UPDATED: Cop Shoots 17-Year-Old Boy Who Answers Door, Nothing Else Happens GBI Says "Case File" Still Open

no hoodie no outragefamily photoIn February, Beth Gatny of the Euharlee, Georgia, police department fatally shot 17-year-old Christopher Roupe after the boy opened the door for the officer. Gatny was at the residence to serve a probation warrant for Roupe's father. Police claimed the 17-year old pointed a gun at the officer but the family insisted he was holding a Nintendo Wii controller.  One witness said she saw the cop sobbing into her hands after the shooting.

In April, a grand jury recommended the District Attorney, Rosemary Greene, take action, finding the use of deadly force was not authorized. The DA's office said it would collect additional evidence and return to a grand jury. Unfortunately you can probably guess what happened next. Via WSB-TV in Atlanta:

The District Attorney's Office for the Cherokee Judicial Circuit presented a proposed indictment charging Gatny with involuntary manslaughter and reckless conduct. However, the grand jury did not find sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial.

"Because the Grand Jury has determined that the actions of Officer Gatny did not rise to the level of a criminal offense, this concludes the involvement of the District Attorney's Office in this matter," District Attorney Rosemary Greene said.

Gatny, who had been with the Euharlee Police Department less than a year, was fired from her previous police job, in Acworth, Georgia. While there, among other things, she apparently shot a suspect while he was trying to remove his backpack, believing he was going for a gun. She was fired for exhausting her medical leave.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) completed its investigation into the shooting sometime in April and sent the results to the DA. That report does not appear to have been made public but Reason has placed an open records request for the final report.

UPDATE (2:19 p.m.): The special agent-in-charge at the GBI's Legal Services responded to our request by advising us that the report is contained in a case file that is open, and so by law "not subject to dissemination until the investigation is concluded." That may include "prosecutorial actions and the appeals process."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Okay, so if a regular citizen--a little person, if you will--had a licensed firearm that he accidentally killed a kid with (leaving out the shooting on purpose with an excuse business), would there be no consequences?

  • WTF||

    NO. DOUBLE. STANDARD.

  • ||

    No. Double standard.

    FIFY!

  • ron228||

    This is amazing. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out www.Fox81.com

  • Brendan||

    Police officers have an exception under title F, section Y, subsection T, paragraph W.

  • Super Hans||

    I see what you did there...

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    They are called "small people".

    As in: "They burnt the castle to the ground and put the small people to the sword."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A police officer, even a colossal fuck-up, is worth more than an ordinary citizen who, let's face it, probably wasn't even going to shoot any dogs in the pursuit of drug war victory.

  • WTF||

    It's obviously the father's fault the kid is dead, because by possibly violating his probation he caused the situation which led to his son's death. He's lucky he wasn't charged with murder.
    hth

  • Chumby||

    "I don't always abuse the innocent people I arrest by ramming a beer bottle up their ass. But when I do, I always use Dos Equis."

    - The Most Interesting Cop in the World

  • sarcasmic||

    You answer the door with something that looks kinda sorta looks not unlike a gun, and you deserve to be shot.

    /dunphy

  • WTF||

    Refresh is my friend

  • some guy||

    Corollary: All handheld objects look kinda sorta not unlike a gun.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    "He's got a cell phone gun!"

  • Swiss Servator, Alles Klar||

    ^commonly heard when Chicago PD kill innocents. Also "guncomb!!!!"

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Hey Swiss Sevator,

    Have you ever lived in Chicago? Are you an expert on the Chicago Police Department?

    Let me know. I am eager for your reply.

    Have a nice day, dick wad.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    So...your position is that Swiss Servator has wrongly besmirched the good name of Chicago PD officers? That said officers DO NOT routinely violate the rights of citizens? That Chicago DOES NOT have about a bazillion suspicious officer-involved shootings?

    That Illinois does not do everything it can to keep law-abiding citizens from owning guns, while generally looking the other way on police misconduct?

    That Chicago, unlike all big cities in the US, has a pretty damn good record when it come to police misconduct?

    Is that your position? If so, I understand why you called him a dick wad. 'Cause you got it exactly right!

    Don't ever change.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Hey There Peter Wimsey,

    And your point is?

  • ||

    Lol. He lives in Chicago, asshole.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    God, that's sweet!

    How often does someone step in it that bad?

  • ||

    How often does someone step in it that bad?

    Well, to be honest, hasn't it happened every other time Tulpa created a sock and came,on here to troll?

  • Free Society||

    No he lives in Chicago, where he fallates the most violence inducing political institutions as he does on the federal level.

  • croaker||

    Buck Godot. The comic's title character was based on a cop in Hoffman Estates, a suburb of Chicago.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    sloopyinva

    I don't live in Chicago. Sorry to disappoint you, scrotum brain. Eat shit, you fucking moron. Shove it up your asshole.

  • ||

    And I guess Chicago has spent over a half BILLION dollars in the past decade to settle police brutality lawsuits for the fun of it! right?

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/04.....llion-in-t

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you don't quite think things through before you type them. Hm.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Hey Muzzle of Bees,

    I thought things through before I typed this, and I am absolutely sure that you are a fucking moron.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hey Burmese Bozo,

    Have you ever lived in Chicago? Are you an expert on the Chicago Police Department?

    Tell me all about your glass house. I couldn't care less for your incoherent babbling.

    Have a nice day, kid fucker.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Hi there Heroic Asshole,

    You need to consider suicide, so the Chicago Police Department can mark your file DSAF (Did Society A Favor), just for the hell of it.

    See you around. If we ever meet you can lick my asshole for free.

  • Brian||

    Calm down, grandpa.

  • Free Society||

    you are pathetic

  • burserker||

    Hey Ditka to Mandalay!

    never lived in Chicago, never will. enlighten us on your expertise with the CPD.

    and enjoy another slice of pizza you fatfuck

  • Kuwanki||

    i used to think you were just a shit-smear commie. My mistake. You are really just a fucking degenerate nazi. Do everyone on earth a favor and throw yourself under a steam roller.

  • The Sego Sago Kid||

    On The Road To Mandalay getting BLOWN. THE. FUCK. OUT.

  • Suicidy||

    The cop screwed up by not deploying her back up weapon after the shooting by placing it in the kid's hand. So as to justify the shoot. That's just bad policing there.

  • ||

    Those small town cops man, they just don't train 'em right.

  • WTF||

    Since he opened the door on an officer with what could have been a weapon in hand, based on the situation and totality of the circs, he clearly deserved to be shot, in other words it was a good shoot. smooches
    hth

  • Stormy Dragon||

    *knock* *knock* *knock* Candygram

    You can't fool me! You're that land-pig, aren't you?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    +1 Saturday night

  • robc||

    I made a candygram joke to me wife last night and she just gave me a blank stare.

  • Brett L||

    Its hell dating down a generation.

  • Brett L||

    s/dating/marrying

  • robc||

    2.5 year difference.

  • Almanian!||

    CRADLE ROBBER!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    This is obviously a sexist, genocidal war against men. Beth Gatney is a woman. At least two of her shooting victims are men. She's using the power and authority of the badge to wipe out men, one PanicFire at a time.

  • Raston Bot||

    Beth Gatny is a murderer.

    District Attorney Rosemary Greene is obstructing justice.

  • WTF||

    It's a conspiracy of the Matriarchy.

  • Swiss Servator, Alles Klar||

    District Attorney Rosemary Greene is a coward.

  • Monty Crisco||

    My cousin worked with the genius while she was at Acworth and he said she was a disgrace of such monumental proportions that they were trying to get her out essentially as soon as she was hired. And they got her for exhausting her sick leave FFS!!!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    So, in short:

    Shooting people - Not a fireable offense

    Too many days off - Fireable offense

    Makes sense to me

  • wareagle||

    so, which department is going to give this fine LEO her third job?

  • WTF||

    As far as I can tell from the article she might still be on the force where she shot the kid.

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    Until she exhausts her medical leave. Wasting cash seems to be the only way for a police officer to get fired, as killing children apparently doesn't eat into the dept budget.

  • Jose Chung||

    Settlements with shooting victims' families come out of the general budget so the cops still get their money but those potholes will just have to wait till citizens learn to stop suing the police.

  • croaker||

    Shit like this should be paid out of the police pension fund.

  • some guy||

    It going to take awhile for her to get over this justifiable homicide. She might run through all of her sick leave again. Maybe she can get some leave donations from the rest of the thin blue line...

  • On The Random, Mandelbrot||

    DHS

  • Chumby||

    TSA may come a knockin.

  • WTF||

    At this point, you have to wonder what the hell you do if the cops are at your door? If you don't answer they will break in and shoot you during a 'dynamic entry'. If you do answer they will shoot you because you might have had something in your hand. And nothing else will happen.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Hide in a concrete bunker?

  • some guy||

    They have ways of dynamically entering a concrete bunker that are even more dangerous to the inhabitants. I think you need to live in a glass box with no pets and have both of your hands amputated before you can feel secure.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Launch a private rocket to your secret orbital enclave?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    This one I like. Where can I buy an orbital fortress? Drax maybe?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Isn't Bab 4 still out there somewhere?

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    sometime

  • ||

    Easy for you to say. I'm forbidden from going to space because of past misdeeds.

  • Andrew S.||

    No, because then they'd shoot you fearing you were going to kick through the glass box and use your teeth to stab them with one of the shards.

    Maybe if you were in a glass box, with no hands, and you were all trussed up with a mask over your face like Hannibal Lecter.

  • Brandon||

    "He wouldn't be trussed up like this if he wasn't dangerous. Better shoot just to be safe."

  • WTF||

    Maybe a trap door under your front porch.
    "POLICE!"

    *SPROINGGGG!*

    Okay officers, throw your weapons up before I let you out of there.

  • The Last American Hero||

    They'll comply more quickly if you make sure there is Green Slime or Grey Ooze in the pit.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    "We need bunker busters!"

  • ||

    Shoot first? For the children?

  • WTF||

    "For the children?! I thought you said at the children!"

    Oopsie!

  • Super Hans||

    You answer empty handed obviously. With both hands above your head. Duh.

  • ULOST||

    Hands above your head UNLESS you have a pick in your fro', bro cause then you are just askin' for it.

  • ||

    Shoot first?

  • Alice Bowie||

    This officer Beth must be a rookie

    Dear Officer Beth,

    Don't worry. you will be OK. You will be on Vacation for about 6 months with pay. You will waive your right to a trial by Jury so that the Judge (basically another cop) will decide your fate.

    The Only thing you have against you is that you shot a white boy. This would had been a slam dunk had it been a black person.

  • Raston Bot||

    Race doesn't matter. How much money does his family have?

  • Christophe||

    And how big and aggressive is the police department. Doesn't matter how good your lawyers are if they can pack the courtroom and intimidate the jury.

  • Free Society||

    Ha ha! You guys just couldn't acknowledge the injustice of your beloved government institutions without weaving it into your narrative about classism and racism or whatever else that would allow you to start conferring group rights.

  • Jose Chung||

    I have one word for you: Influenza.

  • ||

    "Race doesn't matter."

    but srsly tho?

  • ||

    If a Wiimote becomes a pistol in a white kids hands, I wonder what it becomes in a black kids hands. A machine gun? An RPG? A planet destroying death laser of doom?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A pit bull.

  • pogi||

    Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Here's the deal.

    IF, I repeat IF, she honestly thought the kid was pointing a gun at her, the grand jury was right. It doesn't rise to the level of a crime and no charges should be brought. It's like most rape cases...can't PROVE wrongdoing.

    HOWEVER, she did make a heinous mistake and has shown that she has no business working in law enforcement ever again. She needs to be fired (specifically FOR this incident, not for cheating on her sick days).

    This happens all the time in other professions... You didn't MEAN to shut down the wrong engine during an engine fire, but you fucking did. We aren't going to prosecute you, but we are going to take your wings, because you are an idiot who's shown you can't be trusted to be competent in such situations.

    Life is all about incentives, and I mean, why not shoot an unarmed kid? Nothing bad will happen to me.

  • Andrew S.||

    Would a reasonable person mistake a Nintendo Wii controller, which is a rectangular plastic box, for a gun?

  • Idle Hands||

    I blame Star Trek.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Absolutely not. But you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't honestly believe it was or that she didn't really believe he had malicious intent.

    BUT, I can sure as shit say if you thought a Wii controller was a gun, you are an awful fucking cop (and a shitbag), there's the fucking door (oh, and leave the pension).

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    So we'll give the cop mens rea protection, but the rest of us are fucked.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    And what about criminal negligence?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You are applying standards to cops, that you don't want applied to you, because you hate cops.

    Are you claiming cops don't have the right to self defense?

    What's required to claim self defense? You need to believe your life is threatened. She probably did (I can't tell you what was in her mind).

    She was wrong, and should pay for her mistake, but provided she actually believed she was acting in self defense, there is no crime.

    Dude comes into your house at night waiving a toy gun. You shoot him. Should you be charged?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It's not about hating cops (nice ad hominem argument though).

    It's about equal application of the law. Intent as a requirement for conviction has been largely thrown out for most of us. DA's abuse the powers of plea bargaining and inflated minimums to avoid trials. The police up the danger factor by acting in a reckless manner and people die. Yet they get a pass.

    In this case, she was careless and inattentive, that would be enough to convict a vehicle driver of criminal negligence in an accident. A cop with a deadly weapon, not so much.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    SN, I'm not arguing that the application of the laws aren't abused. They certainly are. I'm talking about how the law SHOULD be applied. To everyone.

    Because two standards, one to cops and one to civilians, are wrongly being applied, is not justification to apply the wrong standard to a cop.

    If you believe your life is being threatened, you have the right to self defense. Just because it turns out to be a misperception, doesn't negate the fact that you acted in self defense.

    It's not a crime, nor would it be a crime if the tables were turned. It was an accident.

    You were wrong, however, and responsible for your actions, making you a) not good enough to continue in such a profession and b) liable for the damages your mistake caused.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    If you believe your life is being threatened

    There has to be a standard here. I would argue that in this case, it was not met.

    Kid holding game controller. Cop has to draw, aim, and fire while standing in an open doorway facing the victim. This isn't a "I saw some kid lurking around the back of the 7-11 with a toy gun while I was looking for a bank robber."

    Did the kid issue threats? Did he even have a chance to speak? Did he raise his "gun" and point it at the officer?

    Nevermind that the police claim he was holding a gun. Where is it? Who was it registered to? Where are the incident photos? Who's lying?

    This deserves a trial at the minimum. It's a killing that the DA has unilaterally absolved without due process.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I don't think it matters. All that matters is what she believed to be happening. Isn't that why we have grand juries, to determine whether to proceed with criminal charges?

    Put the shoe on the other foot.

    If you thought your life was threatened and you act in what you believe was self defense, should you be charged criminally for a mistake?

    This is CERTAINLY gross incompetence and there CERTAINLY need to be repercussions, both in job loss and financial/civil litigation. But it's not a crime unless she did not believe her life was in danger. ANd how do you prove what someone is thinking?

    Grand jury makes that call. "Could a rational person, given the situation, think their life was in danger?"

    If no = proceed with criminal charges.

    If yes = it's not a crime.

  • robc||

    If you thought your life was threatened and you act in what you believe was self defense, should you be charged criminally for a mistake?

    If you REASONABLY thought your life was in danger.

    It has to be a reasonable believe. If you are paranoid or jittery, you have to be more careful.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Hence gross negligence. You obviously don't have the wherewithal to distinguish the difference between a Wii controller and a gun, you certainly don't have the skills to be a cop.

    We weren't there. Don't know specifics.

    Was the gj too lenient because she's a cop? Maybe? Probably? But I don't have enough data to make that call.

    And I refer you to my first sentence of my fist post, reiterating all the IFs:

    IF, I repeat IF, she honestly thought the kid was pointing a gun at her, the grand jury was right.

    Justice SHOULD be blind. Did they make the call they did because she was a cop or because, given the situation, it was the right call to make? I can't know the answer to that. And because I can't know that I must assume they did the right thing and can't argue FOR pressing criminal charges.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    ANd how do you prove what someone is thinking?

    Criminal negligence is a class of mens rea, along with gross negligence.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Okay, gross incompetence. Hard to prove criminal wrongdoing because someone isn't good at their job.

    Pilot doesn't recognize he's got a huge sink rate, lands short and kills a bunch of people.

    He's a shitty pilot, not a murderer.

  • Brandon||

    Oh, I missed the part where the 17-year-old kid busted into her house before she shot him. Thanks for clearing that up, Frank.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I can't believe this.

    Brandon, are you claiming the cops should have no power to serve warrants?

    Are you claiming you don't have the right to self defense on someone else's property when you are there legally?

  • Brandon||

    No, straw man. You are the one who conflated a cop knocking on someone else's door with Dude comes into your house at night waiving a toy gun. You shoot him. I am claiming that you wouldn't get to claim self defense if you knocked on someone else's door and then shot them for answering it with something in their hand. And the cops shouldn't be able to, either.

  • hroark314||

    I'm glad somebody wrote this response to Frankie here.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You miss the point.

    My point wasn't WHERE the incident happens, but whether you have the right to self defense and if you are MISTAKEN about your life being in danger, whether you committed a crime.

    So, let me rephrase...

    It's dark on planet earth. Someone points what you believe to be a gun at you. You smoke him. The gun turns out to be a toy. Have you committed a crime?

  • robc||

    The gun turns out to be a toy. Have you committed a crime?

    Was your belief reasonable?

    If it had an orange tip, no.

    If it was a wii controller, no.

    It it was a hyper-realistic replica AND he was pointing it at you menacingly, yes.

    If it was a hyper-realistic replica and he was twirling it around on his finger, no.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Was your belief reasonable?

    Hence my point. (see above)

    We don't know the facts. We have a media story, generally accurate to about 50%.

  • Whahappan?||

    I'm not going to beat up on you, and I understand and agree with your overall point. I would merely point out that the media generally fellates government in general and law enforcement in particular, so the truth is probably much worse for the cop than the media version. Plus, the prosecutor has virtually complete control over the Grand Jury process, and if he didn't want the cop indicted, there's no way she would be, regardless of the strength of the case against her. And I can almost guarantee the prosecutor threw the case to the grand jury. Law enforcement simply can't be trusted.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If it had an orange tip, no.

    Because it's impossible to paint the tip of a real gun orange.

  • Idaho Bob||

    'Because it's impossible to paint the tip of a real gun orange."

    Has this ever happened? I mean in real life, not in some PD's night terrors...

  • Idaho Bob||

    'Because it's impossible to paint the tip of a real gun orange."

    Has this ever happened? I mean in real life, not in some PD's night terrors...

  • robc||

    You need to believe your life is threatened.

    No, you need to convince a jury that you believed it. Its an affirmative defense in most states (is that the right term?). You have to make the case, its not just out there for the jury to assume.

    And also, whatever happened to a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    No, you need to convince a jury that you believed it.

    So the burden of proof that no crime was committed, lies with the defense?

    I'm no lawyer, but that don't sound quite merikun to me.

    And also, whatever happened to a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich?

    Again, I'm not arguing about they actually act (which I believe to be wrong). I'm arguing about how they SHOULD act.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Fuck, wrong button. 1st sentence should be blockquote, not bold.

  • robc||

    Grand juries arent a beyond reasonable doubt standard. If any case can be made, they indict, IIRC.

    There is a reason that defenses are rarely presented at grand juries. Its about the prosecution proving they have at least a shread of a case.

    And I dont see how that isnt reached here.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Agreed.

  • croaker||

    Because in most regions of the USA you can't get on a Grand Jury without demonstrating you're a badge licker.

  • hroark314||

    It's a crime to kill people through negligence. She shot an unarmed minor who was not threatening her in any way in his own home. Apparently there's no question she killed him. That might not be first degree murder, but it sure sounds like negligent homicide (or whatever the legal term is).

    Your argument that this scenario doesn't even merit a trial because she claims she felt threatened is absurd. If implemented, such a legal standard would effectively make it impossible to prove any murder. The legal defense "I thought I was being threatened" would be almost 100% impregnable - even in cases of gangland style killing, spousal murders, and assassinations.

    However, I don't think you're really making the argument that a man who beats his unarmed wife to death in the privacy of his own home should walk free if he claims he thought she had a gun. What you're really arguing is that there should be a legal presumption that cops are constantly being threatened and that no cop should be prosecuted for homicide if he offers a unsubstantiated claim that he felt threatened by the victim.

    In that light, I'm perplexed about your chosen handle.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Your argument that this scenario doesn't even merit a trial because she claims she felt threatened is absurd. If implemented, such a legal standard would effectively make it impossible to prove any murder.

    Not what I said.

    We have grand juries to determine whether a criminal charge is merited. They hear the facts (all of them as opposed to what's in the media) and decide whether or not the "accused" acted within reason based on circumstances.

    All I said, and please read this carefully, was:

    IF, I repeat IF, she honestly thought the kid was pointing a gun at her, the grand jury was right.
  • hroark314||

    What I am saying is that IF, I repeat IF, she honestly thought the kid was pointing a gun at her then she at least committed negligent homicide. Intent is not necessary to commit a crime, but you're arguing that it is.

    Also, your argument does effectively make it impossible to prosecute murder. Under your legal regime I could walk up to a random man on the street, pull out a gun, shoot him in the face and then avoid prosecution by claiming I believed I saw him pointing a gun at me. Since no can know exactly what I thought, it would be impossible to prove I had committed a crime.

    I'll say it again, what you're really arguing is that cops should have a special immunity to prosecution for the irrational use of deadly force that no one else enjoys.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Did you even read my last post?

    Particularly THIS:


    Not what I said.

    We have grand juries to determine whether a criminal charge is merited. They hear the facts (all of them as opposed to what's in the media) and decide whether or not the "accused" acted within reason based on circumstances.
    I'll say it again, what you're really arguing is that cops should have a special immunity to prosecution for the irrational use of deadly force that no one else enjoys.

    Respectfully, hroark, don't tell me what I'm "really arguing". I'm arguing nothing of the kind. There should be NO special immunities for cops.

    We are talking about self defense here.

    They should have the same right to self defence that you or I have. Meaning if the grand jury determines a reasonable person might have believed their life to be in danger, given the circumstances, it doesn't warrant prosecution.

    For you, for me, for a cop, anyone.

    I fucking hate cops, but I'm not going to flush my principles down the shitter to get even with a bad one. I wouldn't want to see you prosecuted in a similar situation either.

  • Whahappan?||

    We have grand juries to determine whether a criminal charge is merited. They hear the facts (all of them as opposed to what's in the media) and decide whether or not the "accused" acted within reason based on circumstances.

    Sorry, but this is just factually incorrect. A grand jury only hears only what the prosecutor wants them to hear, not even remotely "all" the facts.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Okay, I'm done. Uncle.

    From now on, I'll just post an X, and all you fuckers can tell me what you think I said.

    That phrase was CLEARLY implying that the gj has more facts than presented in a news article.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    A ham sandwich, yes. The whole live pig, apparently not.

  • ||

    This made my day.

  • FYTW||

    She was wrong, and should pay for her mistake, but provided she actually believed she was acting in self defense, there is no crime.

    And here we have another case of somebody making authoritative claims about the law despite having never been closer to law school than driving past one.

    As a statement of the law, what you're saying is simply wrong. The fact that a defendant thinks his life is in danger is, by itself, insufficient to establish a self-defense claim. The defendant's belief must also have been reasonable under the circumstances.

    Do you know what it's called when somebody actually but unreasonably believes that their life is in danger, and kills the 'threat'?

    I'll give you a hint. It starts with "involuntary" and ends with "manslaughter," and typically carries a 2-6 year prison term.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The defendant's belief must also have been reasonable under the circumstances.

    You know, FYTW, I think you need to go back and re-read what I actually wrote instead of making up shit in your head that you THOUGHT I wrote.

    I said EXACTLY THAT multiple times throughout this thread.

    We have grand juries to determine whether a criminal charge is merited. They hear the facts (all of them as opposed to what's in the media) and decide whether or not the "accused" acted within reason based on circumstances.
    Justice SHOULD be blind. Did they make the call they did because she was a cop or because, given the situation, it was the right call to make? I can't know the answer to that. And because I can't know that I must assume they did the right thing and can't argue FOR pressing criminal charges.
    They should have the same right to self defence that you or I have. Meaning if the grand jury determines a reasonable person might have believed their life to be in danger, given the circumstances, it doesn't warrant prosecution.

    Good job, mr law school. Arrogant fuck.

    So, fuck you, and I'm standing by for your apology.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    You are just not getting the point here, Francisco.

    The test for self-defense is not "I thought I was justified in shooting."

    It is "would a reasonable person have shot."

    I can't put it any clearer than that. Most of your discussion is just based on the wrong legal standard. Period.

    And, it is an affirmative defense (with some states going about it a little differently), meaning that yes, it is the defendant's job to prove (with a preponderance of the evidence) that a reasonable person would have shot.

    No way on this earth would anyone but a cop have skated on this. No. Way.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Yeah, I know you make a few references to the reasonableness standard, but most of your posts are based entirely on whether the cop believed, subjectively, that she should shoot the kid.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    This is a good example of you using the wrong standard:

    IF, I repeat IF, she honestly thought the kid was pointing a gun at her, the grand jury was right.

    Do you understand that her "honestly thinking" it was a gun is a subjective standard, and not the same as a reasonable person standard?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Sorry, I didn't realize I had to state the entire legal standard in every post I make.

    Furthermore, no one here has all the specifics and cannot possibly claim reasonableness or not based on a fucking news article.

    What were the lighting conditions? What were the impediments? Where were they in relation to each other. What was her testimony? What made her think it was a weapon? Was it a sudden movement or a blur?

    There is no fucking way anyone here, based on the facts presented in this article, can make the claim that the gj was wrong to not prosecute.

  • ULOST||

    The sneaky & aggressive trespasser gets the same nod to self defense as the rest of us. Not in my world.

  • FYTW||

    You know, FYTW, I think you need to go back and re-read what I actually wrote instead of making up shit in your head that you THOUGHT I wrote.

    I blockquoted your original post where you flat-out stated the incorrect legal standard. That was what I was responding to.

    The fact that later on downthread, after people corrected you, you started backtracking and defensively acknowledging you were wrong is nice but hardly merits an apology from me.

    Get it right or shut the fuck up, badgelicker.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    badgelicker

    That might be the funniest thing I've heard this week.

    Again, you might want to actually read the thread before opening your pie hole and proving yourself an asshole.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Oh, and sue the living fuck out of her.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I don't think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the proper standard at the grand jury stage. I think it's lower (probable cause, maybe?).

  • ULOST||

    The pertinent question is would a reasonable person (who is also trained to anticipate armed resistance and should be properly prepared to ACCURATELY assess threats quickly)believe it to be a gun. No warning given to inhabitants as to who was at the door so pigs can have the upper hand..f' the citizen. It was an ambush.
    Book her, Danno.

  • thom||

    Could be one of those new 3D printed guns.

  • Eric||

    That's what I was thinking. Those plastic guns, if they become widespread, could result in a lot of this kind of shit going forward.

  • From the Tundra||

    They are already shooting kids with airsoft guns. They shot a guy with a fucking hose sprayer, ffs!

    I guess to be on the safe side, every interaction with cops should be done in a prone position, arms outspread and hands empty.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Or in a prone position, on a nearby rooftop, arms...

  • croaker||

    It may yet come to that if cops keep getting free passes.

    “If cops continue to play at being an army of occupation, they should expect the subjects to play their role in return. Vive la resistance.”

    - J. D. Tucille

  • Suicidy||

    I hear about that but all I can imagine is a really good picture of a gun on paper that looks 3D.

  • ||

    IF, I repeat IF, she honestly thought the kid was pointing a gun at her, the grand jury was right. It doesn't rise to the level of a crime and no charges should be brought. It's like most rape cases...can't PROVE wrongdoing.

    So, dueling is legal?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    So, dueling is legal?

    Wha? Don't follow that line.

    Who do you want the burden of proving self defense to fall on?

  • Acosmist||

    ??????????? That's some Tony-level illogic.

  • Brendan||

    God help you if you have this in your possession.

  • Brendan||

    No. Absolute liability for homicide no different then if it's "civilian" who shoots a police officer they truly believed to be an intruder.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    IF, I repeat IF, she honestly thought the kid was pointing a gun at her,

    That isn't the standard. The standard is whether a reasonable person would have thought the kid was pointing a gun.

    I see absolutely no way a reasonable person would mistake a Wii controller, any of them, even the gun shaped one, for a real gun. They're made out of fucking white plastic.

  • sarcasmic||

    They're made out of fucking white plastic.

    Mine is black.

  • EMD||

    RAYCESS.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Oh, and for the record, I HATE pigs. Most are shitbags.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Agreed. I can at least entertain the notion that a reasonable person in the same context might have done the same thing. I mean, probably not, and given her history, she's probably not reacting responsibly.

  • Kuwanki||

    "Because the Grand Jury has determined that the actions of Officer Gatny did not rise to the level of a criminal offense, this concludes the involvement of the District Attorney's Office in this matter," District Attorney Rosemary Greene said.

    This is really interesting. When i was on the Flagstaff Grand Jury, we had a black kid who got in a gunfight with another black kid, and shot him in the foot (through a car door). They took him to FMC, and for some reason he croaked during the night. So, they brought the (accused) shooter up on charges to the GJ. We could charge him with 1st deg murder, or 1st deg murder. There was no gun (the hole in the car door was a .38). We said no. They found an aunt who said she tossed "A" gun into Lake Mary (the 2nd time we heard the case). We still said no. The 3rd time we heard the case, they brought the case, they had this .22 revolver that looked like it came from the Titantic. When we reasonably said, the hole in the cardoor was a .38: the slug in his foot was a .38: How can this be the "murder" weapon? When we refused to return an indictment, the DA was throwing stuff around, in a petulent frenzy (throwing files like frisbees). The only reason i bring this up is that the DA tried to bring a bogus case up on this black kid 3 times, while this Gatby chick gets the DA to phone in a sleep-walk to 12 sheep with rubber stamps, and proudly announces that justice has ben served.

  • croaker||

    It's more like 20-30 sheep and you only need a majority vote to true bill.

  • Epicdelusion||

    Damn teenagers, never know WHAT they have in their hand... always assume it's a firearm

  • Brandon||

    I think it'd be safe to assume it's their dick.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    HE"S POINTING IT RIGHT AT ME!

    blam blam blam etc.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    As usual, another anti-police article. Nothing like taking incidents like this and propagandizing them to look like the police everywhere are a bunch of trigger happy nut cases.

    Haven't seen any article on this site that I can remember about all those police officers everywhere in the U.S. who are shot and killed in the line of duty by hard core criminals.

  • Andrew S.||

    'Sup, Tulpa? You usually don't come into these threads until they're dead. You bored or something?

  • Swiss Servator, Alles Klar||

    Tulpa just can't quit us. Or badgelicking.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Swiss Moron,

    Yet another ass hole such as yourself, who can't formulate a counter-argument. If you don't like my comment, then perhaps you need to come up with some reason why I should change my mind. Anyway, I doubt you have the intelligence. Your "badge licking" remark tells me that. Go fuck yourself, you moron.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Counter-argument

    Your strawman doesn't address the perception that the police are held to a different standard (almost none), which was the point of the article.

    So either address the issue at hand or quit your bitching.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Scruffy

    Why don't you respond to my premise that an almost constant barrage of articles denouncing the police is bullshit. How about an article (at least one) from Reason, praising what some police officer did to protect and help someone even at the risk of his/her life.

    So either address my comment or fuck off.

    Have a nice day, you fucking asshole fool.

  • sarcasmic||

    How about an article (at least one) from Reason, praising what some police officer did to protect and help someone even at the risk of his/her life.

    Because it's their fucking job. You don't go out of your way to praise a McDonalds employee for making fries, and you don't go out of your way to praise a cop for helping someone. That's their job.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Brilliant response.

    Have a nice day, scrotum brain.

    Adios. Eat Shit. Fuck off.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Why? Don't we have the rest of the media for that? Tune into Fox if you like, they're fair and balanced.

    Reason did note that the Detroit chief of police was supportive of individual gun ownership this morning. I would call that a positive.

    You really are a malcontent POS

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Fuck you, you piece of shit.

  • ||

    Man, your butthurt is beautiful to withhold. Does criticizing the poor officers make you cry? You want a time out, big guy? Maybe a juice box while you get over your sniffles?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Fuck you.

  • Brian||

    I said, calm down, grandpa.

  • croaker||

    I want to taste his tears. They may be almost as tasty as a liberal's.

  • Brandon||

    2013-33 killed by gunfire incidents 4 of which were canines
    Compare that with around 607 killed by police in 2011-2012. You can see that more happens of one than the other.

    You've been answered repeatedly, dipshit. But you chose to ignore the substantive responses and keep flinging shit around, confirming your identity. Fuck off.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Andrew S.

    Hi there Ass Hole.

    Not bored at all. The only thing I'm bored with is fucking morons like you who can't seem to formulate a response to someone's comment.

    If you don't like my comment defending law enforcement officers in general, then shut you fucking pie hole.

    You have a nice day, butt chunk. Eat Shit.

  • ||

    The only thing I'm bored with is fucking morons like you who can't seem to formulate a response to someone's comment.

    You fuck morons? Huh, that's what your girlfriend told me as well.

  • OneOut||

    Does it have a butthurt this morning ?

  • Andrew S.||

    You seem angry, Tulpa. Are you angry?

    If you are, I wouldn't recommend going anywhere near a cop. They can be dangerous, you know.

  • Brian||

    I said: Calm. Down. Grandpa.

  • Epicdelusion||

    Not enough black on white crime reports, either.

  • SugarFree||

    Translation: "Fuck this little shit, he got what he deserved."

  • Poppa Kilo||

    Largely because while each such case is tragic, looking at the statistics seems to indicate that your contention is overblown, and that many more people are wrongly hurt by cops than cops are by criminals - and that the trendline is worsening, and that for various reasons these cases are all too common.

    Fisherman, farmers, lumberjacks, and many others are pursuing more dangerous professions.

    Every time I hear a senior LEO say "All we want is for every officer to come back safe at the end of their shift" I want to spit.

    OF COURSE we want every officer to come back safe, you dumb ass - but if that's ALL you want it means you don't want to do the damn job.

  • ||

    Damn.

  • WTF||

    BOOM!

  • WTF||

    OF COURSE we want every officer to come back safe, you dumb ass - but if that's ALL you want it means you don't want to do the damn job.

    That is what they want - at the expense of people's civil rights and safety.

  • thom||

    Which is why the majority of them should just sit in a call center and take reports over the phone. Police primarily harass people, generate revenue, and take reports after crimes have been committed. Nobody's going to miss the harassment, the cost savings would probably offset the revenue, and they can safely sit inside and do the one thing they actually do that is useful: take reports so insurance companies can reimburse people.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    ^^^THIS! A thousand fucking time, THIS!

    A guy in a neighboring town had his collie executed on his front lawn because the psycho with the badge can't read a fucking address sign. He pleaded with the cop not to shoot the dog (the dog was barking).

    The original complaint? Someone called in a suspected "domestic abuse." They heard loud arguing. In the end no one was arrested.

    All would have been better off if the cop had never come. Or at least waited until he heard evidence of a fight. Instead, he lumbered in and shot the first living thing that didn't kiss his ass.

  • croaker||

    Police need to learn that they're not samurai, and they don't get to 'test their swords' on the peasants.

  • robc||

    Also, it aint their job to come home safe.

    I want them to come home safe, but its their job to sometimes risk their life to protect the lives of the rest of us.

    If that means waiting until absolute sure on whether its a wii controller or a firearm, then thats the price they have to pay.

    Personally, I dont think cops should carry firearms or tasers except in extreme circumstances.

  • croaker||

    And no body armor. I find that cops stopped being police to citizens when they started wearing armor. Banning armor might keep a few mouths from writing checks their ass can't cash.

  • ||

    Haven't seen any article on this site that I can remember about all those police officers everywhere in the U.S. who are shot and killed in the line of duty by hard core criminals.

    Don't see a lot of articles about loggers, roofers, farmers, fishermen, etc. killed in the line of duty either.

    But then, fishermen don't generally show up at your doorstep and shoot your kids either.

  • WTF||

    According NBLS even sanitation workers have higher on the job mortality rates than cops.

  • Idle Hands||

    2013-33 killed by gunfire incidents 4 of which were canines
    Compare that with around 607 killed by police in 2011-2012. You can see that more happens of one than the other.

  • ScoobaSteve||

    But that 607 killed by police would have been 607 police killed had the police not shot first. Actually it would have been more because the police travel in teams and if a perp isn't put down immediately, he will kill everyone in sight. Always.

  • sarcasmic||

    How many of those 607 were actually armed?

  • ScoobaSteve||

    All of them. Whether is was a shotgun shaped cane, a WiiGlock controller or just an unhealthy dose of lack of respect for authoritah, they were ALL armed.

  • d_remington||

    They were certainly all in possession of a lot of bullets when they got to the coroner.

  • Marshall Gill||

    2013-33 killed by gunfire incidents 4 of which were canines
    Compare that with around 607 killed by police in 2011-2012.

    Does the 607 include "canines"? I seriously doubt it. If it did the number would be in the thousands.

  • Whahappan?||

    There was just an article somewhere the other day that 14 dogs a day are shot. Not sure how many die, but I'm sure the number is significant.

  • Brendan||

    Those criminal shootings of police officers are just isolated incidents similar to the more frequent isolated incidents of police officers killing unarmed citizens.

    I can't help but wonder what would happen if 50+ high school students shot and killed police officers over the course of the year. Would all high school students (who outnumber police) be labeled and treated as trigger happy sociopaths, or would each incident be labeled an "isolated incident".

  • Brandon||

    Are you serious? This 17-year-old sociopath made an officer feel bad! They are all out to get cops!

  • Brandon||

    -Tulpa

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    It's the guns's fault.

  • ||

    If by hard core criminals you mean people selling things the state doesn't like...

    Fuck the pigs. If you don't want to get shot in the line of duty maybe you should have considered a career that didn't involve being the violent enforcer of state coercion.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    It may just be anecdotal evidence, but it's amazing how often fresh anecdotes present themselves. At some point, there is a genuine trend.

  • The Last American Hero||

    So when the Justice Dept comes to Seattle and proposes a bunch of meaningless reforms and the PD and the Union tell them to pound sand, it's just propaganda, eh?

    By the way, cops die in the line of duty at a rate far lower than the death rate of garbage men.

  • Chumby||

    I think Reason had at least one article about how former police officer Chris Dorner was murdered by burning.

  • Kuwanki||

    The sad problem with you, Tulpa, is that you will never be Hitler, although it won't be from lack of trying.

  • Cbalducc||

    How has the rest of the community or the media reacted to this tragedy? A big problem is the apparent indifference otherwise law-abiding people show when something like this happens. A bunch of good men doing nothing.
    My guess, there will be a settlement.

  • Marshall Gill||

    A bunch of good men doing nothing.

    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to rationalize it.

  • ||

  • WTF||

    Well, if his wife is an enviro-nut I could maybe see her point.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Wow. The wife reported to the cops that the husband had drugs. Who does that without talking to your spouse first?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    See? Women acting with their emotions first.

    Or just a bitchy wife trying to win a divorce. Can't say for sure.

  • Jose Chung||

    Can't it be both?

  • Ron||

    interesting considering it is perfectly legal to have a gun in your own home and to even answer the door with said gun in hand. So now its legal for a LEO to shoot someone doing what he is legally allowed to do. Of course we have read that story many times before. The man in his garage the man in his bed etc.

  • WTF||

    Anything that sufficiently upsets or unnerves a cop is a potential death sentence. Legal's got nothing to do with it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Officer: "I feared for my life."

    Internal Affairs: "Justified!"

    The End

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Officer's boss. "Pack up your shit and be out of here in 10 minutes."

    (this is the part that's lacking)

  • croaker||

    The only way that part will happen is by banning police unions and negotiated contracts.

    Police officers should be under UCMJ, same as soldiers.

  • Cap'n Krunch||

    I'm at the point I feel safer dealing with the criminals than the cops.

  • SugarFree||

    I've never had a drug dealer throw me into a wall hard enough to shatter a thermostat.

  • ||

    Wait, I thought your mom was a drug dealer?

  • KDN||

    He's saying she needs to lift more. Very passive aggressive.

  • Xeones||

    Sweet'n'Low's mom owes you a new thermostat too, huh?

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    Bootleggers and dealers have an incentive not to harm their customers.

  • Brendan||

    Few drug dealers ever get the address wrong and even fewer burn holes in small children.

  • PD Scott||

    Oh, sure, no hat tip!

  • Stretchy||

    Can the Euharlee, Georgia police department or, more specifically, some individual at the department be held liable for not doing their due diligence in hiring Officer Gatney? Does the department have an obligation to hire competent officers?

    I'm thinking that if I hired someone with a sketchy history to be my security guard. Then I armed them and they shot someone while performing their duties, I'd be in some pretty hot water. As a private citizen, if I don't do a background check, the prosecutor would argue that I should have. If I do a background check, the prosecutor would argue that a reasonable person would not give someone with that history a gun and any kind of authority.

  • Ron||

    Valid argument considering Walmart is being sued for one of their truck drivers accidents. The suit claims that even if Walmart didn't know the driver had worked to many hours it was their responsibility to know.

  • ULOST||

    Just like Bar-ry Oblamer, always taking responsibility for what happened down the chain, incriminating e-mails or not. Mostly, not. Okay, never.

  • Bubba Jones||

    When a dog bites a child, even in self defense, that dog gets put down.

    It would seem prudent to terminate police who shoot people. Even if they were justified.

  • robc||

    Someone a while back on here suggested that anytime a cop discharges his weapon it should end his career. Even good shoots. You discharge them with congratulations and a hearty handshake and thank them for their service.

    They would still do it in true self defense situations, of course.

  • some guy||

    Sounds nice, but it wouldn't work. The only way you'd get the union to agree is if each such officer still got a full pension, no matter his age or length of service. The officers would be quick to respond to this new, perverse incentive to shoot things.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Then we could ALL become cops, just long enough to kill someone and retire! Eventually the entire population will either be retired PD, or dead.

    It could still work.

  • d_remington||

    "Damn, I was a dead body away from retirement..."

  • croaker||

    Fuck that. Make police unions terrorist organizations. Close to the truth in any event.

  • antisocial-ist||

    Police claimed the 17-year old pointed a gun at the officer but the family insisted he was holding a Nintendo Wii controller.

    That's a pretty easy dispute to solve. Did they collect this gun as evidence? If not the cops are clearly lying.

    Also if you think male cops are panicky and scared shitless by their own shadow, the women cops are much much worse.

  • sarcasmic||

    Many years ago I got pulled over by a female cop for having a headlight out, and I could tell she was zooming on adrenalin. She was scared shitless. I made sure to do everything reeeealy sloooowly. Bitch gave me a fix-it ticket instead of a warning.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Sarcasmic,

    So, a female police officer who pulls you over is a bitch? Also, you are a fucking expert on detecting when someone is "zooming on adrenalin'?

    Anyway, maybe she should have shot you, and then I would not have to see your bullshit posts on this site.

    Have a nice day, you low grade piece of trash. Maybe the next officer who pulls you over will beat the shit out of you for being a fucking moron.

  • sarcasmic||

    D-

  • Monty Crisco||

    What a juvenile dipshit you are.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    So now we know what your idea of proper police procedure is. Thanks for clearing that up.

    How long have you worked for the police department? I'm just curious.

  • Doghouse Reilly||

    Gather 'round, get a good look, this is the face of the modern police state and its lackeys. Nothing but sociopathic diatribes and threats of violence for those who would dare disagree with cherished authority figures.

    Might makes right.

    Right?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Clean up your own house dipshit, and maybe you'll get more respect for wearing that costume.

  • ||

    Hey dipshit, if you want to play army, then JOIN THE DAMNED ARMY, instead of playing armed bully with mostly peaceful people.

    But no, you won't, because like most cops, you're far too much of a coward to actually put on a uniform where the job description is -- can be sent anywhere on the planet to some place where people may very well be shooting back.

    No, you just want to use your neighbors as a target gallery.

    Fuck you.

    -- 25 year army veteran, with 3 combat tours.

  • ||

    Is being a sexist douche like a pre-req for posting here?

  • sarcasmic||

    Ever dealt with any female cops?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Yes, and there was a lot of yelling. After she gave me a ticket, she threw my license and registration at me. I guess I should be thankful I didn't wind up in the hospital or the morgue, but she sure as hell didn't act in a professional manner.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Just to clarify, I did not raise my voice during the encounter.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Go. Fuck. Yourself.

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    When will Reason stop with the cop hate? All that matters is that this brave police officer returns home safe at the end of the day with her pension and benefits intact.

  • ||

    When I was a child in the 60's and 70's cops were stand-up guys. However, by the late 1980's, police departments became saturated with wannabe dictator assholes. You know, like the couple of moronic football players in high school who thought that it was their job to make everyone behave according to the self-appointed dictator's whims (regardless of what is actually legal and ethical, and what's not).

    Unfortunately, that's the majority of today's police. They don't become police to protect their community, they become police so that they can have a gun and a badge. And this is worse in the small towns where there's practically no crime. Strange as it may seem, the cops in Michigan who I least distrust are the Detroit cops... because THEY *know* the difference between someone who's just a bit heavy on the gas pedal and a murderer.

  • CE||

    However, the grand jury did not find sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial.

    Isn't an unarmed dead body with bullet holes considered "evidence"?

  • sarcasmic||

    She feared for her life. She feared for her life! SHE FEARED FOR HER LIFE!

  • GiveMeLibertyorGiveMePie||

    With all these shootings by cops being based on falsely fearing for their lives, wouldn't a person by that logic, be just as justified in fearing for their life every time they encounter a cop?

  • Free Society||

    Since cops unjustifiably kill vastly more people than people unjustfiably killing cops, I'd say we peasants have more reason to kill cops out of fear than them of us.

  • ||

    Cops are now taught to yell "drop the weapon! drop the weapon! drop the weapon" AS THEY ARE SHOOTING SOMEONE TO DEATH.

    The reason is for no other purpose than to confuse witnesses, so that later, when they recall events, they will think that the victim was warned to disarm before being shot.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Translated:

    However, the prosecutor did not present sufficient evidence to the grand jury for the case to proceed to trial.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    This reminds me of that article a while back about jurors being put through a police training simulator to show how easy it is to blindly murder innocent people.

    They should have one for this situation. Just have the juror stand at a door holding a gun, and have the defense attorney shout repeatedly that there is someone trying to kill them on the other side of the door.

    Then open the door. Blam. Instant acquittal.

  • robc||

    Dammit Tulpa, stick to one name so I dont have to keep filtering you.

  • ||

    How far are we away from a police,officer shooting a person through a mirrored window because he saw his own reflection and panicked when the "suspect" mimicked his actions when he put his hand on his gun?

  • Ron||

    even funnier would be if the reflection was from a stainless steel wall and the bullet ricocheted back. Would that still be a justified shooting

  • Mainer2||

    That could be a winner on America's Funniest Videos.

  • ant1sthenes||

    If that becomes common, we should start issuing laser pistols to cops.

  • Mainer2||

    Rollo is back

  • ||

    Every time I think I couldn't possibly hate the cops more than I already do they prove me wrong.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Go fuck yourself.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "One witness said she saw the cop sobbing into her hands after the shooting."

    This is why women just aren't fit for police work. You don't want to get tears all over your drop gun.

  • Rasilio||

    Of course the case is still open, you're still asking about it. They can't quietly close it with a determination of no wrongdoing till after the media forgets about it

  • Andrew S.||

    Well, they are still "investigating". It's just that the remaining parts of the investigation involve going out and drinking with the cop in question while laughing at the kid she killed. Though she may get some flak from her fellow officers for not having a drop gun with her.

  • Free Society||

    The District Attorney's Office for the Cherokee Judicial Circuit presented a proposed indictment charging Gatny with involuntary manslaughter and reckless conduct. However, the grand jury did not find sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial.

    Dead kid. Cop that admits to firing the shot. Situation clearly did not warrant a death sentence. No evidence. What the fuck happened to the Grand Jury system? Methinks the state...

  • Taco||

    There's an easy answer here: make cops (and the supervisors who send them out, armed and dangerous) personally financially liable for the innocent people they shoot. You think this lackwit's boss would've sent her out with a gun to interact with "civilians" if he knew he was 33% liable for any wrongful death she caused?

  • Free Society||

    Or I don't know, treat them like you we treat an uncostumed person who murders a child whose crime was opening his door to a cop. That means criminal and civil penalties.

  • ||

    That's part of the problem right there... this "there's cops, and there are 'civilians'" mentality.

    Every time I hear a cop refer to civilians, I ask them to show me their military ID. When they fail to produce one, I pull out mine, and say "Hey, buddy, if you don't have one of THESE, then you're a civilian, too. And your attitude is precisely why that majority of the public now trusts you less than a used car salesman. You need to change it, because if you don't then some year soon, it's going to be open season on anyone wearing blue, carrying a badge, or riding in a government issued, non-military affiliated vehicle. There's a reason the public's greatest trust is with the U.S. military, and that both Congress and Law Perversement are at the bottom of the barrel."

  • Brian||

    Just another reason to be libertarian.

    At some point, someone's going to have to explain to me the wisdom of training police officers for violent confrontations, only to turn around make every damn thing that someone finds unpleasant illegal, regardless of how violent it is. They're just setting up confrontations between violent cops and peaceful people, and it's getting worse.

    These people need to realize that coming up with laws isn't some bizarre, theoretical exercise where you imagine how good life could be if no one could do this or that. Rather, these laws are the application of violence against (potentially) peaceful people, and that doesn't come cost free.

  • Taco||

    "the wisdom of training police officers for violent confrontations"

    "training"

    You are rather more optimistic about the pre-requisites for wielding weapons on behalf of the state than I am.

  • croaker||

    You mean like the NYPD choking a man for selling untaxed cigarettes? Last I heard that wasn't grounds for summary execution.

  • Brian||

    One witness said she saw the cop sobbing into her hands after the shooting.

    Should she get fired? Does she even want to be a cop?

    She was fired for exhausting her medical leave.

    She should have stayed home, then. If she hadn't changed her mind, he'd still be alive.

    While there, among other things, she apparently shot a suspect while he was trying to remove his backpack, believing he was going for a gun.

    Internal Affairs concluded she should not be punished because the initial call for service said the suspects could have been armed.

    Exactly. When someone *could* be armed, it's best to shoot first and ask questions later. Who, exactly, couldn't possibly be armed? Clearly, the answer is to shoot everyone on sight. For officer safety.

    In the case of Chris Roupe, according to a search warrant from the GBI,Gatny told investigators "before the door could be opened...[she] heard what she believed to be the action of a firearm".

    I'm glad we train cops to be so violent, when they're clearly immune to confirmation bias.

    Since this woman was a cop for 10 years, during that time, did she actually shoot any real criminals, in the act of committing serious crimes? Or were they all innocent?

    If this woman wasn't wearing a blue costume, progressives would be whining their heads off about disarming citizens.

  • Chumby||

    I never eat a pig, because a pig is a cop.
    Or better yet a terminator, like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

  • PauvrePapillon||

    The Peoples' Republic of Norte Mexico is a police state. The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave is now the Land of the Freeloader, Home of the Handout Seeker. Along with the new paradigm goes a complete and total loss of rights of any kind. New survival skills are required.

    Your home must have multiple security cameras positioned around its perimeter. All activities, day and night, for at least one week's duration must be recorded onto a server off the premises.

    When anyone comes to your door, they should see a camera looking back at them and know they are being recorded. If they do not have an appointment, you should not open the door.

    If they appear to be dressed like police, you immediately call the police (911) and tell them that you have someone at the door impersonating a police officer.

    If the police impersonators down your door before a channel of communication is opened and you therefore do not have the opportunity to deal with the situation in an orderly, authority-compliant, non-violent (video taped and recorded) fashion, you will have to decide how you choose to respond to that.

    The police officers that I know, retired and otherwise, tell me, if and when that moment comes for them, they will take out as many police impersonators that come through their front door as they can.

    I am not advocating that you do or do not do this.

    I am just observing that this is the current state of affairs in the Peoples' Republic of Norte Mexico.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement