Police Officer Shot in Head During Training Exercise

[Brian]

This seems like a terrible accident,and yes it was idiotic. For those of you who have never been to an indoor range the observation windows are very small,that's why he was shot in the head.

[Wizard777]

This seems like a terrible accident,and yes it was idiotic. For those of you who have never been to an indoor range the observation windows are very small,that's why he was shot in the head.

This didn't happen at an indoor range. It happened in a old mental instiution that had been shut down that they used for training exercizes. They did noy have permission to use the facility. They are not allowed to have real guns present when the training exercizes are being conducted. The person that shot him was an instructor.

The fact they have charged with second degree assault shows the have a first degree assault case. That's because the assault was committed with a firearm. An assault commited with a firearm is first degree assault.

§ 3-202. Assault in the first degree

(a) Prohibited. --

(1) A person may not intentionally cause or attempt to cause serious physical injury to another.

(2) A person may not commit an assault with a firearm, including:

(i) a handgun, antique firearm, rifle, shotgun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, as those terms are defined in § 4-201 of this article;

(ii) an assault pistol, as defined in § 4-301 of this article;

(iii) a machine gun, as defined in § 4-401 of this article; and

(iv) a regulated firearm, as defined in § 5-101 of the Public Safety Article.

(b) Penalty. -- A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of assault in the first degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 25 years.

[Brian]

This didn't happen at an indoor range. It happened in a old mental instiution that had been shut down that they used for training exercizes. They did noy have permission to use the facility. They are not allowed to have real guns present when the training exercizes are being conducted. The person that shot him was an instructor.

The fact they have charged with second degree assault shows the have a first degree assault case. That's because the assault was committed with a firearm. An assault commited with a firearm is first degree assault.

Then there are conflicting stories,I read they in-fact have an indoor range there that they use for training and that he was shot through the window of the range. I'm aware of the building and what it's prior use was.

[Wizard777]

The recruit wasn't even participating in the drill at the time the officer shot him? Even if he thought he was shooting pellet at him you shoot him in the HEAD?

What will go against the instructor and show intent to harm is that regardless of it being a simulation with simunition, where you act as if it's real life situation, or an actual real life situation with live ammo. The victim presented no immediate and credible threat to life or limb to justify the officer pulling the trigger.

[Wizard777]

Then there are conflicting stories,I read they in-fact have an indoor range there that they use for training and that he was shot through the window of the range. I'm aware of the building and what it's prior use was.

No, the story was wrong. Rosewood doesn't have a gun range. It's just a training facility used for it's many varieties of building types. There are 20 building on the campus. None are used as gun range for live ammo. There was no reason for the instructor to have a gun with live ammo. In fact it's prohibited.

[Wizard777]

The charges makes no sense. They charge him with second degree assault which says, a person may not commit an assault instead of A(2) first degree assault which says, a person may not commit an assault with a firearm. Is the prosecutor going to go into court and insist the instructor threw the bullet at the victim? Frankly the ammo be it expected or actual is irrelevant. The crime is no assault with live ammo. It's assault with a firearm. So the only questions are did he intend to use a firearm? Did he actually use a firearm? Simunition is a less than lethal round. But even with proper use there is still the potential of serious bodily injury or death.

Also there is no issue with the doctrines of merger or lenity in charging A(2) first degree assault and reckless endangerment even though the intent in both are reckless indifference to human life and well being. The reckless endangerment should be applied to his conduct in organizing and holding the training exercize without a supervisor or safety officer being present. So the reckless indifference to human life and well being in the reckless endangerment charge would be tied to an omission. The reckless indifference to human life and well being in the A(2) first degree assault would be tied to the act of deliberately and intentionally drawing a handgun, deliberately and intentionally pointing that handgun at a person and deliberately and intentionally pulling the trigger to discharge a projectile at that person. That these deliberate and intentional acts were unwarranted even within the scope of the training exercize. You cannot use deadly force to scare someone away from a window. The intent of the omission does not ripen into the intent of the act because outside the lawful performance of his duty the act is illegal regardless of the type of ammunition he believed he was using. The law prohibits assault with a firearm. Not assault with live ammunition. The type of ammunition is not a necessary element of the crime.

[sigmalady]

I hope the family gets the answers that they are seeking, and that the injured officer makes a full recovery.