Aren't there PFF members who have no qualms about challenging the local 'jackbooted thugs' in their illeagal operations? They should have been out there exercising their right to bear arms, huh?

A few things:

1. Considering that he was a mental health arrestee, the suspect has probably been admitted to a mental health ward. So, even after he was treated for severe/life threatening injuries and was stabilized, then he is in hospital care, not police custody. The practical upshot of this (by our procedures) is that he is not arrested as most people think of it and taken to jail, he is filed on At Large. As a result of this any warrants they might have arrested him on, felony or misdemeanor, have been re-activated and he was not charged with them.

2. A man with a gun, refusing to drop it, whom the cops have reason to believe is mentally unbalanced, IS a threat. Regardless of whether the cops might have one second to respond or five seconds to get a shot off they felt what they did was necessary and, if I'm reading this right, a Grand Jury (i.e. civilian jury serving jury duty just like all of us have had to do) felt the cops were right too. That's why the cops were No Billed, because their actions (use of deadly force) was justified.

3. There is some doubt about whether the suspect was a convicted felon, probably he wasn't because he got charged with UCW (a misdemeanor) instead of Possession of Firearm by Felon (a felony). That doesn't mean that he doesn't have felony arrests pending trial. A criminal history check prior to going to look for the suspect was most likely done and a history of violence or armed violence could have justifiably affected their response.

4. The suspect wasn't charged with Resisting Arrest because he didn't (i.e. physically resisting/fighting the act of being arrested/detained/handcuffed) or Assault on a Public Servant because he didn't (i.e. pointing the gun at an officer). UCW was the only legitimate charge in this incident or the only legitimate charge the DA would accept.

5. Police don't give copies of videos or police reports out until they are requested through the proper channels under the Freedom of Information act. The government just isn't in the habit of standing outside yelling out "Hey! We've got copies of police reports! Come and get them if you want them!"

6. The news lies. A story about a crazy guy with a gun getting shot doesn't have much sympathy. I mean who are you supposed to feel sorry for? On the other hand, a story about this misunderstood dude gunned down by the "jackbooted thugs", now that's a news story!

James Wall
-Proud employee of Jackbooted Thugs, card carrying member of the Establishment, and smoothly working cog in the Machine

quote Originally posted by James Wall: A few things: (All good points) 6. The news lies. A story about a crazy guy with a gun getting shot doesn't have much sympathy. I mean who are you supposed to feel sorry for? On the other hand, a story about this misunderstood dude gunned down by the "jackbooted thugs", now that's a news story! James Wall -Proud employee of Jackbooted Thugs, card carrying member of the Establishment, and smoothly working cog in the Machine

You obviously have read the 'jackbooted thugs' thread. Anyone suggesting the police didn't serve 'due process' wouldn't last a day in the 'real world' vs the 'news world. I have known a few folks who were involved in some newsworthy events that wound up on local TV. The way the story sounded on TV vs what I knew of the situation(S) and the people involved were like totally different scenarios!

Thanks!

Assisted suicide is illegal in Texas. The fact that a man has a weapon is no clear evidence that he will-can-intends to use it. If this were true, then it would be fair game for law enforcement to shoot down every armed suspect they come accross. It is at this point that trial by jury has been denied.
Sorry, but "I thought he might shoot me" isn't good enough.

If there were no obvious threats or endangerment made to other members of the public, then all the officers had to do was to back off out of range of the handgun, diffusing the situation, unless their aim was indeed to help the guy along in his quest for self termination.

quote Originally posted by James Wall: -Proud employee of Jackbooted Thugs, card carrying member of the Establishment, and smoothly working cog in the Machine

The horror of it all is that you admit to being a jackbooted thug and card carrying member of the establishment without conscience and the reason it runs smoothly because you do exactly as you are told without question.

quote originally posted by James Wall 3. There is some doubt about whether the suspect was a convicted felon, probably he wasn't because he got charged with UCW (a misdemeanor) instead of Possession of Firearm by Felon (a felony). That doesn't mean that he doesn't have felony arrests pending trial. A criminal history check prior to going to look for the suspect was most likely done and a history of violence or armed violence could have justifiably affected their response.

Nor does it mean he does.
So, you automatically assume a man with a prior felony arrest is now guilty a 2nd time? That's the job of the DA, judge, and jury-not law enforcement.

An officer has a gun on his hip everytime he gets out of his car. Am I to assume he is a threat to me every time I see him? It would seem so, since we have now come to the juncture that law enforcement now have the discretionary power to instantly decide guilt and innocence.
If citizens did this, the courts would call it vigilanteism--or murder. The law of the land sez I cannot shoot a man in my front yard even if he has a pistol in his hand, and I think he may use it but evidently, it's ok for an officer to do it.
You tell me Mr. Wall-what puts them above the law of the land?

And now, a few responses...

84Bill, I'll respond to you first. I do not follow orders without thought. I often look for ways that our Legal Liaisons may have missed to enhance charges and put criminals away for a longer time. Yes, in the course of that work I have spotted a few cases where I've pushed to have a charge reduced or dropped, it happens. As I am preparing cases, I am constantly thinking whether the charge is accurate or whether the case is written properly or whether more information is needed from the officer. Yes, I do take pride in doing my job well, in making society work better, and in doing my part to assist in making sure criminals are put away. As I hope you realize, my signature on that post was a tongue-in-cheek poke at people who assume that all cops are "jackbooted thugs", that assume anything done by the government (the "Establishment") is evil, and that the government is made up of cogs in a "Machine" with no ability to think rationally.

Maryjane, I don't claim that police officers are above the law of the land. I don't see anywhere in my post where I even implied it. In fact, I believe it was pointed out earlier that they faced the same law of the land (and were found to be justified in their use of force) that you or I would face if we were to have shot someone...a Grand Jury. Now, I didn't sit on that jury any more than you did, but the legal system in America says that the officers were not in the wrong. Since a panel of citizen jurists with all of the evidence presented to them said they were justified in their use of force, isn't it somewhat silly to try and convict the officers in our own minds with only some of the facts? That's the news media's job.
Now, did the officers try and convict the suspect of previous violence or in some way find him guilty in this instance of some horrible crime and decide to punish him based on a criminal history check. I would obviously say I hope not. As I said, they COULD HAVE checked the criminal history and it COULD HAVE affected their response. They already knew the suspect was armed and mentally unbalanced. In other words they already knew the situation was bad. Now if you throw in there that the suspect had a history of violence (and this is speculation) then it COULD HAVE removed or seriously eroded the benefit of the doubt depending on what that criminal history said.

Cops aren't superhuman. They can't know everything, they aren't bulletproof. They have to make judgements based on what they see in a situation and what they have information on at the time and then face the consequences of those actions. They made a decision that the suspect was a threat and the people that reviewed the evidence felt they were right. That means that they shot the suspect, I don't see how it makes them vigilantes or murderers. What I'm guessing is that it made them very happy to be able to go home and see their wives/husbands and families at the end of their shift.

I can't even offer an opinion as to who was right or wrong in this situation as, obviously, I wasn't there.

I will just make one observation:
I have had a concealed carry permit for many years. One of the FIRST things that I was told, and I've read it repeatedly, is that you never pull out a weapon unless you intend (and are prepared) to use it.

He got out of his car with an unholstered weapon. He refused to drop it.
The only safe and prudent assumption is that he intended to use it. (I can just hear the people saying, "Yeah, but...") And he *was* in a populated area. The cops had a duty to protect the public (Cliffw had 50 yard line seats. A stray round could have made him a victim) if not themselves.

That kind of decision is never easy, but always easy to second guess. Always easy to say "what if...?"

I say, "What if they hadn't shot?"
What if the guy had started shooting, instead? Then we'd be hearing the outcry that the cops didn't do their job. We all might be reading that cliffw received a bullet hole in the front of his house (or worse) fired by someone who the cops were chasing.

So, who's to say...?

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 05-08-2005).]

A lot of things are possible and there are also a lot of 'what ifs'. If we go by the assumption that the police were innocent of any wrongdoing, based on the evidence provided to the grand jury, must we not also assume the suspect is innocent when no evidence whatsoever has been provided except in the minds of the law enforcement on scene?

There were only 2 parties on scene who could diffuse the situation.
1. A citizen with known mental problem(s) of some sort.
2. The officers.

Who was in a better position to do it with no one being harmed?

Again I ask-who was the suspect threatening? Did he point his weapon their way? Or did they only think he 'might'?
It's a sad day when sworn officers of the law put their own fears before common sense and protocol when dealing with a would be suicide.

Yes, we do have to assume that the suspect is innocent. That's why he will have a trial for Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon, the crime that he (presumably, if you like) committed. Now, I have to say that I think obviously he did not have a permit to carry the gun otherwise the charge wouldn't be filed, but I could be wrong, there could be some sort of clerical error that resulted in this charge being filed incorrectly. Well, that's what his trial will say for sure.

Now, as far assuming the police are innocent... Um, doesn't the fact that they already proved they had acted within reason to the Grand Jury mean that we have to assume that? Or is this officers are presumed guilty until proven innocent and then presumed guilty anyway?

As far as common sense goes, wouldn't your own common sense tell you that if you were facing a crazy guy with a gun to get out of the area? I know mine would. Police officers don't get that luxury. I would say (and this is my personal opinion) that they put their fear aside and over-rode what most people feel is common sense by intentionally going there to deal with the situation, kind of like fire fighters who intentionally run into a burning building.

Out of curiousity, what protocols did they break in responding to this call? I haven't read anything here implying they broke with police procedure?

Protocol?
Well, is it customary to use deadly force (planting a slug into the suspect above the neck usually results in death instantaneously) on a suicide wannabe? Why respond at all? Just let him do the deed himself.
Or, since a rifle was present and available-why not shoot him in the torso or legs? It would have been easy enough to back off-call a negotiator and keep him contained within the perimeter they set up. They could cover him with the rifle, which I believe has an effective kiling range of nearly 1000 meters.

It has already been stated by an eyewitness that everytime the suspect moved, the officers would flinch back. They had fear, and naturally so, but I have not yet read anywhere that the suspect actually raised or pointed his weapon toward the officers.

quote A peace officer's use of force is justified, but only so far as he reasonably believed that a person had committed an offense3 and that he reasonably believed it was necessary to defend himself or another person, to effect an arrest, or to prevent a person's escape from custody by that person. The officer need not have actual knowledge that an offense was committed, but only a reasonable belief. Another issue is what degree of force an officer may use; in other words, in what situations is deadly force justified. An officer may lawfully use reasonable physical force to make an arrest or prevent an escape, within the limits previously stated. However, the use of deadly force, such as firing one's revolver, is justified only in the following circumstances: (1) In the officer's self defense or defense of others, where he reasonably believed that he was confronted with deadly or imminently deadly force; (2) The officer reasonably believed that the person arrested, or whose escape is sought to be prevented, committed or attempted to commit a felony that involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and if, where feasible, he has given warning of his intent to use deadly physical force.4 In each case, however, the officer must have the reasonable belief that he could effect the arrest or prevent escape only by using deadly force; if lesser force was reasonable, then the use of deadly force would be unjustified.

There is precedence of course for gunning down a mentally unstable person, and precedence is everything. A known mentally ill man was surrounded by a score or more police officers as he brandished a ceremonial sword on a street a decade or so ago. The citizenry were kept at a safe distance. As the 'swardsman' ranted and raved, the officers kept him covered with their drawn service revolvers, awaiting arrival of a negotiator. When the swordsman, sti;; 50' or so from the ring of officers, raised the sword, he was shot down--with over 40 rounds entering his body-killed dead.

Is this truely-in either case-the best our law enforcement can do?

No, I didn't say it was police procedure to shoot someone attempting suicide. You did say they let fear over-ride common sense and protocol. I'm just curious as to how you got hold of their service records to see that they were in violation of their department's protocols (i.e. rules and procedures) in this situation...or are you just finding them guilty of breaking those rules since it was decided they didn't break a law?

Yes, use of deadly force to prevent someone from committing suicide is acceptable by the Texas Penal Code. It's kind of a screwed up concept until you think about it hard, but basically it does cover the event of an accidental death of the suicidal person.

Now, I believe that it has been pointed out several times (by myself too) that specifically we don't see anything here saying he pointed the gun at anyone. I'm not arguing that point at all. In fact, I believe I said that was why he wasn't being charged with Aggravated Assault on a Public Servant. But is it so hard to believe that in the presense of a mentally unstable person, with a gun, not following commands from officers that the officer "reasonably believed that he was confronted with deadly or imminently deadly force"?

A hand-held sword is a very different weapon from a gun. You can't kill a person with a sword from 50' away. A person with a gun is not a "contained" threat just because there are a half dozen cops around. On the other hand, since you want to drag in another situation of "What if", at what point were the cops justified in shooting the individual with a sword...25' away? 10' away? After he had cut someone? But, isn't this just muddying the current discussion?

Why wasn't the person with the facial wound capable of testifying? Providing a written statement? Maybe you're right, maybe he is illiterate, or maybe he lost motor function in his fingers, or maybe he was so heavily medicated days or weeks later that he couldn't write, or maybe, or maybe, or maybe...Or maybe he did, we don't know.

As far as not knowing what was said in the Grand Jury...yep your right, all we know is the result...No Billed. There wasn't a trial because they were No Billed. The Grand Jury's finding is the best information available, which is that there wasn't enough evidence or the evidence showed there were no grounds for a criminal charge. So, we're back to guilty until proven innocent until we decide they're guilty anyway.

So, out of curiousity, if the DA's running the Grand Jury and the police are the defendants, who's side is stacked by your theory?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It seems that the Kerrville Police Department would not release the dash camera video of the shooting until forced to do so by the news organizations under the freedom of information act.

The newspersons did state they had asked for it. I am sure they do it often. In fact, I was told they had to go a step further and file a complaint or request with the State Attorney General to force it to be released.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The officers were no-billed by the grand jury. Talk about being a puppet of the county attorney.

Something I remember learning in 10th grade government class. A suspect is rarely ever invited to attend or testify. In fact, testimony before a Grand Jury is secret, not even defense attorneys usually attend. The only time I can think of when someone other than the prosecuting attorney offers evidence, is when someone is suspected but there is not enough evidence to bring charges and it is hoped a suspect will trip himself up.
I realize I did not witness the actual shot when it happened but I also wonder why the grand jury did not speak to me, my wife, or a visitor of ours. An actual fact of the matter is that never did an officer of the law ask me for a statement.

quote Originally posted by James Wall: I often look for ways that our Legal Liaisons may have missed to enhance charges and put criminals away for a longer time.

I have a great respect for our legal system. I also despise criminals. Often I have wondered though, how a suspect ends up with multiple charges from one act. I can see it possible at times but there are times when I can not see it possible. There are times when I know charges have been stacked against me for prosecutorial plea bargain reasoning.

quote Originally posted by James Wall: Now, as far assuming the police are innocent... Um, doesn't the fact that they already proved they had acted within reason to the Grand Jury mean that we have to assume that? Or is this officers are presumed guilty until proven innocent and then presumed guilty anyway?

Well, if they are indeed in the right, a Civil Jury will be in agreement. I fail to see where a one sided testimony before a Grand Jury in secret proves anything. Do we know this Grand Jury examined the officers qualifications, work experience, or training? Ever seen the movie "The Thin Blue Line"?

Granted, we do not know the facts. It could well be that was a BB gun before he was shot.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-08-2005).]

Cliff, okay the news station had to push a bit to get the in-car video released. It happens. It probably had to do with the fact that it may have been being set aside as evidence for the officers' Grand Jury, just a guess. It could also have to do with an undermanned records staff or property room staff finding time to make a copy, just a guess. It happens.

You didn't witness the shooting, what would they have asked you? Did you come forward and volunteer the information that you didn't see it? Would there have been a point for them to take a statement from you saying you didn't see it?

Yes, there are times I think that multiple charges could be stacked. Texas' legal system has some screwed up overlaps. We try not to smack overlapping charges here, but that might not be the case everywhere. I mean, we could for example conceivably hit someone for Deadly Conduct, Criminal Mischief (Display of Firearm), and Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon at the same time. Since the UCW charge is higher, the Deadly Conduct and Criminal Mischief wouldn't be accepted by our DA.

A one-sided Grand Jury decision proves that a jury felt that a crime was not committed by the officers. If the family wants to pursue civil charges, that's their choice. The civil trial's verdict won't change the fact that the officers weren't guilty of a crime. Civil law might (if they lost) show that they were responsible to a degree in the suspect's injuries. It is a big difference. However, if the City doesn't feel comfortable with the possibility of spending large sums of money in court, they could settle. It still couldn't be construed as the officers being guilty of wrong-doing, it's just a financial expedient to save tax-payers' money.

quote Now, I believe that it has been pointed out several times (by myself too) that specifically we don't see anything here saying he pointed the gun at anyone. I'm not arguing that point at all. In fact, I believe I said that was why he wasn't being charged with Aggravated Assault on a Public Servant. But is it so hard to believe that in the presense of a mentally unstable person, with a gun, not following commands from officers that the officer "reasonably believed that he was confronted with deadly or imminently deadly force"?

For most of us-yes it is. We supposedly gave up killing the deranged centuries ago-maybe not in Texas, but elsewhere for sure.

quote So, out of curiousity, if the DA's running the Grand Jury and the police are the defendants, who's side is stacked by your theory?

The side of the local jurisdiction Kerrville is located in, which I believe is also the employer of the officers, and the entity which will eventually be held financially accountable in any civil or civil rights suit which may come to fruition. It's a lot easier to convince a jury a jurisdiction is not liable if there is no trial and no criminal fault found in the officers' action.

I ask again-is this the best our law enforcement can do? A simple yes or no will suffice.

The neverswaying support of these types of shootings by other police officers is one of the things that has led to the decline in general, of respect held by the public for both their profession and their attitudes. Shoot first, defend your actions later-regardless of the consequences that may be inherent with that action. We've seen it time and time again-way too often imo. There was a time, when law enforcement was looked up to by the vast majority of the public. Now, most of the public fears them, or outrightly hates them. There is a reason for that change. Perhaps the increasing numbers of inmates released when it was disclosed that the officers lied under oath or fabricated evidence? The video taped beatings of unarmed youths by several policemen? It's these instances that perpetuate the 'jackbooted thug' scenario. It will get worse, and more and more people will believe the nation is headed toward a policestate.

It is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things what the suspect was charged with after the fact. The crux of this discussion centers around the discharging of a service weapon into the face of a mentally disturbed person, which these officers are sworn to protect and serve. Had he pointed that weapon at the officers, that changes things. Injury or death is now probably imminenet. It seems he did not. Can an officer, with his weapon drawn and trained on a man, not shoot faster and more accurate than that man can raise his arm? I know I can, and did so many times. The fact that I'm still here is proof enough of it.
I believe this was a needless shooting, as it took place, and there was a better way to handle it. Perhaps poor training on a small underfunded police force, perhaps just a trigger happy or overly nervous officer. Hard to tell, but little good will come of it.
I will now be very nervous when driving thru the Kerville area, and I'm a very law abiding person.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-08-2005).]

I considered editing my post to add this, but I decided to go ahead with another post...

I'm thinking that in the police officers' Grand Jury case for shooting the suspect, the suspect in this situation was not a suspect...he was the complainant. I'm pretty sure his testimony probably went before the Grand Jury.

Agreed James except the fact that to me, it seems deadly conduct is worse than UCW. Please don't construe my opinion with thinking you should second guess yourself in a deadly situation.

Maryjane...I'll have to disagree when you say most people would consider a crazy man with a gun ignoring police commands as something other than an imminent deadly threat. But I don't think either of us will convince the other to change their opinion. Now, if you feel comfortable hanging out around a crazy guy with a gun in this situation, more power to you. Me, I'll be busy getting out of the area.

Now, you want a yes or no from me as to how they handled the situation. I think I'm making it clear that no one can make that determination without the full evidence. If you want some more what if's, then maybe their department has access to Tasers, maybe they don't have any yet. There are just too many maybes here for a definite opinion. Do I accept that the people who had access to that evidence found them to not have committed a crime, to have handled it in a reasonable manner? Yes.

The City will be sued in a civil trial, the County doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, but yes, they could conceivably be sued as well. Hey, shotgun lawsuits have to hit the money somewhere.

See now, we have another difference in basic perception too. You say that we have heard too many news stories about crooked officers. I say the same thing, but I point out that when those cases go to trial, actual trial not Grand Juries, they often aren't found to be justified. Now, to concede a point, yes, I have seen officers lose the Grand Jury and lose in criminal trials. Cops are people too, they do make mistakes. It just isn't anywhere near as common or as planned out or as vindictive as the news or popular entertainment makes it out to be.

Now, what I see as the crux of this discussion, the crucial question to be answered, is were the officers justified to feel the suspect was a threat. My opinion is yes. Just my opinion, you are entitled to your own. We just have to disagree with the conclusion the other person has reached.

I'm sorry you'll feel extremely nervous driving through Kerrville, but as the first page of the thread said, keep calm, keep your head, follow instructions, and you should be fine.

Cliff, my response to the Deadly Conduct example didn't post, sorry.

It was just an example, I looked it up right quick and, yes, Deadly Conduct can be a higher charge depending on the circumstances.

quote Now, if you feel comfortable hanging out around a crazy guy with a gun in this situation, more power to you. Me, I'll be busy getting out of the area.

You are giving the advise to the wrong person-you should be giving it in retrospect to the officer who pulled the trigger. Which is precisely what the officers should have also done. Back off a little and determine a way to diffuse the situation without a round being fired. Not as much glory as taking out a mentally disturbed individual with a shot from a rifle, but it would have gotten the job done.
There is a big difference in the letter of the law, and justice. To you, as long as the law is served, as in the grand jury no bill, then all is well. It is not. It is one more step toward a place this nation really does not want to tread. I do not believe you have a good handle on what the majority of this country now thinks of police officers in general. The fact that you feel you have to tell me to "keep my head, remain calm and obey instructions" is proof of that. What happened to "Just don't break the law"? Law abiding citizens should not have to worry if they will be shot because their hand moved or they didn't answer correctly-or quickly enough--to a public servant.
Respect for law enforcement from this lifelong law abiding citizen of 55 yrs has just dropped another notch, and it's happening all accross the nation. This is not good.

You're right that advise shouldn't be necessary. Yes, just obey the law should be a legitimate bit of advise (and to an extent it is, it should keep a person from being pulled over, but there are situations where a person could get pulled over anyway, matching a suspect's description comes to mind). But, just as people's faith in the police has degraded, by the same token as time has passed, people's faith in people has degraded. And cops are, ultimately, just people. Thirty or forty years ago, were cops anywhere near as worried as they are now about getting shot during a routine traffic stop? Probably not. The world has moved along and cops are justified in being just as paranoid as everyone else.

Yes, I admit I still have faith in our criminal justice system. I have a tendency to think it's still one of the best ones on the planet and I have a tendency to think its right more often than not. By no means do I think its perfect, but I don't know of any better and I'm sure anyone can list a lot of them that are worse.

Am I out of touch with what most folks think of police in America. I don't think so. What I think is that most people think badly of authority, any authority. In most cases I think this is due to a lemming-like belief in headlines instead of a full story, under-informed news media going for a big story instead of the truth, and movies looking to make stories into blockbusters. Do I believe that there have been and are some people in positions of authority that will abuse their positions? Of course, I would have to be living in a dreamworld to think otherwise. I just don't think that every member of a law enforcement agency is a "jackbooted thug" or some sort of Dirty Harry vigilante and I do think that a slow logical review of what isn't in a news story will lead to a lot more logical conclusions than the knee-jerk, anti-authoritarian reactions so many people have and that those news stories are written to get.

No James I think they handled it wonderfully. And so does all the rest of the world. They handled it in the most efficient way possible. 100% perfect. Absolutely no room for improvement. There was absolutely no other way to do it. Just POW! got him!!
"Nothing to see here folks-move along".

The guy should get a promotion-and a medal. A true American hero.

If what I've seen posted here is common thru out the police profession, then I do indeed have reason to fear the police. We all do.

You see nothing wrong with what happened? No?
This country's in deep do do.

Anyone with a gun that will not drop it is a threat. The LEO's have to protect members of the community as well as themselves. So what if he didn't point the gun at them. Is it fair to say that someone could have been injured or killed no matter which direction he pointed the weapon? Even if he pointed it down and happened to fire it, ricochetting bullet could have struck someone. The officer is required to pass marksmanship training and testing, the suspect is not. It is therefore safe to assume that the officer can discharge his firearm with greater safety and using greater judgement than any gun weilding suspect.
Are "innocent" suspects ever killed by police? Unfortunately, yes. Are the police infallible? Unfortunately not.
Having served on several peacekeeping operations in the Army, I understand what it is like to make a split second decision involving life or death. There is only a few seconds to make that decision. We have the rest of our lives to go through the evidence and deliberate whether the proper decision was made. Unfortunately, those involved do not have a "rewind" button.

quote The officer is required to pass marksmanship training and testing, the suspect is not. It is therefore safe to assume that the officer can discharge his firearm with greater safety and using greater judgement than any gun weilding suspect.

Having shot more people than I care to admit, I know a gutshot will take a man down pretty danged fast, hard and permanently but is not usually fatal if prompt medical aid is available(air lift or life flight to San Antone is moments away).
I would think that even minimal use of said greater judgement and marksmanship would allow that instead of a facial shot?

Goodnight all. Mind your Ps & Qs. Someone may be watching.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-09-2005).]

So, what I'm getting from this is that you are under the impression that all police officers are members of some Good Ol' Boys club who just joined the police to go out there and shoot people randomly. You actually seem to believe that there's some sort of congregation afterwards in the locker room to share high fives and lines like, "Good shootin', Tex". And let's not forget the solemn ceremony of carving another notch in the gunbelt. Yep, with the impression that all members of any police department are some sort of cheap-western gun-toting vigilantes, then I can see why anyone would be afraid of them.

Of course, I also regret that you seem to be under the impression that what I have said means I see nothing wrong and that this reflects on your mentality towards all members of the police department (and let me remind you here, I am not a police officer, I just work with their cases). My posts have been to make the point that there are more facts to any situation than what the news reports. I've tried to show what some of those facts and factors could have been in this case. Do I see something wrong with what happened, of course, a guy was shot and it needed to be investigated. It was. You don't like the Grand Jury's decision based on the fact that you weren't there to hear the evidence and have no faith in the criminal justice system, I accept the Grand Jury's decision based on the fact that I wasn't there to hear the evidence and have some faith in the criminal justice system. Let's face it, if the people who worked for a police department didn't think that system worked on the whole, then it would be time to be worried about vigilante cops.

Now, if what you've seen posted here further erodes your faith in the police department, I have to wonder what you are reading that I'm missing. My impression of this thread is a logical, well reasoned series of valid points and counter-points delving into the possibilities of what occurred and the procedures and legalities related to it, a good hard look at what happened in other words, with lots of legitimate questions raised and addressed. Your impression may have been different.

Sorry, I need to get ready for work and I don't have time to read the whole Seattle Times article, I'll try to get to it when I get home. For now, I guess I need to go shave so I can look presentable in case I need to "ooh" and "aah" if someone's carved another notch in their gunbelt.

quote Originally posted by James Wall: So, what I'm getting from this is that you are under the impression that all police officers are members of some Good Ol' Boys club who just joined the police to go out there and shoot people randomly. You actually seem to believe that there's some sort of congregation afterwards in the locker room to share high fives and lines like, "Good shootin', Tex". And let's not forget the solemn ceremony of carving another notch in the gunbelt. Yep, with the impression that all members of any police department are some sort of cheap-western gun-toting vigilantes, then I can see why anyone would be afraid of them.

I think nothing of the sort. My wife's cousin, my nephew and several good friends from my USMC days are either active duty or retired police officers. I hold them all in hi regards, as I do most officers of the law.

quote Of course, I also regret that you seem to be under the impression that what I have said means I see nothing wrong and that this reflects on your mentality towards all members of the police department (and let me remind you here, I am not a police officer, I just work with their cases). My posts have been to make the point that there are more facts to any situation than what the news reports. I've tried to show what some of those facts and factors could have been in this case. Do I see something wrong with what happened, of course, a guy was shot and it needed to be investigated. It was. You don't like the Grand Jury's decision based on the fact that you weren't there to hear the evidence and have no faith in the criminal justice system, I accept the Grand Jury's decision based on the fact that I wasn't there to hear the evidence and have some faith in the criminal justice system. Let's face it, if the people who worked for a police department didn't think that system worked on the whole, then it would be time to be worried about vigilante cops.

It's not vigilante cops I'm concerned about. It's lack of training, unwillingness to seek alternatives
to use of deadly or near deadly force, and poor planning. I've already said I think the shooting may have been from lack of training due to underfunded local jurisdiction, nervousness on the part of the officer, or fear for their own safety.

quote Now, if what you've seen posted here further erodes your faith in the police department, I have to wonder what you are reading that I'm missing. My impression of this thread is a logical, well reasoned series of valid points and counter-points delving into the possibilities of what occurred and the procedures and legalities related to it, a good hard look at what happened in other words, with lots of legitimate questions raised and addressed. Your impression may have been different.

The fact that you dwell so much on the legalities is another concern. Ethics and integrity should drive what we all do. The fact that the law may allow us to do something does not neccessarily mean we should in many cases. This is doubly true in high visibility police work I believe. The group of officers in this case took but one avenue of action out of several available. I do not think it was the right one. A mentally unstable person got shot and I think it was un-neccessary in this case-regardless of whether the justice system says it's allowed.

"BTW, it is legal in Texas to carry a handgun on your person if you have a carry permit. And, it brings up another question.
If lawman has the right to shoot someone above the neck (usually a fatal shot), just because a suspect has a gun in his hands, does the suspect (a citizen the officer is sworn to serve and protect) have the same right to protect himself in a similar method--or is that only reserved for the men in blue?"

How in the hell could he have had a CCW mary? Yes, if you have a liscnese its legal to carry, NOT if youve been convicted of a crime, NOT if you have been judicated mentally defective.

And a suspect WONT NEED to defend himself if he puts his goddamn gun down! What so hard to understand about that?

[This message has been edited by CommanderKeen (edited 05-09-2005).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Hummmm. When was the trial?

Right after he reached for his gun. Any more brilliant questions? Or should we make it a felony for police to defend themselves when confronted with armed gunmen?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: If citizens did this, the courts would call it vigilanteism--or murder. The law of the land sez I cannot shoot a man in my front yard even if he has a pistol in his hand, and I think he may use it but evidently, it's ok for an officer to do it. You tell me Mr. Wall-what puts them above the law of the land?

Actually, (at least in Arizona) the law of the land allows you to shoot a man in your front yard (or anywhere else) if he has a gun and a reasonable person thinks he's going to use it.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Right after he reached for his gun. Any more brilliant questions? Or should we make it a felony for police to defend themselves when confronted with armed gunmen?

Since when is someone considered a "bad guy" because he has a gun? Did he threaten the use of it??

I'd be willing to lay good money out that the syndicate will say he did even if he didn't... you know how cohesive that blue line can be.

In any case when I last checked a person is PRESIUMED innocent until PROVEN guilty, atleast that how it's supposed to be.

I'd be willing to be you were one of those sheep who believed Jennifer Wilbanks husband to be was a cold blooded murderer.

Oh and Welcome back turdster, long time no see.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: I'd be willing to be you were one of those sheep who believed Jennifer Wilbanks husband to be was a cold blooded murderer.

I doubt he believed anything about a non-existent person.

Mary Jane,

It's good to hear that you know some law enforcement officers personally and that you can base your opions of the police in general on positive examples, not just the relatively few bad cases. I hope you continue to hold the police as a whole in the same high regard.

Well, I'm glad that you don't think it was a case of vigilante cops. Yes, the entire incident could have been the result of poor training, etc. But, being as we don't have the full information that is just as much conjecture as my theory that perhaps they were justified, yes?

Well, I'm sorry that my dwelling on the legalities has unsettled you. I suppose that most likely that is just a part of who I am and what I do (dwell on legalities all day and it's sure to work its way into your system). I find the legalities interesting and in discussing them and reading other people's opinions of them, I think that I learn new things and I hope others do from discussing them with me as well. I agree that ethics and morality are vitally important in any profession, but particularly in law enforcement. While the legalities don't necessarily justify every action, they do provide a necessary basis to judge those actions upon. You might be surprised to hear me admit this, but I don't think they are the be-all, end-all of judging a situation. I do think they are a good place to start. Unfortunately, without being the judge or jury hearing the justifications of the people involved then I think I have to reserve my opinion on the morality or ethics of why they felt their actions were necessary. That just leaves me the option of looking at the legality of what happened...and of course, even that has to be speculation without access to all the facts.

Compton California.
Ten Deputies loose about 95 rounds at an unarmed suspect. In a residential area. Area homes riddled with bullets. One Deputy hit by friendly(?) fire. Deputies confirm suspect was unarmed and back off reports that suspect drove his vehicle at the officers.
Caught on tape. After he was cornered at the end of a low speed chase.

EDIT
I believe this story happened last night. You can catch it on MSNBC, CNN, etc. Links will be available soon. The focus is on wheather too much force was used and is being used in general by officers.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-09-2005).]

I worked another long shift today-just now getting home and left for work at 6:30am. Last thing I did tonite was copy my reports. As the copier was doing it's whir-kachunk whir kachunk thing, I picked up today's San Angelo Times Standard. Front page news. Our assistant chief of Police (formerly a Lt) has been suspended after handcuffing a woman in a public estabishment because she refused "to engage in a sex act with him and a federal agent". With pay of course-pending investigation. This one seems pretty cut & dry-too many witnesses.

Ethics-integrity-protect and serve--who?
San Angelo's finest. I'll copy it tomorrow and scan the image to PIP tomorrow night, provided I get off before midnight..

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: I doubt he believed anything about a non-existent person.

I'd bet you're right.