Police kill man in bed.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
> 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 -
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

***?

You'd better qualify aggression and threat.

Jeff
 
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...
Click to expand...

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
 
You'd better qualify aggression and threat.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

No. The reason you don't hear both sides of stories like this is because the author of one side was rendered Dead Right Thereâ„¢ and is therefore permanently "clammed up."
 
A question, but not related to this exactly...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
<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, 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.
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Denver police kill wrong man in bed...
Replies
1
Views
448
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
W
  • Locked
When is Self Defense Murder?
Replies
5
Views
652
frankie_the_yankee
F
T
  • Locked
Officer shoots/kills unarmed man
Replies
6
Views
805
Dorrin79
D
J
  • Locked
Taxi Driver Shoots Man in Bin Laden Mask
Replies
1
Views
694
Preacherman
P
P
  • Locked
Osama shot! (well, a reasonable facsimile, anyway...)
Replies
7
Views
891
MarkDido
MarkDido
Back
Top