Author Topic: Deputy shoots home owner after alarm call (Read 2554 times)

Jocassee · « **on:** June 14, 2019, 11:26:58 AM »

Local to me. Not enough info in the article but we can speculate.

https://www.wyff4.com/article/greenville-co-deputy-shoots-gunman-during-call-about-panic-alarm-sheriffs-office-says/28030959

Quote

SIMPSONVILLE, S.C. —
A Greenville County deputy shot a homeowner who pointed a gun to him Thursday night in in Simpsonville, according to the sheriff's office.

The deputy was responding to a call just before midnight about a panic alarm activation on Eastcrest Drive.

Advertisement
When the deputy went to the door of the home, he was met by the homeowner who pointed a handgun at him, Lt. Ryan Flood, public information officer with the sheriff's office said.

makattak · « **Reply #1 on:** June 14, 2019, 11:55:11 AM »

While it is possible the homeowner "pointed a gun" at the deputy, previous news stories make me doubt that version of events.

I think it just as likely the homeowner answered a door with a gun in his hand and the deputy started shooting. That seems to be more in line with police S.O.P.

Ben · « **Reply #2 on:** June 14, 2019, 11:59:50 AM »

We definitely need more info, but if I were a homeowner and police were responding to my 911 call*, I would definitely not have a gun in my hand when they showed up. In fact I would tell them that I was the homeowner and had a gun and would ask them how they wanted to proceed. That might not be the "free American" thing to do, but it might be the "still alive American" thing to do.

Unless this was a monitored alarm and maybe the alarm company dispatched police and the homeowner didn't know?

MechAg94 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 14, 2019, 12:22:42 PM »

Not sure what happened, but I am curious how he opened the door. Did he crack it and talk to the officer or did he just swing it open (since it is the cops) and Surprise!?

I have never been in that situation, but I think it might be wise to talk to the officer before revealing you have a gun or maybe putting the gun somewhere besides in your hand before fully opening the door. I guess I am focused on what I can do to avoid this since I can't control which officer shows up at my door.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 14, 2019, 12:24:00 PM »

Do you know if they have body cameras in that department?

K Frame · « **Reply #5 on:** June 14, 2019, 12:32:22 PM »

"We definitely need more info,"

No we don't.

BAD COP! NO DONUT!

Had to be said...

Pb · « **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2019, 10:58:04 AM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on June 14, 2019, 12:24:00 PM

Do you know if they have body cameras in that department?

I sure hope so. Could be a good or a bad shoot, we don't know. Sounds like a tragedy in any event, but we don't know if the stupidity is from the cop or the homeowner.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #7 on:** June 15, 2019, 01:23:24 PM »

Quote from: BTR on June 15, 2019, 10:58:04 AM

I sure hope so. Could be a good or a bad shoot, we don't know. Sounds like a tragedy in any event, but we don't know if the stupidity is from the cop or the homeowner.

Or both.

cordex · « **Reply #8 on:** June 16, 2019, 09:19:57 AM »

In my area these cases are usually handled by the 911 call taker staying on the phone with the homeowner until the police are on scene. At that point the homeowner is told that the cops are there and to put the gun down and answer the door.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 16, 2019, 07:01:42 PM »

Quote from: cordex on June 16, 2019, 09:19:57 AM

In my area these cases are usually handled by the 911 call taker staying on the phone with the homeowner until the police are on scene. At that point the homeowner is told that the cops are there and to put the gun down and answer the door.

There are a lot of people who advise not staying on the phone with 911. There is good and bad with that.

Jocassee · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2019, 12:08:56 PM »

Updates to this story.

Watch here:
https://www.wyff4.com/article/greenville-county-sheriffs-office-issues-new-statement-on-deputy-involved-shooting-on-eastcrest-drive-in-simpsonville/28556109

My thoughts.

First, I'm really glad the dude survived. If he hadn't this would be so much worse, bad as it is already.
Second - I think no matter what, this was a bad shoot. It's not actually obvious from the video that the home owner pointed the gun at the officer when he turned around. Maybe he had it in "low ready?"
Third - it looks like the CPAP app on the guys phone - we have discussed these here I believe - was configured to send a "silent panic" alarm to the alarm co which was then fed to the GCSO. That's not a recipe for a positive outcome, even though I believe the cop still made the wrong decision. Did the cop arrive at the home expecting an active home invasion or a hostage situation? It would not surprise me if that was the case.
Fourth, besides grossly misstating the facts in their initial statement, the County's commentary on the video is attempting to prejudice the viewer and is pretty scummy.

As it is, the county, and probably the CPAP company, will end up taking it in the shorts, which is proper in my view.

What do you guys think?

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2019, 12:30:17 PM »

So a homeowner is inside his "castle." An unknown individual outside illuminates the homeowner with a flashlight (which, since it was a cop, we can safely assume was pretty bright). The resident then turns toward the door with a firearm in his hand -- which he had every right to do -- so the deputy opened fire.

Bad shoot. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. The deputy was trigger happy.

castle key · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2019, 01:54:08 PM »

Sometimes shootings are not good or bad, just a tragic mess.

With regards to the freedom of opening your door holding a pistol, that may be so, but deconfliction is a critical tactics element.

Having worked old clothes as a police officer, I can assure you that identification of friend/foe can be difficult.

Not all police shootings are bad.....

I can assure you that the involved officer is a mess and facing months if not years of investigatory stuff as well as a lifetime of doubts.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2019, 02:19:18 PM »

Quote from: castle key on July 31, 2019, 01:54:08 PM

Sometimes shootings are not good or bad, just a tragic mess.

With regards to the freedom of opening your door holding a pistol, that may be so, but deconfliction is a critical tactics element.

But this guy didn't open the door holding a pistol. He was inside the house, the door was closed, and he was ten feet away from the door. The cop shot him through the sidelight.

Trigger happy cop. This is the inevitable result of the "The important thing is that I go home at the end of my shift" mentality that pervades law enforcement these days.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2019, 03:00:13 PM »

I don't think the shooting was justified in this case. At the least, the county is liable for damages and do some retraining. IMO, the best course of action was to step to the side and communicate. IMO, officers should expect armed homeowners coming to the door after dark. There was no evidence or indication of a crime or illegal activity and the call to to the Sheriff's office was for a medical alert. Now just saying it was not justified doesn't mean I think he should go to prison. At the least it means the county owes him medical bills, recovery, and lost wages.

We have seen other incidents like this, but most of them involved actual reports of crimes occurring. This sounds a lot like the Georgia case where the officer fired through the window after a fake 911 call had police snooping around the house waking everyone up.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 31, 2019, 03:02:35 PM »

I think this also makes me think about the down side of having clear windows near the door. At night, I think people can see in better than you can see out.

makattak · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2019, 03:07:35 PM »

Quote from: makattak on June 14, 2019, 11:55:11 AM

While it is possible the homeowner "pointed a gun" at the deputy, previous news stories make me doubt that version of events.

I think it just as likely the homeowner answered a door with a gun in his hand and the deputy started shooting. That seems to be more in line with police S.O.P.

So, I just wanted to highlight who had the crystal ball here.

Apparently, I was giving the police too much credit. The homeowner hadn't even answered the door before getting shot.

makattak · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2019, 03:08:31 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 31, 2019, 03:02:35 PM

I think this also makes me think about the down side of having clear windows near the door. At night, I think people can see in better than you can see out.

Especially with a flashlight shining on them.

cordex · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2019, 03:09:58 PM »

Given the provided information I tend to agree with castle key.

There are times in which circumstances outside of the control of the participants can result in tragedy not the direct fault of any of the participants. In this case the alarm company appears to have communicated an alarm incorrectly in a manner that primed the responding deputy to treat the situation as more dangerous. This, followed by the inability of either the alarm company or dispatch to reach the homeowner increases the possibility that the reported alarm is valid. When the cop and the homeowner met at the door, neither knew who the other was and both were operating under the same legitimate concern that the other might be a threat. In the homeowner's case he saw someone poking around his doorway in the middle of the night and was unaware of any reason police might be there so he prudently armed himself. The cop sees someone moving around in the house with a firearm when the homeowner was reportedly unreachable and had ostensibly activated a silent panic alarm. At that time he reasonably believed the person he saw turning around with a gun might be an active threat.

Any of the participants could have changed the outcome by behaving differently. The homeowner could have answered his phone or set up his alarm system differently. The cop could waited longer to respond or responded differently, although that might have increased the risk to him or others in the home. The alarm company could have communicated the silent medical alarm (if that, in fact, is what it was) properly instead of as a silent panic alarm. All that said, as far as responsibility for the shooting I don't fault the homeowner at all and am undecided as to the culpability of the cop. If I were Emperor of the US I'd make the county pay the medical bills and some amount of restitution and let them sue the alarm company to attempt to share that responsibility (if they can show the alarm company incorrectly reported an automated medical alarm as a silent panic alarm).

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 31, 2019, 03:00:13 PM

There was no evidence or indication of a crime or illegal activity and the call to to the Sheriff's office was for a medical alert.

I don't believe this is correct.

Quote from: 911 call

"What is it in reference to?"
"So we received an open silent alarm but there is no answer on callback."
...
"Is it coming from a vehicle, the residence, or what?"
"Um, it was a ... it looks to be ... what is it? ... a panic alarm from a cell phone activation."

Based on the 911 call, the radio call from dispatch to the deputy said it was a "10-44 bravo" which indicates a hold-up alarm:

Quote from: https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Greenville_County_(SC)

10-44 Alarm
   B. Hold-up
   C. Monitor
   D. Silent
   E. Audible
   F. P/C; Number and Location

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 31, 2019, 03:00:13 PM

At the least it means the county owes him medical bills, recovery, and lost wages.

I agree with that.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2019, 03:32:37 PM »

I thought I heard them say it was a medical alert, but maybe that was the narrator. I will have to watch it again later. The narrator at the least said it was a medical alert app on a cell phone.

Either way, I still think the officer shouldn't be making too many assumptions without seeing some indication of it at the location. IMO, it seems they are accepting the real risk of shooting innocent people for the benefit of maybe stopping a crime in progress. That sucks.

I will fall back on what I have said in the past. LEO's should not be rolling in hot based on a 3rd party report. I know they want to be the cavalry coming to the rescue, but if that puts citizens at risk of getting shot, they shouldn't be doing it. LEO's should EXPECT a homeowner to come to the door armed after dark. They should not act like that is unusual.

And I guess the reverse should be considered. If the homeowner was walking to the door, saw a gun and fired at the blinding flashlight, would that be okay? He may have heard his doorbell then saw someone moving around the side of his house which is suspicious.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2019, 03:54:21 PM »

Jocassee, thanks for posting the update. At least, we see there was at least one critical fact wrong in the original article.

Jocassee · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2019, 04:02:28 PM »

Quote from: makattak on June 14, 2019, 11:55:11 AM

While it is possible the homeowner "pointed a gun" at the deputy, previous news stories make me doubt that version of events.

I think it just as likely the homeowner answered a door with a gun in his hand and the deputy started shooting. That seems to be more in line with police S.O.P.

This sadly ended up being 100% correct as far as I can tell.

Jocassee · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2019, 04:04:47 PM »

On the offchance anyone is interested, we will be discussing this on my ~~podcast~~ internet radio show this coming Monday.

https://www.thefrontporchshow.com/

230RN · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2019, 04:16:19 PM »

Freakin' mess.

Ben:
"That might not be the "free American" thing to do, but it might be the "still alive American" thing to do."

Like. Will steal.

If I'm going to open the door with a gun in my hand, that hand and my gun is going to be inside my robe pocket or behind the door (hinged on the right).

The situation with windowed side views of the interior is another confounding variable, but so far it sounds like the householder is going to be calling up an annuity buyer to see what he can get for his hefty settlement.

Terry

cordex · « **Reply #24 on:** July 31, 2019, 04:36:16 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 31, 2019, 03:32:37 PM

I thought I heard them say it was a medical alert, but maybe that was the narrator. I will have to watch it again later. The narrator at the least said it was a medical alert app on a cell phone.

That's great to know in retrospect, but unless they were tampered with prior to release, according to the 911 call and radio broadcast the cop had a very different story.

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 31, 2019, 03:32:37 PM

Either way, I still think the officer shouldn't be making too many assumptions without seeing some indication of it at the location.

I'd note that seeing someone with a drawn handgun on a hold-up alarm call might be considered an indication. It might be wrong, but it could still be an indication and is the kind of analysis they might have literally fractions of a second to make. If a good guy dusts an active shooter and the cops responding see him with a gun they're going to make reasonable - even if tragically wrong - assumptions based on the limited information they have in the limited time they have.

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 31, 2019, 03:32:37 PM

IMO, it seems they are accepting the real risk of shooting innocent people for the benefit of maybe stopping a crime in progress. That sucks.

It does suck when it happens.

But let's be honest, it's the same risk our society takes by allowing you and I to carry guns to defend ourselves. There is a non-zero chance that we might make a mistake and shoot an innocent person for the benefit of maybe stopping a crime in progress. It sucks if we get it wrong, but I believe it is absolutely worthwhile.

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 31, 2019, 03:32:37 PM

I will fall back on what I have said in the past. LEO's should not be rolling in hot based on a 3rd party report. I know they want to be the cavalry coming to the rescue, but if that puts citizens at risk of getting shot, they shouldn't be doing it.

Everything has risks. In this case based on what I've seen I don't think the cop was "rolling in hot", but that based on the information he had available he was more likely to expect someone coming to the door armed to be a threat than had he been told it was a medical emergency.

And the risks of getting unjustly shot by a cop are exceedingly low. Never small enough, to be sure, but way, way, way, lower than the risks of (for instance) driving your car to the grocery store.

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 31, 2019, 03:32:37 PM

LEO's should EXPECT a homeowner to come to the door armed after dark. They should not act like that is unusual.

Agreed.

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 31, 2019, 03:32:37 PM

And I guess the reverse should be considered. If the homeowner was walking to the door, saw a gun and fired at the blinding flashlight, would that be okay? He may have heard his doorbell then saw someone moving around the side of his house which is suspicious.

Okay? No. Just like it wasn't "Okay" that the cop shot the homeowner in this case.
Justified? Maybe. See above.
Understandable? Probably. See above.

Situations where limited or incorrect knowledge leads good people to reasonably make the wrong choices happens on both sides of the badge.

News:

Author Topic: Deputy shoots home owner after alarm call (Read 2554 times)