Cops execute an old man - wrong house

davidmcbeth · Jul 29, 2013

And if the victim had actually killed the 2 intruders, would he have been charged? You bet you butt. It would have gone to trial and depleted all the guy's money just to be found not guilty.

I have no sympathy for the people who shot this guy ... they never should have been there to begin with. They are the ones who directly caused his death ; to blame the victim is contrary to reasonable thinking.

IMO the killers had a duty to withdraw .. had no right to order the person to disarm .. and are guilty of murder.

There have been too many of these instances ... our thinking of it must change. Once it is changed, these night time gestapo tactics will end for the most part. I don't think that the law needs changing at all; I think the application of the law needs to be changed.

This is not a tragedy .. its murder. You go into a wrong house and kill someone - you are a murderer.

DocWalker · Jul 29, 2013

PALO said:
It all comes down to

"The two officers, B.B Hanlon and Arpie Hoeppner, were searching around the home with their flashlights when Waller emerged from his home armed with a handgun, investigating who was walking around his property with flashlights.

Police radio transmissions obtained by NBC DFW captured what happened next:

“The guy came out with a gun and wouldn’t put the gun down,’ Officer Hanlon said. ‘He pointed it at Hoeppner, Hoeppner fired,” Hanlon said.

Both of the officers claim they identified themselves as police officers and told Waller to drop his firearm. They claim he instead lifted his firearm and pointed it at them. The police department is claiming the man was shot in self-defense."

If these claims are true and the officers were wearing uniforms identifying themselves as LEO's, then the shooting will probably be found justified. It's certainly tragic. Just yesterday I responded to an incident where a homeowner pointed a gun at and detained a prowler at her residence and people have the absolute right to defend their property. But if confronted with LEO's in full uniform who give an order to drop the firearm and you instead raise it and point it at the officers, the officers have no choice but to fire. A classic "lawful but awful" situation.

On many occasions, during hot foot pursuit of a subject and/or running with K9, I have traipsed through various properties, to catch the bad guy, and it's always a concern that god I hope I don't get shot by some homeowner who sees a guy running through his yard at o dark 30. Uniforms SHOULD clearly identify the officer as a LEO and that includes markings on the back, which many conventional uniforms don't have. My agencies standard uniform DOES have reflective letters on the back identifying the wearer as a LEO and our union had to fight to get our agency to agree to put it on the uniforms.

People who call this an execution are assuming that the above claims I quoted are false. That's fine. Some people reflexively disbelieve the police. However, it's pretty clear from court cases that juries do tend to believe cops and give them ample benefit of the doubt. Consider as an example, the Amadou Diallo shooting, another tragedy. Granted, the powers that be, due to politics OVERCHARGED and charged the officers with murder vs. manslaughter (much like the Zimmerman case) but the jury still had the option of finding them guilty of manslaughter. Instead they were acquitted. Lots of other examples like that, but it shows that while you may not give cops the benefit of the doubt and may reflexively distrust their narrative, the public (as confirmed by gallup polls) by a large margin tends to respect them and give them that benefit of the doubt.

Regardless, a man is dead who should not have died, and that's a tragedy

I really hope your joking PALO....REALLY

I'm PRO LEO most of the time but these guys screwed up big time and SHOULDN'T be cops and their boss should be fired also.

I could get a uniform and call my self the good humor man but it dosen't mean I know ice cream. Criminals have been wearing cop uniforms for years and like in Iraq the enemy has no trouble putting on a uniform and killing innocent people, these officers are no better than TERRORISTS.

OC for ME · Jul 29, 2013

Where is the video of the homeowner raising his gun and pointing it at the two cops? We have the word of the two shooters, that is all.

OC for ME · Jul 29, 2013

OC for ME said:
Where is the video of the homeowner raising his gun and pointing it at the two cops? We have the word of the two shooters, that is all.

I really like the search warrant affidavit charging Mrs. Waller with concealing evidence of a homicide at her home. The search warrant agrees that Mrs. Waller is a suspect in the crime of concealing evidence of a homicide.

carolina guy · Jul 29, 2013

PALO said:
It all comes down to

"The two officers, B.B Hanlon and Arpie Hoeppner, were searching around the home with their flashlights when Waller emerged from his home armed with a handgun, investigating who was walking around his property with flashlights.

Police radio transmissions obtained by NBC DFW captured what happened next:

“The guy came out with a gun and wouldn’t put the gun down,’ Officer Hanlon said. ‘He pointed it at Hoeppner, Hoeppner fired,” Hanlon said.

Both of the officers claim they identified themselves as police officers and told Waller to drop his firearm. They claim he instead lifted his firearm and pointed it at them. The police department is claiming the man was shot in self-defense."

If these claims are true and the officers were wearing uniforms identifying themselves as LEO's, then the shooting will probably be found justified. It's certainly tragic. Just yesterday I responded to an incident where a homeowner pointed a gun at and detained a prowler at her residence and people have the absolute right to defend their property. But if confronted with LEO's in full uniform who give an order to drop the firearm and you instead raise it and point it at the officers, the officers have no choice but to fire. A classic "lawful but awful" situation.

On many occasions, during hot foot pursuit of a subject and/or running with K9, I have traipsed through various properties, to catch the bad guy, and it's always a concern that god I hope I don't get shot by some homeowner who sees a guy running through his yard at o dark 30. Uniforms SHOULD clearly identify the officer as a LEO and that includes markings on the back, which many conventional uniforms don't have. My agencies standard uniform DOES have reflective letters on the back identifying the wearer as a LEO and our union had to fight to get our agency to agree to put it on the uniforms.

People who call this an execution are assuming that the above claims I quoted are false. That's fine. Some people reflexively disbelieve the police. However, it's pretty clear from court cases that juries do tend to believe cops and give them ample benefit of the doubt. Consider as an example, the Amadou Diallo shooting, another tragedy. Granted, the powers that be, due to politics OVERCHARGED and charged the officers with murder vs. manslaughter (much like the Zimmerman case) but the jury still had the option of finding them guilty of manslaughter. Instead they were acquitted. Lots of other examples like that, but it shows that while you may not give cops the benefit of the doubt and may reflexively distrust their narrative, the public (as confirmed by gallup polls) by a large margin tends to respect them and give them that benefit of the doubt.

Regardless, a man is dead who should not have died, and that's a tragedy

I think this proof of a lack of training on the part of the FWPD. Both officers only had 1 year on the force, and clearly were not trained well enough to identify the correct addresses before leaving their vehicles.

Not only did they (obviously) pose a life threatening danger to others, they didn't even know where they were, and could have been surprised by the burglar. This is a FAIL on all counts, and they should be charged with manslaughter if Texas law allows--at best, and fired--at worst. If the lighting was so bad, they should not have approached the home in the 1st place...however, once there, they should have taken cover to assess and control the situation instead of simply shooting.

PALO · Jul 29, 2013

carolina guy said:
I think this proof of a lack of training on the part of the FWPD. Both officers only had 1 year on the force, and clearly were not trained well enough to identify the correct addresses before leaving their vehicles.

Not only did they (obviously) pose a life threatening danger to others, they didn't even know where they were, and could have been surprised by the burglar. This is a FAIL on all counts, and they should be charged with manslaughter if Texas law allows--at best, and fired--at worst. If the lighting was so bad, they should not have approached the home in the 1st place...however, once there, they should have taken cover to assess and control the situation instead of simply shooting.

Regardless of the fact that they screwed up and went to the wrong address, it won't make the shooting unjustified because of that. The simple reality is that if the guy pointed a gun at them, and they were in uniform (they claim they were in uniform AND identified themself), the shooting will be found justified.

People can reflexively disbelieve the cops if they want, but the investigation and due process is what matters.

As for the video camera angle, I would LOVE it if my agency purchased body cameras for us (several agencies are using these now. There's even a tv show kind of like COPS that follows cops around and uses their body camera footage.

The last poll I saw at Policeone showed that cops overwhelmingly desired to wear body cameras. IIRC, it was about 3/4 of cops saying they wish they had them on. I strongly encourage people to film cops all the time (I have done it many times, like at traffic stops or disturbances). Video helps to provide evidence to punish cops that are bad, or cops that screwed up, and helps exonerate those that did the right thing but had false compliants lodged against them.

Either way, it's clear from reading posts at this board, that many people reflexively distrust the police, and the police narrative. That's fine. I even read a post where somebody said that they always assumed the cops' narrative was a lie unless proved otherwise. Again, fine.

Fortunately, as polling data shows, the vast majority of the public holds the opposite viewpoint and ranks cops near the top (not nearly as high as nurses or military members) of professions in terms of honesty. Cites available upon request

58% rated cops High or Very high (the two highest categories) in terms of honesty and ethical standards and 10% rated them low or very low. The respect of the public is one of the things that makes being an LEO so rewarding.

Fwiw, most shootings (per FBI LEJ) happen in dim light. As a firearms instructor myself, I try to use some training in dim light or by using darkening glasses to simulate dim light. The reality is most agencies don't, so they fail to train officers for shooting under the conditions they are most likely to be shooting under.

I disagree with your assessment about manslaughter etc. I remain agnostic, but if push comes to shove, I am going to give the cops the benefit of the doubt.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 29, 2013

PALO said:
Regardless of the fact that they screwed up and went to the wrong address, it won't make the shooting unjustified because of that. The simple reality is that if the guy pointed a gun at them, and they were in uniform (they claim they were in uniform AND identified themself), the shooting will be found justified.

People can reflexively disbelieve the cops if they want, but the investigation and due process is what matters.

As for the video camera angle, I would LOVE it if my agency purchased body cameras for us (several agencies are using these now. There's even a tv show kind of like COPS that follows cops around and uses their body camera footage.

The last poll I saw at Policeone showed that cops overwhelmingly desired to wear body cameras. IIRC, it was about 3/4 of cops saying they wish they had them on. I strongly encourage people to film cops all the time (I have done it many times, like at traffic stops or disturbances). Video helps to provide evidence to punish cops that are bad, or cops that screwed up, and helps exonerate those that did the right thing but had false compliants lodged against them.

Either way, it's clear from reading posts at this board, that many people reflexively distrust the police, and the police narrative. That's fine. I even read a post where somebody said that they always assumed the cops' narrative was a lie unless proved otherwise. Again, fine.

Fortunately, as polling data shows, the vast majority of the public holds the opposite viewpoint and ranks cops near the top (not nearly as high as nurses or military members) of professions in terms of honesty. Cites available upon request

58% rated cops High or Very high (the two highest categories) in terms of honesty and ethical standards and 10% rated them low or very low. The respect of the public is one of the things that makes being an LEO so rewarding.

Fwiw, most shootings (per FBI LEJ) happen in dim light. As a firearms instructor myself, I try to use some training in dim light or by using darkening glasses to simulate dim light. The reality is most agencies don't, so they fail to train officers for shooting under the conditions they are most likely to be shooting under.

I disagree with your assessment about manslaughter etc. I remain agnostic, but if push comes to shove, I am going to give the cops the benefit of the doubt.

So the uniform is the only difference?. I could use your reasoning ( one that relies soley on the testimony of the two surviving shooters) to say the old man would have been just as justified in shooting.

PALO · Jul 29, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
So the uniform is the only difference?. I could use your reasoning ( one that relies soley on the testimony of the two surviving shooters) to say the old man would have been just as justified in shooting.

I don't know what you mean by "only difference". I can just tell you that it is not "reasonable" under the 4th for a person to point their firearm at a cop who they find in their yard at o dark thirty if they can/do see that the persons are LEO's, whereas if they weren't so recognized there may be justification for it.

You can roll your eye all you want, but if the incident happened as the cops describe it, it's a lawful shooting. Period. Full Stop.

One of the reasons cops HAVE uniforms (and non-uniformed cops are required in my agency to don identifying gear when they are involvec in certain activities, like running with k9), is so that IF a person sees them running through thei year, or pointing a gun at a motorist, or whatever, that they won't shoot them. The ASSUMPTION is that the cop is acting lawfully. If you see a guy proning some guy out at gunpoint and he's not uniformed you have no way of knowing if he's a good guy or a bad guy. This incident is a classic lawful but awful IF it happened as described. Whether it did or not is up to the investigators to determine. The people who refer to this as an execution are of course begging the question, but again I accept that some, if not many HERE reflexively distrust police. Fortunately, as polling data proves, most people in society at large have the opposite belief, and that is part pof what makes being a LEO so rewarding

MamabearCali · Jul 29, 2013

Lets think about a few things. He was in a lighted garage...the police were in the dark. Ever been in a light place looking into the dark? Can't see much can you? He was 72 years old....how well could he hear? We'll never know now will we?

Police seem to never ever anticipate meeting anyone except fully abled bodied people just like them. Old men, autistic teens, deaf teens, mentall ill people, diabetics in shock. We have seen examples repeatedly of police incompetence and out right abuse and murder in dealing with people with disabilities. A old man may not be able to see you in the dark, may not be able to hear you shout or distinguish what you say. Now the shoot may be ruled justified, but they still took the life of an old man because of their own incompetence. As with so many of these things, perhaps if they learned a little restraint, perhaps if they backed off rather than ran in guns blazing, things might have ended differently.

He was in his own garage minding his own business, intruders came upon him, shouted at him and then shot him. That is likely how he would see it today.

Cases like these are why I am more terrified of the local LEO's mistakes than the local thug's animosity.

PALO · Jul 29, 2013

MamabearCali said:
Lets think about a few things. He was in a lighted garage...the police were in the dark. Ever been in a light place looking into the dark? Can't see much can you? He was 72 years old....how well could he hear? We'll never know now will we?

Police seem to never ever anticipate meeting anyone except fully abled bodied people just like them. Old men, autistic teens, deaf teens, mentall ill people, diabetics in shock. We have seen examples repeatedly of police incompetence and out right abuse and murder in dealing with people with disabilities. A old man may not be able to see you in the dark, may not be able to hear you shout or distinguish what you say. Now the shoot may be ruled justified, but they still took the life of an old man because of their own incompetence. As with so many of these things, perhaps if they learned a little restraint, perhaps if they backed off rather than ran in guns blazing, things might have ended differently.

He was in his own garage minding his own business, intruders came upon him, shouted at him and then shot him. That is likely how he would see it today.

Cases like these are why I am more terrified of the local LEO's mistakes than the local thug's animosity.

Your assertions are absurd imo. I deal with EDP's every single week and in the vast majority of encounters I have seen coips do a great job dealing with them. You only read about the incidents that "bleed" so to speak, so of course selection bias kicks in and you think cops do a bad job with them. Cops could do a great job 99 times out of 100 but the media will only report on the one time **** went bad. I've risked my own life to disarm EDP's with knives where I was legally justified to shoot but didn't. So spare me the rubbish. The outlier incidents don't define the norm./ The norm is cops do pretty darn well with the infirm, EDP's,. the elderly etc.

You are of course correct that the man may not have heard the identification etc. but it's irrelevant to whether the shooting was JUSTIFIED. The simple fact is if the guy pointed his gun at the cops, they were justified in shooting him. Period. Full stop.

In determining whether deadly force is justified, you look at the facts and circumstances as presented to the shooter, and would a reasonable and prudent person have acted similarly. Did they reasonably fear their life was in imminent danger. etc.

So, you can wank all you want about those other factors and you can present a false picture of how cops deal with the mentally ill, etc. but it isn't going to change the reality that if the guy pointed the gun at the cops, they didn't have cover, then the shooting is justified.

MamabearCali · Jul 29, 2013

If cops are so great with the disabled and do such a great job why do I consistently (at least once a month) hear of them acting extremely unprofessionally. You do a great job, good. I am glad. That ones not mean that others are as conciencous as you.

In this case. These LEO's had no right to be on his property. If the man could not tell they were LEOs he had every right to shoot them! He was where he had a right to be. He had done nothing immoral or illegal. He likely thought himself under attack. He hesitated, now he is dead. LEO's should not be above the law. They were trespassing. They made a series of mistakes, now an innocent man is dead.

If I went to a persons house, got the number wrong, confronted the homeowner in a similar fashion with similar results you can bet I would be in the clink with a number of charges.

Apparently a badge makes a person able to be incompetent and cause the death of someone with no consequences.

PALO · Jul 29, 2013

MamabearCali said:
If cops are so great with the disabled and do such a great job why do I consistently (at least once a month) hear of them acting extremely unprofessionally. You do a great job, good. I am glad. That ones not mean that others are as conciencous as you.

In this case. These LEO's had no right to be on his property. If the man could not tell they were LEOs he had every right to shoot them! He was where he had a right to be. He had done nothing immoral or illegal. He likely thought himself under attack. He hesitated, now he is dead. LEO's should not be above the law. They were trespassing. They made a series of mistakes, now an innocent man is dead.

If I went to a persons house, got the number wrong, confronted the homeowner in a similar fashion with similar results you can bet I would be in the clink with a number of charges.

Apparently a badge makes a person able to be incompetent and cause the death of someone with no consequences.

The reason you hear about it frequently is because the media reports (as they should) when **** hits the fan. They don't report most of the time, when it doesn't. I can do 100 invol's many with violent subjects and some even that I disarm at great risk to myself. You will never read about ANY of them in the media. Yet, they happen. I was there. I can guarantee you if **** hits the fan and I shoot an EDP, you WILL read about it. The media is your filter. With me, I have seen literally hundreds (20+ yrs) of incidents with EDP's that the cops did a great job. And on exactly ZERO of them will there be a press report. Do a ridealong or two and judge for yourself

As for the your second point, LEO's are not expected to be perfect. I can tell you from a LEGAL standard, that if the guy pointed the gun at them they had the right to fire. Yes, they made a mistake by going to the wrong address. Groovy. But it doesn't mean they weren't justified in shooting. If they were in full uniform, then the shooter had the due diligence burden to recognize that they were law enforcement and furthermore3 they claim to have verbally announced same. GENERALLY speaking, it is not kosher to POINT a firearm at somebody in your YARD (contrast with somebody who broke into the house)

I know the case law on deadly force. It's not complex in this case. It'
s a CLASSIC lawful but awful if the officers are telling the truth.

MamabearCali · Jul 29, 2013

So we the common ordinary citizen are supposed to have cat eyesight to be able to see in the dark and recognize LEOs when the LEO's can't even get the right address. So as a citizen, I am supposed to expect LEO's to be less professional than common people with more legal protectons? Again why I fear LEO's mistake could be far more lethal to me than a criminals thuggery.

As I said before, lets say they shouted out at the guy it is likely he did not hear them or could not understand them. His whole life he had been law abiding and now at 72 he decides to take out a LEO.....that does not wash with me.

I have little doubt they will be cleared after all the Costco cops were cleared.

PALO · Jul 29, 2013

MamabearCali said:
So we the common ordinary citizen are supposed to have cat eyesight to be able to see in the dark and recognize LEOs when the LEO's can't even get the right address. So as a citizen, I am supposed to expect LEO's to be less professional than common people with more legal protectons? Again why I fear LEO's mistake could be far more lethal to me than a criminals thuggery.

As I said before, lets say they shouted out at the guy it is likely he did not hear them or could not understand them. His whole life he had been law abiding and now at 72 he decides to take out a LEO.....that does not wash with me.

I have little doubt they will be cleared after all the Costco cops were cleared.

I am speaking descriptively not normatively, but yes.. identifying your target before you shoot is part of being a responsble armed person. You can unreasonably fear the police w/o evidence as you admit to doing. Irrational fears are your right.

It's not an issue of more legal protection, it's an issue that cops have a right to self defense. I have no idea if the cops will be cleared. I do believe the fact they went to the wrong address will be very relevant in the civil suit, but not as to whether they were justified in using deadly force.

MAC702 · Jul 29, 2013

PALO said:
... identifying your target before you shoot....

non-LEO with a gun = target.

MamabearCali · Jul 29, 2013

PALO said:
I am speaking descriptively not normatively, but yes.. identifying your target before you shoot is part of being a responsble armed person. You can unreasonably fear the police w/o evidence as you admit to doing. Irrational fears are your right.

It's not an issue of more legal protection, it's an issue that cops have a right to self defense. I have no idea if the cops will be cleared. I do believe the fact they went to the wrong address will be very relevant in the civil suit, but not as to whether they were justified in using deadly force.

The old man did not shoot the trespassing cops. He hesitated to do (possibly and I think likely) just what you say, to id his target. Now he is dead.

As I have said several times I fear LEO mistakes. I have many LEO friends.

As to their right to self defense. If I went to the wrong house, went to the garage, surprised an old man and then shot him do you think I would have been treated in the same manner. I don't think so. I think I would be on trial for negligent homicide or another similar charge.

77zach · Jul 29, 2013

How long will the swine shooters be on paid vacation before the department announces proper procedures were followed? Always procedure is followed.

PALO · Jul 29, 2013

MamabearCali said:
The old man did not shoot the trespassing cops. He hesitated to do (possibly and I think likely) just what you say, to id his target. Now he is dead.

As I have said several times I fear LEO mistakes. I have many LEO friends.

As to their right to self defense. If I went to the wrong house, went to the garage, surprised an old man and then shot him do you think I would have been treated in the same manner. I don't think so. I think I would be on trial for negligent homicide or another similar charge.

You can create disanalogous situations and pretend they are analogous but they arent.

The cops were dressed in uniform. People who use or threaten deadly force at somebody are required to identify their target.

In your example, you would not be dressed in uniform./ It's a disanalogous analogy. The devil will be in the details. I've testified in death inquests. Details matter. That's why I'm agnostic as to whether this shooting is justified or not. But if the story occurred as the police said it did, most likely it will be justified. Either way, the cops deserve and will likely receive due process and I am willing to let the system work. Also, as the investigation continues THEN there will be references to crucial details that will make all the difference in whether it was justified or not.

PALO · Jul 29, 2013

77zach said:
How long will the swine shooters be on paid vacation before the department announces proper procedures were followed? Always procedure is followed.

Which is of course utter rubbish. Many times procedure is not followed. Heck, many times officers are indicted, etc. I have three friends indicted for assault in the last 5 yrs. All three were acquitted.

Procedure is important. But I recognize that somebody referring to "swine shooters" is probably not interested in rational discussion

cheers

MamabearCali · Jul 29, 2013

PALO said:
You can create disanalogous situations and pretend they are analogous but they arent.

The cops were dressed in uniform. People who use or threaten deadly force at somebody are required to identify their target.

In your example, you would not be dressed in uniform./ It's a disanalogous analogy. The devil will be in the details. I've testified in death inquests. Details matter. That's why I'm agnostic as to whether this shooting is justified or not. But if the story occurred as the police said it did, most likely it will be justified. Either way, the cops deserve and will likely receive due process and I am willing to let the system work. Also, as the investigation continues THEN there will be references to crucial details that will make all the difference in whether it was justified or not.

Why is that not analogus? Two people at the wrong address, the same results would have a very different outcome for the shooter. The only difference is I am not a LEO. The officers were not in hot pursuit. This was a simple check of a burglary alarm...which is usually a false alarm.

Just because they have a uniform on does not mean they can tresspass. Police officers are required to get the right address too. Perhaps before police use deadly force they should ensure they are at the right house.

I am not unreasonable. I just think that when you carry deadly force of the state and when your mistakes are life and death one should be a little more careful.

Details do matter. 117 elm street is very different than 119 elm street.

Cops execute an old man - wrong house

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member