Septuagenarian shot dead in his garage, intruders blame poor lighting on the homicide

[dennishoddy]

We can learn some tactical lessons from this. Have a flashlight of your own. Identify your target. It is safest not to confront a BG if you don't have to... take a defensive position and let him come to you. If you must, do it from a position of strength. Don't just stand there and raise a gun to an armed BG... move and shoot, or use some cover. And in case the BG's you pop happen to be cops, have a plan to effin disappear.

Practice this advice.

 

[mugsy]

This is the difference between Civilian Police and Military Soldiers, etc. We, as a society, hold them to a higher standard. As we should. We employ them and pay them to protect us, not to kill us. In this instance these police officers should be prosecuted. If a jury of their peers finds them innocent then, so be it. If not then they need to pay their debt to society. In the civilian world we should never have an acceptable rate of friendly fire vicitims.
[/B]

No one anywhere has an "acceptable rate of friendly fire" but we do accept that zero probably isn't realistic - though it is the ultimate goal. In the case the OP posted - I completely accept that a grand jury (or maybe just the DA's office) should be looking at evidence to see if a prosecution is warranted. If there is sufficient reason to go to trial - then they are still innocent until proven guilty - that wasn't waived by putting on the badge. However, until that determination is made - perhaps we shouldn't be rushing to judgements of guilt and insinuations of wrong-doing, cover-ups, etc. as some here seem spring-loaded to do.

 

[yukonjack]

No one anywhere has an "acceptable rate of friendly fire" but we do accept that zero probably isn't realistic - though it is the ultimate goal. In the case the OP posted - I completely accept that a grand jury (or maybe just the DA's office) should be looking at evidence to see if a prosecution is warranted. If there is sufficient reason to go to trial - then they are still innocent until proven guilty - that wasn't waived by putting on the badge. However, until that determination is made - perhaps we shouldn't be rushing to judgements of guilt and insinuations of wrong-doing, cover-ups, etc. as some here seem spring-loaded to do.

In the military world you're spot on, 100% correct. In the civilian world not so. A civilian police officer needs to be 100% sure of the target he is engaging. We should never accept any less. If a police officer doesn't know what he is shooting at he shouldn't.

 

[nemesis]

Common sense would be nice.

That's not a characteristic that attracts people to the profession.

 

[DFarcher]

Well, when you think about it that actually makes sense. The people whom we put deliberately in harm's way are more likely to have an encounter in which they have chance for a fatal error. Unless you want to let every police officer know that at the first mistake your career is over and you will go to jail - with or without malicious intent, i.e. even when it is an honest, if fatal, error...well all I can say is that I don't think you are considering second and third order effects from such a policy. In the case of malice or negligence quite a different standard should be applied.

I served 24 years on active duty and I can personally affirm that soldiers, sailors, and airmen made and make errors that cost innocent people their lives i.e. non-combatants by the US definition. However, unless there is malice or gross negligence we don't punish most of those military, in part, because of the effect it would have on the rest of the force - they would learn that job number one should be stay safe, avoid trouble, and CYA not desirable characteristics in military or police.

This is true enough...LEOs and Military personnel are put in situations by the thousands where a error in judgement can have horrible/tragic consequences. While legitimate mistakes should not be treated as criminal acts they also should not be dismissed. The truth is we are all different and some just are not equipped to make a good decision in a high stress situation. Individuals who show they fold under pressure should not be put in situations where they may have to make those types of decisions. I am aware if situations where we had to reassign personnel for the safety of "non-combatants" and even those the person in question served with. Not because they were not trying to do what was right, as I said some can't handle the stress. I believe those of you who think LEOs who make catastrophic errors like the one being discussed in this thread should be treated as criminals are wrong. But its also very disturbing to me that law enforcement agencies seem to want to clear their officers and put them right back out there EVERY time one of these events transpires. Part of the problem is if an agency admits ANY wrong doing, for example by permanently reassigning an officer they would not have a chance in the litigation that would be sure to follow.

 

[yukonjack]

This is true enough...LEOs and Military personnel are put in situations by the thousands where a error in judgement can have horrible/tragic consequences. While legitimate mistakes should not be treated as criminal acts they also should not be dismissed. The truth is we are all different and some just are not equipped to make a good decision in a high stress situation. Individuals who show they fold under pressure should not be put in situations where they may have to make those types of decisions. I am aware if situations where we had to reassign personnel for the safety of "non-combatants" and even those the person in question served with. Not because they were not trying to do what was right, as I said some can't handle the stress. I believe those of you who think LEOs who make catastrophic errors like the one being discussed in this thread should be treated as criminals are wrong. But its also very disturbing to me that law enforcement agencies seem to want to clear their officers and put them right back out there EVERY time one of these events transpires. Part of the problem is if an agency admits ANY wrong doing, for example by permanently reassigning an officer they would not have a chance in the litigation that would be sure to follow.

They should be treated exactly the same as any civilian. This isn't the military with it's UCMJ. Police officers and civilians are the same, they are equals. Police Officers don't quailify for some kind of special protected status when they mess up. If the old man had shot the two police officers thinking they were bad guys who meant to do him harm do you think he'd get off scottfree? He'd have been cuffed and stuffed on the scene probably with a number of broken bones and bruises to show for it.

 

[retrieverman]

Well, when you think about it that actually makes sense. The people whom we put deliberately in harm's way are more likely to have an encounter in which they have chance for a fatal error. Unless you want to let every police officer know that at the first mistake your career is over and you will go to jail - with or without malicious intent, i.e. even when it is an honest, if fatal, error...well all I can say is that I don't think you are considering second and third order effects from such a policy. In the case of malice or negligence quite a different standard should be applied.

I served 24 years on active duty and I can personally affirm that soldiers, sailors, and airmen made and make errors that cost innocent people their lives i.e. non-combatants by the US definition. However, unless there is malice or gross negligence we don't punish most of those military, in part, because of the effect it would have on the rest of the force - they would learn that job number one should be stay safe, avoid trouble, and CYA not desirable characteristics in military or police.

Honest mistake...ok, let's go with that. Turn the situation around, and the cops are both killed trying to serve a warrant or whatever ON THE WRONG HOUSE, and the homeowner kills them. What happens then? Do you really think the "low light" excuse is going to keep the homeowner from getting brutally arrested and charged with capital murder of a peace officer?!?

Higher standard and NO BS EXCUSES. Treat them like they just killed an innocent man in his own home.

 

[Dave70968]

Well, when you think about it that actually makes sense. The people whom we put deliberately in harm's way are more likely to have an encounter in which they have chance for a fatal error. Unless you want to let every police officer know that at the first mistake your career is over and you will go to jail - with or without malicious intent, i.e. even when it is an honest, if fatal, error...well all I can say is that I don't think you are considering second and third order effects from such a policy. In the case of malice or negligence quite a different standard should be applied.

And what of the second- and third-order effects of granting immunity to what would otherwise be criminal actions? This isn't war, despite what many seem to think. Failure to pick up a burglar makes society less safe, but it doesn't rise to the level a matter of national security that justifies the death of the uninvolved.

§21‑716. Manslaughter in the second degree.
Every killing of one human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, which, under the provisions of this chapter, is not murder, nor manslaughter in the first degree, nor excusable nor justifiable homicide, is manslaughter in the second degree.

§21‑93. Negligent ‑ Negligence.
The terms "neglect," "negligence," "negligent" and "negligently," when so employed, import a want of such attention to the nature or probable consequences of the act or omission as a prudent man ordinarily bestows in acting in his own concerns.

If it could have been avoided with the careful use of a five dollar flashlight, I'm prepared to call it negligence.

 

[LightningCrash]

Honest mistake...ok, let's go with that. Turn the situation around, and the cops are both killed trying to serve a warrant or whatever ON THE WRONG HOUSE, and the homeowner kills them. What happens then? Do you really think the "low light" excuse is going to keep the homeowner from getting brutally arrested and charged with capital murder of a peace officer?!?

Higher standard and NO BS EXCUSES. Treat them like they just killed an innocent man in his own home.

I wonder what happened to that guy in Minnesota in 07/08 or so. An informant gave them a random address and the police burst in, so the homeowner shot two of them.
Thankfully nobody was killed, but I wonder if the homeowner is in jail now.

ETA: found it:"Vang Khang was taken into custody but later released"

 

[caojyn]

Every state should adopt indiana's castle doctrine