How is This a Good Shoot?

[Ben]

Maybe there is something missing from the video. It sure looks like the shooter was shooting more out of anger because of the guy getting away than out of being in any danger. I was quite surprised to see she was acquitted. Again, maybe I'm missing something.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/13/oklahoma-da-s-office-releases-video-bail-officer-fatally-shooting-client.html

[TommyGunn]

IMHO, you don't see exactly what the recipient of the bullet was doing when the woman fired the gun.  I believe it is questionable whether or not the shooting was truly justified,  and, keeping in mind I don't know how the court testimony went,  I think the doctrine of "reasonable doubt" plays a big role here. 
I'm tempted  to say I don't know what the danger was to the woman .... but then,  I  didn't hear what the jury heard.
I can't really get too overly bothered by this   .....  there is too much room for doubt.
Just my two cents.

[dogmush]

That video sure doesn't look good,  You can see the drawer with the gun in it the whole time, and the dude doesn't seem to go towards it.  Obviously the jury heard something that gave them reasonable doubt, but damn.

Also the kids response doesn't read to me like someone that was scared for their life.  But people react in different ways.  


As an aside: Who the *expletive deleted*ck sits down in someone's office and takes their shoe and sock off?  that's freaking weird, and smelly.

[230RN]

Is a bail officer a "bounty hunter?"

I'm not sure about this, but aren't "bail officers" highly empowered under the law, more than even regular commissioned police officers?

As I understood it, they don't even need search warrants and the like to apprehend a person.  I think that's the way it works.

Perhaps "what's missing" is the judge's instructions to the jury about those laws?

Or perhaps it was a fleeing felon case?

I don't know for sure, but like you, I await further details.

[Hawkmoon]

Does not appear to be a good shoot. No threat -- the guy was trying to escape.

[cordex]

Or perhaps it was a fleeing felon case?

Shooting a fleeing felon (absent their presenting a direct threat) hasn't been Kosher in the US for more than thirty years.  That was decided in Tennessee v. Garner.

Hard to know exactly what he was doing, but the article implied that he was trying to get out a window and was shot in the back.

[RoadKingLarry]

Local story that didn't get a lot of publicity around here.
I wasn't in the courtroom and didn't hear the testimony presented so can't say one way or another.
I will say I don't care for  our current system of bounty hunter/bail bondsman set up though.

[freakazoid]

Shooting a fleeing felon (absent their presenting a direct threat) hasn't been Kosher in the US for more than thirty years.  That was decided in Tennessee v. Garner.

Hard to know exactly what he was doing, but the article implied that he was trying to get out a window and was shot in the back.

Had to look that up. The ruling reasoning doesn't seem to make sense. It says that the killing of a fleeing suspect to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. So would chasing them down and capturing them also be an "unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment"? So are cops just supposed to let any suspect that flees to get away?

[cordex]

Had to look that up. The ruling reasoning doesn't seem to make sense. It says that the killing of a fleeing suspect to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. So would chasing them down and capturing them also be an "unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment"? So are cops just supposed to let any suspect that flees to get away?

I'm not a legal expert, but I don't think Garner prohibits non-lethal force.  Being killed by the cops was considered by the court to be a permanent seizure of a person's life without due process.  Non-lethal methods of effecting capture are neither permanent nor without due process (in that such methods lead directly to due process).

Garner was a positive ruling, especially in light of the the ever expanding meaning of "felony".

[Hawkmoon]

So would chasing them down and capturing them also be an "unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment"? So are cops just supposed to let any suspect that flees to get away?

If they don't pose an immediate threat to the police or to the populace, I believe the answer is yes. Chase them, if doing so doesn't endanger the public, but shooting them in the back is frowned upon.

[230RN]

Had to look that (Tennessee v. Garner) up. The ruling reasoning doesn't seem to make sense. It says that the killing of a fleeing suspect to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. So would chasing them down and capturing them also be an "unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment"? So are cops just supposed to let any suspect that flees to get away?

I was uncomfortable as well since it seemed to lead to a pythonesque situation where if you catch a guy plunging it in and out of a screaming girl, nobody can do anything about it until the guy is found guilty of rape in a court of law.

I guess if I ever come across a guy wrestling a cop for his gun, I'll let the matter settle itself out and one or the other is dead.   No sense taking a chance on the turn of a legal phrase or a twisting of one word's meaning by a slick attorney before I intervene on the cop's behalf.  I mean, after all, I'm the proverbial "reasonable man."

But I'm not a lawyer, and I wouldn't want to deprive the guy of his due process by running up and putting one in his left ear.

Let the "yeah, buts" with appropriate case law citations begin.  

Terry, 230RN

[KD5NRH]

Maybe there is something missing from the video. It sure looks like the shooter was shooting more out of anger because of the guy getting away than out of being in any danger. I was quite surprised to see she was acquitted. Again, maybe I'm missing something.

I'm missing at least two things:
 1) She claimed PD was already on the way, so why tip her hand at all?  Just give him some long form to fill out to stall him until they get there.  Tell him it'll get part of his payment back or whatever is needed to get him to want to hang around.
 2) Why the heck weren't there burglar bars on the window?  Bondsmen are known to do a lot of cash transactions anyway, most of them tend to secure their offices regardless of location, and from the shots of the outside, that's the sort of place that should have bars anyway.

[230RN]

KD5NRH:
" 1) She claimed PD was already on the way, so why tip her hand at all?  Just give him some long form to fill out to stall him until they get there.  Tell him it'll get part of his payment back or whatever is needed to get him to want to hang around."

Because then she wouldn't be making the recovery/capture, the police would?  I don't know how that works with "bail agents."

Maybe (ha-ha) there was a "Wanted Dead or Alive" poster out on him somewhere.  (I don't know how that used to work, either.)

But the Court found it was a good shoot, so...

[Fly320s]

I guess if I ever come across a guy wrestling a cop for his gun, I'll let the matter settle itself out and one or the other is dead.   No sense taking a chance on the turn of a legal phrase or a twisting of one word's meaning by a slick attorney before I intervene on the cop's behalf.  I mean, after all, I'm the proverbial "reasonable man."

You can't be serious.

[230RN]

... pythonesque...

i.e., Don't take it too literally.