Sorry sir, but the attitude you’re showing here is much bigger than your knowledge of either case.
The article in question can be found at
Unintended Shot: The Santibanes Incident | American Handgunner. The judge’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment can be found at
SANTIBANES v. CITY OF TOMBALL, TEX. | Leagle.com . The judge said in part, “The record also shows that Sergeant Williams, prior to the incident, replaced the pistol's 5 pound trigger connector with a Glock 3.5 pound trigger connector. Forensic testing determined that this modification reduced the force needed to pull the trigger to approximately 4.5 pounds, making it easier to fire the weapon.
In light of these considerations, whether Sergeant Williams, in fact, intended to discharge his weapon is an issue that cannot and should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage.”
Thanks for making my point. The argument for summary judgement was the shooting was an accident, therefore negating the claim of violation of the fourth amendment. The judge is simply saying nothing has been presented to verify that argument. Also there is this:
"Specifically, the Harris County Sheriff's Department, in cooperation with the Harris County District Attorney's Police Integrity Unit, conducted an investigation and presented its findings to a Harris County grand jury which
[654 F.Supp.2d 604]
no-billed Sergeant Williams.6 The Tomball Police Department also conducted a concurrent internal investigation.7
It concluded that Sergeant Williams acted properly and that no evidence suggested that he intentionally fired his weapon. The defendants' expert, Albert Rodriguez, reached the same conclusion.8
Rodriguez surmises that Sergeant Williams' weapon discharged as a result of an involuntary contraction of the arm or hand muscles.
Despite these findings, the Court finds sufficient evidence to create a factual controversy as to whether Sergeant Williams intentionally fired his weapon. In reaching this conclusion, the Court first considers the actions which Sergeant Williams and the City do not dispute were intentional such as: (1) the fact that Sergeant Williams maneuvered his patrol vehicle alongside the truck; (2) the fact that Sergeant Williams upholstered his weapon; and (3) the fact that Sergeant Williams pointed the weapon in the direction of the truck's occupants.
Next, there is no argument nor record support to suggest that Sergeant Williams' weapon malfunctioned or otherwise discharged as a result of some force other than that applied by him. In fact, forensic testing found that the weapon functioned properly when tested and fired under controlled conditions.9 Hence, the only logical explanation for its discharge is that Sergeant Williams applied force to its trigger mechanism. This circumstance, alone, is sufficient to deny summary judgment. E.g., Sepulveda v. Hawn, No. CV 01-5054, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11362 (E.D.Cal. May 16, 2002) (denying summary judgment where there was no evidence that police officer's weapon malfunctioned; observing that the only reasonable explanation for the discharge is that the police officer pulled the trigger)".
For you to imply that the 3.5/4.5 lb connector had nothing to do with it is simply false.
Since the court did not dismiss the Fourth Amendment suit, it is apparent they did not accept the 'accident' as presented by the defendant.
In the Magliato appeal,
PEOPLE v. MAGLIATO | Leagle.com , the majority decision reduced the conviction for depraved murder to manslaughter, stating that the pointing of a cocked revolver at someone was sufficiently reckless to sustain a manslaughter conviction. Interestingly, the dissenting opinion felt it was grave enough that it SHOULD have sustained a depraved murder conviction. From the dissent: “When defendant went into a shooter's crouch, cocked and aimed the gun at Giani's head, he was acting in such a reckless manner as to evidence a depraved indifference to life.”
Again, you have made my point. Magliato was not justified in using deadly force. Why would it be "sufficiently reckless to sustain a manslaughter conviction" to point a cocked revolver at someone that one is justified in killing?
I looked at your link and noticed one glaring fact. Self defense is never mentioned.
In the Magliato case, the judge specifically disallowed any expert testimony on self-defense issues on the grounds that self-defense was a defense reserved for intentional acts.
The facts contradict that. This is what the judge said:
"At the charging conference, defense counsel stated that he "definitely" did not want the court to charge on the defense of justification under Penal Law § 35.15. Nevertheless, defendant sought to argue that he was justified in drawing the weapon, but not in firing it. The court informed defense counsel that if he made such an argument, the justification defense would be charged".
The "no such thing as a justified accident" was the defendant's argument. From the second appeal you will find this:
"On this appeal defendant argues that, because he claimed the discharge of his pistol was accidental, and did not claim that he fired it in self-defense, the justification defense is inapplicable.
He maintains that justification does not apply to an unintentional crime, and that drawing his pistol did not constitute a "use of deadly physical force" within the meaning of Penal Law § 35.15.
These arguments are without merit.
(2) Defendant's contention that the law of justification has no bearing on his conduct, solely because the discharge of his pistol was accidental, requires little comment.
It is settled that the defense of justification applies fully to a defendant's risk-creating conduct, even though it had unintended consequences (see, People v McManus, 67 NY2d 541; *29 People v Huntley, 59 NY2d 868)".
I’ll continue to place far more weight on the input of those actually involved, than on anonymous internet pundits with agendas, who don’t know the whole stories behind the cases upon which they pontificate.
And I'll place more weight on what is written in official documents than in magazine columns.
