I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect police, or anyone carrying a gun, not to shoot in a second of confusion and panic.
Not shooting while confused or uncertain of circumstances was one of the major gun safety lessons taught to me growing up in gun culture, because that’s how you end up accidentally shooting family members at night or other hunters instead of a deer. This was drilled into my head and no one I know ever shot in panic or without a very clear look at the target.
In my opinion there should have been safeguards in place preventing her from carrying a gun, whether this turns out to be an accidental or deliberate shooting.
Some of the comments posted in this thread suggest that there is confusion as to what is happening now that the matter is being investigated & prepared for presentation to a grand jury.
Essentially, the police officer is trying to paint a picture of reasonableness that the act of shooting a totally innocent man was a reasonable reaction under the circumstances as set out in her affidavit.
The attorney representing the deceased victim’s interests is sharing that the officer’s version of events is not only unreasonable but also untruthful. Additionally he is showing that the shooting was not accidental and may even have been premeditated.
@alh: Even the police officer is not foolish enough to suggest that she shot the innocent man “in a second of confusion and panic”. She wants us to believe that the shooting was reasonable for one who “reasonably” believed that she was encountering a burglar or intruder in her home.
But as her version of events deteriorates, it appears to be more of an intentional confrontation initiated by the officer who shot the innocent man in his own apartment out of anger over noise.
^Yeah, but if the attorney is Crump I wouldn’t pay any attention to what he says. If a police officer wanted to kill her neighbor, there are much better ways than this fiasco.
The officer’s affidavit (what I know of it) has the ring of truth to me. I’m not sure it paints her as particularly reasonable. A trained police officer firing at a shadowy figure, no allegation of self defense, no claim that the victim went for the weapon, etc. No doubt she’s tilted it in her favor where she could, but on these facts she’s going to jail imo.
Someone above did post an interesting speculation. Namely, that the officer went to the door in uniform to intimidate Jean about the noise. Could possibly be. But I would imagine then the shot came at the end of some sort of struggle. That would probably be a better scenario for the defense (claim self defense, “reasonable fear of imminent harm,” etc.).
Conspiracies and detailed criminal plans do exist. They do happen. But if I’m asked to decide between Hypothesis 1: the officer blundered into a situation, panicked and shot someone when she should have retreated or taken more care; and Hypothesis 2: the officer cunningly planned to murder her upstairs neighbor, got him to let her in to his apartment, shot him, and then promulgated her pre-planned alibi-- I’m going for Hypothesis 1.
For one thing, if she’s so cunning, how come she came up with an alibi that is likely to land her in prison? She didn’t even plant a gun or knife in the room, for heaven’s sake.
Because there are earwitnesses who contradict the officer’s sworn statements in her affidavit, and because presumably there are records memorializing the noise complaints made by the officer against the apartment above her apartment–including one made the day of the shooting according to the attorney interviewed on CNN–we don’t have to speculate to the extent of “conspiracies”.
Also, no one has alleged that the police officer is “so cunning”. The allegations suggest tired, stressed out & being untruthful to cover up the wrongful shooting done by an exhausted, angry individual.
In her attempt to make it appear reasonable, she may have inadvertently said some things that in fact made it less reasonable. She may have gone to his apartment without the intent to do harm, but something went wrong. I would be more inclined to call is a bad mistake if she were to admit from the beginning that she had gone there on purpose. But it appears she made up a cover story, with holes in it. Unfortunately no matter how this plays out, it is likely to erode the relationship between the Dallas PD and at least a portion of the community they serve.
I have a relative that is a highly decorated retired LEO and an expert marksman. We disagree on a lot, but there is ZERO percent chance he would be in this position. He has been in incredibly scary situations, and never pulled the trigger accidentally. I would bet my life on it.
Ya know what they call the police cadet that graduates last in the police academy class; Officer!
Training matters. The right type of training placed onto the right type of constitution matters. Whether the training in this situation was adequate and whether that training was placed onto the right type of constitution is clearly a subject for review.
Even the best training placed onto the best ‘platform’ can result in less than desired and optimal outcomes if that ‘platform’ is temporarily less than optimal.
We are humans, and at least so far no AI or other attempts have been able to simulate all responses in all situations.
I feel blessed not to have anyone in my immediate circle in law enforcement. I simply do not have a stable enough ‘platform’ to handle that type of uncertainty and stress.
Did she truly inadvertently park on the wrong level which put her on the path to the wrong apartment?
Or, did she park on the correct level, hear noise again coming from his apartment, and then proceed to his apartment to confront him after leaving her own?
The history of noice complaints plus the supposed story of the door being slightly ajar, but then she put her key in, while not noticing she was standing on a red doormat have me thinking it was option 2.
I don’t think we can really cobble together an accurate sequence of events, much less any real motivations, from the bits and pieces being put out there by people and entities with their own agenda. Hopefully the true story will emerge, but it isn’t likely to happen quickly.
Meaning such things as fatigue which can worsen mental and physical ability and make some people hot tempered?
Police departments may want to consider their schedule rules and incentives with respect to minimizing officer fatigue, in order to get better quality policing out of their officers.
“In all situations, it is a question of who should get the benefit of the doubt. If a police officer is acting lawfully (as they were in my case because my beat-up black 1981 Malibu matched the description of a car used in a very violent felony that had just occurred nearby), the benefit of the doubt goes to the officer. If I had been shot, it would have been tragic for me, but as a policy matter society should probably err on the side of the cops.”
But that policy has NO appliabilty to an off duty cop dealing with an issue of their own. We have that policy so police can do their job. Off the job with their own issue… no such public policy concern.
I could see noise being a problem. He worked day hours and she was coming in late in the evening. His morning routine could disturbed her, hence the complaint that same day. I really doubt she went to the wrong apartment with that red rug at the door.
“I could see noise being a problem. He worked day hours and she was coming in late in the evening. His morning routine could disturbed her, hence the complaint that same day”
But she had just worked a 15 hour shift which would mean she woukd have been up very early to be home by 10 pm. Do we know for sure that she lived alone?
I do think it is reasonable for us to discuss whether or not her actions seem reasonable. If this case goes before jury, she will be judged by normal citizens who have regular jobs and sit in their homes and sip sweet tea, etc. And because she is a public servant who was in uniform when she killed an innocent citizen in his own home, I feel we have a duty to watch the handling of this case closely.