Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on December 30, 2017, 09:45:16 AM
-
I'm glad to finally see a "swatting" arrest. Especially in this case, where the result was death.
I'm not sure how I feel about the police response that lead to the innocent person's death (shot by a responding cop). I need to see more information before I judge the police response, given the false "swatting" report. I think it's clear though, that the "swatter" should be severely punished. I'm almost thinking a murder charge wouldn't be unreasonable here.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/30/kansas-swatting-suspect-arrested-in-los-angeles.html
-
Tons of news coverage on gamers and swatting, zero on cop shot a guy with no weapon. Much like labor unions, the officer survival movement was a good thing when it started. Very much beyond common sense now and intent is forgotten. If cops just cared about surviving there would be a massive overhaul in how they manage their most dangerous encounter, that is pulling over cars on an interstate. The whole culture is rotten.
-
Tons of news coverage on gamers and swatting, zero on cop shot a guy with no weapon.
Well, as I said, I want to see more information on the cops / innocent guy encounter. It may be an Arizona deal (where I blame the cops), or it may simply be tragic. I can understand the news coverage piling on the "swatting" side, as it was that malevolent behavior that led to the death. Whether the cop who pulled the trigger should be charged with anything remains to be seen. That the "swatter" should be charged with something very serious and have the book thrown at him* is, to me, a given.
*My understanding is that this is not a first offense for the guy. He apparently has done this before.
-
Trigger happy cops. Yes, the [police] culture is rotten. The most important thing today is no longer "To serve and Protect," it has become "At least I go home at the end of my shift."
Yes, the cops received a call and they had to respond. No weapon was displayed -- there was NO justification to shoot. The officer should be arrested and tried. and the clown who made the swatting call should be fried. I read in one article that he was on the Internet, defending himself with, "I didn't kill anybody. I'm not a cop." No, you're not, pal -- you're scum. A dispute over a $1 or $2 bet cost someone not even involved in the dispute his life. That's sickening.
-
cop shot a guy with no weapon.
Many people focus on the fact that there was no weapon, but that it irrelevant. Neither cops nor individuals are required to wait until a weapon is presented before using lethal force. In this case, as in others, it was reported that the individual reached toward his waist band even after the cops told him to keep his hands up. That is a furtive movement. It is well known by cops, and people who do their research, that many people carry guns in their waist bands.
-
Many people focus on the fact that there was no weapon, but that it irrelevant. Neither cops nor individuals are required to wait until a weapon is presented before using lethal force. In this case, as in others, it was reported that the individual reached toward his waist band even after the cops told him to keep his hands up. That is a furtive movement. It is well known by cops, and people who do their research, that many people carry guns in their waist bands.
But there was no weapon. Cops are too trigger happy. I'm sure they were all deployed at a safe distance, behind cover. They could have waited until a weapon was visible before opening fire. Sorry to disagree, but I don't find the fact that there was no weapon to be irrelevant. An innocent man is dead. He had no way of knowing what the cops were outside his house for.
-
But there was no weapon.
As I said, and the courts have upheld, there is no requirement for a weapon to be present or in use before the police act.
How many times per day/week/month/year do cops in the US point their guns at people, but never fire a shot?
-
I do not doubt it is legal, but it is not right. No different than shooting the family pet, the last local one was on a cable run, shot dead anyway. The thug cop hater culture does not excuse and did not create the cop culture that hates all the little people.
Part of it is getting the government we deserve. Elected sheriffs are on a leash. Professional police departments insulated by immunity and lawyers are not. Then we pay police an amount that assures us that anyone fit to be a cop won't be. Maybe this is, maybe it isn't, but there are plenty of bad shoots to pick from. Hard time and city bankrupting lawsuits are the only fix.
-
The CA guy should go down for at least manslaughter. I'd not complain if this became a capital murder case. Teach the punks a lesson.
Any "swatting" call should result in attempted murder charges.
-
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html
This video on this link is not very good, but I don't see any movement toward the waste. All I see is maybe moving the hands to shield his eyes from the spotlight.
-
As I said, and the courts have upheld, there is no requirement for a weapon to be present or in use before the police act.
How many times per day/week/month/year do cops in the US point their guns at people, but never fire a shot?
yes, so why did they fire this time? They were across the street behind cover with rifles. A "furtive movement" is not a threat to them at all even if he did have a gun on him.
I agree the SWAT'er needs to be fried, but the cop who fired should be up on charges also. This was not a justified shoot.
-
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html
This video on this link is not very good, but I don't see any movement toward the waste. All I see is maybe moving the hands to shield his eyes from the spotlight.
Just watched the video. No "furtive" movement. Hands were nowhere near his waist. Bad shoot -- the cop should fry (along with the twerp who made the swatting call).
-
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html
This video on this link is not very good, but I don't see any movement toward the waste. All I see is maybe moving the hands to shield his eyes from the spotlight.
Well, their they're there was movement towards the waste. Just not the waist.
-
I'm sorry, but you guys must have excellent vision, because I can't barely see squat in that video.
"In the audio of the 911 call, the caller claimed his father had been shot in the head and that he was holding his mother and a sibling at gunpoint. The caller added that he poured gasoline inside the home and "might just set it on fire.""
From the cops perspective, he's dealing with a man who's already murdered one victim and has poured gas around the house.
I'm not saying it was or was not a good shoot, but I'm not going to be quick to judge his actions on this particular case.
I do want to know why they went to the wrong house. Did the gamer that Swatted the guy get the wrong address or did the police go to the wrong house?
-
The gamer on the other side of the argument gave the SWAT'er a wrong address.
-
Given what is possible today, I do not think cops have the right to show up on site assuming what was reported is true without seeing proof. This is no better than the cases we have discussed of SWAT teams breaking down doors for the same reason.
Even if he was waving his arms around, it doesn't justify a shoot. The police were at some distance away behind cover, not a few feet away. The burden of proof goes up to show cause just like it would for us if we shot someone at a distance.
-
The gamer on the other side of the argument gave the SWAT'er a wrong address.
Even more glad the guy is getting charged.
Regardless of the police issue, they really do need to start coming down HARD on the people pulling these stunts.
-
In my opinion the SWATer needs to be dead.
Enough playing around with this kind of bullshit.
You cause the death of an innocent person through an intentional act, *expletive deleted*ck you, you get to die as well.
Game over bitch.
-
Regardless of the police issue, they really do need to start coming down HARD on the people pulling these stunts.
This.
Automatic aggravated assault charge even if the PD becomes aware it's a swatting incident before units are dispatched. If there is injury, attempted murder. If a death occurs, murder with an automatic life/no parole sentence at the very least. This is irresposibility on an intentionally malevolent scale. Reward it with an equally harsh punishment.
Brad
-
In my opinion the SWATer needs to be dead.
Enough playing around with this kind of bullshit.
You cause the death of an innocent person through an intentional act, *expletive deleted*ck you, you get to die as well.
Game over bitch.
Not to mention the legit calls going unanswered because the police are all tied up. Imagine being the person getting beaten, raped or whatnot while the SWAT team is cleaning up across town because of a "prank" call.
-
Criminal charges are in order for the guy who made the swatting call.
As they should be for the guy who actually pulled the trigger and actually killed the unarmed victim.
-
Criminal charges are in order for the guy who made the swatting call.
As they should be for the guy who actually pulled the trigger and actually killed the unarmed victim.
Premeditated murder for the swatter. (bonus points if they seek the death penalty, even if that's an overreach) Less for the cop; I don't know how much less cuz I'm not familiar with the facts of the case.
I thought they should have done the same thing for the fake 911 call that got John Crawford III killed.
-
If cops just cared about surviving there would be a massive overhaul in how they manage their most dangerous encounter, that is pulling over cars on an interstate.
Quoted for Truth and Emphasis
-
The gamer on the other side of the argument gave the SWAT'er a wrong address.
He needs to be charged with something as well.
-
He needs to be charged with something as well.
What exactly? Just making up an address isn't a crime. He had no duty not to lie to the person demanding the address.
Unless it can be proved he knew he was giving out an address that would get someone targeted he hasn't ethically done anything wrong. Of course ethics and what's actually in the penal code can vary.
Sure he was an idiot for getting into this beef in the first place but it's a reach to say he committed a criminal act.
-
Cop should be charged with murder as well. They were over 100 feet away behind cover.
-
It's easy to use 20/20 hindsight and fault the cop.
Remember they only knew what dispatch had told them. One person already killed, others hostages with a gun to their heads, gasoline poured all over the house.
It's not "Go Home at the end of my shift", it's "Prevent more loss of innocent life." You arrive with the mind set that this situation is already a *expletive deleted*it show. If you don't stop this guy, several more people will die. Once he's killed someone the rules of engagement change from a hostage situation (where no one has been killed or hurt) to he's crossed that line, and that can't be undone.
-
They showed up and shot a man to death without first doing any kind of investigation into what was actually happening.
If the police just think there's some sort of exigent circumstances they can shoot whomever?
What if it was a hostage seeing his chance to escape? What if it was the pizza guy leaving after making his delivery? What if it was a kid? What if it was a mom holding a child and the shooter claimed that a helicopter was in danger?
This was, at best, gross incompetence.
-
They showed up and shot a man to death without first doing any kind of investigation into what was actually happening.
If the police just think there's some sort of exigent circumstances they can shoot whomever?
What if it was a hostage seeing his chance to escape? What if it was the pizza guy leaving after making his delivery? What if it was a kid? What if it was a mom holding a child and the shooter claimed that a helicopter was in danger?
This was, at best, gross incompetence.
Guy was told to keep his hands up...He didn't.
And this group would be howling for their heads if they showed up and bad guy shoots all the other family members and torches the house. Show of hands. How many of you had to respond to a (potential) *expletive deleted*it show, with little (or in this case bad) info, and had to make things right with no one getting hurt. Until you've been there, STFU.
-
Guy was told to keep his hands up...He didn't.
Why does he have to? Some guy yells at you from across the street and you have to obey? Or you die? No. Cops get way to much leeway here. Again the cops did not investigate. They did not know who was in the house they essentially shot a random person for the "crime" of not being fully aware of the situation.
And the whole "he was reaching for his waistband" thing is total BS. That's where your hands naturally go. It's an easy excuse to use to shoot somebody.
-
. . . It's not "Go Home at the end of my shift", it's "Prevent more loss of innocent life."
And yet the only innocent life lost is the one the police took.
I'm starting to think an appropriate punishment would make the "prankster" AND the cop who ACTUALLY KILLED AN INNOCENT MAN cellmates for a number of years . . .
-
I want to see the swatter's face livestreamed over the internet as he's informed that he's being charged with capital murder via felony murder rules, and that the death penalty is a possibility.
Not that I actually support him being charged that way, I just want to see his reaction.
You know, like on the faces of the innocent people he previously did this to.
-
Guy was told to keep his hands up...He didn't.
And this group would be howling for their heads if they showed up and bad guy shoots all the other family members and torches the house. Show of hands. How many of you had to respond to a (potential) *expletive deleted*it show, with little (or in this case bad) info, and had to make things right with no one getting hurt. Until you've been there, STFU.
I am not a police officer nor have I ever been, but had I pulled the trigger on someone under those circumstances (as a non-LEO), I would be in prison.
I also have a problem with this idea that cops should automatically believe whatever is told them on a 911 call and just go in guns blazing. This is a great example of why they shouldn't do that.
-
Thinking about this I keep imagining I am in the position where a bunch of police just rolled up to my house after being told some horrible crime was in progress. I am trying to come up with a scenario where I wouldn't get shot. The first thing I can think of is don't go outside the house and call 911. If I am already in the spotlights it seems my options are limited. If I move they might shoot me. If I don't move they might shoot me. It shouldn't be that way.
-
Why does he have to? Some guy yells at you from across the street and you have to obey? Or you die? No. Cops get way to much leeway here. Again the cops did not investigate. They did not know who was in the house they essentially shot a random person for the "crime" of not being fully aware of the situation.
And the whole "he was reaching for his waistband" thing is total BS. That's where your hands naturally go. It's an easy excuse to use to shoot somebody.
Yes, it's easy to Monday morning QB this.
Investigate how ?? All you know is one person shot and killed, others being held at gunpoint, and the house is drenched in Gasoline. How do you "investigate" without potentially getting "hostages" killed or burned to death ??
The cops are in a no-win situation (which is often the case). I know Cordex frequently participates in police exercises. I'd like his perspective, then IU give you my experience on the wrong end of that scenario.
-
What exactly? Just making up an address isn't a crime. He had no duty not to lie to the person demanding the address.
Unless it can be proved he knew he was giving out an address that would get someone targeted he hasn't ethically done anything wrong. Of course ethics and what's actually in the penal code can vary.
Sure he was an idiot for getting into this beef in the first place but it's a reach to say he committed a criminal act.
The guy who is arrested was known for SWATing people previously, and if the guy who was the intended SWATee knew this, then yes, he is partially responsible for the outcome, especially since he did not simple give him "123 Nosuch Street, Whoville", but instead gave a legit adress to the guy.
-
Cop should be charged with murder as well. They were over 100 feet away behind cover.
The cop with the body cam was, yes, but the cover officers were close to the house.
-
They showed up and shot a man to death without first doing any kind of investigation into what was actually happening.
If the police just think there's some sort of exigent circumstances they can shoot whomever?
What if it was a hostage seeing his chance to escape? What if it was the pizza guy leaving after making his delivery? What if it was a kid? What if it was a mom holding a child and the shooter claimed that a helicopter was in danger?
This was, at best, gross incompetence.
How long were the police on scene before the guy came out of the house? Do you know the exact timeline?
Did the man come out voluntarily or was he told/requested to come out by the police?
-
Going back to the swatter, I'm curious as to what our legal beagles with experience on the criminal justice side think the charges will be, or could be?
I'm part of the APS western justice "hang 'em high" contingent for crap like this, but if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. :)
Is it actually possible to stick a murder rap of some degree on the guy? Again, emotionally I would like to see one. In reality it seems maybe manslaughter is a reasonable charge? If it's something like criminal mischief, I'll certainly get riled up.
-
Guy was told to keep his hands up...He didn't.
He didn't? Granted, it's not the best video in the world, but I watched it multiple times. I didn't see his hands go below shoulder level. I certainly didn't see any "furtive movement" toward his waist. That's just a cover story for the cops. Unfortunately, given the poor quality of the video, it's going to be hard to prove what the officer who fired the shot saw -- or thought he saw. I'm satisfied that the thin blue line has already tightened up the ranks to (once again) protect one of their own who screwed the pooch.
IMHO the cop was trigger happy ... in extremis.
Meanwhile, the guy who allegedly made the call looks like a real model citizen:
https://www.click2houston.com/news/national/swatting-case-poses-legal-challenges-for-police-prosecutors
-
Why does he have to?
And the whole "he was reaching for his waistband" thing is total BS. That's where your hands naturally go. It's an easy excuse to use to shoot somebody.
Putting his hands up and listening to the commands is what a reasonable person would do.
Yes, hands naturally go to the waistband. That is also where people put guns. 1 + 1 = 2.
-
Yes, it's easy to Monday morning QB this.
Investigate how ?? All you know is one person shot and killed, others being held at gunpoint, and the house is drenched in Gasoline. How do you "investigate" without potentially getting "hostages" killed or burned to death ??
Correction -- you don't "know" any of this. You only know that this is what someone has told your dispatch center. You can't ignore it -- that's why you're there. But you also can't automatically assume that it's true without at least some indications to support the veracity of what the caller told dispatch. It's like the "man with a gun" calls when a libtard sees a licensed gun owner carrying in a Walmart and calls the cops. Instead of immediately calling out the SWAT team, the dispatcher should be doing some preliminary investigation by asking pointed questions. And if there was anything that actually looked like a threat, the entire team would have lit him up.
But there was only ONE shot.
Here, of course, the nature of the call was different. But the result was that an innocent man was killed, and his family was left without their husband/son/father, even though there was NO indication that a police officer or anyone else was in any immediate danger. The guy was standing in the open front door. His hands were empty. Even if there were hostages within the house, and even if the house was dosed with gasoline -- where was the IMMEDIATE danger that warranted shooting him?
I'm going to make another scientific wild-ass guess: I don't think the cop intended to shoot him. I think the cop had his finger on the trigger when it shouldn't have been, and that the one shot that was fired was a mistake. How many cops were there -- all with guns drawn and trained on that doorway? Yet there was only ONE shot. Cops these days are trained to shoot "until the threat is neutralized," which typically means until slide lock. I think if this cop had fired intentionally, there would have been at least three shots, not one. That's if he was using a rifle. If it was a handgun, he would have emptied the magazine.
-
Given what is possible today, I do not think cops have the right to show up on site assuming what was reported is true without seeing proof. This is no better than the cases we have discussed of SWAT teams breaking down doors for the same reason.
We had an attempt here a few months ago. There happened to be a deputy less than a mile from the address, so he rolled in dark and quiet, just out of sight of the house and walked in for a look while waiting for backup. Looked in a window and saw a couple sitting on the couch, watching TV and drinking coffee. Had dispatch verify the address, then called off his backup had them call the cell company for the caller's phone while he was still on the line. Total non-event locally, though I understand there was a lot of excitement for LE in the town the phone was traced to; apparently the caller got exactly the response he was trying for, but at his own house.
Amazing what doesn't happen when you do a little old fashioned information gathering rather than grabbing every opportunity to bust out the tacticool toys.
-
The cops are in a no-win situation (which is often the case). I know Cordex frequently participates in police exercises. I'd like his perspective, then IU give you my experience on the wrong end of that scenario.
I'm not sure I can really contribute anything to judging what went on in the video since when I watched it I couldn't see beans. Thus I've got no firm opinion on whether or not in this case it was a justified shoot on the part of the cop. If anyone watched that video and came up with a sure and certain verdict (as a number of us apparently have) then they've apparently got much better eyes than I have to say nothing of their TV-show worthy video processing software. Regardless of whether or not it was justified, it absolutely sucks that an innocent man was killed because of some petty argument between some man-children.
This scenario is a particularly sucky one because the appropriate response to the situation as described is absolutely wrong for the situation that actually existed and vice versa. In this case, that disparity does not appear to be the fault of the cops.
As far as speculation ...
Why does he have to? Some guy yells at you from across the street and you have to obey? Or you die? No.
If you're being held at gunpoint by multiple police as a suspect in an active shooter call, yes. Yes you do. Or you die. You freeze in position with your hands as high above your head as they can go and you do absolutely nothing else except slowly and deliberately in response to direct orders. And, as we've seen in other incidents, you still might die because it is always dangerous to have guns pointed at you.
Being held at gunpoint is the absolute wrong time to put on your "YOU AIN'T THE BOSS OF ME" pants. When you're a sneeze or startle-reflex from dying it's probably best to think very carefully about every movement. If you want to survive the event so you can hire an attorney to sue the city for all they're worth then you shouldn't get petulant and defiant.
Again the cops did not investigate. They did not know who was in the house they essentially shot a random person for the "crime" of not being fully aware of the situation.
Don't be ridiculous. The report was for a murder and active shooting event. I'd love to hear your educated opinion on how the police should be expected to conduct an in-depth investigation before the scene has been secured.
I am not a police officer nor have I ever been, but had I pulled the trigger on someone under those circumstances (as a non-LEO), I would be in prison.
Without commenting on the specific circumstances shown in the dark, grainy, and low-resolution footage we've got in this case, non-LEOs who have killed an innocent person while justifiably in fear for their lives often go free too.
Correction -- you don't "know" any of this. You only know that this is what someone has told your dispatch center. You can't ignore it -- that's why you're there. But you also can't automatically assume that it's true without at least some indications to support the veracity of what the caller told dispatch. It's like the "man with a gun" calls when a libtard sees a licensed gun owner carrying in a Walmart and calls the cops. Instead of immediately calling out the SWAT team, the dispatcher should be doing some preliminary investigation by asking pointed questions.
1. In a case of a reported murder, intended arson, and active shooter, you want the dispatcher to react incredulously and delay the response? Huh. Tell me more about your (obviously) well-informed theories on emergency response.
2. I don't know how it works everywhere, but in our neck of the woods the dispatchers don't have a lot of freedom when it comes to call triage (likely for liability reasons). As I understand it, the way it works is there is a call taker who exclusively communicates with the caller. Their conversation is monitored by a dispatcher who then actually gets on the radio and communicates the situation to police and can ask the call taker to request additional information. Often by the time the call is dispatched the caller is no longer even on the phone and if additional details are needed they have to call back. If someone reports something that is not actually illegal the cop can radio back that no crime has been reported, but if someone demands a police response the cops are essentially required to respond. Even if it is "that guy" or "that gal" who always calls in worthless crap. As an example, there was a road rage incident locally where during the interaction one party got out of his car and lifted his shirt to expose a gun. Then got back in his car and drove away. In our state if it ends there then nothing illegal has taken place, so in response to the call the cops radioed back to dispatch and said as much. The reporting party demanded that they respond anyway so they did but there was nothing to act on.
3. Of course the police don't "know" anything when they responded. Before they can investigate they have to secure the scene. When the scene in question is reported to involve someone who has actually killed and threatened further murders they're going to rightfully handle it differently than a report of aggravated jaywalking or litter with intent. Once the scene has been secured, then they can start sorting out the truth.
And if there was anything that actually looked like a threat, the entire team would have lit him up.
But there was only ONE shot.
So your insight is that a single shot proves even harder (since you'd already convicted the cop in your mind) that these were trigger-happy cops? Sure, a single shot may have been negligent but it also shows significant training and restraint on behalf of their team.
Let's put you in a scenario holding someone at gunpoint. You're standing near a friend that you trust with your life who also has a gun on the bad guy. If your buddy start shooting do you just stand there because you can't see exactly why they're shooting, or do you join in? I'd probably trust that they saw something that I didn't see and join in. It's called sympathetic fire and it is extremely common in police and (so I've heard) military shootings. That in this case it didn't go further than one shot tells me that at least the rest of the team was not allowing themselves to succumb to shooting based on startle reflex or sympathetic fire.
What's funny is that if the whole team had blasted the guy into the dirt, I'm guessing you would have lambasted them for that too.
-
What exactly? Just making up an address isn't a crime. He had no duty not to lie to the person demanding the address.
Unless it can be proved he knew he was giving out an address that would get someone targeted he hasn't ethically done anything wrong. Of course ethics and what's actually in the penal code can vary.
Sure he was an idiot for getting into this beef in the first place but it's a reach to say he committed a criminal act.
I presume you are being satirical. Otherwise I'm seriously concerned with your grasp of right and wrong.
The guy made a phone call he knew would result in an armed response. He escalated the situation by claiming to no only be armed, but also having had already shot one person. It matters not one whit what address was given.
A) The actions were intentional, considered, and knowingly malicious. B) The actions were directed at a specific individual. C) The actions directly resulted in the death of an innocent person. The textbook definition of First Degree Murder is "...homicide that is willful, premeditated, and with malice and aforethought." The actions in this case meet all those criteria.
Brad
-
I presume you are being satirical. Otherwise I'm seriously concerned with your grasp of right and wrong.
The guy made a phone call he knew would result in an armed response. He escalated the situation by claiming to no only be armed, but also having had already shot one person. It matters not one whit what address was given.
A) The actions were intentional, considered, and knowingly malicious. B) The actions were directed at a specific individual. C) The actions directly resulted in the death of an innocent person. The textbook definition of First Degree Murder is "...homicide that is willful, premeditated, and with malice and aforethought." The actions in this case meet all those criteria.
In Warren's defense, I think he's referring to the intended victim of the SWATting, not the caller. No one here is denying that the caller did something wrong here.
Gamer A got angry at Gamer B and told Gamer B to give him an address. Gamer B gave him a false address. Gamer A reported a murder, etc. at that address.
Viking said Gamer B had some culpability. Warren is saying he's not sure Gamer B did anything wrong.
-
In Warren's defense, I think he's referring to the intended victim of the SWATting, not the caller. No one here is denying that the caller did something wrong here.
Gamer A got angry at Gamer B and told Gamer B to give him an address. Gamer B gave him a false address. Gamer A reported a murder, etc. at that address.
Viking said Gamer B had some culpability. Warren is saying he's not sure Gamer B did anything wrong.
In that case I agree. Gamer B has no culpability. Giving a false address in this case is no different than someone giving out a fake phone number to get a drunk out of their hair at a bar. All culpability rests on Gamer A's shoulders.
And to Warren, an apology for jumping to conclusions.
Brad
-
Everone's being kinda cautious about it, but it looks like the call might have come from Tyler Barriss, 25. He was arrested Friday in Los Angeles in connection with the Wichita incident.
Terry
-
Did he know they were cops?
Did he understand what was said?
Did he even hear what was said?
He was thrust into a situation not of his making and because he did not behave exactly as the cop wanted he died. That is a ridiculous, unfair, and unjust standard to apply to people. Especially in an allegedly free country.
And I didn't say in-depth investigation. Just a cursory check, maybe peeking through the windows, maybe quietly asking the neighbors if they heard anything, maybe a phone call. But not just immediately shooting whatever person that happens to appear in the doorway.
And maybe just maybe since cops have known about swatting for awhile now they can be just a little skeptical about some calls?
-
And I didn't say in-depth investigation. Just a cursory check, maybe peeking through the windows, maybe quietly asking the neighbors if they heard anything, maybe a phone call.
Exactly; dense residential and nobody reported a gunshot? Nothing visible at all? Maybe shut down the disco lights a couple blocks out and make a bit more subtle approach to see what's really going on.
Hell, the 911 call, if anything, screams ambush. Anybody that planned one out like that may have mined the obvious cover, and/or just be somewhere else in a good sniping position.
-
Did he know they were cops?
In the video, there appears to be a cop car parked next to the house. Also, the flashing red and blue lights on the cruisers might have been a clue.
Did he understand what was said?
Did he even hear what was said?
He was thrust into a situation not of his making and because he did not behave exactly as the cop wanted he died. That is a ridiculous, unfair, and unjust standard to apply to people. Especially in an allegedly free country.
How much does he need to hear and understand? Flashing cop lights + people yelling = something bad is happening.
And I didn't say in-depth investigation. Just a cursory check, maybe peeking through the windows, maybe quietly asking the neighbors if they heard anything, maybe a phone call.
Again, do you know the timeline of events? AFAIK, the police haven't released that information. Maybe the cops did take a minute to look around and asess. Or maybe they just rolled up on a house and shot the first person they saw.
How many SWATting calls are responded to every year? I don't know. I only hear about the ones that went south. Maybe, just maybe, cops do their jobs correctly most of the time and we only hear about these rare events because they are rare.
-
We had an attempt here a few months ago. There happened to be a deputy less than a mile from the address, so he rolled in dark and quiet, just out of sight of the house and walked in for a look while waiting for backup. Looked in a window and saw a couple sitting on the couch, watching TV and drinking coffee. Had dispatch verify the address, then called off his backup had them call the cell company for the caller's phone while he was still on the line. Total non-event locally, though I understand there was a lot of excitement for LE in the town the phone was traced to; apparently the caller got exactly the response he was trying for, but at his own house.
Amazing what doesn't happen when you do a little old fashioned information gathering rather than grabbing every opportunity to bust out the tacticool toys.
Smart deputy. That man deserves a medal. It's not often you can be a hero for NOT doing something "heroic," but this seems to fit perfectly.
-
1. In a case of a reported murder, intended arson, and active shooter, you want the dispatcher to react incredulously and delay the response? Huh. Tell me more about your (obviously) well-informed theories on emergency response.
I clearly stated that this call was different from a "man with a gun at Walmart" call. That doesn't alter the fact that the responding officers did NOT "know" there was a murder-hostage situation. They could not possibly have known that, because there wasn't one. All they knew was what the dispatcher told them.
As I understand it, the way it works is there is a call taker who exclusively communicates with the caller. Their conversation is monitored by a dispatcher who then actually gets on the radio and communicates the situation to police and can ask the call taker to request additional information.
I haven't been in every police department in my county but I have been in more than two -- in the dispatch area. I've never seen or even heard of a police dispatch being operated that way.
What's funny is that if the whole team had blasted the guy into the dirt, I'm guessing you would have lambasted them for that too.
Well, considering that he was completely innocent -- yes, I would.
-
In the video, there appears to be a cop car parked next to the house. Also, the flashing red and blue lights on the cruisers might have been a clue.
How much does he need to hear and understand? Flashing cop lights + people yelling = something bad is happening.
Again, do you know the timeline of events? AFAIK, the police haven't released that information. Maybe the cops did take a minute to look around and assess. Or maybe they just rolled up on a house and shot the first person they saw.
How many SWATting calls are responded to every year? I don't know. I only hear about the ones that went south. Maybe, just maybe, cops do their jobs correctly most of the time and we only hear about these rare events because they are rare.
Say I'm just sitting in my home in a perfectly law abiding manner minding my own damn business. Now lets say I see police lights shining through the window.
I'm likely to go see what the hell is going on. Now, I know that I haven't done anything illegal. I might be wondering which one of my neighbors has screwed up.
I open my door, hear a bunch of yelling and before I can process WTF is going on I'm dead.
But of course the police were just doing their job so that makes it OK.
-
Say I'm just sitting in my home in a perfectly law abiding manner minding my own damn business. Now lets say I see police lights shining through the window.
I'm likely to go see what the hell is going on. Now, I know that I haven't done anything illegal. I might be wondering which one of my neighbors has screwed up.
I open my door, hear a bunch of yelling and before I can process WTF is going on I'm dead.
But of course the police were just doing their job so that makes it OK.
What he said.
-
How much does he need to hear and understand? Flashing cop lights + people yelling = something bad is happening.
Well, the guy in Arizona tried to comply and still got shot. Innocent until proven guilty only applies in a courtroom I guess.
I would like to see full video so we can get an idea of the timeline of events. That would certainly help. I would be curious if more video is out there as well.
-
Say I'm just sitting in my home in a perfectly law abiding manner minding my own damn business. Now lets say I see police lights shining through the window.
I'm likely to go see what the hell is going on. Now, I know that I haven't done anything illegal. I might be wondering which one of my neighbors has screwed up.
I open my door, hear a bunch of yelling and before I can process WTF is going on I'm dead.
But of course the police were just doing their job so that makes it OK.
You could look out your window. You could stay inside and not get involved. You could get on the phone and call the local police and ask them why a bunch of cops are at your house.
I bet the first words the police said were something very similar to, “Police! Put your hands up! Don’t move.” Can you process that? In the video, the man was outside his home for about 10 seconds before he was shot. Is 10 seconds long enough to process the situation?
I don’t think anything can make this a “good” shoot, but I do think the officer was within his legal authority to use lethal force.
-
Well, the guy in Arizona tried to comply and still got shot. Innocent until proven guilty only applies in a courtroom I guess.
I would like to see full video so we can get an idea of the timeline of events. That would certainly help. I would be curious if more video is out there as well.
The guy crawling on the floor? Bad police work, but justifiable use of force.
-
The guy crawling on the floor? Bad police work, but justifiable use of force.
No, it wasn't. There was no threat. He had surrendered already. They created the situation where he was a threat and shot him for movements only with no weapon or threat visible. It was murder.
-
You could look out your window. You could stay inside and not get involved. You could get on the phone and call the local police and ask them why a bunch of cops are at your house.
I bet the first words the police said were something very similar to, “Police! Put your hands up! Don’t move.” Can you process that? In the video, the man was outside his home for about 10 seconds before he was shot. Is 10 seconds long enough to process the situation?
I don’t think anything can make this a “good” shoot, but I do think the officer was within his legal authority to use lethal force.
IMO, it becomes a case where the cops created the situation they are defending themselves from. I have trouble classifying that as "good".
-
IMO, it becomes a case where the cops created the situation they are defending themselves from. I have trouble classifying that as "good".
Cops always create those situations; it is their job.
-
No, it wasn't. There was no threat. He had surrendered already. They created the situation where he was a threat and shot him for movements only with no weapon or threat visible. It was murder.
Until he is cuffed and searched, he is a threat.
-
I would revise my statements to say I think they are bad shoots. The specific charges are not up to me. And I pray that neither myself or any of you ever end up in that situation.
-
Until he is cuffed and searched, he is a threat.
Which they were free to do at any time after he went prone, but they chose to have him play Twister and shot him.
-
Cops always create those situations; it is their job.
Think about that next time you walk past a police officer. Watch where you move your hands. =)
-
Think about that next time you walk past a police officer. Watch where you move your hands. =)
As I do to them. Since neither one of us has intent, all is well.
-
Which they were free to do at any time after he went prone, but they chose to have him play Twister and shot him.
You are correct. You are also welcome to step into their shoes and do their jobs better.
-
You are correct. You are also welcome to step into their shoes and do their jobs better.
Why would I do that? It is easier to just accept that innocent people get killed occasionally so police and do their jobs safely.
I hope everyone has a happy new year.
-
Say I'm just sitting in my home in a perfectly law abiding manner minding my own damn business. Now lets say I see police lights shining through the window.
I'm likely to go see what the hell is going on. Now, I know that I haven't done anything illegal. I might be wondering which one of my neighbors has screwed up.
I open my door, hear a bunch of yelling and before I can process WTF is going on I'm dead.
But of course the police were just doing their job so that makes it OK.
What he said x2.
-
You could look out your window. You could stay inside and not get involved. You could get on the phone and call the local police and ask them why a bunch of cops are at your house.
I bet the first words the police said were something very similar to, “Police! Put your hands up! Don’t move.” Can you process that? In the video, the man was outside his home for about 10 seconds before he was shot. Is 10 seconds long enough to process the situation?
I don’t think anything can make this a “good” shoot, but I do think the officer was within his legal authority to use lethal force.
You live in New Hampshire, correct? Would that be, perhaps, rural New Hampshire? Like, in the woods, in a house on a lot that's probably anywhere from 3 to 10 acres in size? How long is your driveway? How close is your nearest neighbor?
I live in what is now considered a suburb, but when my parents built the house in 1950 it was rural. They evicted a herd of cows to build the house, and there were cornfields across the road until I was in my teens -- at which time the fields went over to hay. My driveway is 100 yards long, and in the summer I can't see a neighbor's house in any direction. I know if the police are at my house, because if they're at even my nearest neighbor's house I won't see or hear them.
The shooting took place in an urban/suburban neighborhood. I'm sure the houses are close enough that if there were more than two police cars, nobody would know which house they were there for until they assessed and saw which house the attention was focused on. It would not be at all unreasonable to think that an innocent man might see the pretty, flashing lights and hear all the commotion and decide to pop open the front door to see what's going on. Remember, he was innocent. He had NO inkling that they were there for him. Given that he was innocent, have you considered that maybe he thought all those shouted commands were directed toward some actual, like, criminal?
-
Even when the weapon mounted lights were trained on him?
Yes, he was innocent. Yes, the police should have done a better job.
But...
At the time of the shooting, with what the responding cops were told via dispatch, and how the man responded, the police were justified in using deadly force. That doesn't make the police right. That doesn't make this a good shoot.
But...
The cops involved are innocent of wrongful action.
-
I clearly stated that this call was different from a "man with a gun at Walmart" call. That doesn't alter the fact that the responding officers did NOT "know" there was a murder-hostage situation. They could not possibly have known that, because there wasn't one. All they knew was what the dispatcher told them.
That's a pedantic point. Yes, you're right, they didn't "know" all the facts of the case, but they never do when they roll up on the scene. That's a red herring. We're talking about how they should respond to a given type of call. You seem to be suggesting they should be incredulous about every significant call they get instead of taking the call seriously.
-
Even when the weapon mounted lights were trained on him?
Yes, he was innocent. Yes, the police should have done a better job.
But...
At the time of the shooting, with what the responding cops were told via dispatch, and how the man responded, the police were justified in using deadly force. That doesn't make the police right. That doesn't make this a good shoot.
But...
The cops involved are innocent of wrongful action.
This...
-
That's a pedantic point. Yes, you're right, they didn't "know" all the facts of the case, but they never do when they roll up on the scene. That's a red herring. We're talking about how they should respond to a given type of call. You seem to be suggesting they should be incredulous about every significant call they get instead of taking the call seriously.
Perhaps not "incredulous" ... but, if we take the word at its literal meaning then, yes ... even "incredulous." What does "incredulous" mean?
Definition of incredulous
1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not credulous : skeptical
2 : incredible 1
3 : expressing incredulity
"Unwilling to accept what is offered as true." Isn't that a poster child for what went wrong here? The cops accepted that the guy at the address they were sent to was a murderer and incipient arsonist, based on nothing more than a telephone call. I don't know if the dispatcher saw a spoofed phone number that appeared to be from the address they were at. If they did, so be it. If they didn't, and didn't check back to see where the call actually came from, more shame on them.
The point is, swatting today is a known phenomenon. Every police department in the country has to know that it happens, and their response plans absolutely need to account for the possibility that any call may be a swatting call. They also need to account for the possibility that every call may be genuine. That complicates their job. I know that. Life today is more complicated for everyone than it was a hundred years ago, fifty years ago, even twenty-five years ago. That's life.
We cannot accept the death of this innocent man as just another case of collateral damage because the police were just doing their job. That doesn't work. An innocent man is DEAD.
-
I don't know if the dispatcher saw a spoofed phone number that appeared to be from the address they were at.
I'm pretty sure that is exactly what SWATting does.
We cannot accept the death of this innocent man as just another case of collateral damage because the police were just doing their job. That doesn't work. An innocent man is DEAD.
You're right. The person responsible for the innocent man's death should pay dearly. That person is the kid who mad the SWAT call.
-
That person is the kid who mad the SWAT call.
Separate from the cop discussion, let's not even call him a kid. I'm guilty, at my age, of calling 20 somethings "kids" myself in normal conversation, but I think it's important to note this was a 25 year old adult.
He wasn't a still developing, half-baked child. He was "fully baked" as Judge Judy likes to say, and needs to fully pay for his crimes as an adult with no, "he just wasn't mature enough to know better" talk by the usual suspects - the same people that say you're a "kid" at 26 so you can stay on mommy and daddy's health insurance, or that a 19 year old murderer is a "teenager".
-
I was kind of shocked to find he (assuming guilt) was 25 years old:
Everone's being kinda cautious about it, but it looks like the call might have come from Tyler Barriss, 25. He was arrested Friday in Los Angeles in connection with the Wichita incident.
If it weren't for the inevitable negative effects on the officers involved, I wouldn't mind hearing about a couple of SWATters reaching for their waistbands when arrested. :grrrr: :eyeroll:
Terry
I don't watch Judge Judy, but I liked that "fully baked" description.
-
"Unwilling to accept what is offered as true." Isn't that a poster child for what went wrong here? The cops accepted that the guy at the address they were sent to was a murderer and incipient arsonist, based on nothing more than a telephone call. I don't know if the dispatcher saw a spoofed phone number that appeared to be from the address they were at. If they did, so be it. If they didn't, and didn't check back to see where the call actually came from, more shame on them.
So you don’t know what exactly they did, but they did it wrong.
The point is, swatting today is a known phenomenon. Every police department in the country has to know that it happens, and their response plans absolutely need to account for the possibility that any call may be a swatting call. They also need to account for the possibility that every call may be genuine. That complicates their job. I know that. Life today is more complicated for everyone than it was a hundred years ago, fifty years ago, even twenty-five years ago. That's life.
It isn’t just that it complicates things, it is that the response for one situation is likely to get someone killed if it is the other.
We cannot accept the death of this innocent man as just another case of collateral damage because the police were just doing their job. That doesn't work. An innocent man is DEAD.
Is this an argument from principle or an emotional argument stemming from your bias against police?
If I were to turn up an innocent person killed in an accident when an ambulance or fire department were driving to a false call would you react similarly in blaming the paramedics and firefighters and demanding they disbelieve any emergency calls?
Sometimes (and again, unlike the crystal ball owners here I can’t say from the available evidence if this is one of those times) everyone can react entirely reasonably and rationally and the situation can still turn out badly.
-
Separate from the cop discussion, let's not even call him a kid. I'm guilty, at my age, of calling 20 somethings "kids" myself in normal conversation, but I think it's important to note this was a 25 year old adult.
Heh, heh. The owner of the range where I shoot often refers to acquaintances as "kids." I always think of a "kid" as being a younger guy, teens up to maybe early 20s. So imagine my surprise when he one day introduced me to a guy he had often referred to as a "kid," and who turned out to be a 50-year old, 300+ pound man with his own FFL, his own security business, and who was a member of the security department at a nearby university. The next time I saw Chris by himself I called him on it.
"Oh, sorry. Yeah, I call everybody 'kid.' "
-
Separate from the cop discussion, let's not even call him a kid. I'm guilty, at my age, of calling 20 somethings "kids" myself in normal conversation, but I think it's important to note this was a 25 year old adult.
He wasn't a still developing, half-baked child. He was "fully baked" as Judge Judy likes to say, and needs to fully pay for his crimes as an adult with no, "he just wasn't mature enough to know better" talk by the usual suspects - the same people that say you're a "kid" at 26 so you can stay on mommy and daddy's health insurance, or that a 19 year old murderer is a "teenager".
I agree. For some reason I thought he was a teen.
-
I would like to know if the cops did ANY recon at all- a phone call to a neighbor, a quick driveby, anything.
To say that cop did nothing wrong -he killed an innocent man. How much more wrong can you get?
The defenders of the cop are all, "in his shoes, how was he to know, etc". Are you willing to give the unwitting victim the same defense? He just walked out his door to see what was going on, BLAM, because he did not do, or did, something some panicky person with a gun interpreted as a threat.
The main question here is this- are we now in a place, where to stay alive, it is necessary to have perfect instant clear understanding of what a cop says, and instant exact obedience to demands.
Would you endorse this shoot if the man was deaf? Impaired with a few beers? What if the orders from several cops conflicted?
how perfect does a citizen have to be to be allowed to live?
A cop was on patrol in my area a few days ago. I stopped to talk with him and for the first time in my life I stuck both hands out the drivers side window so he could see them.
-
okay, say the call was a legit call, not a Swatting and the cops *didn't* shoot the guy when he made a gesture with his hand?
Except the house was soaked in gasoline and the gesture was a lit zippo getting tossed down.
How many of you would be bitching about the cops not acting fast enough to stop psycho guy from torching innocent woman and her two children?
-
Would you endorse this shoot if the man was deaf? Impaired with a few beers? What if the orders from several cops conflicted?
That's actually good food for thought. While my dad is not deaf, he's very hard of hearing, and if he walked out the door to cops yelling at him, he wouldn't understand what they were saying and would likely walk towards them to hear them better, possibly with his hands at his sides. I guess he'd be dead.
-
okay, say the call was a legit call, not a Swatting and the cops *didn't* shoot the guy when he made a gesture with his hand?
Except the house was soaked in gasoline and the gesture was a lit zippo getting tossed down.
How many of you would be bitching about the cops not acting fast enough to stop psycho guy from torching innocent woman and her two children?
THAT is why they have "qualified immunity".
-
okay, say the call was a legit call, not a Swatting and the cops *didn't* shoot the guy when he made a gesture with his hand?
Except the house was soaked in gasoline and the gesture was a lit zippo getting tossed down.
How many of you would be bitching about the cops not acting fast enough to stop psycho guy from torching innocent woman and her two children?
We wouldn't even notice because there is no way the cops will admit that could have stopped it but chose not to.
They'd say something like "we just didn't get there in time" or "our view was blocked, we could not see what he was doing" so they'd let themselves off the hook and how would anyone else know?
-
We get frequent, say every six weeks on average, night time visits by the fire-rescue squad here. (Senior Citizen's building.) They pull in the long driveway with no sirens and pretty much all you can hear is the diesels.
I stepped out once to see which apartment they were "visiting" and found I was blinded by all the lights they had on my whole part of the building. (Apparently to illuminate the apartment numbers?)
Reading this thread, I was thinking if they ever had the police out there on a raid, I would not be able to see what was going on and which apartment they were "after" without shading my eyes and possibly making suspicious movements.
So, not cops, but similar lighting circumstances. And naturally, I'd have been backlighted by standing by my door. And naturaly, I'd have brought my hands down to hold on to the balcony railing while I was trying to figure out what was going on.
Boy, I sure hope none of my neighbors deserve any visits like that from the police themselves and everybody hollering things simultaneously like come out with your hands up, down, hands behind your head, turn around, get down, stay where you are, walk backwards to me, scratch your left ear...
Sort of like a square dance caller. Swing your partner, doesy-doe, round and round, just watch her go... Now she spins you widdershins, and you're dizzy on your pins...
Huh?
And I might innocently step out my door with my long-barreled cane in hand.
Kerblammity !
Terry
-
I would like to know if the cops did ANY recon at all- a phone call to a neighbor, a quick driveby, anything.
Would it change your opinion if they did?
To say that cop did nothing wrong -he killed an innocent man. How much more wrong can you get?
I've tried to be pretty clear that I'm reserving judgement on whether the cop acted inappropriately, but you're still missing the idea that a bad outcome can result even if everyone is behaving in a reasonable, rational, responsible manner.
The defenders of the cop are all, "in his shoes, how was he to know, etc". Are you willing to give the unwitting victim the same defense? He just walked out his door to see what was going on, BLAM, because he did not do, or did, something some panicky person with a gun interpreted as a threat.
Still don't know if the victim made any bad moves or not, but even if he did, the situation was not one of his making and ultimately - as with the Shaver case - I don't hold him responsible for his death even if he did make a bad move.
The main question here is this- are we now in a place, where to stay alive, it is necessary to have perfect instant clear understanding of what a cop says, and instant exact obedience to demands.
Hyperbole much? Cops in the US kill about 500 people per year in total. Most of them are plenty deserving, but let's pretend that all of them are tragic situations like this one. That means that 99.99984709% of the population managed to survive the police.
That's a heck of a lot better record than we have with physicians or sedans.
Would you endorse this shoot if the man was deaf? Impaired with a few beers? What if the orders from several cops conflicted?
"Endorse"? No. Consider justified? Possibly.
Realistically, some people are at greater risk of all manner of dangers because of physical disability or pharmaceutical impairment. A deaf, blind, elderly, sleepy, or drunk person might be more likely to step in front of a car or fall off a building or drown in a retention pond or turn the wrong way on a one-way street, or get pulled into a lathe or fumble a chainsaw, or get eaten by a bear. Police making a mistake when doing their job is a risk (a vanishingly minor risk, as it turns out) which can be exacerbated by various kinds of impairment just like lots of other stuff. It's on my list of things to worry about - especially as someone who carries a gun - but so far down the list of realistic concerns that it hardly rates mention.
If this same guy had stumbled into an ER showing symptoms of a particular malady, but when the ER doc administered treatment the patient died because of a reaction that the doc couldn't have known ahead of time, would you advocate crucifying the doctor because an innocent man died? I don't recall our freshly minted champions of the innocent dead raising a fuss about the multiple year-over-year increases in traffic fatalities - many of whom were innocent people who made a single tiny mistake and ended up dead for it.
-
I am having a hard time finding anything ,"reasonable, rational or responsible" about the police actions. That is my exact concern.
"Reasonable and responsible" might be a call, "Mrs Jones, , we have reported suspicious activity next door to you. Have you heard or seen anything unusual? Yelling, gunshots, that sort of thing?" or "sir, we received a 911 call from your residence, is everything OK? May we talk to your wife"?
I know it takes time. A few minutes, maybe, while the cars are rolling. It is not a "hang around outside for an hour ala Orlando while the shots continue." , which seems to be implied as a counter to any request the police stop and engage their brains for a moment.
Or maybe a drive by of an unmarked car to have a quick look around.
Or maybe more than a nanosecond before an apparently unarmed guy is shot from ambush.
Problem is, you send out a bunch of amped up guys, tell them Genghis Khan is holed up with Charles Manson, and the whole place is wired to go with the orphans and the widows, and you get to a place where it becomes very hard NOT to shoot someone, either by poor trigger discipline, or by trigger happy cop, or by good cop who just can't think straight under the adrenaline surge. Swat teams are just a bad idea, full stop. Too much for 99.99 percent of the time, and way too over rated for a real threat.
-
How many SWATting calls are responded to every year?
Well, if there's been one in this little 41,000 person county, I'm betting there are a hell of a lot of them. And a green deputy in this modern Mayberry handled it without even raising his voice.
Here's a statistic you can probably guess pretty easily; how many eyewitnesses on 911 give all the tactically relevant facts with any substantial degree of accuracy? And yet the cops are willing to risk the life of anyone they happen to meet at the wrong time over that information.
Charging in like a raging bull without at least a little quiet recon first is how unnecessary deaths happen, on either side.
-
I am having a hard time finding anything ,"reasonable, rational or responsible" about the police actions. That is my exact concern.
"Reasonable and responsible" might be a call, "Mrs Jones, , we have reported suspicious activity next door to you. Have you heard or seen anything unusual? Yelling, gunshots, that sort of thing?" or "sir, we received a 911 call from your residence, is everything OK? May we talk to your wife"?
I know it takes time. A few minutes, maybe, while the cars are rolling. It is not a "hang around outside for an hour ala Orlando while the shots continue." , which seems to be implied as a counter to any request the police stop and engage their brains for a moment.
Or maybe a drive by of an unmarked car to have a quick look around.
Or maybe more than a nanosecond before an apparently unarmed guy is shot from ambush.
Problem is, you send out a bunch of amped up guys, tell them Genghis Khan is holed up with Charles Manson, and the whole place is wired to go with the orphans and the widows, and you get to a place where it becomes very hard NOT to shoot someone, either by poor trigger discipline, or by trigger happy cop, or by good cop who just can't think straight under the adrenaline surge. Swat teams are just a bad idea, full stop. Too much for 99.99 percent of the time, and way too over rated for a real threat.
And what if Mrs. Jones didn't answer the phone? Even though I live close to my neighbors (typical sub-urban subdivision), this time of year with houses buttoned up and well insulated, I doubt if I would hear a (handgun) gunshot from inside their house, especially if the TV were on, or I was wearing earbuds/(noise cancelling) headphones listening to music.
The unmarked car that rolls by can see nothing as the drapes/blinds are drawn.
The report was that there was an armed guy. And that he HAD killed someone, and was going to kill all the others either by shooting or by arson. Again, it's easy to look back in hind-sight and say "They should have known." And that's the problem. You need at least 70% of all the information* to make a good decision. Most the time the police are lucky to have even 5% of the information needed. In this case the police had 0% of the information, because everything was completely wrong.
What I'm saying is that given what information the officers had and the guy's action, it's not a bad shoot, nor is it a good shoot. It's a tragedy for everyone involved. Also as cordex pointed out, the fact that only one shot was fired shows that the police had tremendous discipline in not unleashing a fusillade after that first shot.
The guy that called the police does, however, deserve murder one and the death sentence.
There was a similar situation recently in Peoria, only Didntdonuthin was hit with 18 bullets. http://peoriapublicradio.org/post/peoria-police-shoot-bank-robbery-suspect-after-standoff#stream/0
The local NAACP et al., is all up in arms about "Excessive force" Yet, as a friend of mine pointed out: "What do you do in armed encounter like this? Fire three times and assess the target. Six cops, 18 bullets, do the math."
*- http://mwnation.com/40-70-colin-powell-rule/
-
There was a similar situation recently in Peoria, only Didntdonuthin was hit with 18 bullets.
Yeah, strikingly similar in every way...except that, you know, he had a gun and they saw it, along with multiple witnesses from the original robbery. Oh yeah, and they spent a couple hours trying to resolve the situation without violence. Just as much alike as a fluffy pillow and a crusty truck stop toilet.
-
Not saying I agree with it all, but some salient points are raised here.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=441
-
I am having a hard time finding anything ,"reasonable, rational or responsible" about the police actions. That is my exact concern.
"Reasonable and responsible" might be a call, "Mrs Jones, , we have reported suspicious activity next door to you. Have you heard or seen anything unusual? Yelling, gunshots, that sort of thing?" or "sir, we received a 911 call from your residence, is everything OK? May we talk to your wife"?
What did the police and dispatch do in this particular situation prior to making contact with the occupant?
I know it takes time. A few minutes, maybe, while the cars are rolling. It is not a "hang around outside for an hour ala Orlando while the shots continue." , which seems to be implied as a counter to any request the police stop and engage their brains for a moment.
Not that it is a bad idea to gather additional information, but what exactly would calling the neighbors prove? A negative answer doesn't mean a murder hasn't taken place. As scout pointed out, a pistol shot may not even be audible from within a neighboring household. A random dispatcher calling the reported murderer who has additional victims at hand is a ridiculous idea unless you're dead set on not taking the call seriously.
Or maybe a drive by of an unmarked car to have a quick look around.
Which proves what? If Mrs. Jones didn't hear anything and the unmarked car doesn't see anything do you just send Barney up to pound on the door and hope for the best? Your brilliant ideas for what would be reasonable, rational and responsible work fantastically only on a false report, but would almost certainly get people killed if it was real.
Problem is, you send out a bunch of amped up guys, tell them Genghis Khan is holed up with Charles Manson, and the whole place is wired to go with the orphans and the widows, and you get to a place where it becomes very hard NOT to shoot someone, either by poor trigger discipline, or by trigger happy cop, or by good cop who just can't think straight under the adrenaline surge.
:laugh: So instead they should do what? Not tell the responding cops what the caller said? You're long on criticism and KD5NRH-quality suggestions, but you've clearly not put much work into thinking them through.
Swat teams are just a bad idea, full stop. Too much for 99.99 percent of the time, and way too over rated for a real threat.
I'm of mixed feelings on SWAT teams. They're certainly overused and too many departments have them when they don't need them. That said, when the report is for a barricaded murderer with multiple hostages, it's pretty hard to argue that they aren't a reasonable tool.
-
The report was that there was an armed guy. And that he HAD killed someone, and was going to kill all the others either by shooting or by arson. Again, it's easy to look back in hind-sight and say "They should have known."
I don't think anyone here is saying they should have known. I think many of us are saying, "They should have asked / questioned / verified."
And that's the problem. You need at least 70% of all the information* to make a good decision. Most the time the police are lucky to have even 5% of the information needed. In this case the police had 0% of the information, because everything was completely wrong.
And the real problem is that, although it transpired that they had zero percent information, they proceeded as though they had 100 percent information.
Also as cordex pointed out, the fact that only one shot was fired shows that the police had tremendous discipline in not unleashing a fusillade after that first shot.
I maintain it shows that one cop had his finger on the trigger and the trigger already halfway pulled when he should have been in "observe" mode. I believe (yes, I understand that makes this my opinion, not fact) that the reason there was only one shot is that none of the other cops had their fingers tensed on the trigger, so that one shot didn't result in a barrage of sympathetic fire because it most likely resulted in twenty officers looking around and saying "Who *expletive deleted*ing fired that shot?"
Basically, the guy who fired the shot was totally out of his OODA loop. Remember the OODA loop? Observe - Orient - Decide - Act. Watching that video multiple times and looking at the lack of elapsed time, IMHO the cop who fired the shot shorted his OODA loop to a OA loop -- Observe ==> Act. No orientation, no decision. Again IMHO, it was one of two possibilities: Either (1) his finger was already tensed on the trigger and the shot was an involuntary jerk; or (2) he was predisposed to shoot, so no orientation or decision was needed, the decision was already made in his mind so the instant he saw movement he fired.
Bad shoot.
The guy that called the police does, however, deserve murder one and the death sentence.
That we can agree on.
-
Not saying I agree with it all, but some salient points are raised here.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=441
Again, the officer shot not because he was afraid of getting "smoked", but because he was trying to prevent the innocents from being shot.
And as much as I like Mr. Williamson, comparing being a soldier to being a cop is comparing apples with mushrooms. As a soldier, I knew who the enemy was and that he was trying to kill me ALL THE TIME. I also had a pretty good idea of where he was, and what he was capable of and what he was going to do to try to kill me. As a cop, I almost never knew where the bad was, nor what he was capable of doing. I've had to go from trying to help someone injured to actively fighting them to prevent them from hurting/killing me, all in the blink of an eye. Go to a domestic and try to calm people down. And then for fun, arrest one or both. (HINT: When you separate them to find out what's going on, don't allow either into the kitchen and make sure there are no weapons present. P.S. Lots of common household crap can be turned into an improvised weapon before you know it.)
And I've been both. And every time I had to respond to an emergency, it was never about me, it was always about how I can make things right and help people. "Going Home" never crossed my mind.
Same with comparing them to Firefighters. There is ZERO requirement that save every building. There is ZERO requirement that they rush into every burning building. If someone dies in a fire, the firefighters do NOT get blamed for saving everyone. More often then not, the Firefighters will do what they can to prevent the spread of the fire, not save the structure. The attitude is "Insurance will pay for it." These days if a Firefighter dies in line of duty, it's because it's an accident, or he did something he should not have done or failed to do.
Cops have to go to the scene. They can't go, "Once he kills everyone, if he doesn't burn himself to death, then we'll arrest him." Firefighters for the most part know "There's a fire in that building". Cops often don't know that even much. The fire isn't (usually) going to jump out and start shooting a people (cops and/or innocents). And again, the cops had bad information. If firefighters have bad information, they load back up in the truck and go back to the station as there is no fire.
And yes, there are some differences between this and what happened in Peoria.
1) Time of day. Peoria was broad daylight, Wichita was at night.
2) Didntdonuthin in Peoria had not taken a life. In Wichita, 911 was told he had killed someone. Once that boundary is crossed, the use of lethal force is allowed.
3) Peoria didn't pour gasoline all over the house. In Wichita, 911 was told that he was ready to burn everyone. And since the murder boundary had been crossed, (and the gasoline had aerosolized), you simply can't risk trying to wait them out, as even he doesn't Flick his Bic, the longer the they wait the great the chance of accidental ignition.
And I agree with cordex I'm of mixed feelings on SWAT teams. They're certainly overused and too many departments have them when they don't need them. That said, when the report is for a barricaded murderer with multiple hostages, it's pretty hard to argue that they aren't a reasonable tool.
Yes, they are overused, but this is PRECISELY the situation that SWAT teams were created for.
Again, it wasn't a good shoot, but the cop did nothing wrong based upon the information provided.
-
I am not as hot about this as I was the other day, but I still think it is a bad shoot (innocent guy was shot by police so I find it hard to define any other way). I am just not sure it is criminal or unjustified without more concrete info on exactly what happened.
The problem I run into is I don't know what SOP changes could be made to prevent this that don't have negative issues in other ways. The courts always say the cops are not responsible for anyone's personal safety. So I think it would be best if the SOP the cops use stay on the side of not killing innocent people rather than being the cavalry riding to the rescue.
-
I don't think anyone here is saying they should have known. I think many of us are saying, "They should have asked / questioned / verified."
And I keep asking "How to do that in such a way that it doesn't get people killed in a real instance ?"
And the real problem is that, although it transpired that they had zero percent information, they proceeded as though they had 100 percent information.
They acted based upon the information they had. Are they supposed to act as if every 911 is a lie ?? The only way 911 works is if they presume that the information provided is truthful. In this case it was a lie.
Deputy Chief Troy Livingston of the Wichita Police Department said that 911 emergency response “is based on the premise of believing the caller: When you call for help, you’re going to get help.”
I maintain it shows that one cop had his finger on the trigger and the trigger already halfway pulled when he should have been in "observe" mode. I believe (yes, I understand that makes this my opinion, not fact) that the reason there was only one shot is that none of the other cops had their fingers tensed on the trigger, so that one shot didn't result in a barrage of sympathetic fire because it most likely resulted in twenty officers looking around and saying "Who *expletive deleted*ing fired that shot?"
Or he may have been the only one with a shot. Again, for all the cops knew the murder/homicide boundary had been crossed. At that point, shooting the perpetrator is authorized to save innocent lives.
Basically, the guy who fired the shot was totally out of his OODA loop. Remember the OODA loop? Observe - Orient - Decide - Act. Watching that video multiple times and looking at the lack of elapsed time, IMHO the cop who fired the shot shorted his OODA loop to a OA loop -- Observe ==> Act. No orientation, no decision. Again IMHO, it was one of two possibilities: Either (1) his finger was already tensed on the trigger and the shot was an involuntary jerk; or (2) he was predisposed to shoot, so no orientation or decision was needed, the decision was already made in his mind so the instant he saw movement he fired.
Quite the opposite. The Officers did the first two steps. Once his hands dropped, the officers can't take the chance that he's not going to do something bad and that the other people in the house are going to die.
Bad shoot.
That we can agree one.
Sorry, I disagree.
[/quote]
Here's the 911 call and the video: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html
Red and blue flashy lights. Suddenly, illuminated and give command to show your hands and walk this way. Again, the officers don't know everything is BS.
-
I am not as hot about this as I was the other day, but I still think it is a bad shoot (innocent guy was shot by police so I find it hard to define any other way). I am just not sure it is criminal or unjustified without more concrete info on exactly what happened.
The problem I run into is I don't know what SOP changes could be made to prevent this that don't have negative issues in other ways. The courts always say the cops are not responsible for anyone's personal safety. So I think it would be best if the SOP the cops use stay on the side of not killing innocent people rather than being the cavalry riding to the rescue.
So not respond to hostage situations or domestic disturbances or anything more then traffic accidents (but even those can go pear-shaped) ?? Then why even have police ??
Traffic accident ?? Go fight it out in court with their (or your) insurance company. Other then that, I'm good with everyone being responsible for their own safety and welfare.
-
And I keep asking "How to do that in such a way that it doesn't get people killed in a real instance ?"
They acted based upon the information they had. Are they supposed to act as if every 911 is a lie ?? The only way 911 works is if they presume that the information provided is truthful. In this case it was a lie.
Or he may have been the only one with a shot. Again, for all the cops knew the murder/homicide boundary had been crossed. At that point, shooting the perpetrator is authorized to save innocent lives.
Quite the opposite. The Officers did the first two steps. Once his hands dropped, the officers can't take the chance that he's not going to do something bad and that the other people in the house are going to die.
Sorry, I disagree.
Here's the 911 call and the video: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html
Red and blue flashy lights. Suddenly, illuminated and give command to show your hands and walk this way. Again, the officers don't know everything is BS.
Do you really think it is 100% okay for cops to come to someone's home and put them at gun point and shoot them if they don't behave just right all on what is essentially hearsay? No, I don't think they should assume the 911 call is correct and truthful. Stepping back from this incident, you are basically saying if someone makes a report to police against you, your rights are meaningless. IMO, the only reason police tend to do just that is because completely fake 911 calls are don't happen very often.
-
So not respond to hostage situations or domestic disturbances or anything more then traffic accidents (but even those can go pear-shaped) ?? Then why even have police ??
Traffic accident ?? Go fight it out in court with their (or your) insurance company. Other then that, I'm good with everyone being responsible for their own safety and welfare.
So if you have an traffic accident tomorrow and the other person calls 911 and says you are drunk and threatening them, you think the cops should show up and with guns drawn solely on that call without any observation of the scene or your behavior to provide some verification that it is true. I really doubt you would want that.
I would say most cases don't require anything but some observation and thought as police approach. I just think there is a big difference between what police see themselves and what they are told about by someone else. The sad part is I am not entirely sure that changes this incident or not since I haven't see much other than the original video.
-
I am not as hot about this as I was the other day, but I still think it is a bad shoot (innocent guy was shot by police so I find it hard to define any other way). I am just not sure it is criminal or unjustified without more concrete info on exactly what happened.
Agreed.
The problem I run into is I don't know what SOP changes could be made to prevent this that don't have negative issues in other ways.
Again, agreed.
The courts always say the cops are not responsible for anyone's personal safety. So I think it would be best if the SOP the cops use stay on the side of not killing innocent people rather than being the cavalry riding to the rescue.
I'm not sure how you make that work. In the case of a falsely reported active shooter, absolutely I want the cops to step back, sort things out and not rush in. In the case of a real active shooter, I want them to run in and try to put a stop to it ASAP even if it puts their lives at risk because most of the time when an active shooter is confronted by an armed response they either suicide or commit suicide by proxy - which means they stop killing people.
After the Sandy Hook shootings our own "ask/question/verify" Hawkmoon was up in arms (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=42236.msg858337#msg858337) that it took five minutes before cops made entry to the building. But now we're expecting them to delay making contact in order to investigate prior to addressing the supposed threat? Some people have such a strong and persistent anti-police bias that they will vehemently condemn the police no matter what they do or don't do. Others simply condemn the police whenever there is a bad outcome (which, again, can happen even if they do everything "right") because they expect the cops to know at the time what everyone knows when the dust has settled. As though any of us would do a better job when faced with this kind of situation. I say: criticize the police for where they screwed up when it was preventable. We must also recognize that there are times when cops, doctors, vehicle drivers ... anyone ... can do their best, follow reasonable procedure, and still end up with a bad result. One last time: maybe this case was one where the cops completely screwed the pooch from start to finish, but the solutions thus far proposed in this thread to prevent future cases like this one have been absolutely laughable and worse than that almost certainly counterproductive.
Do you really think it is 100% okay for cops to come to someone's home and put them at gun point and shoot them if they don't behave just right all on what is essentially hearsay? No, I don't think they should assume the 911 call is correct and truthful. Stepping back from this incident, you are basically saying if someone makes a report to police against you, your rights are meaningless. IMO, the only reason police tend to do just that is because completely fake 911 calls are don't happen very often.
I don't know the right way to design a system such that cops never rush to make a mistake but are also always rushing in when they are needed ASAP. If you've got a solution (hopefully more considered than we've heard so far) I'm interested to hear it.
-
I'm not sure how you make that work. In the case of a falsely reported active shooter, absolutely I want the cops to step back, sort things out and not rush in. In the case of a real active shooter, I want them to run in and try to put a stop to it ASAP even if it puts their lives at risk because most of the time when an active shooter is confronted by an armed response they either suicide or commit suicide by proxy - which means they stop killing people.
Most times, when there's an active shooter there's at least one gun. If the subject isn't holding a gun, he isn't a shooter. (Maybe was a shooter two minutes ago, but no gun = no shooter.)
After the Sandy Hook shootings our own "ask/question/verify" Hawkmoon was up in arms (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=42236.msg858337#msg858337) that it took five minutes before cops made entry to the building. But now we're expecting them to delay making contact in order to investigate prior to addressing the supposed threat?
Where did I even suggest they delay making contact? All I expect is that they'll delay killing long enough to have some indication that the person they're killing is actually a criminal perpetrator. "Making contact" doesn't have to start with putting the subject in the cross hairs and putting your finger on the trigger. What if they had done like the deputy in Texas and just had someone walk up to the house and look through a window? Wasn't that making contact?
-
Most times, when there's an active shooter there's at least one gun. If the subject isn't holding a gun, he isn't a shooter. (Maybe was a shooter two minutes ago, but no gun = no shooter.)
Ah. Well, if you would share your crystal ball with the police then they might know ahead of time who is armed at a reported active shooting scene and who isn't. Or do you contend that guns cannot be concealed about one's person?
Where did I even suggest they delay making contact? All I expect is that they'll delay killing long enough to have some indication that the person they're killing is actually a criminal perpetrator. "Making contact" doesn't have to start with putting the subject in the cross hairs and putting your finger on the trigger. What if they had done like the deputy in Texas and just had someone walk up to the house and look through a window? Wasn't that making contact?
No, looking through the window is not making contact. Nor is it the appropriate solution to all calls. During the Sandy Hook shootings how long would it have taken to look in the available school windows? Probably longer than the 5 minutes which you decried as too long. Police should absolutely be hesitant to shoot someone, but if a person at a reported murder scene makes a bad move - even if they are completely innocent - the police cannot in that instant determine that they are no threat to anyone. Yes, it very rarely results in a good person getting shot, but I have yet to hear a reasonable alternative.
-
So is there any news yet about whether the swatter is going to be charged with capital murder? (Either premeditated, or under the "felony murder" rules) I don't know how much the cops were at fault, but that guy needs to get the needle or be put away for life w/o parole -- probably the latter, but the former needs to be on the table.
-
So is there any news yet about whether the swatter is going to be charged with capital murder? (Either premeditated, or under the "felony murder" rules) I don't know how much the cops were at fault, but that guy needs to get the needle or be put away for life w/o parole -- probably the latter, but the former needs to be on the table.
I haven't heard anything, but that brings up an interesting problem. Most likely, the shooting won't be considered murder. It will be considered justifiable homicide or something similar. So, if the shooting was justifiable, how can the SWATer guy be charged with murder?
-
I haven't heard anything, but that brings up an interesting problem. Most likely, the shooting won't be considered murder. It will be considered justifiable homicide or something similar. So, if the shooting was justifiable, how can the SWATer guy be charged with murder?
When the police shoot a member of a criminal conspiracy (e.g. bank robbery) or accidentally shoot an innocent bystander, the criminal and/or his accomplice(s) can be charged with felony murder. I don't see how this is any different.
(Edited to add an example: https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-man-charged-murder-bystanders-death-police-shot-205322027.html The laws in Kansas may differ, but I would guess that felony murder will work the same.)
-
When the police shoot a member of a criminal conspiracy (e.g. bank robbery) or accidentally shoot an innocent bystander, the accomplice(s) can be charged with felony murder. I don't see how this is any different.
Didn't know that. Thanks.
-
Agreed.
Again, agreed.
I'm not sure how you make that work. In the case of a falsely reported active shooter, absolutely I want the cops to step back, sort things out and not rush in. In the case of a real active shooter, I want them to run in and try to put a stop to it ASAP even if it puts their lives at risk because most of the time when an active shooter is confronted by an armed response they either suicide or commit suicide by proxy - which means they stop killing people.
After the Sandy Hook shootings our own "ask/question/verify" Hawkmoon was up in arms (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=42236.msg858337#msg858337) that it took five minutes before cops made entry to the building. But now we're expecting them to delay making contact in order to investigate prior to addressing the supposed threat? Some people have such a strong and persistent anti-police bias that they will vehemently condemn the police no matter what they do or don't do. Others simply condemn the police whenever there is a bad outcome (which, again, can happen even if they do everything "right") because they expect the cops to know at the time what everyone knows when the dust has settled. As though any of us would do a better job when faced with this kind of situation. I say: criticize the police for where they screwed up when it was preventable. We must also recognize that there are times when cops, doctors, vehicle drivers ... anyone ... can do their best, follow reasonable procedure, and still end up with a bad result. One last time: maybe this case was one where the cops completely screwed the pooch from start to finish, but the solutions thus far proposed in this thread to prevent future cases like this one have been absolutely laughable and worse than that almost certainly counterproductive.
I don't know the right way to design a system such that cops never rush to make a mistake but are also always rushing in when they are needed ASAP. If you've got a solution (hopefully more considered than we've heard so far) I'm interested to hear it.
My thoughts were more in line with removing barriers to people defending themselves and others no matter where they are rather than solely depending on police to show up quickly. Lots of different cases and situations. There is likely no perfect answer since police can't be everywhere.
I was wondering if the shooting in Colorado fits into this discussion but I haven't read much on it yet.
-
I haven't heard anything, but that brings up an interesting problem. Most likely, the shooting won't be considered murder. It will be considered justifiable homicide or something similar. So, if the shooting was justifiable, how can the SWATer guy be charged with murder?
IMO, the cop was the murder weapon, not the murderer.
-
"I was wondering if the shooting in Colorado fits into this discussion but I haven't read much on it yet."
It was apparently an ambush the cops situation.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/31/officers-down-and-swat-on-scene-in-douglas-county/
You can data mine more from that original information, but I'm so upset about it that frankly, I've been avoiding "studying" it.
Why can't these puckheads just put a stout plastic bag over their heads to avoid splatter and just off themselves outside near an emergency ward, where the staff is used to handling gory messes.
That kind of increase in the suicide statistics I would like to see.
Terry :-(
-
My thoughts were more in line with removing barriers to people defending themselves and others no matter where they are rather than solely depending on police to show up quickly.
I completely agree with that as well.
-
Swatter been charged with making a false report.
-
Why can't these puckheads just put a stout plastic bag over their heads to avoid splatter and just off themselves outside near an emergency ward, where the staff is used to handling gory messes.
Oddly, I've personally known one, and heard accounts from the finders of two other handgun suicides where the gun had been unloaded except for the single round, the victim was in the bathroom, and had at least made some effort to have the mess be contained. Seemed oddly considerate, especially since they all did it in a place where those closest to them would still end up being the ones to find the bodies.
Personally, I've always figured if it came down to a situation where it was the only option, (like an excruciatingly painful terminal illness or something) I just want to wander off in the woods and do it somewhere the coyotes and feral hogs can deal with the mess. More likely, though, I'd just take up enough suitably "extreme" activities (the sort of things I currently don't do because of the likelihood of dying from them, like free climbing and cave diving) that I'd almost certainly be killed by one of them.
-
I think R. M. McKenna, who wrote ""The Corps" series, set one up fictionally where the party removed all but one round from his 1911 mag so the slide would lock back, showing the finders that the gun was no longer loaded.
Medically-assisted suicide was recently legalized here in Colorado, but I never looked into it any deeper than just picking it up on a news report. My first thought was that would hopefully reduce the gun (EEK!) suicide (EEK ! EEK !) statistics.
-
I think R. M. McKenna, who wrote ""The Corps" series, set one up fictionally where the party removed all but one round from his 1911 mag so the slide would lock back, showing the finders that the gun was no longer loaded.
A former coworker who had been a deputy for years claimed that was pretty common among the ones who put some thought into it. Also said it was why he hated suspicious vehicle calls; his first year, he found two suicides while checking suspicious cars, one with a slide-locked auto.
-
So if the cops acted reasonably because they were fed a unverifiable load of crap over the phone, what does that mean for us all?
I am dead serious here- if the cops have no ability or reason to validate a message that has such severe repercussions and effectiveness, consider the implications in a political context- this is about as consequence free as an assassination gets.
I think that cop was trigger happy or had buck fever- and have reason to believe, based on many comments by police officers, that the current training tends to reinforce the "don't hesitate, shoot first, make sure you come home at the end of your shift" mentality.
The thing about this that really bugs me, and I suspect bugs the others who are upset, is that there was NO other indications- no shots, no neighbors calling, , no nothing to indicate there was really any bad stuff going on. None. No actions on the part of the victim, either.
You guys supporting the position of the cops keep bringing up how everybody condemned the police because of their lack of speed in responding to other shooting- but almost every one I can recall, there was a definite situation going on, and they knew i. Nobody claimed at Columbine or Orlando that they had any question about the general situation- It was pretty damned clear there was some bad stuff going on.
One of the best comments about this I have read was by a guy who trained entry teams in Iraq. He said they got a lot of calls by disgruntled neighbors or people who has a feud with others, saying Mr X was a terrorist bad guy, hoping he would get taken out by the raid team. He said the Army had spent a ton of money and time trying to resolve the issue and largely failed- his comment was. "once the team starts rolling it is very very hard to keep them from shooting someone, or words to that effect.
-
"paramilitary police State on parade..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6mNDTkGzEw&list=RDMMluuqhAS0x6o&index=3
-
IMO, the cop was the murder weapon, not the murderer.
This.
-
But the cop isn't a mindless tool (like a weapon), he is a sentient individual trained in the judicious use of lethal force with full control over his actions and as such is ultimately responsible for everything he does. Unless laws, police policy and training as a whole are corrupt, placing zero value on citizen life by design promoting negligence and guaranteeing impunity...
...what the hell kind of morons are being drafted into the police force?
Are we there already?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.underconsideration.com%2Fspeakup%2Farchives%2Fidiocracy_guard.jpg&hash=0011b2d1c6dfd896e307707a6cd606ae6dc13055)
More police officers need to go to prison until the ranks are cleared of the inept.
-
Will big lawsuits against the local governments get enough attention to force a change in police procedures/training on this or will it require police going to prison? Or perhaps I should ask if the known incidents are generating enough publicity to encourage changes, will it take more incidents, or will more be needed?
I am not in a position to know past history on that.
-
When cops kill completely innocent people, they are rarely punished. This is a serious problem.
What would happen to CCWers who shot innocent people making "furtive movements"?
-
When cops kill completely innocent people, they are rarely punished. This is a serious problem.
What would happen to CCWers who shot innocent people making "furtive movements"?
A CCWer would be in prison. However, if the CCW was told by someone else that person was a threat, then they would be okay.
-
What would happen to CCWers who shot innocent people making "furtive movements"?
Who knows? What other circumstance contributed to the shooting? Is there more to the story? Did the CCWer adequately describe the reasoning behind the shooting? What jurisdiction? How does the DA feel about CCWers?
In other words, you can't just simplify a complex situation down to one issue.
-
A CCWer would be in prison. However, if the CCW was told by someone else that person was a threat, then they would be okay.
There are hundreds or thousands of similar situations every year that normal people get caught up in. What percentage of those people are prosecuted?
-
There are hundreds or thousands of similar situations every year that normal people get caught up in. What percentage of those people are prosecuted?
How similar? You are painting with a broad brush.
Are you saying there are hundreds of thousands of situations where a CCWer shoots someone because they moved their hand toward their waist? I doubt that. That doesn't happen to police that often.
This particular incident was a little different, but beyond the short clip of video, not a whole lot is confirmed.
-
Are you saying there are hundreds of thousands of situations where a CCWer shoots someone because they moved their hand toward their waist? I doubt that.
There are hundreds or thousands of similar situations every year that normal people get caught up in. What percentage of those people are prosecuted?
The statutes covering justifiable shootings as they relate to police and non-police are usually pretty similar. Would a reasonable person have been in fear for their lives or the lives of others in a given scenario? If yes, the shoot is typically considered justified. If no, it is typically not. Sure, sometimes there are other factors which can play a role and the usual "but, but, but, TEJAS!", but that is the basic standard.
The major difference is that police are required as part of their job to interpose themselves into situations where most of us would not be expected to do so. Thus, saying "well, if a CCWer were hunkered down with a firearm trained on a doorway commanding the occupant to come out in response to a 911 call ..." is sort of hard to address in a reasonable fashion since the scenario is so far fetched.
However, there are plenty of similar enough cases where, for instance, a homeowner wakes to find someone skulking about their darkened home, kills the "intruder" whom they thought were making a bad move only to find the deceased were unarmed and actually a drunk neighbor or a family member or something. Yes, an innocent person is dead, but in the shooter's shoes another reasonable person would likely have done the same thing, so they are not convicted.
-
The statutes covering justifiable shootings as they relate to police and non-police are usually pretty similar. Would a reasonable person have been in fear for their lives or the lives of others in a given scenario? If yes, the shoot is typically considered justified. If no, it is typically not. Sure, sometimes there are other factors which can play a role and the usual "but, but, but, TEJAS!", but that is the basic standard.
The major difference is that police are required as part of their job to interpose themselves into situations where most of us would not be expected to do so. Thus, saying "well, if a CCWer were hunkered down with a firearm trained on a doorway commanding the occupant to come out in response to a 911 call ..." is sort of hard to address in a reasonable fashion since the scenario is so far fetched.
However, there are plenty of similar enough cases where, for instance, a homeowner wakes to find someone skulking about their darkened home, kills the "intruder" whom they thought were making a bad move only to find the deceased were unarmed and actually a drunk neighbor or a family member or something. Yes, an innocent person is dead, but in the shooter's shoes another reasonable person would likely have done the same thing, so they are not convicted.
Which is the long way of saying, no, there aren't that many incidents and police and non-police are treated differently if not by the letter of the law then certainly in practice.
-
Involuntary manslaughter:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/13/california-man-charged-in-kansas-for-call-duty-swatting-hoax-that-led-to-fatal-police-shooting.html
-
"Barriss has a history of making 'swatting' calls, police said. He was arrested on Dec. 29 in Los Angeles."
<long string of curses>
Terry
-
Makes sense legally...in the commission of an offense, a person died as a proximate result of the act. Be interested to watch it play out through the courts.
-
I wish there were some way for the other SWATtees to exact some justice for their experiences and expenses.
-
Looking at about 11 years for the maximum sentence in that case.
https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/man-accused-in-fatal-swatting-case-faces-manslaughter-charge-w515401
Factors include that he has a previous criminal record. Which means that all of this will tend to pile up for heftier sentences.
-
Looking at about 11 years for the maximum sentence in that case.
https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/man-accused-in-fatal-swatting-case-faces-manslaughter-charge-w515401
Factors include that he has a previous criminal record. Which means that all of this will tend to pile up for heftier sentences.
I'm pleased to note that the officer who fired the shot hasn't been cleared yet. I still think it was a bad shoot.
-
Cop cleared. (http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article208738719.html)
As I saw in the comments on another site: If the DA says this cop's reaction was reasonable does that mean the reactions of those that didn't fire were unreasonable? If it was so obvious that this resident was such an immediate danger why didn't the other cops shoot? Maybe they should be fired.
As to the swatter why not charge him with 1st degree murder as well as a bunch of other lesser charges like attempted murder for all the other folks in the house and see if you can get a conviction on 1st degree murder and then see how it gets handled on appeal. If you lose out on the murder count you still have the other charges to put and keep him in jail with. Of course, hopefully, you'll have a judge that wants to send a message and will set the max sentence for the lesser crimes.
If the murder conviction sticks then you've sent a very powerful message to swatters everywhere.
-
Lesson learned.
If you see flashing lights outside, put on body armor.
-
Same moron who called in the swatting attack called in a bomb threat on the FCC. (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/notorious-kansas-swatter-charged-net-120200053.html)
I don't think he is going to be seeing the outside of a prison for a long, long while.
-
Thread necro to update...
Plead guilty to 51 counts in a plea bargain. 20 years.
Brad
-
Thread necro to update...
Plead guilty to 51 counts in a plea bargain. 20 years.
51 counts? The dirtbag got the deal of the century.
-
Thread necro to update...
Plead guilty to 51 counts in a plea bargain. 20 years.
Brad
So with libtard lenient judges he'll serve what, another 18 months?
-
News article on the sentencing:
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/14/667683248/man-who-made-fatal-swatting-hoax-call-pleads-guilty-to-51-charges
Prosecuting U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister told The Wichita Eagle he will recommend that Barriss be sentenced to 20 years in prison, providing he writes apology letters to police, dispatchers and the family of Andrew Finch, a 28-year-old father of two who was shot by police who responded to the hoax call in December.
Per this, this is a recommendation, not the actual sentence, which will be handed down in January.
-
At the end...
The police officer who shot Finch did not face charges.
"What gives the cops the right to open fire?" the victim's mother, Lisa Finch, said in January. "That cop murdered my son over a false report."
Similar question in my mind. Should police believe an emergency call like this and charge in assuming it is real? How much leeway do they have to charge in and be the hero based on a verbal report over the phone? It doesn't even have to be a false report for bad things to happen.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=56428.0
This was a different but similar case where the same question applies.
-
Not sure I want to resurrect the Georgia thread.
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/39040946/a-grand-jury-clears-walker-co-deputy-of-charges-wife-of-victim-aiming-for-civil-suit
Grand Jury cleared the officer who shot.
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/39234352/update-woman-accused-of-making-false-911-call-that-led-to-mans-death-passes-away
The mother-in-law who called 911 has passed away.
-
On the other side of my question, there are probably a bunch of examples of police stopping bad things from happening by showing up quick and taking quick action (mass shooter situations come to mind). In my mind, most situations police arrive at the situation is right there for the police to see. The problem in this case came when there isn't anything obvious to see, but they proceed with the assumption the call is correct.
This is another one that is a little different.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=58699.0
It also makes me think harder about reinforcing my outside doors and windows and making sure I have security cameras so I don't have to open a curtain.
-
My issue here is the original call by the swatter. How often does a criminal call from the scene, calmly explaining they have already killed one, and have plans on torching the scene with more victims in place?
-
I'm still curious how the dispatcher who received the call DIDN'T know that the call wasn't coming from a local point of origin? I've heard of "spoofing" the number, but how can an ordinary person spoof a number well enough that it fools the police call center?
-
All it takes is a little bit of software and some knowledge.
As far as fooling the police, all they get is what the phone system sends them. If the spoofer is able to send bogus ANI data that is what the 911 center receives.
http://www.tech-faq.com/ani-automatic-number-identification.html (http://www.tech-faq.com/ani-automatic-number-identification.html)
I do almost nothing on the 911 side of the house so I'm not sure what data the 911 centers are using. If they are using CID data, which would be *expletive deleted*ing stupid, it is even easier to fake that.
-
I do almost nothing on the 911 side of the house so I'm not sure what data the 911 centers are using. If they are using CID data, which would be *expletive deleted*ing stupid, it is even easier to fake that.
Never did 911 systems, but I've dealt with a couple of PBX systems set up specifically to pass both the full CID string (with backspace characters written out to reveal and defeat an old number-hiding kludge) & ANI to the end user's screen. If LE doesn't collect at least that much, some people need beatings.