Looks like the armed resident was shot by responding LEO...

[ben4372]

Something is lost in translation with my post. I'm not asking for judgement on anyone. I'm saying if you kill someone that shouldn't have been killed, then you can get another job.

I agree with the sentiment that life's not fair, but why should that end at the wrong person getting killed? I'd take being fired over being dead any day.

I'm with you 100%. Early on in the thread I mentioned "carried by six", though I might need seven myself. I'd even say he made the right decision based on his perspective. Just don't this guy walking around with a badge and gun. He needs to pick one or the other.

[TFOGGER]

That's usually settled between the family and city , possibly the officer as well in a civil suit.

The officer will have qualified immunity, as the incident occured while he was on duty, and the investigation found no wrongdoing. The city, on the other hand, will settle out of court for 7 figures.

[Irving]

I'm not entirely comfortable bringing up what I did in this particular thread, because I feel like I can understand why the situation in the Black house ended the way that it did.

I'm generally not an aggressive person, but just about all of my physical encounters with people in my life occurred within the two to six months after I got jumped down in Denver once. I was hyper aggressive for awhile after that and definitely made engagements that I shouldn't have. With that personal experience in mind, I look at the Black situation and feel I can relate on some level as to why everything that transpired did. In short, that officer had to have still been amped after his previous engagement, and if he's working, he didn't have the option to just not get involved in a situation. So again, I'm not trying to make a judgement on the officer that killed Mr. Black, but it's certainly not an over reach to lose your job if you kill someone that wasn't supposed to be killed in my opinion.

Further clarification, I haven't, and won't watch the video, or read the report, for the sole reason that I know that I'll have interactions with police in the future, and I don't want to have those future interactions shaded with negativity from me watching a bunch of stuff that will piss me off. It's very easy to only look at sensationalized events and build an incorrect impression based on events of generally low occurrence rates. Hope that makes sense.

[cstone]

I agree, Mr. Black was the wrong person to be killed. The question is: What did Officer Limbaugh do wrong?

Firing an employee because the outcome was bad is different than firing an employee because their actions were bad.

Watching the video in this case has made me think through former Weirton WV police officer Stephen Mader’s termination. When deadly force is legal, is it required?

[hollohas]

When deadly force is legal, is it required?

And how often is that question posed to LEO's, both new and experienced? In some agencies, I know it's a common question, in others, I'm not sure it's ever asked.

[Great-Kazoo]

And how often is that question posed to LEO's, both new and experienced? In some agencies, I know it's a common question, in others, I'm not sure it's ever asked.

Based on the parkland review board. The answer is, no it's not required.

[cstone]

And how often is that question posed to LEO's, both new and experienced? In some agencies, I know it's a common question, in others, I'm not sure it's ever asked.

I think it is a question everyone who carries a gun needs to answer for themselves. Ask the question of yourself frequently because when the time comes to answer the question for real, you will probably have a second or two to make the correct decision; and the correct decision you make will not be the correct decision for everyone else who reviews your actions afterward.

[<MADDOG>]

If you can try, finding one of the FATS or other "live" training exercises offered. Those seconds could mean the difference between your life or theirs ending. Even better, try finding a simunitions training course where you're engaged in a "live fire" exercise against others. Between the adrenaline flowing, having to make split second calls, etc it will open ones eyes , and mind.

This.

Horrible situation all around in this one.

[Martinjmpr]

When deadly force is legal, is it required?

And how often is that question posed to LEO's, both new and experienced? In some agencies, I know it's a common question, in others, I'm not sure it's ever asked.

Based on the parkland review board. The answer is, no it's not required.

Deadly force is a means to an end, not an end in itself, so I don't see how it could ever be "required" under any circumstances. The question that the Parkland review board had to answer was whether the police department had an affirmative, legally enforceable duty to the victims of the shooting.

It's pretty well established law that public safety officials (police, fire, paramedics, etc) don't owe a legally enforceable duty to anybody to protect them from harm and there are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which is that trying to enforce such a 'duty' would quickly bankrupt every state or municipal entity in the country.

[cstone]

By required, I didn't mean legally but administratively, morally, socially? While Deputy Peterson had no legal obligation to enter the building during the shooting, I believe the majority of people reviewing his actions have determined that he did have an obligation in the other three areas. I don't believe any random armed citizen would have the same obligations. There were armed citizens in the parking lot, and in close proximity to the shooter, in Tucson on January 8, 2011, and none of them shot Jared Loughner as he killed six people and wounded thirteen others.

The Stephen Mader termination in WV was interesting to me for several reasons. It rests on an ethos of being able to pull the trigger when it is necessary. If you don't, some will judge you as a coward. If you do, some will judge you as a cowboy, or worse, a power hungry, jackboot thug who gets some sort of thrill out of killing people. In his former department he was judged to be unsuited to be an officer because he endangered his co-workers and forced his co-worker to do what needed to be done. Mader didn't see it that way. His own version of it was that he didn't feel the need to shoot the armed suspect. Something in his personal experience lead him to believe that while lethal force was justified, it was not necessary. Upon review, the shooting was ruled justified. Mader was terminated based on the lack of trust the department had in him. Mader sued the department for wrongful termination and won a judgment of $170,000 from the city of Weirton. Does the judgment in a civil case vindicate the decision Mader made? Given that police officers in Weirton, WV made $34,000 per year, that is about five years pay. I'm guessing the Chief feels that he got a good deal by paying a coward five years of pay to be rid of him.

If you can't tell, I spend too much time reading and reviewing these types of incidents. Seems to me that the one thing I learn over and over is; "You can do everything right and still be wrong." We each need to make decisions in life. The tough part is learning to live the with the decisions we've made.

Be safe.