Officer kills woman inside her Texas home after welfare call

[apdst]

Your argument is that the police officer should have done exactly what he did even though it has resulted in the loss of a life he was sworn to protect and him being charged for murder. Your argument is broken from the onset by reality and facts. That Pretender serves as both insult and fact is just an added bonus.

No, I said he did what he was trained to do and any other cop would have reacted the same way.

Don't start lying, since insults aren't working.

 

[Master Debator]

No, I said he did what he was trained to do and any other cop would have reacted the same way.

Don't start lying, since insults aren't working.

No, they wouldn't. His own police force disavowed his actions. The more you comment the more it's clear how much of a Pretender you are.

 

[Aberration]

Cops have killed innocent people by mistake possibly dozens of times in my lifetime, but cops practically never kill innocent people on purpose. That is the leftist lie that wicked racist bigots want to promote in contradiction to the facts.

If I killed an innocent person, as non-LEO, but not on purpose what would the result be?

 

[Aberration]

No, I said he did what he was trained to do and any other cop would have reacted the same way.

Don't start lying, since insults aren't working.

So then why are we not doing something about the training?

The argument is this is how every officer reacts because this is how officers have been trained.

This along with the courts acquiescence to the rule of law has established two standards of ‘reasonable’.

And I find it pretty damn convenient, and fascist, that the status quo allows agents of the government to use lethal force at a far lower burden than is acceptable for us mortals.

 

[Aberration]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SkyFox76]

No, there was a cop on the otherside of that window and he saw a gun pointed at him and he reacted just like he was trained to react. Cops are trained to deescalate, or retreat, or any of that other stupid **** you keep posting.

From what I know, cops are not to put themselves in vulnerable situations until a last resort. Like running into an active shooter situation. Guess what this guy did? Not only did he not identify he was FWPD checking on a call, but he went a step dumber in that he actually put himself outside a window where anybody and their mother could have walked up to it and his only recourse was shoot to kill. Failure on his part to follow training and protocol. And afaik we've still not heard a peep from him. Most people would at least be saying wait!! THIS is what I thought! Not this guy. He walked in and resigned. Refused to file a report.

 

[apdst]

So then why are we not doing something about the training?

The argument is this is how every officer reacts because this is how officers have been trained.

This along with the courts acquiescence to the rule of law has established two standards of ‘reasonable’.

And I find it pretty damn convenient, and fascist, that the status quo allows agents of the government to use lethal force at a far lower burden than is acceptable for us mortals.

Sign up and go show'em how it's done.

 

[apdst]

From what I know, cops are not to put themselves in vulnerable situations until a last resort. Like running into an active shooter situation.

You don't know much do you? It's literally a cop's job to run toward the danger. Scott Peterson had his career ruined and was branded a coward for not running into an active shooter situation.

Guess what this guy did? Not only did he not identify he was FWPD checking on a call, but he went a step dumber in that he actually put himself outside a window where anybody and their mother could have walked up to it and his only recourse was shoot to kill. Failure on his part to follow training and protocol. And afaik we've still not heard a peep from him. Most people would at least be saying wait!! THIS is what I thought! Not this guy. He walked in and resigned. Refused to file a report.

He's been charged with murder. He'll have his chance to say, "Wait!! THIS is what I thought" and the nephew's account will help him a lot.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, there was a cop on the otherside of that window and he saw a gun pointed at him and he reacted just like he was trained to react. Cops are trained to deescalate, or retreat, or any of that other stupid **** you keep posting.

Maybe the police where you are are

• trained to escalate to the use of deadly force at the first sign of anything that they can later claim sort of looked like it could potentially be interpreted as resembling a theoretical threat

but where I live the police are

• trained to endeavour to deescalate the situation and to resort to the use of deadly force only as a last resort when they (or the people in the immediate danger area) are actually under an actual threat of actual harm

From 2015 to date, the police have SHOT (but not necessarily killed) 113 people in Canada. That's an annual average of around 22.6.

From 2015 to date, the police have KILLED 4,443 people in the United States of America. That's an annual average of around 888.6.

It appears that there is some "slight" difference between the way that the police are trained in Canada and the way that the police are trained in the US.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'm pointing out that the cop did exactly what he was trained to do. What's stupid, is the notion that he should have deescalated, or retreated. That wasn't going to happen.

The fact that you only want to post insults proves that you can't break my argument.

Maybe you might want to take a look at how things are done outside of where you live?

Why Canadian police are so good at not shooting people​

On the other hand, since you appear to be perfectly content with a situation where the police are allowed to gun down anyone they feel like gunning down and they "justifying" their conduct with something along the lines of "In accordance with standard departmental policies, practice, and training, I utilized the level of force that, at the time and under the circumstances, my professional judgment indicated was required to protect the lives and safety of myself and others from what I perceived as a potential of a theoretical chance of an action that might have been harmful." and then no one ever asks any questions about the factual basis for that statement (unless the police officer starts to giggle half-way through it) - I guess that you aren't very interested in seeing if there might not be some somewhat less lethal courses of action that the police could take.

 

[apdst]

Maybe you might want to take a look at how things are done outside of where you live?

Why Canadian police are so good at not shooting people​

On the other hand, since you appear to be perfectly content with a situation where the police are allowed to gun down anyone they feel like gunning down and they "justifying" their conduct with something along the lines of "In accordance with standard departmental policies, practice, and training, I utilized the level of force that, at the time and under the circumstances, my professional judgment indicated was required to protect the lives and safety of myself and others from what I perceived as a potential of a theoretical chance of an action that might have been harmful." and then no one ever asks any questions about the factual basis for that statement (unless the police officer starts to giggle half-way through it) - I guess that you aren't very interested in seeing if there might not be some somewhat less lethal courses of action that the police could take.

Canadian criminals are ******s. A Canadian cop wouldn't last 5 minutes in Chicago, or Houston, or New Orleans, or Baltimore.

 

[Hatuey]

So then why are we not doing something about the training?

The argument is this is how every officer reacts because this is how officers have been trained.

This along with the courts acquiescence to the rule of law has established two standards of ‘reasonable’.

And I find it pretty damn convenient, and fascist, that the status quo allows agents of the government to use lethal force at a far lower burden than is acceptable for us mortals.

Why address problems from a structural perspective, when it's easier to claim cops can shoot you for exercising 2nd amendment rights in your house?

Come on. This isn't about the law. We know what it's about. She had no right to a gun at home. apdst? He has a right to guns inside his home. Said so himself. I don't think he'd be okay with cops doing this to him.

Why is he so okay with it happening to this woman? I wonder what it could be?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You don't know much do you? It's literally a cop's job to run toward the danger. Scott Peterson had his career ruined and was branded a coward for not running into an active shooter situation.

He's been charged with murder. He'll have his chance to say, "Wait!! THIS is what I thought" and the nephew's account will help him a lot.

If you think that the testimony of an eight year old child is going to be very helpful, your level of knowledge of what actually happens in courtrooms isn't quite as extensive as I had previously thought.

Here are a few questions which any competent lawyer would want the child to answer:

1. "Do you know the difference between 'holding a gun', 'pointing a gun', and 'aiming a gun'?"
   *
2. "Did you see who was outside the window?"
   *
3. "Did your Aunt say anything about what was outside the window?"
   *
4. "Did the person outside the window say anything before your Aunt was shot?"
   *
5. "Did you hear anyone say that they were a police officer before your Aunt was shot?"
   *
6. "What were you doing right before your Aunt was shot?"

However, you are quite correct that he will have a chance to take the witness stand and tell the court "what he thought". Of course, that will also mean that he will end up getting cross-examined by the Prosecution AND it will also mean that the "trier of fact" will have the opportunity to (in effect) "Do you actually expect any rational person to believe that crap?".
Not only are those questions ones that the Prosecution (AND the Defence) want to know the answers to, but they are BOTH highly likely to know the answers even before the questions get asked in court.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Canadian criminals are ******s. A Canadian cop wouldn't last 5 minutes in Chicago, or Houston, or New Orleans, or Baltimore.

Yes, I can see that you are fully in favour of allowing the police totally unrestricted use of deadly force.

PS - I prefer to think that we have a better class of criminals in Canada than you do in the United States of America. Our criminals don't seem to think that it is appropriate to kill police officers in order to avoid traffic tickets.

 

[apdst]

Yes, I can see that you are fully in favour of allowing the police totally unrestricted use of deadly force.

PS - I prefer to think that we have a better class of criminals in Canada than you do in the United States of America. Our criminals don't seem to think that it is appropriate to kill police officers in order to avoid traffic tickets.

I can see you support the stupidity of cops having to retreat when a gun is pointed at them.

Most Canadian criminals are white. Aren't they? White folks make a better class of criminal, according to you?

 

[apdst]

If you think that the testimony of an eight year old child is going to be very helpful, your level of knowledge of what actually happens in courtrooms isn't quite as extensive as I had previously thought. The boy doesn't even have to take the stand, unless the prosecutor wants to look like a piece of ****, going after an 8 y/o on the witness stand.

And, since he has already made a statement and someone tries to influence him into changing his account, that's called "witness tampering", another crime.

Here are a few questions which any competent lawyer would want the child to answer:

1. "Do you know the difference between 'holding a gun', 'pointing a gun', and 'aiming a gun'?"
   *
2. "Did you see who was outside the window?"
   *
3. "Did your Aunt say anything about what was outside the window?"
   *
4. "Did the person outside the window say anything before your Aunt was shot?"
   *
5. "Did you hear anyone say that they were a police officer before your Aunt was shot?"
   *
6. "What were you doing right before your Aunt was shot?"

However, you are quite correct that he will have a chance to take the witness stand and tell the court "what he thought". Of course, that will also mean that he will end up getting cross-examined by the Prosecution AND it will also mean that the "trier of fact" will have the opportunity to (in effect) "Do you actually expect any rational person to believe that crap?".
Not only are those questions ones that the Prosecution (AND the Defence) want to know the answers to, but they are BOTH highly likely to know the answers even before the questions get asked in court.

It's called "exculpatory evidence". Not admitting his statement would be illegal.

 

[SkyFox76]

You don't know much do you? It's literally a cop's job to run toward the danger. Scott Peterson had his career ruined and was branded a coward for not running into an active shooter situation.




He's been charged with murder. He'll have his chance to say, "Wait!! THIS is what I thought" and the nephew's account will help him a lot.

Is that seriously what you think cops are trained to do? Notice I did say "last resort, like an active shooter"? Past that cops are trained to use caution (for their own sake) when they arrive at unknown situations like this one. They aren't trained to make themselves an easy target. He was forced to fire his weapon because he had left himself vulnerable. And of course because he failed to follow his training.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I can see you support the stupidity of cops having to retreat when a gun is pointed at them.

Which, of course, is NOT what I said.

Most Canadian criminals are white. Aren't they?

I don't know, I don't pay any attention to the melanin content of a person's skin.

Is it important?

Since it appears important to you, I went and looked it up.

"Blacks" account for approximately 10% of Canada's prison population. They account for approximately 37% of America's prison population.

White folks make a better class of criminal, according to you?

I'd really like to see you detail the "logical" steps that you took to reach that "conclusion" (other that, "Well, OK, so I know that it's stupid and that I just made it up - but I had to say SOMETHING.").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's called "exculpatory evidence". Not admitting his statement would be illegal.

I suggest that you take a more advanced course in law to increase your legal knowledge. I would suggest "Law for Grade 6 Students", but I don't think that it exists.

Since it doesn't, I'll suggest that you refresh your memory of "Assessing the Competency of Child Witnesses: Best Practice Informed by Psychology and Law". Since your computer skills exceed mine by the same margin as you knowledge of the law exceeds mine, I won't insult you be providing a link.

 

[apdst]

Which, of course, is NOT what I said.



I don't know, I don't pay any attention to the melanin content of a person's skin.

Is it important?

Since it appears important to you, I went and looked it up.

"Blacks" account for approximately 10% of Canada's prison population. They account for approximately 37% of America's prison population.



I'd really like to see you detail the "logical" steps that you took to reach that "conclusion" (other that, "Well, OK, so I know that it's stupid and that I just made it up - but I had to say SOMETHING.").

Don't lie.

 

[apdst]

I suggest that you take a more advanced course in law to increase your legal knowledge. I would suggest "Law for Grade 6 Students", but I don't think that it exists.

Since it doesn't, I'll suggest that you refresh your memory of "Assessing the Competency of Child Witnesses: Best Practice Informed by Psychology and Law". Since your computer skills exceed mine by the same margin as you knowledge of the law exceeds mine, I won't insult you be providing a link.

The kid already made a statement to the police. That can be used as evidence without him ever setting foot in the courtroom.

 

[apdst]

Is that seriously what you think cops are trained to do? Notice I did say "last resort, like an active shooter"? Past that cops are trained to use caution (for their own sake) when they arrive at unknown situations like this one. They aren't trained to make themselves an easy target. He was forced to fire his weapon because he had left himself vulnerable. And of course because he failed to follow his training.

I know that's cops are trained to do. Prove me wrong.

 

[SkyFox76]

I know that's cops are trained to do. Prove me wrong.

You'll need to make up your mind first. First you said idk very much, then you agree with my same comment worded differently. :doh

 

[apdst]

You'll need to make up your mind first. First you said idk very much, then you agree with my same comment worded differently. :doh

You need to stop lying and accept that you're wrong.

 

[Lursa]

I can see you support the stupidity of cops having to retreat when a gun is pointed at them.

Which, of course, is NOT what I said.

Don't lie.

Read better so that you can stop lying.