• 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

apdst said:
When she raised and pointed her weapon, she should have pulled the trigger.

.
Click to expand...

TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, that would have resulted in the arrival of many more heavily armed police officer in short order and then they could have gunned the woman down with impunity because she had "shot at a police officer". Had she pulled the trigger and actually hit the police officer, her odds of survival would have been halved. Had she hit the police officer and wounded him seriously, her odds of survival would have been halved again. Had she hit the police officer and killed him, her odds of survival would have been negligible.
Click to expand...

Yes, recognizing this is kind of a "no ****!?" realization for the rest of us but not everyone thinks these things thru properly.
 
apdst said:
And she's dead. Would you rather be tried by 12, or carried 6?
Click to expand...

Hmm... is that an admission that she had every right (and reason?) to shoot that (now ex) police officer?
 
apdst said:
When she raised and pointed her weapon, she should have pulled the trigger.

Firearms Safety 101: never point you gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.
Click to expand...

That is a gross oversimplification of the situation. Perhaps her "rule 101" was that no shot will be fired unless forced entry was attempted indicating that the target was clearly involved in the commission of a crime and/or posing a credible threat?
 
Hatuey said:
If you have read through this thread, and come to the conclusion that some people really believe their own Rambo fairy tales about the rules of engagement. I think you are entirely justified. From the perspective of someone who has never served, their perspective is insane. We have military people who dont think there was anything justified about this shoot. I don't think it's crazy for me to say 'something wrong with police creeping through backyards and killing citizens'.

Some people remain convinced that this woman really is responsible for her murder. Their pattern of dismissal has not changed one bit since Trayvon Martin. There isn't one murder they won't justify. There isn't one shooting they won't see how great the cop was for getting rid of the menace.

They've given the game up by now and been exposed for what they really are. Why keep going? Why make these herculean efforts to save cops from consequences of killing people without cause?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment, but take issue with linking this to the Trayvon Martin incident. I don't want to re-hash that here, but there's some big differences that make the two not comparable.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Using your definition of "identifying your target", you are quite correct.



Well, there isn't any doubt that the former police officer followed that rule.

We don't know if the dead woman followed that rule and we can't ask her, can we?



And exactly how do you propose to establish that she knew that the person prowling around in her backyard was a police officer? Have you asked her? Did the bodycam recording show that the person prowling around in her backyard actually identified themselves as a police officer?



I presume that you meant "should NOT have done that".

I can tell you without much fear of contradiction from any rational person that, had the woman fired a gun in the general direction of the police officer, the woman would be the object of massive return fire and would almost certainly have been killed in a "regrettable, but completely justified exchange of fire between police officers carrying out their duties and a person who fired upon police officers carrying out their duties".
Click to expand...

It's interesting that the woman appeared to use more restraint in shooting than the officer.

Excellent points regarding 'if' the woman had fired first. The officer would have been justified in returning fire. He would still have likely been in trouble for initiating the situation, but would have had a more legitimate explanation.

I don't think the woman would have been killed though. They would have backed off and actually spoken with her.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a gross oversimplification of the situation. Perhaps her "rule 101" was that no shot will be fired unless forced entry was attempted indicating that the target was clearly involved in the commission of a crime and/or posing a credible threat?
Click to expand...

Actually, the sentiment really falls apart when applied to the officer. He entered the yard gun drawn, and pointed at the window when he put his flashlight on it. Does that mean he intended to kill ("destroy") anyone who happened to be inside?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
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).
Click to expand...

I usually judge these situations by whether or not I’d be jailed if I did what the cop did. In this I rather doubt even get bail.

Unfortunately an entirely separate legal system has sprung up around police behavior. A reasonably scared cop almost always gets off.
 
dcsports said:
Actually, the sentiment really falls apart when applied to the officer. He entered the yard gun drawn, and pointed at the window when he put his flashlight on it. Does that mean he intended to kill ("destroy") anyone who happened to be inside?
Click to expand...

That is precisely why the (now ex) police officer is unlikely to testify in his defense. His lawyer is free to spin some yarn of reasonable doubt as to why this was not Murder 1, but will likely not be able to present any self-defense claim since the (now ex) police officer clearly took many actions to provoke any alleged attack.
 
Someone correct me if I am wrong.

When this police officer looked in the window he saw BOTH the child and woman and thought THEY were the burglars? He thought they were a threat?

How many break-ins are committed by a woman and child?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a gross oversimplification of the situation. Perhaps her "rule 101" was that no shot will be fired unless forced entry was attempted indicating that the target was clearly involved in the commission of a crime and/or posing a credible threat?
Click to expand...

The bottomline, is she was pointing the gun at the window. The cop saw a gun pointed at him. He reacted.

If you point a gun at a cop, the cop is going to shoot. He isn't going to deescalate, retreat, or anything else.
 
apdst said:
The bottomline, is she was pointing the gun at the window. The cop saw a gun pointed at him. He reacted.

If you point a gun at a cop, the cop is going to shoot. He isn't going to deescalate, retreat, or anything else.
Click to expand...

Yep, but that (now ex) cop is likely going to be doing some serious time. The good people of Texas are unlikely to take kindly to cops executing folks in their homes as part of a routine, non-emergency "welfare visit". I bet that concerned neighbor (who called the police) is very upset about it too.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, that would have resulted in the arrival of many more heavily armed police officer in short order and then they could have gunned the woman down with impunity because she had "shot at a police officer". Had she pulled the trigger and actually hit the police officer, her odds of survival would have been halved. Had she hit the police officer and wounded him seriously, her odds of survival would have been halved again. Had she hit the police officer and killed him, her odds of survival would have been negligible.

BUT, the police would have been "completely justified" in "returning fire" and so (unless he was killed) the police officer who shot the woman would have been exonerated and returned to duty as a police officer.



Firearms Safety 102: "Know that what you intend to destroy is what you think it is."
Click to expand...

Not if she was laying on the ground, spread eagle, with no weapon in her hand.

Then, during the trial, the bodycam video would show that the officer didn't announce himself. Right?
 
apdst said:
She would be better off. Agreed?
Click to expand...

That is hard to say, the result of a shots fired, officer down call - with the armed and extremely dangerous suspect(s) inside the house is not likely to have ended well either.
 
dcsports said:
Ex-cop.

That distinction is important here, because as an officer, he wouldn't have the option to remain silent. He walked away without even filing a report. That's a good indication that he realizes what a bad position he's in.
Click to expand...

I think he knew that the less he said, the better off he is, because the deck in stacked against him because he's a white cop that killed a black woman.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is hard to say, the result of a shots fired, officer down call - with the armed and extremely dangerous suspect(s) inside the house is not likely to have ended well either.
Click to expand...

Well, this scenario damn sure didn't end well. Agreed?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but that (now ex) cop is likely going to be doing some serious time. The good people of Texas are unlikely to take kindly to cops executing folks in their homes as part of a routine, non-emergency "welfare visit". I bet that concerned neighbor (who called the police) is very upset about it too.
Click to expand...

Until they find out that she pointed a gun at the cop. That'll be a game changer.
 
apdst said:
Well, this scenario damn sure didn't end well. Agreed?
Click to expand...

One never knows when (now ex) officer trigger happy is going to pay you an unannounced visit at 2:30 AM. That thought by the jury members may not bode well for him. That jury just might send a loud and clear message to those other heroes in blue.
 
apdst said:
The bottomline, is she was pointing the gun at the window. The cop saw a gun pointed at him. He reacted.

If you point a gun at a cop, the cop is going to shoot. He isn't going to deescalate, retreat, or anything else.
Click to expand...

He never said he saw a gun. His own words in the video indicate he did not.

So you might as well drop that unsupported argument.
 
apdst said:
Not if she was laying on the ground, spread eagle, with no weapon in her hand.

Then, during the trial, the bodycam video would show that the officer didn't announce himself. Right?
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Ever see the video of the cops shooting the guy in the hotel hallway? They continually screamed at him, he tried to do as they asked, was confused (terrified like most homeowners would be), and they shot him.

No video at trial is going to help the dead victim, is it?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
One never knows when (now ex) officer trigger happy is going to pay you an unannounced visit at 2:30 AM. That thought by the jury members may not bode well for him. That jury just might send a loud and clear message to those other heroes in blue.
Click to expand...

What message will that be? "If you defend yourself, you're going to prison (especially if you're white and you shoot a colored person)"?
 
Lursa said:
Wrong again. Ever see the video of the cops shooting the guy in the hotel hallway? They continually screamed at him, he tried to do as they asked, was confused (terrified like most homeowners would be), and they shot him.

No video at trial is going to help the dead victim, is it?
Click to expand...

No, that dude kept reaching for his shorts. If he had laid still with his arms spread, he wouldn't have gotten shot
 
apdst said:
Until they find out that she pointed a gun at the cop. That'll be a game changer.
Click to expand...

That is BS - many (and likely most) Texans have absolutely no problem with homeowners being armed and ready for whatever when investigating unknown persons lurking about and shining flashlights into their windows at 2:30 AM.

His lawyer has one tough case to present if he is relying on explaining to the jury how reasonable that (now ex) police officer was acting.

Had that command been "Drop the gun, I'm a police officer" instead of "Show me your hands" then there would have been a slim chance for mercy if he had given her ample time (more than 1 second?) to react to that (more logical) command.
 
Lursa said:
He never said he saw a gun. His own words in the video indicate he did not.

So you might as well drop that unsupported argument.
Click to expand...

He hasn't said anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom