Deputy cleared in drug raid shooting... Clean shoot or not?

[DMF]

Vernal I think you should do some actual research into use of force, including past cases. An officer does not need to actually be under attack, or see a weapon, for there to be an imminent threat of deadly force.

Now you can continue to make your ridiculous claims, but it is obvious to any objective reasonable person why the deputy had a fear of serious bodily injury or death based on the totallity of the circumstances.

With your vast LE experience you should know why I use those words specifically.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Here's the big problem: In the true Totality of Circumstances this instance would not be up for serious debate if not for other instances such as someone else cited. Bad motives and bad cops bring into question the actions of good cops. When the good cop is also a scared cop and when it turns out there is no weapon the second-guessing gains momentum. When things such as Assrt Forfeiture make bad cops do bad things people wonder about everything cops do.

I'm with Rojo on this one. Kick the crap out a few people and screw Rodney King. If killing this guy was justified then busting him in the head sure as hell would have been, too. Also, remove the financial incentive that drives bad cops to do the things that create these kinds of questions in the first place.

 

[Vernal45]

If incidents like this continues, the rift between citizens and the POLICE will widen.... We need some law changes, statute law, to restrict powers of the police. Because as it stands in this case, a murder was committed. Deadly force should only be used with a imminent threat is there. Police officers rights do no trump citizens rights. If the policed have unlimited rights, all they have to do is justify it, with department sop and case law, the police already have way to much power.

The court cases you cited had to do with fleeing felons, this guy was not fleeing.

 

[DMF]

There was an imminent threat in this case.

Also, Graham v. Conner did not deal with a fleeing felon, and the decision dealt with officer's taking actions based on what they know at the time, NOT 20/20 hindsight. Also, while the specific circumstances in TN v. Garner do deal with a fleeing felon, the Supreme Court ruled on the broader subject of when deadly force is justified.

Again if you were a LEO you should know this already.

 

[Infidel]

.... it is obvious to any objective reasonable person ....

No, it is not. Quite the contrary.

If incidents like this continues, the rift between citizens and the POLICE will widen....

Yes, exactly, and the knee-jerk, dogmatic, tortuous, irrational defence of any mistake committed by any LEO anywhere to anybody exacerbates the situation terribly.

 

[Vernal45]

DMF, you are in the camp of MORE police powers. WE are not going to agree on this. It seems that you never see a problem with police officers actions when they are in the wrong, and this incident is a prime example of an officer, about to crap his pants, so he shoots an unarmed man. It does not matter if a gun was found yesterday in that house, it does not mean a gun is there right now. If you dont see a problem with the actions of this officer, you are part of the reason mistrust betweens citizens and LEO's is growing, and growing fast. We will just have to agree to disagree. Statutory Law Trumps Case law, you can quote case law all you want, case law does not mean dick on the street. Cops are constrained with the use of deadly force just as citizens are. What you explained is: If a cop has a hunch, a suspect looked at him funny, its a Pre-assault indicator, lets shoot his @@@. I am through with this thread. Sad to say, if you are really an LEO DMF, I an saddened for this country.

 

[DMF]

You completely mischaracterized what I've said, I'm not surprised though.

Satute does not always "trump" case law, but that matters not one bit in this case, because from the information available it does not appear this officer violated either.

I do not belong to any "camp" and certainly do not say that officers can do no wrong. However, just as you claim assume that I think officers can do no wrong, I could easily assume you think officers can do no right.

Regardless your claims about this being a bad shoot, are not supported by what is known about this incident.

With that I'm done with this thread.

Carry on with your irrational rants.

 

[El Rojo]

If you don't want to get shot, don't act like you are looking for something when a cop asks you to keep your hands where he or she can see them. To me I don't care if they find a gun or not. If a cop busts into my house right now and they are yelling police and in the room they come, I am not going to start reaching into my desk drawers. If I do and the cop shoots me, that if fine because there is a distinct possibility I have a pistol in there. If I don't want to get shot, I won't reach into the desk drawer.

Now in the same respects, a cop busting into my house takes the risk that I might grab for my pistol before I can visually verify they are cops. A disaster in the making, but hey, sometimes life sucks. That is why if the JBTs are reading this, just knock on the door and wait for me to answer. You can cuff me before I have a chance to run and get my guns. Or if I answer the door with a pistol behind my back, I can set it down before you have to shoot me.

Then again, I am a law abiding citizen so I have no need to flush drugs down the toilet or search under the couch for guns. So sorry to waste your time.

He should have kicked him in the head or teeth!!!

 

[BlackCat]

"(Walker's) actions, whether intended to locate and retrieve a weapon, find and discard evidence...

Attempting to "find and discard" evidence is best dealt with by fatally shooting the individual??? Wow!

or simply his lack of fear and respect for the deputy

It's illegal to not respect or fear them? Punishable by being shot to death? ***? Hell, I didn't even know we were supposed to fear them! I suppose they like that.

I think the guy used poor judgement in capping this poor kid myself. I wouldn't just blast away without seeing a real threat, not an imagined one.

Remember the thread, "Drawing on a Drawn Gun"...? He's in your sights, you've got the jump, you've got the training, if you see a gun, there shouldn't be a problem with getting the first shot off.

DMF, to the low lifes rescue. As usual he continues to use fuzzy logic to stick up for cops on the wrong side of the law. He maybe can identify with being a bad cop? I dunno.

 

[El Rojo]

He's in your sights, you've got the jump, you've got the training, if you see a gun, there shouldn't be a problem with getting the first shot off.

He didn't have any problem getting the first shot off, he just didn't see a gun. I will plainly say it, I don't think a cop should have to see a gun in order to shoot your stupid butt. If you won't listen to commands and you keep searching for something under a couch, you take the risk of getting shot. Go ahead and give us the hypothetical of the guy being deaf. Please.

Again, give the guy a tooth extraction with your boot!

Oh and

Because as it stands in this case, a murder was committed. Deadly force should only be used with a imminent threat is there.

The State Attorney didn't agree and said it wasn't murder. I guess we are to take your armchair quarterback analysis over the State Attorney? Because you say so it is a murder?

 

[dloken]

I really can't pass judgement on the cop based on the story.

Instead of treating drugs as a criminal problem treat it as a health problem. Regulate and tax the sale of drugs and profit instead of spending billions on a lost cause. We'd have less dead people on both sides and maybe less addicts.

 

[goalie]

DMF,

The problem is, many of the people on this BB actually know of specific circumstances when the police used deadly force for no good reason, and not in self-defense, and got away with it. Randy Weaver's wife would be a great example of such a shooting.

One bad apple spoils the barrel.

It may not be reality, but the perception that the police are all to apt to use unwarranted deadly force and get away with it is not all that uncommon anymore thanks to the fact that citizens have been killed unjustly and the killers, who happened to be police, got away with it.

 

[yorec]

Lessee: During breifing we were told this guy sometimes keeps a gun under the couch, at least that's where they found it last time they were here to search... He's got a history... He keeps poking around under the couch and in the front of his waistband despite my screaming at him to keep his hands in view and not move... What the heck's he trying to do? NOW the cretin's shoved his hand under the couch again, hope he hasn't found it yet - come on, give it up already and cooperate! $%#^ he's moving quick, what'd he grab under the couch!!??

Bang! Bang!

Guess I'm a bad cop too...

Sometimes ya just can't win DMF - remember the standard is "reasonable person." Looks like you're in the wrong court.

Action always beats reaction. A rule to live by, 'cause if you forget it you may die by it... Even if you've already drawn down on the threat.

 

[rock jock]

Maybe the BG was just searching for a donut.....you know, as a peace offering.

 

[El Rojo]

It may not be reality, but the perception that the police are all to apt to use unwarranted deadly force and get away with it is not all that uncommon anymore thanks to the fact that citizens have been killed unjustly and the killers, who happened to be police, got away with it.

Are you sure it is uncommon anymore? What stats are you basing that on? Let me give you an example.

I just finished teaching my high school classes about the 2nd Amendment and school shootings. After we did some research, we found that violence in schools is down to all time lows! In fact, your odds of being killed in a violent school attack are about 1 in 3 million! So why is everyone so scared of being killed at school? The media is my theory. They report it so often and we hear about it so much, in reality, it isn't that big of a deal.

So how often do cops unjustly kill someone? It would be interesting to see the statistics. Personally I wouldn't rely on the one case of Vicki Weaver as being a tell tale sign of an epidemic. I wouldn't rely on the media either. So it would be interesting to see how likely it is you would be unjustly shot.

Again, I stick by the don't reach under the couch or don't try to flee in your Suburban from the cops principle. Comply with police requests and/or demands would seem to reduce your odds of getting shot quite a bit.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Like a majority of people who are ultimately found to be “unarmed†this boy is dead because he was stupid.

The shooting of an unarmed person by LE has been hashed and rehashed and addressed over and over by nearly every court in this country including the US Supreme Court and all have continually held that the individual officer can only draw his or her conclusions to used deadly force based on the facts as they appear at that point in time.

So as the shooting was described in the article the officer had reasonable fear, to believe that this moron was reaching for an unknown object, regardless his actions were not normal, to what one would expect a rational person in the same situation to do.

Normal people comply, stupid and irrational people do stupid and irrational stuff, like reach for guns when the cops are ordering them to show them their hands.

Normal people don’t shoot cops, irrational and stupid people do.

In Georgia the law says,

17-4-20 (b) Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.

 

[El Rojo]

Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.

AKA KICK HIM IN THE HEAD WITH YOUR STEEL TOED BOOTS!

 

[goalie]

The bottom line is that many people take issue with the militarization of suburban police forces in order to fight "the war on drugs." Many people take issue with no-knock warrants in all but the most extreme (hostage-rescue type) scenarios. Many people also take issue with the police being held to a lower standard by local prosecutors after a shooting when compared to civilians who use deadly force.

When you add it all together, right or wrong, you end up with distrust and animosity directed towards the police by John Q Public.

For me personally, I know that I would have spent some time in jail had I been the one shooting an unarmed man, even if I did it in my own home. I would be out five figures in lawyers fees. Maybe it's just sour grapes......

 

[El Rojo]

Many people also take issue with the police being held to a lower standard by local prosecutors after a shooting when compared to civilians who use deadly force.

I never understood this argument. I have no business busting into people's houses, trying to stop armed robbers in their vehicles, or any other police duty where I might have to shoot someone. So to say that if I as a civilian had staged a drug raid on this guy's house and I shot him, the prosecutor would put me in jail, that is a no brainer! It isn't my job! The state doesn't give me much authority to do that!

Since the state or other local authority does pay these cops to do that, it makes sense that these guys should have some added protection. Cops are not civilians while on duty, so don't pretend like they are. Just like we are not cops period.

Now if a cop was off duty and he got into a shooting, who would handle the investigation? The shooting review board or the local DA? If the local DA looked at the situation and gave favor to him because he was a cop, then I say complain away. However, in 99% of the cases here on the High Road when we hear the classic, "I wouldn't get away with that." NO CRAP! You aren't a cop, you shouldn't be chasing people down and arresting them.

For me personally, I know that I would have spent some time in jail had I been the one shooting an unarmed man, even if I did it in my own home. I would be out five figures in lawyers fees.

How do you know that? What does your state law say about people breaking into your home? Better yet, what does it say about people breaking into your home and searching under your couch cushions in search of a weapon as you give them commands to stop or leave? If I were on your jury, you would walk, assuming the DA even takes it that far.

Ok, you are in MN, I am in the PRK. Lets look at the PRK code.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.



199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

PRK state law says if you are unlawfully in my house, I can shoot you. It doesn't say they have to be armed. So I guess in MN you have to worry about that, but in the PRK I walk. Who would of thought.

 

[Sindawe]

Bad shoot IMHO. But what the hey, its just another dead "kafir" in the holy WOsD. The Law is The Law after all....

 

[mfree]

I have a lot of fun from my armchair, but I wasn't there, and i trust media reports about as much as I trust my hole-rusty, 660,000 mile F-100.

 

[Steve in PA]

Good shoot, despite what the "A.C.E.'s" on here seem to think.

 

[FlyinGN]

got what he deserved. its amazing how when the perps DON'T listen to the cops and wonder why they get shot. Almost like they are looking to get shot so that they can sue the city and live Phat!
If he would have listened 100% he would be here today. it was HIS decision not to listen..

 

[Arc-Lite]

insidious...your on your own, it has been advised not to feed trolls. dmf.... going by the 1st post on this topic, it was known prior to entry, the druggie, had weapons before, and this weapon in the past and was found near the couch...upon entry, the druggie was on the couch, and your team had made entry with 8 members, the man power was not in short supply... not securing the druggie was an error, how you secured the druggie, was not the question, nor is a problem for anyone capable of thinking (sarcasm) ...yes, you control then cuff, and by cuffing you gain control, doing so would have changed the outcome of the day. your ability does not define who you are, it's your choices.

 

[goalie]

So to say that if I as a civilian had staged a drug raid on this guy's house and I shot him, the prosecutor would put me in jail, that is a no brainer! It isn't my job! The state doesn't give me much authority to do that!

And, my point was that those police should not have been serving a no-knock warrant so that they can search for DRUGS in the first place. The fact that the police are dressing up like ninja wannabees and kicking down doors to serve warrants while carrying machine guns that civilians are not even allowed to own just might be a big part of the public relations problem.

As for how I know about going to jail, well, I almost landed there overnight when I stopped someone from carjacking me on my way to work one night. Let's just say that the JBT from the Minneapolis PD was not too moved by the fact that I was going to work (they actually met me at the hospital, on the ICU I was working on that night) at the time, driving through a bad neighborhood. Nope, he wanted to search my car, and thought that yelling out across the ICU "Where's your gun?!?!?!?!" in a very loud voice at 2330 was a good idea. I guess I intimidated him with my tactical scrubs and cloggz. Maybe he thought I carried it while working in case I wanted to put down some DNR/DNI patient that they made comfort care, who knows? He wasn't too happy when he found out that my gun was A. locked in my truck and chained to the seat-bracket and b. no he could not go search my truck for "evidence" of a crime that was committed OUTSIDE of my truck.

Treat me like a criminal for defending myself, accuse me of trying to buy drugs in a bad neighborhood at night, despite the fact that I have no record at all, have a valid permit to carry, and was quite obviously on my way to work, and you just turned a guy who used to be a POST board certified LEO firearms instructor when he got out of the Corps into someone who really doesn't trust cops too much anymore. Telling me that "most" are not going to try to abuse power doesn't change my personal life's experiences.