Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brando's avatar

Well articulated piece sir. I disagree slightly that he should be charged at all though. He likely violated enough policy to be fired, but I don't think anything he did would be a crime.

He warned her not to try to harm him with the boiling water (can easily cause GBH) and when she tried to, he shot her in the face like he warned her he would if she threw it.

He might be an asshole, he might have used better tactics, he also probably should have rendered aid, but all those don't mean in that moment it was a bad shoot. She presented a deadly threat, and he dealt with a deadly threat.

Expand full comment
Chris McDaniel's avatar

I like the piece. I think you're a little conclusory in the analysis (for instance, you say if he'd been employed by most agencies he'd have been terminated for multiple policy violations. I agree. I just think it could have been expanded on, especially for people with no police background).

I agree that if a person isn't a suspect, they typically aren't restricted from moving about. even still, as a practice I tended to redirect folks subtly or in this instance if I was assist I'd probably have said "I'll get that for you dear, you keep working with Deputy Grayson." it's not a command. and I wouldn't fight her to keep her out, but subtle and typically you can persuade people or redirect them away from things. I've used the same tactic to shuffle witnesses away from violent scenes without them melting down or fighting bc they have to see.

personally, I think this is 80% on the agency at least. it seems a bad hire, was followed by insufficient training, and if he was off FTI, I would bet my last dollar people had voiced concerns to supervisors.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts