• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Cops execute an old man - wrong house

Freedom1Man

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
Click to expand...

Used police looking uniform? 100 bucks depending on how accurate I want it to be.
Shiny things to look like official gear, cost 5 hours at most.
Knowing that criminals dress up like police, priceless. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/us/29fakecops.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In Florida, Criminals Pose as Police More Frequently and for More Violent Ends

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/27/20080627abrk-homeinvasion0627.html?nclick_check=1
Phoenix PD: Men dressed as police raid home

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...nvasion0627.html?nclick_check=1#ixzz2aUrHvZC6



There goes your whole it was legal because they were dress in the correct clothing argument. Now, really, defend your position.
 
M

MamabearCali

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
335
Location
Chesterfield
Freedom1Man said:
Get the cities correct too. I've found matching addresses where the only difference was the city listed. Or SE vs NE in the same city with the same street name.
Click to expand...

Not to mention where I live they like to make maple rd, maple st, maple, circ, maple lane, maple court, maple rd. all in the same neighborhood. The stupid developers like themes, but it is a terrible security risk and really irritating for mail.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
PALO said:
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
Click to expand...


LOL....apologist much?

Don't think I or others noticed you avoided my question that by your own logic it would have been ok for the old man to shoot the two cops.

Your Assumption is the cops are acting lawfully, my assumption is they are constitutionally restricted and that the civilian has more rights then their servants.

It may be rewarding to you that society has been brain washed to put their servants up on a pedestal, I say they must be kept on a short leash. And I have with much satisfaction noticed much of the tide is changing people are getting fed up with being pushed around by government on all levels.

The bottom line is you have two state street warriors who shot a man who was rightfully armed on his own property.........we need to stop excusing cops actions by saying crap like its ok because they were in uniform. :rolleyes:
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
PALO said:
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
Click to expand...

Why does that not surprise me. Washington state has a horrible record of prosecuting police that engage in unlawful conduct and we have one of the worse records of police misconduct.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
MamabearCali said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because they were wearing uniforms....that's enough us mundanes should know.....
 
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
PALO said:
<snip> The ASSUMPTION is that the cop is acting lawfully. <snip>
Click to expand...
Why? Here in lies the issue. LE presumes that the LEOs are acting lawfully. Unlike LE assuming the citizen to be acting unlawfully. Those two shooters will be cleared of any wrong doing. Even their incompetence will be excused. There is no other version of the story to investigate. There are only two witnesses.

You accept the cop's version because you are predisposed to accept a cop's version of the story. I am not. Theirs is the only version and thus you accept their version as the truth. As will a great many citizens. I do not. But, the end result is the same, there are only two witnesses and only one version of the shooting.

The burden is placed, by you and other cops, on the homeowner to do everything by the book, no mistakes, or else. Well, or else did happen because those two cops were not capable of doing anything by the book. There will be little if any repercussions for their acts. Even a civil suit will fail once LE justifies their acts. "Lawful but awful" what a quaint way to look at a dead citizen at the hands of LE. I have another look into the mindset of LE.

Hypothetical: If the homeowner would have reasonably believed that his life was in mortal danger, shot those two cops, and there were no other witnesses other than the homeowner and his word, LE would not be so kind to the homeowner. He certainly would not get the equivalent of paid administrative leave. Though, I suspect that my hypothetical is more fact than fiction.
 
carolina guy

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
PALO said:
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
Click to expand...

Having a uniform and standing in the dark, yelling at a person who is already JUSTIFIABLY nervous about INTRUDERS at "0 dark 30" with flashlights pointed directly at a 70yo man's eyes constitutues "reasonable" in your view? Really?? And then you wonder about the increasing (not decreasing) animosity towards the police and government in general??

Your 2nd problem is that you state that the assumption is that the cop is acting lawfully and that the homeowner is not is flawed at best. The LEOs were the ones intruding on his property without ANY notice or permission. The burden of proof is on them. They received "shoot or no shoot" training that should have told them this was NOT a good shooting. They should have retreated and regrouped. They were in the wrong...Period...full stop. Will they be exonerated...unfortunately, likely so. Is it right? No. Is it moral? No. Should they continue to be police officers? No. THEY screwed up and an INNOCENT homeowner is now dead because of their screwup and poor training. Period. Full Stop.
 
carolina guy

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
PALO said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sounds like Texas needs to go the way of Indiana...
 
carolina guy

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
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.
Click to expand...

I do not recall anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (US or any of the 50 States) that says that LEO have MORE of a right to "self defense" than ordinary citizens. Please tell me where this is written.
 
carolina guy

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
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.
Click to expand...

The last many years have seen police departments adopt more military style uniforms, which are generally designed to BLEND into the surroundings. A dark uniform at night does NOT equal a visible identification as a police officer. At best it equals something intimidating looking and scary to the AVERAGE and REASONABLE person. Does the Fort Worth PD use lighted uniforms and badges? No.

The homeowner deserved due process and did not get it.
 
carolina guy

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
OC for ME said:
Why? Here in lies the issue. LE presumes that the LEOs are acting lawfully. Unlike LE assuming the citizen to be acting unlawfully. Those two shooters will be cleared of any wrong doing. Even their incompetence will be excused. There is no other version of the story to investigate. There are only two witnesses.

You accept the cop's version because you are predisposed to accept a cop's version of the story. I am not. Theirs is the only version and thus you accept their version as the truth. As will a great many citizens. I do not. But, the end result is the same, there are only two witnesses and only one version of the shooting.

The burden is placed, by you and other cops, on the homeowner to do everything by the book, no mistakes, or else. Well, or else did happen because those two cops were not capable of doing anything by the book. There will be little if any repercussions for their acts. Even a civil suit will fail once LE justifies their acts. "Lawful but awful" what a quaint way to look at a dead citizen at the hands of LE. I have another look into the mindset of LE.

Hypothetical: If the homeowner would have reasonably believed that his life was in mortal danger, shot those two cops, and there were no other witnesses other than the homeowner and his word, LE would not be so kind to the homeowner. He certainly would not get the equivalent of paid administrative leave. Though, I suspect that my hypothetical is more fact than fiction.
Click to expand...

+100

Nobody makes someone be a police officer. If they cannot do the job well, and with 100% perfection when they draw their weapon, they need to find another job. Period. Full Stop.
 
DocWalker

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
Citizen said:
No cop-bashing, please. :p:)
Click to expand...

Please point out the part of my sentence that had any cop bashing in it as there is none. My sentence refers to CRIMINALS putting on uniforms, Criminals saying that they are the police, and CRIMINAL lying.

No place in my post was there any cop bashing unless you are pointing to Criminals pretending to be cops.

I RESENT THE ACCUSSATION OF COP BASHING!!!!
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Since PALO wouldn't respond to my response to his rationalization......

Two men in shadows pointing bright lights at your face and guns at you telling you to drop your gun.
It's dark the bright flash lights make it difficult to see who it is, the intruders are wearing dark clothing too, this would be difficult at a young age I can imagine quite a bit more at an elderly age.
By his reasoning the old man shouldn't have hesitated because he has the right to self defense and should have fired at the two trespassers. Oh wait only if the old man was wearing a uniform......:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top