And that's reasonable. If I'm a HAZMAT truck driver who gets pulled over and charged with a DUI (let's say I blew a .03) - I lose my license and job. It sounds to me like (and from what Leper is saying) that my defense could be, "well, guys - I am on the road all day long.....based on that fact alone, when can I be allowed to exercise a little "bad judgment" with impunity??? I mean, hey - I'm only human..."

Not a good analogy. If the cop got a DUI, I would not be defending him. Why? Probably because drinking alcohol is not within the purview of his responsibility as a cop, or a truck driver.

P.S. Without getting sidetracked, I object to the usage of the term "residential area" in this case. When I think of a "residential area," I do not think of a place where a grandpa takes his 5-year old grandson fishing in a pond. Thus, I find the usage of that term somewhat specious.

I, on the other hand, have always had good experiences with police officers of all types, military or otherwise. My uncle is a retired Ft. Worth PD sgt. His take is interesting in this matter.
Many officers I've spoken to, including the uncle just mentioned, say officers need to be held to a higher standard. They represent something in the community beyond a regular Joe, which is seen in the fact that they receive greater protections in law. (eg, kill a cop and it's a capital offense) On flip side, when they screw up, thay should be held accountable to the full extent of the law, not given a pass.

With all due respect to your uncle, he is also taking a fairly self-righteous perspective. The reality of the situation is that police are frequently protected by the law more than a regular Joe.

Police are protected by official immunity, which protects them from lawsuits. For instance, a police officer on duty can run through red lights to pursue any criminal without being liable for a traffic accident that may occur. Now, take away the protection of a uniform and the cop becomes a Joe Schmoe and cannot run through red lights to pursue most offenders. Thus, cops do have protection that ordinary citizens don't have. And that protection is necessary so that cops can do their jobs without being harrassed by innumerable lawsuits and/or criminal charges.

As a personal example, I once heard the testimony of a cop who had to shoot a pit bull that started running toward him in an "aggressive" manner. That shooting occurred in a residential neighborhood (And I'm using this term to describe an area where there are no fishingponds, just houses). Moreover, there was another cop in a better position who did not shoot. The other cop was reprimanded for not shooting. Now, I'm sure there was a very small chance that the bullet fired by the cop could have ricocheted and killed a toddler in his bedroom. But the reality of his situation is that he was fulfilling his duties as a police officer. If that were a Joe Schmoe shooting the pit bull, that situation would have been examined much more closely (granted, self-defense would still be applicable).

With all due respect to your uncle, he is also taking a fairly self-righteous perspective.Self-righteous, my ass. He's is taking the position that all officers should take, the one that supports and promotes the respect for officers which should be held by the public.
The reality of the situation is that police are frequently protected by the law more than a regular Joe. \That's what I said.
Police are protected by official immunity, which protects them from lawsuits. For instance, a police officer on duty can run through red lights to pursue any criminal without being liable for a traffic accident that may occur. Now, take away the protection of a uniform and the cop becomes a Joe Schmoe and cannot run through red lights to pursue most offenders. Thus, cops do have protection that ordinary citizens don't have. And that protection is necessary so that cops can do their jobs without being harrassed by innumerable lawsuits and/or criminal charges.Cops who go barrelling through intersections can, should and have been punished if they did so in a negligent manner. Just like with this shooting.
(And I'm using this term to describe an area where there are no fishingponds, just houses).We have a fishing pond in my "residential area," right here in West Houston. Having a fishing pond does not make an area non-residential, and it's silly for you to make this an issue, doncha think?
Now, I'm sure there was a very small chance that the bullet fired by the cop could have ricocheted and killed a toddler in his bedroom. But the reality of his situation is that he was fulfilling his duties as a police officer.No, he was defending himself, cop or not. The Noble, OK, situation was not an imminent danger; the pit bull was.
If that were a Joe Schmoe shooting the pit bull, that situation would have been examined much more closely (granted, self-defense would still be applicable).True, because there is the presumption that cops will do the right/responsible/reasonable thing, something which is proper and should be protected/supported by quickly punishing those who don't. To circle the wagons and protect an idiot does harm to all officers who are decent and responsible, committed to protecting 5 year old kids at residential fishing ponds.

Not a good analogy. If the cop got a DUI, I would not be defending him.
Are analogies usually weak, yes - but are we NOT talking about someone, who, while ON THE JOB, made a poor decision that (not only could've, but even worse yet in this situation, actually did) result in someone's death??? From what I can read into this (using LOGIC and in trying to be completely fair), there's simply NO EXCUSE for his chosen course of action. Not only was it boneheaded in the extreme, he killed a child. End of story.

Answer me this - had it been you or I, then what do you think would've happened to us? If you think our punishment would be on par with what this trigger-happy redneck is facing, then think again. As if that's not reason enough to be pissed off - here, we have you arguing for leniency, because, presumably, you think his job might force him (someday, that is) to confront a bigger threat than eventually choking on a bear claw (while gunning traffic, of course). It simply boggles the mind.

Just outta curiosity, do you work for the state?
Why? Probably because drinking alcohol is not within the purview of his responsibility as a cop, or a truck driver.
Nor is it within the bounds of logic to fire your PISTOL into the air while in a RESIDENTIAL AREA at a snake. That's something we'd expect from a 13-year-old who snuck daddy's .38 out to shoot at cans. I mean, seriously - how on Earth can you defend this man, Leper? I've found you to be very direct and logical, in general. Your stance here surprises the shit outta me.

I've found you to be very direct and logical, in general. Your stance here surprises the shit outta me.Dotto. This is suprising to me, too, as Leper is not one I'd consider nuts.

The reality of the situation is that police are frequently protected by the law more than a regular Joe.
This is true, but in my opinion, it's complete bullshit. I mean, after all, the officer in question could have a two-digit IQ. IMO, they have waaaay too much power, and in my experience, they loooove abusing it - they speed, blow lights, drink at bars in their town with impunity, etc., etc. - the list goes on and on.

I've found you to be very direct and logical, in general. Your stance here surprises the shit outta me.

Likewise Prae, at least as far as the first sentence is concerned.


Dotto. This is suprising to me, too, as Leper is not one I'd consider nuts.

SMW and VP also defend this guy, so obviously this issue is not as clear cut as you guys think...particularly considering the fact that y'all want a jury of 12 people to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is true, but in my opinion, it's complete bullshit. I mean, after all, the officer in question could have a two-digit IQ. IMO, they have waaaay too much power, and in my experience, they loooove abusing it - they speed, blow lights, drink at bars in their town with impunity, etc., etc. - the list goes on and on.
Yep, Prae... up to and until some big ole mean brute attacked YOU. Then you'd be running off squealing like a little girl, "SOMEBODY CALL THE COPS!!"

;)
SMW

P.S. I dated a cop once, though... so I hear ya on the 'too much power' thing. I just don't happen to think shooting a snake in a tree in podunk, OK constitutes too much power.

Yep, Prae... up to and until some big ole mean brute attacked YOU. Then you'd be running off squealing like a little girl, "SOMEBODY CALL THE COPS!!"Well, the police have a legitimate role. I just hope that if one responds to your call he/she doen't irresponsibly kill a kid.
I just don't happen to think shooting a snake in a tree in podunk, OK constitutes too much power.Did he shoot a snake, or a kid?

...particularly considering the fact that y'all want a jury of 12 people to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.All I want is for a jury to have a chance to look at it.

Well, the police have a legitimate role. I just hope that if one responds to your call he/she doen't irresponsibly kill a kid.
Did he shoot a snake, or a kid?
I believe he intentionally shot a snake... and unintentionally shot a kid.

Stories are in the news all the time in the big city about people who shoot random shots into the air and sometimes they come down and hit people. It's a shame we seldom learn who those perps are so the public could get just as outraged over them as they seem to be over that poor Barney Fife cop.

:(
SMW

Yep, Prae... up to and until some big ole mean brute attacked YOU. Then you'd be running off squealing like a little girl, "SOMEBODY CALL THE COPS!!"

Oh, I don't know about that, SMW -

If I wanted to know the location of a good speeding trap, or a Dunkin' Donuts, then I'd call a cop. If I wanted to be prosecuted (in Illinois, that is) for shooting the aforementioned "big ole mean brute" right between the eyes with my .45, then I'd definitely give the local "good guys" a holler. Either way, I suppose they'd find their way to the crime scene eventually (and right in time to generate the requisite paperwork for my corpse, no less). Yeah - on average, I've found them to be HIGHLY useful....

You know, come to think of it - they were there to fill out paperwork when we were robbed, they were there to fill out paperwork when my mother was assaulted, AND they were there to....(yep, you guessed it ;))...fill out paperwork when my car was broken into. (I've found that it helps with insurance.)

Of course, they're readily available when it comes to generating revenue for the state, i.e., when it comes to citing people with bullshit offenses. I always see some proposition or bill put forth to "employ" more cops (and I love this one) to "keep the streets safe", as if we were running low on traffic citations OR pencil pushers, for that matter....guffaw.
P.S. I dated a cop once, though... so I hear ya on the 'too much power' thing. I just don't happen to think shooting a snake in a tree in podunk, OK constitutes too much power.
Give a gun to a retard and my guess is he'll fire it into the air, too. IMHO that "constitutes" too much power. That aside, "power" comes in many forms, SMW.

I hear ya, Prae... and sympathize with your experiences.

As for me, I'm always VERY happy when a transit cop rides on my train car on the way home. Not that I've ever really been in danger, but their presence sure keeps the rowdies quiet.

The cop I had a fling with was retired Dallas Police and went to work for the Sheriff's Dept. When the cops had a really nasty crime scene on their hands, they'd always call him to come out because they knew how he loved that sh*t. The gorier the better. We were at a restaurant one night and something was mentioned about beards. He looked me straight in the eye and said, "You show me a man with a moustache or beard, and I'll show you one low down, sorry SOB." I was shocked!! Have to admit, he was the biggest bigot I ever met... and our 'fling' didn't last too long. He wanted to 'take me to the lake to meet his friends' and all I wanted to do was get the hell away from him... AND his gun!

So, I sympathize. Just don't think they're ALL like that.

"To Protect and To Serve" -- and put their life on the line everytime they answer a call. Hard for me to fault them for that.

;)
SMW

As for me, I'm always VERY happy when a transit cop rides on my train car on the way home. Not that I've ever really been in danger, but their presence sure keeps the rowdies quiet.
That's an excellent point - they do serve as a crime deterrent, which is why I think all of them should drive around in chartreuse squad cars and wear bright orange jumpsuits with red targets on their uniforms....I mean, because it let's everyone know, um, who they are, and what not. Unmarked cars, sport utility vehicles (in urban areas, no less), and "tactical units" in bumfuck Michigan should be flat-out REMOVED form "use", and deleted from the budget.

Why they're not driving around in economy Fords or Chevy’s is beyond me. Well, not really – for WE pay for the gas in the cars they leave running while they chitchat with the gas station attendant.

Most of those 'fancy' cars are confiscated in drug busts, Prae. At least around here they are. That's not to say they shouldn't be sold at auction and the money used to hire more cops though. I'd agree to that premise.

Most of those 'fancy' cars are confiscated in drug busts, Prae.
I'm not talking about the Vipers and Corvettes they steal, SMW - I'm talking about NEW Ford Expeditions, Tahoes, and undercover minivans, Mustangs, and Camaros:

http://www.odysseyauto.com/vehicles/expeditions/images/paramuspd-ext-side.jpg

http://www.allaguida.it/img/large-chevrolet-tahoe-police-car-2007-01.jpg

They're all bullshit.

All I want is for a jury to have a chance to look at it.

To do that, you would have to spend a lot of government resources and a lot of jury time. Not to mention you would have the cop spending money trying to fund his defense rather than spend money trying to help the family of the 5-year old. And for what purpose? I'm sorry, I don't see the cop's bad judgment in how to resolve a 911 call as a continuing threat to society. If he no longer is a gun-toting cop, then he's no longer a threat, right? If so, isn't the solution to simply remove him from the position he's in?

I believe he intentionally shot a snake... and unintentionally shot a kid.Did the snake even get shot? We know the child was negligently shot!

P.S. Without getting sidetracked, I object to the usage of the term "residential area" in this case. When I think of a "residential area," I do not think of a place where a grandpa takes his 5-year old grandson fishing in a pond. Thus, I find the usage of that term somewhat specious.

I agree. I thought the same thing when the story first came out, and that's what prompted me to do a Yahoo Maps search and a Google Earth search and look at the neighborhood for myself.

Crest Lane in Noble OK is on the outside edge of a residential neighborhood. The five homes in the 300 block of Crest Lane all have backyards that open on the east into an area that is open country. There's a pond about 375-400 feet directly east of the center house in this row of houses. Between the houses and the pond are trees, and the pond appears to be at a lower elevation than the houses, which may make it more difficult to see.

My only point here is that yes the snake was in a "residential neighborhood", but it has its rural qualities as well. These people aren't living in a big city.

To do that, you would have to spend a lot of government resources and a lot of jury time.That what they're there for.
Not to mention you would have the cop spending money trying to fund his defense rather than spend money trying to help the family of the 5-year old.Not the cops I've talked to.
And for what purpose?Justice, maybe?
I'm sorry, I don't see the cop's bad judgment in how to resolve a 911 call as a continuing threat to society. If he no longer is a gun-toting cop, then he's no longer a threat, right? If so, isn't the solution to simply remove him from the position he's in?Maybe. Perhaps he should be placed on probation and given the chance to prove it. One might also consider, though I believe you've already stated your disagreement, the message that is sent by reminding everyone who fires a gun that they are responsible for the bullet. Giving this guy a pass sends a weak message for anyone else who would be irresponsible with deadly tools.

My only point here is that yes the snake was in a "residential neighborhood", but it has its rural qualities as well. These people aren't living in a big city.All the more reason to be careful when a recreational area is downrange. How often are kids out playing in the woods? Or fishing at the pond?

All the more reason to be careful when a recreational area is downrange. How often are kids out playing in the woods? Or fishing at the pond?

Honestly, after looking at the layout of the area, I can understand someone thinking they could fire a pistol into it and not hit anyone or anything besides a tree or a hill.

Honestly, after looking at the layout of the area, I can understand someone thinking they could fire a pistol into it and not hit anyone or anything besides a tree or a hill.I looked at it on Google earth. (And it is not very clear. Sorta dark.) No pass from me.

That what they're there for.


You understand government resources are limited, right? So when you spend those resources goin after this guy, you're diverting resources from traditional crimes. Not to mention, when you call 50 people in for jury duty, that's 50 people who are not producing that day....about one fifth of a year's worth of productivity. All to try to punish a guy for what is an undisputed accident.

My only point here is that yes the snake was in a "residential neighborhood", but it has its rural qualities as well. These people aren't living in a big city.
Well, they may not be living in a "big city", per se - however (and I state this rather emphatically) as the odds stand currently, the "Noble" cops are batting .500 with stray rounds. I don't know.......maybe that's reason enough to consider it fairly populated.

You understand government resources are limited, right? So when you spend those resources goin after this guy, you're diverting resources from traditional crimes. Not to mention, when you call 50 people in for jury duty, that's 50 people who are not producing that day....about one fifth of a year's worth of productivity. All to try to punish a guy for what is an undisputed accident.

It was an accident yes. What do you think should happen from here?

It was an accident yes. What do you think should happen from here?

Civil liability as well as the officer either being fired or demoted to a position where he isn't making decisions under hazardous circumstances.

...an undisputed accident. "Negligence" is not the same as an accident. The law recognizes this. That is the issue at hand.

I believe he was negligent and therefore should be held criminally responsible; you don't seem to think a man should know what's out in the wooded area before firing. Additionally, I think he was negligent to fire a pistol at a snake in a tree in the first place; you thing there was some imminent danger. Let a jury decide.

Civil liability as well as the officer either being fired or demoted to a position where he isn't making decisions under hazardous circumstances.
"Fired"? Yes. "Demoted"? Unless it's to Lt. custodian, I don't think so. I agree with making him (and the entire Noble Police Dept., for that matter) civilly liable.

Civil liability as well as the officer either being fired or demoted to a position where he isn't making decisions under hazardous circumstances.My god! If the one which was reported was too hazardous for this guy, how would putting behind a desk help? He could get a nasty paper cut, or start firing on the shredder! (You know where they get rid of all the dope on cops who negligently kill kids.)

"Negligence" is not the same as an accident. The law recognizes this. That is the issue at hand.


No, there is no common legal definition for "accident." In fact, the most common form of negligence is a traffic accident.

No, there is no common legal definition for "accident." In fact, the most common form of negligence is a traffic accident.
Do you not see the cop's action as fitting this usage?


negligence

Main Entry: neg·li·gence
Pronunciation: \ˈne-gli-jən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a: the quality or state of being negligent b: failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances2: an act or instance of being negligent


negligent

Main Entry: neg·li·gent
Pronunciation: \-jənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin neglegent-, neglegens, present participle of neglegere
Date: 14th century
1 a: marked by or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably b: failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances2: marked by a carelessly easy manner
— neg·li·gent·ly adverb

Civil liability as well as the officer either being fired or demoted to a position where he isn't making decisions under hazardous circumstances.
Eh, I could live with that.

Civil liability...How much is a 5 year old boy worth these days?

How much is a 5 year old boy worth these days?

Come on Shiloh, ya have to give them something, that's the way it works now a days. I know it sounds like blood money...'cause it is, but...what are you gonna do? Nothing is going to bring him back so dig deep.

Fire the officer. The parents should sue the department and the unnamed bozo who killed their child due to his wanton regard for logic or gun safety. Oh, and the city manager should be shit-canned too.

Do you not see the cop's action as fitting this usage?


Probably, hence the civil liability (although you need to understand legal definitions are not the same as dictionary definitions). That doesn't change the fact that it was an accident.

I do see your point there, Leper.

Probably, hence the civil liability (although you need to understand legal definitions are not the same as dictionary definitions). That doesn't change the fact that it was an accident.And its being an "accident" doesn't change the fact that it is criminally negligent, or damn well ought to be.

Probably, hence the civil liability (although you need to understand legal definitions are not the same as dictionary definitions).Do you generally hang out with undereducated, inexperienced people?
That doesn't change the fact that it was an accident.Yeah, and "accident" has no legal definition that applies here, does it?

§21 716. Manslaughter in the second degree.
Every killing of one human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, which, under the provisions of this chapter, is not murder, nor manslaughter in the first degree, nor excusable nor justifiable homicide, is manslaughter in the second degree.

§21-701.8. Murder in the second degree.
Homicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases:
1. When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual
(May run into problems with "depraved mind," though OK courts have made distinctions between "depraved Mind" murder and 2nd Degree felony murder.)

My guess is Manslaughter 2.

Do you generally hang out with undereducated, inexperienced people?

Petty insults aren't going to get you around the fact that it was an accident.



May run into problems with "depraved mind,"


You think?

Petty insults aren't going to get you around the fact that it was an accident.I wasn't insulting you. I was pointing out that your comment was insulting to me. And you can't get around the fact that some "accidents" are criminal. No one is saying it was intentional, so you're arguing the wrong case.
You think?I think: maybe. Oklahoma has convictions on this charge without the "dictionary definition" of depraved being met.

If you can, let's move beyond your repeating "It was an accident," "you just don't like cops," and whatever you repeat to avoid looking at the issue, and try this for me: What is wrong with the Manslaughter 2 charge?

§21 716. Manslaughter in the second degree.
Every killing of one human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, which, under the provisions of this chapter, is not murder, nor manslaughter in the first degree, nor excusable nor justifiable homicide, is manslaughter in the second degree.

I was pointing out that your comment was insulting to me.

For whatever it's worth, that was not my intent.

If you can, let's move beyond your repeating "It was an accident,"

Just so long as you recognize that this point is central to my stance on this issue.



§21 716. Manslaughter in the second degree.
Every killing of one human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, which, under the provisions of this chapter, is not murder, nor manslaughter in the first degree, nor excusable nor justifiable homicide, is manslaughter in the second degree.

Assuming what you're posting is accurate, this sounds like OK's version of the negligent homicide....I would guess "culpable negligence" is basically what Texas calls "criminal negligence."

If those are analagous laws like I suspect, then I would say it doesn't fit. Nevertheless, I fully acknowledge that I don't feel comfortable talking about OK law and would like to read more OK law before I gave a firm opinion.

P.S. Just to throw in my two cents, I can't stand the way this law is written...Maybe it's an OK thing.

EDIT: I looked up OK homicide law (cause I'm a dork like that)...here's kindof an important part of their homicide statute.

"§ 731. Excusable homicide, what is

Homicide is excusable in the following cases:

1. When committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act, by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent.

..."

Interesting post, Leper. It's going to come down to whether he exercised "ordinary caution" it would seem. Unless of course his discharge of his firearm was unlawful.

For whatever it's worth, that was not my intent.Not a problem.
Just so long as you recognize that this point is central to my stance on this issue.I understand that, and totally agree that killing the child was not intended.
Assuming what you're posting is accurate, this sounds like OK's version of the negligent homicide....I would guess "culpable negligence" is basically what Texas calls "criminal negligence."It was a C/P from OK statutes.
EDIT: I looked up OK homicide law (cause I'm a dork like that)I would hope and expect you to.
...here's kindof an important part of their homicide statute.

"§ 731. Excusable homicide, what is

Homicide is excusable in the following cases:

1. When committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act, by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent.

...""Usual and ordinary caution," regardless of the question of discharge in city limits for less than imminant threat, ought to be a real issue, since there is no indication that the officer even checked what might have been down range, and that is a primary rule for gun use. Therein is my complaint with this matter. Anyone could have been in the wooded area, climbing trees, looking for frogs, or just having a stroll. Or, fishing in the pond, of course.

I wasn't insulting you. I was pointing out that your comment was insulting to me. And you can't get around the fact that some "accidents" are criminal. No one is saying it was intentional, so you're arguing the wrong case.
I think: maybe. Oklahoma has convictions on this charge without the "dictionary definition" of depraved being met.

If you can, let's move beyond your repeating "It was an accident," "you just don't like cops," and whatever you repeat to avoid looking at the issue, and try this for me: What is wrong with the Manslaughter 2 charge?

§21 716. Manslaughter in the second degree.
Every killing of one human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, which, under the provisions of this chapter, is not murder, nor manslaughter in the first degree, nor excusable nor justifiable homicide, is manslaughter in the second degree.

Very good point as usual shiloh - and as of today they still refuse to release the name of the officer - let's see - it's been a week and a half - but the Mexican that backed up his construction truck and ran over a teenager in a construction area, is immediately put in jail and charged with negligent homicide in Oklahoma City. His back-up signals were not working. That's what negligent means - firing at a snake that was not a threat to public safety - and especially by a police officer.
And I myself have NEVER had a bad experience with a police officer. There are great police officers - but not this one.

Very good point as usual shiloh - and as of today they still refuse to release the name of the officer - let's see - it's been a week and a half - but the Mexican that backed up his construction truck and ran over a teenager in a construction area, is immediately put in jail and charged with negligent homicide in Oklahoma City. His back-up signals were not working. That's what negligent means - firing at a snake that was not a threat to public safety - and especially by a police officer.
And I myself have NEVER had a bad experience with a police officer. There are great police officers - but not this one.In Houston right now there is a 15 year old charged with several counts of murder. He, a brother (I think) and some friends steal a car, go joy riding and have an accident, everyone dies but the driver. He is charged with multiple murders. Now, taking the car was wrong. Driving under age was wrong. All the deaths are terrible. But to charge this idiot with murder in the matter, and then see the cop get a pass just doen't seem like a fair standard of justice.

In Houston right now there is a 15 year old charged with several counts of murder. He, a brother (I think) and some friends steal a car, go joy riding and have an accident, everyone dies but the driver. He is charged with multiple murders. Now, taking the car was wrong. Driving under age was wrong. All the deaths are terrible. But to charge this idiot with murder in the matter, and then see the cop get a pass just doen't seem like a fair standard of justice.

I'm guessing he's charged with what's called "felony murder." When someone dies during the commission of a felony, the felon is charged with murder. Of course, he's 15...that changes things quite a bit.

"Usual and ordinary caution," regardless of the question of discharge in city limits for less than imminant threat, ought to be a real issue, since there is no indication that the officer even checked what might have been down range, and that is a primary rule for gun use. Therein is my complaint with this matter. Anyone could have been in the wooded area, climbing trees, looking for frogs, or just having a stroll. Or, fishing in the pond, of course.
Exactly what I thought when I read his application of the statute for "excusable homicide". I really don't think this was excusable, period.

.
"Usual and ordinary caution," regardless of the question of discharge in city limits for less than imminant threat, ought to be a real issue, since there is no indication that the officer even checked what might have been down range, and that is a primary rule for gun use. Therein is my complaint with this matter. Anyone could have been in the wooded area, climbing trees, looking for frogs, or just having a stroll. Or, fishing in the pond, of course.

I will concede that this issue is debatable. Personally, for anyone shooting a snake in their backyard, I think usual and ordinary caution would be to look around to see if anyone is nearby and make sure you're not shooting toward an area where people are likely to be.

I'm envisioning a situation where you have a rural neighborhood and a wooded aread behind the houses. I would not want to prosecute someone for shooting what they thought was a poisonous snake in that situation. However, a lot of questions about the situation remain. For instance, I would probably agree with you if it was a known fact that kids frequently play in the woods that he was firing into.

I would hope and expect you to.


Oh yeah, let's get something straight about this response. I'm not your attorney and I don't consider it my duty to look up every law you have questions about. I'm on this board because I like to debate everyday issues. Sometimes, I answer questions about the law because there is a lot of misunderstanding about the law among the general public, and, unlike a lot of attorneys, I like to do what I can to educate people.

But when you take that for granted, and lay terms like "expect" on me, I find it somewhat offensive.

You understand government resources are limited, right? So when you spend those resources goin after this guy, you're diverting resources from traditional crimes. Not to mention, when you call 50 people in for jury duty, that's 50 people who are not producing that day....about one fifth of a year's worth of productivity. All to try to punish a guy for what is an undisputed accident.

Wow, Leper, this is a unique argument. We should give the guy a pass because it might cost a bit of money to prosecute him. Why don't we do that with all crimes. Just think of all the money we could save.

We impanel juries for robberies and breakins. We don't say it would cost money or people would miss work. We say a crime was possibly committed and we want to bring the possible perpetrator to trial. Money or inconvenience doesn't enter into the equation. To say that we should give the cop a free pass because it might cost a bit, or inconvenience some people really defies logic.

Money or inconvenience doesn't enter into the equation.

Of course it does. Prosecutors take that into account all the time when they're deciding which criminals to prosecute and which ones to offer a plea deal. They have to weigh the expense of a trial, and their chances of winning, against the offense and decide whether to proceed with a prosecution.

Just out of curiosity Frogger, what do you think the chances are that the officer in this case might commit this same "crime" again? I used the quotes because it has yet to be determined whether he committed a crime in this case.

What do I think the chances are the officer will commit the same crime again, Vilepagan? Probably about the same as a wife killer killing another wife.

What's your point?

What do I think the chances are the officer will commit the same crime again, Vilepagan? Probably about the same as a wife killer killing another wife.

What's your point?

Do you think the chances of a repeat offense should be weighed in a sentencing decision?

Probably about the same as a wife killer killing another wife.



Wow, now there's a dishonest answer.

Do you think the chances of a repeat offense should be weighed in a sentencing decision?

Is that not what takes place when pedophilies are being sentenced?

Wow, now there's a dishonest answer.

It is not at all a dishonest answer, Leper.

So far we have been told that it would cost money to try the officer. we have been told it would inconvenience people. And now we are asked if there is a good chance he will repeat his actions in the future.

I doubt the officer will ever again shoot at a snake and kill a young boy. I also doubt that a man who kills his wife will go on and kill another wife in the future. The point to my answer to Vilepagan was that if we do not take the probability of a repeat of his actions in the one case it is not a valid defense in the other case.

You, Vile and SMW can continue to make all the excuses for the officer you wish. You can continue to give reasons why he should not have to answer for his actions. So long as you do I will continue to point out the absurdity of your arguments.

It is not at all a dishonest answer, Leper.

You just said that the future dangerous of an intentional murderer is about the same as the future dangerousness of an accidental killer.

Don't try to tell me you're not being dishonest.


The point to my answer to Vilepagan was that if we do not take the probability of a repeat of his actions in the one case it is not a valid defense in the other case.

It's not a "defense," but the probability of the action being repeated is an essential consideration in deciding what is the morally correct way to respond.

So long as you do I will continue to point out the absurdity of your arguments.

You're trying to argue this guy is as dangerous as someone like O.J. Simpson. Who's being absurd here?

You seem to have an amazing ability to not understand what is written, Leper.

Vilepagan asked what the probability of the cop repeating his actions was. I said no greater than a wife killer killing a new wife. That is not equating the severity of the two actions, only the probability of their reocurance. If the probability of reocrance is to be the deciding factor in whether or not the officer is tried it would stand to reason that that same probability of reocurance would be among the deciding factors in the trying of a wife murderer. It is not the officer's possible future actions that would be on trial but rather his past actions.

You're trying to argue this guy is as dangerous as someone like O.J. Simpson. Who's being absurd here?

You are the one being absurd when you argue that I am saying the officer is as dangerous as O.J. Simpson.

It is quite obvious that you are unable to follow the conversation and have created posting figments in your mind and it is these posting figments which you are addressing.

If you are going to make accusations directed toward me at least have those accusations based remotely of fact not your wild imaginings of what you would have prefered I said. Refuting strawmen is easy but it is also dishonest.

It is not the officer's possible future actions that would be on trial but rather his past actions.
That was good. And I'm not being sarcastic. I fully agree.

Oh yeah, let's get something straight about this response. I'm not your attorney and I don't consider it my duty to look up every law you have questions about.I don't want your opinion re the law and would not hire you as my attorney. I may at time phrase a post as a question, but have never considered you a person I would ask for a legal opinion or as one who'e struck me as either objective or open minded to positions other than your own.
I like to do what I can to educate people.Still waiting to see this occur.
But when you take that for granted, and lay terms like "expect" on me, I find it somewhat offensive.What I meant was that I expected you would try to find some way to sound educated/informed and so miss the issue all together. Also, I expected you would not trust the posts I, or others, toss up, as you strike me as one who thinks no one but yourself has a real clue. I an not taking you for granted...but this response of your's is really funny.

I doubt the officer will ever again shoot at a snake and kill a young boy. I also doubt that a man who kills his wife will go on and kill another wife in the future. The point to my answer to Vilepagan was that if we do not take the probability of a repeat of his actions in the one case it is not a valid defense in the other case.

And my point is that we take it into account in every case. In your absurd example of a murderer it would be considered, but it would be heavily outweighed by the fact that the murderer committed a willful killing, while in this case we have an accidental killing. In this case, the chance of a repeat offense is a much more mitigating factor in deciding on a possible sentence.


You, Vile and SMW can continue to make all the excuses for the officer you wish.

And you can continue to make this baseless claim all you wish and it won't get any truer. I have stated all along that we don't know what the officer's actions were, so how could I be "excusing" them? You have been the one leaping to conclusions and accusing this cop of all manner of crimes, mistakes, and errors, yet the fact remains that you're talking about things of which you have no certain knowledge. You don't know what the cop did, all you know is the end result, and based on that result you've concluded that someone must be to blame, and you've decided it's the cop.


You can continue to give reasons why he should not have to answer for his actions.

"It is quite obvious that you are unable to follow the conversation and have created posting figments in your mind and it is these posting figments which you are addressing."

The only reason I've suggested for why he should not answer for his actions is that you don't know what those actions were.


So long as you do I will continue to point out the absurdity of your arguments.

And so long as you make decisions about someone's guilt or innocence based on what you read or see on TV before any legal proceedings have taken place, I'll continue to point out how absurd you are.

I have stated all along that we don't know what the officer's actions were

That simply isn't true. We don't know what his thought processes were although we can surmise them from his actions but we do know what his actions were. He saw a snake partially in a birdhouse. He tried to pull the snake out. It hissed at him. He unholstered his service revolver. He aimed it at the snake. He pulled the trigger, not once but twice. He accidently killed a five year old boy.

And so long as you make decisions about someone's guilt or innocence based on what you read or see on TV before any legal proceedings have taken place, I'll continue to point out how absurd you are.Will you point out the absurdity of the position held by some here that no legal proceedings should take place because they already know the guy is innocent, prior to any legal proceedings, and therefore to proceed would just be a waste of time and money?

Will you point out the absurdity of the position held by some here that no legal proceedings should take place because they already know the guy is innocent, prior to any legal proceedings, and therefore to proceed would just be a waste of time and money?

Will you point out where someone said that?

That simply isn't true. We don't know what his thought processes were although we can surmise them from his actions but we do know what his actions were.

Really? Where did you come by this knowledge?


He saw a snake partially in a birdhouse.

Are you sure it wasn't in a tree, or on a porch? Both of those have been reported in the press.


He tried to pull the snake out. It hissed at him.

According to Noble OK City Manager Bob Wade:

"I was told that they tried several ways to get the snake down, but it was still hissing at them and firmly lodged."

Doesn't sound a lot like your account. I wonder what really happened...


He unholstered his service revolver.

How odd. All accounts I've read where they mention the type of weapon used refer to a "pistol" or a ".40 cal pistol". In either case it wasn't ever referred to as a "revolver". I wonder what kind of weapon it really was...


He aimed it at the snake. He pulled the trigger, not once but twice. He accidently killed a five year old boy.

Now that's a statement I can get behind. I can agree that he's guilty of accidentally killing the boy, but any criminal or civil liability is still a long way off.

Will you point out where someone said that?
Check post #224, this thread.

Check post #224, this thread.

That would be this post.

"You understand government resources are limited, right? So when you spend those resources goin after this guy, you're diverting resources from traditional crimes. Not to mention, when you call 50 people in for jury duty, that's 50 people who are not producing that day....about one fifth of a year's worth of productivity. All to try to punish a guy for what is an undisputed accident."

You stated:

"Will you point out the absurdity of the position held by some here that no legal proceedings should take place because they already know the guy is innocent, prior to any legal proceedings, and therefore to proceed would just be a waste of time and money?"

I really don't see where Leper said he "knows the guy is innocent". I took this post more as a general statement that financial considerations apply when a community decides which crimes to prosecute. He did say that the incident is an "undisputed accident" and I think that's accurate. I don't think applying that label implies guilt or innocence of any kind.

I really don't see where Leper said he "knows the guy is innocent". I took this post more as a general statement that financial considerations apply when a community decides which crimes to prosecute. He did say that the incident is an "undisputed accident" and I think that's accurate. I don't think applying that label implies guilt or innocence of any kind.Have you read all of the posts in this thread? And still you don't conclude that he is arguing the innocence of any criminal wrong on the part of the shooter?

One of us is missing something.

Have you read all of the posts in this thread?

I believe I have.


And still you don't conclude that he is arguing the innocence of any criminal wrong on the part of the shooter?

I'd say he's arguing that there's no reason to decide he's guilty, at least not yet, and he also argued that it may not be in societies best interest to spend a lot of money trying to punish the cop in this case. I can see where that argument might lead you to think Leper believes the cop is "innocent". We don't even know if a crime has been committed, much less if the cop is "guilty" or "innocent".


One of us is missing something.

We're all missing something, and a great deal of it. Accurate information.

The cop was a dumbass for trying to kill a harmless snake in a birdhouse (by shooting a 9mm pistol at it). The resulting ricochet killed a 5 year old boy fishing with his grandfather. Does the deputy deserve the death penalty because he was an idiot? No. Should he be reprimanded for a stupid action? Yes. Let the law decide what should be done.

This entire thread has become asinine. The Deputy screwed up, a child was killed because he screwed up. End of story. It is a tragedy, I would hope that the deputy will have remorse for the rest of his life for his dumb ass decision. End of story.... Move on.

The cop was a dumbass for trying to kill a harmless snake in a birdhouse (by shooting a 9mm pistol at it). The resulting ricochet killed a 5 year old boy fishing with his grandfather. Does the deputy deserve the death penalty because he was an idiot? No. Should he be reprimanded for a stupid action? Yes. Let the law decide what should be done.

This entire thread has become asinine. The Deputy screwed up, a child was killed because he screwed up. End of story. It is a tragedy, I would hope that the deputy will have remorse for the rest of his life for his dumb ass decision. End of story.... Move on.

I'll go along with everything here...except that "asinine" crack.;) *shakes fist*

I'll go along with everything here...except that "asinine" crack.;) *shakes fist*
No offense for the "crack". I just know if I was the one that pulled the trigger... that I would feel awful that a kid died because of me. It was not directed towards our posters... I really feel bad that a young life was ended due to a horrible mistake. I feel for the parents (and the child) more than anyone else... It was a terrible accident.

Have you read all of the posts in this thread? And still you don't conclude that he is arguing the innocence of any criminal wrong on the part of the shooter?

One of us is missing something.

VP's right. I'm not arguing guilt/innocence (that's something to debate when you have all of the evidence), I'm arguing that it's senseless to try and criminalize this guy.

Not all "guilty" acts are treated as a crime. Cops frequently decide not to charge someone committing a criminal act even though they could, and sometimes prosecutors drop charges because they don't believe the prosecution will do justice, not because they think the person is innocent.

You seem to have changed your stance a bit, Leper. You were arguing that it would be costly in time, money and convenience to even try the guy. Now you are seem to be arguing that we shouldn't criminalize him.

Posters are not arguing that he should be declared a criminal, only that there should be an investigation and a trial, be it civil or criminal. If he is found to be civily liable then civil penalties should be levied against him. If, and only if he is found to be criminally liable criminal penalties should be levied against him.

What should not be done, and what you seem to be advocating, is to allow what happened to simply be treated as an, "Ooops! Me bad." The officer acted in a totally irresponsible way and that irresponsibility calls for more than that.

You seem to have changed your stance a bit, Leper. You were arguing that it would be costly in time, money and convenience to even try the guy. Now you are seem to be arguing that we shouldn't criminalize him.

You've changed your stance more, Frogger.


Posters are not arguing that he should be declared a criminal, only that there should be an investigation and a trial, be it civil or criminal.

Was that what you meant when you wrote this?

"The cop should lose his job and be held liable both civily and criminally for causing the death of the child."

Or this?

"There are no extenuating circumstances. The officer is guilty of negligent homocide and should be made to appear in both civil and criminal court.

At the very least he should be stripped of his badge and heavily fined. At the most he should be imprisoned for a period of up to three years. Whatever the outcome this officer should be removed from the force and should never be allowed to again own a gun of any kind."


If he is found to be civily liable then civil penalties should be levied against him. If, and only if he is found to be criminally liable criminal penalties should be levied against him.

I can agree with this, but it certainly sounds different from your previous statements.


What should not be done, and what you seem to be advocating, is to allow what happened to simply be treated as an, "Ooops! Me bad." The officer acted in a totally irresponsible way and that irresponsibility calls for more than that.

Now, now...no backsliding. Either you believe that an investigation and trial are necessary to determine this officer's guilt, or you believe that you can already determine that. Which is it?

You seem to have changed your stance a bit, Leper. You were arguing that it would be costly in time, money and convenience to even try the guy. Now you are seem to be arguing that we shouldn't criminalize him.


The second sentence supports the third sentence; I have no clue why you think those two ideas oppose each other.

What should not be done, and what you seem to be advocating, is to allow what happened to simply be treated as an, "Ooops! Me bad." The officer acted in a totally irresponsible way and that irresponsibility calls for more than that.

I think truncating the guy's career is a pretty severe consequence. Put yourself in his shoes for a change...you act like this event won't effect him unless he's criminally prosecuted. That's just silly.

I think truncating the guy's career is a pretty severe consequence.

Of course it is. But I think the officer's apparently rash (and ultimately deadly) actions warrant such an outcome at the very least.

Put yourself in his shoes for a change...

If I were presented with the same set of circumstances, I would never have done what he did. And I truly believe that any properly trained and responsible gun owner wouldn't either. I just can't get over the ultimate stupidity of trying to shoot what was clearly NOT a dangerous rattler out of a tree. The only thing to which I can attribute such an irresponsible act is someone with a gun trying to play hot-shot hero in a situation that clearly was not life threatening.

I think truncating the guy's career is a pretty severe consequence.
Are you kidding???
Put yourself in his shoes for a change....
What.....you mean without the requisite lobotomy first? That's gonna be a tad difficult.

I'll be the first to admit I hate cops, but this is getting ridiculous. Here are (as Joe Friday would say) the facts: 1) The man fired his pistol (be it a .40 caliber, 9 mm, or .357 magnum - it doesn't matter) into the air. 2) His target was a snake. 3) He discharged his weapon in a residential area. 4) He fired twice. 5) He killed a child. Mitigating factors aside, his judgment was piss-poor, and his actions resulted in the needless death of a child - FACT. Now we can allow ourselves the opportunity to second-guess whether or not they were prudent given the "setting", the placement of the snake, and other details that'll undoubtedly cloud reality, but it's completely unnecessary (and not to mention, insulting), for we already know the facts, and I would be remiss if I didn't state the obvious here; WHAT THE OFFICER DID WAS FLAT-OUT STUPID and INDEFENSABLE, end of story.

Come to think of it, this wasn't just a mistake...it was a 5-fold mistake. The FIRST mistake was hiring a moron, the second mistake was giving him a badge, the third mistake was intrusting him with gun, the fourth (and if I'm reading you people correctly - BIGGEST) mistake we made was EXPECTING him to use a modicum of judgment when we all know that...::ahem::...cops live in a "harsh" world where they're "forced" to make all kinds of "tough decisions" - like the one this officer just "had" to make. The fifth and final mistake was the officer's, but you're right - I sure hope he's "reprimanded" for choosing that course of action.....:rolleyes:

Come to think of it, this wasn't just a mistake...it was a 5-fold mistake. The FIRST mistake was hiring a moron, the second mistake was giving him a badge, the third mistake was intrusting him with gun, the fourth (and if I'm reading you people correctly - BIGGEST) mistake we made was EXPECTING him to use a modicum of judgment when we all know that...::ahem::...cops live in a "harsh" world where they're "forced" to make all kinds of "tough decisions" - like the one this officer just "had" to make. The fifth and final mistake was the officer's, but you're right - I hope he's "reprimanded" for making it.....

Have you ever made mistakes before Prae? If so, do you think that makes you a moron?

If I were presented with the same set of circumstances, I would never have done what he did. And I truly believe that any properly trained and responsible gun owner wouldn't either. I just can't get over the ultimate stupidity of trying to shoot what was clearly NOT a dangerous rattler out of a tree. The only thing to which I can attribute such an irresponsible act is someone with a gun trying to play hot-shot hero in a situation that clearly was not life threatening.

You say that, but I bet if he left that rattler alone and it bit a 5-year old a couple of days later, you would be screaming for his badge. And I would bet that that crossed his mind before he decided to shoot the rattler.

You say that, but I bet if he left that rattler alone and it bit a 5-year old a couple of days later, you would be screaming for his badge.

Not at all. The officer isn't responsible for the snake's actions days after his encounter with it. But in the situation you describe, I would question (1) why the officer didn't contact animal control, and/or (b) why animal control didn't remove the snake safely, as is their duty and responsibility.

If the snake slithered out of the tree before animal control could get there (assuming the homeowner didn't care enough to keep an eye on it until animal control arrived), well, them's the breaks. That bad ol' rat snake would live on to endanger the lives of countless rats and birds - BUT NOT HUMANS.

And I would bet that that crossed his mind before he decided to shoot the rattler.

Um? It wasn't a rattler. It was a non-poisonous, non-dangerous black rat snake.

Regardless of the type of snake, I still would never try to shoot one out of a tree. It's stupid and dangerous, and as in this case, such recklessness can have lethal consequences. It's exactly this type of situation that leads every gun education course to make "ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction," as the cardinal rule of firearms safety.

The officer simply should have left the damned thing to be taken care of by animal control, even if it did take an hour or two for them to get there. The homeowner was well aware of the snake's presence and I'm certain that, had the cop called animal control to do their job (instead of trying to do it for them), the homeowner AND THE CHILD THAT WAS KILLED wouldn't have been in any danger of being.. um... hissed at by the snake in question.

:rolleyes:

Have you ever made mistakes before Prae?
Of course, and yes, I've made some fairly dumb mistakes in the past. I believe it's reasonable to assume we all have.
If so, do you think that makes you a moron?
I think that really depends on the mistake. That said, mistakes don't technically make someone a moron - being dumb does. This man wasn't "oops, I made a mistake" dumb....he was full-on gym teacher, "kick his ass, sea bass" stupid.

I mean, seriously - I'd love to see what he scores on an IQ test.

Wow.

I bet at least half of Turd's 487 posts are carbon copies of the above!

You say that, but I bet if he left that rattler alone and it bit a 5-year old a couple of days later, you would be screaming for his badge. And I would bet that that crossed his mind before he decided to shoot the rattler.


Wow! The Black Rat Snake has suddenly become a Rattle Snake. After its magical transformation from a harmless, in fact helpful snake into a Rattle Snake this one particular snake also made its way to the little boy's house and bit him. Quite a jump there, Leper.

I bet at least half of Turd's 487 posts are carbon copies of the above!

And his succinct, Wow! often says more than other, more lengthy posts.

Are you kidding???

What.....you mean without the requisite lobotomy first? That's gonna be a tad difficult.

I'll be the first to admit I hate cops, but this is getting ridiculous. Here are (as Joe Friday would say) the facts: 1) The man fired his pistol (be it a .40 caliber, 9 mm, or .357 magnum - it doesn't matter) into the air. 2) His target was a snake. 3) He discharged his weapon in a residential area. 4) He fired twice. 5) He killed a child. Mitigating factors aside, his judgment was piss-poor, and his actions resulted in the needless death of a child - FACT. Now we can allow ourselves the opportunity to second-guess whether or not they were prudent given the "setting", the placement of the snake, and other details that'll undoubtedly cloud reality, but it's completely unnecessary (and not to mention, insulting), for we already know the facts, and I would be remiss if I didn't state the obvious here; WHAT THE OFFICER DID WAS FLAT-OUT STUPID and INDEFENSABLE, end of story.

Come to think of it, this wasn't just a mistake...it was a 5-fold mistake. The FIRST mistake was hiring a moron, the second mistake was giving him a badge, the third mistake was intrusting him with gun, the fourth (and if I'm reading you people correctly - BIGGEST) mistake we made was EXPECTING him to use a modicum of judgment when we all know that...::ahem::...cops live in a "harsh" world where they're "forced" to make all kinds of "tough decisions" - like the one this officer just "had" to make. The fifth and final mistake was the officer's, but you're right - I sure hope he's "reprimanded" for choosing that course of action.....:rolleyes:

Yeah, that about sums everything up nicely I would say! :thumbs:

Wow! The Black Rat Snake has suddenly become a Rattle Snake. After its magical transformation from a harmless, in fact helpful snake into a Rattle Snake this one particular snake also made its way to the little boy's house and bit him. Quite a jump there, Leper.

Good lord, I thought we were done debating what kind of snake it was....

You see beautifully with 20/20 hindsight. I believe the news story said the emergency 911 call was about a rattlesnake. The snake was later determined to be a rat snake. Since everyone agrees that the officer is not expected to be an expert in identifying species of snakes, the snake is a rattlesnake for the purposes of evaluating the officer's actions.

everyone agrees that the officer is not expected to be an expert in identifying species of snakesWho is "everyone?" And what does being less than an expert have to do with failing to identify this obvious difference in breeds? And what does it matter about the "evaluating" standard, since you've already desided no jury should have a chance to hear the case?

And what does any of this have to do with the only issue that matters here: firing a gun without determining what's down-range, in less that imminant threat situations?

I bet at least half of Turd's 487 posts are carbon copies of the above!
why use 20 words when one (only 3 letters at that) will do?

"asinine" crack
very punny:lolhit:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

I hope this idiot is FIRED FROM THE POLICE FORCE!!!!!!!

"The snake was still hissing" after attempts to *drag* it from the tree....ya' THINK? Morons. :eek:
Such a shame

very punny:lolhit:

Thank you. *bows* ;)

why use 20 words when one (only 3 letters at that) will do?
Context.

I bet at least half of Turd's 487 posts are carbon copies of the above!

Context.
Sorry Nap. If it bothers you that much, I'll stop. I surely don't want to piss anyone off.

Immediately! Or you could, you know, tell me to fuck off...

Immediately! Or you could, you know, tell me to fuck off...
:lolhit: Ok then...:upyours:

j/k bro!:D