quote:

Originally posted by maximus_flavius:

quote:

Originally posted by DoctorSolo:
Don't wanna get shot? Then dont be a violent shit bag!

I use this method myself. Very effective, & I hadn’t been shot yet!

Learn this 1 weird trick avoid a GSW!

Exactly. Arrested an armed robbery suspect last night by myself by accident. Didn’t even have to raise my voice. No gun pulled. As a result he avoided unrelated but available charges. Not being an asshole makes a huge difference.

Also, being of Scottish descent myself, I must remonstrate against the usage of the term “Scot free”. It’s racist, misogynistic, white-privileged, sexist, & Euro-centric. But at least it’s not cis-gender specific.

quote:

Originally posted by maximus_flavius:
Also, being of Scottish descent myself, I must remonstrate against the usage of the term “Scot free”.

Hear him, hear him.
Where do I get my reparations?

You'd just blow it on whisky and hoo-ers.

I'm a 20 year LEO and also a firearm and taser instructor.

The officer in question was a disaster, waiting to happen. I commented on this incident on several LE boards. Anyone who knowingly allowed this officer to carry his taser the way he did bears some of the blame and any supervisor who did not correct his method of carrying deserves to be reprimanded.

That said, the PA law they cited to clear this officer, well.......it cleared him because he did not "intend" to shoot the guy. Cleared maybe from assault, but not reckless endangerment.

It just so happens a man in Hazelton, PA might face charges because he was handling his weapon and it fired with the bullet going through a wall and striking a child. They claim he could be charged with reckless endangerment.

Well, I'm sure this guy didn't "intend" to shoot the child, so there should be no charges, right??

This is my comment from another board;

Remember the Bucks Co officer who shot the guy, but thought he was using his taser? No charges because he did not “intend” to shoot the guy. Well, I’ll sure this father did not intend to shoot his daughter either. But, you know he will be charged!



Subject: 13-year-old female wounded in shooting incident

For Immediate Release

On May 26, 2019, Hazleton Police responded to the 500 block of Walter Street on a 13-year-old female wounded by a gunshot.

Police officers arrived and found a 13-year-old female who was struck by a stray bullet from her father’s weapon.

The father, a 35-year-old male Hispanic is licensed to have the weapon and is a security guard.

Preliminarily, the individual provided information to Detective Brett Green stating he accidentally fired a round from his handgun while in his bedroom, which went through a piece of furniture and a wall into a bathroom striking his 13-year-old female daughter.

It appears that based on the buffer of the furniture and wall the 13-year-old female was struck but not wounded fatally.

The investigation is ongoing and Detective Brett Green will work with the Luzerne County district attorneys office in determining if the male was negligent in his actions.

If it is determined that there was negligence or reckless behavior, charges will be filed accordingly.

The investigation is ongoing.

Here is more on the subject of policy violation;

A police officer in Bucks County has been "excused" for shooting a man inside a holding cell in a police station in early March and will not face criminal charges, the district attorney said in a letter Friday.

Brian Riling, a suspect in a simple assault and intimidation case, was taking off his belt when a confrontation between him and two officers occurred inside the New Hope Borough station.

During the tussle, one of the officers shot Riling in the stomach in what Bucks County District Attorney Matthew Weintrab called an "honest but mistaken belief" that he was going to use a Taser instead of a handgun.

“After careful consideration, I have determined that [the officer’s] shooting of arrestee Brian Riling on March 3, 2019, was neither justified, nor criminal, but was excused,” Weintraub wrote in a letter to New Hope Police Chief Michael Cummings.

The officer will not be identified, Weintrab said in a statement released online.

After the shooting, Riling tossed and turned in agony on the ground of the cell for a few minutes before medical assistance was rendered, according to a 12-minute, 25-second video released showing the encounter.

The assault suspect and subsequent victim of the shooting was in critical condition at a nearby hospital for several days before he was released.

"Why'd you shoot me?" Riling could be heard asking while he lay unattended on the floor, according to the video released by Weintrab's office.

An attorney for Riling did not return a message left Friday evening.

The officer was wearing his Taser on his right side, in front of his firearm, and in violation of police department policy, according to Weintrab's statement.

"Policy dictates officers should wear their Tasers on their non-dominant side, in what is known as a cross-draw position," the statement read. "This violation of policy, however, does not constitute a violation of law."

Riling and the two officers began a physical confrontation inside the cell after what appears to be a small white baggie fell from the suspect as he took off his belt.

As Riling appeared to try recovering the baggie, the officers pushed him against the wall, but struggled to control him.

"A struggle ensues, during which Riling throws the item he was stepping on into the cell’s toilet," the statement from the DA's office said. "The officer who later shot Riling then enters the cell to assist his fellow officer, who is wrestling with Riling on a bench inside the cell. With his service firearm in his hand, the second officer yells 'Taser!' before shooting Riling in the torso."

As part of the investigation and conclusion, Weintrab's office said investigators "considered the officer's decades of exemplary service to the citizens of New Hope as evidenced by dozens of commendations and letters, as compared to relatively few minor historical infractions on his service record."

quote:

Originally posted by Steve in PA:
Here is more on the subject of policy violation;

Thanks for all that. Another for the “Don’t do that because …” file even though this officer was extremely lucky it wasn’t a different prosecutor who might have decided otherwise. Hopes of getting that sort of useful information is the reason I bother opening these types of threads.

And I still prefer a weak hand draw requirement, but then I don’t expect anyone to be paying me a consulting fee for my opinion.

I haven't watched the video.

Policy violations do not mean criminal or civil liability.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
You'd just blow it on whisky and hoo-ers.

Money well spent!

Would it be wrong, after having watched the video to say the jackwad deserved to be tazed and then shot?

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Policy is not law.

Officers have been accidentally shooting people since they started carrying guns. It was only in the last decade when the shift to throw them in jail really started.

Historically the courts, and most people, have understood that honest mistakes happen in high stress situations, and that officers should not be held criminally liable, or civilly in most cases, for trying to do the right thing for a society that gives them the responsibility to deal with difficult situations.

But people wonder why there’s a shortage of applicants...

I’ve always felt it was best to be polite to LEOs, even if they were writing one a ticket. Since I started carrying, I have slightly modified that to “polite, calm, and non-threatening”.

Long ago I learned that one never knows all the factors that go into someone else’s decisions. If that someone else is armed (and it is safest to assume everyone is), there is no reason to get them excited.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I haven't watched the video.

Policy violations do not mean criminal or civil liability.

I beg to differ. A lawyer will jump all over the fact that the officer was in violation of policy. The policy violation being a big contributing factor in the lawsuit.

Failure of the officer to follow policy.

Failure of the trainer/instructor to act upon the violation.

Failure of higher ranking officers to supervise and make sure officers of the department adhered to policies.

.

In terms of criminal, not civil ~ I was curious what Jury Instructions a CA Judge would give had this occurred in CA not PA. If anyone knows where to locate PA Jury Instructions, I would like to read them...


California Criminal Jury Instructions: CALCRIM 2017

SERIES 500. Homicide
B. Justifications and Excuses

CA §510. Excusable Homicide: Accident
The defendant is not guilty of murder/manslaughter if they killed someone as a result of accident or misfortune. Such a killing is excused, and therefore not unlawful, if:

1. The defendant was doing a lawful act in a lawful way;

2. The defendant was acting with usual and ordinary caution;

AND

3. The defendant was acting without any unlawful intent.

A person acts with usual and ordinary caution if he or she acts in a way that a reasonably careful person would act in the same or similar situation.

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not excused. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder/manslaughter.

New January 2006; Revised August 2012

-------------------------------------

SERIES 3400. Non-Homicide
D. SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF ANOTHER

CA §3404. Accident [PC §195]

<General or Specific Intent Crimes>
The defendant is not guilty of <insert crime> if they acted or failed to act without the intent required for that crime, but acted instead accidentally. You may not find the defendant guilty of <insert crime> unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they acted with the required intent.

<Criminal Negligence Crimes>
The defendant is not guilty of <insert crime> if they acted or failed to act accidentally without criminal negligence. You may not find the defendant guilty of insert crime> unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they acted with criminal negligence.

<Criminal negligence is defined in CA §511
Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;
AND
2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.

In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from how an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.>


New January 2006; Revised April 2008, August 2012

Never took a firearm into a booking room or holding facility in 25 years. Never ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve in PA:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I haven't watched the video.

Policy violations do not mean criminal or civil liability.

I beg to differ. A lawyer will jump all over the fact that the officer was in violation of policy. The policy violation being a big contributing factor in the lawsuit.

Failure of the officer to follow policy.

Failure of the trainer/instructor to act upon the violation.

Failure of higher ranking officers to supervise and make sure officers of the department adhered to policies.

They can "jump all over" anything they want. A successful tort action requires an action or failure to act by be the defendant, damages to the plaintiff, and a causal link between the two. The fact that the action or failure to act was a violation of a policy does not inherently create liability. A proving of recklessness, negligence, or malice would. Merely wearing a Taser on one side of the body does not inherently create liability for the officer because it's against an agency policy any more than wearing the wrong color socks, having a visible tattoo, or taking five extra minutes at lunch.

My original reply was framed in the context of the OP making an issue of the officer but being charged "even though" he was violating agency policy.

I agree, the policy violation does equate to a criminal charge, but you know there will be a civil lawsuit.

That was a long time to lie there with a bullet in your guts and no medical help. Ouch.

In the video, why is there no blood?

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
In the video, why is there no blood?

Vampires.