If this is correct, we are in very big trouble.. Cop "murders" active shooter. - Page 3

If this is correct, we are in very big trouble.. Cop "murders" active shooter.

This is a discussion on If this is correct, we are in very big trouble.. Cop "murders" active shooter. within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by gnius Is this the same cop from the video from a few months ago who was driving around indiscriminately firing through his ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 38 of 38
Like Tree64Likes

Thread: If this is correct, we are in very big trouble.. Cop "murders" active shooter.

  1. #31
    Member Array giz5792's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Virginia,MN
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by gnius View Post
    Is this the same cop from the video from a few months ago who was driving around indiscriminately firing through his own windshield during a chase?
    I think they were from Ohio, but don't quote me on that.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSKnight View Post
    I have not researched the legal issues involved, but someone put forth an interesting theory at coffee today.
    What if by charging and quitting him, the chance of civil suits are legally blocked?

    While I have no legal knowledge, It does seem possible.
    There have been more than one legally justified SD shootings where the victim has been sued in civil court and lost. Even those who win have paid out legal fees etc.

    Anyone with a little more knowledge care to chime in?
    Do the initials "O.J." ring a bell?
    OJ was acquitted of the criminal charges and then succesfully sued by the Goldman family for wrongful death. Of course, OK law in this regard may be different. But, criminally charging someone for the purpose of 'potentially' shielding them from a civil suit would be prosecutrial misconduct in my opinion. Using probably $100K+ in taxpayer funds to protect someone from a civil (i.e. private) matter is misuse of taxpayer dollars.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Remember: being acquitted does not mean "innocent," only not proven guilty.
    Actually it does. You are innocent until proven guilty. Ergo, if you are not found guilty, you are still innocent. However, I know what you are saying. Just because they didn't find you guilty doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime (but, you are still "innocent" in the eyes of the law).

    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    I also reviewed the OK law on this and it seems to me to be a real stretch for him to have this charge. That all doesn't shed much light, it's just interesting. So as others have speculated, there may be more here than meets the eye.
    The elements for 2nd degree murder in OK are:
    1 the death of a human;
    2 caused by conduct which was imminently dangerous to another person(s);
    3 the conduct was that of the defendant(s);
    4 the conduct evidenced a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life;
    5 the conduct is not done with the intention of taking the life of any particular individual.
    The only condition that would be in question is #4. The "depraved mind" condition requires
    A person evidences a “depraved mind” when he engages in imminently dangerous conduct with contemptuous and reckless disregard of, and in total indifference to, the life and safety of another. Reckless disregard of the safety of others is the omission to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the performance of an act usually and ordinarily exercised by a person under similar circumstances and conditions. OUJI-CR 4-107
    Not having seen any video or specific details about the incident it's hard to say if that condition was met. Was she a threat at the time he was shooting at her? Here is a conundrum. Let's say she did previously shoot at the police during the chase (and lethal force was warranted). After she stopped shooting at them at what point should they hold their fire? If she is being pursued and being shot at, there is no opportunity for her to give herself up. Perhaps the "disregard for human life" is being applied because he put others at risk while recklessly trying to shoot while driving (with a rifle no less). In any case, the DA believes the facts of the case warrant the charge and a grand jury decided to indict. He'll have his day in court.

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,931
    @Psycho41 : There is also this in OK Law.

    A. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

    1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is;

    2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person or of another, when the person using force reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to terminate or prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or

    3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

    B. As used in this section, "forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.

    R.L. 1910, § 2334. Amended by Laws 2014, c. 391, § 1, emerg. eff. June 3, 2014.

    This would seem to justify the officer's actions, regardless of the second degree murder statute.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Member Array Workaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    320
    I hope they acquit him. According to what I read, he was doing what was needed. If he had tried to get her to spin out, and successfully did so, more officer lives might have been endangered trying to get her put of the vehicle. The articles don't say whether he had tried to get her to spin out (Pittman Maneuver?), or not. The big thing is from what little info there is, it sounds like he was doing his job. I would expect, if he did something wrong, that there would be discipline involved. I'm assuming that he didn't do anything wrong, according to SOP, considering that the internal review cleared him. In an active shooter event, I would hope and expect an officer to do anything he/she could, to stop the shooter from continuing. I wouldn't care if it's 1 round fired or 1000. As if my comments so far aren't a gimme, I am a huge supporter of LE. I know there are a few bad ones out there. But I am a firm believer that the good ones out number the bad ones by a huge margin.
    1987-1991 Army Guard/Regular Army
    1996-2014 Navy- Retired

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    @Psycho41 : There is also this in OK Law.

    A. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

    1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is;

    2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person or of another, when the person using force reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to terminate or prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or

    3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

    B. As used in this section, "forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.

    R.L. 1910, § 2334. Amended by Laws 2014, c. 391, § 1, emerg. eff. June 3, 2014.

    This would seem to justify the officer's actions, regardless of the second degree murder statute.
    Whether it justifies the officers action is for a jury to decide. The DA and the grand jury would seem to think otherwise. A jury will determine whether:

    1) It was reasonable for someone to think that lethal force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm at the time he was firing during a pursuit. If the officer was firing in response to active hostile acts by the woman, sure. If she had ceased firing well before and was continuing to elude because there was someone shooting at her, that's debatable. As I stated previously, there appeaser there was cause to initially fire upon the woman. But, if she stopped firing after the officers and was continuing to drive away because one was continuing to fire at her, it would seem she had no option at that point to give up. It's certainly a sticky situation. The DAs position may be that the "forcible felony" was already terminated, and it was not reasonable to think she was going to commit a new forcible felony.
    2) It was conducted in a "lawful way and means". Personally, I would consider someone firing a rifle while driving a vehicle to be a reckless act. But, that's my opinion.

    In any case, he gets to have his day in court just like any other citizen. The DA whose job it is to prosecute crimes, believes a crime has been committed. He has a sworn duty to act upon that.

  7. #36
    Member Array Stoner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    I heard the woman who got shot used to be a Starbucks barista there in Oklahoma. (Joke)
    That was a good one!

  8. #37
    Distinguished Member Array Double Naught Spy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,242
    Well, after reading numerous accounts, all saying similar things and exceptionally lacking in details, ostensibly details the grand jury were privy to, I would be willing to guess that at the time of that the suspect was killed, that she was no longer an active shooter, and or posed no apparent threat, for example, if the suspect surrendered. Otherwise, it does seem ridiculous.

    If the shooting went anything like this, I can see where there might be some questions. OK gots were getting out of their vehicles and running forward to get a chance to shoot at this guy.
    Considering yourself to be defenseless is the first administrative step to becoming a victim.

  9. #38
    Senior Member
    Array SmoothJazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    867
    The only thing that comes to mind is if the officer and this woman had a connection.
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. ~Thomas Jefferson

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •