• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think the cops killing of this man was justified? Video inside

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Zargon said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofWands
Good, maybe it would move the people to full revolution and the public execution of every elected official and government employee...which is EXACTLY what should happen.

Wait WHAT?
Click to expand...

Well ok, not all of them, but a good number. While I want to hold the officials accountable, the truth is that anyone who contributes to, or supports in any way, bad policies is as guilty as those who made said policies. In this discussion that means anyone employed in the criminal justice field, or in a congressional or executive capacity.
 
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.
 
Gooberlx2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I already acknowledged that. 😛

FDF12389 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
AlienCraft said:
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.
Click to expand...
Resistance is futile. Death is irrelevant.
 
Gooberlx2 said:
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).
Click to expand...

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. I mean, those guys should have a better feel for what the risks entail and that should be a factor. 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. You'd think the DA and Detective would be the LEAST qualified people to make that decision, which is why i keep saying it's counter intuitive.
 
Sounds like trigger happy cops to me....the no knock entry appears to be the problem....Who can think when you hear the door braking through, who is to say he heard the police call or even saw the police badge to verify it was the police...
Still, you guys live in a society that lets anyone get a gun....personally, Im not surprised the cops shoot first and ask questions later!
 
Phokus said:
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
Click to expand...
They don't have to be lying. They just have to be wrong.

Phokus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gooberlx2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but even if the information is 100% accurate, you'd think that it would be standard operating procedure to consult with the team first.


edit:

"Oh hey, 3 kids live here, and the floor plans might be out of date, lets NOT raid them"
 
Even if that was a sword, what the fuck was he going to do from 15ft away? Why shoot him three times when he's not advancing? Why not only one shot?
 
her209 said:
If you assume he was sleeping, how much time did he have to grab a golf club from his golf bag after the bang?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Unjustified. With the availability of less than lethal weapons and other tactics available below deadly force, this was unjustified.

They should have breached with flash bangs to disorient and employed less than lethal given that they had body armor, etc. Hell, they could have breached with riot shields and been perfectly safe without the need to kill the guy.

I saw what I've seen in my military training which is an officer that entered with inexperience and the notion that everything in his path is a deadly threat. He had no question in his mind that anyone in that house was anything less than someone trying to kill him or someone on his team. It works kinda okay in a war zone, not so much in suburban America.
 
LOL... a whole lot of maybe's going on here.
MotF Bane said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

Or Occam's Razor says he wasn't asleep and he heard them yelling "POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT! POLICE SEARCH WARRANT!"
 
Last edited:
JeffreyLebowski said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

It may be "excusable" homicide but definitely not justifiable. Excusable homicide means "we fucked up, but we did it in good faith, we had piss-poor training, or made the wrong call in a tense situation, therefore its not criminal."
 
Last edited:
The reaction time indicates to me that the gunner was jittery and pre-mediated shooting the first thing he saw. It was probably .35 or .25 seconds before the bullets were flying after the flashlight hit the perp. Thats just pure muscle memory, so he was ancy to shoot the first thing he saw. I really hope guilt gets the best of him.
 
How about I don't know maybe a less than lethal option. Also how would the castle doctrine apply in this case?
 
Nebor said:
The castle doctrine is a defense or immunity from prosecution. It doesn't do anything for you when you're dead.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ahenkel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since they were serving a legal warrant, and he was in the commission of a felony at the time (narcotics possession) he would have no legal defense. He'd be given the death penalty for sure.
 
ahenkel said:
How about I don't know maybe a less than lethal option. Also how would the castle doctrine apply in this case?
Click to expand...
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.

In Grand Rapids, MI, a motorist saw a man dressed like a hoodlum sneaking across the street with a handgun. Thinking that he was about to commit a car-jacking, robbery, or perhaps even shoot someone, the motorist deliberately hit him with his car. Oops, it was a plain clothes narcotics officer crossing the street to intervene in an altercation between a man and woman sitting in a car, the man was bashing the woman pretty good, but the motorist didn't see it. The officer was severely injured but survived and recovered. The district attorney declined to press charges against the motorist because a reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion that this guy was a criminal about to commit a felony.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top