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.
It does matter what a person thinks because it's a defense to be mistaken in facts. And I don't think being a "trained professional" is relevant.
Really? So what's the "training," for? Sure seems relevant to me. She did have training; seems to have acted like someone that had no sense or values for human life. What was she afraid of? Even if she was in the right apartment, should she have pulled this stunt?
She is liable. The question is did she also commit a crime.
That immediately gets into the question of a presumed perpetrator not complying with a police officers instructions and causing the officer to fear for her safety. She could be convicted but I think it likely that at least one juror will buy that defense.
And note the real civil issue will be over the responsibility of DPD for the shooting. Was she overtired and exhausted by the shift? Was she under trained? The officer will not make any sort of a reasonable settlement for the death. The Jean family needs to get at the deep pockets and that is DPD. So you may see all sorts of weird alliances before this one is done.
We could insert a burglar into your scenario and it would be the same.
He enters the residence with no intent to kill anyone, homeowner pulls a gun and he commands the homeowner to put the gun down. Homeowner does not do so, so he kills him.
The homeowner refused to adhere to his commands and feared for his safety.
In both instances the homeowner was not obligated to listen to the commands.
The shooter in both instances was in no position to issue commands.
35 years or so ago I went off with a police officer to search back yards for a reported burglar/window peeper. As soon as we got into the dark he pulled his pistol and ran with it down by his side. He had no intentions of shooting anyone but intended to have the gun in play if we made contact with the dude. Lasted 10 minutes including going over a couple of fences. No joy and he holstered the gun. I would just point out he clearly drew his gun with no intention of shooting anyone but just in case.
He was prepared to shoot someone--what we call "Condition Orange"--and it involves being at the highest state of alertness and watchfulness, which that cop certainly was at that moment.
Really? So what's the "training," for? Sure seems relevant to me. She did have training; seems to have acted like someone that had no sense or values for human life. What was she afraid of? Even if she was in the right apartment, should she have pulled this stunt?
Indeed. How can "trained professional" not be relevant when that "trained professional" has drawn her weapon? That's the very situation all her training was entirely for!
You say it yourself - deliberate, as in there's deliberation involved. Pulling a trigger is a willful, considered act - forgetting a baby isn't. Once you decide that you have to resort to deadly force, you should be responsible for being correct in your assessment of the situation.
There's a difference between thinking and acting on "This person in front of me should die" as compared to "I wonder if I'll be late for the meeting" or whatever people think when they forget a kid.
The outcome is the same, and both are reckless.
The shooter shot deliberately, but also lawfully, if her account is true.
The (possible) belief that the shooter had, that she was acting within the law, is what makes the case so interesting.
She used terrible judgement starting from when she went to the wrong room. Even by her own account, there was hardly anything 'lawful' about what she did. If anyone else did what this cop did, no one would be excusing our actions as 'lawful' or 'justified.' No excuses, period.
In what universe is going to a wrong apartment room, then drawing a gun and shooting a person in the chest dead justifiable in any way, shape, or form? I posted in this thread long ago where one expert said that he could not recall a single case where someone who shot another in the chest and killed that person, was not arrested and charged with murder.
I highly doubt any of those people on this thread supporting or sympathizing with the officer, would do so if the same thing happened to their family member by a cop.
Home invasion requires intent to invade the home of another -if the shooter's account is correct, there was no intent to invade the house of another.
Accidental home invasion, would be as much a misnomer as accidental murder.
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.
