jbarn wrote:The Grand Jury reviewed evidence we will never see. All we know is what the media decides we should know.
Let's correct that a little bit, if you don't mind...
The Grand Jury reviewed evidence we will never see. All we know is what the media decides we should know from what the police administration gave them officially, and police officers gave them unofficially.
It's very difficult for a Grand Jury to indict a police officer of a criminal charge UNLESS the department is pressing the case...usually in something involving corruption or sexual assault. In an officer involved shooting like this one, the Grand Jury will only hear what the DA's office and the Department present to them...there is no one there representing Mr. Waller. That won't be the case in the civil action the family will undoubtedly file. There would have been no "failure to comply" by Mr. Waller, had the officers not gone to the wrong address to begin with. They approached on foot, and walked up the driveway. The video and pictures show the street address clearly painted, in large block letters, on the curb at the end of the driveway that they walked right past as they went around to the back of the wrong house. The Chief said it was an unfortunate tragedy, and blamed "poor lighting in the neighborhood" and "faulty data in the department's GPS mapping software". The two officers will never be the same and will have to live with it...Jerry Waller doesn't have that option.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
As I'm sure I said somewhere earlier in this topic, I sure hope that the FWPD is either reviewing or has reviewed their procedures for handling calls of this sort. And from that review, I hope they are working out better training methods. Obviously, not every situation is cut-and-dried with a verifiable violent offender being the only person around when law enforcement arrives at a call.
Keith B wrote:This is a tragic event for all involved, but apparently the Grand Jury felt there was not enough evidence to criminally indict the officer. This doesn't eliminate the civil lawsuit that can be filed by the family. I expect that will be forthcoming very quickly.
From the news report I saw, that is already in the works.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
NRA Life Member
texanjoker wrote: This is tragic. To add when the police arrive the gun needs to be out of site or put away. All off duty / plain clothed LEO's know that they too can be mistaken for the bad guy.
Respectfully, Joker, because only bad guys carry their guns in the open and law abiding citizens hide them? Honestly, I think that's what we're down to in Texas. I don't point at you on that... It's just a commentary on reality. I find it aggravating. What you're suggesting, even if you're across the street, is obviously a good idea.
I'm not going to comment on what the media says here because most of these reports are absent of any real facts.
What I've learned about incidents like this is that we get a clear picture of what happened only if a camera gets pointed in direction of the incident. Otherwise we're never going to know.
K.Mooneyham wrote:As I'm sure I said somewhere earlier in this topic, I sure hope that the FWPD is either reviewing or has reviewed their procedures for handling calls of this sort. And from that review, I hope they are working out better training methods. Obviously, not every situation is cut-and-dried with a verifiable violent offender being the only person around when law enforcement arrives at a call.
This is taught in the academy - for those who are paying attention.
Excaliber
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.
The grand jury has cleared the officers and that is why I await the facts vs jumping on the bandwagon . Glad to see the truth came out vs the media hype! This suspect should not have picked the gun back up and pointed it at the officers. Obviously the grand jury agreed.
The CLEAT Legal Team spent countless hours preparing for this Grand Jury presentation. After a weeklong proceeding, the Grand Jury concluded last week that the actions of Officer Hoeppner to be reasonable and justified under the facts and evidence presented.
After hearing the Grand Jury’s ruling, Officer Hoeppner breathed a deep sigh of relief and expressed to his CLEAT attorneys that he was fortunate to have had CLEAT in his corner.
The CLEAT Legal Team spent countless hours preparing for this Grand Jury presentation. After a weeklong proceeding, the Grand Jury concluded last week that the actions of Officer Hoeppner to be reasonable and justified under the facts and evidence presented.
.
texanjoker wrote:The grand jury has cleared the officers and that is why I await the facts vs jumping on the bandwagon . Glad to see the truth came out vs the media hype! This suspect should not have picked the gun back up and pointed it at the officers. Obviously the grand jury agreed.
The CLEAT Legal Team spent countless hours preparing for this Grand Jury presentation. After a weeklong proceeding, the Grand Jury concluded last week that the actions of Officer Hoeppner to be reasonable and justified under the facts and evidence presented.
After hearing the Grand Jury’s ruling, Officer Hoeppner breathed a deep sigh of relief and expressed to his CLEAT attorneys that he was fortunate to have had CLEAT in his corner.
The CLEAT Legal Team spent countless hours preparing for this Grand Jury presentation. After a weeklong proceeding, the Grand Jury concluded last week that the actions of Officer Hoeppner to be reasonable and justified under the facts and evidence presented.
.
The article describes extremely strange behavior by the homeowner that appears to serve no reasonable purpose and, if true, presented the officers with a situation where they justifiably believed they were in danger. The fact that one of the officers was later terminated for falsifying a report certainly raises suspicion about his veracity on what happened in on this incident. These circumstances, taken together, don't resolve all my doubts, but the grand jury has spoken.
That being said, the entire situation would not have come about if they had gone to the house where the alarm had been triggered. Their presence where they shouldn't have been is what precipitated the homeowner's attempt to investigate.
A very sad case all the way around.
Excaliber
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.
Excaliber wrote:
The article describes extremely strange behavior by the homeowner that appears to serve no reasonable purpose and, if true, presented the officers with a situation where they justifiably believed they were in danger. The fact that one of the officers was later terminated for falsifying a report certainly raises suspicion about his veracity on what happened in on this incident. These circumstances, taken together, don't resolve all my doubts, but the grand jury has spoken.
That being said, the entire situation would not have come about if they had gone to the house where the alarm had been triggered. Their presence where they shouldn't have been is what precipitated the homeowner's attempt to investigate.
i think the later firing should lend credibility to the investigation. They had to know that seperate incident would cause doubt, yet did the right thing. There is NO place for false documentation aka lying. They should prosecute that rookie.
texanjoker wrote:The grand jury has cleared the officers and that is why I await the facts vs jumping on the bandwagon . Glad to see the truth came out vs the media hype! This suspect should not have picked the gun back up and pointed it at the officers. Obviously the grand jury agreed.
The CLEAT Legal Team spent countless hours preparing for this Grand Jury presentation. After a weeklong proceeding, the Grand Jury concluded last week that the actions of Officer Hoeppner to be reasonable and justified under the facts and evidence presented.
I will agree the Grand Jury failed to indict Officer Hoeppner and found his actions to be justified under the facts and evidence presented. I can't agree that this guarantees the truth came out. According to the CLEAT publicity statement, one of their lawyers arrived on the scene within minutes of the shooting (and I expect was immediately instructing the officers on what to say and what not to say). CLEAT attorneys were informed a couple of months ago by the DA's office that their office would not be making a statement or recommendation to the Grand Jury or presenting any expert witness for the officer's defense, which CLEAT said was contrary to normal procedure in an officer involved shooting. This led CLEAT to believe that the DA's office thought he would be indicted, so they scrambled a top "Grand Jury Defense Team" to prevent that from happening. I've read through the complete investigative report issued by the department and presented to the Grand Jury. That department statement, along with the testimony of Officers Hoeppner & Hanlon and a forensic witness was what the Grand Jury had to base its decision on. The forensic expert said that one of the shots struck Waller's hand/wrist first and then his torso, indicating he had his arm raised in front of him. According to CLEAT's lawyers, that was proof that Mr. Waller was pointing his gun at Officer Hoeppner intending to shoot him. The truth is, there's no way of knowing if that wound was from the first or last shot fired and it could just as easily happened because Waller threw up his arm instinctively to shield himself when Hoeppner opened fire on him. Only three people know what was actually said and done that night, and the only version of the "facts" the Grand Jury heard was from the two that survived and were facing criminal or civil charges for their actions. I don't believe that Hoeppner shot Waller out of malice...I think it was probably a combination of lack of experience, panic and pumping adrenaline. But the one fact, that I believe to be indisputable, is that Mr. Waller would be alive if the Officers had not screwed up and gone to the wrong address to begin with.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
If a grand jury chooses not to indict, does that mean the person is innocent? How about when they do indict? Is the person guilty?
Apparently the DA and grand jury didn't believe they had enough evidence to indict and convict since the other party is dead. Dead men can't testify. Two officers' story against a dead man's = officers win. Lends some credibility to the old adage, which I do not agree, "if you have to shoot someone, be sure to kill them".
I also believe this is a prime example of not saying anything to the cops or investigators until you have had a chance to talk to your attorney and have one present during any questioning.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
texanjoker wrote:The grand jury has cleared the officers and that is why I await the facts vs jumping on the bandwagon . Glad to see the truth came out vs the media hype! This suspect should not have picked the gun back up and pointed it at the officers. Obviously the grand jury agreed.
The CLEAT Legal Team spent countless hours preparing for this Grand Jury presentation. After a weeklong proceeding, the Grand Jury concluded last week that the actions of Officer Hoeppner to be reasonable and justified under the facts and evidence presented.
I will agree the Grand Jury failed to indict Officer Hoeppner and found his actions to be justified under the facts and evidence presented. I can't agree that this guarantees the truth came out. According to the CLEAT publicity statement, one of their lawyers arrived on the scene within minutes of the shooting (and I expect was immediately instructing the officers on what to say and what not to say). CLEAT attorneys were informed a couple of months ago by the DA's office that their office would not be making a statement or recommendation to the Grand Jury or presenting any expert witness for the officer's defense, which CLEAT said was contrary to normal procedure in an officer involved shooting. This led CLEAT to believe that the DA's office thought he would be indicted, so they scrambled a top "Grand Jury Defense Team" to prevent that from happening. I've read through the complete investigative report issued by the department and presented to the Grand Jury. That department statement, along with the testimony of Officers Hoeppner & Hanlon and a forensic witness was what the Grand Jury had to base its decision on. The forensic expert said that one of the shots struck Waller's hand/wrist first and then his torso, indicating he had his arm raised in front of him. According to CLEAT's lawyers, that was proof that Mr. Waller was pointing his gun at Officer Hoeppner intending to shoot him. The truth is, there's no way of knowing if that wound was from the first or last shot fired and it could just as easily happened because Waller threw up his arm instinctively to shield himself when Hoeppner opened fire on him. Only three people know what was actually said and done that night, and the only version of the "facts" the Grand Jury heard was from the two that survived and were facing criminal or civil charges for their actions. I don't believe that Hoeppner shot Waller out of malice...I think it was probably a combination of lack of experience, panic and pumping adrenaline. But the one fact, that I believe to be indisputable, is that Mr. Waller would be alive if the Officers had not screwed up and gone to the wrong address to begin with.
Well said, thanks.
My neighbors and I asked the Mayor for an outside review. Didn't happen. The FWPD has no credibility with me.
Nick
Nick Stone
Have Truck, Will Travel
NRA Life Member
mojo84 wrote:If a grand jury chooses not to indict, does that mean the person is innocent? How about when they do indict? Is the person guilty?
Apparently the DA and grand jury didn't believe they had enough evidence to indict and convict since the other party is dead. Dead men can't testify. Two officers' story against a dead man's = officers win. Lends some credibility to the old adage, which I do not agree, "if you have to shoot someone, be sure to kill them".
I also believe this is a prime example of not saying anything to the cops or investigators until you have had a chance to talk to your attorney and have one present during any questioning.
As we have seen in the past Grand Juries do what the DA wants them to do. Its the DA who felt they didn't have enough evidence or didn't want to prosecute.
I am so sorry for this Old Man's family. For all we know the lost LEO's started shouting at an old man with hearing aids and shown a light in his face thus causing him to cover his eyes, they mistook his motion and shot him (happened before at Nevada Costco). Unfortunately we will never know. It is a horror, and an avoidable one.
No fix really. The only thing that could be done (and this would only be an after the fact determination of truth) would be to put a camera on the lapel of every LEO, but I imagine that would be cost prohibitive.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
It's very difficult for a Grand Jury to indict a police officer of a criminal charge UNLESS the department is pressing the case...usually in something involving corruption or sexual assault. In an officer involved shooting like this one, the Grand Jury will only hear what the DA's office and the Department present to them...there is no one there representing Mr. Waller. That won't be the case in the civil action the family will undoubtedly file. There would have been no "failure to comply" by Mr. Waller, had the officers not gone to the wrong address to begin with. They approached on foot, and walked up the driveway. The video and pictures show the street address clearly painted, in large block letters, on the curb at the end of the driveway that they walked right past as they went around to the back of the wrong house. The Chief said it was an unfortunate tragedy, and blamed "poor lighting in the neighborhood" and "faulty data in the department's GPS mapping software". The two officers will never be the same and will have to live with it...Jerry Waller doesn't have that option.
. Glad to see the truth came out vs the media hype! This suspect should not have picked the gun back up and pointed it at the officers. Obviously the grand jury agreed. 
