Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here I am, a little late. Watched some of the trial last week, (re-run on court t/v). Amber answered, "yes," when asked during her testimony, if she intended to kill whoever was in her apartment.
This tragic shooting is why I think the training of police officers, to be killing machines is so wrong. Trigger happy. Why not shoot the perceived perpetrator in the leg, or use other means?
Still, in watching some of the trial, I was struck by Amber's complete lack of her senses. I am wondering now if she took a pill or had a drink, on the way home. She was not a space cadet. She seems to be a smart lady, that made a horrible tragic mistake. I do think she needed to pay for her crime, even though it was a mistaken event. None of her senses seem to kick in. She was like a robot, that boyfriend of hers could not have had that much power over her. Sexting.
I also wonder, since she was molested at a very young age, if she should have been a police officer.
The jury got it right, JMO. What if that would have been her apartment, her mom or someone else could have been waiting for her.
that is not the question. It has always been obvious that she fired center of mass in the standard police way which is an attempt to kill. So she had every intention of shooting to kill when she fired.
The question is whether she went into what she thought was her apartment with an intent to kill any intruder. that would not be standard police procedure.
Here I am, a little late. Watched some of the trial last week, (re-run on court t/v). Amber answered, "yes," when asked during her testimony, if she intended to kill whoever was in her apartment.
This tragic shooting is why I think the training of police officers, to be killing machines is so wrong. Trigger happy. Why not shoot the perceived perpetrator in the leg, or use other means?
Very hard to shoot someone in the leg.
As I understand it, cops are trained to not mess around if they decide they have to pull their gun. And after a lot of reading and pondering about it, I'm in agreement with this.
The question is, why did she decide to pull her gun in the first place?
Neither her life nor anyone else's was threatened. She wasn't cornered by the "intruder". She deliberately chose to pull her gun and confront someone when there was no need to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mollygee
Still, in watching some of the trial, I was struck by Amber's complete lack of her senses. I am wondering now if she took a pill or had a drink, on the way home. She was not a space cadet. She seems to be a smart lady, that made a horrible tragic mistake. I do think she needed to pay for her crime, even though it was a mistaken event. None of her senses seem to kick in. She was like a robot, that boyfriend of hers could not have had that much power over her. Sexting.
I also wonder, since she was molested at a very young age, if she should have been a police officer.
The jury got it right, JMO. What if that would have been her apartment, her mom or someone else could have been waiting for her.
Yeah, whatever else can be said about what she did, her brain was clearly not in thinking mode. Unfortunately, I think most of us would agree that if you do pull your gun, that's when you really need to be thinking.
As I understand it, cops are trained to not mess around if they decide they have to pull their gun. And after a lot of reading and pondering about it, I'm in agreement with this.
Yes, true. There is no "shooting in the leg." Aiming for an extremity (which won't stop a determined assailant) essentially means there really isn't a reason to shoot in the first place, as well as meaning you don't care who is on the other side of the target.
Quote:
The question is, why did she decide to pull her gun in the first place?
Neither her life nor anyone else's was threatened. She wasn't cornered by the "intruder". She deliberately chose to pull her gun and confront someone when there was no need to do so.
Back up one step: Why did she enter the apartment in the first place?
Entering a facility alone where she believed an assailant was waiting was in conflict with her training and explicit standard department procedures. She was supposed to have called for backup, which would have arrived within five minutes.
If she had done that, there's a good chance she'd have seen she wasn't actually at her apartment, and that certainly would have been noted when her back-up called, "We're at your apartment...where are you?"
Quote:
Yeah, whatever else can be said about what she did, her brain was clearly not in thinking mode. Unfortunately, I think most of us would agree that if you do pull your gun, that's when you really need to be thinking.
Being licensed to carry myself, I said at the top of this thread that when you draw your gun, you must begin observing everything around you.
Yes, true. There is no "shooting in the leg." Aiming for an extremity (which won't stop a determined assailant) essentially means there really isn't a reason to shoot in the first place, as well as meaning you don't care who is on the other side of the target.
Back up one step: Why did she enter the apartment in the first place?
Entering a facility alone where she believed an assailant was waiting was in conflict with her training and explicit standard department procedures. She was supposed to have called for backup, which would have arrived within five minutes.
If she had done that, there's a good chance she'd have seen she wasn't actually at her apartment, and that certainly would have been noted when her back-up called, "We're at your apartment...where are you?"
Being licensed to carry myself, I said at the top of this thread that when you draw your gun, you must begin observing everything around you.
Why was she supposed to call for backup? She wasn't on duty. And she was at what she thought was her private residence.
Why was she supposed to call for backup? She wasn't on duty. And she was at what she thought was her private residence.
It's not a duty/off-duty issues. It's an issue of tactics...surviving the incident.
Let's say, for a moment, that there was really a bad guy in her apartment, an armed criminal who will kill without hesitation to escape.
So she opens the door of a lighted hallway, totally silhouetted in the door frame, not knowing where in the apartment that assailant might actually be, or even how many were in the room.
All tactical advantage goes to the assailant. He knows exactly where she is and can see her clearly. She doesn't know where he is and can't see him. He could be shielded or concealed anywhere, she is standing silhouetted in a doorway with limited range of motion. She has entered a "kill zone."
If she had really been facing an armed opponent--or opponents--she would be dead.
That's why those instructions exist. If there is no reason to believe lives are immediately on the line (such as an active shooting situation in a school), a police officer is instructed to monitor the situation and call for back-up.
It's not a duty/off-duty issues. It's an issue of tactics...surviving the incident.
Let's say, for a moment, that there was really a bad guy in her apartment, an armed criminal who will kill without hesitation to escape.
So she opens the door of a lighted hallway, totally silhouetted in the door frame, not knowing where in the apartment that assailant might actually be, or even how many were in the room.
All tactical advantage goes to the assailant. He knows exactly where she is and can see her clearly. She doesn't know where he is and can't see him. He could be shielded or concealed anywhere, she is standing silhouetted in a doorway with limited range of motion. She has entered a "kill zone."
If she had really been facing an armed opponent--or opponents--she would be dead.
That's why those instructions exist. If there is no reason to believe lives are immediately on the line (such as an active shooting situation in a school), a police officer is instructed to monitor the situation and call for back-up.
Ok, I now understand that this is your view of best practices. Not instructions that bound the then-cop. And not something that she was required to do in her off-duty capacity.
Ok, I now understand that this is your view of best practices. Not instructions that bound the then-cop. And not something that she was required to do in her off-duty capacity.
No, those are specific instructions given to the Dallas police, and there is very little difference between an officer being "on duty" and "off duty" in that regard. When an "off duty" police officer draws her weapon, she becomes "on duty." And in fact, she saw herself as an on-duty officer as she believed she had the right to shoot because "he didn't follow my instructions." At no time did she believe she was acting as merely an armed private citizen.
The fact that they are tactical in nature rather than legal would make them incumbent upon anyone at any time. The fact that she was trained and instructed removes any question of not knowing better.
I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, but if I had been in that same situation, I would have stayed out in the hall and dialed 911.
It's very easy to avoid mistakes when viewing things thru the retrospectoscope.
This is a sad tragedy. Who is profiting by this lady "paying" for her crime? Should any of us feel richer now that she's in jail?
All of society profits by her being in jail if it serves to remind police to think before they pull the trigger.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She wasn't on duty. And she was at what she thought was her private residence.
