Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Back to my statement.
The huge difference between civilians and police/soldiers is that the trained "pros" have their asses covered by law. The civilians don't. If you shoot the wrong person for whatever reason as a civilian, you will at best have your ass sued off and at worst you will go to jail
Typically if a cop shoots a bystander, the department pays for his defense and any suit award. As long as he doesn't violate dept policy, his ass is covered. The policies are a set of rules that define his actions. He is much less likely to face criminal charges because of his training. A civilian will have to pay any suit, his attorney, etc. He is much more likely to face criminal charges than a cop.
Civilians don't have the level or repetition of training police do.
|
Refinement: 99% of the time, particularly in larger metro areas (where most police shootings occur) the shooting officer(s) face a grand jury investigation, which usually requires them to testify pursuant to departmental policy,
which is written to protect the department and the local government and NOT the officer. 99% of the time the officer is "on his own" and is on "light duty" with pay until no-billed by the grand jury.
Department policy does not provide the officer with any exclusions from the Penal Code or the "self-defense" provisions of the state's criminal code. Departmental policy determines whether or not the officer will be disciplined for his conduct and whether or not the governmental body will be liable for his conduct.
I can think of only one instance in which a police officer's career was "enhanced" by killing someone in Texas. That was the killing of Whitman on the UT tower. That was Martinez, who was NOT officially given credit for the killing of Whitman, McCoy who was officially given credit for the killing WAS required to appear before a grand jury. Martinez ended up becoming a Texas Ranger.
During the period from shooting to being cleared the accused officer is often "shunned" by his fellow officers and goes through internal questioning of themselves regarding their decision. They pay an emotional price, and a social one among other officers.
Your assessment of CHL classes is similar to mine. I would ONLY get a CHL to avoid the opportunity for an officer to take my weapon "as evidence" and the hassle of getting it back, if at all. That does not keep me from obtaining adquate additional training and "qualifying" based on an advanced qualification course to assure my skills are adequate as I get older based on the potential environments in which I may have to use my weapon. Normally, a CHL holder gets in those classes, which they should take quarterly, IMO.
As to liability three main questions are addressed (pehaps a fourth):
1. What was seen to warrant discharging the firearm
from the shooter's perspective.
2. The weapon and type of ammo used.
3. The amount of training and "continuing training" of the shooter, and perhaps*
4. The amount of training available to the shooter that was not taken, and perhaps*
5. The sobriety of the shooter and/or relationship of the shooter to the person shot*
* Depending upon the outcome of the discharge.
There are numerous subcategories of "questions" within each main question to flush out the reality of the situation as best as possible to reconstruct the situation and compare it to the forensics that were employed to test the "science" of the episode.
The speculation of "what ifs" is not really informative as to any outcome, because EVERY situation is different and there is no "ordinary" shooting.
I agree 100%:
"
Civilians don't have the level or repetition of training police do."
But I would modify it slightly by saying:
"Civilians don't have available the level or repetition of training police do."
The unavailability to civilians is a matter of "officer safety."
