US police mistakenly shoot dead newlywed

[Ranb]

A newlywed killed by police after he stepped outside his home to confront suspected burglars was shot in a case of mistaken identity, California police said.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/5110257/police-mistakenly-shoot-dead-newlywed/r/qp

The article is short on details and it appears to be merely repeated in most of the links I can find on the web right now.

Ranb

[quixotecoyote]

US police mistakenly shoot dead newlywed

Imagine the uproar if they'd shot a live one.

[Lonewulf]

Wait, what? The guy was mistaken for one of four criminals, was confronted, and then shot?

I want to see exactly what commands were issued to Alexander before he was shot. Something about this seems kinda funny. A 10 year veteran, quick on the trigger finger? I dunno. I think there might be another side to this story.

[tyr_13]

Why is this, "US police," when, "California police," or better yet, the name of the town's police?

Oh right, because this is supposed to reflect negatively on the US. Right, forgot...

Tragic, and maybe there is a policy that needs changed, or something else that needs fixing, or there is more to this story. At any rate, as sad as it is, accidents happen. Even if everyone tries to do everything right.

[Skeptic]

deleted -- my apologies.

[Ranb]

I copied the title from the headline of the link I posted. Since it was an Australian website, they identified the police as "US". No need to read anything else into it.

Ranb

[Drudgewire]

No need to apply for the million dollar challenge, I'm using no psychic powers to predict the same people who will say the police should be prosecuted are the same ones who were most gung-ho about the guy in Texas who left his house in order to confront burglars outside getting convicted.

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, I don't understand the "U.S. Police" thing either.

I'm betting that there's more to this story, personally. There's just too little information given, and inquiries are currently being made. I don't really get why a police officer of 10 years would be so quick on the trigger. Do police in California have a bad reputation in these matters?

[tyr_13]

Yes, specifically the LAPD has a bad rep with excessive force. Of course they also have a history of getting shot to death too.

[The Drain]

Why is this, "US police," when, "California police," or better yet, the name of the town's police?

Oh right, because this is supposed to reflect negatively on the US. Right, forgot...


Imagine if this incident had happened in, say, Townsville or Cairns and was being reported by a newspaper in the United States.

I think I'm right in saying that an American paper (or indeed any European or African newspaper) would headline the story "Australian Police shoot dead..." and only mention the State of Queensland in the opening sentence of the main story itself.

That would not be an attempt to relect negatively on Australia - so similarly in this case, it is not an attempt to reflect negatively on the US.

[geni]

Why is this, "US police," when, "California police," or better yet, the name of the town's police?



Would your local news system report Humberside Police or British police?

[Pardalis]

A newlywed killed by police after he stepped outside his home to confront suspected burglars was shot in a case of mistaken identity, California police said.

Although I don't excuse the policeman for being trigger-happy, but I think the bolded part was the problem.

A civilian shouldn't "confront" a suspected burglar, IMO, that's why we have the police.

[quixotecoyote]

Not enough details yet, but an alternate framing of the situation might be that police were pursuing four suspects when a man wielding a firearm inteposed himself and was seen as an imediate threat.

I'm no fan of police generally, but I'm waiting for the details on this one.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I had no idea I had my own police force. :D

A civilian shouldn't "confront" a suspected burglar, IMO, that's why we have the police.

If he's armed and the suspect is in his house that's one thing, but if the police are on site then one should stay inside and let them do their work. The lights and sirens should have been an indication that something was going on in the area.

Am I too understand that this kind of gun-toting, I've-got-a-license-to-shoot-to-kill mentality is representitive of American Police Services? Thankfully, I live in Australia and not in the land of George Bush inc.

:rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

If he's armed and the suspect is in his house that's one thing, but if the police are on site then one should stay inside and let them do their work.

Yes, besides, the only thoughts a newlywed should have is "fondle the wife", not "fight crime".

[tyr_13]

Imagine if this incident had happened in, say, Townsville or Cairns and was being reported by a newspaper in the United States.

I think I'm right in saying that an American paper (or indeed any European or African newspaper) would headline the story "Australian Police shoot dead..." and only mention the State of Queensland in the opening sentence of the main story itself.

That would not be an attempt to relect negatively on Australia - so similarly in this case, it is not an attempt to reflect negatively on the US.


Would your local news system report Humberside Police or British police?

Calm down, I didn't know it was an Aussie report. I'm a typical American in that unless I see extra vowels at the end of words I assume it is a North American paper.

I like how even though they haven't named the officer, people on the link are posting about how it's another white cop shooting an innocent black man. Why assume the cop is white? Also, how do they know the dead man is black? Weird...

[Thunder]

if the newlywed was already dead...what does it matter that the cops shot him?

[Wildy]

if the newlywed was already dead...what does it matter that the cops shot him?

It's the principle of the thing.

[Ranb]

More details; seems the victim may have been armed with a broomstick. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/front_yard_fatality

It is starting to look look like a trigger happy policeman or someone who can not conttol themselves enough to be trusted with a firearm.

Ranb

[LTC8K6]

A civilian shouldn't "confront" a suspected burglar, IMO, that's why we have the police.

The police are often too many minutes away to help you.

They're good at identifying your body, though.

[Talby]

Tragic, and maybe there is a policy that needs changed, or something else that needs fixing, or there is more to this story. At any rate, as sad as it is, accidents happen. Even if everyone tries to do everything right.

When a criminal murders someone, it's murder. When a policeman murders someone, "accidents happen."

I hope the cop gets jail time.

[Travis]

As one who's step-dad and best friend are both cops I'm willing to give the cops the benefit of the doubt. A broomstick can look an awful lot like a gun if you don't get a good look at it. If there were reports that the burglars were armed then the cops would already be on edge and looking for someone with a weapon.

[Pardalis]

When a criminal murders someone, it's murder.

Well, that's logical isn't it, since their intention usually is to murder?

When a policeman murders someone, "accidents happen."

Most of the time it is, because they have no reason to want to murder people.

[The Drain]

I'm so happy I live in a country where the uniformed police are unarmed.

Oh wait, no, I live in the only part of the British Isles where ordinary coppers do carry guns. What a bummer!

[Lonewulf]

When a criminal murders someone, it's murder. When a policeman murders someone, "accidents happen."

I hope the cop gets jail time.
This has already been adequately covered by an above poster, but I just want to add something.

When a police officer intentionally shoots someone that's not a suspect, yeah, that IS murder. However, wouldn't you require evidence that it was an intentional shooting in the first place? That is what our court of law is almost entirely based on: Bringing forth the evidence to try someone.

You hope that the police officer in question gets jail time because he mistook someone for a suspect and shot him. You then go so far as to say that it should be considered murder (cold blooded, I suppose?)

Really, if the police officer shot someone through reckless behavior, and not through an understandable accident, then even that wouldn't be considered cold-blooded murder.

In this particular case, it's involving an ongoing investigation. The facts aren't all in. Going on about how the police officer deserves jail time without all the facts seems to me, that you're doing more or less the same reckless judgment you accuse the police officer of. Just fortunately, it doesn't involve a gun.

[tyr_13]

Seconded

[Travis]

Comment quotes from the original Aussie news item:

the real answer? there is no answer - the septics get everything they deserve

why has the officer been placed on paid leave pending an investigation? he shot an innocent person with no warning at all. he should be put on unpaid leave.

disgusting, they should charge the officer with murder and lock him up and let the inmates take care of him.

Another example of stupid people with guns. Cops shouldn't be allowed to carry them, or tazers. Guns are never the answer. I hope the cops get charged with murder.

what crap. the cop decided to have his gun ready, the cop decided to shoot first not assess anything like he has been trained, and he then decided to inflict a fatal wound, didn't shoot him in the leg. So don't blame the thieves the cop is going down for this. May he be haunted by the man

Wow, no presumption of innocence with that crowd. Lots of reactionary emoting though.

[Lonewulf]

asshats on the internet? Who knew?

[Travis]

asshats on the internet? Who knew?

Yeah, this must be like the first time ever.:p

[Bikewer]

This was reported quite differently (different news service) on another BB I frequent. In that article, it says that the deceased became aware of the police pursuit of the suspects and stepped out of his house armed with a broomstick (????) to protect his home.

Then, (according to the article) the pursuing officer "ran into" the deceased and shots were fired.
The exact circumstances of the "running-into" bit were not explained.

Obviously a tragedy, but the exact circumstances of the shooting might have been better explained. Was the officer in uniform? Did the broom-stick-armed deceased suddenly confront the pursuing officer and he take the guy for one of the suspects?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Comment quotes from the original Aussie news item:

Wow, no presumption of innocence with that crowd. Lots of reactionary emoting though.

I'm so glad I live in a country where people don't have irrational fears about police and pollyanna attitudes about law enforcement.

[qwints]

This has already been adequately covered by an above poster, but I just want to add something.

When a police officer intentionally shoots someone that's not a suspect, yeah, that IS murder. However, wouldn't you require evidence that it was an intentional shooting in the first place? That is what our court of law is almost entirely based on: Bringing forth the evidence to try someone.

You hope that the police officer in question gets jail time because he mistook someone for a suspect and shot him. You then go so far as to say that it should be considered murder (cold blooded, I suppose?)

Really, if the police officer shot someone through reckless behavior, and not through an understandable accident, then even that wouldn't be considered cold-blooded murder.

In this particular case, it's involving an ongoing investigation. The facts aren't all in. Going on about how the police officer deserves jail time without all the facts seems to me, that you're doing more or less the same reckless judgment you accuse the police officer of. Just fortunately, it doesn't involve a gun.

You sir, with all due respect, have the law completely wrong. Whether a victim of a police shooting is a suspect or not doesn't matter. Police shouldn't shoot people who don't present an immediate threat to themselves or innocent bystanders. There's no question that this was an intentional shooting. He shot the guy up close. He wasn't firing wildly. The question is whether it was reasonable self-defense or not.

I was absolutely appalled and not at all surprised when I first saw this headline. There are far too many stories of police shooting first and then never asking questions in this country for this to shock anyone. Unfortunately, all this pig - and I choose my words carefully - has to prove is that he feared the citizen he swore to protect and serve.

[Travis]

You sir, with all due respect, have the law completely wrong. Whether a victim of a police shooting is a suspect or not doesn't matter. Police shouldn't shoot people who don't present an immediate threat to themselves or innocent bystanders.

Yes, the advocates of "shoot the innocent" have become so numerous and bothersome.:rolleyes:

There's no question that this was an intentional shooting. He shot the guy up close. He wasn't firing wildly.

I've heard rumors that cops are taught how to use their guns and that part of this is to only shoot intentionally and to actually aim at the center of mass of your target. Crazy, I know, it would be much better if cops just shot randomly in any direction for no reason.

The question is whether it was reasonable self-defense or not.

This is the crux of that matter and something that can't be ascertained from the articles. If they were in close proximity then a broomstick, recognized as a broomstick, would be a potentially deadly weapon and a cop would be justified in using force to negate such a threat.

Seen from a distance, or in poor lighting, a broomstick would look an awful lot like a rifle.

Either way running around with a broomstick with cops on the chase of a suspect is just not a good idea. If you don't believe me then why don't you surprisingly accost a cop with a broomstick and see how they act.

I was absolutely appalled and not at all surprised when I first saw this headline. There are far too many stories of police shooting first and then never asking questions in this country for this to shock anyone.

So you think cops=murderers. Good to know.

Unfortunately, all this pig - and I choose my words carefully - has to prove is that he feared the citizen he swore to protect and serve.

"Unfortunately?" "Pig?" Yeah, you chose great words there. If this goes to trial I sure hope no one like you is on the jury.

[Lonewulf]

I'm actually not sure on what I got wrong. I don't see much in qwints post that actually commented much on what I had to say.

Was it reasonable self defense or not? Yes, that is a good question. If a man pointed a broomstick at me and I didn't know it was a broomstick, there is reasonable doubt that I didn't know he was the unarmed victim, not one of the assailants. Hence the crux of the whole matter. Hence why I, personally, want more facts before I make a judgment -- something that I note some are incapable of doing, one way or the other. I'm not claiming the police officer is necessarily innocent, just that he isn't necessarily guilty of cold blooded murder of an innocent person; I'm not sure what motivation he would have to kill someone that was an innocent in all of this anyways?

Choosing your words carefully, and then throwing out the word "pig" to describe a man who could very well have made a mistake makes me think that you are carefully demonstrating your prejudice. I personally would not like to be a man in uniform. The attacks are constant, brutal, and you are expected to be 100% free of error. Definitely not the job for good ol' flawed me.

And I will state that yes, this was a very tragic incident. However, ragging on the police officer without having all of the facts of the matter, comes off as pretty childish and prone to quick (prejudicial?) judgment.

I'd like to someone tell me how I have the facts of that wrong.

So you think cops=murderers. Good to know.Actually, his statement here:

"There are far too many stories of police shooting first and then never asking questions in this country for this to shock anyone."

I agree with this. There ARE cases where police officers act rashly and kill innocent people. Perhaps some are mistaken, perhaps some had an ulterior motive for their shooting (racism, personal issues, etc.) I've seen videos of police beating on individuals who weren't even putting up a fight. I've also seen videos where police officers WERE dealing with someone that was putting up a fight that endangered them, and acted accordingly. Differentiating between the legitimate cases of abuse and the cases where a man is doing his job is actually somewhat difficult here on the sidelines, especially when dealing with a vague article, but there ARE enough cases to cause some concern. However, some take that legitimate concern, and put it into illegitimate prejudice against the badge in general.

That doesn't necessarily mean "cops=murderers". It DOES mean that some cops out there, however, very much might be. I mean, take New Orleans back in the day. I hear their police department wasn't the best example of lack of corruption.

[Travis]

Actually, his statement here:

"There are far too many stories of police shooting first and then never asking questions in this country for this to shock anyone."

I agree with this. There ARE cases where police officers act rashly and kill innocent people. Perhaps some are mistaken, perhaps some had an ulterior motive for their shooting (racism, personal issues, etc.) I've seen videos of police beating on individuals who weren't even putting up a fight. I've also seen videos where police officers WERE dealing with someone that was putting up a fight that endangered them, and acted accordingly. Differentiating between the legitimate cases of abuse and the cases where a man is doing his job is actually somewhat difficult here on the sidelines, especially when dealing with a vague article, but there ARE enough cases to cause some concern. However, some take that legitimate concern, and put it into illegitimate prejudice against the badge in general.

That doesn't necessarily mean "cops=murderers". It DOES mean that some cops out there, however, very much might be. I mean, take New Orleans back in the day. I hear their police department wasn't the best example of lack of corruption.

But note he was "not at all surprised" indicating that he expects cops to shoot innocent people and then stating that everyone is "never asking questions" implies that he not only expects cops to shoot the innocent but that they are not punished for doing so.

[Professor Yaffle]

This reminds me of a case in the UK where a man was shot dead by police when they mistakenly (after receiving a tip off) believed he was carrying a shotgun. It was in fact a table leg in a plastic bag. The first inquest gave an open verdict, but the family won a high court battle for a fresh inquest, at which it was ruled unlawful killing. This was then challenged in the high court and the verdict was overturned:


A judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence" to support such a verdict.
But Mr Justice Leveson added: "Whether or not a misunderstanding on the part of the officers may be justifiable, they did in fact misunderstand Mr Stanley's reaction and, as a result, he lost his life.
"This is not a situation which can be allowed to be repeated."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/victory-for-policeman-over-table-leg-shooting-490438.html

No disciplinary action was taken against the two police marksmen, but new rules about police officers conferring after an incident, before statements were taken,were brought in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley

And then of course there was the Jean Charles de Menezez shambles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

[Lonewulf]

Okay, point there.

[applecorped]

You sir, with all due respect, have the law completely wrong. Whether a victim of a police shooting is a suspect or not doesn't matter. Police shouldn't shoot people who don't present an immediate threat to themselves or innocent bystanders. There's no question that this was an intentional shooting. He shot the guy up close. He wasn't firing wildly. The question is whether it was reasonable self-defense or not.

I was absolutely appalled and not at all surprised when I first saw this headline. There are far too many stories of police shooting first and then never asking questions in this country for this to shock anyone. Unfortunately, all this pig - and I choose my words carefully - has to prove is that he feared the citizen he swore to protect and serve.

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp :rolleyes:

[Ragnarok]

Has this one (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/24/nypd.lawsuit/index.html) been dealt with yet? Any updates on what happened to the police here?

[Ragnarok]

Sorry about jumping the gun there. I've seen the Wikipedia article now. Surprise, surprise!

[qwints]

Yes, the advocates of "shoot the innocent" have become so numerous and bothersome.:rolleyes:

...
This is the crux of that matter and something that can't be ascertained from the articles. If they were in close proximity then a broomstick, recognized as a broomstick, would be a potentially deadly weapon and a cop would be justified in using force to negate such a threat.

Seen from a distance, or in poor lighting, a broomstick would look an awful lot like a rifle.

So cops are justified in shooting people who are on their own property armed with a stick. You just advocated "shooting the innocent."


But note he was "not at all surprised" indicating that he expects cops to shoot innocent people and then stating that everyone is "never asking questions" implies that he not only expects cops to shoot the innocent but that they are not punished for doing so.

This is an accurate description of my view. I don't expect every cop to shoot someone every day, but I do expect such incidents to happen regularly.


Lonewolf, I read your original post to imply that the cops might have been justified in shooting the burglary suspects. I also read it to imply that there was a doubt that it was an intentional shooting. Neither of these points were in issue. The police would have been just as wrong to shoot burglars armed with broomsticks. The "guiltiness" of the victim doesn't enter into whether it was murder. The only question is whether the cop was acting in self-defense or not.

I used the word pig to express the outrage I felt at this and similar shootings. There seems to be an attitude that police would rather have an innocent bystander die than risk harm to themselves. This belief is a renunciation of the police's worthy oath.

[Lonewulf]

Lonewolf, I read your original post to imply that the cops might have been justified in shooting the burglary suspects.An armed suspect that may have seemed about to fire his weapon?

Yes.

I also read it to imply that there was a doubt that it was an intentional shooting.Okay?

I do say that there is doubt that the cop intentionally shot an innocent person, yes. Do you have evidence of otherwise?

The police would have been just as wrong to shoot burglars armed with broomsticks.
And if the broomstick was mistaken for a rifle?

Shoot a police officer not be allowed to fire on someone with a rifle?

I thought that was the issue at hand here.

Furthermore, there were suggestions that there were commands issued to the victim. This would imply that, if there were commands, then the man in question did not comply with them.

The "guiltiness" of the victim doesn't enter into whether it was murder.Uh, no? Whether or not the police officer had mistaken the man for an armed burglar is.

The only question is whether the cop was acting in self-defense or not.I really do fail to see how you think I fail to understand any of this.

I used the word pig to express the outrage I felt at this and similar shootings.If I used a word to express the outrage I feel by people's quickness to judge others, I'd be warned by the administrators here for being personal and breaking the rules of this site. So, in self-interest, I will not sink to your level.

There seems to be an attitude that police would rather have an innocent bystander die than risk harm to themselves.

I could understand why an officer would shoot someone who seemed armed and about to do injure to themselves.

Here's a newsflash for people who sit back at a computer and don't know what it's like to be out there: Action is fast. Yes, it is. Someone pulls out a weapon, and you only have a few seconds to decide if it's a real one or not. If a broomstick is pointed your way in any fashion, then it could very well be a weapon. If a child pulls up a realistic toy gun at you, then it could very well be a real gun. You can't wait until the trigger is pulled or you're close enough to see if it's real or not. Claiming that the police should be omniscient in these matters is, quite simply, wishing for the impossible.

This belief is a renunciation of the police's worthy oath.And your belief seems to put the police on a pedestal that takes them outside of a human being and puts them into godlike ability.

Mistakes will and do happen. And sometimes the victims in these cases act just as angry and close to doing harm as the perpetrators. This doesn't make harming the victim excusable, but it certainly does give doubt as to a police officer's ability to see whether or not an individual is a perpetrator or the victim in certain situations.

You're quick to rush to judgment. I want to see more evidence before I make one. It's as simple as that, really. Your eagerness to call people "pigs" pretty much shows me what you really think about all this. You saying that you choose your words carefully just demonstrates it yet more.

You've already made up your mind about how things occurred. There's nothing I can do to convince you away from it, I think.

[qwints]

The only reason that I have the luxury of making up my mind so easily is that I have no power over the players involved. If I was on a jury or in charge of the investigation, I would certainly be more cautious in making statements of judgment. The officer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial jury, but that doesn't mean that I can't form an opinion based on the news reports that I have read.

Lonewulf, saying that a shooting is intentional is an issue completely divorced from whether that shooting was justified by self-defense. The officer meant to shoot someone. It simply does not matter whether that person was "innocent" or not. Whether that person was a burglar or not is only tangentially relevant to the question of self-defense. He should not have shot an unarmed criminal, but he would be justified in shooting an innocent bystander about to shoot him. Burglarizing a home does not forfeit your right to life. (I was similarly outraged at the Joe Horn case.)

A police officer should absolutely not be allowed to fire on a person with a rifle unless that person with a rifle was an immediate threat to others. If the facts show that the officer was in hot pursuit of suspects known to be armed with rifles and he reasonably perceived the newlywed as a person pointing a rifle at him, then the officer would have been legally justified in his use of force. Ideally he would have used non-lethal force or attempted to defuse the situation - but I understand that there is often little time for reflection in such a situation.

Even so, we can and must judge someone by their actions. Even if those actions were made in the heat of the moment. The police office shot a man who was on his own property and who was holding a broomstick. Others have shot people because they thought the shots fired by other officers were fired at them. Others have mistaken a t-shirt for a pistol. Still others have shot people too drunk to stand up when they made a sudden move. Police officers have to be held to a higher standard because they have more power than the average citizen. They have the right to take away your life and liberty without consequence based on their judgment. Even if the police officer reasonable thought that he was being attacked, he still should be condemned for his lack of judgment.

This, by the way, was the story (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gGeXU_ihyRMXx5K5Kt00ltZAP9NgD943VFQG2) I originally saw. Note the detail that the man was handcuffed and left bleeding to death on the lawn. Note that his family was kept from speaking to him as he lay dying. Note that no arrests were made. This is why I used the term that I used.

[Ranb]

.....The officer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial jury, but that doesn't mean that I can't form an opinion based on the news reports that I have read......The officer meant to shoot someone.....
I think that the claims you are making are more like wild speculation. It is better to wait until we have more info other than the few paragraphs provided by reporters.

Ranb

[qwints]

Here's the part of the story that made me angry.


Alexander's wife said she heard the gunshots and tried to go into the yard, but the officer told her to stay inside. From the window they saw Alexander handcuffed and bleeding in the front yard.

Paramedics treated him at the scene and took him to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The four burglary suspects were detained and interviewed, but no arrests were made.

[Miss_Kitt]

Imagine the uproar if they'd shot a live one.


And here I thought I was the only person who laughed when they saw the thread title...

Thanks for saving me, quixotecoyote!

[Lonewulf]

Here's the part of the story that made me angry.Why? Because they kept the wife inside, or handcuffed the man?

I don't think that they cleared up whether the guy was the victim or not in the short amount of time after firing, and allowing the wife to run out (while there were supposedly three other robbers running around) doesn't seem like the best course of police action ever.

The officer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial jury, but that doesn't mean that I can't form an opinion based on the news reports that I have readCertainly, you can draw any opinion you want. Just don't be surprised if people call out how prejudicial and outrageous your quick-draw opinions are, based on vague facts of the case.

[CptColumbo]

A few years ago I thought someone had broken into my house when I was home alone. The front dor was open and I heard-what sounded like-movement in the house. I called the police and the dispatcher told me to stay in the room I was in. I sat in my study with a Baseball bat until they came and cleared the house. Turned out my 83 year-old great-uncle (who had alzheimers and I was living with) had left the door open when he left that morning.

[Travis]

The only reason that I have the luxury of making up my mind so easily is that I have no power over the players involved. If I was on a jury or in charge of the investigation, I would certainly be more cautious in making statements of judgment. The officer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial jury, but that doesn't mean that I can't form an opinion based on the news reports that I have read.

Well, at least you're honest about your prejudices.:rolleyes:

Lonewulf, saying that a shooting is intentional is an issue completely divorced from whether that shooting was justified by self-defense. The officer meant to shoot someone.

No one has claimed the shooting was unintentional. In fact Lonewolf and I have only maintained that not enough is known to draw any sort of conclusion about this incident. You, however, have.

It simply does not matter whether that person was "innocent" or not. Whether that person was a burglar or not is only tangentially relevant to the question of self-defense. He should not have shot an unarmed criminal, but he would be justified in shooting an innocent bystander about to shoot him. Burglarizing a home does not forfeit your right to life. (I was similarly outraged at the Joe Horn case.)

Has anyone claimed that the police are justified in shooting burglars? Intentionally shooting someone as a matter of recrimination or punishment is always illegal and rightfully so.

A police officer should absolutely not be allowed to fire on a person with a rifle unless that person with a rifle was an immediate threat to others. If the facts show that the officer was in hot pursuit of suspects known to be armed with rifles and he reasonably perceived the newlywed as a person pointing a rifle at him, then the officer would have been legally justified in his use of force. Ideally he would have used non-lethal force or attempted to defuse the situation - but I understand that there is often little time for reflection in such a situation.

The key there is that we don't know the details and that, as you say, there usually isn't a lot of time in those situations to figure out the level of a threat.

Even so, we can and must judge someone by their actions.

Sure, if we know the details surrounding the circumstances of the event.

Even if those actions were made in the heat of the moment. The police office shot a man who was on his own property and who was holding a broomstick.

You can't be shot on your own private property? My older brother was shot and killed by cops in his own apartment. By that logic they weren't justified in doing so even though my brother attacked them with a butcher knife. funny how that fact eluded everyone involved in the investigation.

Others have shot people because they thought the shots fired by other officers were fired at them. Others have mistaken a t-shirt for a pistol. Still others have shot people too drunk to stand up when they made a sudden move.

The actions of other police officers, right or wrong, have no bearing on the legality or justification of this officer's actions in question.


Police officers have to be held to a higher standard because they have more power than the average citizen.

Who says they are not?

They have the right to take away your life and liberty without consequence based on their judgment.

Um no. There will be an investigation into this shooting as there would be in any case involving one person shooting another. The consequences will be decided by people other than the cop involved. It may be ruled justified just as it might be for any citizen. Cops do not have extra rights to kill people that other people do not have, at least not in the USA. They have to demonstrate the necessity of the action just as anyone would, cop or not.


Even if the police officer reasonable thought that he was being attacked, he still should be condemned for his lack of judgment.

Again with the condemnation despite not having all the facts.:rolleyes:

This, by the way, was the story (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gGeXU_ihyRMXx5K5Kt00ltZAP9NgD943VFQG2) I originally saw. Note the detail that the man was handcuffed and left bleeding to death on the lawn.

If he was still considered a suspect then that would not be unusual.

Note that his family was kept from speaking to him as he lay dying.

Again not unusual if he was considered a suspect.

Note that no arrests were made. This is why I used the term that I used.

So if they had caught the "real" burglars it would have made everything okay?:boggled:

[qwints]

On the last point, it demonstrates that the police were engaged in high risk behavior which failed to produce any results.

The fact that you can casually dismiss the fact that the police kept a dying man from his family because "he was considered a suspect" demonstrates my the reason for my anger. If this is typical, it's worse not better.

Lastly, any reasonable empirical analysis of police violence will demonstrate that they are punished less than regular citizens engaged in similar violence.

[qwints]

This (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/01/halloween.slaying.ap/index.html) is just as bad and just as tragic.

[tyr_13]

On the last point, it demonstrates that the police were engaged in high risk behavior which failed to produce any results.

The fact that you can casually dismiss the fact that the police kept a dying man from his family because "he was considered a suspect" demonstrates my the reason for my anger. If this is typical, it's worse not better.

Lastly, any reasonable empirical analysis of police violence will demonstrate that they are punished less than regular citizens engaged in similar violence.

So you would have the police possibly put more lives at risk by introducing emotionally agitated family members? "Hey, we just shot this guy, he's dieing and wants to see you, but don't be mad at us." That makes REAL good logic right there.

Police would of course be punished less for the violence they are force to meet out because they are far more often justified in doing so. Did you have a point? Because your point seems to be that police are bad because police are bad.

Police are people. Some do bad things for bad reasons, some get into accidents, none are perfect. Being held to a higher standard doesn't mean being perfect.

[tyr_13]

This (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/01/halloween.slaying.ap/index.html) is just as bad and just as tragic.

There is already a thread on that.

However, it is, in my humble opinion, asinine to call it just as bad and just as tragic. It is worse on just about every level I can think of.

[Lonewulf]

This (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/01/halloween.slaying.ap/index.html) is just as bad and just as tragic.

Someone sprayed automatic gun fire at someone who knocked on his door during Halloween, and that's somehow comparable?

[qwints]

It's absolutely comparable in its result. An innocent person is dead because of a mistaken shooting. The result is equal. Obviously the actions of the cop are a lot more justifiable than the actions of the paranoid guy with an a.k, but the story is just as tragic.

tyr 13, you're one more person who cares more about police safety than the well being of citizens. Why would lives be at risk if they let a dying man say good bye to his family. They couldn't have controlled a distraught widow?

Also, I clearly implied controlling for justification. That means that a cop who beats someone for no good reason will be punished less than a regular citizen who does so. If you don't think cops get away with more unjustified violence than citizens, then there's no talking to you. You probably approved of the Rodney King verdict.

I've never said that police officers are inherently evil. I've said that some regularly abuse their authority without being punished for it.

[fuelair]

An armed suspect that may have seemed about to fire his weapon?

Yes.

Okay?

I do say that there is doubt that the cop intentionally shot an innocent person, yes. Do you have evidence of otherwise?


And if the broomstick was mistaken for a rifle?

Shoot a police officer not be allowed to fire on someone with a rifle?

I thought that was the issue at hand here.

Furthermore, there were suggestions that there were commands issued to the victim. This would imply that, if there were commands, then the man in question did not comply with them.

Uh, no? Whether or not the police officer had mistaken the man for an armed burglar is.

I really do fail to see how you think I fail to understand any of this.

If I used a word to express the outrage I feel by people's quickness to judge others, I'd be warned by the administrators here for being personal and breaking the rules of this site. So, in self-interest, I will not sink to your level.



I could understand why an officer would shoot someone who seemed armed and about to do injure to themselves.

Here's a newsflash for people who sit back at a computer and don't know what it's like to be out there: Action is fast. Yes, it is. Someone pulls out a weapon, and you only have a few seconds to decide if it's a real one or not. .Actually, if someone has seen you and pulls a weapon you have a fraction of a second - not seconds - to respond - if you are lucky. If you wait to determine what they pulled you have a good chance of never responding to anything again.

I stress here that I do not know the details of what happened in the op case - just responding to general circumstances.