14 hours ago, Hastings said:

Wow that I never expected to hear from an American. Usually it's our Russian Putin lovers who dismiss whatever shit happens in Russia with the words "Ah fuck it, worse things have happened in our time and we keep going, you wouldn't want to blame Putin for it". It's a really weird way to close eyes at problems.

The officer who fired a shot, at least under the law I studied. One who causes damage is liable for that damage unless acting in accordance with the law. One of the grounds for said liability is being reckless (meaning that the person could have reasonably predicted the negative outcome but neglected to do so). If firing a shot blindly through the door is not reckless per se, when I don't know what is.

As I've said before, there's a huge difference in accidentally hitting a bystander on the street while shooting a suspect, and blindly firing through stuff hoping to get some bad guys. The first situation is truly an accident. Police has eyes on the suspect, they have good aim, but accidentally a civilian gets in the way. Shit happens. The second is -- plainly -- being reckless, and an officer can't afford being reckless. That's why they are highly trained professionals trusted to do an extremely dangerous and demanding job.

oh yeah and please note I'm not defending the original shooter. Firing blindly at those who knocked at your door could probably even be classified as an attempted homicide. However, I guess that in some US states even that would be treated as a legal self-defense. A fair play you know, you fire at cops, they fire back, old Wild West days, the one who stays tells the tale.

That's why I love America (no joking, I really do)

Closing my eyes to what problem? Responding to someone who is shooting you from behind a door is not reckless and there is no law out there that says that is. I'm not sure what law you have studied but it isn't U.S. law and I imagine it isn't the law in Germany either.

10 hours ago, Hystery said:

No. I'm tired of this excuse used by people to cover cops who don't do their job right. I'm all for supporting police officers who do their job correctly. My own dad is a cop in the motorcycle squad. But at some point, you have to point a cop out when one does a big mistake. Always covering them no matter what happens is getting ridiculous. The girl was shot by the officer. His REACTION almost killed her, not the guy who shot at them with a gas gun. I never said that guy was innocent by the way, I said he was stupid. His action was understandable, but stupid. But the cop who shot through that door was equally, if not even more stupid.

 

I actually think the contrary, that if Trump gets elected, America, and most likely the whole civilized world, is going to implode, but that's not the topic.

Well it is clear that no matter what I say you are entrenched on the idea that the officer was wrong and this dumbass guy was well within his right to stick a pistol out of a door without seeing who was there and just blindly firing at people. So I am correct in assuming if this guy had blindly fired a pistol out of his door and instead of a couple of police officers he shot a little girl you would still think he didn't do anything wrong?

And the fact that you legitimately think the civilized world is "going to implode" just goes to show your overall mindset.

2 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

Closing my eyes to what problem? Responding to someone who is shooting you from behind a door is not reckless and there is no law out there that says that is. I'm not sure what law you have studied but it isn't U.S. law and I imagine it isn't the law in Germany either.

Well it is under the very definition of 'being reckless': Lata culpa est nimia negligentia id est non intelligere quod omnes intelligunt. Civil law systems are much the same when it comes to liability, so comparing the US law with the Germany legal system is not correct. 

12 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

Well it is clear that no matter what I say you are entrenched on the idea that the officer was wrong and this dumbass guy was well within his right to stick a pistol out of a door without seeing who was there and just blindly firing at people. So I am correct in assuming if this guy had blindly fired a pistol out of his door and instead of a couple of police officers he shot a little girl you would still think he didn't do anything wrong?

And the fact that you legitimately think the civilized world is "going to implode" just goes to show your overall mindset.

Now you're simply in bad faith. I never said the guy shooting out of his door was in his right. I said it was understandable. That's all I said. With that, I added, several times, that it was stupid to do that. Never said he was in his right at any moment. I'd appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth, it's making this discussion completely confused and confusing. I'll summary my opinion in short, clear points:

• the guy shooting out of his own door had an understandable (due to the assault and home-invasion he was the victim of earlier), yet stupid reaction (put himself and others in danger)
• the police officer had an understandable (thought he was threatened) yet stupid reaction (put himself in danger and shot an innocent girl by acting recklessly and unprofesionnally)
• the difference between the two being that an officer is supposed to act responsibly. While many officers do their job right and we should be grateful towards them, this police officer reacted in a way that should not be expected and should never be expected, and should as a result be punished for the harm he caused, just like the guy who shot out of his door.

Is that easier to understand? Once again, I'm fine with saying when cops do a good job, but the bad cops also need to be pointed out and punished to avoid laxism and an OK Corral atmosphere within the police ranks. Defending police officers ALL the time NO MATTER WHAT they do, to the point to say that a police officer who shot a girl made a 'good shot' is going beyond the line and getting ridiculous.

Edited April 12, 201610 yr by Hystery

It's really weird that so many people call that a reasonable decision. I would have no arguments if it was called 'an understandable reaction', 'self-defense instinct' or whatever, but saying it was legal and reasonable and not reckless? 

I'll try to explain it one more time and then give up, because that's going nowhere:

an officer of the police force has an obligation and must care about other people lives and property. That is the nature of the job. He fired a shot through the door not having a slightest idea who else might be inside, or in other words at that moment he didn't care. Therefore, that officer failed to exercise due care and therefore his actions were reckless. It's that simple - even despite the fact he had a reason to believe the gun was real and fear for his life. 

16 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

We can sit here all day and talk about what the officer should have done. 

Just like they would do in court. (only they'll be a hundred times more professional) 

*  *  *  *

Afternight UPD:

I might be assessing that situation as a lawyer/prosecutor rather than an officer. On the one hand I'm sure the officer acted recklessly and is liable for damage caused (and I would present that position in court if it was up to me). On the other hand we lawyers are not liked by the police officers because we live in our world of theory. What shall prevail -- the law or the reality -- is a topic too global to be discussed in this thread, so nolle prosequi.

Edited April 13, 201610 yr by Hastings

13 hours ago, Hystery said:

Now you're simply in bad faith. I never said the guy shooting out of his door was in his right. I said it was understandable. That's all I said. With that, I added, several times, that it was stupid to do that. Never said he was in his right at any moment. I'd appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth, it's making this discussion completely confused and confusing. I'll summary my opinion in short, clear points:

• the guy shooting out of his own door had an understandable (due to the assault and home-invasion he was the victim of earlier), yet stupid reaction (put himself and others in danger)
• the police officer had an understandable (thought he was threatened) yet stupid reaction (put himself in danger and shot an innocent girl by acting recklessly and unprofesionnally)
• the difference between the two being that an officer is supposed to act responsibly. While many officers do their job right and we should be grateful towards them, this police officer reacted in a way that should not be expected and should never be expected, and should as a result be punished for the harm he caused, just like the guy who shot out of his door.

Is that easier to understand? Once again, I'm fine with saying when cops do a good job, but the bad cops also need to be pointed out and punished to avoid laxism and an OK Corral atmosphere within the police ranks. Defending police officers ALL the time NO MATTER WHAT they do, to the point to say that a police officer who shot a girl made a 'good shot' is going beyond the line and getting ridiculous.

I got it, you are okay with good cops and want to call out bad cops. You have said that multiple times and I agree with that statement. Nowhere do I say that we should defend police officers all the time "no matter what". I guess it is difficult for you to imagine this scenario because you haven't had to experience it yourself but I am telling you that legally that officer was justified in what he did.

12 hours ago, Hastings said:

He fired a shot through the door not having a slightest idea who else might be inside 

I might be assessing that situation as a lawyer/prosecutor rather than an officer. On the one hand I'm sure the officer acted recklessly and is liable for damage caused (and I would present that position in court if it was up to me). On the other hand we lawyers are not liked by the police officers because we live in our world of theory. What shall prevail -- the law or the reality -- is a topic too global to be discussed in this thread, so nolle prosequi.

The officer fired a shot through the door knowing that the person on the other side was trying to shoot him. He knew that whoever was at that door meant to harm him so he responded.

And that is the issue, you guys are assessing the situation as regular people. This is US case law so it doesn't apply in Germany but I would not be surprised if they had their own similar case law, but in these situations you are supposed to look at the situation from a reasonable officer's point of view at the time of the incident. If you walked up to someone's door as a police officer and all the sudden a pistol is stuck out at you and someone from behind the door starts shooting at you what are you going to do? Are you not justified in returning fire? You have a split second to make a decision. You are in a narrow hallway with no cover and no place to immediately escape to, how are you going to stay alive? You don't know who is behind that door but you know whoever it is has a pistol and is willing to use it against you. Make a decision right now, you don't have time to think. If you stop for one second too long you might be dead.

19 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

The officer fired a shot through the door knowing that the person on the other side was trying to shoot him. He knew that whoever was at that door meant to harm him so he responded.

If he'd shot that person having a LOS on him, that's by the book. If you don't have a LOS, you don't know who are you shooting at, therefore you don't shoot.

21 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

 This is US case law so it doesn't apply in Germany but I would not be surprised if they had their own similar case law,

Germany is a civil law country, and German BGB and French Napoleonic Code are the foundation of many civil law systems around the world, including Russian. That is why I believe there are more similarities with Russian law than with American.

31 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

And that is the issue, you guys are assessing the situation as regular people.

I'm assessing this situation the way I was taught to asses such situations and the way I've seen them assessed. In Germany, granted, they might do that differently -- no one of us apparently knows.

35 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

If you walked up to someone's door as a police officer and all the sudden a pistol is stuck out at you and someone from behind the door starts shooting at you what are you going to do? Are you not justified in returning fire? You have a split second to make a decision. You are in a narrow hallway with no cover and no place to immediately escape to, how are you going to stay alive? You don't know who is behind that door but you know whoever it is has a pistol and is willing to use it against you. Make a decision right now, you don't have time to think. If you stop for one second too long you might be dead.

Like I said, I understand this reaction and with all honesty I would probably act the same way. And that's why I consider myself unfit for police service.

Actually that's a difference between the civil law and the common law. In common law systems courts care less about the formal side, and more about how people feel and act, from what I've learned.

You would make a good defence attorney by the way, I believe.

It sounded like they were a little quick with the triggers, but understandable. This reminded me of the Tamir Rice shooting, but instead of firing the gas pistol from behind a closed door, he was sitting in the open not pointing it at anyone. The only thing I fault the German cops for is not retreating. It amazes me that retreating and re-evaluating the situation from a safer place isn't a bigger part of police training. In terms of police shootings, Germany and other European countries are generally better than us. We can debate all we'd like about why that is, but we shouldn't forget it.

16 hours ago, Hastings said:

If he'd shot that person having a LOS on him, that's by the book. If you don't have a LOS, you don't know who are you shooting at, therefore you don't shoot.

Germany is a civil law country, and German BGB and French Napoleonic Code are the foundation of many civil law systems around the world, including Russian. That is why I believe there are more similarities with Russian law than with American.

I'm assessing this situation the way I was taught to asses such situations and the way I've seen them assessed. In Germany, granted, they might do that differently -- no one of us apparently knows.

Like I said, I understand this reaction and with all honesty I would probably act the same way. And that's why I consider myself unfit for police service.

Actually that's a difference between the civil law and the common law. In common law systems courts care less about the formal side, and more about how people feel and act, from what I've learned.

You would make a good defence attorney by the way, I believe.

If you understand their reaction and say that even you would do the same thing if you were in their shoes then how does that make what they did wrong? That is the whole defense as to why they did that. I am not talking about any civil law BS, people sue all the time and this 17 year old girl is well within her right to sue if she wants but civil law and criminal law are two different things. You can be found civilly liable and still not have committed a crime or visa versa. I am only looking at this from a criminal standpoint, the police officers were justified in defending themselves.

6 hours ago, Riley24 said:

It sounded like they were a little quick with the triggers, but understandable. This reminded me of the Tamir Rice shooting, but instead of firing the gas pistol from behind a closed door, he was sitting in the open not pointing it at anyone. The only thing I fault the German cops for is not retreating. It amazes me that retreating and re-evaluating the situation from a safer place isn't a bigger part of police training. In terms of police shootings, Germany and other European countries are generally better than us. We can debate all we'd like about why that is, but we shouldn't forget it.

I don't think it is comparable to Tamir Rice at all, the only thing they have in common is that they were both holding guns that didn't fire real bullets. Tamir Rice wasn't shooting at the police, this guy in Germany was.

Retreating isn't always an option. We don't know what the surrounding area looked like. In my experience a lot of apartment complexes have narrow hallways and there isn't really anything to take cover behind. We don't know if they were close to the stairs or if they were on the other side of the hallway with nowhere to go. It isn't always as simple as running away especially in close quarters combat. Even with all of that aside, the police are under no obligation to retreat when they are performing their duties.

Can we just agree and end this topic by concluding that while accidentally shooting and injuring an innocent bystander was not the desired outcome, that firing back at somebody unloading a weapon on the police was one of the viable responses at the time? In hindsight it may not have been the right choice, but you don't know when said person was going to stop firing their weapon or when they were going to fire again. I don't think he shouted "okay I'm done firing now", so we can't really sit here and armchair quarterback about something another officer did in the heat of the moment. As I said on the other page of this thread, it's probably not the decision I would have made, but I wasn't there.

(Happy 3,500 posts to me!)

Edited April 14, 201610 yr by unr3al

4 hours ago, l3ubba said:

If you understand their reaction and say that even you would do the same thing if you were in their shoes then how does that make what they did wrong? That is the whole defense as to why they did that. I am not talking about any civil law BS, people sue all the time and this 17 year old girl is well within her right to sue if she wants but civil law and criminal law are two different things. You can be found civilly liable and still not have committed a crime or visa versa. I am only looking at this from a criminal standpoint, the police officers were justified in defending themselves.

How does that make anything right? I'm definitely not the one who would act properly in a situation like that.

Well, I've got sidetracked by the phrase "whose fault was that", and start thinking about civil liability for injuries of that woman. OK, lets address German criminal law. If my memory is correct, the StBG provides that a person must accept the danger if under a legal obligation to do so, and that includes specific professions such as police, FD, and others, where taking risks is a part of the job. Then a court must decide whether the danger in question was far more serious than the damage caused.

 

I believe since you reside in Germany you are good in German. Perhaps you could look up some additional information regarding this case, it would be interesting to see the development.

2 hours ago, unr3al said:

Can we just agree and end this topic

Uhmm, why? I find this discussion really interesting.

Just now, Hastings said:

Uhmm, why? I find this discussion really interesting.

Because this thread wreaks of another one of those debates that will be ongoing and never end because nobody concedes to points or agrees to disagree. I've seen them before, I've mixed it up in them before, trust me; I know. I'm not saying you or l3ubba or whoever are personally responsible for it, but this is just going in a big circle.

26 minutes ago, Hastings said:

How does that make anything right? I'm definitely not the one who would act properly in a situation like that.

Well, I've got sidetracked by the phrase "whose fault was that", and start thinking about civil liability for injuries of that woman. OK, lets address German criminal law. If my memory is correct, the StBG provides that a person must accept the danger if under a legal obligation to do so, and that includes specific professions such as police, FD, and others, where taking risks is a part of the job. Then a court must decide whether the danger in question was far more serious than the damage caused.

 

I believe since you reside in Germany you are good in German. Perhaps you could look up some additional information regarding this case, it would be interesting to see the development.

Everyone accepts the danger of their profession but that doesn't mean they should be expected to just roll over and die when faced with a dangerous situation.

Actually my German is awful so I wouldn't be the best person to look up stuff about this.

29 minutes ago, unr3al said:

Because this thread wreaks of another one of those debates that will be ongoing and never end because nobody concedes to points or agrees to disagree. I've seen them before, I've mixed it up in them before, trust me; I know. I'm not saying you or l3ubba or whoever are personally responsible for it, but this is just going in a big circle.

Making anyone change their opinion on the Internet? Hard to do. For me this thread has already been useful, because it prompted me to freshen up my knowledge about German law, and I actually spend half of last night going through different US courts' decisions to understand their approach to the problem here. So I wouldn't say this all is for nothing. We lawyers love to argue on things.

 

13 hours ago, l3ubba said:

I don't think it is comparable to Tamir Rice at all, the only thing they have in common is that they were both holding guns that didn't fire real bullets. Tamir Rice wasn't shooting at the police, this guy in Germany was.

Retreating isn't always an option. We don't know what the surrounding area looked like. In my experience a lot of apartment complexes have narrow hallways and there isn't really anything to take cover behind. We don't know if they were close to the stairs or if they were on the other side of the hallway with nowhere to go. It isn't always as simple as running away especially in close quarters combat. Even with all of that aside, the police are under no obligation to retreat when they are performing their duties.

I was just saying that it reminded me of it. I'm sure this is an unfaircomparison and there are plenty of counter-examples out there, but it took someone firing the air gun from behind concealment to get the German cops to shoot, whereas the cops in Cleveland shot someone in plain sight. Again, probably a totally unfair comparison with plenty of counter-examples, but it kind of reassured my view that European cops are less quick to resort to lethal force than cops here in the US.

Right, I know they're not under any obligation to retreat and that its not always possible, but if they did in this case they would've realized pretty quickly that it wasn't actually a lethal force situation. A lot of times cops shoot when they perceive a deadly threat, and the results are tragic when they're wrong. Maybe retreating isn't the way, but there's gotta be a way to try to avoid stuff like this.

Shieet, my hard drive died yesterday evening, burying with him my Russian version of StBG with commentaries and all other useful law stuff I had been accumulating for the past 5 years. Make cloud backups, friends.

Interesting though that here in savage communist Russia that would be an instant discharge from police service and an extremely high possibility of criminal prosecution. We have it our own way here, using guns is generally a huge 'no-no' and there must be a verbal warning and a warning shot. A wounded bystander is a silk path to jail.

I believe this is the mindset more or less shared among European countries, while in the States, as our US friends here had demonstrated, officers' lives come first.

18 hours ago, Hastings said:

while in the States, as our US friends here had demonstrated, officers' lives come first.

That's a tad unfair to say, as it depends on a case by case basis, but police in the US face unique challenges the rest of the world doesn't, so the way they operate and the rights they have while performing their duties fits with those challenges in mind.

14 hours ago, unr3al said:

That's a tad unfair to say, as it depends on a case by case basis, but police in the US face unique challenges the rest of the world doesn't, so the way they operate and the rights they have while performing their duties fits with those challenges in mind.

I did not criticize the way the Americans use to police their own country, merely highlighted the differences in the approach. 

Myself, I like the way things are done in the common law system. 

On 4/14/2016 at 8:04 PM, Riley24 said:

I was just saying that it reminded me of it. I'm sure this is an unfaircomparison and there are plenty of counter-examples out there, but it took someone firing the air gun from behind concealment to get the German cops to shoot, whereas the cops in Cleveland shot someone in plain sight. Again, probably a totally unfair comparison with plenty of counter-examples, but it kind of reassured my view that European cops are less quick to resort to lethal force than cops here in the US.

Right, I know they're not under any obligation to retreat and that its not always possible, but if they did in this case they would've realized pretty quickly that it wasn't actually a lethal force situation. A lot of times cops shoot when they perceive a deadly threat, and the results are tragic when they're wrong. Maybe retreating isn't the way, but there's gotta be a way to try to avoid stuff like this.

To a certain extent you are right, but it depends on where in Europe you are (but that is beside the point). Unfortunately it is a complicated problem since each scenario is different and has many different factors. I think one of the biggest factors when it comes to comparing the use of deadly force in the U.S. compared to Europe is the culture. Living here in Germany for the past 2 years I have noticed that Germans (and most other Europeans) are generally more strict when it comes to following the laws and are much more submissive to authority figures (i.e. the police). Whereas Americans are all about "I know my rights" and "This is America, it's a free country and I don't have to listen to you".

2 hours ago, l3ubba said:

To a certain extent you are right, but it depends on where in Europe you are (but that is beside the point). Unfortunately it is a complicated problem since each scenario is different and has many different factors. I think one of the biggest factors when it comes to comparing the use of deadly force in the U.S. compared to Europe is the culture. Living here in Germany for the past 2 years I have noticed that Germans (and most other Europeans) are generally more strict when it comes to following the laws and are much more submissive to authority figures (i.e. the police). Whereas Americans are all about "I know my rights" and "This is America, it's a free country and I don't have to listen to you".

Right, which is actually one of the reasons why I love living here. I enjoy my 4th Amendment rights for example, and the idea of not having them as a citizen of another country is scary to me. But you're right, it feels like a lot of the times people don't really understand what their rights really are, and on the other end it feels like cops sometimes don't either. This is why education is so important.

 

9 hours ago, Riley24 said:

it feels like a lot of the times people don't really understand what their rights really are

I just love hearing on YouTube videos "I know my rights!".

Me: No. No, you don't.