Officer shoots bystander

[Seran]

You have zeroed in on the critical issue. The fact that the wall was not transparent, and the officer did not know what was behind it, is what calls the officer's actions into question.




Who could have predicted that a high caliber bullet would pass through the criminal and the sheetrock behind him? Anybody, including anybody with no training. Who should shoot through a sheetrock wall without knowing what is behind it? Nobody, especially including somebody with training. Using either foresight or hindsight, it was a mistake.

I think this is exactly what's going to be the end of the officer's career at the very least, the fact he used a rifle inside of an occupied retail center. Three shots and only one struck and killed a bystander? I'm surprised more weren't hurt. Imagine that bullet piercing drywall could have easily pierced multiple bodies.

[Seran]

Los Angeles PD is responsible for bringing as much into the community in the form of use of force or civil rights violation settlements as they do peace and safety it seems.

[Methais]

Seran's here, thread is officially gay and retarded now.

[Flap]

The released the body cam footage. The guy was at the other end of the aisle from the woman when he was shot, you ABSOLUTE FUCKING GHOULS.

[Wrathbringer]

Seran's here, thread is officially gay and retarded now.

This is correct.

[ClydeR]

So there is a duty to know what is behind walls? How is that reasonable?

You have it backwards. You have a duty not to shoot through a wall unless you know that nobody is behind it. Doesn't that make more sense than saying that it's okay to shoot through a wall unless you know that somebody is behind it?

[Methais]

Protip: You can't wallhack in real life

[ClydeR]

Clyder, that just seems so extreme to prevent lawful use of deadly force in any building, since noone has the omnipotence to know or see behind walls, especially if making a split second decision. No self defense or defense of other law is written to require that.

I posit this- if there was an active shooter in a school, and you were the SRO rushing to help defenseless children, but behind the shooter was a wall, that you couldn't see behind, your logic requires you not to shoot until you can somehow manuever the shooter in front of a window where you could see behind, and then confirm,while under fire, and near instantaneously, that noone was behind the shooter all the way to the max range of your weapon. Do you agree that only then Would the law protect you under defense of others?

In your scenario, which does not match the facts of the Burlington shooting, the officer would be justified in taking the shot and gambling that no one was behind the wall. I would say the result would be the same regardless of whether the background was a wall, a dense fog, the dark of night, or even a busy freeway where the odds favor hitting empty space or an unimportant part of a vehicle. It is a risk worth taking when absolutely necessary. How is your scenario different from what happened in the Burlington store? In your scenario, the perpetrator was using a gun, but in the Burlington incident, the perpetrator was not using a gun and was not attacking someone at the moment encountered by the officers.

In any building, there is always a chance that a bullet will go through a wall and hit someone on the other side. The officer knew that. He incorrectly concluded that the benefit of shooting the perpetrator outweighed the risk of hitting someone on the other side of the wall. The incorrectness of his conclusion was knowable in advance without the benefit of hindsight.