gigag04 wrote:The first articles I had followed made not mention of the status of the officer, so I missed that.
Still puzzled by the alarmed response. I would fully expect to turn over the weapon used in defense to the investigating agency.
Just because a person hasn't yet been charged, doesn't mean investigators are reviewing the case and meeting with prosecutors. I don't know the specifics of this case, but that is the nature of investigations. The weapon is a big fat piece of evidence.
I hope both parties end up fine and learned some things along the way.
Its expected that when folks comment on threads such as this that they acutally read the referenced link so that all parties are on the same page for the discussion.
If you aren't going to read the discussion information, how can we talk about this with some intelligence?
If you have alternate sources, post them so that we can all benefit and absorb the same data.
Again, it puts us all at the same place for discussion.
As noted in the article; "Police Sgt. Joe Heffernan said Ms. Huddleston will not be charged with the shooting because "I don't think it meets all the culpability standards for felonious assault on a police officer."
Its unlikely that Sgt. Heffernan would say "will not be charged" unless he's been in contact with decision-makers who back that statement. When an officer is shot at in other circumstances, its a done deal on an arrest. So I tend to think his statement is based on verbiage approved by higher-ups. Usually you get something on the order of "will be referred for consideration of charges" or "will be sent to a Grand Jury", etc.
Now, can things change? Sure, but again, we're specifically commenting on the article as posted at this time.
I, too, hope both parties are fine. Ms. Hudleston should not experience any guilt or regret over her actions.
Officer Pepitone has a superficial wound and was back at work within a day or so.
I also hope the officer takes a hard look at what he was attempting to do and sees the danger his actions provoked.
In the context of the article, a prowler is reported to police. Officer investigates and finds nothing.
Then attempts to break into the home that reported the prowler...really?
That wouldn't be my first plan of action and I'm not a police officer.
It didn't occur to him that the homeowner might think the reported prowler was trying to gain entry?
To break into her home (to contact her?) was a poorly thought out decision.
He's lucky he's not dead.
His actions provoked the shooting; which which could be why Ms. Huddleston will not be charged (at this time).
There were other less dangerous and more common methods apparently available to him to contact the homeowner. The article notes Ms. Huddleston was the one who contacted 911, so a phone call to her would make a lot more sense before he chose to force entry into her home. He might want to take some time to fine tune his approach in future similar events - that's what I hope he's learned.
And I hope they return her property in short order. I don't think the "evidence" tangent is going to work this time.
She's the only one at home and she shot at the officer trying to break into her home. What additional evidence are they looking for?
Now if they want to charge the police officer with some administrative action due to his poor decision, do they really need the weapon for that to occur?
LabRat
This is not legal advice.
People should be able to perform many functions; for others and for themselves. Specialization is for insects. — Robert Heinlein (Severe paraphrase)
