Friend indicted

[DesertRat]

Here we go again. I have so much trouble getting my brain around this entire concept. I'm not making judgement in this incident. That has nothing to do with my point. My problem is, "The government" recruits a person to go do a task. They provide them with the rules and equipment to go forth and do that task. The government creates the scenario that results in the incident occurring. The person make a mistake doing that task. Tragedy is the result.(Again, details of this incident not my point) Now, that same "The government" says, you screwed up so we are going to charge you with a crime just like we would any other Joe Blow who sat around and drank a couple 40's and went out and did something that resulted in similar tragedy. How in the world can our society not have a problem with this scenario? :confused:

http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=7932479

And this one is even more ridiculous:

http://www.apbweb.com/news/court-rulings/indictments-could-be-huge-apb-feb-2008.html

[CopnaEire]

This seems to be a reoccuring theme through out police forces. it just doesn't seem to make sense. When I went through training, a number of situations were outlined to us and then the instructiors would never indicate if and when you shot some-one that it was a good choice or a bad choice. You would be told it was all about your preception and what you preceived as a threat. GO FIGURE!!! but like your friend if you make one bad choice then the witch hunt begins and the authorities are out for blood!!!!!

[t150vsuptpr]

Sorry 'bout your friend, not judging his case.

The government didn't recruit me, I came here looking for a job and accepted that I would have to study and train and play by rules and that I would be held accountable for my actions. In return, they have kept those paychecks regular and all benifits have remained, or even enhanced.

[PhilipCal]

Sorry 'bout your friend, not judging his case.

The government didn't recruit me, I came here looking for a job and accepted that I would have to study and train and play by rules and that I would be held accountable for my actions. In return, they have kept those paychecks regular and all benifits have remained, or even enhanced.

X-2. Past that, I really can't comment on your original post. Simply put, there are no specifics posted. That's not a criticism, merely an observation. I think I know what your point is, but I'm not 100% certain.

[PhilipCal]

Please let me amplify my original reply. I re-read the news reports. They really don't provide me with the information I would need to make an informed decision concerning the Officer's actions. My impression of the reports is that they are anything but favorable to the Officer, but as I said, I'd need considerably more information to make a fair decision concerning the matter.

[DesertRat]

That's my point. It's not his decision I'm concerned about. It's societies belief that when things go bad for a cop in the field we should be prosecuted as if we got off our sofa and went out and made a deliberate decision to do stupid things that ended in tragedy. We were doing our job. A job that requires us to make split second decisions in hopeless situations all day long and when we screw up, they think we should go to jail just like the people that make their living at doing bad things. Fire me, sue the heck out of the agency that employed me, but geez, don't put me in prison for making a mistake in a situation created by government policy. Forget our local shooting, read the second one. They are prosecuting a Chief for creating a climate where SWAT had to make a justified shoot. Cleared the shooter, prosecuted the Chief. Am I the only one that thinks this is messed up :mad:

[NORCOCOP]

Nope I am on board. I am tired of agencies blaming us for doing or jobs. I get blamed/berated for doing legal things in accordance with the policies and proceedures because I COULD have done it in a different way that "seemed" friendlier. I will keep doing what I need to to stay safe if that means I end up in another line of work at some point so be it.

[PhilipCal]

That's my point. It's not his decision I'm concerned about. It's societies belief that when things go bad for a cop in the field we should be prosecuted as if we got off our sofa and went out and made a deliberate decision to do stupid things that ended in tragedy. We were doing our job. A job that requires us to make split second decisions in hopeless situations all day long and when we screw up, they think we should go to jail just like the people that make their living at doing bad things. Fire me, sue the heck out of the agency that employed me, but geez, don't put me in prison for making a mistake in a situation created by government policy. Forget our local shooting, read the second one. They are prosecuting a Chief for creating a climate where SWAT had to make a justified shoot. Cleared the shooter, prosecuted the Chief. Am I the only one that thinks this is messed up :mad:

Okay, took me awhile. I see your point. Sorry I didn't get it first time around. Easy for me to say, because I'm retired now, but there's no way the public, the liberal media, or the professional Monday Morning quarterbacks, are ever going to see things in the proper light. When no load, no guts, promotable pretty boys, posing as cops, don't back thier guys, that makes it even worse.

[DAL]

This seems to be a reoccuring theme through out police forces. it just doesn't seem to make sense. When I went through training, a number of situations were outlined to us and then the instructiors would never indicate if and when you shot some-one that it was a good choice or a bad choice. You would be told it was all about your preception and what you preceived as a threat.

I find that very surprising. Under common law (a tradition that may or may not be followed in Ireland), a person (including a law-enforcement officer) may use deadly force only if he reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of great bodily harm (this is simplified). The reasonableness standard means that the officer's subjective perceptions and beliefs are not controlling. If a reasonable person would not believe that he was in immediate danger of great bodily harm, then the officer is not entitled to use deadly force. However, an unreasonable belief on the part of the officer will reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter. That may be the theory underlying the Louisiana charges.

[DAL]

Sorry, browser problem cause duplicate posting.

[GGG]

Please let me amplify my original reply. I re-read the news reports. They really don't provide me with the information I would need to make an informed decision concerning the Officer's actions. My impression of the reports is that they are anything but favorable to the Officer, but as I said, I'd need considerably more information to make a fair decision concerning the matter.


If you read the PC statement for the warrant, it seems pretty clear.
http://files.kfvs.com/news/Steven_Julian_charges.PDF

The second case is simply Cali lunancy. :rolleyes:

[GGG]

but geez, don't put me in prison for making a mistake in a situation created by government policy.


I am confused? What government policy led to the first incident? The policy of arresting people who have warrants? We arrest people who make mistakes. If it is a fatal mistake, then it is manslaughter. Why should we be held to a lower standard than the public? In your local shooting, the guy (your friend I guess) shot a man in the back. Based on what I read, he screwed up and someone lost their life. There was no whacky govt' policy that placed him in a screwed up situation where he was forced to make do the best he could.