US police mistakenly shoot dead newlywed

[qwints]

Yes, the advocates of "shoot the innocent" have become so numerous and bothersome.

...
This is the crux of that matter and something that can't be ascertained from the articles. If they were in close proximity then a broomstick, recognized as a broomstick, would be a potentially deadly weapon and a cop would be justified in using force to negate such a threat.

Seen from a distance, or in poor lighting, a broomstick would look an awful lot like a rifle.

So cops are justified in shooting people who are on their own property armed with a stick. You just advocated "shooting the innocent."

But note he was "not at all surprised" indicating that he expects cops to shoot innocent people and then stating that everyone is "never asking questions" implies that he not only expects cops to shoot the innocent but that they are not punished for doing so.

This is an accurate description of my view. I don't expect every cop to shoot someone every day, but I do expect such incidents to happen regularly.


Lonewolf, I read your original post to imply that the cops might have been justified in shooting the burglary suspects. I also read it to imply that there was a doubt that it was an intentional shooting. Neither of these points were in issue. The police would have been just as wrong to shoot burglars armed with broomsticks. The "guiltiness" of the victim doesn't enter into whether it was murder. The only question is whether the cop was acting in self-defense or not.

I used the word pig to express the outrage I felt at this and similar shootings. There seems to be an attitude that police would rather have an innocent bystander die than risk harm to themselves. This belief is a renunciation of the police's worthy oath.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lonewolf, I read your original post to imply that the cops might have been justified in shooting the burglary suspects.

An armed suspect that may have seemed about to fire his weapon?

Yes.

I also read it to imply that there was a doubt that it was an intentional shooting.

Okay?

I do say that there is doubt that the cop intentionally shot an innocent person, yes. Do you have evidence of otherwise?

The police would have been just as wrong to shoot burglars armed with broomsticks.

And if the broomstick was mistaken for a rifle?

Shoot a police officer not be allowed to fire on someone with a rifle?

I thought that was the issue at hand here.

Furthermore, there were suggestions that there were commands issued to the victim. This would imply that, if there were commands, then the man in question did not comply with them.

The "guiltiness" of the victim doesn't enter into whether it was murder.

Uh, no? Whether or not the police officer had mistaken the man for an armed burglar is.

The only question is whether the cop was acting in self-defense or not.

I really do fail to see how you think I fail to understand any of this.

I used the word pig to express the outrage I felt at this and similar shootings.

If I used a word to express the outrage I feel by people's quickness to judge others, I'd be warned by the administrators here for being personal and breaking the rules of this site. So, in self-interest, I will not sink to your level.

There seems to be an attitude that police would rather have an innocent bystander die than risk harm to themselves.

I could understand why an officer would shoot someone who seemed armed and about to do injure to themselves.

Here's a newsflash for people who sit back at a computer and don't know what it's like to be out there: Action is fast. Yes, it is. Someone pulls out a weapon, and you only have a few seconds to decide if it's a real one or not. If a broomstick is pointed your way in any fashion, then it could very well be a weapon. If a child pulls up a realistic toy gun at you, then it could very well be a real gun. You can't wait until the trigger is pulled or you're close enough to see if it's real or not. Claiming that the police should be omniscient in these matters is, quite simply, wishing for the impossible.

This belief is a renunciation of the police's worthy oath.

And your belief seems to put the police on a pedestal that takes them outside of a human being and puts them into godlike ability.

Mistakes will and do happen. And sometimes the victims in these cases act just as angry and close to doing harm as the perpetrators. This doesn't make harming the victim excusable, but it certainly does give doubt as to a police officer's ability to see whether or not an individual is a perpetrator or the victim in certain situations.

You're quick to rush to judgment. I want to see more evidence before I make one. It's as simple as that, really. Your eagerness to call people "pigs" pretty much shows me what you really think about all this. You saying that you choose your words carefully just demonstrates it yet more.

You've already made up your mind about how things occurred. There's nothing I can do to convince you away from it, I think.

 

[qwints]

The only reason that I have the luxury of making up my mind so easily is that I have no power over the players involved. If I was on a jury or in charge of the investigation, I would certainly be more cautious in making statements of judgment. The officer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial jury, but that doesn't mean that I can't form an opinion based on the news reports that I have read.

Lonewulf, saying that a shooting is intentional is an issue completely divorced from whether that shooting was justified by self-defense. The officer meant to shoot someone. It simply does not matter whether that person was "innocent" or not. Whether that person was a burglar or not is only tangentially relevant to the question of self-defense. He should not have shot an unarmed criminal, but he would be justified in shooting an innocent bystander about to shoot him. Burglarizing a home does not forfeit your right to life. (I was similarly outraged at the Joe Horn case.)

A police officer should absolutely not be allowed to fire on a person with a rifle unless that person with a rifle was an immediate threat to others. If the facts show that the officer was in hot pursuit of suspects known to be armed with rifles and he reasonably perceived the newlywed as a person pointing a rifle at him, then the officer would have been legally justified in his use of force. Ideally he would have used non-lethal force or attempted to defuse the situation - but I understand that there is often little time for reflection in such a situation.

Even so, we can and must judge someone by their actions. Even if those actions were made in the heat of the moment. The police office shot a man who was on his own property and who was holding a broomstick. Others have shot people because they thought the shots fired by other officers were fired at them. Others have mistaken a t-shirt for a pistol. Still others have shot people too drunk to stand up when they made a sudden move. Police officers have to be held to a higher standard because they have more power than the average citizen. They have the right to take away your life and liberty without consequence based on their judgment. Even if the police officer reasonable thought that he was being attacked, he still should be condemned for his lack of judgment.

This, by the way, was the story I originally saw. Note the detail that the man was handcuffed and left bleeding to death on the lawn. Note that his family was kept from speaking to him as he lay dying. Note that no arrests were made. This is why I used the term that I used.

 

[Ranb]

.....The officer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial jury, but that doesn't mean that I can't form an opinion based on the news reports that I have read......The officer meant to shoot someone.....

I think that the claims you are making are more like wild speculation. It is better to wait until we have more info other than the few paragraphs provided by reporters.

Ranb

 

[qwints]

Here's the part of the story that made me angry.

Alexander's wife said she heard the gunshots and tried to go into the yard, but the officer told her to stay inside. From the window they saw Alexander handcuffed and bleeding in the front yard.

Paramedics treated him at the scene and took him to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The four burglary suspects were detained and interviewed, but no arrests were made.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Thanks, QC!

Imagine the uproar if they'd shot a live one.

And here I thought I was the only person who laughed when they saw the thread title...

Thanks for saving me, quixotecoyote!

 

[Lonewulf]

Here's the part of the story that made me angry.

Why? Because they kept the wife inside, or handcuffed the man?

I don't think that they cleared up whether the guy was the victim or not in the short amount of time after firing, and allowing the wife to run out (while there were supposedly three other robbers running around) doesn't seem like the best course of police action ever.

The officer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial jury, but that doesn't mean that I can't form an opinion based on the news reports that I have read

Certainly, you can draw any opinion you want. Just don't be surprised if people call out how prejudicial and outrageous your quick-draw opinions are, based on vague facts of the case.

 

[CptColumbo]

A few years ago I thought someone had broken into my house when I was home alone. The front dor was open and I heard-what sounded like-movement in the house. I called the police and the dispatcher told me to stay in the room I was in. I sat in my study with a Baseball bat until they came and cleared the house. Turned out my 83 year-old great-uncle (who had alzheimers and I was living with) had left the door open when he left that morning.

 

[Travis]

The only reason that I have the luxury of making up my mind so easily is that I have no power over the players involved. If I was on a jury or in charge of the investigation, I would certainly be more cautious in making statements of judgment. The officer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial jury, but that doesn't mean that I can't form an opinion based on the news reports that I have read.

Well, at least you're honest about your prejudices.

Lonewulf, saying that a shooting is intentional is an issue completely divorced from whether that shooting was justified by self-defense. The officer meant to shoot someone.

No one has claimed the shooting was unintentional. In fact Lonewolf and I have only maintained that not enough is known to draw any sort of conclusion about this incident. You, however, have.

It simply does not matter whether that person was "innocent" or not. Whether that person was a burglar or not is only tangentially relevant to the question of self-defense. He should not have shot an unarmed criminal, but he would be justified in shooting an innocent bystander about to shoot him. Burglarizing a home does not forfeit your right to life. (I was similarly outraged at the Joe Horn case.)

Has anyone claimed that the police are justified in shooting burglars? Intentionally shooting someone as a matter of recrimination or punishment is always illegal and rightfully so.

A police officer should absolutely not be allowed to fire on a person with a rifle unless that person with a rifle was an immediate threat to others. If the facts show that the officer was in hot pursuit of suspects known to be armed with rifles and he reasonably perceived the newlywed as a person pointing a rifle at him, then the officer would have been legally justified in his use of force. Ideally he would have used non-lethal force or attempted to defuse the situation - but I understand that there is often little time for reflection in such a situation.

The key there is that we don't know the details and that, as you say, there usually isn't a lot of time in those situations to figure out the level of a threat.

Even so, we can and must judge someone by their actions.

Sure, if we know the details surrounding the circumstances of the event.

Even if those actions were made in the heat of the moment. The police office shot a man who was on his own property and who was holding a broomstick.

You can't be shot on your own private property? My older brother was shot and killed by cops in his own apartment. By that logic they weren't justified in doing so even though my brother attacked them with a butcher knife. funny how that fact eluded everyone involved in the investigation.

Others have shot people because they thought the shots fired by other officers were fired at them. Others have mistaken a t-shirt for a pistol. Still others have shot people too drunk to stand up when they made a sudden move.

The actions of other police officers, right or wrong, have no bearing on the legality or justification of this officer's actions in question.

Police officers have to be held to a higher standard because they have more power than the average citizen.

Who says they are not?

They have the right to take away your life and liberty without consequence based on their judgment.

Um no. There will be an investigation into this shooting as there would be in any case involving one person shooting another. The consequences will be decided by people other than the cop involved. It may be ruled justified just as it might be for any citizen. Cops do not have extra rights to kill people that other people do not have, at least not in the USA. They have to demonstrate the necessity of the action just as anyone would, cop or not.

Even if the police officer reasonable thought that he was being attacked, he still should be condemned for his lack of judgment.

Again with the condemnation despite not having all the facts.

This, by the way, was the story I originally saw. Note the detail that the man was handcuffed and left bleeding to death on the lawn.

If he was still considered a suspect then that would not be unusual.

Note that his family was kept from speaking to him as he lay dying.

Again not unusual if he was considered a suspect.

Note that no arrests were made. This is why I used the term that I used.

So if they had caught the "real" burglars it would have made everything okay?

 

[qwints]

On the last point, it demonstrates that the police were engaged in high risk behavior which failed to produce any results.

The fact that you can casually dismiss the fact that the police kept a dying man from his family because "he was considered a suspect" demonstrates my the reason for my anger. If this is typical, it's worse not better.

Lastly, any reasonable empirical analysis of police violence will demonstrate that they are punished less than regular citizens engaged in similar violence.

 

[qwints]

This is just as bad and just as tragic.

 

[tyr_13]

On the last point, it demonstrates that the police were engaged in high risk behavior which failed to produce any results.

The fact that you can casually dismiss the fact that the police kept a dying man from his family because "he was considered a suspect" demonstrates my the reason for my anger. If this is typical, it's worse not better.

Lastly, any reasonable empirical analysis of police violence will demonstrate that they are punished less than regular citizens engaged in similar violence.

So you would have the police possibly put more lives at risk by introducing emotionally agitated family members? "Hey, we just shot this guy, he's dieing and wants to see you, but don't be mad at us." That makes REAL good logic right there.

Police would of course be punished less for the violence they are force to meet out because they are far more often justified in doing so. Did you have a point? Because your point seems to be that police are bad because police are bad.

Police are people. Some do bad things for bad reasons, some get into accidents, none are perfect. Being held to a higher standard doesn't mean being perfect.

 

[tyr_13]

This is just as bad and just as tragic.

There is already a thread on that.

However, it is, in my humble opinion, asinine to call it just as bad and just as tragic. It is worse on just about every level I can think of.

 

[Lonewulf]

This is just as bad and just as tragic.

Someone sprayed automatic gun fire at someone who knocked on his door during Halloween, and that's somehow comparable?

 

[qwints]

It's absolutely comparable in its result. An innocent person is dead because of a mistaken shooting. The result is equal. Obviously the actions of the cop are a lot more justifiable than the actions of the paranoid guy with an a.k, but the story is just as tragic.

tyr 13, you're one more person who cares more about police safety than the well being of citizens. Why would lives be at risk if they let a dying man say good bye to his family. They couldn't have controlled a distraught widow?

Also, I clearly implied controlling for justification. That means that a cop who beats someone for no good reason will be punished less than a regular citizen who does so. If you don't think cops get away with more unjustified violence than citizens, then there's no talking to you. You probably approved of the Rodney King verdict.

I've never said that police officers are inherently evil. I've said that some regularly abuse their authority without being punished for it.

 

[fuelair]

An armed suspect that may have seemed about to fire his weapon?

Yes.

Okay?

I do say that there is doubt that the cop intentionally shot an innocent person, yes. Do you have evidence of otherwise?


And if the broomstick was mistaken for a rifle?

Shoot a police officer not be allowed to fire on someone with a rifle?

I thought that was the issue at hand here.

Furthermore, there were suggestions that there were commands issued to the victim. This would imply that, if there were commands, then the man in question did not comply with them.

Uh, no? Whether or not the police officer had mistaken the man for an armed burglar is.

I really do fail to see how you think I fail to understand any of this.

If I used a word to express the outrage I feel by people's quickness to judge others, I'd be warned by the administrators here for being personal and breaking the rules of this site. So, in self-interest, I will not sink to your level.



I could understand why an officer would shoot someone who seemed armed and about to do injure to themselves.

Here's a newsflash for people who sit back at a computer and don't know what it's like to be out there: Action is fast. Yes, it is. Someone pulls out a weapon, and you only have a few seconds to decide if it's a real one or not. .

Actually, if someone has seen you and pulls a weapon you have a fraction of a second - not seconds - to respond - if you are lucky. If you wait to determine what they pulled you have a good chance of never responding to anything again.

I stress here that I do not know the details of what happened in the op case - just responding to general circumstances.