Video of police shooting in Austin

[tvc184]

Justified?

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

What happened there?  

[tvc184]

59 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

What happened there?  

Police got a shots fired and a guy having mental issues was shooting into his own house. 

As soon as the police arrived they shot him. Social media comments on a site I looked at were calling it murder. 

[LumRaiderFan]

32 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Police got a shots fired and a guy having mental issues was shooting into his own house. 

As soon as the police arrived they shot him. Social media comments on a site I looked at were calling it murder. 

Not sure how they’re getting that.  He was skulking around the corner and looked to be ready to shoot.

Was he just talking to himself when he shot in the house?

[tvc184]

22 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Not sure how they’re getting that.  He was skulking around the corner and looked to be ready to shoot.

Was he just talking to himself when he shot in the house?

He appeared to be having an argument with and then made threats to use deadly on an imaginary person(s). Then he shot at the imaginary person. 

Unfortunately, the guy clearly had mental issues whether drug induced or some kind of psychological crisis.

Maybe they should have sent some social workers or maybe city council members to the call  from the defund the police communities. I am sure they could have diffused the situation and the guy would not have perceived the social workers as an imaginary threat. 

[LumRaiderFan]

5 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

He appeared to be having an argument with and then made threats to use deadly on an imaginary person(s). Then he shot at the imaginary person. 

Unfortunately, the guy clearly had mental issues whether drug induced or some kind of psychological crisis.

Maybe they should have sent some social workers or maybe city council members to the call  from the defund the police communities. I am sure they could have diffused the situation and the guy would not have perceived the social workers as an imaginary threat. 

I’m sure a violence interrupter would have handled it.

I guess the social media experts would have been happier if a couple of cops would have been shot before they returned fire.

smh

[baddog]

It wasn’t me!!!!!!

Did he die? If he did I’m glad he’s dead. One less pos in the world. Didn’t waste many rounds either

[tvc184]

14 hours ago, baddog said:

It wasn’t me!!!!!!

Did he die? If he did I’m glad he’s dead. One less pos in the world. Didn’t waste many rounds either

He is deceased. 

[mat]

Saw this on the news. In typical media fashion, several preview announcements reported Austin police killed a man stand on his porch. Wasn’t until you watched the story you find out he was shooting a rifle. Body cam looks like the shooting may have been a bit premature, but still justified.

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

10 hours ago, mat said:

Saw this on the news. In typical media fashion, several preview announcements reported Austin police killed a man stand on his porch. Wasn’t until you watched the story you find out he was shooting a rifle. Body cam looks like the shooting may have been a bit premature, but still justified.

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Why possibly premature?

[mat]

He shot less than a second after telling him to drop the gun. Just an observation. Still justified. 

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, mat said:

He shot less than a second after telling him to drop the gun. Just an observation. Still justified. 

Completely out of curiosity from a different perspective, what if the officer had never given any warning and shot the moment he saw the guy slice the pie or take a what appeared to be a classic barricade/cover position? 

[mat]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Completely out of curiosity from a different perspective, what if the officer had never given any warning and shot the moment he saw the guy slice the pie or take a what appeared to be a classic barricade/cover position? 

I wondered the same thing. You probably know better than me but there’s legal verses reality. An immediate shot could be justified but questioned without warning. However, the fact that a warning was given without the opportunity to comply could be questionable in court as well. 

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, mat said:

I wondered the same thing. You probably know better than me but there’s legal verses reality. An immediate shot could be justified but questioned without warning. However, the fact that a warning was given without the opportunity to comply could be questionable in court as well. 

I don’t think I know better than you. A jury of civilians makes the decision whether a grand jury to indict or a criminal jury if at a trial. That is why I was looking for a different perspective.

 I think that I know the law that applies.

At a trial at the end of testimony, the judge reads the appropriate law to the jury (called judge’s charge or jury charge). The decisions are made from untrained persons, not police, judges or lawyers.

I know that state law requires no warning. Supreme Court and other appeals court decisions say that simply because an officer had another option, it doesn’t make the use of deadly force a violation of the Fourth Amendment (which is the issue as an unreasonable seizure). An example is that maybe a Taser could have ended a situation without deadly force. In my opinion the courts have said that it doesn’t matter as long as the use of force would be lawful. Let’s say a person is charging at an officer with a knife and his immediate options are using his hands in self defense or a Taser or firearm as weapons. The officer faced with the threat to his life shoots and kills the person. A use of force expert later after watching videos of the incident determines that the Taser would have stopped the person with 100% chance of working. It doesn’t matter. 

 The Supreme Court’s opinion in such a case is that when the force was used, what would a reasonable officer believe faced with the same situation. They use the term “split-second” decision in a rapidly evolving situation.

These are quotes from the Supreme Court decision of Graham v. Connor on the use of force by the police.

“The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight”.

And…..

“With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers", violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation”.

I think they clearly say that it is easy to sit in a room and take a slow look at something (like an NFL replay in slow motion from different angles) months later. An officer clearly doesn’t have that option and in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the officer’s opinion counts. 

A couple of points might be interesting in Graham. The first is that the use of force turned out later to be unnecessary. Connor was completely innocent of the reason for the detention. The police injured an innocent person who I believe later had to go to the hospital with a broken bone.

Another point in using that force was determined to be lawful by all Supreme Court justices were obvious aware that an innocent person was injured by the police yet unanimously ruled that it was a lawful use of force because of the officers’ reasonable beliefs at that moment in time. 

[Big girl]

On 12/7/2022 at 8:54 PM, tvc184 said:

He appeared to be having an argument with and then made threats to use deadly on an imaginary person(s). Then he shot at the imaginary person. 

Unfortunately, the guy clearly had mental issues whether drug induced or some kind of psychological crisis.

Maybe they should have sent some social workers or maybe city council members to the call  from the defund the police communities. I am sure they could have diffused the situation and the guy would not have perceived the social workers as an imaginary threat. 

In houston we have a CIP unit. Cops with mental health backgrounds. I just recently called them to my house and they were wonderful. Deeculation at it's best

[bullets13]

The last couple of shots were after he dropped the gun, but there’s got to be a slight amount of time factored in for the cops to realize the threat has ended or he’s complied.  Seems like a completely legitimate shoot to me

[thetragichippy]

On 2/7/2023 at 6:42 PM, Big girl said:

In houston we have a CIP unit. Cops with mental health backgrounds. I just recently called them to my house and they were wonderful. Deeculation at it's best

That is great, but if a "sane" person or a "mentally ill" person points a gun at a cop, even a cop with a mental health background, the cop is going to legally protect themselves.  The gun shoots the same no matter who shoots it.

[tvc184]

A mental health unit might help from escalating a situation that is reasonably calm. 

Bullets flying around and guns being pointed tends to end de-escalation