Another damn police shooting

[Vympel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 10420.html

Includes link to very clear video of the killing.

Basically, guy with golf club is shot to death by cops in his own home. No call for him to drop the weapon before doing so.

[Lonestar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 10420.html

Includes link to very clear video of the killing.

Basically, guy with golf club is shot to death by cops in his own home. No call for him to drop the weapon before doing so.

Cop was probably in danger anyway, Americans are more likely to just open fire on cops willy nilly, don't you know?

[Thanas]

Cop was probably in danger anyway, Americans are more likely to just open fire on cops willy nilly, don't you know?

Really now? You're gonna make bad jokes about this?

[MKSheppard]

I dunno, it's long been known that there are two sets of rules: one for cops and one for the peons.

For example, did you know that if you have a domestic assault case filed against you; you can't have a gun?

BUT WAIT. There's an exception written into the law for cops that still let them keep departmental guns despite such a case on their record.

EDIT: Hmm. seems that they amended that out so that for once, Cops were subject to the same laws.

[Lonestar]

Really now? You're gonna make bad jokes about this?

Hold on, are you now saying that American Law Enforcement does not operate in an environment where the locals are much more likely to open fire on them, and so are influenced by that environment?

[Vympel]

Why are we talking about firearms? The guy had a fucking golf club. He wasn't even charging them with a golf club.

[Thanas]

Really now? You're gonna make bad jokes about this?

Hold on, are you now saying that American Law Enforcement does not operate in an environment where the locals are much more likely to open fire on them, and so are influenced by that environment?

Saying that they open fire willy-nilly is definitely not what I am saying. The USA has much higer gun violence, but it is not an anarchy. Besides, I fail to see what this has to do with this thread. I'd advise you to discontinue this tangent.

[Lonestar]

Why are we talking about firearms? The guy had a fucking golf club. He wasn't even charging them with a golf club.

Ever been hit in the noggin with a golf club? If you're brandishing a deadly weapon a cop can make a case that he saw some tell that indicated he was going to charge him. Doing force protection training in the Navy(I know, not exactly like law enforcement, but escalation of force rules are similar) we often timed how quickly it took to unholster a pistol and fire when someone was rushing you from 20 ft away, more often then not the individual was on you swinging the cricket bat before you could do anything.

(don't laugh, the force protection team used a cricket bat as the bludgeon of choice for the "unruly individual")



In the states law enforcement can expect to be given a pass as "I was threatened" if the individual is standing there with a knife, why are you expecting it different if the individual has a tool with longer reach?

[Thanas]

^I guess it just shocks me how quickly he went for the weapon. I mean, the guy barely did anything besides standing there, they already had their pistols out and blam. Dead.

But maybe I am too ignorant about police procedure. I'd actually would like to read what Kamakazie has to say about this, if he is inclined to comment.

[aerius]

Ever been hit in the noggin with a golf club? If you're brandishing a deadly weapon a cop can make a case that he saw some tell that indicated he was going to charge him. Doing force protection training in the Navy(I know, not exactly like law enforcement, but escalation of force rules are similar) we often timed how quickly it took to unholster a pistol and fire when someone was rushing you from 20 ft away, more often then not the individual was on you swinging the cricket bat before you could do anything.

The cops already had their guns drawn so the 21' Tueller Drill doesn't apply. They were also wearing helmets & body armour so the guy's not likely to do any serious damage with a golf club unless he gets real lucky. Plus it's a confined hallway so he can't get a good swing with the club in the first place.

In the states law enforcement can expect to be given a pass as "I was threatened" if the individual is standing there with a knife, why are you expecting it different if the individual has a tool with longer reach?

A knife and a golf club are very different weapons. There are a lot more ways to kill a person or do serious damage to them with a knife than with a golf club, and it's also easier to do it with the knife.

[Lonestar]

A knife and a golf club are very different weapons. There are a lot more ways to kill a person or do serious damage to them with a knife than with a golf club, and it's also easier to do it with the knife.

So? Golf club has longer reach.

Just to be clear, I am not actually defending the cops in this case, just pointing out what the cops would likely say. Fuck, it's what *I* would say if I was standing watch on the quarter deck and some dude with a golf club was gunned down. "I noticed a tell that indicated to me that he was preparing to charge, he was acting in a manner that did not make me feel safe about wrestling him to the ground with my firearm remaining in my positive control, so I used the available tool at my disposal."

Mind, in that scenario I would have had my OC spray out, not the 9mm, so it wouldn't have gotten that far.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I dunno, it's long been known that there are two sets of rules: one for cops and one for the peons.

For example, did you know that if you have a domestic assault case filed against you; you can't have a gun?

BUT WAIT. There's an exception written into the law for cops that still let them keep departmental guns despite such a case on their record.

EDIT: Hmm. seems that they amended that out so that for once, Cops were subject to the same laws.

Actually, what you have is a failure of legislation. The only law that police were exempt from, and it only included service weapons not personally owned weapons, was the Violence Against Womens Act of 1994. In other words, it was a federal crime for even a cop to possess a firearm other than their service weapon if they had a court ordered restraining order against them. This was corrected with the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and further solidified with the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban.

Your cops versus peons mindset is a failure of your legislation, which also establishes the qualifiers and disqualifiers for law enforcement. So, thanks for adding your emotional flare to this thread but it is rather pathetic since this was corrected in 97 and here we are 14 years later.

[Agent Fisher]

IMO, based on the video, I can't fault the officer for firing. You announce your presence, calling out 'POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT!' and enter the building, guy comes around the corner with raised object ready to swing, less than fifteen feet. Training would kick in and you'd neutralize the threat. Now, it's unfortunate that the guy died, but I think the officer was justified in using force. And Aerius, even with helmets and body armor, a golf club to the neck would seriously ruin your day. Even a hit to the head, with a helmet on, would probably knock the officer down, making it easier for the subject to go for the officer's weapon.

[Kamakazie Sith]

76-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force. (FOR REFERENCE)
(1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force when:
(a) the officer is acting in obedience to and in accordance with the judgment of a competent court in executing a penalty of death under Subsection 77-18-5.5(3) or (4);
(b) effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest, where the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and
(i) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to others if apprehension is delayed; or
(c) the officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
(2) If feasible, a verbal warning should be given by the officer prior to any use of deadly force under Subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we break down the raid we can hear the police knock and announce at the :23/:24 mark and Blair is shot at the :28/:29 mark. That's between 4 and 6 seconds warning. Now, it is an understandable that you'd think that maybe the victim didn't hear them say "Police, Search Warrant!", and I admit that this is a possibility. However, from the police officers perspective he did hear them and grabbed the first weapon he could find. The question we need to ask is would the police be justified if he did grab the golf club with the intent to use it against police officers and does the video support this possibility?

In previous threads dealing with SWAT raids we've discussed the tactical issues of deploying non-lethal devices. To reflect; where do you place the non-lethal man? Probably not as the element leader because that would put him at a disadvantage if he were to encounter a deadly threat. If he's the second man then where do you draw the line of the element leader to deal with a serious threat?

Reviewing the video again. It's hard to say if he intended on using the Golf club against the police. At the :28 mark that hallway is empty, and then Blair is suddenly there within that :28 mark and had made past the hallway wall and into the living room if you look at the placement of his feet as he is falling.

[Block]

According to the article the officer did admit that he didn't think the guy was advancing on him, which is a pretty stupid admission if he's trying to claim self defense.

[Glocksman]

76-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force. (FOR REFERENCE)
(1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force when:
(a) the officer is acting in obedience to and in accordance with the judgment of a competent court in executing a penalty of death under Subsection 77-18-5.5(3) or (4);
(b) effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest, where the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and
(i) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to others if apprehension is delayed; or
(c) the officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
(2) If feasible, a verbal warning should be given by the officer prior to any use of deadly force under Subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we break down the raid we can hear the police knock and announce at the :23/:24 mark and Blair is shot at the :28/:29 mark. That's between 4 and 6 seconds warning. Now, it is an understandable that you'd think that maybe the victim didn't hear them say "Police, Search Warrant!", and I admit that this is a possibility. However, from the police officers perspective he did hear them and grabbed the first weapon he could find. The question we need to ask is would the police be justified if he did grab the golf club with the intent to use it against police officers and does the video support this possibility?

In previous threads dealing with SWAT raids we've discussed the tactical issues of deploying non-lethal devices. To reflect; where do you place the non-lethal man? Probably not as the element leader because that would put him at a disadvantage if he were to encounter a deadly threat. If he's the second man then where do you draw the line of the element leader to deal with a serious threat?

Reviewing the video again. It's hard to say if he intended on using the Golf club against the police. At the :28 mark that hallway is empty, and then Blair is suddenly there within that :28 mark and had made past the hallway wall and into the living room if you look at the placement of his feet as he is falling.

I thought that (b) wasn't permitted unless the escapee posed a danger to the officers or third parties because of SCOTUS's Tennesee v. Gardner ruling.

As far as the video goes, something else to consider is that the victim may have lived in an area that has a high rate of home invasions, as home invaders have been known to wear windbreakers and yell 'Police' in order to prevent their victims from using deadly force to repel the the attack.

Of course this just speculation on my part because I know nothing about the victim's state of mind.

[Kamakazie Sith]

76-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force. (FOR REFERENCE)
(1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force when:
(a) the officer is acting in obedience to and in accordance with the judgment of a competent court in executing a penalty of death under Subsection 77-18-5.5(3) or (4);
(b) effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest, where the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and
(i) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to others if apprehension is delayed; or
(c) the officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
(2) If feasible, a verbal warning should be given by the officer prior to any use of deadly force under Subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we break down the raid we can hear the police knock and announce at the :23/:24 mark and Blair is shot at the :28/:29 mark. That's between 4 and 6 seconds warning. Now, it is an understandable that you'd think that maybe the victim didn't hear them say "Police, Search Warrant!", and I admit that this is a possibility. However, from the police officers perspective he did hear them and grabbed the first weapon he could find. The question we need to ask is would the police be justified if he did grab the golf club with the intent to use it against police officers and does the video support this possibility?

In previous threads dealing with SWAT raids we've discussed the tactical issues of deploying non-lethal devices. To reflect; where do you place the non-lethal man? Probably not as the element leader because that would put him at a disadvantage if he were to encounter a deadly threat. If he's the second man then where do you draw the line of the element leader to deal with a serious threat?

Reviewing the video again. It's hard to say if he intended on using the Golf club against the police. At the :28 mark that hallway is empty, and then Blair is suddenly there within that :28 mark and had made past the hallway wall and into the living room if you look at the placement of his feet as he is falling.

I thought that (b) wasn't permitted unless the escapee posed a danger to the officers or third parties because of SCOTUS's Tennesee v. Gardner ruling.

I think you may have missed the "AND" at the end of (b). If that AND were not there then yes it would be illegal under Tennessee v. Garner.

As far as the video goes, something else to consider is that the victim may have lived in an area that has a high rate of home invasions, as home invaders have been known to wear windbreakers and yell 'Police' in order to prevent their victims from using deadly force to repel the the attack.

Of course this just speculation on my part because I know nothing about the victim's state of mind.

I completely agree. However, how do you factor this in with an officers right to be safe?

According to the article the officer did admit that he didn't think the guy was advancing on him, which is a pretty stupid admission if he's trying to claim self defense.

Yeah, I saw that. I think the video contradicts that but the video isn't top quality either. If that's what he felt then he will have a hell of a time trying to justify it.

[Glocksman]

Yep, I indeed missed the 'and'.

As for an officer's right to be safe, it's very difficult to draw an arbitrary line but I would at least give the officer the benefit of the doubt in this case if he hadn't said that he didn't think the guy was going to charge him.

Right now with the facts I know about the case, the officer should be held liable, though as more information comes out I might wind up changing that opinion.

[weemadando]

Fifteen feet/five metres is well within the distance where someone can close and attack before the defender has a chance to draw, let alone aim and fire. Even for someone with a weapon already drawn, the five metre gap isn't that far, especially when you're dealing with a weapon that cuts at least a metre off that range (golf club).

Maybe, just maybe, people should just obey the orders of the goddamn police and not do something that makes it look like they're waiting in ambush for the police with a weapon.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Or perhaps police shouldn't bust down the door yelling "police" as a first recourse. Really, if you're carrying something that might possibly be construed as a weapon from place to place within your own home and someone kicks in the door yelling at you, if your first response going to be:

a: immediately throw yourself on the ground out of the possibility it might be the police
b: turn and attack
c: freeze in place and turn to face the source of the noise out of confusion.


Now, I don't know about you, but I'd probably be confused and go for C. They started hollaring before they got that door open, and they started shooting the moment they saw him; not a lot of time for him to analyze the situation and determine what the hell is going on, especially if all he heard was unintelligible shouting and the door being kicked in.

And, if you read the OP's link, not only did they not actually have the search warrant they claimed to have, as it had been issued but left behind on someone's desk, but they planned the operation on short notice and executed it despite a major fuck-up in the pre-serving stage - to whit, grabbing the wrong person.

This was a charlie foxtrot, pure and simple. I think there's too much of a hostile raider mentality going on. Police are being put in the metaphorical mindset of justified marauders attacking the unclean heathens (criminals) in their own lairs. I think it's generating a lot of nerves; if people expect to come under attack, they will interpret just about anything remotely threatening as an attack, and react accordingly.


Maybe they should try knocking next time?

[Stark]

I guess they would, if the level of danger they are faced with wasn't so high.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I guess they would, if the level of danger they are faced with wasn't so high.

Most people's first reaction when someone knocks at their door isn't to respond with gunfire through their home's portal.

Even in America.

[Hamstray]

I think the police officer in question should be held liable.
Otherwise people will figure they might as well get assault rifles for home defense, and invoke the Stand-Your-Ground clause.

[Uraniun235]

Maybe, just maybe, people should just obey the orders of the goddamn police and not do something that makes it look like they're waiting in ambush for the police with a weapon.

I'm sure it feels good to get in that shot of smug superiority, but the entire concept of "maybe people should just know better, heh " is totally fucking irrelevant to anyone who even pretends to value human life and desires laws and regulations that reflect as such. We know that such raids by their nature are dangerous and carry even higher risks than normal of resulting in injury or death. Is it really worth the price in blood to get that extra assurance that some guy won't flush his stash before the cops get to it, especially when the standard for opening fire is "well it looked like he might have had a weapon and was within eyesight of me"?

[MKSheppard]

Here's a solution which doesn't require super high level brainpower -- have the lead cop go in with a Level III Ballistic Shield and wearing Level III armor. It's not like he's going to be trying to run a marathon with the gear. Whack the guy into the wall with the shield repeatedly, knocking him unconscious. If the suspect wants to wave a rifle around, then you just need to have the lead cop duck down to open up a line of fire for Guy 2 with a firearm.

That should be within the tactical brainpower of typical Police Departments around the country.

Oh who the hell am I kidding?

Military Police are becoming even more militarized than they were in the 1980s when they actually had to deal with Soviet Spetsnaz Saboteurs; due to the huge influx of moron cops who want to be tacticool, since the majority of MP units in the Army are National Guard now, and thus are filled with SWAT team morons.