Officer cleared by Phoenix police board in homeowner shooting

[ChCx2744]

Smokin Gator said:

the person's "intent" is part of the equation. I'm not saying the officer didn't make a mistake or that the city won't be held financially responsible, but I don't think that the officer acted with the intent to go in there and shoot the homeowner instead of the suspect.

Couldn't have said it better myself, sir! But yea, regardless of how good that department is at blowing smoke, the homeowner is most likely going to get restitution.

 

[lobo9er]

When you are trying to determine whether an act is criminal or not, somewhere in there the person's "intent" is part of the equation.

A man in ST. JOHNSBURY VT. accidently killed his son turkey hunting. tragically shot him on accident. do you think he had intent to kill his son? he was charged with felony and in the end he pleaded no contest to manslaughter of his son, 3 year deferred sentence 10 years banned of anykind of hunting activity and 3 years unable to buy or possess any weapons for 3 years. Granted there was a death but losing his son should be punishment enough. it didn't sound like his family wanted to press any charges only to have by all accounts the model family man back home to grieve with family. so clearly there was NO intent yet he was prosecuted. just like the cop in this situation should have to face more than a "review board".

 

[waldonbuddy]

Werewolf, I'm going to have to agree with you.

When I posted about trouble with my neighbor, and my shooting range the overwhelming majority indicated that we as gun owners need to stand up for our rights, and as long as I was legal to keep shooting {http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5875797#post5875797} which I am.

This, to me, is another example of our gun rights. If we are going to be in a situation where we have to use our weapons for self defense then have to worry about getting our own heads blown away by LEO's weather accidental, or not, then why even own a weapon for self defense?

 

[lobo9er]

homeowner is most likely going to get restitution.

that doesnt solve the problem. LE's need to be responsible for the bullets that come out of their firearms also. He fired six times and shot him in the back. sounds like a panic to me.

 

[lobo9er]

waldonbuddy makes a good point
what difference is it to the "homeowner" if the cop shoots him or the Bad Guy? he still gets shot infront of his family. In fact maybe now the kid grows up with a big distrust and or fear of police.

 

[ChCx2744]

I have no stance on what kind of criminal charges come against the officer...Obviously he understands he messed up and whatever criminal charges he may face, that is none of my business and I have nothing to say about it.

However, because of the fact that the situation is said and done, the only thing the family can look forward to is some sort of civil/financial restitution, so lobo9er, yes it does matter. No, it doesn't solve the problem, but it's the only thing that the homeowner can crutch away from at this point.

 

[hushnel]

It does seem bad judgment of the Officer. The homeowner was with in his rights and doing what he needed to do to protect his family. It should be a simple matter of who was right and who was wrong. It sounds like the Officer screwed up, at the very least he should not be given another opportunity to do it again.


Yes, you are quite right, I should know better than speaking from passion, I do regret getting carried away though the damage is done I removed the statement anyways, it was not right to post it and I seriously pray I never find myself in a situation where I would be forced to take a life.

 

[Werewolf]

I hope this doesn’t sound harsh, though it may be, I live in Florida and if an armed guy comes into my home I’ll kill him

Saying that in a public forum on the internet in a world where google stores everything forever may come back someday and bite you in the ass.

Just sayin', word to the wise and all that...

Not that I haven't said plenty that may come back and bite me in the ass but I'm old - I can always use the "to the best of my recollection" defense and actually be telling the truth.

 

[Kleanbore]

"The results could have been tragic"...After all the life of a policeman IS so worth more than that of a citizen.

I think you missed the point completely. What was said was this:

"but if he had hesitated, and it was the (suspect), the outcome could have been tragic."

That is, had the officer not fired timely, and had the man with the gun turned out to be the suspect, the homeowner might have died at the hands of the suspect.

I said this in Post 14:

I remember hearing about a similar incident last year. For me, it served as a lesson learned: do not have a gun in hand when the police arrive. .... Right or wrong, a person who has a gun in his hand is at some risk when the police arrive to investigate a home invasion call.

Let me put it more succinctly: This is not the first time that this has happened and it is unlikely to be the last. Stand around with a gun in your hand when the police have been summoned to a scene involving an armed assailant and you stand a very, very good chance of getting shot.

It happens to civilians, it happens to detectives, and it happens to off duty officers.

That's the way it is.

Want to hear it from someone with more credibility? Re-read Coloradokevin's comments in Post 17:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5935157&postcount=17

Excerpts:

The moral of this story, at least as I think it should pertain to THIS site, is that you should always be aware of the possibility that you may be injured/killed by so-called "friendly fire" when acting in a defensive situation. This has certainly happened to a number of off-duty officers over the years, who were shot by fellow officers who believed that the off-duty officer was the criminal.

When guns are involved in a critical incident, things can happen VERY VERY fast. This incident is tragic, but I don't think it necessarily means that the officer should be held to be criminally liable (at least not without a lot more information). Whether or not the homeowner was shot in the back is mostly irrelevant without more information; for all we know the homeowner could have been turning on the officer when the shots were fired, or the officer could have believed that the homeowner was a suspect who was about to shoot the person proned out on the floor (presumably the homeowner in this officer's eyes). Moreover, the fact that 6 shots were fired by the officer is equally irrelevant... 6 shots can be fired extremely quickly by a trained shooter who is shooting in a defensive situation!

Kevin describes what he would do as an off-duty officer:

1) Call 911 as soon as practical
2) Identify myself as an officer
3) Describe my clothing, and that I am armed
4) Describe the suspect
5) Explain the situation (robbery suspect at gun-point, etc)
5) Demand that dispatch relays this information to the officers that will be responding, and again describe my clothing!
6) Be very very aware of my movements and actions when the uniformed officers show-up, and be ready to comply with their requests.

I'm not sure why that wouldn't be good advice for the civilian also, with one important distinction: the civilian has no duty to hold a suspect at gunpoint and puts himself at risk (this one included) when he opts to do so. I have never done so and would elect otherwise under most circumstances.

Simple matter of risk mitigation.

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

the outcome could have been tragic."

I think this is going to ring loudly in the ears of many Americans

 

[Bula]

That is, had the officer not fired timely, and had the man with the gun turned out to be the suspect, the homeowner might have died at the hands of the suspect.

So shoot him before he's shot by the bad guy?

"If Brian would have known there was a homeowner in there, he probably would have hesitated," Gannon said, "but if he had hesitated, and it was the (suspect), the outcome could have been tragic."

No way to misconstrue that.

 

[Dulvarian]

This makes me think of the suit in Ohio from the guy who got told he was too smart to go the police academy. /mild_sarcasm_off.

Maybe this should be a call to the tax payers that whine about the ****ty quality of their cops be willing to fork over some more money to pay their civil servants for better training and better equipment. I personally would rather pay another penny on the dollar in local sales tax that get shot in the back by a cop that didn't have the training to perform better.

For the record, I work in a fairly difficult job where we train our butts off for things that most likely never happen. It isn't cheap. And we damn sure wouldn't train that much if we were worrying about the bottom line.

You can't complain about a substandard product that you didn't pay for.

 

[lobo9er]

You can't complain about a substandard product that you didn't pay for.

dulvarian we do pay for the product.

In fact we all pay alot each year in taxes enough where the amount of taxes being spent isn't the issue. throwing tax dollars at problems never fixes anything. besides, tax dollars get wasted in worse ways than training our LE. instead re black topping my road that was just done last year, un'said town could buy a couple boxes of ammo for some training maybe get some NRA Instructor once a year. tax dollar allocation isn't the point.
My issue with this situation is that the officer in question is not held responsible like the average joe. Average joe doesn't get a review board. If the Homeowner shot the the officer because he thought it was the home invaders partener, the home owner would not get a review board.

The officer is not being held to the same standard that "averge joe home owner" is. If they were, there would be less bad cops giving the good ones bad reputations. The bad LE would be fired giving room for responsible officers. To quote a local judge i heard once "just because you didn't mean to mess up doesn't mean you don't get punished. this is real life and you are an adult." and he went on ... and on, but he was right. we are responisble for all our actions, intentional or not. And when people are not, they start trying to get away with bigger things, no different than children.

 

[Z-Michigan]

We don't even know for sure if the shooting officer screwed up. I just think it's clear that someone screwed up. Maybe 911 failed to tell the officer about the armed homeowner. Maybe the person who called 911 failed to tell them. All the necessary information is probably out there somewhere. It is possible that Lilly did nothing wrong based on what he knew, but it's important to find out who did screw up and why, so it can be prevented from happening again.

I am skeptical of why the homeowner got shot, but maybe he turned toward the responding officer with his gun turning with him - I can see how that would result in a shooting. But maybe he didn't. I don't know, and I would like to.

 

[NMGonzo]

shooting in the back ... ouch

 

[Shadow 7D]

What I cant understand is how LE that will wait for hours for a active shooter to kill themselves because of a lack of information will go in to a home not knowing who is in there and who is armed. I hesitate to think what a decent ambulance chaser is going to cost the city for this.

 

[Oldfalguy]

Maybe if he had shot the home invader when he entered the house he would be in better shape than he is now.
But alas he had restraint- god bless him
then the po po come to the rescue and darn near kill him-
Restraint be damned- at least in this case

 

[C-grunt]

Im sorry I used the word "civilian" and hurt your feelings. Next time I talk about the review boards I will use the term "A person, male or female, who has no official duties with the Phoenix Police Department, The City of Phoenix, or any other branch of the local government entity."

But that would go against my feelings of Elite-ness. I mean god forbid I start actually interacting with these people outside of me arresting them. Then I would feel bad about using all my time to drum up more ways to knock on a random door and do an illegal search of the residence.

<RANT OFF>

Why is it that every time a thread comes up about a cop doing something wrong its bash the police time. Because you know every cop in America is a moron because some guy somewhere did something stupid. Oh and they can never be wrong. EVER!

We should take away medical licenses every time a doctor misdiagnoses someone and they get injured or die. Same with the RNs.

But we dont do that do we. Why? Because they are the people we turn to when things are going really bad. No situation is the same. Decisions have to be made, right now, with limited information under high stress. We ask them to do the best they can, with what they have at the time. They are not supermen, just your average joe with the urge to try and help other people.

All this can be true for the police officer out there. But its not. Society teaches people that police are always after you. Police are also Superman. They can never be wrong. If they ever mess up they should be fired.

I messed up once. I was driving during rush hour traffic to make a buddies back up for call. I was trying to answer my radio and was looking for the mic, when I rear ended a guy, pretty good. Luckily he wasnt seriously injured, had some whiplash. The department paid the guy an undisclosed amount and I was written a ticket.

Truth of the matter is folks, cops are just like every other person you know. They have families, friends and their kids go to school with your kids. Off duty most cops wont even carry their guns. Hell my department urges off duty officers to be good witnesses if they see a crime and to not get involved, unless its an emergency.

I have lots of friends and other people that say to me "man I dont know how you do your job, its so dangerous." And while I agree the job is dangerous I tell them thats not what makes the job hard. Its the mental aspect of seeing the worst parts of society day in and day out. Getting in a "Mexican standoff" with a guy armed with a 12 guage is a lot easier to stomach than asking a 15 year old girl to be as specific as possible when she describes how her uncle raped her. Then I got a lady who cant understand why Im being so stern with her about letting her 3 year old play outside in the apartment complex unsupervised. This just a couple hours after we pulled a toddler out of a pool, who thank god survived.

What Im trying to get at here in my long, its late, post is this. Cops are average joes. Some are a-holes just like every other profession. And just like in those professions, they arent liked by there peers and usually dont have very long careers. Cops will mess up from time to time. If you fired one every time they screwed the pouch you wouldnt have any cops. If you can go 20 years without ever getting into trouble, you obviously dodged calls and probably hardly ever solved a crime.

Invitation Here: Anyone that wants to and can swing it I will try and take on a ride along so you can see what the job is like.

 

[hushnel]

C-grunt, it’s easy to forget what you say is true. Easily half of my friends are police officers, I work in the only County Hospital and Trauma Center in Miami Dade County. I can’t help getting a little pissed when I hear of life threatening mistakes and though I should be more considerate of human fallibility, often I am not.

I understand human error but when it’s associated with arrogance and denial of responsibility its easy to get intolerant, for the Officer in this instance it does seem his mistake was sincere and human, I think what most are reacting to is how it was handled by the department’s assumption of innocence and denial of responsibility, sure backing your man is an honorable attribute but it should be done with some consideration of responsibility to the innocent.

Every piece of equipment I work on is life support but nobody is shooting at me while I work on it, I’m sure if they where I would occasionally make mistakes, not to say there is no pressure but nothing like what you guys have to deal with. Whether a Police Officer or a civilian we all are dependant on each other one way or another and the assumption of our own responsibility in any form of this mutual support is the measure of the man or woman, if we could just get management to be responsible for their actions rather than all their blame shifting, things could be better.

 

[Grey_Mana]

I think the result will be a trend to shoot criminals, rather than hold them at gunpoint for the police.

Defense lawyers get a new line of argument: the self-defense shooting of a criminal was justified, not by the threat posed by the criminal in the home, but by the threat of grievous harm posed by the responding police.

 

[woad_yurt]

"If Brian would have known there was a homeowner in there, he probably would have hesitated," Gannon said, "but if he had hesitated, and it was the (suspect), the outcome could have been tragic."

Well, the cop came upon one guy holding another guy at bay. If there was no homeowner there, then who were these two guys in a house in the early evening? What would explain the presence of two of them? Did the criminals have a falling out while robbing a home?

Also, "could have been" means that it wasn't; it just "could have been." The homeowner was shot by a cop! That's not tragic? Either someone is very, very unskilled with the language or lacks quite a bit of consideration for the residents. Either way, that Gannon guy shouldn't be making statements. It's a horrible statement, and, on its face, is very callous.

 

[amd6547]

The proper term should be "citizen", not civilian, and it should apply to both police officers and non-LEO's. "civilian" bugs me too in this context.

 

[Kleanbore]

I Was Mistaken

This was the same incident I heard about last year. The incident occurred more than a year ago. Only the police board finding is news.

I learned something when I first read the news article last year: it might not be a very good idea at all to have a gun in my hand when the police arrive in response to an emergency call. Right or wrong. It puts you at extreme risk.

There was an episode of The Best Defense this year in which a citizen was accosted by a woman with a knife , shot her lawfully in self-defense, called 911, had his gun in his hand when the police arrived, and was shot by the officers. Fictional, of course, but very plausible indeed. Can you guess one of the aspects of the recommended "better defense"?

To me, this was a tragedy waiting to happen, but (1) I had already read about the story, (2) I had seen the aforementioned television episode, and (3) I have read repeatedly that one reason to not go outside with gun in hand to investigate a potential burglar is the risk of being encountered by police who have been summoned by someone else.

The homeowner in this incident probably had none of that advantage, but at the risk of being unkind to him, it is clear to me that he did not think very much about how things might play out when the police arrived to find him holding a gun on someone. There's a smarter way to do it.

I can well imagine that the same thing might have happened to me, once, years ago, maybe.....

 

[hso]

I'm pretty sure that the on topic part of this discussion is about the risks to the homeowner who uses a firearm to defend himself or his family.

The risk of being shot is not going to only be from the criminal, but from any responding neighbors or police due to the conditions the people responding find.

In this case the conditions seem pretty good. Lit area and 911 informed that homeowner was armed and holding the BG at gun point. That only further points out that under good conditions there is some risk of holding someone at gunpoint and having someone respond.

So what to do to mitigate that risk? Tell 911 where you are and what you're wearing to make identification of the good guy easier? Have a family member meet responders and provide the same information? Not hold bad guys, but instead drive them away?

 

[Kleanbore]

So what to do to mitigate that risk? Tell 911 where you are and what you're wearing to make identification of the good guy easier?

That's what Coloradokevin recommends in Post 17:

1) Call 911 as soon as practical
2) Identify myself as an officer
3) Describe my clothing, and that I am armed
4) Describe the suspect
5) Explain the situation (robbery suspect at gun-point, etc)
5) Demand that dispatch relays this information to the officers that will be responding, and again describe my clothing!
6) Be very very aware of my movements and actions when the uniformed officers show-up, and be ready to comply with their requests.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5935157&postcount=17

Have a family member meet responders and provide the same information?

That would provide still more safety.

Not hold bad guys, but instead drive them away?

Not popular with the would-be LEO crowd, but I've done that and generally speaking would do it again in most circumstances. There's not only the risk of the arriving police officers to consider. There's the possibility that one or more additional perps may be in the house and may ambush you while your attention is focussed on the ones you are holding. And what about the look-out or driver who comes around to see what's taking so long?