I don't think this shooting was justified...

[Missourian]

If you haven't read my other posts, assure yourself that I'm all about giving LEOs and self defenders the benefit of the doubt...but this shooting looks to me like it was not justified. She introduces the gun from a desk drawer and he is just trying to escape the room. The coroner testified he was shot in the back at a trajectory consistent with him leaning out the window.

She is a bail bondswoman and he skipped bond.

She was found not guilty.

News link to follow.

Oklahoma DA’s office releases video of bail officer fatally shooting client

 

[JakeStarkey]

That was murder.

 

[rightwinger]

Can’t see any way to defend what she did

 

[TNHarley]

holy shit. How in the HOLY HELL did she get off?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I cant believe she walked!!

 

[Indeependent]

That was an execution.

 

[emilynghiem]

I doubt that was the law enforcement procedures required of officers.
The officers have to state certain legal rights, like the right to defense,
when placing someone under arrest. Officers have lost cases over less when they didn't follow procedures.

I assume this case can be changed on appeal.

If it's any comfort to you Missourian
unfortunately our legal system especially criminal is so convoluted,
what some lawyers will do "as a strategy" is allow the prosecution
to win WITH glaring mistakes! So it is EASIER to win on appeal
by pointing out these glaring errors. Sometimes, and I hate to say this,
that is easier than winning on the front end. Appeals can be easier
because all they have to do is show procedural ERROR or lack of
adequate DEFENSE, and the person CANNOT BE CHARGED AGAIN.

In this case, the burden is on proving the woman had criminal intent.
If you are only going for Wrongful Death and Negligence, that is a
lighter burden: Civil Charges only require proving "preponderance of the evidence" (which is why OJ Simpson got found guilty of wrongful death in the civil case); while Criminal Charges require proving "BEYOND Reasonable Doubt" so that's harder to prove legally (which is why OJ was not found guilty because there was doubt introduced in the minds of the jury)

This is always EASIER to prove the defense than it is to prove the prosecution's position.

I would have suggested to go with wrongful death and negligence.
Murder is harder to prove, and the prosecution should know this.

If they are pressing civil charges of wrongful death,
they may have better success; to prove negligence
they just have to cite what are the legal procedures for
apprehending someone with handcuffs for arrest,
and show she did not follow them. That's all.
No need to prove murder, just show negligence
and that is likely enough to argue for wrongful death.

It depends on the laws in that county or state,
that's just generalized strategy.

I agree there is no way that man was warned he would
get shot if he evaded. He was not presented with his rights
to legal counsel etc. Usually some kind of agreed procedure
has to be followed, and I seriously doubt the woman followed it either!

 

[Anathema]

Criminal. Failed to respond to lawful commands. Got shot. Seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Criminal. Failed to respond to lawful commands. Got shot. Seems perfectly fine to me.

How much power does a bail bond employee have?

 

[Marion Morrison]

That was not a justified shooting.

 

[Silent Warrior]

No way was that justified.

 

[Montrovant]

Shot in the back and the defense argued that he tried to take the gun? That doesn't seem possible based on the video. I'm very curious what evidence caused the jury to acquit.

 

[Anathema]

That was not a justified shooting.

It most certainly was in my mind. Then again I believe that criminals have no rights; legal or otherwise. The instant you refuse to cooperate and obey a law enforcement authority (which bail bondsmen are), you deserve to be shot. Fatally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If this was jury trial then then case is closed criminally.

The family can sue civilly.

I suspect the jury was one of those who believe if you are charged you are guilty, found her not guilty, and went back to their meth.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

She never hesitated and looks like she planned to shoot the guy.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

She seems really angry that it didn't go her way.

 

[miketx]

I'm not defending the shooter, but the way that guy was acting was EXACTLY like convicts in prison act when they try to intimidate you. Also, was the guy escaping out a window to avoid detainment?

 

[harmonica]

if he's ''close'' and not complying/reaching/''going for''/the gun/etc in the slightest manner--I would shoot also..it would be justified
you can't let him grab the pistol
you can't let a jackass grab your pistol
could be like the Mike Brown deal--he's coming after the cop--you can't let them get close

 

[harmonica]

this is what happens when you let a thug get close..these ladies almost lost their lives for it

store/3135806/

 

[harmonica]

he could be reaching and when she aims the pistol he turned away
I'm not saying that's for sure what happened--but possible

she's thinking ''danger, danger Will Robinson''
as usual the ''criminal'' initiates the problem
these are HUMANS in a dangerous situation---you have to have definite proof to convict the woman/cops for murder

...this I think is unjustified--compared this video...be sure to check out carefully the 1:11 mark
I believe the prisoner is handcuffed, down, and facing backwards