Police kill homeowner who shot intruder to protect his family after seeing him holding a gun

[Tommygunn]

There would be no standoff.

Somebody points a gun at me, other than law enforcement, I'm shooting them. Whether they fire back is their problem.

Fair enough answer. Probably mine, too. Probably the only wrong answer would not be having an answer.
"Proper planning prevents pitifully poor performance." Ok, I know that is not the actual quote .... I cleaned it up to be "High Road."

 

[RPZ]

There would be no standoff.

Somebody points a gun at me, other than law enforcement, I'm shooting them. Whether they fire back is their problem.

If someone(s) is in my home with a firearm (whether it is pointed at me or not), knife, blunt force weapon etc I am going to light them up on sight.

 

[Shimitup]

If you use force in what you will claim is self defense you will not be able to avoid interacting with police. If you report a crime of violence at your residence you will not be able to avoid interacting with police

Absolutely! I guarantee were I in such an interaction I would be making myself as non threatening as possible while giving a loud "yes sir officer" while complying with his commands.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Needing to "drop" your gun is an excellent reason to carry a soulless plastic gun that is common and easily replaced.

But whatever. If you've disabled or killed the perp, you better put the gun down as soon as the cops show up. If holding a perp at bay, and the cops say to drop the gun, just drop the damn thing. No gun or a repair bill is worth someone's life.

 

[xds45]

The Cop who did the shooting should lose his badge. Period. There should be zero tolerance for that kind of mistake.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Cop who did the shooting should lose his badge. Period. There should be zero tolerance for that kind of mistake.

How clever of you to be able to reach that conclusion with pretty much no actual evidence.

 

[Kleanbore]

The Cop who did the shooting should lose his badge. Period. There should be zero tolerance for that kind of mistake.

Mistake? Mistake?

The question is, what would a reasonable person, in the same circumstance, knowing what the officer knew at the time, have done?

 

[Robert]

The Cop who did the shooting should lose his badge. Period. There should be zero tolerance for that kind of mistake.

Perhaps you should read up on Graham v. Connor. Kleanbore summed it up, but the ruling and subsequent application to law enforcement use of force might prove educational.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

 

[Frank Ettin]

Perhaps you should read up on Graham v. Connor. Kleanbore summed it up, but the ruling and subsequent application to law enforcement use of force might prove educational.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

Thanks for pointing that out. It's an important case and central to the question of the propriety of the office's conduct here.

Another point many miss is that when we look at this cases we have the luxury of hindsight. We know things that the responding officer most likely did not know, nor could have reasonably been expected to have known, at the time of the incident. But the reasonableness of his conduct must be decided based on what he did know, at the time and under the circumstances.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I feel like we should hold LEOs to a much higher standard,...

And what higher standard would that be? Clairvoyance? Mind reading?

 

[xds45]

You can cite all the court cases you want. The fact is, justice demands an accounting for the loss of an innocent life not an excuse.

 

[Robert]

You can cite all the court cases you want. The fact is, justice demands an accounting for the loss of an innocent life not an excuse.

Why, because that is what you feel? Like it or not the ruling in Graham v Connor is the basis for almost every use of force policy in departments across the US. It is the standard by which these officers will be held if it comes to that. You opinion, my opinion, counts for naught. Since you didn't bother to read the ruling let me sum it up:

The Supreme Court recognized that officers are required to make split second decisions and that those decisions must be made in an environment that is tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. As such, the actions of an officer will not be viewed in 20/20 hindsight once all the facts are known. Rather the actions of the officers in question will be judged based on the facts available to them at the time of the incident. Based on those facts alone, would an officer of similar training and experience reach the same decision?

It doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else thinks or feels. The standard set forth in Graham v. Connor is the only one by which the actions of the officers will be judged. So we can bloviate all day about justice and demanding action. But our feelings don't matter one whit.

 

[paulsj]

The homeowner made mistakes, or he would almost surely be alive.

You have to understand the cops responding have no idea who the bad guy is, who you are, or what either of you look like, they also don't know if a clever bad guy will be acting as if he is the good guy, then capping them when they let down their guard.

Don't be stupid, be ready for them to arrive in "go" mode. Prepare accordingly.

Tragic, no doubt, but you have to be smarter than that.

The best thing to do is lie flat on the ground face down with arms spread out or with fingers locked behind the head.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You can cite all the court cases you want. The fact is, justice demands an accounting for the loss of an innocent life not an excuse.

Thank you for this peek into your alternate universe. However, we're discussing real life here, in the real world.

Here, in the real world, the opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people. On the other hand, your opinions on such things and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Another point many miss is that when we look at this cases we have the luxury of hindsight.

Exactamundo. Monday morning quarterbacking is silly and without being there and having all the details, how can anyone judge?

To those claiming the cop is solely responsible, I say without more details....…

 

[xds45]

The fact remains. A wrongful death, regardless of the human factors involved, requires an accounting.

 

[paulsj]

Oops, I forgot don't open the door let them nock it down if needed. Just make sure you're in position I described above before they enter.

 

[Kaybee]

I can’t speak to this specific case, but while I do understand that officers have a dangerous job, in general it does seem like civilian safety should rank a little higher on their tactical goals.

 

[Water-Man]

Well, my SD guns are supposed to be drop safe. I grant you some aren't. However, I'd put it down as fast as I can and no speeches about it being expensive.

Dropping a Glock or SW revolver should be OK. A P320?

In regards to your P320 comment, you're either living in the past or should have used a smiley. Whatever the case, it was inappropriate for this discussion.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The fact remains. A wrongful death, regardless of the human factors involved, requires an accounting.

And you continue to assert, with no evidence, that the death was wrongful. Wrongful death is a legal concept, and a death may be properly categorized as wrongful only if its circumstances satisfy the legal criteria. To justify your claim you must establish with evidence that this death does.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." (Christopher Hitchens)

 

[xds45]

And you continue to assert, with no evidence, that the death was wrongful. Wrongful death is a legal concept, and a death may be properly categorized as wrongful only if its circumstances satisfy the legal criteria. To justify your claim you must establish with evidence that this death does.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." (Christopher Hitchens)

Wrongful death is not just a legal concept. It is also an action committed either intentionally or unintentionally and it requires one to be held accountable.

 

[xds45]

Another article, this time from a Denver paper:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/08/01/aurora-police-officer-involved-june-fatal-shooting/

Apparently a new conference tomorrow (Aug. 2) where they will release more details.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/...-another-deadly-shooting-in-june/73-579198076

 

[Frank Ettin]

Wrongful death is not just a legal concept. It is also an action committed either intentionally or unintentionally and it requires one to be held accountable.

Only in your fantasy world. In the real world whether one can be held accountable for a death of another is a legal matter.

The killing of one person by another is called "homicide." Let's examine how the law looks at "homicide."

1. "Homicide" is not a crime. Homicide might be a crime, or it might not be a crime.
   
   
2. A homicide can be --
   
   • Accidental;
     
     
   • Negligent;
     
     
   • The result of reckless (or willful, wanton and reckless) conduct;
     
     
   • Intentional without malice (evil intent);
     
     
   • Intentional with malice; and
     
     
   • Intentional, premeditated and with malice.
   
   
3. An accidental homicide basically would be a death occurring as the unintended result of actions of an actor, even though the actor acted as a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. The actor incurs no criminal or civil liability in the case of a truly accidental homicide.
   
   
4. A negligent homicide would be a death occurring as the unintended result of the actions of an actor failing to use the degree of care expected of a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. And the actor incurs civil, but not criminal, liability in the case of a negligent homicide.
   
   
5. Homicides (described at the 3rd through 6th bullet) are crimes: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, and first degree murder, respectively.
   
   
6. The various types of homicide are defined in terms of the state of mind/intent/conduct of the actor.
   
   
7. If you point a gun at someone, the gun discharges and the person dies, your conduct gives rise to at least an articulable suspicion that a crime anywhere from involuntary manslaughter (pointing a gun at someone is at least reckless) to murder in the first degree has been committed. If you are claiming that you acted in self defense, you would be at least admitting the elements of voluntary manslaughter, i. e., you intentionally shot the guy.
   
   
8. Self defense, simple negligence or accident is a defense to a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, or first degree murder. Self defense or accident is a defense against a civil claim. It will be up to you to make the case for your defense, e. g., it was an accident, it was mere negligence, it was justified.
   
   
9. If the homicide is committed by a governmental actor a civil claim would be pursued under 42 USC 1983. For a more detailed discussion of 42 USC 1983 liability and the defenses thereto, see this thread.
   
   
10. To decide if a homicide is wrongful making the actor either criminally or civilly liable one must first thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the homicide and determine. after looking at all the evidence, if there is sufficient grounds on which to concluded that the elements of either a homicide subject to criminal sanctions or one subject only to civil sanctions are present.
    
    If that results in a conclusion that there is a prima facie (on its face) basis for criminal or civil liability, the evidence must further be evaluated to decide if there's grounds on which to find that the actor can avail himself of one or more of the defenses that can excuse liability.
    
    If there is any dispute about what the evidence shows and what the final conclusion should be, the dispute will need to be resolved by litigation.
    
    But a death can not be considered wrongful unless/until the actor had been determined to have legal liability.

You might have your own opinion about whether a death is wrongful, but no one really cares what your opinion is. And your opinion doesn't mean anything in the real world.

 

[Frank Ettin]

https://www.9news.com/article/news/...-another-deadly-shooting-in-june/73-579198076

So what?

According to the article the investigation of that incident has not been completed, and it hasn't been determined if there is a basis upon which to conclude that the officer acted improperly. That's also the current status of the incident under discussion in this thread.

You have provided no evidence to support a conclusion that the officer in either case has liability, and indeed, a conclusion on that question can't reasonably be reached until the investigations are completed.

Without evidence you're just spouting drivel.

 

[Odd Job]

I have deleted some comments. My observations about police and other law enforcement officers are that:

1) You get good and bad apples in any profession
2) Failing to comply with the LEO's instructions up front can result in a situation which has less variables available to ensure an injury-free outcome
3) People make mistakes in the stress of a situation. You can train for and prepare for a situation as much as you like but there is no guarantee that your actions on the day will result in events that are mutually satisfactory (you can look at this from both the perspective of the LEO and the member of the public)

Comments which are inflammatory towards LEOs in general are not helpful, since in general they are not all bad people. It is best to analyse each incident on its own merit and facts.