Texas Police Officer Charged in Fatal Shooting

[Frank59]

Totally unrelated but we are talking about OIS and lawsuits. Arlington PD was recently sued over a suicidal guys death. He poured gas on himself and they tazed him. Well he got his wish, burned to a crisp.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I bet that smelt like shit!

 

[candcallen]

Read 9.31 -9.33 of the Texas penal code. In Texas one needs reasonable belief at the time deadly force was used that the actor was under the threat of death or serious bodily injury to be justified in its use.

We can Monday morning quarterback all day long but the legal standard is pretty clear, and the video would seem to support it when he fires at the driver from just a few feet away while he was potentially in a spot to be crushed between the two vehicles.

I dont need a legal primer on use of force law. I used to teach use of force in a similar setting. Yes, the legal standard is clear, your interpretation of it is where things get muddy.
If it was so clear he was justified he wouldn't have been charged so quickly by clearly sympathetic investigators and prosecutors. If there was no video he probably wouldn't have been charged so quickly as his story probably matches close enough with the evidence at the scene despite the dubious issues with shooting into or from moving vehicles. Law Enforcement officers are terminated or charged more often for incidents arising from shooting into or from moving vehicles than other deadly force incidents. More so recently. A reminder that others may not always agree your actions are reasonable regardless of your feelings.

You can scream reasonable belief all you want, key word is reasonable and when it comes down to it that doesn't just mean your feelings but that others have to agree, i.e. you still have to explain that so that others think that in the same situation your actions seem reasonable to them. Even in jurisdictions where you're assumed to have acted reasonably, and the prosecution has to prove you absolutely didnt act reasonably instead of you proving you did, you will have to eventually defend or explain that decision. Either during the aftermath to investigators and possibly prosecutors or a Grand Jury, or worst case at trial. They're not just gonna take your word for it especially if you are charged.

Yes the overhead video is a much different perspective than the officer had but he clearly wasnt in danger after the first part, i.e. shortly after the truck started its motion. I would love to give the benefit of the doubt but cant. The issue probably isnt the first shot or two, you can see where he might think there is a threat depending on circumstances and location. After that it's clear he isnt in danger but he kept shooting and that's what probably got him charged. Like I said it's a shittty think to break the near instantaneous decision down in to many parts but that's the job and why you are accountable for every round just like it's a different incident.

The guy killed was probably a POS career or repeat criminal. That doesn't change the fact the shoot was bad.

 

[Hoji]

I dont need a legal primer on use of force law. I used to teach use of force in a similar setting. Yes, the legal standard is clear, your interpretation of it is where things get muddy.
If it was so clear he was justified he wouldn't have been charged so quickly by clearly sympathetic investigators and prosecutors. If there was no video he probably wouldn't have been charged so quickly as his story probably matches close enough with the evidence at the scene despite the dubious issues with shooting into or from moving vehicles. Law Enforcement officers are terminated or charged more often for incidents arising from shooting into or from moving vehicles than other deadly force incidents. More so recently. A reminder that others may not always agree your actions are reasonable regardless of your feelings.

You can scream reasonable belief all you want, key word is reasonable and when it comes down to it that doesn't just mean your feelings but that others have to agree, i.e. you still have to explain that so that others think that in the same situation your actions seem reasonable to them. Even in jurisdictions where you're assumed to have acted reasonably, and the prosecution has to prove you absolutely didnt act reasonably instead of you proving you did, you will have to eventually defend or explain that decision. Either during the aftermath to investigators and possibly prosecutors or a Grand Jury, or worst case at trial. They're not just gonna take your word for it especially if you are charged.

Yes the overhead video is a much different perspective than the officer had but he clearly wasnt in danger after the first part, i.e. shortly after the truck started its motion. I would love to give the benefit of the doubt but cant. The issue probably isnt the first shot or two, you can see where he might think there is a threat depending on circumstances and location. After that it's clear he isnt in danger but he kept shooting and that's what probably got him charged. Like I said it's a shittty think to break the near instantaneous decision down in to many parts but that's the job and why you are accountable for every round just like it's a different incident.

The guy killed was probably a POS career or repeat criminal. That doesn't change the fact the shoot was bad.

You seem

 

[txinvestigator]

Yes the overhead video is a much different perspective than the officer had but he clearly wasnt in danger after the first part, based on a nearly omnipotent perspective not available to the officer and made after the fact i.e. shortly after the truck started its motion.

Fixed that for you.

 

[candcallen]

You seem View attachment 176825

If by having a discussion makes you think I seem triggered then your ability assess info is flawed and is probably why you think that was a good shoot.

Just sayin.

 

[Hoji]

I dont need a legal primer on use of force law. I used to teach use of force in a similar setting. Yes, the legal standard is clear, your interpretation of it is where things get muddy.
If it was so clear he was justified he wouldn't have been charged so quickly by clearly sympathetic investigators and prosecutors. If there was no video he probably wouldn't have been charged so quickly as his story probably matches close enough with the evidence at the scene despite the dubious issues with shooting into or from moving vehicles. Law Enforcement officers are terminated or charged more often for incidents arising from shooting into or from moving vehicles than other deadly force incidents. More so recently. A reminder that others may not always agree your actions are reasonable regardless of your feelings.

You can scream reasonable belief all you want, key word is reasonable and when it comes down to it that doesn't just mean your feelings but that others have to agree, i.e. you still have to explain that so that others think that in the same situation your actions seem reasonable to them. Even in jurisdictions where you're assumed to have acted reasonably, and the prosecution has to prove you absolutely didnt act reasonably instead of you proving you did, you will have to eventually defend or explain that decision. Either during the aftermath to investigators and possibly prosecutors or a Grand Jury, or worst case at trial. They're not just gonna take your word for it especially if you are charged.

Yes the overhead video is a much different perspective than the officer had but he clearly wasnt in danger after the first part, i.e. shortly after the truck started its motion. I would love to give the benefit of the doubt but cant. The issue probably isnt the first shot or two, you can see where he might think there is a threat depending on circumstances and location. After that it's clear he isnt in danger but he kept shooting and that's what probably got him charged. Like I said it's a shittty think to break the near instantaneous decision down in to many parts but that's the job and why you are accountable for every round just like it's a different incident.

The guy killed was probably a POS career or repeat criminal. That doesn't change the fact the shoot was bad.

You are the one puffing up your chest and describing those that disagree with your opinion as “screaming”

Just sayin’

ETA, use of force laws in the state you moved here from are different than the use of force laws here.

 

[candcallen]

Fixed that for you.

In many instances yes, video can add information to an incident the officer didnt have at the time and taken out of context can be used against them. We see that alot more with so many cameras everywhere nowdays.

IMHO that's not the case here. We can pick it apart but everyone who drives knows about how vehicles respond to added power during turns etc.

I'm pro police as it gets and look at every incident independently and critically and give the benefit of the doubt to the officer if there are questions, but sometimes they get it wrong. It's rare but happens and like mentioned previously it's more likely to happen when shooting into or from moving vehicles.

 

[Bithabus]

Can't see much in the video. From the overhead view it looks like the turning radius of the truck was outside of the Officer's position. But from the Officer's perspective I could see how he might believe the suspect was trying to run him down instead of merely escape. It's also unclear exactly when the shots were fired.

 

[candcallen]

You are the one puffing up your chest and describing those that disagree with your opinion as “screaming”

Just sayin’

ETA, use of force laws in the state you moved here from are different than the use of force laws here.

It should be simple for you to clearly know I used the term screaming as a description to mean ones emphasis on reasonable belief. I am however impressed with your mental gymnastics. Your ability to remotely view my hidden intent is impressive.

No, there are no differences in legal justification for use of force in this type of incident. Neither is there a difference in what reasonable belief means. In both states it means your actions are reasonable under the circumstances. The judgment of that reasonableness is not left to you after the fact. Others have to agree if there are questions. Just like saying I feared for my life isnt a get out of jail free card. That fear and your response have to seem reasonable to others.

This is a common mistake that people make in responding to use of force situations.

 

[Renegade]

Tactically, it is a bad idea to get out of your car to confront a moving vehicle. Not sure what he was thinking on that one.

Legally it is a bad idea to shoot a moving vehicle. Not sure how the vehicle could have ever hit him unless it had some kind of 4 Wheel Steer allowing it to suddenly go left, perpendicular to line of travel.

Tueller Drill always applies - it is faster, safer and better to move out of the vehicle path than to draw and shoot.

 

[txinvestigator]

In many instances yes, video can add information to an incident the officer didnt have at the time and taken out of context can be used against them. We see that alot more with so many cameras everywhere nowdays.

IMHO that's not the case here. We can pick it apart but everyone who drives knows about how vehicles respond to added power during turns etc.

I'm pro police as it gets and look at every incident independently and critically and give the benefit of the doubt to the officer if there are questions, but sometimes they get it wrong. It's rare but happens and like mentioned previously it's more likely to happen when shooting into or from moving vehicles.

Dude, based on the point of view from that camera it looks like a bad shoot to me, too. The LEO didn't have that point of view, did he? You have no idea what he observed. Where was the suspect looking, were the front tires of the truck turned towards the LEO? He wasn't processing "how vehicles respond to added power during turns" in those few seconds.

Texas use of force laws require that those determining the defense to prosecution make conclusions based on the information the user of force had AT THE TIME, and what a reasonable person would have determined based on that information.

I am reminded of an incident from way back in the 70s where a suspect was holding a handgun at his waist pointing down. Two officer had him at gunpoint. Suddenly, and seemingly without reason, one officer fired several times, killing the suspect. It appeared to be an unjustified shoot. There were witnesses. However, a news film crew happened to be on scene, and when the film was reviewed you could see the suspects eyes turn towards the officer who fired, and you could notice a nearly imperceptible movement of the muzzle of the suspect's handgun in a upwards direction. The officer picked that up, witnesses didn't. Had the camera been anywhere else it likely would not have shown the things the officer perceived.

Point of view, my friend. I don't know if this was a good or bad use of deadly force. It looks bad from the camera for sure.

 

[oldag]

Best to give LEO's the benefit of the doubt.

A few situations are pretty cut and dry. Most are not.

 

[Sublime]

I am just impressed candcallen has the wisdom to call it a bad shoot after seeing a video from a perspective different than the officer. I guess he obtained said wisdom from teaching use of force classes or was it from doing?

I mean it is not like Dallas has a crappy DA and DPD has a crappy chief and are short handed and rushed an indictment or anything like that.

So I guess you disagree with the DPD association president candcallen? He probably has only taken a use of force class and never taught it though.



Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

I am just impressed candcallen has the wisdom to call it a bad shoot after seeing a video from a perspective different than the officer. I guess he obtained said wisdom from teaching use of force classes or was it from doing?

No different than those that had the wisdom to call it a good shoot after seeing a video from a perspective different than the officer. I guess they obtained said wisdom from teaching use of force classes or was it from doing?

 

[gshayd]

The Houston DA just let a guy walk after shooting three people. Now if it was a police officer doing that she would prosecute him.

 

[Sublime]

No different than those that had the wisdom to call it a good shoot after seeing a video from a perspective different than the officer. I guess they obtained said wisdom from teaching use of force classes or was it from doing?

I dunno you tell me. Have those that called it a good shoot done policing? What about those that call it a bad shoot, have they done policing

My comment was what the news reported about the DPD association. Now why do you think that was the fastest indictment of all the murders/killings in Dallas Co.?

Do you ever think the current climate might be why there are so many openings especially in Dallas?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

I dunno you tell me. Have those that called it a good shoot done policing? What about those that call it a bad shoot, have they done policing

WTF does having done policing got to do with it? It is a video. It is on the internet. People comment one way or the other. He will likely go to trial, the dice will roll, and 12 people who most likely have never done policing will decide if it was a good shoot or bad.

 

[Sublime]

WTF does having done policing got to do with it? It is a video. It is on the internet. People comment one way or the other. He will likely go to trial, the dice will roll, and 12 people who most likely have never done policing will decide if it was a good shoot or bad.

Perspective? We saw a video and we are on the internet? Gee, thanks for the reminder. Sure people comment all the time and often the comments are BS. When we start comparing the justice system to a roll of the dice, well that should tell you we might have a problem. As for the jury trial process, thanks again for the reminder. Here is the difference between the jury trial and people just making comments on the "internet" - even though it is not a jury of his peers, the jury will have a lot more info. than a chopper news video.

 

[Renegade]

Perspective? We saw a video and we are on the internet? Gee, thanks for the reminder. Sure people comment all the time and often the comments are BS. When we start comparing the justice system to a roll of the dice, well that should tell you we might have a problem. As for the jury trial process, thanks again for the reminder. Here is the difference between the jury trial and people just making comments on the "internet" - even though it is not a jury of his peers, the jury will have a lot more info. than a chopper news video.

LOL. There will be another OIS in a few days, with video. And we can do this all over again. Just like we have for decades now. Get used to it newbie.

 

[txinvestigator]

I have done policing, taken and taught use of force, and written policy.

I cannot form an opinion from a video. What does that say about me?