old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,767
It would certainly be relevant if the 911 operator passed the information to the officer. Is that known yet?None of which is remotely relevant.
It would certainly be relevant if the 911 operator passed the information to the officer. Is that known yet?None of which is remotely relevant.
All opinions are not equal. Opinions based on emotion instead of evidence are especially worthless.
Not relevant.It would certainly be relevant if the 911 operator passed the information to the officer. Is that known yet?
But not on any real understanding of use of force law, criminal law, or tort law.Actually my opinion is based on the information available at the time.
That comment is clear proof of your bias.Cops will keep killing people wrongfully and keep getting off free and clear. You don't like to hear that but it is the truth.
I disagree with your first assertion, and the second is not on point.Not relevant.
There was a naked attacker in the house.
There was a clothed man with gun in hand when the officer arrived.
The report that there was a naked man would not have changed things.
There was a case in Boulder, CO some gears ago in which police officers entering a house in hot pursuit of an intruder came upon an obviously different someone who was holding a gun. They took a risk in ordering him to drop it before firing. He did not, and they fired.
He was the homeowner. He was shot several times, but he recovered.
The usual suspects on this and other boards came out of the woodwork demanding "justice", but objective investigations at a couple of levels concluded that the police were not culpable,
But not on any real understanding of use of force law, criminal law, or tort law.
That comment is clear proof of your bias.
Suppose that the shooter had been plain ol' civilian you? How would that color your opinion here?
Before you answer, do realize that your intervention, as someone other than an officer sworn to uphold the law, might seriously weaken your defense of justification.
Good.Like I said before, I still see law enforcement officers as the good guys, until they prove otherwise.
Which is insufficient to form a worthwhile opinion. So you are looking at thing through the distorting lenses of confirmation bias, and that is a prejudice and emotion driven fallacyActually my opinion is based on the information available at the time....
And that is balderdash. I have never once said that is not liable. I have consistently pointed out that we don't have sufficient information to decide. Obviously you are too prejudiced to understand the difference.....you are staunchly in the actors corner....
Further evidence that you are prejudiced. You refuse to accept the possibility that your negative characterization of the conduct of the officers in those cases was incorrect. When an LEO is exonerated in connection with a use of force, the determination will be based on far more information than you could possible have....Cops will keep killing people wrongfully and keep getting off free and clear....
....You don't like to hear that but it is the truth.
Which is insufficient to form a worthwhile opinion. So you are looking at thing through the distorting lenses of confirmation bias, and that is a prejudice and emotion driven fallacy
And that is balderdash. I have never once said that is not liable. I have consistently pointed out that we don't have sufficient information to decide. Obviously you are too prejudiced to understand the difference.
Further evidence that you are prejudiced. You refuse to accept the possibility that your negative characterization of the conduct of the officers in those cases was incorrect. When an LEO is exonerated in connection with a use of force, the determination will be based on far more information than you could possible have.
What could you possibly know about truth? You jump to conclusions without evidence. You form opinions based on prejudice and emotion.
The reality is, as is apparent to many who have more experience on this board than you do, that I have a high regard for truth. However, it's clear that I can't accept what you say as truth, because I also have a high regard for evidence -- something you manifestly don't care about at all.
I'm not sure what classes you've had, but while we tell students that we also tell them that they can't rely on that completely to keep them safe. Things are often happening too fast. Lighting is often poor.....We are always advised to describe our appearance when calling 911, precisely in order to avoid being confused for the BG....
What was the lighting like? How distinctive was the clothing? If the homeowner was described as wearing a dark shirt and blue pants, that could describe a lot of people, especially in the dark. And does everyone know for certain that there's only one intruder?....If the responding officer was informed that the intruder was naked and the homeowner looked like such and such and was wearing xyz, and he shot the guy fitting the homeowner's description and wearing xyz, it could be rightfully argued that the officer was not being reasonable....
Even if you were coming out of the shadows with a gun, and you failed to stop and drop the gun when ordered to? And how does everyone know there's only one intruder.....If I called 911 and said I just shot an intruder who is a 6' tall male wearing a hoodie, and I am a 5' tall old lady with gray hair wearing a bathrobe, and the dispatcher passed this information to the responding officer, would the responding officer be justified in shooting me? I don't think so.
Of course it's my opinion.In Your Opinion.
Of course I would drop the gun if ordered to. Did the responding officer in this case order the homeowner to drop the gun? And the homeowner failed to do so? (I'm asking seriously, I don't remember reading that in the writeup.)I'm not sure what classes you've had, but while we tell students that we also tell them that they can't rely on that completely to keep them safe. Things are often happening too fast. Lighting is often poor.
The description will be most helpful to responding officers once the scene has been secured and they start to try to sort out who is who and what happened.
What was the lighting like? How distinctive was the clothing? If the homeowner was described as wearing a dark shirt and blue pants, that could describe a lot of people, especially in the dark. And does everyone know for certain that there's only one intruder?
Even if you were coming out of the shadows with a gun, and you failed to stop and drop the gun when ordered to? And how does everyone know there's only one intruder.
Again, details count, and it's never just one factor. These decisions are based on the totality of the circumstances.
The Supreme Court has ruled on when and how force can be lawfully employed in search and seizure.the safety of the occupants is a higher priority, otherwise wait outside. Killing an occupant because you were concerned for your own safety is a failure of duty from my perspective.
I do remember seeing that.Did the responding officer in this case order the homeowner to drop the gun? And the homeowner failed to do so? (I'm asking seriously, I don't remember reading that in the writeup.)
.....Did the responding officer in this case order the homeowner to drop the gun? And the homeowner failed to do so? (I'm asking seriously, I don't remember reading that in the writeup.)
Absolutely!Every stressor the officer was dealing with can be applied to the homeowner, and increased because of the lack of training and the fact that his home and safety were just violated and he had just killed a man. Add to that the potential hearing damage due to firing a weapon indoors
Surely that is not a serous question.If what the officer did is justified, why call them?
Every stressor the officer was dealing with can be applied to the homeowner, and increased because of the lack of training and the fact that his home and safety were just violated and he had just killed a man. Add to that the potential hearing damage due to firing a weapon indoors.....
It is rather sad that today, you need to be just as concerned about being shot by the cops as you are being shot by the bad guy. It was not this way in the past.
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
The recommendation to get training for how to deal with law enforcement just like we get training to defend ourselves from violent intruders would indicate you agree to some extent with xds45's comment. Maybe you don't see the threat as equivalent, but you see it as a threat worth training for.