Houston man shot by police in group home

[nedrgr21]

I do have to wonder why the officer didn't pull the wheel chair away from the other officer instead of shooting the man. We don't know the layout of the area but if he could get the chair in the area I would think it could have been pulled out.

Brake applied? He was going into the situation knowing there was a violent, irrational person that couldn't be controlled by regular staff; why would he subject himself to such a person who he believed was also using a knife?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[nedrgr21]

The defenders of the Officers actions are stating what the EDP could have done. Well NEWS FLASH!!! you cant kill someone for what they could do!

Actually, yes you can.

... All officers are or should be familiar with the term, or at least the possibility of what we called "PSYCHO STRENGTH" where an EDP exhibits greater than normal human strength. As they should be aware that EDP's are often uneffected by less than lethal devices like tasers, and O/C.

All the more reason to think this was a good shoot.

[mlr1m]

Originally Posted by Secret Spuk
The defenders of the Officers actions are stating what the EDP could have done. Well NEWS FLASH!!! you cant kill someone for what they could do!

Actually, yes you can.

All the more reason to think this was a good shoot.

That does not make me feel very secure about any future encounters I might have with police.

Michael

[nedrgr21]

My point is no one, including LEO's, should have to wait for someone else to take first blood before resorting to lethal force.

[mlr1m]

My point is no one, including LEO's, should have to wait for someone else to take first blood before resorting to lethal force.

Agreed to a point. The fact that I am capable of killing anyone I come across should not make me fair game. It should not be all that is necessary for you to claim self defense. Id should take more than just knowing that I could kill you.

Michael

[Secret Spuk]

Actually, yes you can.

All the more reason to think this was a good shoot.

Perhaps if the defender was a non police civilian. But the Police have as much responsibility to and for the EDP as they have to anyone else. The police respond to EDP's mostly to protect that EDP, and abate what ever nusance, or danger they pose. Any police department that dont prepare for these situations is irresponsible (IMO).

I'd like to know a situation you think it would be justified to use deadly force on someone for what they could do.

[mcp1810]

When someone its shot while committing an armed robbery is it because they are taking the money or because of what they might do with their weapon? Isn't the basic premise of castle doctrine that you are justified in shooting the intruder because of what they might do?

[Harryball]

With only one arm and one leg, that would probably be a pretty interesting cuff position.

Yea, but he wouldnt be going anywhere.

[pscipio03]

Someone may have put it in already, but here are the first things that pop in my mind when reading the story:
1. It's CNN. They've been busted in the past leaving out pertinent info so that it makes the story juicier. Actually, all the major cable (and Big 3) networks have been guilt of this. It was, what, 3 weeks after the Rodney King incident that they finally released the other portions of him doing 90 in residential areas and the beginning part of the tape resisting the officers?
2. This is the second shooting this officer has had involving what he perceived was a knife. He wasn't able to save the other two individuals-- I'm thinking he wasn't willing to let it happen again. At the same time, it's still no excuse for not reading the issue better.
3. We know nothing about the deceased other than he has had aggressive issues in the past. Has he stabbed someone before? Has LEO been called out because he's threatened lives?
4. A pen, held closely to the body and partially hidden, can look a lot like a dinner knife with the black handle. It was felt tip pen, so I'm assuming a Sharpie. That cap (if on) could look like a knife handle to someone in a desperate moment.

In the end, nothing good came of this. Somewhere, some do-gooder is going to sue the police dept because of this. This young officer is done and even if he's cleared, he'll have to move halfway across the country to work a normal shift again without anyone giving him side glances. A mentally challenged man lost his life unnecessarily. It does bring into question the reason that someone so violent was kept in a place that is/was unprepared to handle someone of his nature...

[Secret Spuk]

When someone its shot while committing an armed robbery is it because they are taking the money or because of what they might do with their weapon? Isn't the basic premise of castle doctrine that you are justified in shooting the intruder because of what they might do?

OK... During an armed robbery the perpetrator has already communicated to you that he has intent to do you physical harm as a consiquence of not giving him your money. Armed robbery requires at least an implied threat of harm in order for it to be an armed robbery. In this case your not using deadly force against what he may do... Your defending yourself from what he's already told you or implied he's going to do.

I believe I said that you can not use deadly force against someone for what they could do. Not what they might do.

[mcp1810]

OK... During an armed robbery the perpetrator has already communicated to you that he has intent to do you physical harm as a consiquence of not giving him your money. Armed robbery requires at least an implied threat of harm in order for it to be an armed robbery. In this case your not using deadly force against what he may do... Your defending yourself from what he's already told you or implied he's going to do.

I believe I said that you can not use deadly force against someone for what they could do. Not what they might do.

Unless the EDP was armed with a firearm, or even an edged weapon... I cant see this as a legitimate shooting.

So are you saying the standard of reasonable belief does not apply to police officers? Or if it does are you saying that it was unreasonable for the officer to believe that the silver pointy thing in the deceased's hand, that he was brandishing in such a way that he was able to corner an able bodied, fully trained and equipped officer, was an edged weapon? If he is brandishing it in such a way that an able bodied, fully trained and fully equiped officer is retreating into a corner to avoid physical contact with him and that object is that subject merely implying he is going to harm that officer or has he gone beyond that? Looks to me like he is actually assaulting that officer.

In your time on the street if you were backed into a corner by someone brandishing something shiny silver and pointy, how much investigation would you want your partner to do before taking action? Would you want him/her to act on their belief that you have retreated from a deadly threat or would you want them to take a few minues and see if they could positively identify the object before acting?

[Secret Spuk]

So are you saying the standard of reasonable belief does not apply to police officers? Or if it does are you saying that it was unreasonable for the officer to believe that the silver pointy thing in the deceased's hand, that he was brandishing in such a way that he was able to corner an able bodied, fully trained and equipped officer, was an edged weapon? If he is brandishing it in such a way that an able bodied, fully trained and fully equiped officer is retreating into a corner to avoid physical contact with him and that object is that subject merely implying he is going to harm that officer or has he gone beyond that? Looks to me like he is actually assaulting that officer.

In your time on the street if you were backed into a corner by someone brandishing something shiny silver and pointy, how much investigation would you want your partner to do before taking action? Would you want him/her to act on their belief that you have retreated from a deadly threat or would you want them to take a few minues and see if they could positively identify the object before acting?

Without going into specifics... I dont think I, or any of the many partners I've had would get ourselves into a situation like this. Because someone has a shiney object in their hand, and is posturing with it dont justify using deadly force. Keeping in mind this guy had one arm, and one leg... and was comfined to a wheelchair. Even if he did have a knife... I cant see shooting him. I mean really... a parapalegic in a wheelchair?

I'm saying there are too many different ways to handle this kind of a situation without resorting to deadly force. OK here's a fast and easy rule I used. Deadly Force is never ever ever the answer... Except when it is... and then it's the ONLY option. IMO These Officers had other options, but failed to use them. The police dont kill people because they can.... they kill people when they must. When there is no other choice. I have, and would still risk injury to myself to avoid using deadly force against someone else. But I guess thats what seperates cops from everyone else.

Taking another persons life using violence is not cool, fun, interesting, heroic, or anything else positive. It's sickening, It's dangerous, Its horrifying,... and it smells awfull... It's not like on TV.

[Smitty901]

Case like this where the LEO shot a man in a wheel chair with a loaded pen. Really confuse me when I see cases like today.
AZ man running for LEO in stolen car he shoots at police ,what do they do let he keep going. Now if there ever was a case where LEO would be 110% justified in killing this guy, they don't do nothing but let he run. Why easy the camera was on.
Now we are lucky this time BG saved the police ,the tax payers and courts the trouble. He carried out his own sentence.

[mcp1810]

I think you might have some bad information here. You refer to him as being paralyzed. That was most definitely not the case. He was in a wheel chair because lost his other arm and leg to a train. Other than those missing parts he had no physical impairments at all.

Saying that you would never get into the situation is a non answer to the questions I asked.
Does the standard of reasonable belief apply to police officers or not?
If it does why is it unreasonable for that officer to believe that shiny object the other officer had backed himself into a corner to avoid was a deadly weapon?

[JayTee]

Without going into specifics... I dont think I, or any of the many partners I've had would get ourselves into a situation like this. Because someone has a shiney object in their hand, and is posturing with it dont justify using deadly force. Keeping in mind this guy had one arm, and one leg... and was comfined to a wheelchair. Even if he did have a knife... I cant see shooting him. I mean really... a parapalegic in a wheelchair?

I'm saying there are too many different ways to handle this kind of a situation without resorting to deadly force. OK here's a fast and easy rule I used. Deadly Force is never ever ever the answer... Except when it is... and then it's the ONLY option. IMO These Officers had other options, but failed to use them. The police dont kill people because they can.... they kill people when they must. When there is no other choice. I have, and would still risk injury to myself to avoid using deadly force against someone else. But I guess thats what seperates cops from everyone else.

Finally some common sense! Between this and the other current thread where the cops gunned down an 83 year old grandmother in her own backyard, I was really starting to lose some faith in our law enforcement officers.