police chief shoots unarmed man and gets off

[SIXTO]

This one's real simple. The case was presented to the Grand Jury by a prosecutor who seemed to feel the use of force was questionable (I take that to mean he wanted an indictment). The Grand Jury, comprised of Citizens decided that there was insufficent cause to believe that the Chiefs actions constituted a criminal act. In other words it's a good shoot.

What more would a reasonable person want?

The only thing I want to note is that just because it is brought to a grand jury doesn't mean it was questionable. It certainly could be questionable, or it could just be a CYA political move.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[mcp1810]

The only thing I want to note is that just because it is brought to a grand jury doesn't mean it was questionable. It certainly could be questionable, or it could just be a CYA political move.

Here in Texas you shoot someone it goes to the grand jury. Unless you happen to die first. The grand jury no bills you, and that shows that under the law your actions were justified and therefore you are civilly immune. No grand jury and civil immunity is questionable.

[SIXTO]

Here in Texas you shoot someone it goes to the grand jury. Unless you happen to die first. The grand jury no bills you, and that shows that under the law your actions were justified and therefore you are civilly immune. No grand jury and civil immunity is questionable.

Yeah, that is the way it works here too.. but the prosecutors office could skip going to the GJ if they were absolutely confident its was a good shoot. None that I know would stick their necks out like that though.

[DocPMD]

Interesting thread. In Colorado there is definitely a distinction between the permissible actions of a LEO and non-LEO. I'm just thinking about it from my own perspective if I were in that situation instead of the Chief. Here is the applicable section from the Colorado code:

1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force
upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use
or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he
reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is
inadequate and:
a) The actor has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent
danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a
dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-
4-202 to 184-204; or
c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-
3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 184-301 or 184-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-
402 or 18-3-403, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203.

Based upon this, the non-LEO would have a hard time justifying the use of deadly force. The guy was unarmed. The standard is different for a LEO in Colorado.

Now comes my opinion. Regardless of what the statutes might say about the use of deadly force by a LEO, as far as I'm concerned anyone who decides to attack a LEO in any way deserves to be shot. There was a day when LEO was respected. I wish we could have those days back.

Doc

[Goldstar225]

The only thing I want to note is that just because it is brought to a grand jury doesn't mean it was questionable. It certainly could be questionable, or it could just be a CYA political move.

Please don't misunderstand me and I apoligize if I was unclear. My remark was targeted at those who complained about the officer getting a "walk" on the shooting. The case was presented to the Grand Jury who found no cause to issue an indictment. Despite this, some are pre-disposed to declared him guilty of "something".

[suntzu]

OK, before people dump on me I want to say I am glad the officer is OK. I know nothing except what was in the article. And I am not disputing what the officer said happened. In the article, the only statements about what happened were from the officer. There was no mention of any statements by witnesses to support or contradict the officers version of what happened. If this situation happened to a civilian that shot the guy then you know there would be a lot of scrutiny. The DA brought it to the Grand Jury because? I did not read where it said the DA had a vendetta or anything against the officer. The SBIi was called in to investigate, and the district attorney says he had concerns about the officer firing on an unarmed man. He took it to the Grand Jury and it is over.
The officer stated "I think the system could have done a better job of standing up for me on that level." referring to the DA. I did not know that the DA or the "system" was supposed to stand up for anybody including the police chief. His job or the "system" is to be non-biased and to find out the truth an see if charges should be brought to trial. No mention of the DA still going after him. I just find it strange just because he is a LEO that people assume he was justified...I am not saying he was not.
OK, fire away.

[theskunk]

There is more to the story. A DA doesn't go after a cop for no reason.

[Bullet1234]

William Scott Osbun.(BG) provoked the incident ,,,,, so to bad; to sad, he will
know better next time,,,,

"Chief Waters says he was pinned in between the door jam and then fired at the man".
A car door can be a very deadly weapon.

[Hoganbeg]

Well, I think there is damn little information to go on. The article doesn't say he was pinned by the car door it says only that he was pinned "between" the door jamb. The perp could have been pinning him with his body. It does not say the perp was holding the car door against the sheriff's legs from the hood of the car. I don't see how that could work anyway-not enough leverage from that position.

It certainly can sound questionable on the face of it but I wasn't there and the questions aren't answered by the article. I'm not too surprised that it went to the grand Jury. It sounds like they did give it due diligence and decided it was a good shoot. I see no reason to question that judgement. I do think the Sheriff needs to understand that he is not due preferential treatment under the law. Neither can I muster any tears for the idiot running around in his shorts attacking LEOs. I'd say the story has a happy ending so far!

[NYCrulesU]

No Michael, The whole point is..........In nc a police officer has more leeway simply because he is a police officer.. I look at it more like, A police officer should be held to higher standards since he has a use of force contium and weapons such as. verbal commands, Soft hand technique, hard control techniques, pepper spray, tazer, baton and ultimatly a side arm.
Where as a normal citizen has maybe his cwp.
This is a reaction that a normal citizen would have made, not a police chief.
The guy screwed up and every one is blaming the 20 yr old drunk kid in his under wear.
This cop knew better and should be held accountable for his actions

Well said.

[oneeyedwilly]

There is more to the story. A DA doesn't go after a cop for no reason.

The DA did not "go after" the cop... he did his job. A homicide has to be looked into.

Well said.

Well said? That was almost incoherent garble that really made not much sense at all.