That has not been determined, has it? Just speculation by many on here based on what Guru said may have happened as far as how the officers responded.

 

I would think, if an officer saw a man walking with a gun in hand, his first order of business would be to announce his presence. That just seems like the clear logical thing to do.

I would think, if an officer saw a man walking with a gun in hand, his first order of business would be to announce his presence. That just seems like the clear logical thing to do.

 

Again, has it ever been determined that they didn't announce their presence?

No it doesn't come down to whether or not the officers identified themselves. If you point your gun at me (I'm not a cop) and I shot you then I'm justified.

 

So, if the guy had shot one of the cops, you'd have felt the same?

And that's where we disagree. IMO, the cop wouldn't be justified in the slightest. You can't kill someone on your their own property and not face the consequences. Also, you're assuming that the guy pointed his gun at the cop.

 

I'm not assuming anything, that is what the cop said.

So, if the guy had shot one of the cops, you'd have felt the same?

 

If the cop was pointing his gun at the guy and the guy had no idea he was cop then yes.

One thing I'm not clear about regarding this case. Were the cops on Waller's property when he was shot? Or were they in the street?

Seriously? And you've claimed others aren't objective?

 

One last point, regardless of whether he overstepped his bounds or not, he did nothing that deserved to be murdered. The officer has to pay for his error in judgment. Just because you're a police officer doesn't mean you can go around shooting people who are obeying the law.

 

What about my statement makes me not objective?

 

He is a third party (not the police and not the house where the burglar alarm was) and that makes him a third party. Additionally, he got involved in something (investigating a felony) that got him killed. He overstepped his bounds as a citizen. I am sure he had the best of intentions but that doesn't change the fact none of this had anything to do with him and he got involved with a gun. It is a recipe for disaster and in this case it ended in disaster.

What if you don't know it's a police officer?

 

Bert pretty much nailed it. In short, if you approach anyone you don't know with a gun in your hand then you are a complete and utter idiot using terrible judgment.

 

Anyway you piece this together the deceased has some negligence/fault, what has to be determined is if the officers actions were within the law.

Bert pretty much nailed it. In short, if you approach anyone you don't know with a gun in your hand then you are a complete and utter idiot using terrible judgment.

 

Anyway you piece this together the deceased has some negligence/fault, what has to be determined is if the officers actions were within the law.

 

Pretty much my view. But, I'm still wondering who determines if the officer's actions were lawful.

What about my statement makes me not objective?

 

He is a third party (not the police and not the house where the burglar alarm was) and that makes him a third party. Additionally, he got involved in something (investigating a felony) that got him killed. He overstepped his bounds as a citizen. I am sure he had the best of intentions but that doesn't change the fact none of this had anything to do with him and he got involved with a gun. It is a recipe for disaster and in this case it ended in disaster.

 

The fact that because your a former officer who always sides with the LE is what makes you biased. You immediately assume that the victim was at fault. Couldn't be that the officer was inexperienced, or overzealous, or spooked and made a poor decision.

And that's where we disagree. IMO, the cop wouldn't be justified in the slightest. You can't kill someone on your their own property and not face the consequences. Also, you're assuming that the guy pointed his gun at the cop.

 

Sure you can. If you're an officer and a gun is pointed at you you have COMPLETE justification to shoot and kill.

 

The fact that because your a former officer who always sides with the LE is what makes you biased. You immediately assume that the victim was at fault. Couldn't be that the officer was inexperienced, or overzealous, or spooked and made a poor decision.

 

Reading through the thread it appears you are the one doing all the assuming. You said yourself you don't believe the officers statements and only because you are assuming he's lying to cover up for the other officer.

The fact that because your a former officer who always sides with the LE is what makes you biased. You immediately assume that the victim was at fault. Couldn't be that the officer was inexperienced, or overzealous, or spooked and made a poor decision.

 

I get it, in the Mustang Mind all cops and former cops are biased and/or lie for each other.

 

You have no clue, I spent much more time in supervision in my career "passing judgment" on other cops.

 

Again, for everyone that wants to look objectively, I am doing my best to present proper police protocol in this situation and I have already said this needs to be investigated fully to see what, if any, negligence/policy violations/law violations etc. were violated.

Pretty much my view. But, I'm still wondering who determines if the officer's actions were lawful.

 

Internal Affairs and maybe a Grand Jury and/or the FBI.

Sure you can. If you're an officer and a gun is pointed at you you have COMPLETE justification to shoot and kill.

 

How about RM's scenario? You'd have felt the same way if the officer had a gun pointed at him and he killed one of them?