Police shoot armed man who trying to defend hisself

[PistolPackingMomma]

My specific replies are in bold

And a couple other things to throw out there
First off, I have no "state apologist agenda" this did not occur anywhere near where I lived, how it ends up doesn't matter to me. therefore I have no agenda other then the facts of this case.

Second off, lets role play, let's say you're visiting WA one fine day in the great county of Kitsap, and you run out of gas and are lost on my street, so you come to my door and knock to ask if I have some gas (lawfully carrying a defensive weapon) if I come straight out the door pointing a gun at your head, are you to wait to see if I shoot you, or are you going to defend yourself with your weapon at that point?

P.S. if you present your OCDO challenge coil to my observation window I'll allow you to borrow some gas, and get some directions, I mean I can't be EVIL all the time...

When you respond inside of a quote, it makes it laborious to reply to individual points, so I'm not going through that nonsense. Instead I'll just pinpoint your strawman; based on the information we have from the video, the police never said they were looking for witnesses to interview; (and if they were, why the odd hour?) they were looking for the suspect involved in an attempted murder.

If I were stranded and out of gas on a street in an unknown town, it's highly unlikely I would wander up to a stranger's door, but to play your game, if you answered the door with a gun, I'd be backing down quickly, trying to verbally identify myself and my need. Which these officers DID NOT.

Fact: The police were searching for an attempted murder suspect.
Fact: The police knocked and did not identify themselves as police.
Fact: The homeowner answered the door with a gun pointed at strangers he was not expecting. Not smart, but understandable.
Fact: The police killed him and made a terrible mistake.

If you do not have an apologist agenda, then why are you making assumptions and excuses for the actions of these officers?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

When you respond inside of a quote, it makes it laborious to reply to individual points, so I'm not going through that nonsense. Instead I'll just pinpoint your strawman; based on the information we have from the video, the police never said they were looking for witnesses to interview; (and if they were, why the odd hour?) they were looking for the suspect involved in an attempted murder.

If I were stranded and out of gas on a street in an unknown town, it's highly unlikely I would wander up to a stranger's door, but to play your game, if you answered the door with a gun, I'd be backing down quickly, trying to verbally identify myself and my need. Which these officers DID NOT.

Fact: The police were searching for an attempted murder suspect.
Fact: The police knocked and did not identify themselves as police.
Fact: The homeowner answered the door with a gun pointed at strangers he was not expecting. Not smart, but understandable.
Fact: The police killed him and made a terrible mistake.

If you do not have an apologist agenda, then why are you making assumptions and excuses for the actions of these officers?

Assumptions are an essential part of human thinking and argument. they're not always correct, but assumptions can be reasonably made. going door to door without search warrants for those properties thinking a murderer may be hiding there is an incredible waste of time and resources. "Searching for an attempted murder suspect" does not preclude what I have said, and given my general knowledge of police procedure and the like, I think it's more likely they were looking for a witness who may have noticed the crime, suspect, getaway car, etc.

It's not required to ID yourself as an officer while knocking, although it might be done to establish authority and convince a good little citizen to come to door to assist the local constabulary, but not required. while a strike against the officers there, I personally don't think it establishes criminal liability or negligence by not giving such an ID. The odd hour could be that the crime had been commited only a couple hours ago and the cops are rushing to find any evidence or witnesses, witnesses and evidence tend to disappear quickly so its essential to locate them early.

you're right it's not smart, he made the mistake, not the police. I have a problem with judging people who have to use deadly force in self defense. Brown v. United States Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made his famous observation that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife" you have a split second to act or you could be killed or maimed. That's why I shamelessly support George Zimmerman, shamelessly support Mark Yuhr, Shamelessly support Roderick Scott, and shamelessly support these officers here. Unless some serious evidence exists to counter the claim that the homeowner drew first and the cops were lying, then I would demand these officers be prosecuted and thrown in jail for life, but there's no support to that claim at this time. becuase despite what the media will say about cops and armed citizens, very few people cherish the idea of having to kill someone. the majority of people in U.S. probably don't have any desire to hurt people and can do so only be accident. If someone approaches me with a drawn weapon I will react in a manner to defend my life, and that will not be a "mistake"

A "mistake" would be like the officer who shot that woman in san diego for wandering in her yard, I initially put up a defense for the officer there (because I feel everyone deserves a voice on their behalf when the circumstances are in doubt) but now that we know more I'm solidly convinced that deputy made a big mistake in firing at her. THAT is a mistake. shooting someone who points a deadly weapon at you is very intentional, definitely not a mistake. And doing so because you are legally on his front porch knocking on the door to conduct lawful business with the owner/tenant, is not a crime that pushes the deputies actions to criminal negligence. The owner unjustifiably drew down on the wrong people and got shot, that has all the elements of a self defense shooting.

 

[OC for ME]

NeJame emphasized that state and federal law requires law-enforcement officers to knock and announce themselves at a person's front door. If deputies had done that, the situation would have ended differently, he said.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...e-20120807_1_deputies-leesburg-man-front-door

So, it is a she said/they said situation. In this case there is a witness and it comes down to who do you believe, three deputies or one witness/girlfriend. I am 100% confident that LE will believe the deputies and the state will dismiss the witness/girlfriend as not credible.

I mean c'mon, she has a vested interest.....right? Her version must be a false accounting of that night because she is not LE and therefore her motives and statements are suspect. Three deputies against one citizen.

The deputies do not have a vested interest in their version of the incident because their version is the truth regardless of any other account of that night.

The official reason for the deputies not following state law, if it is in fact state law, for not identifying themselves means that state law is to be violated at the whim of LE. If the deputies had not violated state law, as the "family" lawyer contends, then the outcome may have been different.

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-fl...oor/-/11788162/15527202/-/euk6tg/-/index.html

The girlfriend states that he did not point a gun, the deputies say that he did. Three against one. It is dark outside the door, the door is only open a "crack", she does not see him point a gun from her perspective from inside the apartment. The deputies state otherwise from their perspective outside the apartment.

.....oh, by the way the vic was a druggie.....and by extension and association so is his girlfriend.....according to LE.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

State and federal law requires identification?

Cite please

 

[JmE]

Now onto the no notice entries. Barring the subject of this thread, how many times (or references) can you recall where cops just bust into a house, shoot the place up, and then realize they have the wrong house? Not very many. It's part of the territory and one that has risk involved on both sides. Sometimes, just sometimes, **** happens. But by demanding that these entries be outlawed, you're sounding like the lefties who want to take away our guns. There simply isnt enough "abuse" to justify outlawing no-knock entries.

No, no, no, no, no! One side of that equation has natural rights and the other side has agreed to set aside some of theirs as terms of employment. The substantial risk should be on the side of law enforcement officers. They willingly choose the job whereas a citizen doesn't. For the officers, there is agreed upon compensation for the risk. I can't agree with any of your statement.

 

[OC for ME]

State and federal law requires identification?

Cite please

No

The official reason for the deputies not following state law, if it is in fact state law, for not identifying themselves means that state law is to be violated at the whim of LE. If the deputies had not violated state law, as the "family" lawyer contends, then the outcome may have been different.

Read the linked story. LE clearly states why they did not ID themselves.

Either the lawyer is lying and if that is true then LE would quickly call him on that one. Or, LE knows he is right and is keeping their yaps shut because the "investigation is on going."

 

[JmE]

The police don't need to announce themselves to enter your home, they just need a warrant. they don't even need the physical warrant there, just the promise a judge who says he'll sign the warrant in the morning. This is not an invasion of liberty, the 4th amendment does not specify how the police enter one's home, only when it is lawful.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Although you are probably correct in practice, that practice is an affront to the 4th amendment. Unless a warrant particularly describes the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized in writing beforehand, there is far too much potential for abuse of rights. A judge that agrees to a carte blanc verbal warrant should be prosecuted and removed from the bench permanently and any officer that knowingly engages in activities based upon such a warrant should be prosecuted and removed from law enforcement permanently. Any homeowner resisting such a warrant shouldn't face prosecution for defending hearth and home.

and it's a moot argument anyway since the deputies here did NOT enter the mans home, they knocked on his front door and he answered with a pistol in their faces.... bad idea, and the last one he'll ever have.

And that statement is in very poor taste. A man was essentially executed and you make a comment like that!

I read MAYBE three of four stories a year of a wrong address raid in which someone is injured or killed. I'm willing to bet that a wrong address raid in which someone is killed or seriously injured by police is probably not even a tenth of a percent of search warrants served.

One is enough for concern. Two is enough demand a change in procedure. Three or more is enough to stop the practice all together.

 

[DocWalker]

What's the big deal? Cops killing innocent people? sheesh, seems to happen everyday.
As for MKEgals ??? I would never open the door for a cop unless he had a warrant or convinced me there was a good reason for it. As I've said before Audio/Video equipment are a must. Here's a screen shot of my front porch right now. Video and audio from an excellent microphone on the front porch piped into all the TVs in the house. If the dog barks (happens long before anyone gets close) I just hit the INPUT selection on the TV I'm closes to and see what's up.

View attachment 9160

You do realize that if the LEO's make a mistake and shoot you at your home, your video and audio will malfuncion at the time you are being assaulted but will start working after your body is removed.

 

[JmE]

Here's mine: UGH!

I would rather have a few BGs not get caught on a "hunch" then innocent people gunned down by their own government!
Unidentified cop visits should never, ever happen. Warrants to enter a home through force unannounced should allow be allowed in rare extreme cases only.

I gotta agree 100% with my duo-dermis-ed colleague on that one.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Personally, I verbalize a recommendation through the door.--standing to the side of the door, of course.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The family lawyer can say what he wants, I've been spending the last hour searching United States Code and can't find anything about it, so it's unlikely that federal law says that.

And that statement is in very poor taste. A man was essentially executed and you make a comment like that!

He was not executed, he was shot after pointing a gun at people, that's justifiable homicide. The officers in question did not execute a no-knock warrant at the residence, they did not force entry, they didn't even have a warrant. no intention to search anything, they simply knocked at the door. tell me if the guy had pointed a gun at girl scouts selling cookies would you be taking his side? it doesn't matter what time of day it is, pointing a gun people you're not legally justified to shoot is a bad idea, and is a crime. would a reasonable person fear for their life if while they're being peaceful a gun points at their head? most certainly.

The girlfriend states that he did not point a gun, the deputies say that he did. Three against one. It is dark outside the door, the door is only open a "crack", she does not see him point a gun from her perspective from inside the apartment. The deputies state otherwise from their perspective outside the apartment.

.....oh, by the way the vic was a druggie.....and by extension and association so is his girlfriend.....according to LE.

So your idea is to believe the one girlfriend then over the words of the cops, and criminally charge them and destroy their careers with no corroborating evidence? that sounds like you don't support due process for police, so you believe police chould be held to a different standard then a civilian?

Of course she didn't see him with the gun, if she did she wouldn't be able to sue the department and push for a settlement. While not explicity stated in the article, those cops would already be in firing proceedings if a gun or something that looked like a gun was not recovered at the scene.

Suspects gun retrieved at scene? If no then the officers lied or are incompetent, charge with manslaughter, if yes (which is most likely) then the girl is lying and should be charged with making a false statement to investigators.

and take a look at this

"If the name of the law enforcement agency was announced, do you think this could've been prevented?" asked WFTV reporter Ryan Hughes.

"Well, based upon what we found inside his home -- drugs, scales, pipes, baggies -- I can't answer that. I don't know what he thought," Herrell said. "

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/deputy-involved-shooting-lake-county/nPtDq/

What's that sound like to you? a drug dealer maybe? Well maybe he knew it was the cops all along and decided he didn't want to go to prison. I have a hard time believing a 20 year old girlfriend of a man who's minor flaw was carrying all the required drug dealing equipment over the word of three sheriff's deupties who didn't even open his door.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

You do realize that if the LEO's make a mistake and shoot you at your home, your video and audio will malfuncion at the time you are being assaulted but will start working after your body is removed.

Heh heh. The video will never show me opening the door for a cop without a warrant I can tell you that.

 

[JmE]

He was not executed, he was shot after pointing a gun at people, that's justifiable homicide. The officers in question did not execute a no-knock warrant at the residence, they did not force entry, they didn't even have a warrant. no intention to search anything, they simply knocked at the door. tell me if the guy had pointed a gun at girl scouts selling cookies would you be taking his side? it doesn't matter what time of day it is, pointing a gun people you're not legally justified to shoot is a bad idea, and is a crime. would a reasonable person fear for their life if while they're being peaceful a gun points at their head? most certainly.

Those were full grown, armed men; not Girl Scouts. If I knock on someone's door at 1:30am (yes, time of day DOES matter) with no announcement of my intentions (i.e. "Police, looking for a suspect!"), it is a distinct possibility that there will be a gun in my face. If I shoot the person then I'm in the wrong. Besides, it hasn't been established as fact that he pointed a gun at them. It could've been muzzle down at the floor. They aren't likely to admit that.

So your idea is to believe the one girlfriend then over the words of the cops, and criminally charge them and destroy their careers with no corroborating evidence? that sounds like you don't support due process for police, so you believe police chould be held to a different standard then a civilian?

Yes, I believe the girlfriend over the officers in this case. They were paid to be there and she was not. I support due process for the officers in this case but not over and to the exclusion of due process for a citizen. When having to choose, the employees don't get preference. Police ARE supposed to be held to a higher standard... they get paid to do the job.

Of course she didn't see him with the gun, if she did she wouldn't be able to sue the department and push for a settlement. While not explicity stated in the article, those cops would already be in firing proceedings if a gun or something that looked like a gun was not recovered at the scene.

Of course the officers saw the gun pointed at them; otherwise they have committed manslaughter or even murder. LOL, it works both ways.

Suspects gun retrieved at scene? If no then the officers lied or are incompetent, charge with manslaughter, if yes (which is most likely) then the girl is lying and should be charged with making a false statement to investigators.

That doesn't wash. Just because they found a gun at the scene doesn't necessarily mean that the girlfriend is lying about him not pointing a gun at them.

and take a look at this

"If the name of the law enforcement agency was announced, do you think this could've been prevented?" asked WFTV reporter Ryan Hughes.

"Well, based upon what we found inside his home -- drugs, scales, pipes, baggies -- I can't answer that. I don't know what he thought," Herrell said. "

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/deputy-involved-shooting-lake-county/nPtDq/

What's that sound like to you? a drug dealer maybe? Well maybe he knew it was the cops all along and decided he didn't want to go to prison. I have a hard time believing a 20 year old girlfriend of a man who's minor flaw was carrying all the required drug dealing equipment over the word of three sheriff's deupties who didn't even open his door.

So what if he was a drug dealer? The rest of what you typed is conjecture.

If, what you are proposing is true; that he "wasn't going back to prison," or whatever... then why didn't he shoot when he had the element of surprise? I'd guess that he didn't know it was the police. He might have thought they were men there to do him harm. Drug dealer's can protect themselves too.

If the officers would've announced AND he actually pointed a gun directly at them (not this South Park BS of "it's coming right for us!") then I'd be on the officers' side (although, I'd prefer that they peel off and retreat if he didn't fire). So far, I'm not convinced enough to be "on their side."

 

[pfries]

DAMMIT IT, Tanner. Google Maps picture is not clear enough and my eyes are too old. Next time, try doing this http://tinyurl.com/3g4l9cd .

stay safe.

Hope this helps Skidmark

 

[MKEgal]

When he opened the door he was (according to the report) pointing a gun at them. That is not a good way to greet anyone unless you know it is a threat

How often is an unidentified pounding on your door at 01:30 a threat,
and how often is an unidentified pounding on your door at 01:30 not a threat?
I think the numbers favor the former.
As for your straw argument about running out of gas, if there's no cell reception & I have to go bang on someone's door in the middle of the night (?? trying to get to the hospital 'cause a relative is dying??) I'm going to be yelling "please call AAA, please call the police, I've run out of gas & it's an emergency, I have to get to the hospital".
I'm not going to actually want anyone to come out of their house or open their door.
I'd be perfectly satisfied with someone yelling through the door that they would call AAA or even the police.

That's similar to the anti's argument about an innocent person being forced to break into a house to use the phone to call 911, & the evil gun owner waking up & shooting the intruder...
If I were in the position of needing to use someone's phone, I'd be banging on the door & shouting long before breaking in, & if I thought I had to break in I'd be shouting as I entered, & until I found the phone.
"I have an emergency, please call 911 for an ambulance, I need to call 911, please call 911..."
I sure as heck wouldn't be quiet about it, sneaking around, or leaving the lights off.

 

[papa bear]

i was wondering if there are any video recorders in the car and what they would show, or oops, they were erased.

same story a thousand times he (the dead one) pointed a gun at us. dead men tell no tells

 

[JmE]

If this guy was pointing a gun at them and possibly "intent on not going back to prison or not being busted for drugs or whatnot", why didn't he shoot? He had the drop on them. Or did they have their guns drawn and in his face when he answered the door?

I was just imagining that for a minute... the guy supposedly has drugs in his apartment and possibly all set up to deal. He has his firearm out, finger on the trigger, shoves it through the door... and these officers have the time to draw both of their weapons and fire before he even squeezes off one round?

This was a felony suspect they were looking for, no? Not knowing procedure, I'd assume they had guns drawn. If two men knocked on my door at 1:30am, didn't identify, and I was stupid enough to open it, there would probably be shots fired. Likely, I'd lose too... either right then or later in court. The point is that two unidentified men, at that hour, at my opened door, would get drawn on by me. It only makes sense. The startle effect of two armed men at that hour would evoke a reflect reaction in anyone who knows how to use their sidearm. It's instinctive. (And yes, I recognize that their firing was instinctive but I would hope that their training would override a little bit of that since it was they that went to his door, not the other way round. Imagine going to their homes at 1:30am with guns drawn and see what they do.)



*** I do not know what happened and do not have the facts. He could very well have drawn down on them and they were simply quicker. The scenario that the officers have given may be true. Make no mistake, I do concede that possibility. In light of those being the facts, then I could only fault the officers for not identifying and congratulate them on being quick witted enough to come home at the end of their shift. I'd console them and say, "you did what you had to do." ***

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If this guy was pointing a gun at them and possibly "intent on not going back to prison or not being busted for drugs or whatnot", why didn't he shoot? He had the drop on them. Or did they have their guns drawn and in his face when he answered the door?

Any number of reasons.

He wasn't familiar with the gun, and it had a higher trigger pull then he expected so he pulls it weak and the gun doesn't go bang and the officers draw and fire

OR

he had a 1911 style pistol with an SA trigger and the hammer was down OR he had a safety catch on his gun and didn't flip it off OR the gun was unloaded and he forgotten so OR since he was set to deal, maybe he thought the knocking was a rival dealer coming to knock him off and he opens the door ready to shoot when he notices they're actually cops and before his mind tells his hand to drop the weapon the officers fire. there can be any number of reasons he didn't fire.

I mean I think it's safe to assume this guy was not nessecarily an OCDO or NRA member, he might have just gotten the gun and all he knows is what's in the movies. There can be any number of reasons he didn't come out guns blazing. I just find the officers story more credible, then a guy who has full drug dealer equipment. call me prejudiced, but I don't think people who sell illegal drugs are that high on the credibility list, and for me when it comes to drug dealer versus cops I usually side cops unless there is undisputable physical evidence the cops were dirty. I hate dirty and corrupt officers, but on the other hand, I don't think there's that many dirty cops out there.

 

[JmE]

He wasn't familiar with the gun, and it had a higher trigger pull then he expected so he pulls it weak and the gun doesn't go bang and the officers draw and fire

That scenario would've been trotted out early on as fact.

he had a 1911 style pistol with an SA trigger and the hammer was down OR he had a safety catch on his gun and didn't flip it off

Those sound more likely but, again, I'd anticipate that information being presented early on.

the gun was unloaded and he forgotten so

Also, that, I'd think, would be reported early.

since he was set to deal, maybe he thought the knocking was a rival dealer coming to knock him off and he opens the door ready to shoot when he notices they're actually cops and before his mind tells his hand to drop the weapon the officers fire.

If he was pointing and didn't fire, this scenario seems plausible.

there can be any number of reasons he didn't fire.

Yes, there are.

I mean I think it's safe to assume this guy was not nessecarily an OCDO or NRA member, he might have just gotten the gun and all he knows is what's in the movies.

Too much supposition...

There can be any number of reasons he didn't come out guns blazing.

True again.

I just find the officers story more credible, then a guy who has full drug dealer equipment. call me prejudiced, but I don't think people who sell illegal drugs are that high on the credibility list, and for me when it comes to drug dealer versus cops I usually side cops unless there is undisputable physical evidence the cops were dirty.

That's where we are at odds with our opinions on this news story. Due to TOS of this board, I can't elaborate further. However, I will say that, IMHO, your point of view is just as valid. My experience has shown me that it depends on what drugs and to at what volume a dealer is selling. With law enforcement, my gratuitous grant of credibility depends on location. If they were officers in my immediate area, I'd be inclined to believe them at first blush. If they were officers from my hometown, I'd be more inclined to believe the dealer (depending on the type of drug and the level of selling) based on my experiences and as they relate to the details known so far.

Overall, my problem with this scenario is that two officers show up at the wrong door at a late hour without announcing and a possibly innocent citizen is dead. I just can't believe the officers' story right out of the gate. I've seen too much over the years to give them that broad of a pass.

I hate dirty and corrupt officers, but on the other hand, I don't think there's that many dirty cops out there.

TOS... I can't respond.

 

[JmE]

since he was set to deal, maybe he thought the knocking was a rival dealer coming to knock him off and he opens the door ready to shoot when he notices they're actually cops and before his mind tells his hand to drop the weapon the officers fire.

The first part of that seems too Hollywood. I purchased a house for my family whilst I attended grad school. Unknown to me at the time of purchase, practically the whole darned town dealt drugs. They were on a pipeline and even the county sheriffs that were responsible for law and order were crooked. The dealers weren't prone to gun play as they had much to lose. I had to stand a group of them off for maybe a month or more. They had messed with one of my young children and law enforcement was of no help. There were armed confrontations and they backed down because they didn't want the attention. The first part of your given scenario doesn't seem likely to me. He wouldn't have opened the door expecting that. It wouldn't make sense. If they were faster, he'd be dead or in the hospital doing a lot of 'splainin. If he were faster, he'd have a whole bunch of heat down on him at his residence. No, it still doesn't seem likely that he expected trouble on the other side of that door and had a weapon drawn and aimed. He might have been cautious and was prudently armed but I just can't fathom him aiming and not firing or at least trying to fire. Then again, he could've been a true idiot...