Not to mention those 'Could have's' were actually 'SHOULD HAVE'S' according to standing orders/policy of her department. This was brought out in the trial.03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:49 pmIf I am ever on trial for shooting somebody, it will be self defense and it sure won't be me shooting some guy in his own home. The could haves you mentioned were not some kind of trick. The cop screwed up big time and could have done a dozen things to keep from killing an innocent man.Ruark wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:39 pmWatch the cross - notice the DA's approach, and again, something to keep in mind if you're ever on trial for shooting somebody. He kept repeating "you COULD have..." You COULD have taken cover, and she answered "I could have." You COULD have called for backup... and so on. So he paints a picture of all these things she COULD have done, but didn't, and as a result, an innocent man is dead, etc. etc.
It is important to remember....that a unique situation exists here. She is LEO and as such (within her jurisdiction) she retains the power of arrest, use of force, etc 24/7...whether on duty or not. She doesn't get to decide under which authority (citizen/LEO) she would act. Although being 'off duty' might affect the outcome of 'civil' liabilities.
So...logic dictates IF she is entering a building to confront who she thinks is an intruder (by default..with all the Powers of her LEO status) then the policies/orders of her department follow too. She clearly did not think this through. Just reacted.
But lets put aside the 'legal' aspect of it for the moment and focus on the tactical/procedural errors she made. These would apply to ANYONE in the same situation.
1. Failed to identify the person (could just as easily been the apt. manager or maintenance worker).
2. Did not know if this person was alone or if there were multiples (no risk assessment).
3. Immediately entered and stayed in the 'fatal funnel' (doorway-hallway) instead of taking up a better position.
4. Didn't retreat and call for back-up when there was no immediate need to enter (no other persons living with her).
All of this (and more) demonstrates poor decision making skills...even IF not required to do so 'legally'.
I believe the jury handed down the right decision (Guilty) but disagree with the charge (Murder) and I would expect the courts to correct this upon appeal.