[P12]

Suspect's uncle slain after cop apparently mistakes soda can for gun
By Sean Kelly
George Merritt and Howard Pankratz
Denver Post Staff Writers


Tuesday, July 13, 2004 -

A Denver police officer likely mistook a soda can for a weapon before shooting and killing a 63-year-old man in his bed, Police Chief Gerry Whitman said Monday.

Frank Lobato was shot once in the chest Sunday night during a police search for a domestic-violence suspect. Lobato, a career criminal and formerly homeless man whom neighbors said was disabled, was not involved in the domestic dispute.

Instead, officers were searching the home at 1234 W. 10th Ave. for Lobato's nephew Vincent Martinez, who was wanted on suspicion of domestic violence, assault and false imprisonment. Martinez, 42, was captured Monday evening.

Some neighbors and community members called the shooting questionable - and worse.

"I think it is disgraceful," neighbor Rose Salaz said. "I don't see how they can just go into people's houses shooting people. ... They are supposed to protect us."

The shooting comes weeks after the city and police announced reforms to the department's use-of-force policy in the wake of controversy surrounding police shootings.

Whitman and District Attorney Bill Ritter took the unusual step of calling a news conference to lay out some of the facts about the incident, the third fatal police shooting this year. But they answered few questions.

"It has now been determined that the party who was shot was not armed at the time of the shooting," a subdued Whitman said, reading from a prepared statement. "The officer stated that after he fired the shot, he heard an object fall to the floor on the other side of the bed. A beverage can was recovered from the floor in the area of the bedroom."

Ritter, standing next to Whitman, promised a full investigation to determine whether Officer Ranjan Ford Jr. broke any laws when he fired the fatal shot. No criminal charges have been filed against a Denver police officer for an on-the-job shooting during Ritter's 11-year tenure.

Ford, 33, came to the department in 2001. He has no prior shootings and no discipline problems, police said.

Before his hiring in Denver, Ford had been an officer in Jasper, Texas. Jasper Police Chief Stanley Christopher said Ford was a model officer there.

"I wish I had a dozen like him," Christopher said. "I'm telling you, he was a great officer. We really hated to see him go."

Ford was born in Boulder and attended Fairview High School, according to the application he submitted to become an officer in Denver. He speaks Singhalese, the native language of Sri Lanka. According to his application, he worked as a police officer and corrections officer in Texas beginning in 1993. Ford works in District 6 downtown.

"Knowing him as well as I do, if something happened, he was in fear for his life," Christopher said. "He's not a hot-dog. He's not a John Wayne-type."

Police were called to the home in the South Lincoln housing project by Martinez's wife, Cathy Sandoval, who said Martinez beat her and held her against her will for 17 hours on Sunday.

Now Sandoval said she is saddened and worried by the outcome. A relative is dead, and her angry husband is in jail.

"I'm worried he will think this is my fault," she said before her husband's capture Monday night.

The situation began when Sandoval and her husband of two months returned from an evening of drinking around 2 a.m.

Martinez was jealous because Sandoval had talked to people at the bar, Sandoval said. Once home, he became violent and he hit, choked and threw plates at Sandoval until about 10 a.m., she said.

For the rest of Sunday, Martinez refused to let Sandoval leave. She did not get out until about 6:45 p.m., when her mother arrived to return Sandoval's two children.

Once out of the house, Sandoval called police and agreed to meet them at a nearby McDonald's. She said she gave police permission to enter her home, and told them that her husband and his uncle Lobato were in the apartment.

Salaz said she watched police officers use a ladder to enter the apartment. They were in the apartment about a minute before she heard a shot, she said.

"People were out running around, grabbing their kids" when the shot went off, Salaz said. "Then, you could hear the officers inside yelling 'Put your hands up!"'

Salaz and other neighbors knew that Martinez had already jumped out a window and run away before three officers, including Ford, entered through the same window. Police had surrounded the building, but an officer walked around to the front, allowing Martinez an opportunity to flee, neighbors said. It was at least 25 minutes after Martinez ran away before the officers went in, Salaz said.

Sandoval said Lobato was in the room during the day as Martinez held her captive.

Lobato had a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1959, including arrests for drugs, assault and burglary. He had been in prison several times. His most recent arrest came in May on shoplifting charges.

On Monday night, Lobato's niece and grandniece said Lobato needed daily medication to keep his mind clear enough "to where he could cope."

Lobato was probably confused by the officers if he was aware of them at all, his niece Denise Cogil said, adding that the family has contacted an attorney in preparation for a lawsuit.

The shooting stirred echoes of the infamous 1999 shooting of Mexican immigrant Ismael Mena, who was killed during a no- knock drug raid at the wrong address. The city of Denver paid a $400,000 settlement to the family of Mena, who shot at police officers before he was killed and was discovered to have killed a man in Mexico.

Mayor John Hickenlooper, who has championed police reform, issued a statement Monday commending Whitman for being forthcoming about the shooting and promising continued investment in resources and training for police officers.

"This situation involves two tragedies: a brutal case of domestic violence and a loss of life," Hickenlooper said.

City Councilman Rick Garcia, chairman of the public safety committee, said his committee is planning to review further police reforms next month.

"For this action to happen does not bode well for the Police Department or the city," Garcia said. "I'm terribly distraught about it."

Staff writers David Migoya and Chuck Plunkett contributed to this report. Staff writer Sean Kelly can be reached at 303-820-1858 or skelly@denverpost.com.

[thefitzvh]

The man was obviously resisting, and got what was coming to him.

I mean, he could have thrown that soda can at the officer and like, caused a really big bruise or something


James

[Sindawe]

Worse, he could of bent and torn the can to make a sharp edge, THEN attacked the officer with it. :scrutiny: Or twisted up the sheets and snapped the officers eyes out with it.

Ahhh, but the man killed here had a criminal, so he musta derserved it. :fire:

[P12]

Oh, I was interupted before when I was posting this.

Please, keep it civil and constructive. I don't want a locked thread.

[Reno]

I posted this on another forum and had a very, shall I say, "low road" discussion of it. :D Got to about 125 replies before everyone involved lost interest.

We really don't know enough about the situation to make a good call. However, from what we do know, the officer made a very poor decision. Also, the officer will get little more than a slap on the wrist (if that), given the history of things like this in Denver.

It's very disturbing because if there was adequate lighting in the room, it's easy to distinguish a soda can from a gun or a knife. If there wasn't adequate lighting, it shows that this guy will shoot at any glint of light in a dark room. I also noticed that he shot first, then told him to put his hands up, which is utterly ridiculous.

[R.H. Lee]

Actually, they did him a favor. He was probably not in good health. They saved him years of suffering in a nursing home. As an added bonus, his relatives will get a big pile of cash for wrongful death. It's a "win-win".

[Stebalo]

"We are here to protect you."

-the Police

[Lone_Gunman]

If the shooter hadn't been a police man, he would be in jail for murder right now.

[kernal_panic]

if i borke into someones house through a window and shot them its murder.

these ******* ****** didn't have a warrent OR PROBABLE CAUSE!

[cracked butt]

The man might have been holding one of those scary tactical Miller genuine draft cans.


The only good things I can say about all of this are: the cops at least had the address correct and no pregnant women were involved.
I wonder why the people outside the building didn't tell the police that Martinez had fled before the police entered, or did the police simply not listen?

[stealthmode]

thats how i would like to go, in my sleep

[Jeff White]

Reno,
You witnessed this shooting and are in a position to tell us all about it, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say:

However, from what we do know, the officer made a very poor decision.

And you obviously have an insiders knowledge of what is going on the the Denver police department and DA's officer or you wouldn't be so quick to say this:

Also, the officer will get little more than a slap on the wrist (if that), given the history of things like this in Denver.

We're honored to have your inside knowledge of the incident to guide us. :rolleyes:

I don't understand this comment though:

It's very disturbing because if there was adequate lighting in the room, it's easy to distinguish a soda can from a gun or a knife.

You already told us he made a very poor poor decision. You aren't waffling now are you? :uhoh:

If there wasn't adequate lighting, it shows that this guy will shoot at any glint of light in a dark room. I also noticed that he shot first, then told him to put his hands up, which is utterly ridiculous.

You know after reading your entire post, I'm wondering if you were really there. Was there adequate lighting or not? Was the soda can under the blankets? Come on think hard here, it might be important. And if the lighting was adequate (I'm still concerned that you can't remember, you are so sure the officer used poor judgement) what did it look like to the officer from his point of view. I guess you weren't in a position to look over his shoulder? :confused:

Who shouted at who to put their hands up? The article mentions police officers (plural) entered the house and that people were out running around grabbing their kids. So tell me, from you vantage point, who yelled at who? You seem pretty convinced it was officer Ford. Did you hear him yell "hands up" after the shot was fired? :confused:

Surely you're not condeming this officer based solely on the newspaper article posted here? :eek: Tell me it's not so. :uhoh:

I certainly hope that none of you have the misfortune to be involved in a defensive shooting. It must be really hard to be tried in the press and on internet discussion boards based on speculation and conclusions drawn from one newspaper account :fire: I'd bet you'd want a professional investigation, maybe Mas Ayoob or another noted use of force expert to review it. I bet you'd want a chance to tell your side of the story. Well, where is officer Ford's side of this story? I would bet that everyone who posted here either carries CCW or keeps a firearm in their home for protection. There but for the grace of God goes every one of you. Any of you could find yourself in Officer Ford's shoes before the night is over. Think about that before you post in this thread again.....You might see things a bit differently.

Jeff

[stevelyn]

The man might have been holding one of those scary tactical Miller Genuine Draft cans.

That's why he was shot. :scrutiny: In Coors country holding holding anything but a tactical Coors can is sacrelige.

[Cabby]

So Jeff, you call shooting an unarmed man in his bed a good shoot.

I feel safe now. Cops are our friends.....ok.:(

And YES we do KNOW the officer made a bad decision. Whether the CYA division will call it that remains to be seen.

[Lone_Gunman]

Jeff, the officer was not charged with murder was he?

Do you doubt that if he had been a common civilian that he would have been charged with murder? or at least manslaughter?

[Wildalaska]

Stop Jeff White, stop there is no cause to vbe reasonable in any cop shooting thread.

WildgladitsomeoneotherthanmeforachangeAlaska

[carpettbaggerr]

I also noticed that he shot first, then told him to put his hands up Really? How do you know what commands were given before the shots were fired?

I'd question the tactics of entering through a window via a ladder. And the article doesn't state if the police had a search warrant, or an arrest warrant. If they didn't, what were they doing entering the apartment? Even with the wife's permission, without any warrants, I don't see why they'd enter.

Once inside, though, you have no idea what occurred.

[Jeff White]

Cabby,
I don't know if it was a good shoot or not. And you don't either. No where in the article does it mention what Officer Ford saw or thought he saw. We've heard one side of what is obviously a multi-faceted (aren't they all) story.

All I'm saying is that people, especially armed people like most on those board should be willing to wait for the facts. Anyone who carries or keeps a firearm for protection can find him or herself in a similar situation. Things happen very fast in these situations.

To give you an example, several years ago right at shift change we received a complaint from the manager at the local Pizza Hut that there were several males of oriental descent in the store and they were acting suspiciously. They had ordered a small pizza and a pitcher of drinks and appeared to be casing the place. The manager had looked out the window at the car they drove up in and noticed that it had Michigan license plates on the front and Wisconsin on the back. I was going to drop the officer I was relieving off at his house and then go check out the suspicious kids at Pizza Hut. Before we got to the other officer's house, we received a 911 call that the kids in Pizza Hut had jumped up and were proceeding to pry the cash boxes out of the video games and jukebox. Naturally we made an emergency run out there along with the other officer who was working the incoming shift with me. We pulled onto the lot just as the kids ran out the door and headed for their car. I ordered them to stop. The one closest to me went right into his peacoat with his right hand. As soon as he reached into his coat I drew my weapon and ordered him to stop and slowly remove his hand, finger spread. He complied. I have no doubt that if he hadn't complied or if he had came out with anything resembling a weapon in his hand I'd have shot him. The entire episode was over with faster then it took you to read this. He was 15 years old. The kids were members of a Laotian gang from Lacrosse WI and they had delivered some drugs to Atlanta. They had almost 2K in cash on them, but they were stealing gas and food all the way back to Wisconsin because the money belonged to the gang.

I can only imagine what the press would have done to the story if I had had to shoot that boy. I'm sure the fact he was a gangbanger wouldn't have figured into it.

We don't know enough about what happened in Denver to make any kind of judgement about what happened. We do know that the officers thought that an extremely violent suspect was in the house. We don't know what the officer saw or thought he saw. We don't know if Labato said anything to the officers. Eventually it will come out. Why don't we wait until we have more details about what actually happened before we rush to judgement? I'm sure if you'd been forced to shoot an attacker on the street or an intruder in your home, you like all the facts presented before people judged you.

Lone_Gunman, I have no idea if a private citizen would have been charged yet or not. I don't have enough facts to judge. I don't see many parallels because a private citizen most likely would never have had to enter the house to attempt to arrest the suspect. Contrary to the belief of people who's only real contact with the criminal justice system is watching Law and Order, people aren't always arrested at the scene of a shooting. Especially if there are circumstances that may prove it justified.

Jeff

[Coronach]

Believe me, the actual presence or absence of things like warrants, probable cause and exigent circumstances cannot be divined by the presence or absence of them in newspaper reports.

We keep reading newspaper blurbs as if they are an accurate synopsis of the case, and they're just not. Accept this.

Mike

[El Tejon]

I've said it before, I say it now, I will say it in the future: The answer to any question of law as to a shooting is . . . anyone . . . Bueller . . . it depends!:D

1. The media are idiots. Why does everyone believe the story is correct? What rational basis is there to assume that? I have read stories about my own cases that bear no relation to reality in any way and I TALKED TO THE REPORTER and gave him the necessary statutes and court documents. They STILL get it wrong (editing, they are morons, deadlines, etc.).

2. By default you are not getting the full story, you are getting specualtion by witlesses. The officer BETTER have taken 5 and STFU RFN.

3. Going for a beer can? No, going for what turned out to be a beer can. What if in this case: "I'll kill you pig #@(*&^%!" + sudden movement = reasonable belief of serious bodily injury or death.

Don't know what happend; no one else here does either. Whatever you speculate to incriminate him, I can speculate to exonerate him. I just hope the investigation finds out what did happen.

Oh, btw, this is yet another example of Problem #2, what happens after you inflict injury upon your fellow human beings. Yes, Problem #2 exists, it is not just some figment of El Tejon's imagination which he uses to interfere in the fun of Texicanos from shooting anyone for any reason.:rolleyes: Also cops live in continual concern about Problem #2 as they see it the more than the Warrior Princes of the Internet who slay the goblin horde every Saturday at the gun shoppe.

Wait and see.;)

[hammer4nc]

Denver PD has a history of questionable police shootings...statistically higher incidence than comparably sized cities.

Could the reason that we never hear *both* sides of the story, is that now it is standard procedure for officers involved in shootings to immediately clam up; including not filing reports or agreeing to answer questions of investigators for weeks or months after the event?

This updated story adds some context re: Denver history. After reading the story, those who accuse of copbashing fee free to argue that there isn't a problem...give it your best shot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Police shootings sparks new round of questions, outrage in Denver


The Associated Press

DENVER - A police officer's fatal shooting of an unarmed invalid has unleashed another wave of outrage as activists questioned the pace of reforms after the third such slaying this year and the 11th since March 2003.

Frank Lobato, 63, was lying in bed, watching TV with a can of soda in his hand Sunday night when an officer burst into his second-floor bedroom. Mistaking the can for a weapon, the officer killed Lobato with a single shot to the chest, police said.

"We're all in shock right now," Lobato's niece, Maxine Warren Martinez, said during a demonstration at the City and County building Tuesday. "(The officer) doesn't need to be on the job if he's not doing his job right."

Chanting "stop killer cops," she and about two dozen protesters marched inside to Mayor John Hickenlooper's office. He was in Washington, D.C., but the group met with his chief of staff, Michael Bennet, to demand the resignation of Police Chief Gerry Whitman and the firing of Ranjan Ford Jr., a three-year officer who was placed on paid administrative leave after the shooting.

"We assume he's simply thinking this will pass," said Doug Vaughan, who helped organize the rally.

Bennet said Hickenlooper has made police use of force a top priority.

"The point is we have to figure out how to have a police department that protects the safety of people and the safety of officers," he said.

Outside, Vaughan and other activists blasted what they said was a police department unwilling to acknowledge deficiencies in training and oversight.

"The shootings will continue until the city recognizes we have a police force that's out of control," he said. "You can't trust police to police themselves."

The shooting came about two months after the city agreed to a $1.3 million settlement with the family of Paul Childs, a 15-year-old developmentally disabled boy shot by an officer last summer and three weeks after a 38-member task force issued reform recommendations.

Officials urged patience as reforms take hold.

"I'm not so arrogant as to suggest (the reforms) would have prevented this," said task force co-chairman Penfield Tate III. "But I do think if many had been implemented, perhaps a different culture or different perspective may have been instilled so that this gentleman would still be alive."

Hickenlooper's spokeswoman Lindy Eichenbaum Lent said the mayor is confident in the police chief's commitment to improving safety for residents and police officers.

In December, the city announced more crisis-intervention training and deployment of more Tasers, electronic stun guns. Last month, the police department modified its use-of-force policy to urge use of non-lethal means to subdue violent suspects.

This summer, the mayor's office plans to ask the City Council to establish a civilian oversight panel to monitor investigations of police use of force, Eichenbaum Lent said.

"We're absolutely going in the right direction," said Rick Garcia, chairman of the City Council's public safety committee.

After police finish investigating Lobato's death, District Attorney Bill Ritter will review the case to decide whether to charge Ford with a crime.

In Ritter's 10 years as the city's chief prosecutor, no charges have been filed against police officers involved in shootings. On average, there have been seven fatal and nonfatal police shootings each year, said Ritter's spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough.

In a statement Tuesday, Ritter said police appeared to have legally entered the 42-year-old's home because they had verified the existence of two arrest warrants issued for him and had his wife's implied consent to enter the home.

Sunday's shooting came after a woman called police to report her husband, Vincent Martinez, had been beating her. She told police that Martinez was unarmed and that Lobato, his uncle, was in an upstairs bedroom of the home, police Detective John White said.

Martinez ran from the house before police borrowed a ladder to enter the home through a second-floor window, White said. Martinez was arrested Monday.

Vaughan and other protesters criticized the changes so far and demanded an independent civilian panel to investigate complaints about police and to hire, fire and discipline officers.

"Good intentions are not enough. If people have to bite the bullet and heads have to roll, and if it costs careers ... so be it," said Ernesto Vigil. "We need to feel that our lives are safe on the streets of this city."

Story link: http://pm.gazette.com/fullstory.php?id=2864
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comment: The emotional comments aren't especially enlightening, but more so the history of the department to place this incident in context. Denver police and the Paul Childs shooting have been discussed on THR in the past, anyone can do a search. IIRC, several members called the Childs case a *good shoot* as well.
:uhoh:

[2nd Amendment]

The analogy of the gangbangers falls flat. You were in a public place confronting a group with reasonable suspicion they were up to no good AND dangerous. Here we have a man shot in his own bedroom. The wrong man by any definition. I don't need to be there to know it was a very WRONG decision. An unarmed man not currently wanted for any crime is dead. There's no indication from the police statement he even hinted at violence AND every indication from witnesses that shots were fired before the officers issued any commands. That's the beginning and end of the issue.

This standard attempt I see more and more lately of saying "you weren't there" in one variation or another has already become very old. Don't need to be there. There's no question if the man was armed. There's no question if it was the man being sought. There's little question of whether the man was physically or mentally capable of being any form of threat. Thus, very WRONG decision by the officer. A decision that would have any non-LEO locked away now and for many years to come. But based on Denver history we have little reason to believe this cop will get anything out of it at all. Again, none of us need to be there to know any of these things.

Now, before anyone asks what do I feel should be done in such situations? Shoot the wrong man and it's homicide. You get a trial and go to jail. Being a cop should mean nothing nor should the circumstances. Kill an innocent, serve the time, period. Is that tough on cops? Yep. Exactly as tough as I would expect the law to be on me.

[Selfdfenz]

Well given, from the POV some of the posters, that we know so little due to the incompleteness of the news story, no decisions can be made regarding what if anything wrong happened to the decedent.

Actually when this kind of thing happens in the future the media should refrain from publishing any information as it can't be trusted and we can't be sure what really happened.

Then...behind the scenes...ahummm...the truth will be.......developed....!
Let's not get upset by every little thing. The officers ex-chief vouched for him so it must be aok.

S-

[WonderNine]

That's right everyone. A cop shot an innocent guy sleeping in his bed. So the standard form response is, "We don't know enough" and "There's not enough information here."

Gotta love that.

[carpettbaggerr]

A cop shot an innocent guy sleeping in his bed. Guy wasn't sleeping, and he probably wasn't innocent either.
Lobato, a career criminal...Lobato had a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1959, including arrests for drugs, assault and burglary. Hmmmm....

[Majic]

If several people knew the perp exited the window 25 minutes before the LEOs entered the window you would think someone would have said something.
Another point to look at is the entrance thru a window with the use of a ladder. What happened to using the doors?

[dev_null]

> Denver PD has a history of questionable police shootings

Maybe they should shoot some of those jocks who have been taught it's ok to rape women in their frathouses.

- 0 -

[sturmruger]

This is a sad story all around. Sounds like there were a fair amount of mistakes by the cops, but shooting a guy in bed is a pretty big mistake.

[Coronach]

That's right everyone. A cop shot an innocent guy sleeping in his bed. So the standard form response is, "We don't know enough" and "There's not enough information here."

Gotta love that.Actually, if you look at the accumulated posts of most of the LEOs on this board, you will find that we state, incessantly, repeatedly, ad nauseum, that 'we don't know enough' and 'there's not enough information here' in the vast majority of threads where one guy is accused of shooting another guy, regardless of the status of the shooter as LEO or citizen. This is because cops know that news reports are worthless, and trying to determine the propriety of any individual's actions from them is an excercise in futility. However, whenever the usual group of cop bashers starts sounding off and we issue the same caveats that we always do, it quickly degenerates into 'cop-bashers' vs 'cop-apologists.'

The truth of the matter is that the cop was in a position that no citizen could find himself in- he was in someone else's house, conducting a search for a person accused of a violent crime. This alone negates the argument of "if I had done the same thing"- because you legally can't do the same thing. And in the course of that search he came upon one individual who did- *something* What did he do? I have no idea. But in the span of less than a second the cop had to make a decision...and now we can all lean back in our comfortable chairs, bask in the glow of our CRTs, and blather that he is a JBT who deserves the gallows, or at least the unemployment line.

Take a shoot-don't shoot scenario. In it you have about .3 of a second to decide if you're going to shoot the other guy or not. You better be right, too...because if you're wrong you either end up dead or shooting an unarmed man. The logic is that if you put a good man in this scenario he will make the right choice, and the corollary is that if he makes the wrong choice he's a POS.

The truth is a hell of a lot more complicated than this. But don't let that get in the way of a good, healthy knee-jerk response.

Mike

[Edward429451]

If there's not enough info available to determine if the officer was at fault, then how can we go ahead and make determinations of possible culpability based on the decedant's PRIOR criminal history.

I thought it was if you've served your time, case closed?

You guys aren't making sense there, sounding like hyporcrites.:scrutiny:

Using carpetbaggers logic, the cop is also scum based on his prior law enforcement record.

If you want to withhold conclusion until more facts are available, at least be fair about it and let it extend both ways.

[Gunsnrovers]

The whole things just smells of things going wrong.

The women who called the police was outside the apartment with her kids (not at risk). She reports to tell the police that her husband unarmed and is inside with her uncle.

Why is there a need to gain entry via a window? I just don't read in the articles posted and another posted today in the LA Times of a need to forcibly gain entry. If they had arrived earlier when the women was still held hostage I wouldn't have these questions, but that clearly wasn't the case here.

While I realise and agree the news isn't the best source of all the facts, things don't add up very well. The reporters motives aside, you're still having to depend on witnesses who may or may not be reliable. That's a no win for everyone until things can get sorted.

The one thing the Police seem to have is time. Time to wait out a suspect. Time to organize. Time to plan. Time to evaluate. Why did they rush in? It creates a confrontation where officers have to decided a life or death situation.

While I don't know enough to lay blame on the officer for pulling the trigger, I do seriously question the reasoning that put him and fellow officers inside that apartment in the first place.

Jeff

[Coronach]

The prior criminal record is a non-issue, except to show that he may (or may not) have been involved in nefarious activity, and may (or may not) have engaged in some activity that ultimately led to him being tragically shot. While his criminal record is a fact, it really doesn't say much about what happened in the bedroom, absent other facts (which we don't have). At best it might give an indication of tendencies and motivations. Or, it might not.

I (for one) am certainly not saying "hey, he had a rap sheet, its a good shoot." I doubt highly that anyone else has said that, either (though I'm not gonna scroll back the thread and see).

Mike

[Coronach]

The one thing the Police seem to have is time. Time to wait out a suspect. Time to organize. Time to plan. Time to evaluate. Why did they rush in? It creates a confrontation where officers have to decided a life or death situation.

While I don't know enough to lay blame on the officer for pulling the trigger, I do seriously question the reasoning that put him and fellow officers inside that apartment in the first place.Amazing the things that we don't know, huh? Unlike some people (not necessarily you), I'm well aware that just because the newspaper report fails to mention an exigency does not mean that it does not exist.

Also, if the cops chose to just sit back and 'wait out' every suspect, uh...lets just say that this is not practical. And before anyone starts in with the usual schtick of time, money, laziness, what have you...was this an apartment complex? You come home, discover that the cops have cordoned off your building because Bubba Wifebeater has decided that he's not coming out...how long until you get really annoyed about not being able to go into your own home? A few hours? A week? How much food does the Bubba have in there? ;)

Mike

[Jeff White]

2nd Amendment,
I don't think the analogy falls flat at all. The circumstances are similar. I was responding to a crime in progress and Officer Ford was participating in a search for a suspect known to be violent. I was confronted with a shoot/no shoot situation that the suspect resolved for me by following my commands. I can tell you that if that kid had brought his hand out holding anything resembling a weapon, I would have shot him. He had a large screwdriver in his belt that he had been using to pry the coin boxes out. If he had brought his hand out of his coat clenched around that handle he likely would have been shot before he cleared his coat with it. There would have been no way of knowing exactly what he had in his hand and I suppose there are some who say it's more fair to let the bad guy get the first shot off. What it amounts to is that you have less then a second to process all the information and decide to shoot or not. The consequences are pretty severe. If you err too much one way and you don't go home at the end of the shift. If you err too much the other way and an innocent party may be dead and you're facing loss of your job, criminal prosecution and civil action.

We don't know what Officer Ford was confronted with when he shot Labato. We don't know if Labato said something to him, if he refused to show Officer Ford his hands or if he brought his hand up from the side of the bed holding the soda can. Right now it looks like Officer Ford was confronted with a shoot/no shoot situation and until we know what he saw or thoutght he saw we can't judge his actions one way or the other.

The police department is not going to release information until the investigation is complete. If Officer Ford was wrong and executed Labato or accidentally shot him, I will be first in line in calling for prosecution. But I'm not going to scream for anyone's head until the facts are in.

Jeff

[R.H. Lee]

An observation to follow that comment. Anyone dumb enough to show aggression to a police officer and/or initiate action that would indicate he is a threat will get shot. It's only common sense. You do not challenge an armed cop without suffering the consequences.

[Gunsnrovers]

An observation to follow that comment. Anyone dumb enough to show aggression to a police officer and/or initiate action that would indicate he is a threat will get shot. It's only common sense. You do not challenge an armed cop without suffering the consequences.

***?

You'd better qualify aggression and threat.

Jeff

[Gunsnrovers]

And in the course of that search he came upon one individual who did- *something* What did he do? I have no idea. But in the span of less than a second the cop had to make a decision...

Coronach, you're post is the reason I'm so leary of officers doing an entry as a matter of course. So much opportunity for things to go wrong in so many ways. Making an entry immediately makes every encounter hi-speed. Confined time and space forces the issue and the response.

I am absolutely in favor of the need for speed when need be and LEO's need to have the training and tools to do so when called on.

As for how long should you have to wait something out? There can't be an answer to that. Each situation is different, but in this case I have seen nothing to indicate lives were at risk. I do know the frustration and anger caused by waiting out a bad guy (having been effected by more then a few street and freeway closures for hours on end) is much better then waiting out the long long funeral procession for a downed officer or the community impact caused by a bad shoot.

Jeff

[R.H. Lee]

You'd better qualify aggression and threat.


Common sense dictates that you defer to the authority of a cop during the time of initial contact when he does not know what's going on.
That means, you give him your full attention, you remain calm and reasonable, you do not advance toward him, you do not reach under your shirt or behind your back or into your pockets. You do not give him any reason to suspect he may be attacked.

[Climb14er]

There is a long history here in Denver of cops saying 'I thought he had a gun' when no firearm was ever found.

If a CCW person killed someone, that same excuse would NOT fly. We would be up you-know-what's creek.

This is going to cost the Denver taxpayer another million dollars or more to pay off the family of the deceased person. The lawyers are already lining up with the family.

Yes, cops have a duty to protect and be protected at the same time. However, there are TOO many cases of shoot first rather than retreat or seek cover. The so-called innocent victims have had no weapons and especially firearms yet they are killed.

Again, if I shot this guy, and the guy was in bed or even if he 'menaced me' in the street and he had no weapon, I'd be going to prison. Period, case closed.

[fix]

I'm not taking one side or the other, but I would like to answer one question posted earlier.

Could the reason that we never hear *both* sides of the story, is that now it is standard procedure for officers involved in shootings to immediately clam up; including not filing reports or agreeing to answer questions of investigators for weeks or months after the event?

No. The reason you don't hear both sides of stories like this is because the author of one side was rendered Dead Right There™ and is therefore permanently "clammed up."

[odysseus]

My question is about warrants or people coming to your property and trying to get in. I have never been served, nor do I participate in anything that would ever make me think I would be.

However - are there any documented cases and case law\procedures about how maybe a LEO serving a warrant and bashing into a home might be visited with a civilian armed trying to defend himself not knowing LE is busting in? I mean if I have any incident in my house, esp. at night - I in all probability will be armed. If through a window or at a doorway I am seen with it, does that justify an officer to just shoot me? It will most likely be in my hands, and there is a slight chance that I might have it pointed at someone before I can gauge if it is a LEO or not. Pretty friggin nuts!


BTW - It's not fair to armchair this situation of the guy being shot, especially since we don't have officers point of view. Domestic Violence calls are second to pulling cars over as what kills officers the most. Not saying that justifies it, but the mindset is HIGH tension. I wonder how LEO are trained about entering people's homes and surprising them.

[PBIR]

Coronach, you're post is the reason I'm so leary of officers doing an entry as a matter of course. So much opportunity for things to go wrong in so many ways. Making an entry immediately makes every encounter hi-speed. Confined time and space forces the issue and the response.

I agree with this statement 100%. Cops wanting to play SWAT in non-SWAT matters is a big mistake.

We had an incident in TN not too long ago. Cops were serving a warrant. Made "tactical entry" to the home. Man inside goes for gun to defend his house from what he sees as an invasion. ( I think it was a shotgun ). The LEO's shot and killed him. OK, pretty righteous shoot all things considered huh?


Except the cops made a mistake and deployed at the wrong house. Oops. Sorry dead guy we just murdered.

I'm not anti-cop at all. I am anti-stupidity though, and this rambo BS needs to be reigned in, because too many innocent people are being killed by mistake. And when I say innocent I don't mean free of criminal background, I mean not doing anything that justifies their execution by law.

One more thing. Some of you that are screaming about judging this cop before all the facts come out are also making remarks that paint this to be the deceased's fault. What if that had been your dad sleeping in that chair? What do you think he might have done if he was startled out of sleep by a bunch of knuckleheads charging thru his house armed? Might he have gotten himself shot? Would you be so understanding then, if it was someone you cared about?

I doubt it.

[madcowburger]

Yet another case illustrating the need for doors and windows that are seriously hard to break into.

It ought to be a real chore and a lot like work for anybody, no matter who they are or who they think they are, to kick, hammer, or ram in your door, or to get in (or throw anything in) through any of your windows, without a *lot* of time and/or noise being involved. Ideally, it ought to require generous amounts of high explosives and/or heavy earth-moving machinery to get in.

Defensive, or defensible, architecture is definitely a big part of the answer to a lot of this nonsense. But of course it will probably be declared a federal crime (maybe some sort of "terrorism" like having expired registration or inspection stickers in Pennsylvania -- see the link below) to fortify a house long before most of us can ever afford to do it. I believe there is already a law against bullet-proof shutters and doors in Montreal, Canada, and we grow more like Canada every day.

http://pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?base/news-18/1089273794222800.xml

MCB

[rock jock]

I gotta say, there are an awful lot of conclusion jumping on this thread. First of all, if the guy was sleeping, what in the world was he doing holding a can? If the officer interrupted his nap time and the first thing he does is roll over and reach for something on the bedstand, he would cause to be really nervous and assume the worst.

I would also say that if this guy watched his nephew beat his wife for hours and didn't lift a hand to help her, the world is better off without him.

[PBIR]

there are an awful lot of conclusion jumping on this thread

Tell me about it...like the three you just sprung. :D

[Climb14er]

<First of all, if the guy was sleeping, what in the world was he doing holding a can? >

That's the cop's 'story. The dead man cannot tell his side of the story. For all you know, the can never fell due to the dead guy, or it was knocked down by the cop after the shoot, etc, etc, etc.

Regardless of the man being an indigent and down on his luck, the guy's dead and the same old story is repeated...ad nauseum, 'the guy had a gun' and there was no gun found.

Like I said, I respect the cop's in their daily work and their need for defense. There are TOO many of these shootings here in Denver that get washed away by Bill Ritter, the DA who has never prosecuted a cop for a bad shoot. It's always the same old story according to DPD...there is NEVER a bad shoot when it comes to a cop.

If a CCW holder commits a crime, we have to pay the price. Now Denver taxpayer will once again pay the price and it's going to be large.

[Coronach]

Coronach, you're post is the reason I'm so leary of officers doing an entry as a matter of course. So much opportunity for things to go wrong in so many ways. Making an entry immediately makes every encounter hi-speed. Confined time and space forces the issue and the response.Well, we all seem to be assuming that this was some sort of dynamic entry in which the cops blow in, take everyone by surprise, and everything happens real-quick-like because the cops are driving the events by doing some high-speed, low-drag ninja stuff.

Thats not what I'm getting out of this at all. From what it looks like in the original write ups (and yes, my caveats apply to this assumption as well- this is educated specualtion, but speculation nonetheless), it was a couple of cops going into a structure with the permission of the homeowner. This is completely, utterly different from a dynamic entry. This is a slow, systematic search of the building for a suspect. however, once someone is found, things can still get sporty right quick, as this tragedy demonstrates.

While I'm in random assumption mode, I'll add another. Something was motivating the officers to get this guy into custody with a quickness. I can think of few less-savory methods of entering a building to look for a BG than through a window, via a ladder. If someone suggested that as a way to get some giggles by getting my gestapo on, I'd tell them they were plain mental. ;)

As for how long should you have to wait something out? There can't be an answer to that. Each situation is different...Agreed. Again, this does not sound like any type of SWAT-ninja dynamic high-speed-low-drag tomfoolery. This sounds more like old school peace officer type stuff. "Ma'am, the man who beat you is inside? ... You ok with us going in there and gettin' him? ... Thank you, ma'am."

Mike

[Wildalaska]

Just scanned here real fast, looks good, rationality is winnin aagin, I cant add any more

wildgocoronachAlaska

[Gunsnrovers]

Has there been any update on this case? Nothing that I've seen here in the LA press. Anything out of Colorado?

[Sindawe]

Update:

Reports: Officer Who Shot Unarmed Civilian May Be Suspended
Family Wants Officer Fired; Union Calls Suspension 'Capricious'

POSTED: 5:59 pm MST March 17, 2005

DENVER -- The Denver police chief is expected to recommend a 30-day suspension for an officer who shot and killed unarmed invalid Frank Lobato last summer, according to reports from Denver newspapers.


Frank Lobato was shot and killed by a Denver police officer who thought he was holding a gun.

Lobato's family says Officer Ranjan Ford Junior Ford should be fired, but the police union says a 30-day suspension would be "arbitrary and capricious."

Ford was searching for Lobato's nephew in connection with a domestic violence call when he climbed through a window into a Denver home. He spotted Lobato and fired after apparently mistaking a soda can in Lobato's hand for a weapon.

No criminal charges were filed in the shooting, but two police supervisors received oral reprimands.

Manager of Safety Al LaCabe has the final word on any discipline.

Source: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4296483/detail.html

[Vernal45]

The Denver police chief is expected to recommend a 30-day suspension for an officer who shot and killed unarmed invalid Frank Lobato last summer

wow :what: :what:

If I mess up, shoot the wrong person, will i get a 30 day suspension, oral reprimand.....I kind of doubt it.

[Relayer]

I just don't understand someone who is not an LEO comparing themselves to LEOs in shoot situations. "...If I had done that, they'd throw me under the jail..."

You're not asked to enter buildings trying to find criminals and suspected criminals who may have nothing better to do than kill you.

Now this cop may have just been looking for someone to kill, I don't know (though his record doesn't seem to indicate that). Maybe he became bloodthirsty. Maybe it was a very bad decision, with many other actions possible that could have saved the life of the dead man.

But (imho), unless you were there in the room, your showing your own bias/prejudice if you are condemning him already (regardless of what the Denver PD may have donein the past).

LEOs are constantly in a position where they are giving the bad guys the first go at killing them, and then reacting. This Denver LEO may well have made a mistake that cost an innocent man his life. I hope not, but this cannot be determined by what's been shared here.

[Vernal45]

Did the LEO in question have a warrant to enter??? all my research says no. (I could be wrong in my research) SO, if no warrant, the LEO had no right to even enter the house, none, nada, zilch. NOW, if this is the case, and he had no legal right to enter, the this is murder, plain and simple.......And if you are I, non LEO's commit murder, we go to the big house....He should not get a pass, a lighter handling than we would, just because he is a cop, and is asked to chase criminals. Remember, no one asked him to do this job, he applied for it.

[auschip]

Did the LEO in question have a warrant to enter??? all my research says no.

she gave police permission to enter her home, and told them that her husband and his uncle Lobato were in the apartment.

No need for a warrant, she gave permission.

[Vernal45]

I stand corrected on the warrant issue, no warrant needed with consent to enter. It still does not answer the question of murder. This was a bad call on the LEO's part.

[pax]

The thing is, a half-assed response like this leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths.

If the cop was wrong, if he violated his training and department policy under the stress of the moment, and is culpable for it -- shouldn't the dead guy's life be worth more than 30 days off work and a note in the file?? A reprimand is hardly fair payment for the life of an innocent man...

If the cop was not wrong, if he did what anyone with similar training & experience would do in the same circumstance, and was therefore not culpable -- why are they issuing a reprimand at all? If that's the facts, it looks like just a political game, once again a case of the rest of the world being against the good cops. No wonder they circle the wagons!

Note I haven't taken a "side" here at all. I'm just saying that the response by the brass to issue a mere suspension and reprimand sure seems to be inflammatory ... from either side of the blue line.

pax

Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed? -- Axel Oxenstierna

[artherd]

"It has now been determined that the party who was shot was not armed at the time of the shooting," a subdued Whitman said, reading from a prepared statement. "The officer stated that after he fired the shot, he heard an object fall to the floor on the other side of the bed. A beverage can was recovered from the floor in the area of the bedroom."

If someone leveled a can at me under a sheet, I'd have shot them too.

[mr.trooper]

Ill second the HORRIBLE validity of the media and suposed witnesses.

I love Indiana news...its kind of humorous some time.

Channel 22 news reported a shooting where a man used a revolver...5 minets later in the recap they reported said revolver as an "ASSAULT WEAPON". :banghead:

The same news channel reported a shooting of a police officer in Michigan where a man shot an officer in the face with a single shot from a non-descript handgun. The reporters interviewed some wana-bee gang-banger who said he heard "AUTAMATIK GUN FIRE, LIKE POP,POP,POP,POP, REAL FAST LIKE." :rolleyes:

The media and Sheeple dont know squat. I sure wouldnt trust them any farther than i can throw them.

[FunGunner]

I think, one of the reasons that, there are so many "Cop-Bashers" out there, because Law Enforcement Offices/Agents scare them. Some scare the heck out of me.

Example: Girl gets mad at her boyfriend, calls the cops, and tells them he beat her. Boyfriend gets balled up and tossed in the slammer till he sees the magistrate. Magistrate says he can go home, but the police pick him up the next morning at his home and back to lockup and see a judge. The case was dismissed, because the girlfriend showed up to court with a stick that she claimed he beat her with, but the arresting officer had logged another stick as evidence already.

He lost his job because of a lie (security clearance/attendance issues because of the arrest and confinment time). You say it can’t happen? I’ll give you his name and number, so he can tell you first hand. Yeah, I know it wasn’t the LEO’s fault, but the system is set up so that on the word of one person, it can be abused, and shatter a bright career with a good company for one man. Scary stuff huh? That’s the power law enforcement/courts holds, and it’s not perfect.

I’m not a cop basher and, I shoot with many officers from my area. The one’s I know are good people, but when on the job few seem like the sort you want to be friends with. I’m reminded of something I was told once “Lead by shining example or rule by fear, are the only good ways to handle subordinates.” Guess, which one is easier to do?

Those are some reasons why I believe there is a rift between citizens and law enforcement in my opinion, and worth as much as it costs.

[c_yeager]

If the officer interrupted his nap time and the first thing he does is roll over and reach for something on the bedstand, he would cause to be really nervous and assume the worst.

If I am the guy sleeping in bed I would be reaching for the nightstand too. Only I would come up with a 6" .357 instead of a brewsky. And that is precicely why the combined existence of no-knock warrents and shoddy paperwork make me just a bit nervous.

I think that the gun-owning public is generally leary of this sort of thing simply because of the nightmare scenario of the police doing a dynamic entry into the wrong (read YOUR) house and the lose-lose situation that would entail.

As for asthe story above, based on the very limited information available it sounds like fairly crappy police work. These officers had the initiative and entered the situation. It was their duty to ensure that they proceeded in a manner that was safe for themselves and everyone around them. It's one thing to shoot a guy pulling his wallet on the street in low-light. Thats a situation that you don't have control of. Its a whole nuther thing to enter someones house and shoot them. If your going into a person's house you need to EXPECT people to be moving around and it is the officers job not to shoot the wrong person. If that is not possible then they have no business going into the house in the first place. There was ample time for the officers to obtain plenty of lighting to be able to identify their targets in the structure.

Anyone remember the "gunners alley" excercise with the steriotypical bad-guy pop-up targets mixed in with child carrying the balloons? You walk into a person's house while armed and you damn well better be prepared for that kid with the baloons. And it was this officer's job to know that. Now that means that the officer screwed up his job, which doesnt NECESSARILY mean it was murder but, it doesnt mean it was a "good shoot" either.

[Sindawe]

DENVER (AP) - The city of Denver has reached a deal with a police officer suspended over the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.

Ranjan Ford Junior had been suspended for 90 days after the 2004 shooting of Frank Lobato. The settlement calls for a 50-day suspension.

Ford shot Lobato because he believed he was holding a gun. Lobato was lying in bed and holding a soda can.

Ford and other officers were looking for someone else after getting a domestic violence report.

Source: http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=b17c1092-0abe-421a-003c-a8d8370169de&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bfNo details on the deal reached at this point.

[Wllm. Legrand]

FWIW, my brother in law is Denver PD.

I was informed the next morning that the DPD shooter was a "cowboy" and that it was thought to be a bad shoot.

For months the DPD did the old "Blue Shield" BS, covering their own dirty behinds, as the truth is something police rarely embrace when it indicts bad cops.

SOP. Just another reason never, NEVER trust the police. They are NOT your friend. They are NOT on your side. Another American myth.

I've had other police officers that were my friends, so to speak, then the more I learned, the less I wanted to be their "friend". Comes with having standards about the role of the State and the relationship between the people (from whom ALL POWER IS DELEGATED) and government (supposedly the servant of the people and the safeguard of their rights and property).

They look like good people. At a party they may seem like good people. But they are first and foremost agents of the State, that from which they derive their power and identity.

Denver PD is replete with corruption and cops that protect their own. The current Denver Chief is under a cloud by the rank and file because he dared to suspend a cop who threatened him and his family.

What a great bunch, eh?

Footnote: Since this episode and subsequent conversations, my brother in law and me have drifted further and further apart. That's what happens when you force people to address contradictions.

[Cosmoline]

If the shooter hadn't been a police man, he would be in jail for murder right now.

There is absolutely no doubt about that. It's one law for thee, another for me. Cop kills a man holding a soda can, they get in trouble at work. Non-cop kills a man holding a soda can, it's at least manslaughter.

[Wllm. Legrand]

There is absolutely no doubt about that. It's one law for thee, another for me. Cop kills a man holding a soda can, they get in trouble at work. Non-cop kills a man holding a soda can, it's at least manslaughter.

You have that right.

One law for the rich and the "king's men" and the other for us plebians..

Oh..I forgot. We have a "Just Us" system. Guess so.

[Ryder]

I am not a "career criminal" but even I know to communicate to an officer any move I am going to make in advance. It goes a long ways toward preventing this type of misunderstanding. Some might say that's paranoid but I think it's being smart. Why was this dead guy so unwise?

The amount of domestic violence charges that have anything to do with physical violence these days is highly questionable. How does such a charge justify a storm trooper mindset?

Mysteries abound :)

[NineseveN]

If were the guy in the bed, that would have definitely been a weapon and someone would have probably died; maybe me, but maybe a cop first. Of course, I'm not a criminal, I don't expect the police to come crashing into my place at odd hours.

If I had been the cop, I would have likely shot as well. It's double-edged sword, everyone wants to go home and hug their families...

[crazed_ss]

The way I see it, cops accepted their job as Police knowing very well how dangerous it is. They need to show extra restraint and err on the side of caution, IMO. If the cop isnt 90% sure the guy has a weapon, he shouldnt take the shot. The way I see it, If you're so concerned about getting back home to your family everynight, you should NOT be a cop.. go be a computer tech or something.

[NineseveN]

The way I see it, cops accepted their job as Police knowing very well how dangerous it is. They need to show extra restraint and err on the side of caution, IMO. If the cop isnt 90% sure the guy has a weapon, he shouldnt take the shot. The way I see it, If you're so concerned about getting back home to your family everynight, you should NOT be a cop.. go be a computer tech or something.

And what happens when there are no more cops under this idea? It's easy to tell someone to restrain themselves behind a computer monitor.


Oh yeah, I am something of a computer tech, though I do work for a govt agency and have security clearances, I don't have to carry a firearm as part of my assignment. So I'm not coming at you from the side of the LEO, just a practical and honest standoint from a guy that knows a lot of these folks who get paid a third of what I do to serve and protect people like you and I.

[crazed_ss]

And what happens when there are no more cops under this idea? It's easy to tell someone to restrain themselves behind a computer monitor.


Well that's what they're trained for. Cops often have a lot of leeway where they have to use their own good judgement and discretion. Ive seen episodes of Cops where a LEO disarms actual armed threatening suspects without shooting. They may have been perfectly justified in shooting, but they found a way to resolve the situation without using that much force.

Of course, every situation is different and many times it comes down to the cop or the bad guy. In this soda can situation though, it seems like the cop was trigger happy.


Oh yeah, I am something of a computer tech, though I do work for a govt agency and have security clearances, I don't have to carry a firearm as part of my assignment. So I'm not coming at you from the side of the LEO, just a practical and honest standoint from a guy that knows a lot of these folks who get paid a third of what I do to serve and protect people like you and I.


I'm a computer tech too.. also work for the federal gov't :)

Out here in Cali, police can make some awesome money.. sometimes more than an entry level computer guy. LAPD starts at $51-53k.. that's a lot of cash for a young guy with only a HS diploma, even in Cali :)

I know most LEOs in other parts of the country dont make nearly that much.

[NineseveN]

I'm a computer tech too.. also work for the federal gov't :)


Oh yeah? Hmm, what branch of Govt? You can PM me if you like, we might know each other. ;)

[Kurush]

http://mbcinfo.com/Breweries/National/NatColt_2/NatColt_2_MB.jpg
Sir, just drop the economically priced malt liquor product and step backwards, nobody has to get hurt here!

[medic_guns]

If a police officer shoots someone that poses no threat, he should be charged with murder. "Well, it looked sort of like a weapon" does not cut it. I can't believe we live in a time where cops can kick in a door, shoot an unarmed man, and not suffer some consequences for it. I hope like heck that the prosecutor nails that guy. Time for excuses to end. If the man in the bed did not have a weapon, prosecute. End of discussion. I hope NO ONE ever kicks in my door at any hour. We have home invasions around here all of the time. Sometimes home invaders dress like cops. I obey the law. There is no reason for anyone to ever kick in my door

[gt3944]

Come on guys, whats so hard to understand..get your hands up is not that hard of a comand...most of these guys though think theyre thoug, and if theres anyone to blame, is the chiks husband not the officer..

[buzz_knox]

I am not a "career criminal" but even I know to communicate to an officer any move I am going to make in advance. It goes a long ways toward preventing this type of misunderstanding. Some might say that's paranoid but I think it's being smart. Why was this dead guy so unwise?


Maybe he had a startle reaction to the door flying open? Maybe he was chemically impaired? Maybe the cop never said gave a command before firing?

It's plausible to come up with scenarios in which neither said was "at fault." The decedent's prior criminal history ultimately has no more bearing on the issue than whether the cop liked Twinkies versus Ho-Hos. He was legally innocent, and the situation he found himself in was one in which anyway, whether crook or cop, might have made a furtive movement.

How many plain clothes/off duty officers have been shot because they turned towards their fellow cops with a weapon in their hand, having been so focused on one situation they didn't comprehend what was going on?

I will say it's nice to a bit more rationality on both sides than usual.

[1911 guy]

But I'm leaning that way more and more as I get older. Mom and Dad raised me to respect the police, the police have taught me they are liars, cheats and wholly unethical with few exceptions. We are dealing here with a copo who barges into a bedroom and shoots a man over a mistaken tin can. Sounds to me like a case of a man not being able to do a stressful job under pressure or being a john wayne wannabe. Possibly both. When a citizen makes a questionable shoot, the deck is stacked against him. Hell, it's stacked against him in a righteous shoot. When a soldier is caught in questionable behavior, they are hung out to dry because of the "higher standard" ethic, which is laudable, but hypocricical given who is enforcing it. Then we have the cops. Shoot some poor bastard on a whim, come up with a lame excuse for it, get your buddies to toe the "thin blue line" and forget about it. And if you're a cop who's honest, what are you doing to drum out the crooked ones in your department? Or are you toeing "the line"?

[c_yeager]

Come on guys, whats so hard to understand..get your hands up is not that hard of a comand...most of these guys though think theyre thoug, and if theres anyone to blame, is the chiks husband not the officer..

You might consider actually reading the article in it's entirety. Particularly this section:

"People were out running around, grabbing their kids" when the shot went off, Salaz said. "Then, you could hear the officers inside yelling 'Put your hands up!"'


Note the chronology of events: Bang, "put your hands up"

You might also notice that the man who was shot had litle or nothing to do with the domestic dispute.

[Werewolf]

Wllm. Legrand referring to the role of Police in US society:At a party they may seem like good people. But they are first and foremost agents of the State, that from which they derive their power and identity.Well I'll be darned. Someone on THR actually does understand who and what the POLICE are. :what:

Until everyone understands the above the myth that the police are our friend will continue to promulgate itself throughout our society. Of course the powers that be do everything in their power to make us believe that the police are our friend - all the while chuckling amongst themselves and making bad jokes about how gullible the masses really are. :cuss:

[Hardware]

Be reasonable and drink the kool-aid.

[gt3944]

You might consider actually reading the article in it's entirety. Particularly this section:



Note the chronology of events: Bang, "put your hands up"

You might also notice that the man who was shot had litle or nothing to do with the domestic dispute.


Key words, "CHRIMINAL RECORD" and I dont think that the cops are just gonna bursts in and shoot somebody for domestic violence..

[Werewolf]

Be reasonable and drink the kool-aid.I'll tell ya what. When the day comes that the powers that be order the police to confiscate all weapons from civilians (or any other police state action) and the police, in mass, collectively tell the PTB to :cuss: off then I'll drink the coolaid.

Fortunately for me the CA and NOLA cops as well as the OKNG (I was ashamed to be an Okie on that day) are fine examples of slavering dogs obeying their masters and are highly indicative that any police state orders will be readily and happily obeyed, tails wagging in anticipation of the opportunity to exercise the control over us they all savor so much.

Odds are I won't ever have to drink that cool aid and not because the order will not ever be given but because the cops will obey the order - in mass. I doubt if more than 1% would disobey - after all it would be a lawful order from their masters...

[Old Dog]

Okay, so it was a "bad shoot." Maybe the department did attempt to cover-up and whitewash the incident. But this:
They look like good people. At a party they may seem like good people. But they are first and foremost agents of the State, that from which they derive their power and identity.So police officers, then, are not like real human beings -- those who are non-police officers ... Their employment as law enforcement officers automatically renders them beings that, because of their jobs, and the fact they're employed by government, are incapable of displaying the traits you want to see in human beings? No cop thinks like you or me? All their "power and identity" comes from their job? Whoa.

Sheesh. Once again, an officer-involved shooting story turns into regular people vs. evil law enforcement agents of the state.

[buzz_knox]

On second thought, no reason to contribute to thread drift.

[benEzra]

Key words, "CHRIMINAL RECORD"
...dating from 1959. Forty-six years ago. Maybe some more recent, but there is no indication that

(1) this elderly man was recently participating in criminal activity;

(2) that he was viewed as a threat by the police, prior to the incident;

(3) that his decades-old criminal record had ANYTHING to do with his being shot.

My father-in-law is in his seventies. When he was 21 or 22, just out of the Navy, he did something really stupid and got a felony rap for robbery, in the mid-1950's. He got caught, served a bit of time, got straightened out, got married, gave up alcohol on my now-wife's 16th birthday, and has lived an exemplary life since.

If someone accidentally shot him TODAY, and then used a crime he committed in 1955 to justify the shooting, I think I'd be pretty upset. To me, that would be just grasping at straws.

I fully understand the officer's actions. From here, he appears to have made a tactical mistake, perhaps due to bad training or just bad tactics, putting himself in a situation in which he felt he had to shoot somebody, and unfortunately for all concerned, he did. But regardless of one's opinion on this incident, what the victim here did three or four decades ago has nothing to do with the justifiability or non-justifiability of this shoot.

[Hollowdweller]

Ahhh, but the man killed here had a criminal, so he musta derserved it. :fire:

That was the spin that I thought the article was trying to do.

[MN_Strelok]

Salaz and other neighbors knew that Martinez had already jumped out a window and run away before three officers, including Ford, entered through the same window. Police had surrounded the building, but an officer walked around to the front, allowing Martinez an opportunity to flee, neighbors said. It was at least 25 minutes after Martinez ran away before the officers went in, Salaz said.

That's nice. If one of those neighbors had simply passed that bit of information on to the police, the whole situation could've been avoided.

For me, the original article created more questions than answers. (Was the shootee an EDP? Was he high? How did he react to the cop(s) entering his room? Did either of the other cops witness the shooting?) If the above quote is true, however, the neighbors bear at least part of the blame.

[tellner]

That's nice. If one of those neighbors had simply passed that bit of information on to the police, the whole situation could've been avoided.

For me, the original article created more questions than answers. (Was the shootee an EDP? Was he high? How did he react to the cop(s) entering his room? Did either of the other cops witness the shooting?) If the above quote is true, however, the neighbors bear at least part of the blame.

Maybe in some far-off abstract way. But the guy who does the crime is the criminal. From what we see here it sounds like a bad shoot where the officer is being protected by his fellows. That makes him the criminal if there's a crime. It's his responsibility, and if he can't take responsibility for it he shouldn't wear that badge and gun.

It's funny. I've watched the local papers for every single police shooting in my city for about fifteen years. Every single one of them was justified. Every single one of them was no-bill if it even went to the Grand Jury. And every time the FOP and the police administrators allowed as how there might be bad shoots, but this one was different. In fifteen years just given human fallibility it's unlikely approaching ridiculous to believe that not one shooting would have been criminal if had happened to a "mere civilian".

[Wllm. Legrand]

Okay, so it was a "bad shoot." Maybe the department did attempt to cover-up and whitewash the incident. But this:
So police officers, then, are not like real human beings -- those who are non-police officers ... Their employment as law enforcement officers automatically renders them beings that, because of their jobs, and the fact they're employed by government, are incapable of displaying the traits you want to see in human beings? No cop thinks like you or me? All their "power and identity" comes from their job? Whoa.

Sheesh. Once again, an officer-involved shooting story turns into regular people vs. evil law enforcement agents of the state.
Well, actually..yes.

There are the "good cops". They refer to themselves as "peace officers", not "law enforcement". The title "law enforcement", treasured by the rest, should be a clue. If the implications do nott resonate with you, then think about it. Anyway, back to "good cops". Good cops will not tolerate unconstitutional laws, no matter what their area of operation. These kind of people are a distinct, miniscule minority. I paint with broad brush because it is true.

Then you have the 'intimidating cop', who is in the majority. As I mentioned before, he obtains his power (which he craves, and was his reason for becoming a "law enforcement officer"), and his identity. Most of what he does, says, the people he associates with, and his view on the relationship between the citizen and the government, is tainted by this perspective.

Then you have the "rogue cop". Bad seed. Lying, conniving, not worthy of trust. A significant portion of cops, who do "okay" on the force because of the benefit of the "blue shield of silence". Not worthy of any respect whatsover, they would follow any government, enforce any law, and consider themselves and their "brother" "law enforcement officers" as more worthy individuals than ordinary citizens.

Sorry to "offend" anyone (rhetorical response), but that's the way it is.

"Law Enforcement Officers" are not Andy Taylor. Basically a gang mentality runs through them, unfortunately powerful by the imprimatur of the State.

[tellner]

Reminds me of an old Colorado Sheriff who said "I'm here to uphold the Peace. Don't make me enforce the Law."

[NineseveN]

Reminds me of an old Colorado Sheriff who said "I'm here to uphold the Peace. Don't make me enforce the Law."

That's simply awesome!

[Optical Serenity]

Another cop bashing thread.... :rolleyes:

[AnthonyRSS]

I'm still trying to figure out what is wrong with John Wayne. :confused:

[Wllm. Legrand]

Another cop bashing thread.... :rolleyes:

A simplistic perspective.

Obviously the point of view of one that does not wish to clutter his mind with perspectives or observations that are different from his own.

Silly, actually. I know, not suspect, not think, but know that Denver police conspired to obstruct justice and conceal the truth.

Cop bashing? What a moron.

[pax]

And this one is done.

Wm Legrand, a PM is on the way.

pax