I feel less rabid and more justifiably cynical.
Now I find this..........
The brief video statement of "Senator" who says that 'somehow the door was opened' is headlined as 'door was open'... smells bad
Then this which seemingly refers to the shooter's statement of what happened...... smells even worse and I don't buy any of it
Surely somebody in the media there will at least do a video drive comparison between the two levels and maybe get off their butts and compare the stroll to both places
It is very likely that the true details of the how and why of things will not be known until there is a trial ... IF there is a trial. It is almost certain that a plea deal will be reached which may keep most of the details out of the public eye - at least for a while. Once the matter is resolved, it is likely that public records laws will eventually allow for the release of at least some of the investigative reports.
We were speculating on all of this at work today, and the primary culprit we suspect is fatigue and tunnel vision ... but, it's only speculation since we know only what the news media has reported. Maybe in 6 months to a year we will know more. Until then, about all any of us will have is rampant and wild speculation.
The initial report is out if anybidy wants to hunt it and read it
basically said she went to the apartment believing it to be hers. She went to unlock the door but it was already unlocked. She enters. It’s dark. She sees occupant and believes it to be an intruder. She makes commands of some sort. He refuses to comply. She fires twice. Then she turns on the lights and realizes it isn’t her appartment
it is a believable story to me, or at least plausible. In many apartment complexes they are identical floor to floor. She worked a 15 hour shift so presumably very fatigued. Parking garages are pretty easy to mistake floors, especially when your fatigued
I hadn’t heard of the familiarity prior to Ron’s statement. Depending on how well they knew each other it could totally change my mind.
If that is the case, fatigue does sound plausible - tragically so. It is also why one of the first things sought by plaintiffs in OIS cases is an officers timesheets (hours worked) and any record of off duty employment and extra curricular activity so as to account for fatigue. Many law enforcement agencies have a poor history of adequately monitoring and adapting their schedules to account for real sleep, often only accounting for an 8 hour break between ending and starting times. This may or may not have been an element in the case here, but, I imagine that it WILL be a subject of investigation at least by any civil attorneys that will almost certainly be involved at some point.
Manslaughter in Texas is a class 2 felony. The punishment for that is:
Sec. 12.33. SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.
Pretty broad range of sentencing here. Considering that a man died in his home, the place that ought to the safest place for him to be and where he has the greatest right to defend himself, I would hope the sentence is much closer to 20 years than to 2 years.
While I also believe this was a tragic FUBAR of epic proportions, I am not so certain that "training" was the reason she shot him. Keep in mind that this is Texas where residents can legally shoot fleeing burglars in the back even when they are not a threat to anyone. Many people without training are quick to shoot. I could make the argument that the police officer's training should have encouraged her to stop and assess the situation before resorting to potentially lethal force. Ultimately, I think the victim's family will sue the PD and the city as well as the officer and some argument about training - or LACK thereof - may contribute to any claim and settlement.This is a by product of that. Based upon the three news links posted here I believe the mistake was honest. Her instinct to assume the man was lying and then to shoot so easily with no hesitation and without spending a little time to think about the situation was influenced heavily by what she had learned in law enforcement. Take the same woman, same upbringing, same ideology, same morals, same values, but no law enforcement training, she would have hesitated long enough to realize she was actually in the wrong apartment. And she wouldn't have had a gun on her but that besides the point. The way I picture it; she comes in thinking its her home, the man tells her its his home and not hers, he gets an attitude with her maybe even physically threatening, she says gtfo, he says no, she shoots. Manslaughter seems like a fair punishment.
This is a tragedy, and also seems to be manslaughter.
You will not find any training materials, outlines, or instructors (that I have ever heard tell of) that will make any such reference in use of force training.
Having come across far more non-cops who have taken a life with a firearm than cops, I don't know if I would agree with your contention that her training made her more likely to shoot. If you contend that her training might have made her more efficient in placing her shots or drawing her weapon, maybe so. But her training is unlikely to have made her more prone to shoot than not to. But, as I am not privy to her agency's training outlines, I cannot say for sure. But, given then number of OISs there, I suspect that something akin to a snap draw and fire is not their preferred method of dealing with confronting people - even intruders.I agree. That's not what I contend. I contend that LE training was a major influence on her decision making process during those critical minuet moments that led to the mans death. Absent of that training there are much better odds that she would not have killed the man. It is my personal belief, even having never known the woman and just basing my belief off of those three articles and what I have learned about people throughout my life, that if you hold everything else constant but deprive her of all law enforcement involvement and replace it with any other governmental job she wouldn't have killed the man and probably not even shot him.
THIS may have accounted more for the fatality than any training that would have made her more prone to shoot as I contend that training is NOT intended to make one MORE inclined to shoot - quite the opposite, in fact. You know all of this "de-escalation" stuff being discussed in the news? ... I'm an instructor (we call it something else). If anything, the political emphasis on "de-escalation" (which is not precisely what the training is called, but administrations and the media like to refer to it as such) has resulted in greater hesitation when not presented properly. So, if anything, an officer is probably more inclined to wait than the average, untrained and scared, casual firearms owner in Texas.My guess is she fired just like she was taught; aim for the center of mass, do not hesitate, do not stop until he does even if that means unloading your whole clip.
Ultimately, the point is moot. Given the fact that the shooter was off duty, but apparently wearing her uniform and gear, and likely shot and killed the victim with her duty weapon, the city and the agency will be on the civil hook for this whether or not her training made her more or less likely to shoot.
[quot]I wonder how many shots were fired and where they hit. Hopefully y'all keep this thread updated as the story unfolds.
It is a tragedy indeed.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it will be interesting to know this information, though knowing this might only cause further speculation without any real answers.
I have no reason to believe anything she has to say and find it very easy to conclude she is devoid of reasonableness, at the very least.