Makes it very difficult for cops to do their already tough job with consequences like this. Very sad

 

Sorry, but I don't care who you are. You start shooting in my direction, I'm shooting back.

 

Sad part is that even the ones who called the police were probably there cheering this decision. It was there lives he was protecting but I guess that has nothing to do with it. I'm sure they inserted some false racial aspect into this where there was none. Truly sad what our once great nation has become.

 

I've been watching this one. It's surely a bad deal. Justified, yes. Avoidable, yes. From the reports coming out, she shot two shots into the ground. I imagine the nephew is hating he called the cops. All I'm going to say is if this was the chief of police's mother the officer would have backed off if no one else was in danger. He's already been fired from his job. The city of Hearnes is getting flack for the knee jerk reaction, but it's more due to his two yrs on the force, with two people killed. With two shots fired, I see no reason he won't be exonerated, just hate to see an old lady die, because she got mad because she couldn't get her license renewed. And yes I do agree that an old lady is just as dangerous as a young person with a gun.

 

not to argue with you here but just to point out that he was an officer since 2008 so thats 5 1/2 - 6 years experience. also, the first incident involved someone shooting from a car for which he returned fire. you can't judge someone because they have been involved in 2 shootings within 2 years. just bad luck for him but either way he appears to be justified in both of them. luckily during my 20 years as an LEO i was never involved in a shooting. i pulled my weapon many, many times but never had to fire. (worked narcotics). if someone pulls a gun on you no matter what age (child, middle aged, or elderly) an officer has no choice but to pull his weapon. the decision to fire must be made in a split second.

people need to understand that a judge can defer his decision for months while he researches his options, a doctor can consult another doctor for a second opinion, but a police officer must make a life or death decision in a split second!

 

Im going to keep my opinions to myself on this one, but I agree. The cop got a raw deal indeed...

 

What's the point in having cops of every decision they make is questioned? The lady should've never pulled a gun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It seems like most law enforcement officers are trained very well, so maybe the people need to be trained too. It's a simple training, if you pull a gun on someone you are liable to get shot! If you don't want shot don't threaten with a deadly weapon! Sounds easy enough to me.

 

Sadly the officer is now being the victim a second time to this incident. He should fight back with a wrongful termination lawsuit just for starters.

 

I'm sure the situation could have been avoided, however we don't know the compete details surrounding the event. The officer may have been at point blank range and was faced with looking down the barrel after 2 shots in the ground had already been fired by her. If this was the case he may have been facing shoot or be shot. Bullets don't discriminate, so if that was the case he did the right thing.

 

I still struggle with how a town council has the authority to fire a police officer. Not possible out here.

 

Here our Town council is the only ones able to fire without 3 written warnings, unless a criminal act is committed, or you go AWOL more than 3 days.
Even my job falls under their review with the same rules.
The police chief hires, and can fire if he follows the 3 hoops rule. 3 documented and witnessed verbal, 3 written warning, inside 12 months, then you can be fired. The fastest this happens is 4 days usually, but most resign after the second written.

I don't care if she is 93 or 39. She fired a gun and made threats while holding a loaded gun. Officers call seems OK to me.