Woman shot/dies in Bastrop County by police

[hellishhorses]

*****I know nothing about this story. I'm just discussing how language is used here.******




I asked this as this phrase is used in 2 different ways. (I'm not saying what is the actual definition, words and idioms are often misused)

1: Give the "benefit of the doubt" can mean, wait for all the evidence to come out and then decide.

2: Give the "benefit of the doubt" can mean, a favorable judgement due to lack of condemning evidence.

1 is reasonable, 2 is extremely dangerous.

Giving people the "benefit of the doubt" due to the job they hold is how priests got away with molesting kids, teachers get away with abusing students, doctors get away with botching surgeries, soldiers get away with killing innocent civilians and police get away with unjustified shootings.

+1

No, I think he deserves a fair trial like the rest of us. Will it even get to that point? Probably not.
I'm not condemning him either, but I can say what I think based on the limited information.

I get what you're saying, it's just not coming out very clearly. He deserves the same arrest/bail/arraignment/trial/judgment/punishment as anyone else. But LE generally get the "benefit-of-the-doubt" that they were acting in the scope of their job duties and, because of their profession, they have a better sense of judgment. They get sent home on administrative leave and investigated by their own department by friends that already have preconceived ideas about what happened and couldn't condemn a friend even if all evidence said differently.

I wouldn't classify myself pro- or anti-cop, but I know it would be hard for me to objectively judge one of my friends. I consider all my friends to be good, caring people of sound mind and judgement, otherwise they wouldn't be my friend. If they ran you over with their car, I would give them the benefit of the doubt until all facts were present. Unfortunately, as long as my friends and I are conducting the investigation, there's a chance that we'll only be looking for the evidence that exonerates him.

 

[FlashBang]

Speaking as a Bastrop resident, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

Speaking as a Bastrop County resident I can say that the Bastrop County Sheriffs Deputies I have met, and know, are pretty darn good LEO's who go out of their way to provide service with professionalism and treat people with respect.

Unless you have some magic powers, you have no clue what the Deputy saw, what he thought he saw, what was going on, or anything other then what you have read and think you know. If it turns out to be a bad shoot, then he will suffer for it. I trust in DPS to do a thorough and complete investigation and issue their findings on same.

 

[TX69]

*****I know nothing about this story. I'm just discussing how language is used here.******




I asked this as this phrase is used in 2 different ways. (I'm not saying what is the actual definition, words and idioms are often misused)

1: Give the "benefit of the doubt" can mean, wait for all the evidence to come out and then decide.

2: Give the "benefit of the doubt" can mean, a favorable judgement due to lack of condemning evidence.

1 is reasonable, 2 is extremely dangerous.

Giving people the "benefit of the doubt" due to the job they hold is how priests got away with molesting kids, teachers get away with abusing students, doctors get away with botching surgeries, soldiers get away with killing innocent civilians and police get away with unjustified shootings.

Meh, its okay to "guess" since there are some interesting revaluations in the story. Personally I would tend to lean towards the facts that there are TWO stories from the police and that the shooter has only been on the force for nine months. I say that the PD is quickly trying to distance themselves from a rookie who had a twitchy trigger finger and popped an innocent in her home. OOPS! Since there are plenty of witnesses its gonna get messy and many fingers will be pointed.

 

[Mic]

Nothing to go on here, so I won't even speculate.

But....I really hope she deserved to get shot.

 

[Mreed911]

They get sent home on administrative leave and investigated by their own department by friends that already have preconceived ideas about what happened and couldn't condemn a friend even if all evidence said differently.

I wouldn't classify myself pro- or anti-cop, but I know it would be hard for me to objectively judge one of my friends. I consider all my friends to be good, caring people of sound mind and judgement, otherwise they wouldn't be my friend. If they ran you over with their car, I would give them the benefit of the doubt until all facts were present. Unfortunately, as long as my friends and I are conducting the investigation, there's a chance that we'll only be looking for the evidence that exonerates him.

There's a good chance the Texas Rangers either are or will be taking over this investigation. Having been tangentially involved with an OIS that the Rangers investigated I can tell you that while they are clearly on the brotherhood of the blue, any officer who thinks that translates to favorable treatment in terms of thoroughness of fact is sorely mistaken. They will find out if the ducks aren't in a row, and they will take their time to check every angle. They serve the interests of the state, not the local law enforcement authority.

I never feared my local Rangers. I just wanted to be sitting across the table for lunch, not questioning. They're typically involved once the shit is already through the fan...

 

[Younggun]

*****I know nothing about this story. I'm just discussing how language is used here.******




I asked this as this phrase is used in 2 different ways. (I'm not saying what is the actual definition, words and idioms are often misused)

1: Give the "benefit of the doubt" can mean, wait for all the evidence to come out and then decide.

2: Give the "benefit of the doubt" can mean, a favorable judgement due to lack of condemning evidence.

1 is reasonable, 2 is extremely dangerous.

Giving people the "benefit of the doubt" due to the job they hold is how priests got away with molesting kids, teachers get away with abusing students, doctors get away with botching surgeries, soldiers get away with killing innocent civilians and police get away with unjustified shootings.

Isn't our court system (supposed to be) based on the benefit of the doubt?

I don't believe he should get any extra benefit because of his job, but because this is 'Murcia.

 

[breakingcontact]

Interesting discussion. Yes, our courts are supposed to have the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"...but that is after weighing all of the evidence. Also, many juries are having a hard time with this distinction thanks to all of those CSI shows.

So in that use, "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because my doubts are not reasonable and there isn't enough pointing to your guilt".

The other more colloquial usage is

"Well, come on, he's a police officer (cop/doctor/priest/soldier/teacher), he's a good guy and is just trying to do his job, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, I mean he has scarified so much for the community."

So basically it comes down to why are we offering this "benefit of the doubt"? Based upon who we think this person is or based upon a lack of evidence?

I love wordz and phrazes.

 

[PhulesAu]

Another false premise in this discussion is that, leo's have better judgement than other people. no better or worse than an average cross section of the general population.

 

[F350-6]

Another false premise in this discussion is that, leo's have better judgement than other people. no better or worse than an average cross section of the general population.

They may not have better judgement, but they are supposed to have training to deal with many of the situations they might find themselves in.

I don't have an opinion on the story yet.

 

[TX69]

Another false premise in this discussion is that, leo's have better judgement than other people. no better or worse than an average cross section of the general population.

THey better have "better judgment" when they shoot and kill someone. He better have been absolutely sure she had a gun and was a threat before he lit her up. Otherwise its murder and he should be charge like anyone else. But like the Sunday school teacher story this guy will walk.

 

[hellishhorses]

Cops are humans. Some humans lack "better judgment". It's safe to assume some cops lack "better judgement".

 

[bones_708]

What do we know about the shooting? The cops responded to a call about 2 men fighting in front of a house over a gun. The cops arrived and one man was in the yard and there were people in the house. When trying to secure the scene there was some sort of confrontation and a woman was shot in the doorway of the home. The dept released 2 different statements with the first saying the woman had a gun and the second saying they are not sure if she had a gun but both stating that she refused to follow commands by the deputies. The press highlights how neighbors say there were no guns in the house but a witness in the house said a gun was sitting on a table before Yvette was shot, and remained there after she was shot (by officer Willis); so why is everyone saying there was no gun (the police statement was just that they didn't know if there was a gun)? So from this data is there anyone who says it actualy shows guilt on the part of the deputy? To me there is no way to know from the info given .

 

[PhulesAu]

I Ain't Assuming Nuthin!!!!

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Another false premise in this discussion is that, leo's have better judgement than other people. no better or worse than an average cross section of the general population.

Not talking about the shooting but the investigation...

People who are trained (well) how to interview others, and have experience doing it, will come up with more and better facts to base their judgement upon.

That is a fact.

You can take a class and test their interview skills. Then provide a week of training by the right instructors. Then retest them at the end. The results in their increased performance would astound you, even for some who have years of experience. They will have more facts, have formulated better questioning, and come to more accurate conclusions (or at least leads).

LEO tend to receive more of this type of training than the general population.

 

[mosin]

Cops are humans. Some humans lack "better judgment". It's safe to assume some cops lack "better judgement".

100% agree but when I use poor judgement and blast a woman answering the door with a wii controler in hand(only for example) I dont get paid leave I get murder 2.

im waiting for the facts, at least what well be told are the facts, on this particular case though.

 

[F350-6]

I do believe the conflicting statements by the PD is a good reminder to all of us why it's best not to immediately talk after a shooting. Too easy to mis speak so quickly after an event, it's better off to wait till things settle down a bit and you've spoken to a lawyer.

 

[PhulesAu]

While these are good points. It is also a fact, that humans will do what ever it takes to cover their own asses. Some will break under interrogation, and some will go down with the ship.

 

[oldguy]

Good judgment is in decline throughout our society IMO, with politicians leading the pack.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

They all break, it's just a matter of time (insert evil laugh here)

 

[bones_708]

100% agree but when I use poor judgement and blast a woman answering the door with a wii controler in hand(only for example) I dont get paid leave I get murder 2.

im waiting for the facts, at least what well be told are the facts, on this particular case though.

When you respond to 911 calls saying there is a person in a house threatening others with a gun and you shoot someone then it'll matter. Right now it's you blowing hot air.