• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officer kills woman inside her Texas home after welfare call

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,338
Reaction score
2,424
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You need to stop lying and accept that you're wrong.
:lamo Interesting thought. I can't help but notice that everyone currently posting (except you) is in agreement that this ex cop screwed up. Add to that his own dept has stated he screwed up. But yet here you are making up things like "he saw her point a weapon at him" when the own guys words suggest nothing of the sort. So take your own advice. Everybody here can see what you're doing.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,923
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sign up and go show'em how it's done.
I have a career. And it not mot obligation to train the State on how to not kill innocent people.

Maybe if citizen had more respect for human life and a better understanding of the law they wouldn’t have such flippantly ignorant opinions.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,923
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
:lamo Interesting thought. I can't help but notice that everyone currently posting (except you) is in agreement that this ex cop screwed up. Add to that his own dept has stated he screwed up. But yet here you are making up things like "he saw her point a weapon at him" when the own guys words suggest nothing of the sort. So take your own advice. Everybody here can see what you're doing.
Just to add a cherry on top to the dumb ass sundae. He’d also like us to believe that just because a cop claims they saw a gun pointed at them, that it justifies deadly force.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
44,969
Reaction score
15,327
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Very sad event. Hopefully the investigation will find out exactly what happened and make recommendations for changes in police procedures.

I am also mad that the news media felt it was important to identify the race of the LEO and the victim. Seems the msm wants to keep racial tensions high. There is no mention that the LEO was influenced by the victims race. That is there is no evidence provided that the shooting was a "hate crime".
LOL Hiding someone's race because you don't want to "keep racial tensions high" is racist in itself and will do nothing to address the complaints of the black community. You do know that if the situations were reversed things would be very different.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
12,572
Reaction score
6,598
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's called "exculpatory evidence". Not admitting his statement would be illegal.
Wrong. The child can be barred from testifying by the judge. Even if the child testifies that doesn’t mean a jury is actually going to believe what he says is what happened. Not because he lied but because he’s an 8 year old kid.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,590
Reaction score
1,845
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wrong. The child can be barred from testifying by the judge. Even if the child testifies that doesn’t mean a jury is actually going to believe what he says is what happened. Not because he lied but because he’s an 8 year old kid.
He probably would give testimony on a camera. However, I don't think it matters. 1) the complete bodycam footage will provide the information, and 2) she was in her own home and has a right to have a gun and defend herself against an armed intruder.

The officer cannot get around the fact that he went into her yard without permission or probable cause, pointed a gun at the resident without provocation, never identified himself, and shot without warning.
 

apdst

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,998
Reaction score
30,569
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Wrong. The child can be barred from testifying by the judge. Even if the child testifies that doesn’t mean a jury is actually going to believe what he says is what happened. Not because he lied but because he’s an 8 year old kid.
His statement in the police report can be admitted into evidence. Suppressing it would be illegal and would almost guarantee a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal.
 

apdst

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,998
Reaction score
30,569
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have a career. And it not mot obligation to train the State on how to not kill innocent people.

Maybe if citizen had more respect for human life and a better understanding of the law they wouldn’t have such flippantly ignorant opinions.
Yes, you would have a better opinion
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
29,307
Reaction score
7,229
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wrong. The child can be barred from testifying by the judge. Even if the child testifies that doesn’t mean a jury is actually going to believe what he says is what happened. Not because he lied but because he’s an 8 year old kid.
A couple of minor technical points here.

The child would not be "barred from testifying" and it would not be the judge doing it in any event.

A "child of tender years" is, at law, NOT AUTOMATICALLY deemed to be competent to testify in court because of the presumption that they do not sufficiently understand the nature of the proceedings and the nature/import of an oath. It is, however, possible to have a "child of tender years" QUALIFIED to testify as long as the judge is satisfied that the "child of tender years" DOES sufficiently understand the nature of the proceedings and the nature/import of an oath.

Once a "child of tender years" is QUALIFIED to give evidence (and that IS at the discretion of the Judge), they are subject to exactly the same rules and procedures as any other witness would be.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
12,572
Reaction score
6,598
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A couple of minor technical points here.

The child would not be "barred from testifying" and it would not be the judge doing it in any event.

A "child of tender years" is, at law, NOT AUTOMATICALLY deemed to be competent to testify in court because of the presumption that they do not sufficiently understand the nature of the proceedings and the nature/import of an oath. It is, however, possible to have a "child of tender years" QUALIFIED to testify as long as the judge is satisfied that the "child of tender years" DOES sufficiently understand the nature of the proceedings and the nature/import of an oath.

Once a "child of tender years" is QUALIFIED to give evidence (and that IS at the discretion of the Judge), they are subject to exactly the same rules and procedures as any other witness would be.
Thank you for the correction I didn’t realize that the assumption going on was that the child can’t testify.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
29,307
Reaction score
7,229
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
He probably would give testimony on a camera.
The child would not be permitted to give ANY evidence, in ANY manner (including "on a camera" [and the rules governing when such is allowable don't appear to apply here]), until AFTER the COMPETENCE of the child had been established. Any tapes/transcripts that might have been made of anything that the child said BEFORE the child was QUALIFIED would not be admissible UNLESS the child was QUALIFIED (and the complete background [including anything said to the child by a "person in authority" between the shooting and the making of the tapes/transcripts] was disclosed).

However, I don't think it matters. 1) the complete bodycam footage will provide the information, and 2) she was in her own home and has a right to have a gun and defend herself against an armed intruder.
There you are probably correct.

The officer cannot get around the fact that he went into her yard without permission or probable cause, pointed a gun at the resident without provocation, never identified himself, and shot without warning.
You are going to find some people who will tell you that the police officer had sort of "implied permission" to search outside of the house because they had received a report that there might be someone unlawfully inside the house.

I'd tell you what I think of that position, but the forum's "BAD WORD filter" would likely overheat and (potentially) one or more of the faint-hearted of the mods would have an attack of the vapours.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
23,062
Reaction score
8,116
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
LOL Hiding someone's race because you don't want to "keep racial tensions high" is racist in itself and will do nothing to address the complaints of the black community. You do know that if the situations were reversed things would be very different.
lol - Amazing how some ignore how the media manipulates them.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
29,307
Reaction score
7,229
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
His statement in the police report can be admitted into evidence.
Did you know that a "statement in the police report" is what is known as "hearsay evidence"?

Do you know what the general rule regarding "hearsay evidence" is?

Suppressing it would be illegal and would almost guarantee a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeee it would.
 

Hypothetical

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
5,146
Reaction score
1,394
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
If the underlined is true, then this cop is showing less restraint than I was legally required to demonstrate in Fallujah, and everyone who wrote those regulations needs to lose their jobs, even as he needs to go to prison for murder.

He shot a legal gun owner in her home for nothing. F Him. He deserves no more protection than I would have from charges in that situation.
I agree with this in essence. Police should be required to announce themselves anyway, before they go snooping around a private home at 2:30 AM.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
29,307
Reaction score
7,229
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Thank you for the correction I didn’t realize that the assumption going on was that the child can’t testify.
In essence that is the way it is.

It's sort of like how "slaves" couldn't testify - they weren't considered "competent" because they were considered NOT TO have the ability to sufficiently understand the nature of the proceedings and/or the nature/import of an oath.

It's also sort of like how "women" couldn't testify (independently [the could if they had a male "oath helper"]) - they weren't considered "competent" because they were considered NOT TO have the ability to sufficiently understand the nature of the proceedings and/or the nature/import of an oath.

It's also sort of like how members of the "__[fill in name of 'Religion 1']__ faith" couldn't testify in "__[fill in name of 'Religion 2']__" courts - they weren't considered "competent" because they were considered NOT TO have the ability to sufficiently understand the nature of the proceedings and/or the nature/import of an oath.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,590
Reaction score
1,845
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The child would not be permitted to give ANY evidence, in ANY manner (including "on a camera" [and the rules governing when such is allowable don't appear to apply here]), until AFTER the COMPETENCE of the child had been established. Any tapes/transcripts that might have been made of anything that the child said BEFORE the child was QUALIFIED would not be admissible UNLESS the child was QUALIFIED (and the complete background [including anything said to the child by a "person in authority" between the shooting and the making of the tapes/transcripts] was disclosed).



There you are probably correct.



You are going to find some people who will tell you that the police officer had sort of "implied permission" to search outside of the house because they had received a report that there might be someone unlawfully inside the house.

I'd tell you what I think of that position, but the forum's "BAD WORD filter" would likely overheat and (potentially) one or more of the faint-hearted of the mods would have an attack of the vapours.
I spoke to some police officers about this, and they were not sympathetic to the officer. Essentially stating that he was stupid, and the mistakes were due to his inexperience. They also commented that new officers need to spend more time working with a seasoned officer before being released to work on their own - and that police departments do a poor job of this.

One offered that he had a virtually identical call - welfare check on a house where a neighbor was not supposed to be home, yet the lights were on. He parked in front of the house, and ran the plates on the car in the driveway. The results gave him a name and an address that matched the home. By that time, a second officer arrived, and they knocked on the door and announced themselves - one just to the side, and another in the yard where he could offer cover. Neither used flashlights, or drew their weapons (although they were ready to do so). The occupant came to the door, said he came home from vacation early, and gave his name (which matched the car registration). The second officer then spoke to the neighbor (who had come outside). The officers thanked the resident, the resident was grateful, and the neighbor relieved. The officers were available within 5 minutes of arriving on scene.
 

vanceen

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
567
Reaction score
185
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
That's a shocking difference.

"Blacks" represent about 14% of the US population. At an incarceration rate of 37%, they are over-represented in prison by a huge factor of 2.6. This is shocking and represents the deep systemic racism in the US.

"Blacks" represent 3.5% of the Canadian population. At an incarceration rate of 10%, they are over-represented in prison by a factor of only 2.9. This is evidence of the fair minded, forward-thinking, non-racist attitudes in Canada.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
29,307
Reaction score
7,229
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I spoke to some police officers about this, and they were not sympathetic to the officer. Essentially stating that he was stupid, and the mistakes were due to his inexperience. They also commented that new officers need to spend more time working with a seasoned officer before being released to work on their own - and that police departments do a poor job of this.

One offered that he had a virtually identical call - welfare check on a house where a neighbor was not supposed to be home, yet the lights were on. He parked in front of the house, and ran the plates on the car in the driveway. The results gave him a name and an address that matched the home. By that time, a second officer arrived, and they knocked on the door and announced themselves - one just to the side, and another in the yard where he could offer cover. Neither used flashlights, or drew their weapons (although they were ready to do so). The occupant came to the door, said he came home from vacation early, and gave his name (which matched the car registration). The second officer then spoke to the neighbor (who had come outside). The officers thanked the resident, the resident was grateful, and the neighbor relieved. The officers were available within 5 minutes of arriving on scene.
Your situation and its resolution likely took less that a total of two hours of police officers' time and no fatalities.

The FWPD situation and its resolution is likely to involve more than 200 hours of police officers' time PLUS at least the same amount of lawyers' time PLUS (assuming a "Not Guilty" plea) at least 12,000 hours of judicial, court, and civilian time PLUS one fatality PLUS (assuming a conviction) around 157,788 hours of "custodial staff" time (rough total 170,000 hours of taxpayer funded time).

I can see that some people think that the FWPD situation and its resolution is the preferred way to deal with the matter. What I can NOT see is how any rational person would have that preference.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
29,307
Reaction score
7,229
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That's a shocking difference.

"Blacks" represent about 14% of the US population. At an incarceration rate of 37%, they are over-represented in prison by a huge factor of 2.6. This is shocking and represents the deep systemic racism in the US.

"Blacks" represent 3.5% of the Canadian population. At an incarceration rate of 10%, they are over-represented in prison by a factor of only 2.9. This is evidence of the fair minded, forward-thinking, non-racist attitudes in Canada.
Which has something to do with the FWPD situation?

What?

Have you considered that the disparity could also be due to a lack of "skilled criminality" on the parts of BOTH American and Canadian "Blacks"?

BTW, be rather leery of any statistics regarding "race" purporting to come from Statistics Canada since Statistics Canada does NOT ask for data on "racial origin" in its census forms.
 

vanceen

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
567
Reaction score
185
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which has something to do with the FWPD situation?

What?
I don't know. You brought up the subject. What did you have in mind?
Have you considered that the disparity could also be due to a lack of "skilled criminality" on the parts of BOTH American and Canadian "Blacks"?

BTW, be rather leery of any statistics regarding "race" purporting to come from Statistics Canada since Statistics Canada does NOT ask for data on "racial origin" in its census forms.
Why would you ask what I've "considered"? You brought up the statistics, I merely filled in a few relevant additional numbers. If you think the stats are unreliable, why did you bring them up?
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,590
Reaction score
1,845
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your situation and its resolution likely took less that a total of two hours of police officers' time and no fatalities.

The FWPD situation and its resolution is likely to involve more than 200 hours of police officers' time PLUS at least the same amount of lawyers' time PLUS (assuming a "Not Guilty" plea) at least 12,000 hours of judicial, court, and civilian time PLUS one fatality PLUS (assuming a conviction) around 157,788 hours of "custodial staff" time (rough total 170,000 hours of taxpayer funded time).

I can see that some people think that the FWPD situation and its resolution is the preferred way to deal with the matter. What I can NOT see is how any rational person would have that preference.
He said they were on scene for about five minutes -. So less than an hour's worth of time, including both officers and dispatch staff. But point well taken.

It also impressed me with how simple his approach was - and how much safer. He went to the house armed with the name of the resident, and approached the house in a defensible position with another officer in a position to provide cover. He knew the man was likely home (from his car), and if he encountered someone else, could have asked them for the name. If something was out of place (for example, a stolen car), he could have taken a different approach.

Again, it was a series of costly rookie mistakes, and an overly aggressive approach, that cost the resident her life in Fort Worth. It will be interesting to see how much is due to the officer just not being in the right job, and how much is due to inadequate training / supervision.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,923
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, you would have a better opinion
I do not consider such a callous regard for citizens rights, and such fervent boot licking for
the chicken **** murderer to be ‘better’.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
29,307
Reaction score
7,229
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't know.
Well, colour me not surprised.

You brought up the subject.
Actually, if you will check back to Post 740 you will see that that is a false statement.

What did you have in mind?
I have absolutely no idea what "apdst" has in mind - regardless of what "apdrt" posts.

Why would you ask what I've "considered"?
Because I wanted to know.

You brought up the statistics, I merely filled in a few relevant additional numbers.
They would, indeed, have been relevant had they been obtained using identical methodologies. They weren't.

If you think the stats are unreliable, why did you bring them up?
Because someone else thought that the information was pertinent (for some unfathomable reason) but didn't have it. I also pointed out that the information was (possibly the 'best available") unreliable due to difference in methodologies.

However, I do thank you, for your contributions to this thread. I always enjoy seeing where random and unrelated thoughts can lead.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
29,307
Reaction score
7,229
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I do not consider such a callous regard for citizens rights, and such fervent boot licking for
the chicken **** murderer to be ‘better’.
Interesting "NetNik" you have.

I know that this doesn't actually apply to you personally, but did you know that there is an "aberration" that involves a desire to be subjugated and forced to undergo humiliating experiences.

Such an "aberration" might possibly explain the words and/or deeds of some people.
 
Top Bottom