Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. In this case a golf club.
ftfy
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. In this case a golf club.
To be fair, they might sometimes consult the tactical planner or someone like that. I mean, it's certainly possible. But that's still not likely to be a frontline member of the team who's ordered to kick in the door; and has to make the split-second decisions. And that member isn't going to be armed with the same details of the investigation the detectives have.
Even IF they consult the team(Most cases this does not happen), the person being consulted still won't be a member of the breaching team. My original statement is correct. I'm not sure what you're missing here. No, door kickers are not consulted.
Resistance is futile. Death is irrelevant.Tactics such as these are there to serve notice on The Public that the police are not to be resisted in any case. That the penalty for resistance is death. Even if the police are wrong. Our country is doomed.
Even if they do, they're telling the tactical team the same malarkey they did the judge to obtain the warrant. In this case, the real person of interest didn't even live there any longer. The tactical guys (especially the kickers) aren't really even in a position to make judgments in order to "opt-out" prior to the raid. (I think that was the premise for this line of discussion).
They don't have to be lying. They just have to be wrong.I don't know, somehow i have a hard time believing that the detectives would be consistently lying to the tactical team - their own co-workers- like they would a judge
And that's definitely a failure on the part of the detectives/vice/narcotics, the ones experienced with surveillance and information gathering. By the time they've gotten to a tactical team, the information certainly should be reliable.I mean, if nothing else to check if maybe someone else who doesn't have anything to do with that shit lives there, for example, that might change the risk/reward of kicking in their door in the middle of the night.
They don't have to be lying. They just have to be wrong.
And that's definitely a failure on the part of the detectives/vice/narcotics, the ones experienced with surveillance and information gathering. By the time they've gotten to a tactical team, the information certainly should be reliable.
If you assume he was sleeping, how much time did he have to grab a golf club from his golf bag after the bang?doesnt mean he woke up before the BAM from the door breach. Just some food for thought....
My bad.ftfy
If you assume he was sleeping, how much time did he have to grab a golf club from his golf bag after the bang?
They should have breached with flash bangs to disorient
Strange place to keep a golf bag. If he lived in a rough neighborhood and wanted to have a weapon nearby for protection, a bat would be a more logical choice. He's disorganized but he's able to remember that a golf club was propped outside his bedroom seconds after being woken up. In the video, the police bust in at 0:23 and the guy appears in the hallway at 0:27-0:28 and is shot a second later.Maybe he keeps the golf bag near his bed along the wall? Maybe he keeps one lone club propped against the nightstand because he lives in a rough neighborhood? Maybe the golf bag or the club was sitting just outside his bedroom because he's a disorganized person?
They're going to get their asses sued off, anyway. Guy was 10+ feet from the nearest officer, standing still, with a bludgeon in his hand that is completely harmless from any distance greater than four feet and almost completely harmless against someone dressed-out in battle gear, helmets, face protection, and vests. Never gave him an opportunity to put the "weapon" down, shot him at the precise moment that he was first ordered to get on the ground, never ordered him to put the "weapon" down, never identified themselves after entering.I'm all for enforcement of the laws, but I really do think a lot of people are killed in error by cops. Of course the police and anyone assocciated with them have to claim it was self defense or their training kicked in and saved them, because if they say they screwed up they're going to get their asses sued off.
How about I don't know maybe a less than lethal option. Also how would the castle doctrine apply in this case?
The castle doctrine is a defense or immunity from prosecution. It doesn't do anything for you when you're dead.
My fault for not elaborating more. How would the castle doctrine apply if the homeowner had killed one or more of the officers would the shooting then be justified.
The Castle Doctrine is a legal principle, not a law itself. If he could convince a jury that he did not know or was not aware that the invaders were law enforcement officers executing a warrant at the time he employed lethal force, then it could get him off. I vaguely recall some rare cases where this has actually happened.How about I don't know maybe a less than lethal option. Also how would the castle doctrine apply in this case?
