Ex-deputy aquitted in killing of 2 in Pickup Truck

[Mad Chemist]

The most important legal aspects to be learned from this case:

He was consistant in his account of the events.
He repeatedly claims that he had no other option.
He never admits to mistake or wrong doing.


"The vehicle was angling back as if it was coming straight at me," he testified. "There was no option for me to step out of the way."



"You didn't make any mistakes that night, did you?" Zoellner asked him.

"At the time everything was happening, I certainly thought I was doing everything to the best of my ability," Forler answered, adding that he didn't believe he made a mistake.

Zoellner then asked that whether Forler thought he made a mistake looking back on the situation and knowing what he knows now.

"Looking back, my mistake was to go to work that day," Forler said. "I wish I would have stayed home."

William Lewinski, a behavioral scientist specializing in police psychology, testified Thursday that%

 

[Mad Chemist]

All prejudice aside, it's important to consider some of the distinct advantages a LEO may or may not have within the legal arena.

First and most importantly, the investigative process itself is likely to be much less adversarial at the outset.

Having a powerful union backing the defendant can be invaluable in mounting a powerful defense. Recruiting expert witnesses is not often a cheap or easy task. A bit of cash and political muscle can go a long way.

 

[Geister]

Again, it's not up to the criminal court to decide that. The issue was if Forler's decision to shoot at the truck was a lawful use of deadly force. If he had had shot a suspect in a crowded area and accidentally hit a bystander and his shooting of the suspect was legal then there would probably be no criminal charges filed. Despite what many of us would like to see, I am unaware of any criminal statute outlawing poor marksmanship.

He didn't have lawful use of deadly force to start shooting wildly into the truck cab. He had lawful use of deadly force to shoot the driver, not the passenger. The truck wasn't moving into the officer's direction without interaction by the driver. I don't see it as poor marksmanship because we have no idea if he was only aiming at the driver. He could have been aiming at both, which would then not be a marksmanship issue.

This issue is over and done with but I do think this officer used very poor judgment and shot a third-person who posed no threat to him. At the very least he needs to lose his badge.

The same thing could happen to any of us if we happened to be riding with some guy who decided to put the vehicle in reverse, either intentionally or accidentally during a traffic stop.

I agree with SalTx, although we don't know all of the facts.

 

[JohnBT]

"The point of the thread was discussion of how those experts were used to make the case, not if you believed them or not."

You misread my post.

It's not a matter of whether I believed them, it's a matter of letting them get away with calculating average speed based on the vehicle rolling. If it lurched in gear, intentional or not, their average speed figures aren't at all accurate and neither are their calculations on how much time the officer had to stroll out of the way.

The experts were used to push one interpretation of the incident and the defense (from the little bit of info posted on this thread) let them get away with it.

I don't have any beliefs about what happened one way or the other. That's just how I would have approached the expert testimony and their sliderule calculations.

John

Civilian:

- a nonmilitary citizen

- associated with or performed by civilians as contrasted with the military; "civilian clothing"; "civilian life"

- A civilian is a person who is not a member of a military. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention it is a war crime to deliberately attack a non-combatant civilian or wantonly and unnecessarily destroy or take the property of a civilian.

 

[Wire]

Well, then, I was taught that in Tennessee it is illegal to shoot into a moving vehicle for any reason*, so "guilty" in the hypothetical case.

*As a civilian (edit)

 

[Mad Chemist]

Sometimes I wonder if people read any of the preceding posts before responding to a thread.
I do believe that Jeff White intended this thread to be an analysis of legal techniques that were successful in the case mentioned.

It is not supposed to be a internet referendum on the guilt or innocence of the shooter. The jury has already decided that point, the prosecution has not appealed on any procedural issues, case closed.

Does anyone else care what successful strategies may also be applicable in a justified civilian shoot?
Does anyone else see any corollaries?
Forrest from the trees and all that. :banghead:

 

[Jeff White]

It's clear that this isn't the right venue to have a meaningful discussion of problem 2. I'm closing this thread. Everyone who wants to debate the merits of this particular case and rant about how it's unfair a cop got off or how their feelings are hurt because the word civilian is used to identify those people who aren't in the police, fire fighting or military service in common US English are free to start their own thread.

Jeff