If you saw this guy, would you shoot him?

[CathyInBlue]

Yeah, there's just nothing there, except my civil rights being trodden upon. Silly me to think it's something when tis truly nothing. Thank you, sir. May I have another.

How about LE shootings what just result in maiming or wounding, or maybe the only casualty was Fido. Do all of those go to any GJ at all? How about state-wide?

 

[Denny347]

Yeah, there's just nothing there, except my civil rights being trodden upon. Silly me to think it's something when tis truly nothing. Thank you, sir. May I have another.

How about LE shootings what just result in maiming or wounding, or maybe the only casualty was Fido. Do all of those go to any GJ at all? How about state-wide?

Then get a lawyer and proceed with the complaint to DOJ.
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law | LII / Legal Information Institute

http://www.justice.gov/crt/complaint/

Nope, just deaths. GJ generally does not bother with the lesser offenses like crim reck or harming an animal, they are busy enough as it is. Each city/county is free to determine how they deal with these things. As of right now, I believe Indy is the only city to do this in Indiana and its been good for us.

 

[dcary7]

Thank you for providing a direct response. With a couple of quirks and side notes, I do not necessarily disagree with you. It would seem to be a reasonable solution for the most part. So, lets get started:
"I will answer your direct question directly and in response, I hope you will answer mine. What do you think should happen to officers who perform illegal detentions/searches claiming good faith or who act outside of the law, of which they evince profound ignorance? Keep in mind, I am myself the victim of just such LEO behaviour and am still being punished while they (plural) have experienced no punishment of which I am cognizant." - If it is found that the officer should have reasonably known better, but they are acting outside the law for their own benefit to deceptively or maliciously claim ignorance.... then they should absolutely get in trouble for it. I agree whole heartedly. If they cannot exemplify honesty and integrity they don't need the responsibility that comes with this job. That being said - if the officer genuinely does not know, I don't think they should be punished. For example: with my profession, there are laws and there are regulations. I can charge either equally, but the regulations are formed separately and can be changed at a moment's notice by the administration. (for instance: fishing and hunting regulations - etc) Often times there are public notices announced without notifying the officer prior to, that can change the regulations I enforce. They could arrive by email in the middle of my shift, etc. (I understand these are not life altering issues but stay with me here) So most of these affect the commercial watermen who make a living in the seafood business. So if I am not properly notified by no fault of my own or the departments, and I detain someone temporarily/charge them etc. Am I really at fault? If the administration failed to provide the officer with the information or the department he works for, then that should not fall on the officer. That being said, once or twice a year we do receive large supplements and updates to the regulations that have changed. Yes we sign for them and yes it is documented. We may receive inservice training regarding changes in how we enforce laws, but realistically, you cant organize a state wide training the day after the decision is made.. may be a couple of weeks after the fact. So you have to be somewhat realistic and understanding that its not all practical to expect immediate results. Significant laws don't change quickly and overnight typically. There is a process that has to take place, which is generally slow.

As for your personal situation, I do not know the detail of it, nor you for that matter. I'll take you at your word that there is some dishonest things being done by the officers. If that is the case, I am sorry that you are having repercussions and negative results of having to deal with this situation whatever it may be. I hope justice comes out and the issue is resolved quickly. Unfortunately, no one hears about a lot of good things the officers do. Only the scandal and negative things. One bad officer can taint a departments reputation quickly. The point I try to make is not every officer is corrupt/power driven. Nothing I say can/will change many peoples minds about it though. You can have 10 good encounters and 1 bad encounter, people will only hear about the 1 negative.

The part about going before a Grand Jury every time an officer discharges their gun, I am reading between the lines here on the fact that you are indicating it is during a shooting with another person. Which would be fine as well as I am pretty sure is the norm.. I personally have to dispatch animals on a regular basis that are injured by collisions/sick etc... I'm not going before a grand jury to talk about the raccoon I shot. I think the tax payers dollars could be better spent. Like I said, with exceptions to things, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. If someone's dog attacks me, then it may be SOL..depending on the situation. In all honesty, I am under the impression that most departmental shootings would see a grand jury. If I am wrong about this, then I am not oppose to your suggestion. So I can't speak definitively on what difference you are requesting here.

So if you are talking about officers who are maliciously falsifying facts to save their own skin, then yes - they get what they deserve... if you are talking about someone who does not have the mens rea aspect of the criminal activity, but were honestly trying to do the right thing I don't think they should get in trouble criminally, no.

When comparing LEO's to non-LEO's, you have to remember... some situations the non-leo CAN AVOID. Some situations a LEO has no choice, but a duty and responsibility to go in and make the best decision they can with what they have. Again, I think you are arguing the crooked/intentionally wrong doing cop vs what I am arguing... the honest guy who is trying to make a good decision.


So please answer me this, based on the OP's video... officer mistook an object for what he truly believed it to be. Reacted, realized his mistake, showed immediate remorse, etc... What penalty do you feel is appropriate? To me, his actions would be the same as that of someone being robbed by an airsoft gun. You don't have time to gain the facts before a decision is made.. so what outcome do you see appropriate? Should that officer lose his job, etc? He will already have a civil suite to face I'm sure. I'm just trying figure out what the end result is you are seeking for a case such as provided. Do you not feel that SOME things can be handled "in-house" or is every incident necessary to be seen before a grand jury? Violations of policy handled departmentally, potential violations of constitutional law handled outside? Which, is to my knowledge how it is typically handled. Like I said, there are mistakes and there are violations - to me they are totally separate. An officer shouldn't be raked over the coals for an honest mistake which is what I feel some people would like to see based on responses.

-dcary7

 

[Rocket]

Perhaps the old dude had bad hearing like some old dudes I know. Crappy situation all around.

 

[dcary7]

Denny appears to be more "up to speed" than I am on how many of IN's departments handle things. So I defer that much to him. I am not certain how all various departments handle things. I don't work there. As I stated before though, I am not oppose to your suggestion, it sounds logical to me. Departmental shootings (involving another person obviously) go to a grand jury. As far as violating constitutional rights, and illegal arrests and searches, Denny nailed that one as well.

-dcary7

 

[Indyhd]

Having just read all 25 pages I am amazed at the number of folks who prescribe to the logic "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" but think the LEO shouldn't have the same thought even though they are sometimes dealing with scum from the bottom of the barrel.

Someone used the analogy of shooting someone at the ATM because you thought your life was in danger, but did not verify that it was a toy gun.

Same thing in the first video. Honest mistake, some type of disciplinary charges so the LEO is not so quick the next time, but no criminal charges.

 

[KG1]

I guess the moral of this whole incident is to not put a LEO in a position to make a snap judgement that could lead to deadly consequences no matter how innocent you believe your intentions to be.

Remember always that their tactical/suvival training, whether it be lessons ingrained by youtube videos of previous incidences or what have you, dictates that they make it home at the end of the shift.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I guess the moral of this whole incident is to not put a LEO in a position to make a snap judgement that could lead to deadly consequences no matter how innocent you believe your intentions to be.

Remember always that their tactical/suvival training, whether it be lessons ingrained by youtube videos of previous incidences or what have you, dictates that they make it home at the end of the shift.

So, it begs to ask, where does YOUR tactical/survival training come from? You must assume the videos are fake, right? I mean, if they were "real-life" instances, they'd probably have merit.... or maybe not? So please tell me what "real-life" or fake instances have influenced your tactical/survival methods?

....or perhaps you simply teach yourself.

 

[public servant]

So, it begs to ask, where does YOUR tactical/survival training come from? You must assume the videos are fake, right? I mean, if they were "real-life" instances, they'd probably have merit.... or maybe not? So please tell me what "real-life" or fake instances have influenced your tactical/survival methods?

....or perhaps you simply teach yourself.

Once you've mastered the INGO tactical/survival training...you're ready to step out into the real world.

 

[GunSlinger]

Damn, but I do enjoy a rousing debate!!

Alright, everyone back to your corners for repair and instruction....and get ready...ding, ding, ding.

Round two...GO!!

 

[KG1]

So, it begs to ask, where does YOUR tactical/survival training come from? You must assume the videos are fake, right? I mean, if they were "real-life" instances, they'd probably have merit.... or maybe not? So please tell me what "real-life" or fake instances have influenced your tactical/survival methods?

....or perhaps you simply teach yourself.

I don't know what your trying to get at but I never questioned the authenticity of the videos. Do you disagree with the content of my post as presented in the context of a cautionary reminder for someone to keep in mind the LEO's perspective as it relates to his training or what?

As far as the "tactical/survival" terminology, I borrowed that from a previous post.

Here's another video that was probably on the first officer's mind as he made his stop. Remember folks, virtually every lesson we learn in tactical/survival training was paid for in blood at one point or another. To ignore the lesson is to render the officer's sacrifice worthless.

Police shootout - Trooper Randall Wade Vetter - Texas Department of Public Safety - YouTube

 

[KG1]

Once you've mastered the INGO tactical/survival training...you're ready to step out into the real world.

Stir the debating as usual I see.

 

[Somemedic]

Im surprised no one's mentioned it yet.

Pass a law that all canes have to be spray painted Orange at the tip

 

[Destro]

Yeah, there's just nothing there, except my civil rights being trodden upon. Silly me to think it's something when tis truly nothing. Thank you, sir. May I have another.

Did you even file a complaint?

 

[public servant]

Stir the debating as usual I see.

You expected a different response when you insinuate the police are trained to shoot an innocent person as long as "they make it home at the end of the shift"?

 

[thebishopp]

You expected a different response when you insinuate the police are trained to shoot an innocent person as long as "they make it home at the end of the shift"?

I think it is more being trained to shoot when one just "thinks or feels" the person is a "danger". Obviously they are not being trained to shoot an "innocent". I think, at least in most cases, they are shooting someone they "think or feels" is a "criminal" at that moment in order to "make it home at the end of the shift".

The goal after all is to "be first to fire" to be sure you "beat" your opponent to the punch. This leads some if not many to assume that everyone making a "movement" or "holding something" in their hand is carrying a weapon intent on harming them. You have to assume this and you have to fire first if you want to vastly increase the chances of "going home at the end of your shift". Let's be factual the person who draws and fires first (accurately) is normally the one who walks away. This type of mindset would naturally lead to more incidents where the person being trained in this mentality will most likely overreact in what they may consider stressful circumstances.

 

[Denny347]

I think it is more being trained to shoot when one just "thinks or feels" the person is a "danger". Obviously they are not being trained to shoot an "innocent". I think, at least in most cases, they are shooting someone they "think or feels" is a "criminal" at that moment in order to "make it home at the end of the shift".

The goal after all is to "be first to fire" to be sure you "beat" your opponent to the punch. This leads some if not many to assume that everyone making a "movement" or "holding something" in their hand is carrying a weapon intent on harming them. You have to assume this and you have to fire first if you want to vastly increase the chances of "going home at the end of your shift". Let's be factual the person who draws and fires first (accurately) is normally the one who walks away. This type of mindset would naturally lead to more incidents where the person being trained in this mentality will most likely overreact in what they may consider stressful circumstances.

By far the vast majority of officer involved shootings are reactive. Getting the first shot off is very rare. We are trained to "go home at the end of shift" aka, winning the fight that is brought to you, many times this means getting shot and continuing on. "Going home at night" means fighting through that and winning. I've lost track of the number of my coworkers who have been shot and fought through that to return fire and put down the assault. It seems that this term has been bastardized around here, like most things LE related, and has been twisted to mean something that it does not. "Going home at the end of the shift" means, don't put yourself UNNECESSARILY in danger, do do stupid stuff that will get you hurt or killed, and fight when needed. If someone brings a fight to you and you take a bullet, you take a bullet and stay in the fight. You go home, bad guy does not (jail or dead). It was NEVER intended to mean that we will do anything, step on anyone, to go home.

 

[Denny347]

I think it is more being trained to shoot when one just "thinks or feels" the person is a "danger".

No, we are trained to shoot using the USSC Graham v. Connor "reasonableness" standard.

Graham requires that officers apply Constitutionally-appropriate levels of force, based on the unique circumstances of each case, in the same basic way that an “objectively reasonable” officer would use in the same circumstances.

1.) Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer
a. Officer with same or similar training and experience
b. Facing similar circumstances
c. Act the same way or use similar judgment
2.) Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied
a. No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later
b. No hindsight evaluation
3.) Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation
4.) Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time

 

[dcary7]

Well said, Denny, on both above posts. I would rep again if I could.

dcary7

 

[KG1]

You expected a different response when you insinuate the police are trained to shoot an innocent person as long as "they make it home at the end of the shift"?

Nothing insinuated. Again I will ask you the same question. Do you disagree with the content of my post in totality without reading things into it that just aren't intended?

And just for the record I expect nothing less than an intentional insulting comment from you. You live up to the reputation that precedes you.