Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Kosher Ham]

Does make me wonder how many people have been shot by law enforcement...for vandalism.

[twa]

And you were doing so good, there, until you got to your assertion that American citizens don't have the right to expect not to get shot for vandalism.

 

it was more than vandalism, but even that does not carry the expectation of not getting shot here.

 

Nor should it.

[Larry]

it was more than vandalism, but even that does not carry the expectation of not getting shot here.

 

Nor should it.

Well, I guess, technically, Americans don't have the expectation of not getting shot, period.

Yea, team!

[twa]

Well, I guess, technically, Americans don't have the expectation of not getting shot, period.

Yea, team!

 

technically the person shooting them will be prosecuted though, except when allowed

 

your actions here change the expectations and rights.

[DogofWar1]

Larry is pretty close, but objectively reasonable differs from clearly

 

the main variant in law is whether you have to look thru the shooters eyes or a neutral observers to judge reasonable

 

What is Texas law on protecting property at night(even if it is not your own) ?

 

it might make try the beal smile 

 

Well, the objectively reasonable part stems from Supreme Court jurisprudence, which doesn't really delve into the details.  State law however does delve into those details, but that varies from state to state.  I don't know if any state uses the word "clear" in reference to an "imminent threat," but case law in California (which is thankfully explained in the website I posted so I don't have to dig around too much elsewhere) moves towards the concept of "clear threat," if not in words then at least in spirit.

 

For example, the cases where a person is behaving beligerently and then suddenly reaches for their waist and they get shot generally are justifiable, unless there's something else going on.  But other cases have limited that.

 

 

However, the mere fact alone that a person possesses a deadly weapons does not justify the used of deadly force.  (Harris v. Roderick (9^th Cir. 1997) 126 F.3^rd 1189, 1202.)

See also Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police (9^th Cir. 1991) 952 F.2^nd 321, 324-325; holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot.

 

When the fleeing felon was known to have shot a victim in the course of a burglary from which he was escaping, the use of deadly force to stop him is justified.  (Forrett v. Richardson (9^th Cir. 1997) 112 F.3^rd 416, 420.)

 

With regards to California law, probably the best shorthand to describe justified homicide by police is that it's justified where there is a "clear probability of imminent serious bodily injury or death."

 

It bridges the gap between the potential that someone has a gun* and the potential that they do not.  Belligerent person reaching for their waist presents a clear probability of imminent serious bodily injury or death.  However, simply having a deadly weapon on their person, or the probability of having one, if there is not some sort of apparent imminent intent to use it, is not sufficient.  Some measure of clarity of threat needs to be there.

 

 

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42

 

Right, that was under the Texas website I posted as well, Subchapter D, protection of property.

 

Police pretty clearly fall under 9.43, Protection of Third Person's property so long as they fall under 9.41 or 9.42.  9.42, which you posted.  The relevant parts are:

 

 

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B ) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B ) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

With the way the statute is written, using "and" between each section, you need each subsection to be fulfilled, that is, you have to fulfill the requirements of 9.41 (subsection (1)), as well as one of (A) or (B ) in subsection (2), and either (A) or (B ) in subsection (3).  

 

In the Christian Taylor case, subsection 1 is likely fulfilled with regards to section 9.41.  (A) in subsection (2) is likely fulfilled too, as Taylor's actions would likely constitute theft during the nighttime.

 

HOWEVER, he likely does not meet subsection (3).  The deployment of the taser by the partner suggests the officers were close enough to immediately apprehend the suspect with less than deadly physical force, or even if they weren't immediately next to the kid, they could have given chase and likely apprehended him quickly with less than deadly force.  As a result, protection of the property could likely have been completed through alternative means.  In addition, the issue of recovery remains, a vehicle is generally recoverable, though of course if it can be protected by alternative means the recovery issue doesn't even appear.  (3)(B ) similarly appears to fall as Christian did not pose a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death.  Based on reports, he was outside of a vehicle on the showroom floor.

 

With neither part of subsection (3) seemingly met, the shooting to protect property does not meet the requirements necessary.

 

 

 

*The statistics with regards to weapons on people killed by police is sort of a reverse examination.  If we presuppose that the vast majority of cops DO follow laws and guidelines (even if they don't stop other police from failing to follow them), then naturally the instances where deadly force is used will show a smaller "unarmed," portion, as they're following laws and guidelines and not shooting unarmed people without a REALLY good reason.  However, that doesn't mean there's a presumption of individuals being armed.  That would require significantly more data.  We could probably start with the "% of all crimes where suspect carried a deadly weapon."  That would be the most general data-point, and the one where we could best determine the presumption that "average suspect A" was carrying a deadly weapon.  We could further break that down by category of crime.

 

If the percentage there is very high, then yes, there would be a presumption that an average suspect is carrying a potentially deadly weapon, but then, again, we likely need some indication of intent to use it.

 

I'd also contest the "vehicle" category to an extent.  A knife or gun is obvious, but vehicles are generally not viewed as a "weapon."  While a vehicle can be a weapon, I imagine the intent element regarding the "weapon" needs to be enhanced, that is, there is an intent to use the vehicle as a deadly weapon; driving towards and officer vs. driving away/fleeing from an officer.

Edited August 13, 2015 by DogofWar1

[DogofWar1]

technically the person shooting them will be prosecuted though, except when allowed

 

your actions here change the expectations and rights.

 

I think it's a bit off to say we don't have an expectation to not be shot for petty crimes.

 

The civil and criminal remedies for false positive use of deadly force by police are often insufficient to address the harm.  The police seizing and then junking a car can be remedied, the police ending a life cannot.  That's why there are fairly high guidelines for the use of deadly force in most places.

 

By your definition, we technically can't have an expectation in literally anything that we have, including our constitutional rights.  Expectations don't always match reality, BUT if the criminal activity you're engaged in does not fulfill the legal requirements for action where deadly force is authorized against you, then you DO or at least SHOULD have an expectation that deadly force will not be used against you.

 

It sort of mirrors expectation of privacy concepts.  You can have an expectation of privacy in something, and that expectation can be violated by overzealous parties.  However, simply because that expectation of privacy CAN be violated, does not mean the expectation does not exist.  Where your conduct does not legally give someone the legal right to use deadly force against you, you effectively have an expectation to not be shot.

[twa]

in the Arlington shooting you are claiming the damages done and declared imminent were easily recovered or prevented w/o real risk of injury?

 

certainly doesn't seem that way to me from the one officers perspective.

[DogofWar1]

in the Arlington shooting you are claiming the damages done and declared imminent were easily recovered or prevented w/o real risk of injury?

 

certainly doesn't seem that way to me from the one officers perspective.

 

That officer was fired for having that perspective.  The other officer, who apparently took the other, seemingly more in line with legal principles perspective, is still employed.

 

As has been mentioned, insurance covers the damages, both in case of a car being totaled and not being totaled (more than likely not totaled, seeing as it's one dude).  Sure, we'd prefer they didn't happen, but they are certainly NOT irrecoverable.

 

"Any other means," is a darn high bar legally, and will usually include monetary damages if the property is not sufficiently unique and is replaceable.  You have to show that there's no other less harmful option.  Tackling the guy is less harmful.  If he's driving toward a cliff, maybe there's a point to be made with regard to recovery, but he wasn't even close to that, and even then the monetary damages might have been sufficient, since cars, while expensive, aren't exactly unique.

 

With regard to risk of serious bodily injury or death, nothing from the reports of the scene give any indication that anyone's life was in jeopardy.

Edited August 13, 2015 by DogofWar1

[twa]

the officer was fired to make the chiefs life easier and because he was a newbie w/o protection that violated protocol ,not law.

 

have you read the police unions response?

 

I find your ins comment lacking as a business owner and the assertion the officer was not at risk speculative.

 

you have any idea of deductibles and premium hikes?.......ask try the beal

[PokerPacker]

The circular logic displayed can be dumbfounding. Shooting the vandal was right because the cop shot the vandal. Okay.

[DogofWar1]

TWA, you say I'm speculating about the officer's safety, but you're speculating also, mainly regarding the chief firing the guy to cover himself.  Even setting aside the potential criminal/civil ramifications, isn't it still a for-cause firing to so significantly violate protocol?  The key purpose isn't to make the chief's life easier if he's also doing it for-cause.  It might be incidentally making his life easier, but only because he's not actively defending the employment of one who should not be employed.  And the speculation on officer safety goes both ways, you're speculating that he was in danger.

 

While I respect and generally support unions, they are inherently an advocacy group.  Their statement carries the same weight as the chief, and possibly less.  The chief certainly is more likely to have complete information on the situation so close to the event, as he is the direct supervisor of the officers who were at the scene.  I don't think we have information on how much the union has been debriefed.

 

As for business stuff, as a general rule, property <<< life.  You can sue for damages to property to cover premiums and deductibles and actual damages, and be made whole.  When a life is taken, it's tough to say that the damages can be made whole.

 

This isn't to say he shouldn't have been arrested and charged, but he should be another sad story of a college athlete who's sitting in jail on felony charges facing a number of years, instead of a sad story about him being shot.

Edited August 15, 2015 by DogofWar1

[twa]

as a general rule you will not collect damages from such folk

I certainly am speculating, which is what we do here.

the cop went with life>>> property....protecting his own

behave like a nut and you will get shot in most cases

[Larry]

as a general rule you will not collect damages from such folkI certainly am speculating, which is what we do here.the cop went with life>>> property....protecting his ownbehave like a nut and you will get shot in most cases

Admiring the way twa can look at a case of an unarmed man being killed while destroying property, and refer to it as a case of "life>>>property".

[twa]

Admiring the way twa can look at a case of an unarmed man being killed while destroying property, and refer to it as a case of "life>>>property".

a case of a violent felon advancing on a cop during a crime spree

unarmed is speculative until proven later, nor a requirement to not shoot.

what was he doing when he got shot? (and tased)

[Larry]

a case of a violent felon advancing on a cop during a crime spreeunarmed is speculative until proven later, nor a requirement to not shoot.what was he doing when he got shot? (and tased)

Got it. "Unarmed" is speculative until proven. But "violent felon advancing on a cop" you're cool with announcing.

[twa]

Got it. "Unarmed" is speculative until proven. But "violent felon advancing on a cop" you're cool with announcing.

you watch the tape or observe the damage the cop saw?

not very speculative, now if ya got some evidence the fellow just wandered in off the street I'd be interested.

[Larry]

you watch the tape or observe the damage the cop saw?not very speculative, now if ya got some evidence the fellow just wandered in off the street I'd be interested.

And now we run back to "look how much property he damaged!"

[DogofWar1]

Other officer tased the guy.  That older officer apparently felt that the rookie was not under immediate threat of death, if he had, it's likely the officer would have pulled his own firearm.  He didn't.  He was also only a couple feet behind the rookie, so his situation was not radically different from the rookie's.

 

Unless we assume the other officer, who was more experienced and had more training, screwed up with estimating the threat, I'd take his view to be closer to the objectively reasonable line than that of a green rookie.

 

The rookie being subjectively afraid does not make his actions objectively reasonable.  You don't get to shoot people as a cop because you're a scaredy cat.

[twa]

And now we run back to "look how much property he damaged!"

We never left it, it directly contributed to the meeting and response.

[twa]

Other officer tased the guy.  That older officer apparently felt that the rookie was not under immediate threat of death, if he had, it's likely the officer would have pulled his own firearm.  He didn't.  He was also only a couple feet behind the rookie, so his situation was not radically different from the rookie's.

 

Unless we assume the other officer, who was more experienced and had more training, screwed up with estimating the threat, I'd take his view to be closer to the objectively reasonable line than that of a green rookie.

 

The rookie being subjectively afraid does not make his actions objectively reasonable.  You don't get to shoot people as a cop because you're a scaredy cat.

The first officer was unaware of the second, which changes situation perspective.

Was the rookie closer as well as the one being advanced on??

much easier to be objective if you are not the target.

do we judge from the shooters perspective or his partners? 

we don't use 3rd parties here

[Larry]

Got it. 

 

When making the decision whether to shoot someone,

 

1)  "Is the person armed" is not an important factor. 

 

2)  "Is he destroying property" is. 

 

Days after the shooting,

 

1)  "Unarmed" is speculative and unproven

 

2)  "Destroyed property" is neither. 

 

and all of this is because

 

"life>>>property" 

 

---

 

And round and round we go. 

[DogofWar1]

The first officer was unaware of the second, which changes situation perspective.

Was the rookie closer as well as the one being advanced on??

much easier to be objective if you are not the target.

do we judge from the shooters perspective or his partners? 

we don't use 3rd parties here

 

First officer being unaware of 2nd is subjective.  First officer being afraid of physically subduing the guy is subjective.  Without direct evidence of a deadly weapon being present, he should have advanced up the use-of-force continuum.  Why is a firearm the right choice, instead of a taser?

 

Here's the other thing, we keep coming back to the potential to have a deadly weapon, and that does matter from the more experienced officer's perspective.  If the fear of a deadly weapon is the primary justification for the rookie's actions, then that should also be evaluated from the perspective of the older officer.  They both were present, they both made an examination of the suspect and had to evaluate whether he was a deadly threat, with the standard of their conduct being objectively reasonable.  Whether the first officer knew of the second officer is not important to the examination of whether their individual appraisals of the suspect's threat were reasonable.  If the suspect has a deadly weapon, that's equally threatening to the older officer.  He, with his greater experience and training, appraised the student to not be a deadly threat, and took actions well below deadly force on the use-of-force continuum.

 

If both officers have to make the appraisal of the suspect's level of threat (and they did), then why does the rookie's opinion matter more?  Because he was more fearful?  Why does subjective fear change the objectively reasonable standard?

[twa]

many use the 21 ft rule or a variant thereof in choosing between weapons, the advancing on you makes it different

 

the different officers had different interaction with him as well as views

 

objectively reasonable thru which persons eyes?

 

 

Got it. 

 

When making the decision whether to shoot someone,

 

1)  "Is the person armed" is not an important factor. 

 

2)  "Is he destroying property" is. 

 

Days after the shooting,

 

1)  "Unarmed" is speculative and unproven

 

2)  "Destroyed property" is neither. 

 

and all of this is because

 

"life>>>property" 

 

---

 

And round and round we go. 

 

1) not a critical factor

2) destroying property can legally get you shot here

 

1) not knowing for sure he was armed at the time the shot was fired matters, not later

2)the property was brought up after he was declared 100% guilty of murder

 

not only does he have a valid self defense plea he has the protecting property one

 

quit spinning and it might help 

[DogofWar1]

many use the 21 ft rule or a variant thereof in choosing between weapons, the advancing on you makes it different

 

the different officers had different interaction with him as well as views

 

objectively reasonable thru which persons eyes?

 

The older officer was only 4 feet behind the rookie according to reports.  If we're using the 21 ft rule, they both are likely inside that.  Even if the other officer is slightly outside the 21 feet line, he's still making the evaluation on threat, unless you're suggesting that he was remiss in his evaluation.

 

Again, they're both there, looking at the same suspect, who is doing the same things.  They both have to think about whether he's got a deadly weapon.  Him having a deadly weapon is a "yes" or "no" evaluation.  Who he's advancing on is irrelevant if they're both looking at the same things and making the yes/no check on deadly weapon.

 

Not to mention, with the older officer right behind the rookie, he's threatened too by the advancing suspect.  If he's got a gun or knife, not being the immediate target doesn't make him safe.  He's got to make the same evaluation as the rookie.

 

Objectively reasonable is not really through anyone's eyes.  That's the point of it being "objective."  It's not really the rookie's view or the older officer's view.

 

HOWEVER, the older officer has significantly more experience and training.  If someone is going to have something close to an "objective" view of the situation, it's the guy who's probably been through similar situations and knows what to expect, not the rookie.

[DogofWar1]

2) destroying property can legally get you shot here

 

quit spinning and it might help 

Haha, TWA talking about spin.  Ah, the absurdity.

 

You're misrepresenting Texas law.  Deadly force is authorized to protect property when:

 

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B ) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

What about dents and broken windows is irrecoverable, or exposes someone to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury?

 

The justification can't stem from the property damage.  Heck, the police chief talked about the reason they were supposed to hang back was because the harm was merely to property, not lives, specifically saying they had time to create a perimeter because of that distinction.  Whatever justification is there must stem from the officer's interactions with the suspect.  And that's where they do the threat evaluation, with the older, more experienced officer judging the suspect as not being a deadly threat.