Posted on 12/28/2019 9:16:41 AM PST by wastedyears
ALLAS (AP) — A federal judge has ruled the city of Dallas is not liable for an off-duty police officer fatally shooting a man in his own apartment last year.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn dismissed the city from civil lawsuit that the family of Botham Jean brought after the 26-year-old was killed by Amber Guyger.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
If she was on duty it can be said that the city is a fair target...but she wasn’t.
though this should serve as a wake up call on the people they hire to be cops.
Then again, Dallas is run by liberal idiots so they definitely won’t get the message.
Liberals want abuse of power because idiots will then grant them more power to “solve” the problem.
I don’t know enough about the case to have a relevant opinion but I do wonder how often,if at all,people have made the same mistake that she did in that particular building...that is to go to the apartment directly above,or below,the one they intended to go to.
Dam^, I thought most of the evidence (at least what I have seen) pointed to this being a bad shoot.
Who appointed the judge? The city should not be indemnified. The officer used deadly force without provocation. The intruder could have been a maintenance worker, inspector etc.
Limits the amount the family is going to collect in lawsuits. I doubt if the officer involved has much in the way of assets at this point.
A cop should have some form of situational awareness at all times. She didn’t.
Wow. Eating a bowl of ice cream.
Didn’t lock his front door?
Lock no good?
All the keys in that building fit all the doors?
I’m not sure I understand your point. The officer was “the intruder”. The victim was in his own apartment (which the officer mistook for her own).
She wasn’t on duty but was trained by the city. And in fact during that training they teach cops how to act in regards to crime when they’re off duty.
The officer was not on duty. Makes a big difference. You know, like actually knowing what you’re talking about instead of winging it without the facts on a public forum.
CC
in fact during that training they teach cops how to act in regards to crime when they’re off duty.....Show me factual examples of this ‘Training’.
Victim's apartment had a large red welcome mat in front of his door. Her apartment had no such adornment.
Did she use a gun provided by or license by the city?
I ponder, what would’ve happened had the guy shot her when she broke into his apartment.
They're told not to be a hero such as going into a greedy mart and witnessing a holdup, but not knowing if the holdup man has accomplices in the venue....Or going alone to investigate a burglary. No uniform, no bullet resistant vest, no radio...Very risky.
I could go on and on with examples of what cops are taught, but you're likly getting the point.
Court TV has been replaying the trial over the last few days. I happened to flip through it when the dead guy’s family was giving a news conference. I don’t know exactly what they were so upset about, the woman was tried and convicted. It may have been the sentence was too short or something, but the point is about 5 or 6 older black women did not seem to like white people......at all. Based on their attitudes you would think this happens every day and perpetrators get away with it.
________________________________________________
""Cops generally retain their police powers on and off duty. They can carry their firearms, badges, and whatever other equipment they choose to take with them. What they don't usually have is the immediate recognition that the uniform brings or direct radio communication with other cops.
The cop who decides to intervene in an off-duty situation runs the risk of not being recognized as a cop, or at least having someone say they didn't recognize the officer's police status. If that happens, many of the protections that on-duty police enjoy go away. A simple assault against a private citizen might be a felony if perpetrated against a police officer. If the defendant can make a plausible argument that he didn't know his victim was a police officer, he not only skates on the felony, but may even be able to raise an argument for self-defense.
On-duty cops responding to the scene are going to see a guy pointing gun or trying to overcome a private citizen. In a small-to-medium size department, everyone might know everyone else and the off-duty guy will be recognized. But if the department is a large one or the off-duty cop is outside his jurisdiction where the locals don't know who he is, he's just a guy with a gun. And we know what often happens to people with guns when the cops show up. On-duty cops may be on scene and the off-duty guy doesn't know about them. If he was on duty and had a radio, he would know when and where everyone was arriving and could coordinate tactics with them. But most cops aren't issued personal radios (they check them out of the station when they begin their work day), and even if they did, they're often too bulky to carry around comfortably. The advent of cell phones has helped with this situation, but there is still at least one intermediary (the dispatcher/call-taker) between the off-duty and the on-duty cop. This often translates to a lag of a minute or more to have a message get to its intended destination.
Officers who are "of color" are at special risk. The typical cop who rolls up on a situation and sees a member of a racial or ethnic minority pointing a gun at someone is going to assume the guy with a gun is a crook. Yes, this sounds racist, and probably is, but I think most other people (minorities included) would make the same assumption.""
That’s the narrative that has been pushed at the highest levels. Think Obama and Holder for example.
That narrative is a lie.
Good series of articles on the subject:
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3770841/posts?page=7#7
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.