Fort Worth woman shot in her own home by police

[cabanafrau]

I mentioned up-thread exactly this below that Mackenzie mentions:



The news mentioned that an open structure call is a vague term that often implies danger and could mean the home was broken into. A different approach for police than a standard welfare check would have. So this would explain why the cop walked the perimeter first and was proceeding with caution, possibly with his gun drawn. But it does not explain his quick trigger finger. He couldn't have possibly perceived the woman as a threat in the .5 seconds it took to shoot her.

The question is, implies danger for whom? If the responding officer determined that the unknown situation was too dangerous for a single officer to identify himself as a police officer, ascertain the reality of the situation and safely control the perimeter and the scene the initial decision should have been to monitor and call for backup. There were no signs of a violent struggle taking place, nor had any been reported. The ONLY evidence of something amiss was an open front door, with storm door closed, in the overnight hours.

The possibilities of why a homeowner might have chosen to have their door open at that hour of the night are endless, something any person might reasonably consider -- particularly a law enforcement officer who has undergone training in observation when seeking to become a police officer. A homeowner hearing noises or seeing an unidentified figure lurking outside their home at night is likely to be prepared to defend themselves and their home, something any person might reasonably and immediately consider in this type of situation. It's guaranteed anyone who has training to become a law enforcement officer has extensive experience studying the protections of the fourth amendment, it's absolutely impossible not to. Miranda rights are among fourth amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure. Every academy candidate studies that backward and forward, there can be no room for error there. The same kind of time is spent studying the other protections against unlawful search and seizure, so there's no excuse for not following the protocols necessary to walk up to a private residence and peer through the windows. If that front door had been open in the middle of the night because the home was being used as a meth lab and the officer had observed that in operation when peeking through the window they could not execute an arrest or obtain a search warrant using his observations as probable cause of a crime being committed because of the failure to attempt to make contact at the front door initially, or to decide to wait and observe until backup could arrive if there were concerns about the safety of doing so as the sole officer responding. If the choice of response wouldn't hold up for busting the meth lab, there's simply no way it holds up to use of lethal force resulting in the murder of an innocent person in their home.

Lethal force is an authorized option for sworn officers, when a situation merits it. Use of lethal force in an unknown situation that is unknown simply because an officer is negligent in following their duty is wanton and reckless disregard for human life, period.

 

[cabanafrau]

That is why the trial will be interesting.

The prosecution will focus on how not following protocol created the confrontation.

The defense will focus on how in that split second confrontation the officer was defending his life from someone with a gun.

This is ultimately a case of two people both acting in self-defense based on an incorrect perception of the situation.

A tragedy for sure and it will be up to the jury to decide. The jury will have MUCH more facts available to make their decision then we have had in this thread.

It all falls apart on the fact that the officer and the officer alone created the life threatening situation by completely trampling over the fourth amendment, period. You cannot both be the sole creator of the danger and exonerated by fear of the risk you manufactured.

Only one person in this situation had an incorrect perception of the situation. The homeowner was 100-percent correct that extreme danger was lurking outside her home and threatened the lives of everyone in the home.

 

[pahoben]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/police-video-louisiana-shooting.html
The driver of the vehicle was eluding police, he had rammed the police officer's car with his child in the front seat. (This woman did nothing)
The officers were IMMEDIATELY arrested and charged (unlike this case where he had 48 hours to clean his social media and turn himself in)

Is it willful ignorance that makes people like this? It is about a lack of accountability to brown skin and bodies. Police can kill them with impunity. (Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, let's go on all day, cause we can)
They killed a white kid and were convicted and jailed. Can you not see the difference??

Sorry but I have a hard time following your post. When an innocent caucasian child is killed after his father stops the car and puts his hands out the window Ii guess you believe there were extenuating circumstances. In this latest case you dont believe there were extenuating circumstances. It does seem very strange logic

Do you think this policeman thought-jeez i hate this job and prefer going to prison so i will shoot her because she is black? Of course not. He made a split second decision and it was the wrong one. In the Loisiana case the father had his hands out the window and was clearly not a threat when they started shooting. In this case he saw a threat with a gun (according to what is reported the child has stated). The case in Louisiana had no unknown threat when clearly the father stopped the car and put his hands out very clearly through the window

 

[pahoben]

It all falls apart on the fact that the officer and the officer alone created the life threatening situation by completely trampling over the fourth amendment, period. You cannot both be the sole creator of the danger and exonerated by fear of the risk you manufactured.

Only one person in this situation had an incorrect perception of the situation. The homeowner was 100-percent correct that extreme danger was lurking outside her home and threatened the lives of everyone in the home.

Maybe we should eliminate traditional police departments and have lawyers do policing. They always know what should have been done so maybe better to turn over to them so that mistakes are never made.

 

[luvsJack]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/police-video-louisiana-shooting.html
The driver of the vehicle was eluding police, he had rammed the police officer's car with his child in the front seat. (This woman did nothing)
The officers were IMMEDIATELY arrested and charged (unlike this case where he had 48 hours to clean his social media and turn himself in)

Is it willful ignorance that makes people like this? It is about a lack of accountability to brown skin and bodies. Police can kill them with impunity. (Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, let's go on all day, cause we can)
They killed a white kid and were convicted and jailed. Can you not see the difference??

This guy hasn't been convicted yet because he hasn't gone to trial yet. You can't sit there and argue that "well they were convicted". Also, the case with the child was in Louisiana. The case we are discussing is in Texas.

Other things are there was NO warrant, they lied about that. So he may have been running from two people trying to kill him but they had no warrant to arrest him so not eluding. They lied that he tried to do anything to them with the vehicle as the video shows he had his arms sticking out the window. There was no high speed chase. They were trying to stop him after he picked up his son (he had left a bar where he had argued with his wife) He even stopped at an intersection. He just wanted to get his child to his mother before dealing with them. They were out to get the boy's father. This wasn't a legal chase/arrest going on.

Oh, and one of them has been released. 21 months for gunning down a 6 year old child.

If you are going to compare, compare with facts.

 

[cabanafrau]

Maybe we should eliminate traditional police departments and have lawyers do policing. They always know what should have been done so maybe better to turn over to them so that mistakes are never made.

Elementary schoolchildren can grasp the meaning behind the fourth amendment enough to understand why it's a good thing to protect us. If we as a society have reached the point where we feel we cannot empower a police force with the ability to operate within the simple framework of basic Constitutional rights maybe we should simply throw in the towel and dispense with the notion of empowering law enforcement to protect and serve at all.

Working in an environment where I see and talk to police officers daily this case has been a topic of discussion this week. To this point I have yet to hear a single officer even attempt to explain how this officer was in the rightful performance of his duties. Good cops don't want to serve with reckless ones like this one. Even if it doesn't result in a deadly situation, ignoring proper procedures results in all of the hard work they do amounting to nothing in a court of law and potentially putting their lives or careers on the line.

 

[pahoben]

Recently in Houston narcotics agents completely faked a warrant. They raided a home and the caucasian married couple owners had no idea what was going on and defended their house. They were both killed and five policeman were shot. I didnt see a single story that said caucasian couple killed by police with fake warrant. I didnt see a single post on Disboards about the poor caucasian couple. Their neighbors were the first to raise suspicion and all of them said there is absolutely no way they were selling heroin as stated in the warrant.

 

[cabanafrau]

Recently in Houston narcotics agents completely faked a warrant. They raided a home and the caucasian married couple owners had no idea what was going on and defended their house. They were both killed and five policeman were shot. I didnt see a single story that said caucasian couple killed by police with fake warrant. I didnt see a single post on Disboards about the poor caucasian couple. Their neighbors were the first to raise suspicion and all of them said there is absolutely no way they were selling heroin as stated in the warrant.

Horrible and tragic things take place every day that don't become water cooler conversation or garner wide news coverage. By the same token it's much more common for missing person stories about white and at least middle class persons to be splashed all over the news everywhere than it is for the story of a minority missing person or a poor person to get the same kind of coverage. Bias is bias.

 

[pahoben]

Elementary schoolchildren can grasp the meaning behind the fourth amendment enough to understand why it's a good thing to protect us. If we as a society have reached the point where we feel we cannot empower a police force with the ability to operate within the simple framework of basic Constitutional rights maybe we should simply throw in the towel and dispense with the notion of empowering law enforcement to protect and serve at all.

Working in an environment where I see and talk to police officers daily this case has been a topic of discussion this week. To this point I have yet to hear a single officer even attempt to explain how this officer was in the rightful performance of his duties. Good cops don't want to serve with reckless ones like this one. Even if it doesn't result in a deadly situation, ignoring proper procedures results in all of the hard work they do amounting to nothing in a court of law and potentially putting their lives or careers on the line.

I disagree with the facts stated in your first sentence. If I were to ask random schoolchildren and even adults on the street to explain the protections of the fourth amendment i would get mostly blank stares in response.

I agree based on what i know he made a mistake and he will face justice for that mistake. That is the constitutional system working as intended. My problem is with the attribution of malicious intent or characterization as a reckless cop to someone that certainly made a mistake and will face justice for it. Lawyers would try to impugn him every way they can but if actually placed in the same situation may have done the very same thing.

 

[cabanafrau]

I disagree with the facts stated in your first sentence. If I were to ask random schoolchildren and even adults on the street to explain the protections of the fourth amendment i would get mostly blank stares in response.

I agree based on what i know he made a mistake and he will face justice for that mistake. That is the constitutional system working as intended. My problem is with the attribution of malicious intent or characterization as a reckless cop to someone that certainly made a mistake and will face justice for it. Lawyers would try to impugn him every way they can but if actually placed in the same situation may have done the very same thing.

You seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding. I did not say elementary schoolchildren could regurgitate the fourth amendment protections and due process back upon request. I said they could grasp the meaning behind it enough to understand why it's a good thing to have the protections. In elementary school children in the US are introduced to both the history and origins of our country and government, including things such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

They can certainly understand why it's important to have laws in place that say that the government(police) have to follow the appropriate laws in order to be able to enter and/or search our home and/or our person without our consent.

ETA: I also disagree with your assertion that it's a mischaracterization to label this officer's actions as reckless. Given the fact that we're talking about a sworn officer with training and procedures to follow when responding to such a situation, this officer's actions rise to the level of wanton and reckless disregard for human life IMO.

 

[pahoben]

You seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding. I did not say elementary schoolchildren could regurgitate the fourth amendment protections and due process back upon request. I said they could grasp the meaning behind it enough to understand why it's a good thing to have the protections. In elementary school children in the US are introduced to both the history and origins of our country and government, including things such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

They can certainly understand why it's important to have laws in place that say that the government(police) have to follow the appropriate laws in order to be able to enter and/or search our home and/or our person without our consent.

ETA: I also disagree with your assertion that it's a mischaracterization to label this officer's actions as reckless. Given the fact that we're talking about a sworn officer with training and procedures to follow when responding to such a situation, this officer's actions rise to the level of wanton and reckless disregard for human life IMO.

Also you didn’t say his actions in this case appear reckless you categorically stated he was a reckless officer that no one would serve with

 

[cabanafrau]

My statement still stands that in spite of the education a random group of US citizens will not be able to answer basic questions about the fourth amendment (i didn't make any reference to regurgitation). Progressives love to cite the constitution when it suits them but otherwise claim it is just an old dusty piece of paper.

Maybe some state will have a referendum to replace bumbling deadly reckless racist sexist police by urbane and never mistaken lawyers. I wonder what the outcome will be.

I can assure you it's unlikely to be Michigan, as I have yet to see or hear of a never mistaken lawyer here, no matter how urbane their presentation.

Hopefully cooler and wiser heads would prevail and "some state" will think better of their referendum and choose instead to focus their efforts on replacing their bumbling, deadly, reckless, racist and sexist police officers with well-trained, intelligent, more-enlightened thinkers who choose to embrace and follow the protocols and procedures set forth to help keep both themselves and the public they're sworn to serve and protect as safe as humanly possible.

Criticism of the wrongful actions by one member of a category isn't usually rationally interpreted as an indictment of all who share the label. YMMV.

 

[cabanafrau]

Also you didn’t say his actions in this case appear reckless you categorically stated he was a reckless officer that no one would serve with

Reckless actions that result in an innocent person's death, a reckless officer makes IMO.

And what I stated was good cops would not want to serve with an officer like that, an opinion I also stand by.

 

[LSUmiss]

Sorry but I have a hard time following your post. When an innocent caucasian child is killed after his father stops the car and puts his hands out the window Ii guess you believe there were extenuating circumstances. In this latest case you dont believe there were extenuating circumstances. It does seem very strange logic

Do you think this policeman thought-jeez i hate this job and prefer going to prison so i will shoot her because she is black? Of course not. He made a split second decision and it was the wrong one. In the Loisiana case the father had his hands out the window and was clearly not a threat when they started shooting. In this case he saw a threat with a gun (according to what is reported the child has stated). The case in Louisiana had no unknown threat when clearly the father stopped the car and put his hands out very clearly through the window

And they were swiftly charged & convicted as should this officer. They made a negligent mistake like the TX officer & there has to be consequences.

 

[LSUmiss]

Recently in Houston narcotics agents completely faked a warrant. They raided a home and the caucasian married couple owners had no idea what was going on and defended their house. They were both killed and five policeman were shot. I didnt see a single story that said caucasian couple killed by police with fake warrant. I didnt see a single post on Disboards about the poor caucasian couple. Their neighbors were the first to raise suspicion and all of them said there is absolutely no way they were selling heroin as stated in the warrant.

So how did you get the info if there was no story? It’s usually not relevant if the person was white b/c it’s not likely race was a factor. But, if the person is not white, there is at least the possibility that race is a factor. Take the Tx police woman who thought she was in her own apt. Would she have maybe realized she was in the wrong apt if she had seen a white woman standing there vs a black man? It’s quite possible that she perceived a threat immediately when she saw a black man in what she thought was her apt. I don’t understand what ppl get out of denying the race is still very much an issue. Why does it matter to you?

 

[LSUmiss]

My statement still stands that in spite of the education a random group of US citizens will not be able to answer basic questions about the fourth amendment (i didn't make any reference to regurgitation). Progressives love to cite the constitution when it suits them but otherwise claim it is just an old dusty piece of paper.

Maybe some state will have a referendum to replace bumbling deadly reckless racist sexist police by urbane and never mistaken lawyers. I wonder what the outcome will be.

Here there have been at least a few times that white NOPD officers have been fired for posting egregious racist comments on what they thought were private social media accounts. So racist cops do exist. I have actually known a few personally. DH has extended family & a few of our friends’ dads were high ranking cops & I have heard them say some pretty racists things. I know that’s not a huge sampling, but it certainly colors my perception.

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

So how did you get the info if there was no story? It’s usually not relevant if the person was white b/c it’s not likely race was a factor. But, if the person is not white, there is at least the possibility that race is a factor. Take the Tx police woman who thought she was in her own apt. Would she have maybe realized she was in the wrong apt if she had seen a white woman standing there vs a black man? It’s quite possible that she perceived a threat immediately when she saw a black man in what she thought was her apt. I don’t understand what ppl get out of denying the race is still very much an issue. Why does it matter to you?

The two bolded sentences seem to contradict each other.

 

[LSUmiss]

The two bolded sentences seem to contradict each other.

How so? It’s not likely that race has anything to do with it when white ppl are killed by cops, but it’s at least a possibility if not a probability when black ppl are. And I am asking why some ppl insist on not acknowledging that. Why does it bother them so much to admit or at least acknowledge it?

 

[luvsJack]

And they were swiftly charged & convicted as should this officer. They made a negligent mistake like the TX officer & there has to be consequences.

They didn't make a negligent mistake. They were described as "rogue cops". They shot into a vehicle with the man's arms out of the window and killed his child. That isn't a mistake. That is murder.

Not saying the case here isn't murder but don't make the one in Louisiana less than it was.

 

[luvsJack]

How so? It’s not likely that race has anything to do with it when white ppl are killed by cops, but it’s at least a possibility if not a probability when black ppl are. And I am asking why some ppl insist on not acknowledging that. Why does it bother them so much to admit or at least acknowledge it?

Its a possibility that race is a factor either way. Its also a possibility that race has nothing to do with it which is something that some will not admit either.