Police gun down INNOCENT 72 year old man, blame poor lighting for being at wrong home

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Police are trained to shoot to kill. Basically, if you survive an officer shooting you, that's more down to dumb luck than intentional incapacitation.

Tell that to the two latina women who were shot by 9 officers in their crazy manhunt for Doehner in LA. Police shot 70 odd times with only a few non-fatal shots hitting the two innocent women. The cops were cleared of all charges of course and settled for millions with the two ladies.


As you quoted; dumb luck
 
Last edited:

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
Incidents like these go to show that no matter how incompetent or retarded cops act and no matter how much they hurt innocent people there will be someone on the Porkchop Brigade defending them.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Pictures do not show lighting around the house.
The report does not show lighting around the house.
You would suspect that the paper would have challenged the statement that there was no lighting if there is lighting.

There is audio indicating the police order the weapon to be put down.

A coverup will be difficult to justify; but I am sure (right or wrong) that as long as the officers are hung out to dry; JUSTICE was served. :thumbsdown:

Link? The only audio I've heard is the radio call after the shooting.

Since you've heard this audio recording, how soon is he shot after they identify themselves and order him to disarm?
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,598
4,049
136
Not only can they not use a flashlight to find the correct address but couldn't they have shot the guy in the knee or something? Ah well. Stupid on all parts.

He had a gun. If you shot him in the knee he could still kill you.

But overall i agree with this:

Going after the wrong house isn't exactly a minor issue by any extent of the imagination.

While I think the police should have some blame for identifying the wrong house, the rest of the event is purely a fatal misunderstanding.

The guy in question is old, likely resulting in diminished senses, in addition, being awoken in the middle of the night, isn't likely in good mental condition to accurately identify whether or not the intruder is a threat or a cop. For all he knew, the intruder could have been robbers passing themselves off as police.

Now the cops, not knowing they were at the wrong house are staring down the suspect who is armed and appears ready to open fire. Not sure about the folks here, but (after attempted communication fails) I'd think that a cop would rather end the threat ASAP rather than prolonging the situation in an (risky) attempt for a peaceful resolve.

Nothing more than a tragic accident due to unfortunate human error. It's not like we don't already get plenty of these. :|
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
Eagle,

There is NO AUDIO of the incident!!! There is AUDIO of the cops reporting what happened AFTER the murder in cold blood was finished.

Do you honestly believe that after the cops gunned him down with no warning that they would 'fess up and admit it? No they basically lied and said they gave him a warning. I VERY STRONGLY suspect that they opened up on him the instant they saw him w/o warning, much like the LAPD did on the two latina women. There is no way that I would believe that a grandfather with no criminal record whatsoever would not submit immediately if police identified themselves. So we are left with the unsubstantiated lies of thugs and are supposed to accept it as gospel.

What kind of idiot cop thinks a dottering old geriatic is a house breaker? Proven incompetence and deceit..... at the very least these two dolts should be fired.

Oh but the lighting, the lighting, we couldn't see nothing! Yea right, then how the fuck did you know he had a gun?

PS. Is this another example of why all citizens should have guns? I wonder if he would still be alive today if he hadn't purchased a gun for protection.
 
Last edited:

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,899
819
126
I can't believe the idiots that are actually defending these cops. Aholes.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Uhhh... no they didn't blame the lighting. Did you read the article?



If that's true then you can add "idiot" to the list of adjectives describing the guy.

Yes, and another shining victory for Stand Your Ground.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,709
870
126
I'm a lot more understanding of getting the address wrong when responding to a crime than when serving a warrant. I don't doubt the officers' story. As much as ATPN likes to hate cops, most don't look forward to killing people.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
I'll admit the cops were dumb and certainly not blameless, but the police can't accommodate everything. It's not like they can assign someone fluent in sign language to every patrol car just because they might run into the occasional deaf person.

If the old man raised a gun at them then they were well within their rights to shoot him. Cops are under no obligation to wait for the first shot, although a lot of people seem to have this unicorn/rainbows expectation that they are (probably thanks to Hollywood). It's both parties' faults, and ultimately is just a tragic situation where stupidity collided with senility.

I dunno.... The way I usually look at it is if you are not legally allowed to be somewhere and you shoot someone who is legally allowed to be there then the blame and fault lie squarely on the party that had no legal authority to be there in the first place.
 

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
54
91
just want to chime in here.... go out to your streetside and take a look at your house, especially at night. See how easy it is to tell what your house # is.

If you can't tell, go immediately to the hardware store the next morning and purchase large, reflective numbers. Make sure they are on your mailbox and also somewhere on your home.

Sometimes it is actually an ordinance violation if you CAN"T read your house # from the street.

Now, if someone kicks a door into your and tries to serve you with an arrest warrant meant for your neighbor, you have much better chances winning a lawsuit against the police.
 

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
54
91
Police are trained to shoot to kill. Basically, if you survive an officer shooting you, that's more down to dumb luck than intentional incapacitation.

negative, but your assumptions are reasonable.

Military is trained to kill.


Police are trained to shoot center mass and continue shooting "until the threat has been eliminated"

So if you double over and lay sprawled out with the gun flying out of your hands, theoretically they should stop shooting at you.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,491
9,816
136
negative, but your assumptions are reasonable.

Military is trained to kill.


Police are trained to shoot center mass and continue shooting "until the threat has been eliminated"

So if you double over and lay sprawled out with the gun flying out of your hands, theoretically they should stop shooting at you.

which, generally speaking, is going to turn into a kill, because you're not going to stop until the threat drops to the ground.

is it technically different than "shooting to kill"? yes. practically speaking? doubtful.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
Yes, and another shining victory for Stand Your Ground.

Lol I'm loving this. "Stand Your Ground" has become the new "Assault Weapon". It's a new buzzword for the gun grabbers to ignorantly bleat out every time someone gets shot. We needed something new, they were just starting to get a handle on what an "assault weapon" actually was.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Lol I'm loving this. "Stand Your Ground" has become the new "Assault Weapon". It's a new buzzword for the gun grabbers to ignorantly bleat out every time someone gets shot. We needed something new, they were just starting to get a handle on what an "assault weapon" actually was.

I think that if anyone causes an unnecessary death - either their own or someone else's - by "defending" themselves with a gun, we get to keep score.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
I think that if anyone causes an unnecessary death - either their own or someone else's - by "defending" themselves with a gun, we get to keep score.

Not when addressing stand-your-ground laws you don't, as they are meaningless when one is on one's own property and did not contribute to this man's death. No one, in any state, has a "duty to retreat" from their own home. If you'd bother to learn what stand-your-ground laws were, you'd know that. Besides, you'd have to balance that score by keeping score of legitimate self defense with firearms, that in many cases prevents needless death without firing a shot, before you could talk.

In the meantime get your lobbyists and political advocates to stop recommending illegal negligent discharge as a means of self defense, and to stop putting the names of the Boston bombers on "victims of gun violence" lists. The NRA may be radical, but I've never seen it sink to that level of pure uninformed stupid. You want gun control? Stop shooting yourselves in the feet with every step.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
Let's see: Suppose this man hadn't decided to pull his gun out and "defend" his home. Think he'd be dead now?

Oh, so you get to change one variable of the situation and dictate morality? OK, let me try:

Suppose it wasn't two cops but two burglars who were armed with crowbars. Think he'd be dead now, or would he be a hero who defended his life, family and property from armed bad guys?

Suppose the cops had been outfitted with a GPS and were all but guaranteed to find the right home. Think he'd be dead now?

It's easy to point out in any given situation how changing one of a multitude of variables could have made things "better". That doesn't mean your philosophy is right, nor does it mean it's the only way, or even the best way, to make things better. You'd probably assert that it is, but we all know you haven't examined, and won't examine, the situation in any objective detail to come to that conclusion. So your point is kinda worthless, except to affirm your beliefs in your own private echo chamber.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
I dunno.... The way I usually look at it is if you are not legally allowed to be somewhere and you shoot someone who is legally allowed to be there then the blame and fault lie squarely on the party that had no legal authority to be there in the first place.

Just because the cops made the blunder that initiated the situation doesn't mean they were totally responsible for his death.

It goes back to two kids on the play ground:
Kid 1 calls Kid 2 stupid.
Kid 2 punches Kid 1.
Teacher takes Kid 2 to principle's office, and Kid 2 complains "but he started it!"

It doesn't matter. Kid 2 escalated the situation to violence.

In this case, the cops may have instigated the entire incident, but the old guy escalated it to lethal violence. It doesn't matter who was legally/illegally where for what reason. That's how it went down, where it went down. I suppose you could accuse the cops of trespassing, but that's a separate issue from the violence, and as such would be considered a separate charge in court.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
In this case, the cops may have instigated the entire incident, but the old guy escalated it to lethal violence.

And that is why our system has failed. Irish takes it as a matter of fact that the incident went down exactly as the cops said did based SOLELY on the word of the cops.

Sorry but cops in general are MORE dishonest than the general public.

But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn&#8217;t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.

That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: &#8220;Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.&#8221;

The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department&#8217;s drug enforcement units. &#8220;I thought I was not naïve,&#8221; he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. &#8220;But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.&#8221;

Remarkably, New York City officers have been found to engage in patterns of deceit in cases involving charges as minor as trespass. In September it was reported that the Bronx district attorney&#8217;s office was so alarmed by police lying that it decided to stop prosecuting people who were stopped and arrested for trespassing at public housing projects, unless prosecutors first interviewed the arresting officer to ensure the arrest was actually warranted. Jeannette Rucker, the chief of arraignments for the Bronx district attorney, explained in a letter that it had become apparent that the police were arresting people even when there was convincing evidence that they were innocent. To justify the arrests, Ms. Rucker claimed, police officers provided false written statements, and in depositions, the arresting officers gave false testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/o...icers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
And that is why our system has failed. Irish takes it as a matter of fact that the incident went down exactly as the cops said did based SOLELY on the word of the cops.

Sorry but cops in general are MORE dishonest than the general public.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/o...icers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Last I checked our system revolves around innocent until proven guilty, and unfortunately that sometimes mean that bad guys walk; because better that than a single innocent be punished for something they didn't do. I'd hardly call that failing. How many innocents would you be willing to sacrifice to convict these two cops? How would you, personally explain their unjust imprisonment or execution to their families?

And what alternate system would you propose? One where mere suspicion or "general statistics" is enough to convict? Go to China or North Korea and tell me how you like it. Hell, by your logic we should just imprison the entire black population of the US because they're statistically more likely to be criminals.

If you have any evidence that these two specific cops are lying, kindly share it with the appropriate authorities. Until then you have nothing but unfounded suspicions, and the cops' word is all we have.
 
Last edited:
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
which, generally speaking, is going to turn into a kill, because you're not going to stop until the threat drops to the ground.

is it technically different than "shooting to kill"? yes. practically speaking? doubtful.


Yup.



Modern LEO function just like gang members and are sure to leave no one to tell the story.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
just want to chime in here.... go out to your streetside and take a look at your house, especially at night. See how easy it is to tell what your house # is.

If you can't tell, go immediately to the hardware store the next morning and purchase large, reflective numbers. Make sure they are on your mailbox and also somewhere on your home.

Sometimes it is actually an ordinance violation if you CAN"T read your house # from the street.

Now, if someone kicks a door into your and tries to serve you with an arrest warrant meant for your neighbor, you have much better chances winning a lawsuit against the police.

I don't give two fucks how someones house is marked (as long as its accurate), if the police think they have enough evidence that you have committed a crime or you are doing something illegal in your home they can damn well accurately figure out that they are kicking down the right door. It is absolutely 100% unacceptable for them to fuck this up, period. full stop. end of story.

I understand human error and everyone fucks up once in a while but when it comes to quite literally kicking a door down there are usually a ton of assholes who are supposedly competent enough to have machine guns and stun grenades who I would hope can double check that they are at the right damn house. IMO when the police kick down the wrong door and it is absurdly negligent that they have committed breaking and entering and if they kill anyone in the process that is the very definition of murder 1 in most states (murder committed while committing another felony). Throw a group of these wannabe Rambo's in jail when the commit murder and I guarantee the number of nationwide "oops we kicked in the wrong door" is reduced to 0.

And no, losing ones job is not punishment for committing a felony. The bullshit excuse of "but but but the police will be too scared to do their job" is exactly that, pure bullshit. They should be fucking scared to kick down the wrong door and endangering and/or killing the wrong person. They should be scared to seriously cross the line not because they might lose their job but because they might lose their freedom like the rest of us would if we tried the same shit.