Police shooting in Everett

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

What if the man standing in the doorway of his home was holding a weapon on the cops as they approached him? We don't know all the facts yet. You are running on pure emotion, not facts. Think like a reporter for a moment, instead of a rabid cop hater. Get the facts, then pass judgement.

Click to expand...

Then they should have identified themselves.

No, we don't know the facts-and everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

If he was holding a gun on them--and they identified themselves and he refused to lower the gun--then they really had no choice--but hopefully all of that will come out.

The law should apply to everyone equally--or it should not apply to anyone.

imported post

mrbiggles wrote:

sorry, a man standing in a doorway of his own house doesn't deserve to be killed. i think those facts are enough.

Click to expand...

This was more than a man standing in his doorway. Don't over simplify the situation to try and prove your point. You can't toss half the "Facts" and then claim the ones you keep are "enough".

This was a man standing in a doorway of his own house, with a shotgun, that was refusing to comply with multiple uniformed officers. He may even have pointed the gun at the officers.

In the ACTUAL situation, given ALL of the facts, he very well may may deserved to be killed.

mrbiggles wrote:

LEOs are not our masters, if you're standing in your house and they come and give you orders for no reason you think you should have to obey them? You should ignore unlawful orders by LEOs its your duty as an american per out founding fathers.

For LEOs they defiantly need a ask questions first shoot later approach. does this make thier job more dangerous? maybe. if they didn't want a dangerous job don't become a LEO.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you are standing armed in your doorway and multiple police officers are telling you to put the gun down, yes you should. Do you HAVE to? No, I guess not. If you choose not to though don't be too surprised if it doesn't end the way you expect it to.

The officers DID have a reason, they were responding to a report of a burglary in progress I believe. At the time they did not know who the person was or whose house it was. What they KNEW was they had a person with a gun refusing to disarm so they could sort it all out.

Just because you don't THINK there is a legitimate reason, that doesn't mean there isn't one. Unless you are some all-knowing God, you probably don't have all the information.

Cops are generally MORE than happy to ask questions before shooitng, but I don't think it is too much to ask that the person they want to ask questions to puts the gun down first so they can ask questions while being assured of their safety. Generally that makes it safer for the person they are asking questions to as well.

If this was a single undercover cop or some reason to believe an impersonator that is one thing, but when you have 3 uniformed cops with o-fficial Po-lice cars and everything, that is the time to do as they ask and put your gun down, even if you have done nothing wrong and are in your own house.

If cops had to deal with rules like you can't shoot until AFTER someone else shoots first, it wouldn't just make it a "dangerous job". Hell it is already a dangerous job, that kind of rule would make it a kamikaze position.

mrbiggles wrote:

One innocent man dying is too much, if all it took was for those LEO clowns to step back or take cover and start asking questions, rather than drawing down and giving orders to avoid this innocent person dying. its well worth it.

Its nice the govt thinks (in a lot of states) we should attempt to run away or hide first, but agents of the govt (LEOs) should shoot to kill first and figure out what happened later. its ok, the sheep will pick up the tab on any lawsuits.

to protect and serve :?

Click to expand...

And you know he is "innocent" how? Why can't people accept personal responsibility for their actions anymore? I'll flip it around on you- All it would have taken for him to stay alive was to comply. He choose not to, he choose his own outcome. Sounds like a "suicide by cop" scenario to me. Got what he wanted maybe... Pretty good "service" in that case.

Lets stick to the facts of THIS case. WA is not a "must retreat" state, you have no duty to avoid confrontation and we have pretty strong protections for the right of self-defense. The flip side of that is you DO have an obligation to do as you are told by the police under certain circumstances (such as an armed stand-off).

While you may have every right to be in your own home, and every right to keep and bear arms, you do NOT have the right to hold officers at bay with a gun because you think they are wrong. You do as you are told and then if they are in fact wrong, you avail yourself of the process to correct that AFTER the situation is resolved.



suntzu wrote:

It was contagious--one started shooting and so did the rest--essentially--they panicked. Clowns? We don't really know that--it obviously appears that they were clowns. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

I don't see multiple officers opening fire as "panic". There was a threat that appears to have escalated at some point to possibly warrant lethal force. Once lethal force is warranted there should be no question how many officers can shoot, how many rounds they can shoot, or any other "measure" of what is appropriate.

Dead is dead, lethal is lethal. If it goes to the point where lethal force is warranted I don't care if they use a bazooka or call in an air strike.

If you and your brothers were facing down someone with a gun who may be getting ready to kill your mother, are you all going to take a vote on who will shoot to stop him? Maybe you'll each take turns until one of you stops the threat?

No your not going to do any of that, if it appears the only chance to save your mother is to shoot the bad guy, I am betting you all will shoot at the bad guy.

You see "Panicked" behavior, I see continuity of training. Three individuals who came to the same conclusion in their assessment of the threat. You see "clowns", I see teamwork. Three individuals who, working together, stopped a threat. I see skilled split second decision making where numerous rounds were fired with no injuries to uninvolved persons.

You'll probably accuse me of offering biased support for the police and I admit I am biased towards them. On the other hand those who are so quick to call for lynching are just as biased as they look at it from the rose colored glasses of those who are always against cops in general.


suntzu wrote:

How do we know it was not a crime? They shot a man standing in his own doorway-in his own home no less. The fact he was armed was not an open invitation to open fire--unless he was pointing the gun at them. Self-defense statutes should apply in this if that was the case. They should not be on leave with pay while this is investigated--we would get no such luxury. It should not be the local dept. who investigates this--and it should be as thourough an investigation on them as it would be for the average person.

Click to expand...

Yes, from our lofty perch looking at information AFTER the fact, in the stark light of day. We now know it was a person in his own home. We have the luxury of making our judgments with lots of time to examine the information at our leisure and without someone waving a gun at us.

I think it is a little retarded to judge the cops actions and decisions as though they had the same opportunity to assess the situation that we have had. They were responding to a report of a burglary, in the dark, facing an uncooperative armed subject, without the luxury of no time limit.

Try to understand what they were given to look at and judge them on their decisions based on what they had to work with. Responding to a report of a burglary, they find a person armed with a gun. They are clearly police officers and they order the man to put the gun down so they can talk to him. He doesn't put the gun down after repeated requests to do so. He may or may not be waving the gun about, he may or may not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He may or may not at some point end up point the shotgun at one of the officers.

Until you have ACTUALLY been in such a situation, you really have no business second guessing those who have been.

Certainly, if after the investigation is complete, it is found that the officers acted inappropriately, broke rules, planted evidence, or whatever, then certainly feel free to call for their badges, jail time, tar and feathering or whatever is appropriate. BUT how about we give them the same assumption of innocence until proof of guilt that we all expect from the system?

Yes, they SHOULD be on leave with pay while this is sorted out. That is the way it works EVERYWHERE. While they are on "Leave" they will be cooperating with the investigators, seeing a department shrink, dealing with having had to take a person's life, them and their families will be assaulted by the media, they will be ridiculed and scorned by you and the likes of others who have posted similar replies, and a whole host of other things that is going to turn their life upside down. All of this for quite possibly doing their job RIGHT. Wow, who wouldn't want that job??? :rolling eyes:

This isn't going to be a paid vacation, they weren't high-fiving themselves afterwards and they won't be going to Disneyland. Would "We" get such a "luxury"? I think "We" would. If I shot and killed someone and the initial impression suggested that it was a lawful use of force, I likely wouldn't be arrested. I would still be able to go to work and collect my paycheck while the investigation was done. If the circumstances changed, I might end up being arrested later, being charged, and possibly even going to trial. So it seems to me that yes, "We" DO get the same "luxury".

It has already been reported that EPD will NOT be doing the investigation. Sno. Co. S.O. will be handling that. I guarentee it will be a thorough one, probably a hell of a lot more so than if you or I capped some guy in an SD situation.

imported post

suntzu wrote:

Then they should have identified themselves.

No, we don't know the facts-and everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

If he was holding a gun on them--and they identified themselves and he refused to lower the gun--then they really had no choice--but hopefully all of that will come out.

The law should apply to everyone equally--or it should not apply to anyone.

Click to expand...

I am pretty confident that they CLEARLY identified themselves, probably multiple times. It has already been reported that he refused to disarm. Simply "lowering" the gun does not end the threat.

I think it takes FAR fewer assumptions to believe they acted appropriately than it does to to believe they didn't...

imported post

suntzu wrote:

It should not be the local dept. who investigates this--and it should be as thourough an investigation on them as it would be for the average person.

Click to expand...

Actually, it will not be the Everett PD investigating this. Detectives from several surrounding departments will be investigating, free of any influence from the EPD command staff. It isn't just an investigation by the so-called Internal Affairs but a multi-agency group. These officers are not going to get a free ride if it was determined that they F---ed Up.

Now how about waiting for some facts before we start building the crosses to crucify these officers?

imported post

The Herald has a story on it with more info: http://heraldnet.com/article/20081110/NEWS01/811109987

Reproduced here without any format changing for those that can't follow the link:

EVERETT - A special team of detectives investigating a police shooting that left an Everett man dead early Saturday reports that the man greeted officers at his front door and "leveled" a shotgun in their direction.

The man, Dustin Willard, 31, was fatally shot by police when he did not drop the weapon, according to Rebecca Hover, Snohomish County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman. Officers were summoned to the home by neighbors who reported hearing breaking glass and other loud noises.

A blood smear was found the the back door of the house. Whose blood it is or how it got there is not known at this time and is being investigated, Hover said.

KOMO-TV of Seattle has been reporting that the man may have been shot behind his home, based on statements from a neighbor.

"Information that a shooting happened in the back yard of the house is inconsistent with information and evidence gathered by detectives," Hover said. "If anyone believes they have additional information about this incident, they are encouraged to contact detectives."

[line]

The full text of a statement released by Hover on behalf of the detectives follows:

Armed man leveled shotgun at officers in Saturday’s officer-involved shooting in North Everett

EVERETT -- Detectives investigating an officer-involved shooting in this city say the armed man shot by officers Saturday morning opened the front door of the house and leveled a shotgun at the officers who had come to investigate a reported burglary in progress.

The incident began about 1:44 a.m. when neighbors called to report a man breaking the front window and then breaking or kicking in the front door of a nearby house. Neighbors told 911 dispatchers they then heard loud noises coming from the back of the house and thought the same man might be breaking down the back door of the house.

Officers arrived after that. Three of the officers approached the house and knocked on the front door. A witness officer not involved in the officer-involved shooting said the front door opened and he saw a man holding a shotgun at a slight upwards angle and then saw the man level the shotgun. Another witness officer said he saw the armed man point the weapon in the direction of one of the officers.

Officers ordered the man to drop the weapon, but he did not comply. Officers fired at the man. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Detectives recovered a shotgun near his body during the on-scene investigation Saturday.

Detectives also found a blood smear on the back door of the house. They do not know how or when that blood got there or whose blood it is. They are investigating that.

Information that a shooting happened in the backyard of the house is inconsistent with information and evidence gathered by detectives. If anyone believes they have additional information about this incident, they are encouraged to contact detectives.

Detectives are not commenting further on the evidence gathered at the scene because it is in the process of being analyzed. Results from those tests could take weeks, even months to complete.

The three officers involved in the shooting have not yet been interviewed. They will be interviewed at a later date.

Click to expand...

Here's one from yesterday where they call the man the owner and the roommate of a man they interviewed: http://heraldnet.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/711099871

Again, reproduced without changing formatting:

EVERETT -- Bear Whalen may never know exactly what happened at his house early Saturday morning, but he wants to get as close to the truth as he can.

Three Everett police officers responding to a report of a burglary shot and killed Whalen's roommate at his home in the 2400 block of 23rd Street.

The slain man owned and lived at the house where he was fatally shot, Whalen said.

Someone in the neighborhood east of Broadway called police just before 2 a.m. Saturday to report that someone was breaking windows and kicking in the door of a nearby house, Snohomish County sheriff's spokeswoman Rebecca Hover said.

Three officers arrived and said they were confronted by a man with a gun, standing in the doorway of the home, Hover said.

Officers said they repeatedly ordered the man to drop his weapon but he refused to comply. The three officers fired multiple shots at the man, 31. He died at the scene, Hover said.

The man's identity has not been released. His friends and roommate say he is one of the owners of the home and had every right to be there.

No one else was at the house at the time of the shooting, Hover said.

The officers involved in the shooting were placed on paid administrative leave, as is standard practice, while a team of detectives pulled from throughout the county investigates.

Whalen, 28, and his neighbor Gunner Nelsen, 26, were stunned by the death of their friend.

"It's devastating. He didn't deserve to die," Whalen said.

Whalen described his friend and roommate as a good man who cared about his community and was a volunteer.

"He never even got a ticket. He respected the law," Whalen said.

The men and some of their friends went out to a bar Friday night, Whalen said.

Whalen said his roommate went home around 1 a.m. Whalen said he spent the night at a friend's place.

When he returned to his home later on Saturday it didn't look the same, Whalen said.

Even after Whalen, Nelsen and others cleaned the house, marks of the tragedy remained: There were holes in the windows and splintered wood lying on the floor. The men threw out the blood-stained carpet from the living room, where they say their friend fell after being shot.

"I just wish my friend was back. I don't know how long it's going to take to get over this," Nelsen said.

The officers involved in the shooting include a 24-year-old woman who has been with force two and a half years; a 29-year-old man who has been with Everett for one and a half years and a 33-year-old man who has been an officer with the city for two years.

Jonas Nicotra's house is just across the alley from the shooting scene. He said he was awakened by the gunfire just before 2 a.m. and rushed outside to see what the commotion was about.

A dog owned by one of the residents at the house where the shooting took place was "just going crazy" after the shots were fired, Nicotra said.

Steven Mestras tried to walk to the neighborhood convenience store Saturday morning, but was turned back by police tape closing off a few blocks of 23rd Street.

Mestras, who has lived in the neighborhood for a decade, said he was outside of his house about a block away when a burst of shots broke the night's silence. "I heard rapid fire, then a last one," he said.

Sandra Rodriguez, 35, moved into a house across the street in February along with her children. She said she was awakened Saturday by shouting and what she thought where firecrackers going off because there were so many explosions.

Later she learned that what she had heard were gunshots that had ended a young man's life.

"I can't believe it happened in front of my house," she said. "We are scared and I want to know what happened."

Click to expand...

imported post

Sound like there were at least 5 officers there and probably all in uniform. I would say that the failure to identify claim is flimsy at best. Sounds like he was either high on something, drunk out of his mind or decided suicide by cop was his way out.

imported post

None of three — who have not yet been interviewed by investigators — had worked for another police agency before their appointment to the Everett Police Department, Hover said.

I didn't come here to bash LE but had this been Joe Schmo who had done the shooting he would have been in lockup and browbeat till there was an answer.

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

None of three — who have not yet been interviewed by investigators — had worked for another police agency before their appointment to the Everett Police Department, Hover said.

I didn't come here to bash LE but had this been Joe Schmo who had done the shooting he would have been in lockup and browbeat till there was an answer.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on this. There have been many times that a citizen has used lethal force and not locked up and browbeat until the answer was given. The main difference I see between an LEO and non-LEO in this situation would be that a multi department investigation is underway and they will look at everything more thorough because the city stands to be sued for this man death. With a non-LEO they would do their normal investigation and pass it on to the prosecutor for the decision making.

Would a non-LEO have been interviewed by now? More than likely unless they invoked the right to counsel. I guarantee that is exactly what the officers did. They are trained to do that and some departments will not interview the officers at all until they have had a chance to talk with their union attorney.

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

None of three — who have not yet been interviewed by investigators — had worked for another police agency before their appointment to the Everett Police Department, Hover said.

I didn't come here to bash LE but had this been Joe Schmo who had done the shooting he would have been in lockup and browbeat till there was an answer.

Click to expand...

Actually, just the opposite. It's pretty standard not to interview people who have been involved in high-stress situations for days. Rape victims, justifiable homicide shooters, etc. Our brain can block out stressful memories temporarily when we are still worked up over an incident.

People who are interviewed immediately after an incident are typically still in shock. There will usually be missing memories which are suppressed for days. A person involved in something like that can often make up memories, unintentionally, as filler when they are interviewed because they can't remember exactly what happened.

imported post

Cops are generally MORE than happy to ask questions before shooitng, but I don't think it is too much to ask that the person they want to ask questions to puts the gun down first so they can ask questions while being assured of their safety. Generally that makes it safer for the person they are asking questions to as well.

Click to expand...

Just to play devil's advocate, it doesn't work when you reverse the situation again. Your average Joe can't ask the cop to put his gun down for safety. Who assured the victim of his safety?

Frankly, it doesn't matter that the guy was armed on his own property. If the cops didn't have a warrant and weren't actually in pursuit of someone they were trespassing. The last thing I want is to answer the door with my pistol on my hip and be shot because I tell these guys that I'm sure as heck not going to disarm on my own property for no good reason.

Yes, in this situation the cops thought they were apprehending a burglar, but since when do you get to shoot first and ask questions later?

(Note: the above is mostly playing DA. Until we have more info I'm not passing judgment. )

imported post

knight_308 wrote:

Yes, in this situation the cops thought they were apprehending a burglar, but since when do you get to shoot first and ask questions later?

Click to expand...

Uh....when the subject lowers the rifle towards anyone. That is when you get to shoot first and ask later.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

knight_308 wrote:

Yes, in this situation the cops thought they were apprehending a burglar, but since when do you get to shoot first and ask questions later?

Click to expand...

Uh....when the subject lowers the rifle towards anyone. That is when you get to shoot first and ask later.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

If the cops didn't have a warrant and weren't actually in pursuit of someone they were trespassing.

Click to expand...

Excuse me judge, we have a call about someone breaking into a home withwindows beingbroken out and doors being kicked down. Could you sign this search warrant so we can set foot on the property to investigate. Otherwise we will have to stand on the sidewalk with a bullhorn and say "pretty please, we want to talk with you and please don't kill anyone while you are at it".

imported post

knight_308 wrote:

Cops are generally MORE than happy to ask questions before shooitng, but I don't think it is too much to ask that the person they want to ask questions to puts the gun down first so they can ask questions while being assured of their safety. Generally that makes it safer for the person they are asking questions to as well.

Click to expand...

Just to play devil's advocate, it doesn't work when you reverse the situation again. Your average Joe can't ask the cop to put his gun down for safety. Who assured the victim of his safety?

Frankly, it doesn't matter that the guy was armed on his own property. If the cops didn't have a warrant and weren't actually in pursuit of someone they were trespassing. The last thing I want is to answer the door with my pistol on my hip and be shot because I tell these guys that I'm sure as heck not going to disarm on my own property for no good reason.

Yes, in this situation the cops thought they were apprehending a burglar, but since when do you get to shoot first and ask questions later?

(Note: the above is mostly playing DA. Until we have more info I'm not passing judgment. )

Click to expand...

Answering the door with a pistol on your hip is quite different than waving a shotgun at 3 -5 police officers.

And no, it doesn't work the same reversed. That is because cops do have more power and authority than the average citizen. They get this as a result of their position. Just because they exercise it, doesn't mean it has been abused.

And no, they are not trespassing if they don't have a warrant. A warrant is needed to search a home or enter a home (with certain exceptions). No warrant is needed to go onto property. Also for trespassing, there has to actually be a request to leave made and then ignored. Nothing in any reports have suggested the suspectasked them to to leave. Even if he had, they had yet to ascertain he was the homeowner so before they could leave they would need to determine he had the authority to ask them to.

It also is not trespassing if the person has a legal right to be on the property (such as police do when investigating a report of crime or call for help).

And again, they did not "Shoot first and ask questions later". It is sounding like they asked first ("Will you put down the gun?) and shot only after the suspect answered in the negative andpointed it at them.

Good riddance if that is in fact what happened.

imported post

Man, the LEO haters need to calm the heck down. Look, I'm skeptical of LEOs, too, but this looks pretty darn clear cut to me. It doesn't matter that they didn't have a warrant. They went to this guy's house to save him from a burglar. The "burglar" then pointed a shotgun at officers and refused demands to drop the weapon. It doesn't matter one bit that the "burglar" was the homeowner - the cops couldn't know that.

I support the cops in this situation 100%. They did what they were supposed to do. The homeowner was an idiot. When cops surround your house, you drop your stinking weapon and comply. If you've done nothing wrong and they violate your civil rights then go ahead and sue them after the fact, if you think it's necessary. Me, I'd have dropped my weapon, been cuffed, and explained that it's my house and there is no burglar. They'd verify my story and let me go and I'd shake their hands, thank them for attempting to protect my home, and apologize for all of my commotion that prompted the neighbors to call 911.

Put yourself in the LEOs shoes and tell me with a straight face you wouldn't have done the same thing. Seriously, people...

imported post

tricityguy wrote:

Me, I'd have dropped my weapon, been cuffed, and explained that it's my house and there is no burglar. They'd verify my story and let me go and I'd shake their hands, thank them for attempting to protect my home, and apologize for all of my commotion that prompted the neighbors to call 911.

Put yourself in the LEOs shoes and tell me with a straight face you wouldn't have done the same thing. Seriously, people...

Click to expand...

Some of these cop haters would have done exactly the same as you would have and more----------they might have crapped their pants too (after looking down the barrels of 3-5 guns).

imported post

Some of these cop haters would have done exactly the same as you would have and more----------they might have crapped their pants too (after looking down the barrels of 3-5 guns).

Click to expand...

I'm not a hater, but you're right that I probably would have done that, too. Just because the owner was stupid does not, in and of itself, make the LEOs' actions right.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

What if the man standing in the doorway of his home was holding a weapon on the cops as they approached him? We don't know all the facts yet. You are running on pure emotion, not facts. Think like a reporter for a moment, instead of a rabid cop hater. Get the facts, then pass judgement.

Click to expand...

You keep saying wait until the facts, but be honest do you really think the facts will come out, there are three cops word to one dead guy, not that they will nor do I believe these cops are inherently bad, givestatements to support there side. And there are far to many examples of police collaborating there stories and since the dead guy is, well dead, he cant give his side, so what we will be left with is whatever the cops say and the investigation that follows, an investigation by there fellow LEOs mind you, so if you really want people to wait for the "Facts" they will be waiting for the second coming.



I am not anti cop nor do I believe this incident was there fault, I don’t know if the guy raised his gun at them or even didn’t obey their orders, what I do know is we will never know the truth, another man is dead, shot with multiple rounds and was standing in his own home.

imported post

So now you get to write off the whole event by saying "We'll never know the whole story"? Good way to keep your viewpoint without dealing with annoying things like details. Three cops, one dead guy must automatically be police misconduct? Dang, and I thought I was cynical.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

So now you get to write off the whole event by saying "We'll never know the whole story"? Good way to keep your viewpoint without dealing with annoying things like details. Three cops, one dead guy must automatically be police misconduct? Dang, and I thought I was cynical.

Click to expand...

Im not writing anything off, what i am saying is you keep telling everyone to wait for the facts, and im just saying i doubt that the facts will be unbiased.

"Three cops, one dead guy must automatically be police misconduct?"

So by your own admission one dead guy, three cops automatically means the dead guy must have been at fault.

"Dang, and I thought I was cynical"

well it fits your post.