TexasCHLforum.com

I don't have an issue with someone being investigated or charged refusing to make a statement or testify. I do have an issue with the other officers in the department stonewalling the DA's office and refusing to cooperate or speak to them.

The DA stated that he would have been able to bring charges sooner, but many of the officers they asked to make statements refused to cooperate with them. He said in his 18 years as a prosecutor he had never encountered police officers who were not suspects that "refused to do their duty and come talk to us."

srothstein wrote:

baseballguy2001 wrote:Gee, don't ya think the guy who made the kill shot should answer up? Tell his side of the story?

I think he should, but I always advise everyone to not talk to the police. He has the right to not answer any questions in a criminal investigation, just like any other suspect. I am wondering if the department got anything from him for an internal investigation. They can order a statement and force it, but it cannot be used against him in a criminal case (Garrity v. New Mexico I think).

And I would suggest that they proceed with their internal discipline anyway. Without knowing everything about the case, I would suggest that it certainly appears unjustified. If he tells a story which justifies it, then their investigation should be completed and the story made public (depends on state laws if it ever has to be or not). And if he doesn't justify it, then he should be fired, without regard tot he criminal investigation.

And the DA should be able to get an indictment based on what has been released tot he papers, especially if the officer has not produced anything to contradict the public material.

I agree with most of what you just posted. I still have a major problem with the handling of the incident from the start. If it had been a citizen that shot an innocent woman by mistake because he was startled--or just felt threatened--or because he mistook a cell phone for a gun--or because it was dark and he was "jumpy" because some officers had recently been shot sitting in their car (that one is really a stretch since he was "threatened" by a women in pajamas approaching two armed officers in a marked police car after she had called for their help)--the citizen would have immediately been arrested and taken to jail to await an arraignment, hopefully within 24 hours, where he would have been charged with something and either have been released on PR or had to make bail to be released pending the outcome of the investigation. The officer never faced any of that. He has been placed on paid leave and has refused to make a statement for 5 months. How long could it possibly take to determine the facts of this case? What happened is not in question--merely was there enough justification for him to have shot her under the circumstances. I cannot comprehend a civilian in the same circumstances where the investigation would not have been concluded within a few weeks at most. This has just been stalled and allowed to drag on for 5 months in hopes that it will just fall off the radar and I find that unconscionable.

C-dub wrote:

WTR wrote:Interesting to note that after all these weeks, no conclusions have been reported by the Police. I guess the city and the Police are just hoping this goes away.

Is anyone surprised?

Unfortunately no, not really.

Jusme wrote: It's very easy to keyboard quarterback, a situation while sitting in a well lit, room, with much more facts than police had, who were answering this call. I am not going to defend, or condemn, the LEO in question, until more facts are present. But I know that at night, in an unfamiliar place, with a person coming towards you, with "something" in their hand, it is very difficult, to determine that person's motives, or what they are holding. Hindsight is always 20/20, and because we now know, that it was a 40 something year blonde woman, in PJ's, holding a cell phone, does not mean, that all of that was easily seen, in the situation, the officers were in. Again, I am withholding an opinion, on this case, until we have more facts. But I can see, how the sudden appearance of an unexpected person, in the dark, when looking for a possible intruder, could make someone a little jumpy. I pray for the family, and friends of the victim, and pray that justice is served, no matter the outcome. I also pray for the officer, because I know the last thing they ever want to do, is kill an innocent person. JMHO

Place yourself, an ordinary citizen, in the officer's exact position. It's night--you and another male friend are sitting in his car in an unfamiliar place--a person you do not know walks toward your vehicle (forget that it is a middle-aged blonde female in her pajamas--if you can and presuming that stereotyping is not at all in play), WHAT possible scenario would allow you to feel justified in shooting the approaching person without any demonstrable provocation? If you had shot and killed her/him-- simply because you were nervous and afraid, you would be in jail, charged with murder or voluntary manslaughter. Whether you were wearing a badge or not doesn't change the facts. The officer shot and killed someone without any demonstrable justification--period. Even more damning to me, is that the call they went to investigate, was a woman calling and reporting what sounded like a sexual assault taking place. I'd think that with that information, rather than viewing an approaching woman in pajamas as a threat, they would be much more likely to view her as a potential victim. His partner didn't draw his weapon and shoot, so he evidently didn't view her as a threat to his life.