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 ...
December 2nd, 2019 10:06 AM
I think they were from Ohio, but don't quote me on that.
Originally Posted by gnius
December 2nd, 2019 10:34 AM
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.
Originally Posted by robbnj
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).
Originally Posted by OldVet
The elements for 2nd degree murder in OK are:
Originally Posted by jmf552
The only condition that would be in question is #4. The "depraved mind" condition requires
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.
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.
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
December 2nd, 2019 11:59 AM
: 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
December 2nd, 2019 12:10 PM
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
December 2nd, 2019 01:45 PM
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:
Originally Posted by jmf552
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.
December 6th, 2019 11:05 AM
That was a good one!
Originally Posted by wmhawth
December 6th, 2019 03:03 PM
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.
December 6th, 2019 06:26 PM
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