The lack of clear behavioural distinction seems like a fair defense to me as mitigating circs rather than a complete letoff. The video to me looks like accident in that the action is so practised.
The buck still stops with him but the need for some very clear behavioural distinctions makes sense to me as far as preveting future incidents go , eg offhand draw for taser or whatever. And perhaps too much ‘quickdraw’ training might be a hazard and if anything added to his responsibility rather than reducing it? Some things can be too automatic.
I know very little about the case (saw videos when it happened and read this thread) but I definitely believe that the cop intended only to tase, which certainly reduces the crime.
Why? The shooting would just be too inexplicable otherwise. (I’m a fan of such probabilisitic reasoning, which should probably get me excused from any jury duty. For example, I knew Anita Hill was telling the truth in the Thomas hearing because the specific lying would otherwise be far too unlikely.)
Not having looked very deeply into this, this is what I feel as well. I haven’t read the entire thread, but has anyone here or elsewhere offered an explanation as to what they think his motivation was for the shooting? I don’t think there was any immediate threat to him or other officers at that moment. The accidental explanation seems to make the most sense to me just because I can’t imagine an officer saying, “Hey, you know what, I’m going to kill this bastard”. especially when they were in a public place and he was not in any real danger himself. Is there an alternate theory?
That is, even if we accept that he meant to use the taser and not the gun, i think that the level of negligence from a law enforcement officer in this case is sufficient to warrant a pretty hefty sentence. If we’re going to arm our police with guns and tasers, then an inability to tell one from the other should not constitute a defense or a mitigating factor when you shoot a prone person in the back, in my opinion.
I agree with you that it appears, from the video, that there was no “immediate threat to him or other officers at that moment.” But if that’s the case, why did he even need to draw a taser, let alone a gun?
If the experts John Mace heard on NPR turn out to be right, and he gets about 6 years, and if the gun enhancement means that he serves 85% of that, then i won’t be too unhappy, even though i’d prefer the sentence to be longer.
Honestly? No, not as you would commonly understand it. The most popular handgun in law enforcement circles is sold by Glock, and Glock handguns do not have a manual safety. They have three different safeties that disengage sequentially as the trigger is depressed, meaning that the only “manual safety” is the operator. SigSauer sells other popular models, and as with the Glock it has no manual safety even as it is very different in operation. Revolvers never had a manual safety.
Believe it or not, manual safeties on handguns are fairly rare.
Every gun has multiple safeties, unless it is perhaps >100 years old. They have safeties that prevent it from firing if dropped, safeties that prevent the hammer being jostled, etc. What you are asking about is a manual safety, and the answer is it depends. Some smaller departments might still use revolvers, which don’t. The most popular seems to be Glock models. They don’t have the traditional manual safety (switch or button), but do have trigger safeties, which along with grip safeties can supposedly only be disengaged if you are holding the pistol in a correct manner. I’m sure YMMV between departments.
Thanks guys. Frankly, I am shocked that a manual safety is not on every police weapon. Why would they not be on there by default? Isn’t this the kind of disaster they were designed to prevent?
Maybe when you need to use it rather quickly you don’t want to take the time to take a manual safety off. A safety is to prevent an accidental discharge, not to give you time to stop and reflect on whether or not you should shoot.
It certainly seems one reasonable explanation. The non-accidental theory I’d buy is that he really did have a sudden fear and fired based on a moment of panic. He testified that he decided to tase Grant because he thought he was trying to dig in his pocket. He also testified that, ever since his academy days, he constantly practiced drawing a gun from a holster. “It was the tool that was going to save your life,” he said.
So based on his constant practice drawing his pistol ( and his minimal experience practicing with his taser ), that’s the first thing he sought to do when he felt under threat ( maybe without even thinking much about it ) and then in a split-second of panic, he fired ( again, maybe mostly in reflex ). This in my mind would be consistent with VM, theory 2 - i.e. He acted in “imperfect self-defense,” based on an actual but unreasonable belief that he needed to use lethal force.
