TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:49 pm

Ruark wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:39 pm Watch the cross - notice the DA's approach, and again, something to keep in mind if you're ever on trial for shooting somebody. He kept repeating "you COULD have..." You COULD have taken cover, and she answered "I could have." You COULD have called for backup... and so on. So he paints a picture of all these things she COULD have done, but didn't, and as a result, an innocent man is dead, etc. etc.

If I am ever on trial for shooting somebody, it will be self defense and it sure won't be me shooting some guy in his own home. The could haves you mentioned were not some kind of trick. The cop screwed up big time and could have done a dozen things to keep from killing an innocent man.

Not to mention those 'Could have's' were actually 'SHOULD HAVE'S' according to standing orders/policy of her department. This was brought out in the trial.

It is important to remember....that a unique situation exists here. She is LEO and as such (within her jurisdiction) she retains the power of arrest, use of force, etc 24/7...whether on duty or not. She doesn't get to decide under which authority (citizen/LEO) she would act. Although being 'off duty' might affect the outcome of 'civil' liabilities.

So...logic dictates IF she is entering a building to confront who she thinks is an intruder (by default..with all the Powers of her LEO status) then the policies/orders of her department follow too. She clearly did not think this through. Just reacted.

But lets put aside the 'legal' aspect of it for the moment and focus on the tactical/procedural errors she made. These would apply to ANYONE in the same situation.

1. Failed to identify the person (could just as easily been the apt. manager or maintenance worker).
2. Did not know if this person was alone or if there were multiples (no risk assessment).
3. Immediately entered and stayed in the 'fatal funnel' (doorway-hallway) instead of taking up a better position.
4. Didn't retreat and call for back-up when there was no immediate need to enter (no other persons living with her).

All of this (and more) demonstrates poor decision making skills...even IF not required to do so 'legally'.

I believe the jury handed down the right decision (Guilty) but disagree with the charge (Murder) and I would expect the courts to correct this upon appeal.

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:36 pm LaBRat she is not on duty. She is at her home (she thinks) and there is NO duty to retreat in Texas. She didn’t have to back out to cover and wait.

^^^^^^

I suppose the trouble I have with this revolves around her being LEO. Typically, LEO (in their jurisdiction) retain their police 'powers' 24/7. It matters not if they are on duty or not. They still have the power to arrest and use force, etc.

With that in mind...I would think off-duty LEO are also charged with following their departments policies and procedural orders. Though civil liabilities might be different.

In this case...her department had a specific standing 'order' in circumstances such as this one to retreat to a safe position (if possible) and call for back-up.

This was brought out in the trial. One of the unfortunate realities of being LEO is that in many circumstances, you are not allowed to 'choose' under which authority you will act (citizen or Law Enforcement Officer).

Scott B. wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:29 pm Few female officers are going to win a stand-up fight with a male 'suspect'. That may lead to a shoot first situations. Sentencing should be interesting.

Generally NO officer wants a 'stand up fight'' with a suspect....but in my opinion Her biggest mistake (there were several) was entering the apartment. She put herself in a position that required her to immediately go to the highest level (deadly force) of the Force Continuum that might have been available to her had she backed out, better assessed the situation and called for back-up.

There simply was no immediate need to go charging in. Had the victim actually been armed and intent on harming her....she could not have been in a worse spot (doorway, hallway, entry), except for being buckled in the seat of your patrol car.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Where did that Police Officer's Creed come from?

The first was posted on this forum some years ago by a forum member (then in Academy) stating it was read to them.

I have spoken with some of the LEO I know in the College Town I live next to and they confirm that various versions of 'Police Survival Creeds/Warrior Creeds' were presented to them while in Academy. No doubt as part of their training and in addendum to a more 'public service' creed...of which there are many variations.

Also, where did the other creed come from, and who uses that one?

The second was pointed out to me by an officer (retired now) that used to come into my place of employment (before I retired). We used to talk about different aspects of police work and he related certain 'changes' in the way things are done today compared to when he was on patrol. Some things...he liked...others he did not.



You can google Police Creeds, Survival Creeds, Warrior Creeds and read to your heart's content. WHO uses them (or others) is anyone's guess, training literature (beyond the basics) and the 'attitude' each Cadet leaves with...I am sure varies.

For certain...these are more dangerous times for LEO than in the past. The reasons for this are many, but I wish things could be more like they were when I was younger and there was still a 'connection' between LEO and the citizenry.

powerboatr wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:45 pm her apartment was not decorated like jean's, didn't she notice the room was different or smelled different? I would assume through police training, that attention to detail is a paramount skill used often.
thats what stuck me. How do you not know the room is different from your own?

^^^^^^
It is well documented that in periods of tremendous stress/fear that it is 'possible' to experience:

1. Tunnel vision.
2. Auditory Exclusion.
3. Tachypsychia.

So...failing to notice furnishings or other things (out of place) is not out of the realm of possibilities.

But the Officers grand mistake was failing to retreat, take up a more favorable position (she was smack dab in the Fatal Funnel IF the guy had been armed) and then call for back-up.

And let's face it, 'most' female LEO will be at a disadvantage when confronting the average grown male. It is a disparity of force (sans weapons) that they are all too aware of. As such....I believe they are more predisposed to draw their pistol (the equalizer) and be ready to shoot than might be warranted in many situations. And yes...I am well aware they go through the same training...yada, yada, yada.

But I've seen too many situations where a diminutive officer is challenged unless back-up arrives or they first come on (appropriate or not) like a pit bull. This can lead to a feeling of vulnerability which can lead to over reactions.

And to make matters worse today's LEO come out of Academy (many) having been exposed to something like this:

If today is to be THE DAY, so be it. If you seek to do battle with me this day you will receive the best that I am capable of giving.

It may not be enough, but it will be everything that I have to give and it will be impressive for I have constantly prepared myself for this day. I have trained, drilled, and rehearsed my actions so that I might have the best chance of defeating you.

I have kept myself in peak physical condition, schooled myself in the martial skills and have become proficient in the application of combat tactics. You may defeat me, but you will pay a severe price and will be lucky to escape with your life.

You may kill me, but I am willing to die if necessary. I do not fear Death, for I have been close enough to it on enough occasions that it no longer concerns me.

But I do fear the loss of my Honor and would rather die fighting than to have it said that I was without Courage.

So I WILL FIGHT YOU, no matter how insurmountable it may seem, and to the death if need be, in order that it may never be said of me that I was not a Warrior.

INSTEAD OF THIS:

Police Officer’s Creed

As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard
lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the ‐weak against
oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect
the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality, and justice.

I‐will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all, maintain courageous calm in
the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self‐restraint; and be constantly mindful
of the welfare of others.

Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official
life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my
department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in
my official capacity ‐will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the
performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or
friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless
prosecution of criminals, I‐will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without
fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never
accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public
trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly
strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself to my chosen
profession... law enforcement.