Officer kills woman inside her Texas home after welfare call

[TurtleDude]

Why are LEO's given three days before a statement is taken when they shoot someone? Is the same time given to others that have shot someone in a claim of self-defense?

well under the fifth amendment, you have an absolute right not to talk to the cops or give them a statement. But in most states, if you shoot someone, the burden is on you to prove the affirmative defense of self defense.

 

[Aberration]

The only homicide in the US that doesn’t require an affirmative defense is abortion.

 

[Aberration]

well under the fifth amendment, you have an absolute right not to talk to the cops or give them a statement. But in most states, if you shoot someone, the burden is on you to prove the affirmative defense of self defense.

How is it different for LEO?

 

[ttwtt78640]

How is it different for LEO?

They often have the same employer as the prosecution.

 

[TurtleDude]

How is it different for LEO?

Cops are usually suspended with pay when they shoot someone. If you refuse to talk to the cops, there is a good chance you will be in jail until a magistrate conducts an arraignment. Now, in some clear cases of self defense, you won't be arrested. I wasn't when I shot a mugger because three witnesses told the cops what they saw and the first thing the lead detective said to me was something to the effect that "it looks like you acted properly"

 

[Aberration]

Just because he perceived a threat doesnt mean he had a reasonable perception. The idiots that shot an unarmed (and wrong) guy in his bed failed in their perceptions.

Training is supposed to provide cues and support for those perceptions. So far, it appears this officer failed.

The problem is the courts have allowed a separate standard of reasonable to be used with police which is far more lenient. This is how they get away with shooting people ‘reaching’. Without reasonably knowing someone is armed or them making a clear threat, it’s not reasonable to assume someone reaching is reaching for a weapon.

This is pretty standard in NRA pistol classes. Standard.

Yet it happens all the time.

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

Sounds very bad. I wonder if she pointed a gun at the officer. At any rate its very bad.

~ If that were the case we would likely know immediately. Sounds like something went very wrong. The entire story sounds very suspicious.

 

[ClaraD]

Sounds very bad. I wonder if she pointed a gun at the officer. At any rate its very bad.

Its HER HOME she was inside and nowhere did he identify himself as police

 

[Lursa]

The only homicide in the US that doesn’t require an affirmative defense is abortion.

Not all homicide is against the law...so no defense is needed.

 

[PoS]

so in every possible law enforcement scenario, you oppose no nock entries?

I do too. No knock entries are a product of the drug war, and led to the militarization of police. Cops should have to always declare themselves before entering.

 

[ClaraD]

uh if she pointed it at the officer, that would justify or excuse his actions in some cases

No, not in a case where an officer doesn't identify himself as a cop. Ask the police who went to prison in Atlanta for shooting an 88 year old woman in her own home and then planting evidence...trying to make her look like a drug dealer when she wasn't.

 

[apdst]

Who said turn their backs? There was no close contact...she was at a window, they were outside...

One of the most basic rules of owning a gun: identify your target. They failed.

They were less than 10' apart. That's close contact.

One of the most basic rules of owning a gun: identify your target. They failed

It's easy to armchair quarterback these events.

 

[Aberration]

Not all homicide is against the law...so no defense is needed.

What homicide besides abortion is not against the law?

 

[ludin]

uh if she pointed it at the officer, that would justify or excuse his actions in some cases

Not really. the 4th amendment gets in the way here.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things

She 100% has the right to be secure in her home, and depending on where she lives owning a gun to protect herself might be vital for her self defense.
the cop had 0 right to shoot through that window without first identifying himself. She had every right to have a gun and defend her home from some guy shining a light
through her window.

The cop is 100% wrong in this regard and should be put on trial for murder and 2nd degree murder at that.
better yet the cop should have put on his lights and called the house.

From my understanding she was in the house playing a video game with her nephew when the officer shot through the window.
So not only did he shoot without cause he put a child's life in danger by shooting through that window.

he pretty much violated every procedure and protocol out there.

i will defend cops all day long when they are in the right. when they are not in the right they don't get a free pass.

 

[ludin]

They were less than 10' apart. That's close contact.

He shot through a window with a kid inside and no announcement of who he was.
he was shining a light through her window. by the constitution she is 100% in the right
to defend and be secure in her home and property.

This cop violated every law and rule in the book. He did not follow proper procedure.

It's easy to armchair quarterback these events.

Not in this case. this case is pretty easy.

 

[Obscurity]

fair enough, I disagree but I will give you credit for consistency.

now I am not a big fan of the war on drugs, but given some drugs are illegal, no knock entries are a better chance of the cops seizing contraband. I think if I had the street value of all the blow flushed down toilets just in SW Ohio in the last ten years, I could buy Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

Contraband=private property. When it comes to drugs the us government should not have the power to enter your home unannounced to seize some smokeable plants.

 

[Obscurity]

I do too. No knock entries are a product of the drug war, and led to the militarization of police. Cops should have to always declare themselves before entering.

This was always how it was done before. Of course anyone can conjure up the genie of a boogeyman to sway emotions, but at the end of the day, no knock laws are on their face unconstitutional, as is the absurdly costly and inhumane drug war.

 

[dcsports]

They were less than 10' apart. That's close contact.



It's easy to armchair quarterback these events.

It certainly becomes a lot easier when the 911 call is recorded and the police officer was wearing a bodycam. Ten years ago, all we would have had was the officer's account - which would have said he identified himself and gave multiple warnings before the suspect pointed a gun at him. Family and friends would have protested, and it would become a big controversy. In this case, we know what the officer was told, and can see his actions. So yes, it's easy to comment on exactly how poor the decision to shoot was.

 

[Gaius46]

fair enough, I disagree but I will give you credit for consistency.

now I am not a big fan of the war on drugs, but given some drugs are illegal, no knock entries are a better chance of the cops seizing contraband. I think if I had the street value of all the blow flushed down toilets just in SW Ohio in the last ten years, I could buy Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

But on the other hand as I understand most low level drug dealer types are non violent and no knock entries inevitably put the people inside, including ones not subject to the warrant at risk. And that says nothing of the inevitable mistakes.

Cops get out at risk as well. More than one cop has wound up getting shot entering the wrong house by a justifiably scared homeowner.

 

[Gaius46]

Cops are usually suspended with pay when they shoot someone. If you refuse to talk to the cops, there is a good chance you will be in jail until a magistrate conducts an arraignment. Now, in some clear cases of self defense, you won't be arrested. I wasn't when I shot a mugger because three witnesses told the cops what they saw and the first thing the lead detective said to me was something to the effect that "it looks like you acted properly"

Isn’t the process for dealing possible criminal action by an officer also negotiated into their contracts? I’m pretty sure I’ve read that’s the case in many big city departments.

 

[SLC]

Why do you think that it is inflammatory to mention the race of the woman who was shot?

For the same reasons the local news does not mention the race of robbery suspects and the race of other suspects unless the police are actively looking for them and it is used to help identify them.

 

[TurtleDude]

But on the other hand as I understand most low level drug dealer types are non violent and no knock entries inevitably put the people inside, including ones not subject to the warrant at risk. And that says nothing of the inevitable mistakes.

Cops get out at risk as well. More than one cop has wound up getting shot entering the wrong house by a justifiably scared homeowner.

both of those points are often true

 

[TurtleDude]

Isn’t the process for dealing possible criminal action by an officer also negotiated into their contracts? I’m pretty sure I’ve read that’s the case in many big city departments.

won't matter if the feds get involved.

 

[Ikari]

Yeah, with police culture in this country it's becoming "oops, did we kill an innocent person? Oh well. We were in fear of our lives - something, something.".

Does it make anybody feel good that police culture promotes the idea that officers are allowed to shoot as a first response, then ask questions later?

Well the cop who entered the wrong apartment and shot the occupant did actually end up with jail time. So we may be getting to a place where we take these sorts of executions a bit more seriously.

I think that there needs to be better training for police and that we should invest some money and develop some much better less-than-lethal tools for police to use as first options.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Irrelevant. The officer perceived a threat.

No, like the officer who SAID she thought that she was entering her own apartment and SAID that she "perceived a threat", this officer SAID that he "perceived a threat".

It goes against his training in that scenario to turn and run for cover.

You know that makes a whole lot of sense except for the minor facts that

1. the police officer had no need to turn,
   *
2. the police officer had no need to run, and
   *
3. the police officer was already "under cover".

You said it; not me. Is that how you feel?

Yep, the "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggg ggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttt tttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" bit most certainly covers how I feel. I'm surprised that you didn't notice it.

On the other hand, "selective quotation for the purpose of conveying false impressions" IS something that the Internet Directions Instituting Official Tactics In Colloquia Rules (Part IV - § 473.1 - ¶ ABA - sub¶ xiv - clause r) which states "It is perfectly proper to make totally false accusations by totally misrepresenting another persons position since no one will ever challenge you on the falseness and you can then later use the fact that the false accusation was not challenged to prove that it was true.".