Pennsylvania DA won't charge officer who shot jailed man, thinking gun was Taser

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Pennsylvania DA won't charge officer who shot jailed man, thinking gun was Taser
A Pennsylvania officer who shot and wounded an inmate because he apparently thought he was using his Taser instead of his gun will not be criminally charged, the prosecutor said.

Bucks County District Attorney Matthew D. Weintraub said in a letter to New Hope Police Chief Michael Cummings that the March 3 shooting "was neither justified, nor criminal, but was excused," according to a statement released Friday.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Nithavela

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think this was the appropriate outcome. He shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun again as a law enforcement officer. Hopefully he won't be hired as such on another police force. I would imagine that there will be a lawsuit.

The officer was placed on administrative leave and retired from the police department on April 10, the district attorney's office said. The police department did not respond to a request for comment.
 
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
I think this was the appropriate outcome. He shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun again as a law enforcement officer. Hopefully he won't be hired as such on another police force. I would imagine that there will be a lawsuit.

The officer was placed on administrative leave and retired from the police department on April 10, the district attorney's office said. The police department did not respond to a request for comment.
The problem is he retires and he is able to continue to cash a check at the county's expense. An act like his, accident or not, should not be reward with administrative shuffling, which happens too often. He violated policy, but that wasn't the only problem. When violation of policy leads to the death or maiming of a human being, ho-hum administrative shuffling should not occur. It's a lack of accountability and the city is the one left holding the bag, whether it is financing this officer's lifestyle or paying damages to the victims.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The problem is he retires and he is able to continue to cash a check at the county's expense. An act like his, accident or not, should not be reward with administrative shuffling, which happens too often. He violated policy, but that wasn't the only problem. When violation of policy leads to the death or maiming of a human being, ho-hum administrative shuffling should not occur. It's a lack of accountability and the city is the one left holding the bag, whether it is financing this officer's lifestyle or paying damages to the victims.
Because they said 'retired' doesn't mean he actually retired with benefits, it may not. It may just mean that he left rather than being fired. idk
I agree with you that he shouldn't receive benefits, this was a very serious violation that could have resulted in a young man's death.
 
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Because they said 'retired' doesn't mean he actually retired with benefits, it may not. It may just mean that he left rather than being fired. idk
I agree with you that he shouldn't receive benefits, this was a very serious violation that could have resulted in a young man's death.
If he retired without benefits, that's okay I guess. But retiring after shooting someone without some recompense for the victim seems a bit twisted in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
A Pennsylvania officer who shot and wounded an inmate because he apparently thought he was using his Taser instead of his gun will not be criminally charged, the prosecutor said.
It's an understandable mistake. Could happen to anybody, I'm sure.

Not really though, this is messed up.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If he retired without benefits, that's okay I guess. But retiring after shooting someone without some recompense for the victim seems a bit twisted in my opinion.
Or a lot twisted. If anybody else made that mistake, they would've been up on charges.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tulc
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,556
71
✟318,590.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How exactly does one mistake a taser for a gun?

That is an excellent question. None of the tasers I have seen look or would feel at all similar to a gun. Probably in large part to make sure something like this does not happen.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
How exactly does one A TRAINED PROFESSIONAL mistake a taser for a gun?

fixed your post

This is part of the problem with law enforcement. We continuously hold Law Enforcement to a LOWER STANDARD than we hold ourselves to. As such, this has a host of Unintended Consequences.

One of the Unintended Consequences is that many Law Enforcement types feel that citizens of this country are "beneath them". They view citizens like subjects to be ruled over. And why not, they can basically shoot you and get away with it. They can literally murder you and then later make up whatever flimsy nonsensical excuse and sprinkle in a "I feared for my life" and that is that, swept under the rug, a little administrative shuffling, no harm no foul...

Police should simply be held to a higher standard commensurate to the amount of power they have over the citizenry. They literally have the power of life and death over us and yet we will accept the most incompetent and moronic buffoonery of behavior from them time and time again...

As someone who trained people in gun safety, it is literally impossible for you to mistake a gun for a taser. Absolutely impossible and doubly so if you are a trained professional.

But I will say this, as a trained professional in which that is your job, legally there should be no defense whatsoever. Even for the sake of argument if we believe you, you should still go to jail for criminal negligence and incompetence...
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
fixed your post

This is part of the problem with law enforcement. We continuously hold Law Enforcement to a LOWER STANDARD than we hold ourselves to. As such, this has a host of Unintended Consequences.

The problem of course is that the officer in question seemed to lack either training or professionalism, or the basic sense to not fire a gun at someone they don't intend to, even accidentally.

"We" no, the professionals that oversee law enforcement seem to hold them to a lower standard than the general public. I in the same situation absolutely would have, at least, been charged with negligence if I had meant to tase someone and shot them instead.

The problem here is that I can't imagine making the same mistake and I am not a trained professional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The policy quoted says the officer must put their taser on the side of their non-dominant hand. What happens too often is policies are neglected or violated and no one is punished.

It's never a good idea, for quality control purposes, to establish a culture where rules are basically just overlooked.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The problem is he retires and he is able to continue to cash a check at the county's expense.

Well he did earn that check. He's not getting retirement money for this particular incident...he's getting it for his years of service to the community.

An act like his, accident or not, should not be reward with administrative shuffling, which happens too often. He violated policy, but that wasn't the only problem. When violation of policy leads to the death or maiming of a human being, ho-hum administrative shuffling should not occur. It's a lack of accountability and the city is the one left holding the bag, whether it is financing this officer's lifestyle or paying damages to the victims.

He performed years of service to the community, earning a retirement in the process. I agree that he made a mistake...but the conclusion seems to be that it was an accident, in the performance of his duty, and not intentional.

I don't see why this one mistake would negate the years of service he performed. That sounds extremely vindictive and unjustified. Do you have something personal bias against the police or something?
 
Upvote 0

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The problem of course is that the officer in question seemed to lack either training or professionalism, or the basic sense to not fire a gun at someone they don't intend to, even accidentally.

"We" no, the professionals that oversee law enforcement seem to hold them to a lower standard than the general public. I in the same situation absolutely would have, at least, been charged with negligence if I had meant to tase someone and shot them instead.

The problem here is that I can't imagine making the same mistake and I am not a trained professional.

What is so strange is that in every other profession, the law holds said profession to a higher standard.

Lets say for instance that I invite you to my house and I cook you a meal and I give you food poisoning. You decide to sue me and you will easily win the cost of any medical bills you incurred and that would more or less be the case.

however, instead of me being a normal person, lets say that I'm a trained chef that owns a restaurant and you suffer food poisoning at my restaurant. Now, that same lawsuit has teeth. Now, you would be awarded a lot more money because the law recognizes that I should have known better because I'm a professional...

Yet, law enforcement is never held to the same standard as other professions. It's so weird. I don't know what sort of group think allows for such a contrarian standard...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What is so strange is that in every other profession, the law holds said profession to a higher standard.

Lets say for instance that I invite you to my house and I cook you a meal and I give you food poisoning. You decide to sue me and you will easily win the cost of any medical bills you incurred and that would more or less be the case.

That's not a profession.

however, instead of me being a normal person, lets say that I'm a trained chef that owns a restaurant and you suffer food poisoning at my restaurant. Now, that same lawsuit has teeth. Now, you would be awarded a lot more money because the law recognizes that I should have known better because I'm a professional...

Actually, I think you'd have to sue the restaurant. Whether or not the chef is named specifically would probably depend on factors like "does the chef own the restaurant".

Yet, law enforcement is never held to the same standard as other professions. It's so weird. I don't know what sort of group think allows for such a contrarian standard...

Chefs don't perform a function vital to a society. If we lose all chefs tomorrow, we probably won't fall apart.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
fixed your post

This is part of the problem with law enforcement. We continuously hold Law Enforcement to a LOWER STANDARD than we hold ourselves to. As such, this has a host of Unintended Consequences.

One of the Unintended Consequences is that many Law Enforcement types feel that citizens of this country are "beneath them". They view citizens like subjects to be ruled over. And why not, they can basically shoot you and get away with it. They can literally murder you and then later make up whatever flimsy nonsensical excuse and sprinkle in a "I feared for my life" and that is that, swept under the rug, a little administrative shuffling, no harm no foul...

Police should simply be held to a higher standard commensurate to the amount of power they have over the citizenry. They literally have the power of life and death over us and yet we will accept the most incompetent and moronic buffoonery of behavior from them time and time again...

As someone who trained people in gun safety, it is literally impossible for you to mistake a gun for a taser. Absolutely impossible and doubly so if you are a trained professional.

But I will say this, as a trained professional in which that is your job, legally there should be no defense whatsoever. Even for the sake of argument if we believe you, you should still go to jail for criminal negligence and incompetence...

Impossible?

taser.jpg


It looks like it's definitely "possible" to grab that and believe it's a gun....or vice versa.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How exactly does one mistake a taser for a gun?
He made the mistake, and also violated policy by having both gun and taser on the same side. If one has the two on opposite sides of the body one is less likely to make this sort of error.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums