SAPD: Officer fatally shoots man while protecting ex-roommate (felony, military)

[Backstop]

Put it this way:

1. Officer Backstop assumes the primary mission of getting Olive Oyl home safely.

2. When arriving at Olive Oyl's home, Brutus shows up, and starts lobbing rounds.

3. Both autos leave the scene, and more rounds are fired.

4. Up to this point, the LEO and Olive Oyl are uninjured.

5. LEO follows Brutus to his house, where more rounds are fired. Brutus is shot and expires.

6. LEO gets his act together and looks at Olive Oyl...and she's got a bullet hole in her head.

7. Oops...Primary mission fail.


I imagine some of you folks are LEOs, and I appreciate the work you do.

I also understand very well the requirements when a person assumes the responsibility of protecting someone.

Apparently, and understandably, I see where, to a degree, this is a bit in conflict with an LEO's responsibilities. (that sentence sucks, but there it is).

And I disagree with it.

So to take it a bit further, how would the above scenario play out in a court of law and the court of popular opinion?

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by Backstop

Put it this way:

1. Officer Backstop assumes the primary mission of getting Olive Oyl home safely.

2. When arriving at Olive Oyl's home, Brutus shows up, and starts lobbing rounds.

3. Both autos leave the scene, and more rounds are fired.

4. Up to this point, the LEO and Olive Oyl are uninjured.

5. LEO follows Brutus to his house, where more rounds are fired. Brutus is shot and expires.

6. LEO gets his act together and looks at Olive Oyl...and she's got a bullet hole in her head.

7. Oops...Primary mission fail.


I imagine some of you folks are LEOs, and I appreciate the work you do.

I also understand very well the requirements when a person assumes the responsibility of protecting someone.

Apparently, and understandably, I see where, to a degree, this is a bit in conflict with an LEO's responsibilities. (that sentence sucks, but there it is).

And I disagree with it.

So to take it a bit further, how would the above scenario play out in a court of law and the court of popular opinion?

We can make up examples all day long. That doesnt prove who is right, it proves that different situations have to be handled in different ways.

As for the "court of popular opinion" the Police can do little about that. Some people look at facts first and some people feel first. You can maybe educate the people who look at facts but the people who feel can not be educated. A lot of people dont like the Police. I dont have enough time to explain it all up from "the police" side of things but again, to sum it up, no amount of facts, real facts, not just police leaning thoughts, can overcome the feelings some people have. I am not talking about somewhat legitimate problems people have with the Police, I am talking about (and yes, to a point, you are doing it) people who see what the police do and just want to monday morning QB that without a real understanding on either the situation (you were not there) nor an understanding that much of what the police do is based on very sound best practices that have been developed by hundreds of thousands of people over hundreds of years.

People just like to think "this how it should be done." Oh well...and that leads into the next question. Courts, where facts are tried, not opinions, have to take into account things like the reasonable man test, and in the case of the police, that reasonable man is a cop.

To leave this post on a somewhat more light hearted measure so you dont think I am being a butt head to you (or anyone) There is an old joke: If you want people to love you become a fireman, not a cop. (that is true)

[majormadmax]

It's obvious that many folks on here don't truly understand the roles and responsibilities of a peace officer in this state.

While it's great to express an opinion of what some might think should happen, the truth of the matter is that most likely the officer involved responded in accordance with his responsibilities and duties. There is still a lot of questions that need to be answered to make a final decision on that, but for the most part given the information provided it appears he did everything "by the book."

I know there are a lot of people who like to second-guess what the police do, a lot of times they feel they are the victim or "entrapped" when caught breaking the law and therefore they become of the mindset that the police have free reign in what they do both on and off duty.

The truth of the matter, as has been explained several times in this thread, is that they have serious constraints in what they can and cannot do. Those aspects of the job are rarely included during local media coverage, whose goal is not always to present accurate information but to be the first to report it.

So when one puts their personal biases aside, and truly looks at the factors surrounding this incident in an objective manner; plus researches the legal aspects to include the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, they will understand why several of us continue to maintain that given the information provided, this appears to have been a clear shoot.

But that final decision will be left to a Grand Jury, which will make the determination as to whether this officer acted within his authority or not. All the rest of us can do is speculate.

Cheers! M2

[BstYet2Be]

.

MOD Note:

Stick to the topic of the OP - other scenarios are not up for discussion, nor is any further law enforcement "educational" lessons not pertinent to this particular case.

Stay on Topic!
.

[TrapperL]

According to KSAT, the moron was threatening the lady so she called her bud, the cop, to take her home. When they got there, moron was waiting for them and started shooting. The officer and the lady fled with moron in hot pursuit. They pulled into the First Credit Union parking lot and moron then shot the lady and fled. The officer then followed moron home where he got rid of the garbage. So I guess some of you bleeding hearts think the officer should have done nothing after having his passenger shot. What if moron had stopped off at a burger joint and started shooting? How about if it was one of yer kids that got killed at that burger joint? The officer did what he should have done, take the shooter out. Now we won't have to worry about the moron stopping at the burger joint and he won't be threatening anybody anymore. Yet another piece of trash that needed to be removed from society.
SAPD ID man killed in officer-involved shooting | News - Home

[Backstop]

Originally Posted by TrapperL

So I guess some of you bleeding hearts think the officer should have done nothing after having his passenger shot.

Getting her some medical care immediately comes to mind.

And to add: I'm not exactly sure what your "bleeding hearts" comment implies, but I assure you I've never been called that before, and I most certainly am a supporter of taking out the trash.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by Backstop

Getting her some medical care immediately comes to mind.

Moderator cut: Off-Topic

That depends on what kind of wound it is and what the danger is to others. If a guy is killing/shooting people, I have to stop that before I tend to the wounded.

If I am in fresh/hot pursuit of a violent and armed felon and I sustain, or someone with me sustains non life threatening injuries, I probably wont break off the persuit, nor should I in some cases.

Again, when you are satuarated with very important tasks, even bad things/dangerous things/ get pushed off until you accomplish the mission. Sometimes the mission is more important than anything else. A cop doesnt get to quit the fight until he is relieved. Sometimes that means "to the death" because if you dont fight like that, that is for sure going to be the unfortunate result for you. To be blunt, sometimes there is no giving up, no matter what that means, or far worse things can happen, even if it seems like the "worse" things are already happening.

Triage.

1. Armed man who has already proven he will try to kill and has no respect for the one thing that he knows will kill him back (Police)

2. Non life threatening wound of a civilian, even if really bad.

In isolation, either of those seems like a very critical task to take care of. You only get to take care of one. In general, you have to ask the question, "what choice is most likely to keep things from getting worse" in a case like this, sometimes that means taking out the guy who is willing to kill.

[Backstop]

Nes, I understand what you're saying.

Matter of fact, I understand more than you're giving me credit for, yet I have no ability to explain further.

But regardless how strongly you support your contention that what the LEO did was correct, I'll never agree it was the prudent thing to do.

In my world, almost without exception, taking the person you're assigned to protect into a dangerous situation is a no-go.

And again, I understand you have laws, jurisdictional regs, etc. which compel you to do so.

With that, I'll leave the discussion.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by Backstop

Nes, I understand what you're saying.

Matter of fact, I understand more than you're giving me credit for, yet I have no ability to explain further.

But regardless how strongly you support your contention that what the LEO did was correct, I'll never agree it was the prudent thing to do.

In my world, almost without exception, taking the person you're assigned to protect into a dangerous situation is a no-go.

And again, I understand you have laws, jurisdictional regs, etc. which compel you to do so.

With that, I'll leave the discussion.

I think what you may be missing is an Officer is assigned to protect "everyone" as best as he can. Again, that is why it is often prudent to chase the guy who is/could harm more people than to stop and take care of the people who are already hurt.

Being a police officer is not like being a private body guard or even people in the military on a mission where you have one goal and that is your mission.

That may very well be what this Officer did.

[Merovee]

Originally Posted by Backstop

My opinion is the LEO did in fact screw up.

If his primary goal was to protect the female, he should not have followed Aragon.

One big premise of protecting someone is to drive away from danger, not into it.

Originally Posted by Backstop

Getting her some medical care immediately comes to mind.

And to add: I'm not exactly sure what your "bleeding hearts" comment implies, but I assure you I've never been called that before, and I most certainly am a supporter of taking out the trash.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

This is exactly right. If you have an injured person in your vehicle, and a crook who caused that injury, it would make sense that getting medical aid for the injured is more important than catching someone especially if you already know their identity.

Moderator cut: Off-Topic

Moderator cut: Libel/defamation issues w/o the other named parties opportunity to present their side of the argument.