Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas_Shooter
Yes you are correct she still had not fulfilled the justification under castle doctrine but she had the right to have a firearm in here hand while inside here own home because she had heard noises from outside.
The officer though is a different story. IMO he will come through this with no issues because she had the firearm in her hand and he felt in fear for his life.
|
Disagree. Why was the officer in fear for his life? He shouldn't have been. He was on a simple welfare check. It is not unreasonable to expect that a homeowner would arm him/herself at night when hearing/seeing suspicious people immediately outside the house.
So, would the woman have been in the right to smoke those police officers because they were outside the window? Of course not. Then why, oh why, should Police get a free pass for shooting someone inside a private residence?
We need to do a better job of selecting and training police officers in this country.
Police do not equal military. The rules are different. The priorities are different. Just like they are in a military hostage/prisoner/sensitive item recovery operation... when conducting a rescue or any other sort of mission to grab something sensitive.. the safety of the assault force members is secondary to the safety of the subject of the mission. Rules of war totally allow an infantry unit in combat to breach a door with an AT4 to kill those inside and reduce risk to the assault force, but that would be no bueno if trying to rescue a hostage...
Not germane to this subject, but related, I don't support camo uniforms being worn by any civilian LEOs.