View Full Version : Officer shoots Wilson man after another officer's gun fired
olhamada
04-28-2010, 19:34
That's what you get for not following procedure.
Sad outcome. In the blog associated with this article, some say the kid deserved it for running, others say police at fault for accidental discharge leading to death of prisoner.
Officer shoots
Wilson man after another
officer's gun fired
By Clay Carey • THE TENNESSEAN • April 28,
2010
A Wilson County man was killed early this morning
in what police are calling an accidental shooting.
Two Lebanon Police officers, David McKinley and
Mitch McDannald, are on routine administrative
leave as state investigators look into the shooting
death of Greg Thompson Jr., 22, said Billy Weeks,
the city’s public safety commissioner.
Authorities said Thompson led police on a chase
down Carthage Highway, just east of the Lebanon
Public Square after nearly hitting a patrol car head-
on.
About three miles outside of Lebanon, Weeks said,
Thompson crashed his car off an embankment on
the highway.
Weeks said McKinley went down into the
embankment to try to get Thompson out of the car.
McDannald stayed up on the road to cover him.
As he walked toward the car with his gun drawn,
Weeks said, McKinley slipped on some loose rocks.
As he tried to steady himself, he accidentally fired
his gun into the air.
From the road, McDannald saw the officer’s gun go
off. Thinking that Thompson was shooting, Weeks
said, McDannald opened fire and killed him.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100428/NEWS03/100428020/UPDATED++Officer+shoots+Wilson+man+after+another+o fficer+s+gun+fired+
The Reaper
04-28-2010, 19:41
Safety?
Finger outside the trigger guard?
TR
In my opinion they are all guilty here. The kid certainly is at fault by putting himself in a situation where death is a likely outcome. However, the kids poor judgement does not excuse the police officers of their actions.
I understand that after a pursuit, adrenaline is pumping and tension is high, however, if you are going to use deadly force you have to be willing to take responsibility when you excersize that force wrongfully.
I believe there is such a thing as negligence which contributes to a death. I would think both officers are at least guilty of that. The first officer was negligent in his ability to control his firearm. The second was negligent in his responsibility to use deadly force only when his life or the life of his partner was directly threatened. I understand that he thought this was the case, however, he was wrong.
I know the objection will be raised that because he thought himself or his partners life was threatened that he isn't guilty. I offer this, if I were to use deadly force because I thought it was necessary and was wrong it is unlikely that I would not be found guilty of a crime. Police should be held to atleast the same standard as I am. I am not saying that I don't understand why the officer opened fire nor am I saying that in that situation I wouldn't do the same thing. However, simply because it was a tough situation that turned out bad does not obsolve the partys involved of wrong doing IMHO.
I will say though that I don't believe the officers will be found guilty of any wrong doing based on looking at the outcomes of similar cases. I'm not sure that speaks highly of the justice system but it is what it is. Also, this is only a preliminary opinion based on limited information and I reserve the right to adjust it as more information becomes available ;). For instance I think knowing the number of rounds the second officer fired into the car would be relevant information, also knowing how the first officer responded after his initial discharge and the subsequent discharge by his fellow officer.
:munchin
Safety?
Finger outside the trigger guard?
TR
...and shoot what you know and know what you shoot. Sad for all concerned.
Believe it or not there are laws that protect Police in these situations. Totality of the Circumstances I think it's called.
The Cop that had the AD is probably in trouble. The Cop that shot the suspect will probably be OK. Its what the Cop was thinking what was the right thing to do at the time. Not what actually was accruing at the time. Sometimes it sucks to be you.
Utah Bob
04-29-2010, 10:41
Sometimes things just go all to hell.
Totality of the Circumstances I think it's called.
The Cop that had the AD is probably in trouble. The Cop that shot the suspect will probably be OK. Its what the Cop was thinking what was the right thing to do at the time. Not what actually was occurring at the time.
yep...
Smokin Joe
04-29-2010, 13:50
I know the objection will be raised that because he thought himself or his partners life was threatened that he isn't guilty. I offer this, if I were to use deadly force because I thought it was necessary and was wrong it is unlikely that I would not be found guilty of a crime. Police should be held to atleast the same standard as I am. I am not saying that I don't understand why the officer opened fire nor am I saying that in that situation I wouldn't do the same thing. However, simply because it was a tough situation that turned out bad does not obsolve the partys involved of wrong doing IMHO.
:munchin
When was the last time you were in a similar situation as a sworn peace officer?
You will NOT be held to the same standard as a peace officer because you are not one, nor have you received the same training, nor acting in the same capacity. Most states have laws that govern the use of force that are specific to Police Officer's acting in official capacity. Arizona has multiple coded laws that pertain to Officer's use of force not to mention many departmental policies as well. And every one is for a peace officer while acting in his or her official capacity. As such unless you are a peace officer acting in that capacity no use of force will be held to the same standard as a civilians use of force. That is like comparing apples to oranges.
Because if you (as a citizen) chased an individual for several miles in your personal vehicle then shot him, you would probably go to prison for 1st degree murder.
Make no mistake an officers use of force will be heavily scrutinized on multiple levels where as a civilians will only be scrutinized on two: criminal law and civil law.
It was an unfortunate series of events, but if the guy had not led the police on a chase in the first place he would still be alive.
It is slightly off topic Smokin' Joe, but Phoenix has a damn good all around PD. I assume you contributed your part...Thank you
Had the pleasure of some brief training from Lt. Bob (whom helped create the hostage safe breaching device) and found him to be a true professional and nice guy who knows his stuff. Damn good shot too...
When was the last time you were in a similar situation as a sworn peace officer?
You will NOT be held to the same standard as a peace officer because you are not one, nor have you received the same training, nor acting in the same capacity. Most states have laws that govern the use of force that are specific to Police Officer's acting in official capacity. Arizona has multiple coded laws that pertain to Officer's use of force not to mention many departmental policies as well. And every one is for a peace officer while acting in his or her official capacity. As such unless you are a peace officer acting in that capacity no use of force will be held to the same standard as a civilians use of force. That is like comparing apples to oranges.
Because if you (as a citizen) chased an individuFisal for several miles in your personal vehicle then shot him, you would probably go to prison for 1st degree murder.
Make no mistake an officers use of force will be heavily scrutinized on multiple levels where as a civilians will only be scrutinized on two: criminal law and civil law.
First of all let me say that as you seem to have taken this as an attack against all police when I expressed my opinion that these police officers should be held responsible for shooting an unarmed person, that my intent was not to cop bash. I respect police officers and believe that they have a difficult and important job to do.
I also do not think that simply because there are protections for police officers who shoot the wrong people that that is evidence that they are not guilty. I also didn't imply that I had the same training as a police officer, I only implied that as a citizen I would be held accountable for my actions. We apparently will have to agree to disagree that police officers should be held to the same standard as citizens. I say that they should.
My argument is like this:
1. We (Most People) think that shooting someone who didn't diserve (necessitating the use of deadly force) to be shot is wrong and warrents punishment of the set standard.
2. The Police officer shot someone who did not diserve to be shot.
Conclusion: The police officer should be held to the same standard as anyone who shot someone who did not diserve to be shot.
Simply because those that enforce the law manage to create protections for themselves does not mean those protections are right.
We tend to think like this about politicians, that is, they should be held accountable for the things they do. When they arn't we think that is wrong.
As I stated in my original post, I doubt anything will happen to the officer involved, but that doesn't mean I must think that he isn't guilty of a cime.
Defender968
04-29-2010, 18:55
First of all let me say that as you seem to have taken this as an attack against all police when I expressed my opinion that these police officers should be held responsible for shooting an unarmed person, that my intent was not to cop bash. I respect police officers and believe that they have a difficult and important job to do.
I also do not think that simply because there are protections for police officers who shoot the wrong people that that is evidence that they are not guilty. I also didn't imply that I had the same training as a police officer, I only implied that as a citizen I would be held accountable for my actions. We apparently will have to agree to disagree that police officers should be held to the same standard as citizens. I say that they should.
My argument is like this:
1. We (Most People) think that shooting someone who didn't diserve (necessitating the use of deadly force) to be shot is wrong and warrents punishment of the set standard.
2. The Police officer shot someone who did not diserve to be shot.
Conclusion: The police officer should be held to the same standard as anyone who shot someone who did not diserve to be shot.
Simply because those that enforce the law manage to create protections for themselves does not mean those protections are right.
We tend to think like this about politicians, that is, they should be held accountable for the things they do. When they arn't we think that is wrong.
As I stated in my original post, I doubt anything will happen to the officer involved, but that doesn't mean I must think that he isn't guilty of a cime.
You are comparing apples to oranges at a meat market......
The standard that is applied in this type of case as others have said is what a reasonable PERSON in that officers position would have done given the facts that the actual officer had at the time the event occurred....this case law was not established by police officers but by lawyers and courts including the SCOTUS IIRC.
As others have said you would not be chasing someone though the streets and then getting out on foot to try to apprehend a fleeing felon, that alone means you don't get to be treated the same as the officer because the facts simply aren't the same. These facts (as I understand them) suggest that the officer should have had a heightened sense of danger in this situation IMO as he was dealing with a felon already (evading LE/Failure to stop for blue lights is a Felony in most states).
Now did the guy deserve to be shot....no....however the officer in question from what it appears, believed that the suspect was firing at him/his partner, and based on that belief he returned fire....(by the way in my AO, and in most states LEO’s have a duty to intervene in violent felonies….in this case he had a duty to act if he believed a violent felony was in progress…) Also in most states in order for a crime to have been committed there must be intent or at least negligence of some kind, there is no intent or negligence here IMO, one could argue a bad split second call possibly but that’s about it. IMO this gets chalked up to things sometimes go bad...and the lesson is DON'T RUN from the police.
Also understand no matter how good a shooting it was or was not this officer will now face civil lawsuits from the family regardless of if he is cleared or not.
Smokin Joe
04-29-2010, 19:48
I didn't take it the wrong way. I took your words at face value.
But honestly, when do citizens have to chase down bad guys and take them into custody? I understand your point, and your expectation however their is a huge difference between an OIS an a civilian shooting. Furthermore, if officers were not afforded the protection by specific statutes then every time they pointed a gun at someone it would be a Felony! Ultimately just about every officer would be out of a job and be a convicted felony probably before they got off FTO.
The laws are in place for a reason and they are applicable. If they did not exist and officers UOF was evaluated at the same standard in which a typical civilians UOF was evaluated. No one would be an LEO.... well probably no one who you would want being an LEO...
Just my .02 cents
monsterhunter
04-29-2010, 20:17
FNG, I believe you are well intentioned but your youth and inexperience in this matter is bringing this down a bad road. Those of us in law enforcement do not create protections for ourselves. Check in with the D.A.'s office, who I'm sure will also be investigating the case, for clarification on those "protections." These stem from case law and the penal code. We don't have anything to do with their make up and never have.
I don't have much information on this case except for a newspaper article. They're not often the best source of information, especially for what is often referred to as a "state of mind" shooting. I'm also not to sure on how many politicians are forced to make split second life or death decisions either.
There will be plenty that happens to the officer, guilty of a crime or not. Nobody ever just gets to walk away from a shooting like this. You may never hear of what happens and the news rarely goes beyond criminal cases.
There is no question of a big screw up. It started south with the finger on the trigger. You are entitled to your opinion; however, I wish you would reserve your judgement on such a situation until you have the experience to make a competent assessment.
I didn't take it the wrong way. I took your words at face value.
But honestly, when do citizens have to chase down bad guys and take them into custody? I understand your point, and your expectation however their is a huge difference between an OIS an a civilian shooting. Furthermore, if officers were not afforded the protection by specific statutes then every time they pointed a gun at someone it would be a Felony! Ultimately just about every officer would be out of a job and be a convicted felony probably before they got off FTO.
The laws are in place for a reason and they are applicable. If they did not exist and officers UOF was evaluated at the same standard in which a typical civilians UOF was evaluated. No one would be an LEO.... well probably no one who you would want being an LEO...
Just my .02 cents
I think there is a big difference between drawing a weapon and killing someone. Allowing officers to draw without there necessarilly being enough evidence to open fire is not comparable to protecting officers who mistakenly open fire.
I don't think there is a defenseable position for protecting officers who wrongfully kill someone. I understand that it was a mistake, but it still cost someone their life.
At the very least, it should be an automatic career ender.
Again I understand its a serious job, and sometimes bad shit happens. While that is true, that doesn't take away responsibility for those involved at least it shouldn't.
I also don't understand your argument against holding the police to the standards you would hold a citizen to, at least in this sense. I want the police to actually have to be sure of what they are shooting at before they start sending bullets down range. Knowing that if they make the wrong call there is going to be real consequences. This seems fair. If people don't want to live to that standard then I don't want them to be police officers. Because what if its me or someone I know who the officer mistakenly shooting at.
(I know in this instance the kid was running from the cops, but that isn't the case in all mistaken shootings, and running from the cops does not warrent death).
Utah Bob
04-29-2010, 20:50
FNG, you have no experience in officer involved shootings, internal investigations of them, Grand Jury reviews, Departmental policies, procedures and training.
I doubt that you have any experience in state statutes regarding use of force, culpable and criminal negligence, manslaughter or justifiable homicide
I also do not think that simply because there are protections for police officers who shoot the wrong people that that is evidence that they are not guilty.
There are no such "protections.
You're in an area here where you opinion is uninformed and your judgement is premature based on news reports.
FNG, you have no experience in officer involved shootings, internal investigations of them, Grand Jury reviews, Departmental policies, procedures and training.
I doubt that you have any experience in state statutes regarding use of force, culpable and criminal negligence, manslaughter or justifiable homicide
There are no such "protections.
You're in an area here where you opinion is uninformed and your judgement is premature based on news reports.
You are correct in stating that I have no experience with first hand experiece of officer involved shootings etc. I do have some knowledge of my state law only through classes I have taken such ass applied ethics on the subject
Again I did state in my orginal post that this in fact was my opinion based only on the news report at face value.
Please disregard any assertions I have made about "protections." I should have left it at I believe in situations like this the officer should not be afforded anything that would not be afforded to everyone.
However, I still don't see an argument here that counters what I have said that the unwarrented shooting of a civilian is wrong and as such the officer should be subject to the same penalties as everyone else. I am sorry if I unknowingly made over stepping assumptions about state law or statutes this was not my intention. I only meant to convey that it is my opinion that officer or not if you wrongfully kill a man you should go to jail. Strictly from an ethical standpoint I don't see a defensable position otherwise.
I will not post any more as I am not trying to be combative or overstep. I am just asserting my position.
Edited to add: I did not see monsterhunter's post before my last post. I also would like to add I am not trying to head hunt this officer. I also can see how my posts would be offensive to LEOs this is also not my intent. I simply think it is wrong to hold two sets of standards for civilians and civilian law enforcement. Just my 2 cents. I also don't have evidence that this officer will be held to a different standard, my original post was meant to show that I hope that he isn't.
Thank you.
Defender968
04-30-2010, 05:22
You are correct in stating that I have no experience with first hand experiece of officer involved shootings etc. I do have some knowledge of my state law only through classes I have taken such ass applied ethics on the subject
fng13 lets look at this a different way, and I'm going to use a hypothetical situation.
So officer x is patrolling a beat at night, in a bad part of town. The call comes in as shots fired at a particular public housing building known to be high crime area and a high drug area. Officer X responds, while patrolling he sees a young man walking in front of the housing building that the call originated from who is carrying what appears to be a gun. Officer X calls in his position and moves his patrol car toward the suspect. Once officer X puts his car in a good position for cover and he steps out, draws his weapon, identifies himself as a police officer and orders the suspect to stop and to drop the weapon. The suspect, does not drop the weapon but instead rapidly turns around to see who is yelling at him....the officer fires and kills the suspect. Is this officer guilty of an unwarranted killing of a civilian or does this sound like good shoot. The officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect intended to fire at him, from the officers perspective, the suspect had ability, opportunity, and there was jeopardy when the suspect rapidly turned around to face the officer.
Now let’s change one fact, the gun was black, made of metal, life sized and looked real, but was in fact a toy that fired nothing more than caps. Now is it still a good shoot?
The reality is that in the LE business officers operate under difficult conditions without all the information. You are simplifying it into killing someone that should not have been killed....the world is not that black and white. Do you think the officer should have to wait until he gets shot if the suspect has a weapon before taking action?
However, I still don't see an argument here that counters what I have said that the unwarrented shooting of a civilian is wrong and as such the officer should be subject to the same penalties as everyone else. I am sorry if I unknowingly made over stepping assumptions about state law or statutes this was not my intention. I only meant to convey that it is my opinion that officer or not if you wrongfully kill a man you should go to jail. Strictly from an ethical standpoint I don't see a defensable position otherwise.
What we're trying to explain to you is it is not that simple, right and wrong are nice in a classroom but in the real world things are rarely as cut and dry as that.
You are not judged in the light of 20-20 hindsight, you are judged at the time of the event as to REASONABLENESS. It was reasonable to assume that the cops life was in danger as the scrote had already assaulted them by trying to ram their cruiser head-on (att. murder; felonious assault; agg assault). Doesn't matter if cops finger WAS in the trigger guard - poor tactics doesn't exclude the scrote from responsibility in inititiating this contact.
Bottom line - the officers actions needed to be REASONABLE; not RIGHT. BIG distinction. Look at Diallo in New York. Each Federal Circuit has a similar body of case law regarding protections afforded to the police, even the 9th circuit.
Go read Gonzalez's book: DEEP SURVIVAL. It will educate you as to mind-set of these events as they unfold. Cop that did the shooting may have actually perceived that the other cop was in a gunfight and responded appropriately. That's the price we pay for 1) having a professional police force that puts their life on the line; 2) having scrotes that run from the cops and assault them in the process.
FNG - I sincerely hope you are NOT in the military. WE have transitioned to a law-enforcement model in both IZ and AFG. These actions by the cops are what are occurring EVERY DAY downrange. Do you want our troops tried for murder each time?? You need to understand the engagement dynamics and the psychology of a deadly force encounter before you start to judge the cops.
You
FNG - I sincerely hope you are NOT in the military. WE have transitioned to a law-enforcement model in both IZ and AFG. These actions by the cops are what are occurring EVERY DAY downrange. Do you want our troops tried for murder each time?? You need to understand the engagement dynamics and the psychology of a deadly force encounter before you start to judge the cops.
Sir,
I would like to discontinue the conversation as your post has once again reminded me of my AO and as it is my goal to one day serve in SF I would not like to jeopardize that by continuing. However so slight the chance of that is, it is not worth it to me. I cannot accurately convey all meaning by simply typing small posts at my keyboard.
To answer your question: No I do not want our troops tried for murder. If you have perceived this from my discussion, please refer back to my saying that I have been unable to accurately convey my meaning.
Fng
fng13 lets look at this a different way, and I'm going to use a hypothetical situation.
So officer x is patrolling a beat at night, in a bad part of town. The call comes in as shots fired at a particular public housing building known to be high crime area and a high drug area. Officer X responds, while patrolling he sees a young man walking in front of the housing building that the call originated from who is carrying what appears to be a gun. Officer X calls in his position and moves his patrol car toward the suspect. Once officer X puts his car in a good position for cover and he steps out, draws his weapon, identifies himself as a police officer and orders the suspect to stop and to drop the weapon. The suspect, does not drop the weapon but instead rapidly turns around to see who is yelling at him....the officer fires and kills the suspect. Is this officer guilty of an unwarranted killing of a civilian or does this sound like good shoot. The officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect intended to fire at him, from the officers perspective, the suspect had ability, opportunity, and there was jeopardy when the suspect rapidly turned around to face the officer.
Now let’s change one fact, the gun was black, made of metal, life sized and looked real, but was in fact a toy that fired nothing more than caps. Now is it still a good shoot?
The reality is that in the LE business officers operate under difficult conditions without all the information. You are simplifying it into killing someone that should not have been killed....the world is not that black and white. Do you think the officer should have to wait until he gets shot if the suspect has a weapon before taking action?
What we're trying to explain to you is it is not that simple, right and wrong are nice in a classroom but in the real world things are rarely as cut and dry as that.
The origins of the Law Totality of Circumstances came from a case where a Kid pointed a Toy Gun at an officer. The Officer do's not know the Gun is a Toy. He is completely justified in the Shooting explained above.
The Reaper
04-30-2010, 11:56
I am not a cop and don't have a dog in this fight, but I would say that being shot for pointing a toy gun at an LEO is far different from being shot because another officer had a negligent discharge.
Tried in criminal court or not, I think the officers' actions are going to be judged, and that the family of the deceased is going to get rich as a consequence.
AFAIK, the cop who shot and killed the RS student and wounded another, is still working as an LEO, even after multiple civil court judgements. Not sure I would want to be underwriting liability insurance policies on some of these yahoos. I guess the taxpayer doesn't get a vote.
TR
Gentlemen,
I was wrong. I understand why I was wrong.
I agree that there circumstances where a police officer is justified in shooting even if it turns out he was wrong, but based on the information at the time he was reasonable in his assesment of the situation.
If we look at it as a distinction between the act and the agent, which I should have done orginally it makes more sense.
The act of killing someone who is not deserving of it is wrong. But the agent may not be responsible because they acted reasonable at the time.
I apologize for dragging this out, and not seeing the flaw in my argument earlier.
Having said that I must also add though that I still am not sure that is the case in this particular situation (I should have stuck with this to begin with instead of making sweeping generalizations).
Unlike a case where the person who is the perceived threat mimics or gives cause to believe he is an imminent threat (person with the toy gun example), it is unclear that the person in this situation did that. Rather it was another officer that initiated the appearence of an imminent threat. I agree with what TR said
"I would say that being shot for pointing a toy gun at an LEO is far different from being shot because another officer had a negligent discharge."
Again, apologies for not seeing my error as you were pointing out earlier.
Thank you for learning me up.
Fng
Defender968
04-30-2010, 16:53
The origins of the Law Totality of Circumstances came from a case where a Kid pointed a Toy Gun at an officer. The Officer do's not know the Gun is a Toy. He is completely justified in the Shooting explained above.
I was hoping he would come to the right decision on his own, without being told what actually happened in the real case. ;)
I am not a cop and don't have a dog in this fight, but I would say that being shot for pointing a toy gun at an LEO is far different from being shot because another officer had a negligent discharge.
Tried in criminal court or not, I think the officers' actions are going to be judged, and that the family of the deceased is going to get rich as a consequence.
AFAIK, the cop who shot and killed the RS student and wounded another, is still working as an LEO, even after multiple civil court judgements. Not sure I would want to be underwriting liability insurance policies on some of these yahoos. I guess the taxpayer doesn't get a vote.
TR
TR I totally agree with you, and from what I heard you are correct the guy who shot and killed the RS student is still working, I also heard he had a sorted history when it comes to use of force....we're on the same bus on that guy. I also agree that the family of the deceased is going to get paid in this case....right or wrong, this one is not as clear a case as the one I used...but I was just trying to get fng13 to see it from a different perspective.
With all of the above here's how I would bet it went down if I were a betting man.
The ND LEO (who is probably senior) gets out of the car first, let's say he out front by 20 feet and is on his way down the embankment out of the drivers eyesight initially. The LEO driving would be slower because he had to put the cruiser in park, remove the keys and maybe even take off his seatbelt (if it is a rookie and/or depending on the dept, their policies etc.etc.) and draw his weapon. In the midst of trying to park, upholster, and unass the vehicle he takes his eye off his partner and in the midst of unassing he hears the shot and catches sight of his partner either stumble or actually wipe out and go down. I'd bet the timing was just right that he missed the muzzle flash but caught the stumble (or outright fall). Thinking the perp just shot his partner he squeezes and drops the perp.
This is how I would bet it went down from reading the article, may not be how it went down but from the description I saw and what I now about the job that's what I'm going with. Either way you are correct that a jury of his peers will likely decide either criminally or civilly or both, and like you I bet the dept will pay out.
The origins of the Law Totality of Circumstances came from a case where a Kid pointed a Toy Gun at an officer. The Officer do's not know the Gun is a Toy. He is completely justified in the Shooting explained above.
"Totality of Circumstances" is not a law in itself. It is judicial terminology which prevents armchair quarterbacking. SCOTUS and other federal and local courts have used it to state that an event has to be viewed from the officer's perspective at the time of the incident. One has to consider the totality of circumstances in order to determine if a reasonable officer in the same situation would have acted in a comparable manner.
Ken Brock
04-30-2010, 18:03
Now did the guy deserve to be shot....no....however the officer in question from what it appears, believed that the suspect was firing at him/his partner, and based on that belief he returned fire....(by the way in my AO, and in most states LEO’s have a duty to intervene in violent felonies….in this case he had a duty to act if he believed a violent felony was in progress…) Also in most states in order for a crime to have been committed there must be intent or at least negligence of some kind, there is no intent or negligence here IMO, one could argue a bad split second call possibly but that’s about it. IMO this gets chalked up to things sometimes go bad...and the lesson is DON'T RUN from the police.
Also understand no matter how good a shooting it was or was not this officer will now face civil lawsuits from the family regardless of if he is cleared or not.
hearing a shot and seeing his partner stumble/slip/fall (whatever the heck happened when he slipped on the rock) after a carchase would lead the back up officer to believe that his partner had been shot
I don't really see that the back up officer did anything wrong
Utah Bob
04-30-2010, 18:34
...Tried in criminal court or not, I think the officers' actions are going to be judged,...
Yes. If you are in law enforcement you will always be judged. Either by your department, the public, the press, or the courts. That's the nature of the beast. It's one of the prices you have to pay to get a fancy uniform a gun and a fast car.
You have to understand that going in. If you can't handle it, you need to seek another career.
If the officer that had the ND tried to grab hold of something to catch his balance with the non-gun hand when he stumbled or if he clenched his non-gun hand into a fist, his gun hand might well have tightened down too as a reflex action. A finger indexed along the outside of a trigger guard can unfortunately find its way inside the guard way too easily.
Even if the officer didn't grasp his non-gun hand, when he lost his balance, he might well have tightened his grip on the pistol in an effort to retain it.
I have twice seen unintentional trigger pulls that resulted from officers (who did not have their fingers inside the trigger guards at the time) trying to quickly apply habeus clampus to pistols that were slipping out of their hands after a temporary case of butterfingers. Fortunately both times were in training with unloaded, rendered-safe pistols.
I have twice seen unintentional trigger pulls that resulted from officers (who did not have their fingers inside the trigger guards at the time) trying to quickly apply habeus clampus to pistols that were slipping out of their hands after a temporary case of butterfingers. Fortunately both times were in training with unloaded, rendered-safe pistols.
One of the first training objectives in any firearms training. Proper handling of the weapon.