While Baker was talking with the officer, Schwartz came downstairs and pointed a gun. Spellman said the officer felt threatened and fired, hitting both women. [More]Admittedly, a true "death by cop" wish cannot be avoided. Still, you'd think someone who truly possesses the training and skills attributed to "Only Ones" would have Cooper's rules so thoroughly a part of their response...
Would I do better? No idea. Perhaps I would have done the same, or hesitated and gotten killed.
Some situations are "no win." So is it fair to even bring this up?
For discussion, sure.
13 comments:
nobody needs to second-guess a weapon pointed at them. shoot back.
if police officers sign a contract that says they have to hold their fire until they're absolutely sure a VCA's weapon is loaded and they can fire it, that might be different. i say might, because, just who are the counterparties?
even if they did sign something like that, and so did Everyone Else, it would be upon them to confirm that the situation they had before them was in fact presenting both a VCA and a loaded weapon.
and when that is not the case, so long as officers have the faith of Everyone Else, they may simply declare, in perfect orwellian fashion, that what was before them in that situation was precisely what the rules said to look for.
it's not like the now-dead ex-Everyone Else member can argue otherwise.
Quote:"Spellman said the officer felt threatened and fired, hitting both women."
Well, obviously it was the right thing to do. I mean, it was officer safety, and besides everyone knows that a police officer's life is much more valuable than a mere mortal's, and besides, you don't know what kind of day he'd had, and besides, suspect number two shouldn't have been armed anyway, and besides, suspect number one was in the way, and everyone knows that in combative situations, sometimes collateral damage happens.
Kill them all! God will know his own.
Longbow, you should create a new profile from which you can pretend to be a cop when you say these things. After all, those of us who already know you, know you are being sarcastic. It would be hilarious if you were "ServeAndProtectYou" or something when you made these outrageous comments. Think of it as a hobby. ;)
I don't see as the officer had a choice but to shoot the woman pointing the gun. However, he has no excuse for shooting the other woman. At best it is involuntary manslaughter. Just the same as if a jeweler downtown killed an innocent while shooting at a robber.
It would not have been a lose/lose for the officer if he had better control of himself and his gun. It may not be now, except even after he is cleared, and we all know he will be, he'll still be an undisciplined killer of women. My sympathies to the wife and daughters of any man so deficient in self-control. I truly hope he is not married and has no children, at least not any he gets to see.
The officer’s first obligation, after her right to self defense, is not to the public, it’s to her family. Granted, one hears a lot of lip service given to “protect and serve” however when the SHTF the idea is to stay alive, to go home to her husbands and children. I would find it hard to believe that anyone who has given the matter any degree of intelligent thought would opt to voluntarily sacrifice her life at the expense of her own husband’s and children’s welfare and happiness.
Contrary to what the media professes and what most people want to believe, police officers aren’t, for the most part, well trained in the practical usage of firearms. Most departments, due to budget constraints and man power shortages, do not afford their officers, except for specialty units (SWAT, PEU, RRT, … Etc.) much needed and expected training in any subjects other than what may be mandated by their state’s legislature.
I am reminded of a response made by a Dallas PD officer back in the late 60’s to his Sgt, when the Sgt. asked why he shot a man, who jammed a pistol into his face, six times. “I ran out of bullets, Sarge.”
If a person thinks that having a pistol stuck up in your face is something that can be responded to in a cold fearless dispassionate manner, that person is demanding what should not be expected of a fellow human. Until you’ve worn the shoes you have no business judging.
I always try to impress upon my students that they should always be as right as they possibly can be but that the most righteous person who ever drew breath ended up being hanged from a cross for his troubles and that they can expect no better treatment from the media and from those who feel police are always wrong.
Kent, that would be dishonest, now, wouldn't it (big wide grin)?
If I was the officer responding to the call, I would have fired my weapon to defend my life.
There... I said it.
I do not question the officer's right to defend his life or the life of another, if another life was threatened.
Shooting the other woman was coincidental and as Straightarrow said, should bring a manslaughter charge, as it would for you or me.
WWW, nobody said she shouldn't defend her life. But being poorly trained and unskilled is not much of a defense for shooting a bystander, now is it?
I doubt I could gain one ounce of sympathy or understanding from any cop should I say, "I feared for my life, so I shot everybody. I didn't know how not to".
What do you think?
There's really not enough information to make a call on this one. However did the other woman really point the firearm at the cop is a question that we only have one witness to, the cop.
Lets say the woman did point the gun and was not coming down the stairs to turn the firearm over to the cop to put this situation to rest. Then the cop saw the firearm and started shooting wildly killing both woman because the shots were taking out of panic and fear.
The mother who was also killed had to be in the line of fire to some degree. So as the cop is interviewing the mother and the daughter comes down the stairs with the firearm. I logical response would have been to step over putting the mother between the cop and daughter. Doing such a move as the cop pulls out the duty firearm. This way the mother is not going to be shot and the daughter will most likely hold fire to not shoot her mother. I have a feeling that the first shot hit the mother and she dropped out of the line of fire allowing the cop to waste the daughter.
Something just isn't right but in all fairness we do not have enough information to really know what happened leading up to why the shooting killed both or the mother who clearly was no danger to the cop.
"The officer’s first obligation, after her right to self defense, is not to the public, it’s to her family."
Well, Woodward if they're not obligated to protect the public, perhaps we should take their guns away. Then no one would want to kill them, and they wouldn't kill anyone else.
Everyone goes home happily.
No double standards.
He shot somebody to death, so he should face the same JUSTICE as the rest of us mere civilians who would be charged with no less than negligent homicide and we'd have to sort it out in court...or do cops only have to worry about the "JUST-US" system where the DA won't go after police who kill?
straightarrow said...
WWW, nobody said she shouldn't defend her life. But being poorly trained and unskilled is not much of a defense for shooting a bystander, now is it?
straightarrow, I’m 100% with you on that. There is no excuse for failure to train. In fact, the courts have ruled as much. And, any justification one might have for using any degree of force against an aggressor does not carry over to an innocent bystander. Is it possible, or even probable, however that the mother placed herself into the line of fire in an attempt to save her daughter’s life? None of us were in that residence when the shooting went down.
Cranky said…
Well, Woodward if they're not obligated to protect the public, perhaps we should take their guns away. Then no one would want to kill them, and they wouldn't kill anyone else.
Cranky, I didn’t say that police officers aren’t obligated to protect the public. I said, and I stand by my statement, that the obligation to protect the public is not, and should not be, an officer’s number one priority. Staying alive is the number one priority. Would you deny the right to self defense to anyone, even a PIG?
Additionally, guns or no guns wouldn’t make any difference. The badge alone is a target.
In Texas, anyone involved in a deadly force incident (citizen or police officer), especially if a death ensues, goes before a grand jury. The grand jury determines if the use of deadly force was justified and whether criminal charges should be filed. I can't speak for any other states' criminal justice procedures.
It appears deadly force was justified in this case. I just find it way odd that collateral damage occurs with cops way more than any other segment of society and that no one ever says of those with the better record "we don't know what happened, we weren't there.", but that and "within department policy" are the first things trotted out when the group with worst record kills an innocent.
This is the systemic problem that so vexes us. Either the law is the same for all of us or it is illegitimate and none of us owe it allegiance. One or the other, not both for some.
"No choice" <- how bogus.
Pops was a cop for 35 years, and had many guns pulled on him - 100% of them disarmed without having to murder them.
It is the mentality of todays Law Enforcement - shoot to kill when in doubt.
Post a Comment