Officer kills woman inside her Texas home after welfare call

[marke]

Correct, police officers do have very little time to react to a threat, however, he put himself in that position. From the body cam video, he fired his weapon about a half second after yelling "show me your hands", this doesn't even give Jackson the opportunity to even raise her hands. This office created this dangerous situation.

Like I said, the split second timing of the event will likely be a major focus of both the prosecution and the defense at the trial. There is no present justification in condemning the cop before the trial because there will be a defense and it may persuade the jury that the cop did not do anything criminal at all.

 

[marke]

That same jury will likely see Jackson was well within her rights to raise her weapon at an intruder on her property. His dept took no time in determining his failure to follow his training and he was going to be fired before he came in and resigned. He's a stain that dept will now have to recover from, but thankfully he won't be employed by any law enforcement agencies for the rest of his life.

You seem sure that the jury will convict. They might, but at least they will also consider mitigating factors before rendering a decision, unlike TV driven mobs focused on only those one-sided details the reporters want presented.

 

[SkyFox76]

You seem sure that the jury will convict. They might, but at least they will also consider mitigating factors before rendering a decision, unlike TV driven mobs focused on only those one-sided details the reporters want presented.

Hey I'd love to hear what the officer has to say but unfortunately he's refused to give a statement. And no, I've seen too many bad calls by juries over the years to think anything is a sure bet.

 

[dcsports]

Good point, and yet why should the cop not react to a gun in his face held by a woman who has been ordered to show her empty hands just because she did not know he was a cop? Did she think it was her neighbor she was pointing her gun at? Did she think it was a murderous thug who was commanding her to show her hands in order not to be taken as a dangerous person herself?

It's been pointed out repeatedly - he did not give her any time to react. What should he have done? There's a lot he shouldn't have done, but at that point he should have made sure he wasn't shooting an innocent person. He could have turned off his light and moved to one side. He could have backed off. He could have identified himself.

She probably did think it was a murderous thug sneaking into her yard, and from her perspective, she was right.

 

[dcsports]

I am the only one advocating for the officer to be given a fair trial before being found guilty?

Not at all. I think most here would advocate that. Whether he's held criminally responsible is up to a jury. At the same time, impossible to deny that the officer's stupid actions directly led to that woman's death. We can certainly discuss it on a discussion board.

Are you a police officer? I hear what you are saying. As I said earlier, I'm very pro-police. That doesn't mean that we can't be critical of their actions. This officer, much like the one in Dallas, used terrible judgement. It's one thing to say that police face a difficult job, and place their lives at risk. It's another to not acknowledge that sometimes one makes poor decisions that will cost an innocent person their life.

 

[Hatuey]

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.

You're using all of the key words. But people aren't agreeing. If only they saw how dangerous some people can be. Right?



Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[SkyFox76]

It's been pointed out repeatedly - he did not give her any time to react. What should he have done? There's a lot he shouldn't have done, but at that point he should have made sure he wasn't shooting an innocent person. He could have turned off his light and moved to one side. He could have backed off. He could have identified himself.

She probably did think it was a murderous thug sneaking into her yard, and from her perspective, she was right.

While I agree the ex cop had a split second to react when he saw her in the window (because that's the position he put himself in), he had a good amount of time from arriving at the house and lurking in her yard, then him opening her gate and entering her back yard where he could have made the announcement he was FWPD. It's not like they pulled up and boom there was this woman standing at her window pointing a gun at him.

And yes one hundred percent! To that woman there was an intruder on the property that she was needing to deal with to keep her nephew and herself safe.

 

[marke]

Hey I'd love to hear what the officer has to say but unfortunately he's refused to give a statement. And no, I've seen too many bad calls by juries over the years to think anything is a sure bet.

Hillary refused to accept the results of the 2016 election because she lost. It sounds to me like you will reject any jury verdict that does not match your own amateur and premature judgment in the case.

 

[marke]

It's been pointed out repeatedly - he did not give her any time to react. What should he have done? There's a lot he shouldn't have done, but at that point he should have made sure he wasn't shooting an innocent person. He could have turned off his light and moved to one side. He could have backed off. He could have identified himself.

She probably did think it was a murderous thug sneaking into her yard, and from her perspective, she was right.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that the jury is still out and the verdict still not reached. Why are we still tying this case on a debate site without due process or a court of law?

 

[marke]

Not at all. I think most here would advocate that. Whether he's held criminally responsible is up to a jury. At the same time, impossible to deny that the officer's stupid actions directly led to that woman's death. We can certainly discuss it on a discussion board.

Are you a police officer? I hear what you are saying. As I said earlier, I'm very pro-police. That doesn't mean that we can't be critical of their actions. This officer, much like the one in Dallas, used terrible judgement. It's one thing to say that police face a difficult job, and place their lives at risk. It's another to not acknowledge that sometimes one makes poor decisions that will cost an innocent person their life.

If you are for the police why are you adding fuel to the bigoted fire underlying the declarations of guilt by mobs who hate cops in general and think they are evil and racist? Why not be fair to cops and admit it is unwise to prematurely judge and condemn them before hearing the entirety of the evidence and arguments in court?

 

[marke]

You're using all of the key words. But people aren't agreeing. If only they saw how dangerous some people can be. Right?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

People think they should prematurely judge and condemn the cop based upon partial evidence, submitted outside of court without due process and an opportunity to present a defense afforded to all Americans, including blacks and cops?

 

[Master Debator]

People think they should prematurely judge and condemn the cop based upon partial evidence, submitted outside of court without due process and an opportunity to present a defense afforded to all Americans, including blacks and cops?

:lamo

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment and gun discussions the 1st argument Conservatives always use is the private ownership of guns keeps the government from becoming a police state.

But then when events like this happen many of those same Conservatives defend the government and police when they use police state like tactics.

 

[TheParser]

so basically you have no logical reason for your assumption

Thank you for your opinion.

As you know, the Internet is a nice place where we ordinary people can blow off some steam.

No one ever changes anyone else's opinion about anything, be it police shootings or the best flavor of ice cream.

I certainly cannot change your mind, and you certainly cannot …



Have a nice weekend!

 

[AGENT J]

Thank you for your opinion.

As you know, the Internet is a nice place where we ordinary people can blow off some steam.

No one ever changes anyone else's opinion about anything, be it police shootings or the best flavor of ice cream.

I certainly cannot change your mind, and you certainly cannot …



Have a nice weekend!

Well thats factually wrong wrong but i get it .. you can answer my basic question or defend and support your illogical claim. got it. LOL

Let us know when you can, thanks!

 

[Hatuey]

People think they should prematurely judge and condemn the cop based upon partial evidence, submitted outside of court without due process and an opportunity to present a defense afforded to all Americans, including blacks and cops?

Which existing evidence are people ignoring marke? Why can't they are things the way you do?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[Aberration]

Enough for what? To go ahead and send him to prison without a trial? To execute him? To send other cops to prison for being white or cops? What is the point of condemning him without a trial?

Enough to form a reasonable opinion without making irrational defenses because he has a badge. The fact that isn’t even an option you considered, but only the worst, speaks volumes to your mentality on this. Hero worship.

 

[SkyFox76]

Hillary refused to accept the results of the 2016 election because she lost. It sounds to me like you will reject any jury verdict that does not match your own amateur and premature judgment in the case.

This thread is about the careless actions of a ex police officer, not Clinton or the election. As of last night this ex leo has refused to give a statement, so we have the body cam and we have his own superiors statements. Now we wait for his explanation.

 

[marke]

Which existing evidence are people ignoring marke? Why can't they are things the way you do?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

What facts from the defense are you taking into consideration before condemning the cop without a trial?

 

[SkyFox76]

It has been pointed out repeatedly that the jury is still out and the verdict still not reached. Why are we still tying this case on a debate site without due process or a court of law?

Do you not understand the concept of a discussion forum? Seriously, no one cares you if contribute or don't. And no one here is under impression that our opinions will somehow be detrimental in whether this guy is found to be negligent and sent to prison or he manages to convince anybody he was right in his actions.

 

[marke]

Enough to form a reasonable opinion without making irrational defenses because he has a badge. The fact that isn’t even an option you considered, but only the worst, speaks volumes to your mentality on this. Hero worship.

There is not one good reason to condemn the cop without a trial. Not one. Those who rush to publicly condemn the cop without a trial are encouraging bigots, thugs, and racists to condemn all cops out of unjustified hatred for authority.

 

[marke]

Do you not understand the concept of a discussion forum? Seriously, no one cares you if contribute or don't. And no one here is under impression that our opinions will somehow be detrimental in whether this guy is found to be negligent and sent to prison or he manages to convince anybody he was right in his actions.

Racist bigotry and hatred for cops in America feeds on the opinions of judgmental cop haters who promote the premature condemnation of cops based upon one sided and/or bigoted narratives. People with respect for others will always promote the rule of law and due processes to avoid unjust narratives which serve only to feed racism, bigotry and hatred.

 

[dcsports]

It has been pointed out repeatedly that the jury is still out and the verdict still not reached. Why are we still tying this case on a debate site without due process or a court of law?

Again, we're not 'trying the case'. We're trying to discuss it. On a discussion board.

 

[dcsports]

If you are for the police why are you adding fuel to the bigoted fire underlying the declarations of guilt by mobs who hate cops in general and think they are evil and racist? Why not be fair to cops and admit it is unwise to prematurely judge and condemn them before hearing the entirety of the evidence and arguments in court?

I'm not 'adding fuel to the bigoted fire' or 'condemning' the officer. Again, this is a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss the issue, click on a different thread. I think most of the people on this board can separate this specific incident from preconceived notions on race or 'hate' toward cops, and have a reasonable discussion about it. That's pretty much been the case for 46+ pages of this thread.

Now, is there a reason that you are having difficulty discussing this specific incident, and the actions of this officer?

 

[dcsports]

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment and gun discussions the 1st argument Conservatives always use is the private ownership of guns keeps the government from becoming a police state.

But then when events like this happen many of those same Conservatives defend the government and police when they use police state like tactics.

In fairness, very few people have condoned the actions of this specific officer, in this case. Most have pointed to the right of the woman to feel secure and defend herself in her own home.