A San Antonio police officer accidentally shot and killed a man who was being robbed and beaten this weekend, but authorities said Tuesday the rookie officer likely will would not face charges. [More]No, of course not. Thus the "Only Ones" files...
As usual, bring a barf bag for some of the comments.
I wonder if District Attorney Susan Reed would "verbally clear" you and me under similar circumstances?
She doesn't exactly make asking her easy.
Probably too busy adding "vampire" to her fascist parasite CV.
[Via John G]
11 comments:
If a "civilian" had done this, we would of course hear how private ownership of firearms needs to be outlawed. I think the officer should be fired and sued by the family.
Once upon a time I was grousing about the stupid gun laws in California. The late Dan Weiner, founder of the Houston Pink Pistols, told me if I thought being a gun owner in California is bad, try being a gay man in Texas. Maybe he was exaggerating but the victim was leaving a gay nightclub and there is a definite "way to go" attitude in the comments section.
Then there is this gem, "Sounds like a low-life got killed. Whats wrong with that?"
Maybe the reaction of the DA and PD is a stereotypical "just another dead fairy" response.
I'd be surprised in this case Parabarbarian--there was some info I had on this I did not use because I just wanted to make one point and not diverge into others, but Chief McManus has been lauded by Equality Texas for "supporting diversity" and for being the grand marshal in their pride parade.
Forcible blood theft is just another form of rape. Why should a rapist-enabler like Ms. Reed condemn a murderer? Birds of a feather, you know.
One more thing. If that had been other than an Only One, he would have been prosecuted for manslaughter. One of the things they make VERY clear in Texas CHL classes is that you will be held responsible for ANY damage the projectile does beyond the intended target. A miss or over-penetration will land you in court if you hit someone else.
Armed Geek
Civilians would likely be charged with accidental manslaughter ... So says my CCW trainer when I took the course. I in fact asked that exact question.
Parabarbarian, the commenter who made the "lowlife" comment read the story wrong. He thought the bad guy got killed. He later corrected himself.
This time, I don't think it's a case of cops acting badly. The officer was suddenly being charged and shot at by the BG, and so found himself in a life-or-death situation. That's a lot of adrenalin to counter. Now, he'll live with that regret for the rest of his life, and don't think that won't weigh heavily on him. yes, he won't be charged, and that's how it should be this time. The problem I see here is that an armed citzen would not be afforded the same courtesy.
I'm with Crotalus on this one. The cop did wrong. No intent except to do the right thing and sometimes things just go wrong. The problem isn't that he has been "cleared". The problem is that he belongs to a special class of people who receive dispensation when others would be tried, convicted and imprisoned.
There is not supposed to be a "special" class of people in this country. That is the problem.
There are two possible causes for the crime victim that was shot - a "pass through" or over-penetration of the round, or the officer jerked the trigger instead of squeezing the trigger, causing the muzzle to drop, which may have resulted in the hits to the legs and may have caused a round to go between his legs.
Unlike the training that the civilians received, as cited by several other commenters, officers are trained to fire (as if there was no overpenetration risk or possibility of missing) when someone other than the target in the line of fire. I learned this a few years ago when participating in a demonstration of a "Shoot - Don't Shoot" training simulator at the local state fair. The deputy critized my delay in firing at the image of a man holding a gun in one hand and holding a hostage around the neck with the other hand. Besides the difficulty of taking a head shot when the hostage's head is only inches away from the bad guy's head, there were uninvolved people in the backgound downrange that may have been hit by misses. Only when the orientation changed with the bad guy facing to my right did I shoot, striking the gun hand twice which the simulator did not recognize score followed by two shots to the bad guy's head forward of the ear. The deputy asked where I learned to shoot (NRA Basic Pistol Marksmanship course as teenager). The deputy told me that when an officer's life or a fellow officer's life was threatened, they are trained to shoot immediately. The other people's lives? Well....
I have this to offer:
TEXAS PENAL CODE
TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual. [NOTE: You will notice, there is a period immediately after the word “individual”.]
Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.
Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
The Texas penal code pretty well establishes guidelines for the justifiable use of deadly force.
The officer's actions did result in a criminal homicide. The question is: Did the officer engage in reckless conduct? It's going to be up to a Texas grand jury to determine the answer to that question.
"The officer's actions did result in a criminal homicide. The question is: Did the officer engage in reckless conduct? It's going to be up to a Texas grand jury to determine the answer to that question."
That's what SHOULD happen, and that's what WOULD happen if you or I killed a bystander during a self-defense shooting.
But THIS case is never going to be heard by a grand jury.
Post a Comment