Castle Doctrine, Someone Else's Castle

[MTT TL]

The impression I got out of it was that when presented with deadly threats the officer should first consider going "Lone Ranger" and shooting the gun out of the threat's hand.

Definitely no one is going to approve the use of shooting a suspect in the leg to stop them from running away or whatever.

There is no telling though. That group is so nutty as is. They riot over the police shooting armed robbers engaged in an active gun battle with the police.

 

[USNRet93]

Jury agreed. Guilty of murder.

Sentence-10 years

 

[Don P]

As Massad Ayoob states and teaches/instructs in his MAG classes, the castle doctrine, stand your ground DOES NOT turn your home into an execution chamber because someone has entered it

 

[rickyrick]

Couple of things. I’ve lived in apartment complexes where every floor was identical and quite often people would come in or attempt to come in my apartment because they thought it was theirs. Easy mistake to make. I find it difficult not to recognize different furnishings though.

I read an article on Facebook out of a Portland news station yesterday on this case and the article stated that the guilty verdict came from the fact this was a racially motivated shooting and the officer had admitted to being a racist in court. I read a CNN article today and racism wasn’t mentioned at all.

 

[44 AMP]

.. the article stated that the guilty verdict came from the fact this was a racially motivated shooting and the officer had admitted to being a racist in court. I read a CNN article today and racism wasn’t mentioned at all.

Some of the articles I saw specifically stated that while some of her statements were offensive, they were not racist.

The guilty verdict came from the fact that she murdered a man. The article saying it was racially motivated came from an author with an agenda.

I believe it really is that simple.

 

[MTT TL]

I read an article on Facebook out of a Portland news station yesterday on this case and the article stated that the guilty verdict came from the fact this was a racially motivated shooting and the officer had admitted to being a racist in court. I read a CNN article today and racism wasn’t mentioned at all.

There is this thing called "fake news". It is actually a real thing. The woman didn't know what race the man was before she shot him. Her story changed a couple of times before the trial, which is partly how she ended up in the hurt box. Worry not, if the woman had admitted to being a racist in court CNN would latch on like a Pitbull. It would be reported every 15 minutes for weeks.

 

[Mainah]

The victim's brother deserves a great deal of respect for this: https://wtkr.com/2019/10/02/botham-jeans-brother-hugs-the-former-police-officer-who-killed-him/

Couple of things. I’ve lived in apartment complexes where every floor was identical and quite often people would come in or attempt to come in my apartment because they thought it was theirs. Easy mistake to make.

Her defense team tried that strategy, a Texas Ranger concluded that based on the layout of the building and where she parked Guyger could have easily made that mistake. Doesn't justify what she did.

 

[MTT TL]

The victim's brother deserves a great deal of respect for this: https://wtkr.com/2019/10/02/botham-j...ho-killed-him/

I agree. The momma has already gone on record as saying that she does not forgive the shooter. Everyone deals with the pain of losing a loved one a little bit differently. IME, forgiveness is the best way to go forward in life whenever possible.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Are cops actually trained that they must shoot to kill?

Yes. If you are going to use lethal force then being fast and effective is in the interest of public safety.

If you look at the police qualification and what they are training the lizard brain to do....It is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively.

They do not train on wounding shots or warning shots.

Police are NOT trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to stop the threat.

 

[davidsog]

However I would hope that their training includes situational awareness, that seems to be the crux of the matter in this case.

It does but it very much emphasizes that if lethal force is required then lethal force is be applied.

 

[davidsog]

Police are NOT trained to soot to kill. They are trained to shoot to stop the threat.

NO, they are trained to apply lethal force quickly and efficiently when required.

Produce the training on warning shots? Produce the training on wounding shots?

You cannot.

Look at the scoring....

Highest score is in the bowling pin. They are trained to deliver lethal force when lethal force is required as quickly and effectively as possible in the interest of public safety.

 

[davidsog]

Experts on Why Police Aren't Trained to Shoot to Wound

Police are trained to stop dangerous, life-threatening or murderous behavior, Kelly said. This holds true for all police departments across the country, he added.

Shooting to injure or maim someone wouldn't stop an aggressive subject, Klinger said, and officers are trying to stop the threat to their life, or the life of their partner or a citizen.

But aiming for the chest means that the type of wounds suspects usually sustain are likely to be fatal, he added.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-trained-shoot-wound-experts/story?id=40402933

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Modern training teaches that when an officer uses deadly force the intent should be to stop the suspect’s threatening behavior as fast as possible.

In the words of firearms trainer Ron Avery, himself a championship shooter, head of the Practical Shooting Academy and a member of the Force Science Technical Advisory Board, shooting for an assailant’s center mass is usually considered the most effective first option because the upper torso combines a concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels within the body’s largest target. “When the risk of failure is death, an officer needs the highest percentage chance of success he can get,” Everett notes.

https://www.policeone.com/patrol-is...cally-legally-or-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/

 

[44 AMP]

Until science comes up with the real world Star Trek Phaser (locked on the "stun" setting) there is nothing that will physically stop an attacker that does NOT have some risk of death to the attacker, other than the attacker's free will.

Its all word games, to a degree, but words do matter. "shoot to kill" is a very clear statement of intent.

There is a difference between shooting someone to stop them, and they die as a result of the force used stopping them, and shooting someone with the intent to kill them.

In our society, it makes the difference between justifiable self defense and the crime of murder.

Are the police being trained to commit murder? No. Despite the rhetoric used by various activists claiming otherwise to further their agenda, cops are not trained, nor sanctioned to commit murder.

The training is to employ deadly force, when necessary, in order to stop the immediate threat. Death MAY result, but it is not a certainty. It is a high probability, but not a certainty.

The opposite side of the coin is supposedly "nonlethal" force. There is none. People use the phrase "non-lethal" or "less lethal" referring to stun guns, beanbags, rubber bullets, and even the old fashioned beat them with a stick.

But all those things have resulted in death. They USUALLY don't, but again, that's not a certainty.

Taser someone with a (possibly unknown) heart condition, they may die. Wound someone? Nick an artery and they may die. You don't intend to kill, but death could be the result.

We shoot to stop, in "gravest extreme" knowing that death may result. We don't "shoot to kill".

 

[zukiphile]

These aren't word games, but for that reason people should consider the words they use.

Police are NOT trained to s[h]oot to kill. They are trained to shoot to stop the threat.

NO, they are trained to apply lethal force quickly and efficiently when required.

Produce the training on warning shots? Produce the training on wounding shots?

You cannot.

Training to stop the threat doesn't imply warning shots or an intent to wound.

Using lethal force isn't the same as using force with an intent to kill. Lethal force is likely to cause grave injury or death. That's the effect, not the intent.

A PO who fires with an intent that the person he shoots should die has attempted homicide. You would be able to tell that a PO is shooting to kill where he first renders the situation safe for himself and others, then shoots the target so as to kill that person. An execution is an intentional killing, but isn't the model for police training. I doubt anyone will find a police department or branch of the armed services anywhere that will admit to training to commit homicide. (The Malmedy Massacre was so named not because of the number of deaths, but because the action served no purpose but the death of the prisoners.)

Firing with an intent to stop the threat immediately means using a lot of force; a collateral effect of that much force may be death, so it is deadly force. That doesn't mean the intent is anything but to stop the threat.

 

[davidsog]

You can sugar coat it anyway you want. Having worked with multiple LEO organizations in the Federal Inventory....

That is why it is called LETHAL FORCE. It is not the application of "just enough until they think about it force".....

10 CFR § 1047.7 - Use of deadly force.

Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.

Training to stop the threat

It is not the Use of STOP FORCE.

Do not confuse judgement and restraint with the application of deadly force. An officer is required to exercise both.

When they go to Lethal Force, their training is stimulus response to apply lethal force quickly and efficiently when required.

 

[davidsog]

A PO who fires with an intent that the person he shoots should die has attempted homicide.

Not true. Our legal system is predicated on the reasonable man standard. That standard says the use of lethal force leads to a reasonable outcome of death for the individual that force is applied too.

 

[zukiphile]

Do not confuse judgement and restraint with the application of deadly force.

No one responding to you has done that.

A PO who fires with an intent that the person he shoots should die has attempted homicide.

Not true.

Where you undertake an act with an intent to kill a person, you have attempted homicide.

That's not sugar coating. That's what the words mean.

Our legal system is predicated on the reasonable man standard. That standard says the use of lethal force leads to a reasonable outcome of death for the individual that force is applied too.

Here you've confused a reasonable anticipation that force may result in death with an intent to kill.

The reasonable man standard does not mean that everything one reasonably foresees is something he intends.

That's the difference between a german shooting an American in defending against the Normandy invasion and the Malmedy Massacre. It isn't a small difference.

 

[MTT TL]

Where you undertake an act with an intent to kill a person, you have attempted homicide.

That's not sugar coating. That's what the words mean.

That really shouldn't be in dispute.

I doubt anyone will find a police department or branch of the armed services anywhere that will admit to training to commit homicide.

My basic training began with a captain standing up and telling us we were basically being paid well to be the nation's assassins. The last Secretary of Defense (a retired Marine) testified to congress that killing the right people was "fun" while he was a four star general. At no time anywhere in between all that did I ever hear anyone say "shoot to wound them".

The types of missions I was given as a leader were "destroy the enemy" or "kill/capture" where capture was only a priority insofar as the value of the target had intelligence of value. Sure, the vast majority of military service members are in a support role and never see a moment's worth of combat. But don't delude yourself in to thinking that the trigger pullers are not fully aware of what their job is.

The only police I know of whose job it is to kill people are the marksman on the firing squads. At about 1 in 50 million per capita in the US they might have the most rare job on Earth short of singular jobs like being the US President.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Let's be clear about terminology. This is important, because the media are NOT especially careful in how they throw around words, and politicians and activists are even less careful.

Definition of homicide

1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another
// detectives investigating a homicide

Definition of murder

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
// was convicted of murder

2a : something very difficult or dangerous
// the traffic was murder
// carrying the luggage was murder on my back

b : something outrageous or blameworthy
// getting away with murder

"Homicide" is simply the taking of a human life. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.

 

[zukiphile]

My basic training began with a captain standing up and telling us we were basically being paid well to be the nation's assassins. The last Secretary of Defense (a retired Marine) testified to congress that killing the right people was "fun" while he was a four star general. At no time anywhere in between all that did I ever hear anyone say "shoot to wound them".

Why would they? Why would anyone act intending to wound another?

Intentionally using deadly force is not the same as intending to kill. A person can enjoy the parts of his work that involve "killing the right people"; that also isn't the same as intending to kill.

I don't doubt that a service arm would say somethings to 17 year olds in basic training calculated to motivate them and resolve any doubts about killing, but note that instruction wasn't simply about killing, but largely about following instructions. Perhaps your captain didn't know what assassination means. If a soldier's work were simply killing we'd have given Joachim Peiper a medal rather try him for a war crime.

Even where there is a legitimate objective tied to acts resulting in death, where the collateral effects are deemed disproportionate, the propriety of the killing is dubious. Arthur Harris wasn't tried for war crimes, partly because we won, but he was socially ostracized after the war.