The ability of an individual to protect his family and property leagally gets less and less.
I don't see it that way. We now have concealed carry in many states, new castle laws in quite a few, and "stand your ground" laws in several.
The home owner used his head,
I don't know about that. Some of us may have learned from his experience that he could have done things a bit differently and avoided all of this.
the officer in this situation admitted he "!@#@ up"
True fact. Shot the wrong guy. Criminal negligence? I see no basis for that, but I don't have the facts.
...then preceeded to shoot a home owner defending his family in the back
He shot a homeowner who was pointing a gun at a wounded man, not knowing it was the homeowner. In the back? Does that matter at all, except in the movies?
If the home owner had shot the intruder in the back, and not killed him, the home owner could have been facing serious legal problems.
Again, not sure what the back has to do with it, except that it may or may not indicate what was occurring at the time. Certainly the homeowner could not shoot simply because the intruder might refuse to be detained. Arizona law does permit the use of deadly force against someone who has entered the home unlawfully, but it would be useless to speculate about justification here.
What does that have to do with the incident, anyway?
defending the officers actions in this situation is not my stance. he was wrong.
Yes, he did turn out to be wrong. But were his actions incorrect based on what he knew at the time?. Patients do die under the knife. But was there criminal negligence? I respectfully suggest that none of us can judge that, and unless there was, and as long as he followed the established procedure that has been subject to legal review, there is no ground for any action against him.
Now, the victim has filed a civil suit against the city. He may or may not win. The evidentiary burden is lower in that proceeding. Also, out of court settlements are common in such cases.
In my opinion, the only thing that anyone can reasonably conclude from this incident is that anyone who has a gun in his hand, and a particular, anyone who happens to be pointing a gun at anyone else, is at some risk of being shot when the police arrive.
That happened in a recent case involving the shooting of an off-duty officer in NYC. It almost happened when a man with a gun confronted with a gun another man who was stupidly pointing a weapon at someone who had stolen a duffellbag in Boise. We are warned of the possibility in instruction about investigating prowlers. That risk was demonstrated in a recent episode of
The Best Defense. And that's what happened here.
When that happens, it doesn't really matter to the victim what the after-action review shows. The shots have been fired. The important thing is to learn from this and eliminate the risk in advance.
Personally, if I have to call the police, I'll make darn sure I'm not holding a gun in my hand when they arrive.
Want to do it differently? Well, at least make sure they know what you look like, what you are wearing, where you are standing, and that you are holding a gun. And if the dispatcher or officer tells you to drop it, do so without any delay at all.
No, I can't really agree that the homeowner used his head in this case. Bet he doesn't really think so either.
For some reason, some people seem to think that they are at the center of their universe, and that they are automatically identified to all as "the good guy" at the outset whenever any kind of incident occurs. That's very unfortunate. To witnesses and to the police, no one is "the good guy." Everyone is a potential threat and everyone is a potential suspect until things indicate otherwise.