> However, at the very least, I can say that the San
> Jose Police Dept is guilty...
("guilty" or "liable" ...?)
> how can you send a policeman
> into a situation where he shoots and kills a 98 pound
> vietnamese woman who was armed with just a vegetable
> peeler?
Hey, no one said that the job of being a cop was easy.
And I'm not saying that the civil case for this won't wind up costing San Jose some $$$.
But: criminal, on the part of the cop?
Really, there's so many cases of out of control cops in the USA, why pick this one?
> The policeman was called onto the scene
> because a neighbor said the woman's child was
> outside...He was not called into a potentially
> dangerous scene, such as a shoot-out between gangs,
> etc. How was his life threatened? Why is someone that
> incompetent allowed on the police force?
I think you're vastly underestimating the very real dangers that city police face every day. "Domestic disturbance" is where it all happens. It's certainly true that, just as in many other situations in life, the answer lies in education/training. But in the mean time, if you're called into this situation where someone "brandishes" (every version of this story used that word) at you, you've got VERY LITTLE TIME to make a decision about what to do. Sure, it could be a vegetable peeler; it could be a TOY gun.
And you could be dead.
> I am not sure of the legal nuances concerning
> manslaughter, but this certainly looks like a case of
> manslaughter to me.
I'm not a lawyer, but the typical standard for self-defense (which is often GREATLY REDUCED for cops) is: a reasonable person needs to believe that under the circumstances, you felt your life was in danger and that this was the only out.
Who knows what was going through this woman's mind when she turned to face this guy with that thing in her hand? I'm not blaming the victim, but this seems like a nasty combination of bad timing and bad luck.
But again: not criminal.
[ BTW, you mentioned in your first post that the shooting ocured within seven seconds of the cop getting there; if that's true (I haven't seen that number used), then this all went down VERY quickly and the chances of us second guessing him are about zero: which is probably what the grand jury was thinking ... ]
> So, yes, it was criminal in my
> mind, ESPECIALLY since this was a policeman who is
> supposed to be trained about restraint and measured
> use of force. Even if I give the cop the benefit of
> the doubt, isnt there such a thing as shooting at the
> knees rather than dead in the heart?
Typically, the training is to "stop the fight" -- you don't have much choice in a small space (inside) and short range. A knee is a tough target, especially if what you think you're doing is stopping someone from shooting you. If this was outside and 50yds, you'd have more to say about it -- but I think in this case, we're just talking about a tragedy and not your "normal" police abuse.
You can't "restrain" someone who has just turned on you in the kill zone (about 20ft is how quickly someone with a knife can stab you in 1 second).
I want to reiterate: I think cops in the US are vastly undertrained. And cities should be taken to task for that. But to find this guy criminally at fault seems like the wrong idea.
/jordan