-
Features
West Virginia police officer lost his job after not shooting a distraught gunman
- Thread starter TSwizzle
- Start date
By not shooting he's risking his own life--and a massive worker's comp payout to his family if the guy decides to encourage the cop to shoot him by shooting at the cop. (And that's a very real threat in the situation.) This is the flip side of people being fired for shooting a robber.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,578
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Not quite getting it. Not shooting a person isn't against protocol except for the most extreme of circumstances. It sounds more like the alleged searches were an excuse. He was put on probation after this incident.
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
This reminds me of the 
Marissa Alexander case. Marissa received a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. Alexander said that she fired a warning shot after her husband attacked her and threatened to kill her on August 1, 2010, in Jacksonville, Florida. Had she shot to kill, Florida's stand-your-ground law would have made Marissa's estranged husband's death a legal killing. She would not have been found guilty of anything.
Marissa Alexander case. Marissa received a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. Alexander said that she fired a warning shot after her husband attacked her and threatened to kill her on August 1, 2010, in Jacksonville, Florida. Had she shot to kill, Florida's stand-your-ground law would have made Marissa's estranged husband's death a legal killing. She would not have been found guilty of anything.This reminds me of the
This garbage again???
1) Stand-your-ground most certainly didn't apply as she didn't stand her ground. She left and then returned with a gun. That's that, if she killed him it's either murder one or murder two. Nothing that came before is relevant.
2) Her placement of the shot was totally unacceptable for a warning shot. It's much more likely she simply missed.
3) Had she actually been an innocent victim she probably wouldn't have even been charged. What cooked her goose was a later altercation with him that she initiated.
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
The Wikipedia article reports that Marissa tried to escape via the garage, but the garage door would not open, and that this was confirmed by her estranged husband in a sworn deposition. She realised she was trapped. It was then that she got the gun out of her car. If that was indeed the case the stand your ground law applies and in my book a warning shot, no matter where it is placed, is rather more acceptable than one aimed to kill.
An appellate court ordered a new trial, finding that the jury instructions in Alexander's trial shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence. Democratic Florida Congresswoman Corrine Brown argued that the result of Alexander's case was a consequence of institutional racism. At any rate, as a result of a plea bargain Alexander was released with time served, pled guilty to three counts of aggravated assault for firing a shot in the direction of her husband. She also agreed to serve two years of house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor. She will be allowed to work, attend classes and take her children to school and medical appointments. Her case helped to inspire a new state law permitting warning shots in some circumstances.
Did the Wikipedia get this all wrong? If so, edit it already. Nothing stands in your way, you know, except for the inevitable wave of people who will correct your mistakes by returning the article to its previous state.
laughing dog
Contributor
Wkik did not get it wrong - the prosecutor got it wrong. If Ms. Alexander had killed her husband, there would not have been an issue. Which a normal human being would find more than ironic.
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
Yeah, that was pretty much my point, except
1.) the prosecutor got it right, at least if I understand the stand your ground law correctly. My understanding of it is that if you feel threatened and aim to kill the person who is threatening you, you are protected by the stand your ground law correctly. If you attempt to put an end to the threat by any other means, in this case by a shot across the bow so to speak, you have no such protection.
2.) It is not ironic. It's fucking absurd.
You just admitted she's guilty. It doesn't matter that the garage door wouldn't open. She was in a place that was safe (he wasn't following her into the garage) and went to a place of danger.
Yeah, she took a plea. That doesn't mean she isn't guilty. Aggravated assault is a reasonable charge for what she did.
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
That was never in doubt. As the stand your ground law stands it gave her no protection because she did not shoot to kill. So Marissa Alexander was prosecuted for aggravated assault, found guilty and received a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.
At any rate, the salient point is not Marissa's fate. It is the stand your ground law insisting that a defendant must aim to kill in order to qualify for its protection. It's fucking absurd.
You still have no understanding of stand-your-ground. It has no relevance here.
Had she shot to kill she probably would have walked because there would be no witnesses to show it was murder.
laughing dog
Contributor
According to you, even the remotest fear of attack means the shooting is in self-defense. Yet here you are, insinuating this black woman was trying to commit murder.
She went from a place of safety (the garage) to a place of supposed danger (the room where he was). That is prohibited in self defense unless you need to do so in order to protect someone.
laughing dog
Contributor
You are shifting the goal posts. According to your posting history, anyone who is in fear of the life can shoot to kill. Apparently, that does not hold true for a black woman who is faced with a man with a history of assaulting her and who admitted he said he was going to kill her.
T
I'm not shifting any goalposts, you're ignoring details that don't go along with your story.
The key fact here is that she knowingly went from a place of safety to a place of danger. In doing so she forfeited the right of self defense. There have been a lot of discussions of self defense on here, note how often I stress that self defense requires clean hands. Her hands were dirty.
laughing dog
Contributor
As I have shown, you most certainly are shifting the goal posts to hide your hypocrisy. I am not ignoring any details - that is your MO.
There was no place of safety. The man who had a history of beating her said he was going to kill her. She could not leave the house.
I note how often that argument about clean hands is for white shooters.
Of course, those hands belonged to a black woman not a white police officer.
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
The garage was not a place of safety. Marissa tried to escape by entering it through a door that led to it from the house and leaving it via another which led to the outside. The latter would not open. Her estranged husband - you know the one who said he'd kill her - confirmed that. The only place she could go to from the garage was back to where he was, so she took the gun out of her car and loosed a warning shot into the ceiling to discourage him from making good his threat. That lead to her being charged with aggravated assault - of a fucking ceiling.
And you still can't see the absurdity of it all.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Getting back to OP (which has almost no similarity to the derail incident):
The merits of the case hinge heavily upon this aspect of the incident:
[P]"Two additional officers arrived on the scene. Williams raised the gun.."
[/P]
If the deranged and armed suspect raising his gun made him an imminent lethal threat to the other officers or anyone else, then the officer should be required to shoot, unless their is another means to physically neutralize the suspect in the milliseconds available.
Suppose that, rather than other officers, it is the suspect's wife standing there. If the suspect raised his gun, the cop didn't shoot, and the suspect killed his wife, would we say the cop acted correctly? If not, then the cop may not have acted correctly in this situation either. Even if no one else was in sight, the threat of armed suspect is always to many other people. If the cop fails to shoot and gets shot himself, then the shooter goes back into his house and shoots his wife. With an armed suspect like that, the cop is never just protecting themselves, but anyone who might be in vicinity.
Basically, it comes down to whether he raised the gun in a manner indicating he was about to use it. If so, then the officer should have fired. And the only alternative of him raising the gun would be to raise his hands to surrender. That seems low probability in this situation, given the suspects words and actions up to that point.
The merits of the case hinge heavily upon this aspect of the incident:
[P]"Two additional officers arrived on the scene. Williams raised the gun.."
[/P]
If the deranged and armed suspect raising his gun made him an imminent lethal threat to the other officers or anyone else, then the officer should be required to shoot, unless their is another means to physically neutralize the suspect in the milliseconds available.
Suppose that, rather than other officers, it is the suspect's wife standing there. If the suspect raised his gun, the cop didn't shoot, and the suspect killed his wife, would we say the cop acted correctly? If not, then the cop may not have acted correctly in this situation either. Even if no one else was in sight, the threat of armed suspect is always to many other people. If the cop fails to shoot and gets shot himself, then the shooter goes back into his house and shoots his wife. With an armed suspect like that, the cop is never just protecting themselves, but anyone who might be in vicinity.
Basically, it comes down to whether he raised the gun in a manner indicating he was about to use it. If so, then the officer should have fired. And the only alternative of him raising the gun would be to raise his hands to surrender. That seems low probability in this situation, given the suspects words and actions up to that point.
Last edited:
You are the one making it a racial issue. I don't care what color she is. Rather, I care about:
1) She chose the engagement.
2) Even that didn't do it, she wouldn't have been charged if she didn't come after him again. You're afraid for your life being around someone and you then go after him a few days later??
- - - Updated - - -
The garage was not a place of safety. Marissa tried to escape by entering it through a door that led to it from the house and leaving it via another which led to the outside. The latter would not open. Her estranged husband - you know the one who said he'd kill her - confirmed that. The only place she could go to from the garage was back to where he was, so she took the gun out of her car and loosed a warning shot into the ceiling to discourage him from making good his threat. That lead to her being charged with aggravated assault - of a fucking ceiling.
And you still can't see the absurdity of it all.
You mean the absurdity of your "facts"?
1) If she was so afraid of him why did she go after him a few days later??
2) She didn't fire a shot into the ceiling. Rather, it entered the wall at about the height of his head.