Texas police officer fatally shoots woman in her home after welfare check

[dubious_doomhammer]

Why are police saying they found a firearm in the house? It's Texas, right? Big proponents of the 2nd amendment? Are they implying that, since the owner of the house had a firearm ... in Texas, that the shooting was somehow justified?

I don't think I'll ever understand the desire to own guns ... they cause more grief, heartache, trouble and fear than they're worth. Police can't even check to see if someone is alright without being scared for their lives ... and then there's police training, or lack thereof, or lack of any consequences that allow them to immediately shoot without any regard or concern.

[ohtlmtlm]

Why are police saying they found a firearm in the house? It's Texas, right? Big proponents of the 2nd amendment? Are they implying that, since the owner of the house had a firearm ... in Texas, that the shooting was somehow justified?

I don't think I'll ever understand the desire to own guns ... they cause more grief, heartache, trouble and fear than they're worth. Police can't even check to see if someone is alright without being scared for their lives ... and then there's police training, or lack thereof, or lack of any consequences that allow them to immediately shoot without any regard or concern.

ya... but she's a minority. Minorities owning firearms is different than "law abiding" (white citizens) owning them. /sar

[Ashnazg]

That's literally their job.

Protecting the public is definitely not the police's job. Its even been ruled so by the court system:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...o-protect.html

Police is there to investigate crimes and apprehend criminals. Pro-active protection of the citizenry is not, strictly speaking, a part of their job description.

[Endus]

Their motto is not their job. If you believe that is their job in the USA, you're mistaken about what function the police serve here.

Protecting the public is definitely not the police's job. Its even been ruled so by the court system:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...o-protect.html

Police is there to investigate crimes and apprehend criminals. Pro-active protection of the citizenry is not, strictly speaking, a part of their job description.

Again, if protecting the public isn't the police's job, then the police are the enemy of the people; an armed official group sanctioned to use violence against the public for the benefit of those in power.

As for the last bit, Ahnazg; their investigation of crimes and apprehension of criminals is part of that duty of protecting the public. That's why they do so.

What this creates is a system where the public is guaranteed the right to arm themselves for their own defense (2nd Amendment), and the most likely target of that self-defense will be overly-aggressive officers like this.

Because frankly, this woman should've shot this officer, from what we see in this bodycam footage. That would've been the better outcome, here. She should've shot him, and then sued the officer and his department for posing this kind of threat to her. Not because I want police officers to get shot, but the conduct you're championing here puts the police in the position of the armed threat to the public, and that warrants shooting them in self-defense, when you see them on your property. Because if you don't, as you see here, they might kill you. These kinds of incidents mean you have reasonable grounds to fear that your life is at risk.

Want to change that? Every cop like this needs to face a trial, at court, and the courts must demand that they establish the shooting was legitimate. They do not get any presumption of innocence; that they committed a homicide is on the record. Any claim that said homicide was justifiable must be made positively; it cannot be assumed. If your body cam was turned off/malfunctioning, it can't provide exculpatory evidence, and that works against you. Etc.

Unless the State holds their enforcers accountable, the public are justifiable in considering those officers their enemies, and a threat to their wellbeing. Which is shit, and why I argue that this needs to change so strongly. Because I'm not anti-cop, I'm anti-this-bullshit, where cops are made to be the enemies of the people, not their protectors.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are police saying they found a firearm in the house? It's Texas, right? Big proponents of the 2nd amendment? Are they implying that, since the owner of the house had a firearm ... in Texas, that the shooting was somehow justified?

I don't think I'll ever understand the desire to own guns ... they cause more grief, heartache, trouble and fear than they're worth. Police can't even check to see if someone is alright without being scared for their lives ... and then there's police training, or lack thereof, or lack of any consequences that allow them to immediately shoot without any regard or concern.

Frankly, Texas has Castle Doctrine on the books.

Not only would she have been entitled to arm herself if she thought there were people creeping around her backyard with flashlights (they were sneaking and whispering; we have no indication they announced themselves as police), she would have been entitled to shoot them both dead, and it would have been a justifiable homicide, under Texan law, per Castle Doctrine.

You can't give citizens the right to bear arms, and then give the police the right to shoot armed citizens. That means they don't have that right.

[dubious_doomhammer]

ya... but she's a minority. Minorities owning firearms is different than "law abiding" (white citizens) owning them. /sar

I realize that, unfortunately, race is probably a factor ... I just don't understand how the cop could have known whether the person inside was white, black, or anything in between with how fast he shot.

To swing it like she was armed and they feared for their safety.... gun was probably in a dresser 2 rooms away.

Isn't that why castle doctrine exists? She was allowed to be armed and use a gun for her own safety, in her own house?

[Piglord]

"To serve and protect" is literally their motto.

First off, what this cop did was obviously wrong. I'm pretty pro-police (ex-cop), however I have no issue when pointing out when someone severally fucks up.

However, the reason I quoted you is "To protect and serve" is the motto for the LAPD and a few other agencies that adopted it. Not all law enforcement.

[muto]

Hopefully this cop is also trialed and goes to prison just like the recent one in the news. They need to be held more accountable for their careless actions.

Lol she got off with a slap on the wrist. 5 years with good behavior. Cops need to be held more accountable and punished more severely when they fuck up, so they can stop being trigger happy, and flipping coins to decide if someone should get arrested.

[Orbitus]

So officer sneaks around the house, sees someone, doesn't say he's police, gives them an order, and immediately shoots?

Sounds like a god damn retard. How he made it through training/education as a cop is a mystery and points to a lack of decent training for police

Apparently the officer was only on the force for 18 months. Sounds like very untrained. Especially since they only go to the academy for like 21 weeks, less than 6 months.

- - - Updated - - -

ya... but she's a minority. Minorities owning firearms is different than "law abiding" (white citizens) owning them. /sar

You may be saying sarcasm, but white racist people flip shit if they see minorities open carrying, but if a white guy does it, no one bats an eyelash.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

First off, what this cop did was obviously wrong. I'm pretty pro-police (ex-cop), however I have no issue when pointing out when someone severally fucks up.

However, the reason I quoted you is "To protect and serve" is the motto for the LAPD and a few other agencies that adopted it. Not all law enforcement.

It's pretty commonly used in many police departments...in some form or another. "To protect and serve" is how the LAPD phrases it. In Canada, we mostly see it written as "serve and protect". You can see it on the RCMP website:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/member-conduct

Public trust is essential for the RCMP to effectively serve and protect Canadians. As a result, RCMP employees must conduct themselves in a manner that not only meets, but exceeds, the rightfully high expectations of Canadians.

So, maybe it's different for you...but that's what I expect from Police.

Also, the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) Code of conduct:

https://www.theiacp.org/resources/la...code-of-ethics

As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; 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 to liberty, equality, and justice.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

It's pretty commonly used in many police departments...in some form or another. "To protect and serve" is how the LAPD phrases it. In Canada, we mostly see it written as "serve and protect". You can see it on the RCMP website:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/member-conduct


So, maybe it's different for you...but that's what I expect from Police.

It is what we should expect and demand from our police too, but unfortunately that doesn't match the reality of police in the US at the moment. I'm doubtful we'll even see charges brought against this officer.

[Ghostpanther]

Their motto is not their job. If you believe that is their job in the USA, you're mistaken about what function the police serve here.

This is true from a legal position, as the Supreme Court has already ruled the police have no legal obligation to protect the citizens. Their job is to enforce the law. Best to protect yourself until the police can arrive.

[ipaq]

Because racists killing minorities need more than 1 threads... or 2 threads...

why do we need 2 threads for this

[TEHPALLYTANK]

This is true from a legal position, as the Supreme Court has already ruled the police have no legal obligation to protect the citizens. Their job is to enforce the law. Best to protect yourself until the police can arrive.

Or, as was demonstrated in this case, be prepared to protect yourself from the police.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It is what we should expect and demand from our police too, but unfortunately that doesn't match the reality of police in the US at the moment. I'm doubtful we'll even see charges brought against this officer.

Again, everything I have said is about what should be and not what is.

[Ghostpanther]

Or, as was demonstrated in this case, be prepared to protect yourself from the police.

I am not worried about that. Depends on where you live.

[dubious_doomhammer]

I am not worried about that. Depends on where you live.

Or on the color of your skin.

[Lynarii]

I am not worried about that. Depends on where you live.

It shouldn't though. Nobody should be killed by the police just because they live in the wrong area.

[Ghostpanther]

It shouldn't though. Nobody should be killed by the police just because they live in the wrong area.

I totally agree. But that does not change what I meant. It matters.

[united]

Another police brutality post, another round of the same predictable people justifying the executions that happen. Disgusting.

[Ghostpanther]

Another police brutality post, another round of the same predictable people justifying the executions that happen. Disgusting.

I do not think anyone in this thread has justified it. Who has?