest rules of carrying a gun...*identify your target*....

He could have taken cover and reassessed. He had time to call out to her, he could have moved to a safe position first. Until he knew who he was shooting at.
Click to expand...

What are the chances an officer in a similar situation will follow the same procedures but fail to fire his weapon and end up dead from a gunshot wound?
 
marke said:
What are the chances an officer in a similar situation will follow the same procedures but fail to fire his weapon and end up dead from a gunshot wound?
Click to expand...

Just about the same as if they hadn't been a police officer and had walked into the wrong yard in the middle of the night.

However, I do quite understand that some people are firmly of the opinion that any police officer should be able to shoot anyone, anywhere, at any time, and then be totally immune from any legal consequences simply because they are a police officer who says "I thought that I was about to be attacked and had an honest belief that I was acting in self defence." (even if the police officer was acting in a most UN-police manner and in violation of departmental regulations and policies).
 
rjay said:
What kind of training is done in the U.S. for police officers?
Click to expand...
It's like any other job, just fill out an application and have an interview. If hired they train you for a week and then you're on your own.

;)
 
Wayne Jr said:
It's like any other job, just fill out an application and have an interview. If hired they train you for a week and then you're on your own.

;)
Click to expand...

Hope you are being just a bit satirical here. Yeah, in some small towns and rural areas it might be true. I had a great-uncle who told me a story as a kid how he lost a construction job and moved back to his hometown in the backwoods of Arkansas and was able to get a job as a deputy simply because he had been high school buddies with the sheriff. Metropolitan areas and state police do have extensive training, obviously not enough for some people.
 
Somerville said:
Hope you are being just a bit satirical here. Yeah, in some small towns and rural areas it might be true.
Click to expand...
It's not even true in small or rural towns. Every. Single. Cop. Has to graduate academy, regardless. 2-4 year degrees are often required. rjay was just too lazy to Google his question, so I was happy to give him wrong information out of spite :) Lazy people don't deserve to be informed.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Why are they doing a "welfare check" at 0230 in the morning?

This is why I have a gated entrance to my property. I also have PTZ cameras covering the property. No surprises.

The police should be only able to return fire with rare exception.
Click to expand...

In response to a citizen's call expressing concern about an open front door.
 
Wayne Jr said:
It's like any other job, just fill out an application and have an interview. If hired they train you for a week and then you're on your own.

;)
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. You have to take at least NINE WEEKS of training before you are eligible to join a major police force.

Admittedly the required training time to become an elected sheriff is "slightly" (about 63 days, in fact) shorter.
 
Wayne Jr said:
It's not even true in small or rural towns. Every. Single. Cop. Has to graduate academy, regardless. 2-4 year degrees are often required. rjay was just too lazy to Google his question, so I was happy to give him wrong information out of spite :) Lazy people don't deserve to be informed.
Click to expand...

Although the article is a bit dated, you might find "States require more training time to become a barber than a police officer" interesting.

On a tangential note, you might also find "Weighing the Pros and Cons of Higher Education in EMS" interesting.
 
marke said:
What are the chances an officer in a similar situation will follow the same procedures but fail to fire his weapon and end up dead from a gunshot wound?
Click to expand...

He agreed to take the risk and it's up to him to follow his training. That's what he signed up for and gets paid for and trained for.

You seem to assume that the risk is all on a citizen, supposedly safe in her home. Is that true? That the American people cannot be safe in their homes and should just 'take their chances' with incompetent or careless police?

He had a choice...and he chose to kill. You never even acknowledged that he had a choice.
 
Last edited:
marke said:
What are the chances an officer in a similar situation will follow the same procedures but fail to fire his weapon and end up dead from a gunshot wound?
Click to expand...

When you say, 'same procedures' - you mean the same process? Because he FAILED to follow the procedure.

Now if an officer followed the same process up until the point of confronting the homeowner, but then identified himself, verified his target, and took a defensive position (such as turning off the light so the homeowner couldn't see him, and moving to the side) - both would likely be fine. If he did get shot, again, it would have been his fault for failing to follow procedure.
 
Lursa said:
He shouldnt shoot at all. He has no idea who she is...in other words he breaks one of the biggest rules of carrying a gun...*identify your target*....

He could have taken cover and reassessed. He had time to call out to her, he could have moved to a safe position first. Until he knew who he was shooting at.
Click to expand...

He saw a person pointing a gun at him. He killed her with one shot. I'd say he identified his target. Identifying your target doesn't mean getting their name, their sign and their favorite color.

Also, there the rule: never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. Why was she pointing a gun at a cop? Maybe she should have done that? Firearms safety id everyone's responsibility.
 
The officers weren't doing a "welfare check" as was first reported. They were doing a "structural integrity" check. This is when a business/home/garage door is left open.

The responding officer(s) usually quickly assess the situation. In this case the door was no longer open, lights were on inside the house, etc. They should have simply knocked and announced.

The shooting officer here has been fired and is charged with murder as he should be.
 
apdst said:
He saw a person pointing a gun at him. He killed her with one shot. I'd say he identified his target. Identifying your target doesn't mean getting their name, their sign and their favorite color.

Also, there the rule: never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. Why was she pointing a gun at a cop? Maybe she should have done that? Firearms safety id everyone's responsibility.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that?
 
I am surprised to see how many in this thread are still defending this police officer, perhaps I shouldn’t be.
 
apdst said:
He saw a person pointing a gun at him. He killed her with one shot. I'd say he identified his target. Identifying your target doesn't mean getting their name, their sign and their favorite color.

Also, there the rule: never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. Why was she pointing a gun at a cop? Maybe she should have done that? Firearms safety id everyone's responsibility.
Click to expand...

He was wrong, so he didnt identify his target. Thank GOD you are not a cop. He was wrong and he had the option not to shoot. He didnt have to, he could have taken cover. Plenty of homeowners have firearms for protection and would get them if there was an intruder. It's moronic not to think of that...for trained cops or forum posters that actually have time to think...if capable of critical thinking.

And no one says she pointed the gun at him (maybe the cop did but who would believe him? It's in his own best interests) She had a gun at the window. That's not the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom