Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on July 02, 2012, 07:06:56 PM
-
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2012/07/family-of-woodinville-man-killed-by-sheriffs-office-in-2009-files-civil-rights-lawsuit/
I am sure there is more to this than just this report, but I would sure be troubled by a deputy shooting a middle-aged man clad only in underwear and slippers with no weapons on him or in his hand. This sounds like a suicide by cop, but I wonder what the deputy was thinking about shooting someone who clearly appeared to be unarmed.
-
From the article;
Muenster also alleges that Cougan, as a deputy, was shown preference during the investigation by not being required to give a statement until after consulting with an attorney.
That is the same here with the local Sheriffs Dept. We had a deputy shoot and kill a 70+ y/o man and they would not take his statement for several days. In fact, he was able to take his previously scheduled vacation to Hawaii before having to give a statement.
That shoot was ruled justified, but you can bet it will end up in court.
bob
-
you object to them being afforded the same rights to consult counsel and or remain silent you have? >:D
-
the family is alleging the man was no threat? then why did they call the sheriff in the first place?
-
you object to them being afforded the same rights to consult counsel and or remain silent you have? >:D
No, but were I to be arrested, I have to spend time in jail, appear before a judge who will determine how much $$$ my family has to cough up to get me out of jail.
Goose, Gander, sauce and all.....
-
Doesn't sound like suicide by cop to me at all. Sounds like murder by cop. The man put the knife down and was walking toward the cop. That is what a person that wants to talk does. He walks, unarmed toward the person with whom he wants to talk. Walking up to the cop with a knife might be suicide by cop. This was not that.
The Kings County SD has a long history of killing civilians in their fervor to protect and serve their leaders.
-
the family is alleging the man was no threat? then why did they call the sheriff in the first place?
\
yea thats always a conundrum. they are so scared they call the cops for their loved one but they expect the cops to know hes harmless after they called for help
-
Not enough info (as usual) to make a definitive call. BUT, taking the news story as writ (always dangerous) it sure sounds like a questionable shoot. The guy was unarmed, but that doesn't meen he wasn't dangerous. What we don't know is how he approached the cop, what the cop said, what the dead guy might have said back, etc. It certainly though seems like a potentially better application for a baton or perhaps a Taser rather than a double tap from an AR-15.
Oh, and BTW, if I was on the jury I'd not give any weight to the statement "Cougan, as a deputy, was shown preference during the investigation by not being required to give a statement until after consulting with an attorney."
-
Do police still carry batons? Are they really trained to use them to the point that it is a useful option? I would suggest that the department would still get sued if the headline instead read that an officer beat up a naked unarmed man with a baton?
Would the whole Rodney King fiasco have happened if one of the cops had just shot him when he attacked them instead of beating him with batons?
-
Blow em all up with drones and sort out the bodies, ask questions later.
The militarized police are just following suit.
Seems this is an issue of training, what are the police being trained to do in these circumstances? If the training has them grabbing an AR-15 immediately should we be surprised when they get used with predictable results?
Did this call actually rise to the level where Andy would give Barney permission to load his bullet?
-
Sounds like a failure in the officer's use of force continum.....a lawsuit should focus on that....
-
Blow em all up with drones and sort out the bodies, ask questions later.
The militarized police are just following suit.
Seems this is an issue of training, what are the police being trained to do in these circumstances? If the training has them grabbing an AR-15 immediately should we be surprised when they get used with predictable results?
Did this call actually rise to the level where Andy would give Barney permission to load his bullet?
First, you assume training exists at all. I think we need to be careful when we talk about how much hand to hand combat we think cops should be getting into while at the same time criticizing them for "brutality". At some point, we have to hit the other side of the coin and insist that citizens stop trying to fight with police.
Second, in this case, I would be curious exactly what he was telling the guy to do and did the guy do it. How confusing was the situation and how quickly did he shoot.
Last, IMO Andy and Barney were just some pipe dream on TV that has little basis in reality. I don't think the actions of two imaginary police officers in a quiet imaginary town dealing with non-violent made-for-50's-TV imaginary situations really applies. I bet if you actually went back and followed cops in the 50's and before, I bet you would see them cracking heads and such quite often especially among the "undesireables".
-
MA94 has a point.....the "less-lethal" tools of the Mayberry days were the ash baton and the lead-shot sap.....
....I miss those days..... :cool:
-
Last, IMO Andy and Barney were just some pipe dream on TV that has little basis in reality.
I actually know a county sheriff who is an Andy Taylor type =)
His undersheriff is a pretty good guy too - not nervous like Barney.
-
First, you assume training exists at all. I think we need to be careful when we talk about how much hand to hand combat we think cops should be getting into while at the same time criticizing them for "brutality". At some point, we have to hit the other side of the coin and insist that citizens stop trying to fight with police.
Second, in this case, I would be curious exactly what he was telling the guy to do and did the guy do it. How confusing was the situation and how quickly did he shoot.
Last, IMO Andy and Barney were just some pipe dream on TV that has little basis in reality. I don't think the actions of two imaginary police officers in a quiet imaginary town dealing with non-violent made-for-50's-TV imaginary situations really applies. I bet if you actually went back and followed cops in the 50's and before, I bet you would see them cracking heads and such quite often especially among the "undesirables".
If the officer was armed with a tazer and felt threatened by the underwear and slippers wearing assailant then chances are we wouldn't be having this discussion and nobody would be dead.
The Mayberry comment was mostly a tip of the hat to the passing of Andy G.
-
The way this article reads, the allegations are that the cops showed up, loacked and loaded his AR, and popped the guy twice, with little discussions, etc. The family alleges that the guy had a knife on the porch.
Lawsuits filed by the ambulance chaser types always make allegations, many times knowing that they are not entirely accurate, for strategic purposes. You allege negligence in any case to drag in the insurance companies, as that's where the big money is. You allege a lack of training here so you can drag in the city, which means more money. Then, you start negotiating for the quick cash settlement to make it all go away.
To much uinknown for me to make a judgment on this one. But one point...I'd be curious to see how many people criticize this cop for shooting an unarmed man who also support George Zimmermen shooting of an unarmed man as being justified self-defense... [popcorn]
-
When you choose a hammer as your only tool, every problem becomes a nail.
However, the lawsuit alleges — and the Sheriff’s Office has since acknowledged – that Slater had left the knife on an porch bench and was unarmed when he stood and walked toward Deputy Peter Cougan, who had responded to a domestic disturbance at the Slater house and found Slater sitting on a bench outside the home.
To much unknown for me to make a judgment on this one. But one point...I'd be curious to see how many people criticize this cop for shooting an unarmed man who also support George Zimmermen shooting of an unarmed man as being justified self-defense...
A trained police officer wearing body armor wielding an AR-15, with back-up on the scene and more available, being confronted by an unarmed man in his pajamas is not analogous to an untrained dope getting in over his head and getting his head pounded in, requiring the use of force to escape.
Oh wait, you have much more experience in these matters than I, if you say so, then the state of our law enforcement is even worse than it sometimes appears.
Your bias is showing methinks ;)
-
there was backup there? and he knew he was unarmed? how?
-
To much uinknown for me to make a judgment on this one. But one point...I'd be curious to see how many people criticize this cop for shooting an unarmed man who also support George Zimmermen shooting of an unarmed man as being justified self-defense... [popcorn]
Yep. Waiting for the trial to see the facts coming out. If the unarmed guy was say, beating the cop's head against some nearby concrete... Then yes, lighting the guy up was appropriate. If he was carrying a Twilight novel, also appropriate. If the guy was just acting mildly crazy but apparently unarmed, maybe not.
-
there was backup there? and he knew he was unarmed? how?
The original article, and some others in the local media, mention that at the time he was shot, Mr. Slater was wearing only underwear and slippers, and was approaching the deputy with nothing in his hands. I am going to hazard a guess that a reasonable person would have been able to determine that Mr. Slater was not concealing any weapons in his underwear, although I have read nothing on that very point.
-
and there is always this oddity
beloved family member was too scary for his family to deal with so they call cops.
then when cops deal with him mr scary is suddenly harmless