What are you trying to say?
Police kill homeowner who shot intruder to protect his family after seeing him holding a gun
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
After reading the stepson's account , it's not looking good for the shooter.
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...unts-shooting-he-lived-a-hero-he-died-a-hero-
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...unts-shooting-he-lived-a-hero-he-died-a-hero-
The reality is that you are prejudiced and unwilling to wait for all the evidence to be collected and considered before jumping to conclusions. And because of that attitude you are deflecting our attention from the important lessons of this tragic occurrence.
What we, since most of us are private citizens, need to learn from this is that we must prepare mentally to meet police responding to a critical incident in a way that makes our survival most likely. The police won't know who you are. The police won't know that you're the good guy. The police won't begin to figure that out until they have secured the scene.
So if you meet the responding police with a gun in your hand, as far as they know you are a threat. It doesn't matter that you've just been a hero and saved the day, because they don't, and can't, know that at the time. To police responding to a violent, tumultuous, rapidly unfolding event if you look like a threat you will be reasonably identified as a threat and dealt with accordingly. And in the real world it won't, and really can't, be otherwise.
So let's focus on the useful lessons of this tragedy. Don't have a gun in your hand when police arrive or drop it immediately when they arrive. Mentally program yourself that way. We all know that we're the good guys and expect the arriving police to somehow know that. But the reality is that they can't be expected to know that.
The stepson's about tells us absolutely nothing.
Did you read the SCOTUS ruling cited above? This, in particular?
"The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether
"the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,
"and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation."
(Emphasis added)"the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,
"and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation."
Now, that all has to do with qualified immunity in a case involving law enforcement officers acting in, or purporting to act in, the line of duty--and the extent to which it might be relevant in this case has not been discussed.
But--if we focus on whether the officer had simply used force lawfully in defending himself, rather than in effecting search and seizure, the same things would apply, if one were to delete the bit about intent or motivation.
It is what would apply if you were to shoot someone who is holding a weapon and you think your life was in danger.
It is what would apply if you were to shoot someone who had seemed to you tor reach for a gun that you did not see.
It is the way things are.
Of course, unlike the sworn officer in Aurora, you would not have been duty bound to intervene in the first place, and the reason your entry into the situation would be very relevant.
Okay. It happened. What would you do now?
There are informed opinions, and then there are opinions that do not reflect basic understanding.
As Frank put it, "to police responding to a violent, tumultuous, rapidly unfolding event if you look like a threat you will be reasonably identified as a threat and dealt with accordingly. And in the real world it won't, and really can't, be otherwise."
That's the way it is.
And just about the same thing would apply if you were to check out a noise in your attached garage and find a man with a gun in the garage. Wouldn't matter if he were a very fine upstanding citizen who had thought he was coming in to save you. Would you shoot , or not?
Tommygunn
Member
Post #53 really ought to be the conclusion of this thread, if you ask me .......
alsaqr
Member
This could have been prevented had the resident simply put the gun down before the police arrived.
Look: it happened.
It happens all the time. Car crashes, drowning, poisoning, falls, wind, flood, fire....
In this case, it happened because the deceased citizen had a gun in his hand at the wrong time.
It was very unfortunate.
It may prove that now one else is culpable at all.
What do you mean by that?
How would you define "justice" in this case?
Of course you're prejudices. You insist on calling this a wrongful death without any real evidence of fault on the part of the police officer. That is prejudice. You have pre-judge the cop. Furthermore, you continue try to defend your prejudiced opinion.
No one likes that. But the fact that we don't like it doesn't mean that the LEO was at fault.
We know it's your opinion. That doesn't mean anything.
All opinions are not equal. Opinions based on emotion instead of evidence are especially worthless.
Only if there is legally cognizable fault, and you've consistently failed to produce any evidence that there is.
And your persistence with this nonsense is wasting everyone's time and interfering with any meaningful and worthwhile discussion of this situation.
Can you really not understand everything I and others have written about legal fault and liability?
Fault is determined based on what a reasonable person would do in like circumstances and knowing what the actor knows at the time.
Last edited:
His mistake is obvious only in hindsight -- with the knowledge of the circumstance we now have.
Whether it was a mistake for which he is culpable based on the situation as it reasonably appeared to him at the time has not been established and remains to be seen.
Neither "side"?
Others are trying to discuss the subject in a reasonable manner, and in the process, trying to educate you.
You are flailing at a windmill without a rational basis, and demanding something that you have not defined and cannot support.
Frank summarized it very succinctly and extremely well with this:
That applies to everything in life. Everything.
It would behoove you to try a little harder to understand that.
Last edited:
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,646
That should go in some list of important principles guiding participation here.
G'dale Mike
Member
So, the news I read today was the 911call stated the attacker was naked, described the homeowner and his clothing, the Leo who shot the homeowner had just come back on duty after a questionable shooting earlier this year.
From the evidence that can be gathered after the fact--forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, ear witness testimony.
Right now, it seems clear that the decedent had a gun in his hand, and that the actor knew that; that there had been a shooting in the house immediately before that, and that the actor knew that; that as a sworn officer, the actor was duty bound to act immediately, and that the acorn know that; and that the decedent had a gun in his hand, and that the actor knew that.
None of which is remotely relevant.
First of all, it's done all the time. Questions of legal liability turn on the knowledge and reasonable perceptions of the actor at the time of the act. And the actual standard is that of a reasonable person in like circumstances.
And so the incident needs to be reconstructed through investigation and evidence. Evidence includes that statements of witnesses as well as forensic analyses of the scene and any physical evidence available. And in this case, the evidence will quite possibly include video, and perhaps audio, available from cameras worn by the responding officers.
When all the evidence is collected and examined, it will be necessary to draw inferences about what actually happened and what each participant most likely saw and would reasonably known, at the time and under the circumstances. It can sometimes be difficult, but it needs to be done because it is the basis for assigning legal fault. If there's any dispute about what the evidence shows or how it should be interpreted, that would be decided by a trial in court. That's wha courts do and what trials are for.
But that's how all sorts of questions, from liability for auto collisions or medical malpractice to whether someone was justified using force in self defense, are decided. So this sort of process is common and is gone through somewhere pretty much every day.
Personally, I think it's a useful principle for participation in life.
- Status
Similar threads
