[moderator mode off]
USP45 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The first is, why didn't the police officer demand that the guy drop the gun before he started to fire?[/quote]
and
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It also surprises me that the officer's actually went into the home and were going "to the back". Most officers will stay at the door and wait for the owner or host to come to them. For two officers to be "surrounded" by so many people (most were prob. drunk or drinking) seems alittle strange.
I'm not a police officer but it seems as if more and more people (LEO's) are becoming trigger happy while many People are just getting plain stupid.[/quote]
To the first, 2 answers: <UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>The actor was behind a window or glass door. A simple command would have slowed him down with little likelyhood of being effective.
<LI>A gun pointed at you represents an imminent threat to your life. Is it your assertion that if it had been a REAL gun, and the cop had fired, he would have done so wrongly, because he didn't give the guy a chance to put it down? If so, HOW, exactly, does one tell the REAL guns from the movie-prop-worthy fakes?
</UL>
To the second, one of the goals of an officer is to take care of a call quickly. This is NOT guarenteed by standing at the door picking your nose while someone up front may [or may not] go around to find the host. Half the time, at a noisy party of that size, the guy who gets to the door first doesn't even KNOW the host. Wouldn't know what he looked like. Easier for the officers (esp. when there are TWO) to simply walk around to the back. Tamara makes a good point on that. It's what I'd likely do.
Emphasis added is mine. There are actually far fewer shootings per officer on the street than there used to be. Thankfully, the ratio of officers killed in the line of duty has also dropped like a stone since 1971. Since about 1993, most deaths of officers in the line of duty are by non-assault-related incidents. (i.e., car accidents)
But you're taught a couple of things in the Academy:<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Whatever happens, make sure YOU go home at the end of your shift, and
<LI>A man pointing a gun at you is bought and paid for. </UL>
JBTexas,
You don't need a warrant to enter a household where there's an ongoing crime, or when you've been invited in. They didn't, point in fact, actually ENTER the house at all before the shooting; they were "directed around to the back." They were answering a noise complaint. They had reason to speak to the owner of the house.
Coronach--
Beautifully put. You have a superb grasp of the issue. It
SUCKS for everyone involved. I too really feel for that cop, who had to kill a man who was not a criminal, but who made a tragic, foolish mistake. The cop had a choice, sure. He could have cringed, danced behind cover, and screamed at the guy. He could have done nothing. Or he could have taken the action seemed the best bet that he would get home that night. If he simply agreed to not shoot anyone who pointed what absolutely appeared to be a gun at him until further investigation, he would be pretty worthless as an officer of the law.
,
L.P.
This has been just the perspective of
this one small-town cop, and does not necesarily reflect the thoughts and beliefs of TFL or its Staff.
[/moderator mode off]