Use of Deadly Force Video (justified or not)

[cracked butt]

I had another though about this in hearing people compare this to Ruby Ridge or Waco:

The man in the video was wielding a shotgun and pointed it at the swat members at close range. The Swat team members needed to react very quickly if they didn't want to be killed. Body armor or not, there's no guarantee that a shotgun blast a few yards away isn't going to severely cripple or kill a man.

At Ruby Ridge, A sniper from a very safe and comfortable distance away snuffed Vickie Weaver for wielding a baby.

At Waco, the SS simply incinerated the people in the compound when they wouldn't comply with their demands to surrender and were making them look incompetant.

 

[goalie]

So I guess those guys at Ruby Ridge that shot Randy Weaver's kid were justified. I mean, heck, why not send in a team for a shotgun that has a 0.5" too short barrel, and one sold to him through entrapment even. The people who blindly assume cops=good are just as biased as those who think the opposite. I'll say it again, without knowing whether or not the team's deployment was justified, we cannot make an informed decision.

 

[ctdonath]

Given the situation, the cops were justified. Arguably, both parties were justified: cops taking crazy/criminal down, vs. homeowner protecting property.

I saw this years ago. IIRC, Mr. Shirtless was doing something stupid/crazy that called for police intervention...but whether a dynamic SWAT entry was appropriate was highly debatable. My take at the time was that they should have just waited the guy out. Don't confuse the tactical with the strategic.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The incident in the video had nothing to do with Ruby Ridge. What part of that don't you get? There was no immediate threat at Ruby Ridge for the sniper shot in question. That in NO WAY compares with what is going on in the video where there is VERY IMMEDIATE action required.

At Ruby Ridge, nobody was being threated by Weaver's kid. Give it up. It isn't a comparable comparison by any stretch. That was a bad shoot.

This situation is completely different. Nothing in this situation will influence the outcome of Rudy Ridge or vice versa.

Balaclavas don't work as body armor for the face (ala Quartus, thank you, sir). So while the cops may have had on body armor, they were not completely protected from incoming gunfire and so the fat guy wearing only shorts posed a real and immediate threat when he pointed a long gun at them. Bird shot, buck, slug, or if it was just some large caliber rifle, all pose a very real threat. Did they know it was just a shotgun? Maybe? Is the threat less real? Nope.

 

[Carbonator]

The video shooting seems justified armchairing over the internet but...

Over the years I've learned to always, always hear both sides before making a judgment, no matter how obvious or one sided it may seem.

If I was a jurror on this shooting and the video is all they gave as evidence there's no way I could judge one way or the other. I'd need witnesses and the rest of the evidence. Who made the video? Was the whole event recorded or just parts? What was the intent of the officers in charge? Was the shooting officer qualified? What was the intent of the victim? Was he sane? Mental? Retarded? Could there have been a better approach? Are the cops corrupt or trigger happy? Were the police putting themselves in unnecessary danger, thus forcing a deadly response? I can think of many scenarios where the shooting could not be justified. And vice versa. Without more evidence and without hearing both sides of the situation I voted "not enough information".

 

[cracked butt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Randy Weaver's kid shot in the back?

D N S - not sure if you are critiqueing my last post, but from reading your's, I belive I'm on the same page as you are.

 

[goalie]

Randy Weaver's son was shot by a SWAT team, likely dressed up just like the guys in that video, who were on Randy's land doing recon because Randy had bought a shotgun with a barrel 1/2" too short. When they were sniffed by the family dog who was out getting walked by Randy's son and a family friend, they shot the family dog. Randy's son and the family friend returned fire on unknown assailants, killing a SWAT team member. In the gunfight, Randy's son was shot in the back. Now, we have a SWAT team just like in the video, who were out playing ninja because a guy didn't show up for a court date on a case of a shotgun with a barrel 1/2" too short, a case later thrown out for entrapment BTW. We have a SWAT team who killed a family dog unprovoked and started a deadly firefight that ended with a kid shot in the back, yet I am supposed to pass judgement on that video without any other information, taking it for granted that the police are always justified in being there??? No sir, despite the odds being well in the favor of it being a good shoot on that tape, there is no way to tell without knowing WHY they were there, because they, like the SWAT team initially at Ruby Ridge, could be playing ninja without a good reason.

FWIW, the sniper incident at Ruby Ridge is a whole different story, and is not what I was referring to previously. That was cold-blooded murder, and Lon Horiuchi should be in jail rotting away, as should the FBI supervisor that gave "shoot on sight" orders. If you want to be pissed off at an abuse of federal power, read up on how the state was not allowed to prosecute the sniper despite a grand jury indictment. Chilling stuff.

 

[Diggler]

I think it was a good shoot but...

Uh, given the position of the SWAT team and the movements of the BG, wasn't the cameraman in a VERY stupid place to be standing??? If the BG took 1 or 2 more steps... Imagine if the SWAT would have hit the cameraman in the crossfire, or got killed because they had to hold their fire because the cameraman was in the line of fire.

I'd say the cameraman made the ultimate bad decision of the day, he's lucky he didn't get killed.

 

[only1asterisk]

I think the shoot is good. I further think the shoot is a seperate from any other mistake the police made, UNLESS the shooter knew at the time.

David

 

[Quartus]

However, I don't think that was your point. Could they have used some other tactic to resolve the situation without sending in SWAT ? Well, for that we certainly don't have enough information

Uh, yeah. That's what I thought I said.

That tragic example shows how police can do everything they can, be entirely justified in defending themselves and still kill someone who was just as justified in defending himself. I don't propose that this event was necessarily similar, but without more details, it might well have been.

Yep, and goalie is right on, too.

 

[HankB]

Based SOLELY on the video . . . there's not enough info. For all the VIDEO ALONE shows, the homeowner may have been investigating a prowler. Stupid, but not illegal. Then he sees masked men already pointing guns AT HIM, and tries to bring his shotgun to bear. Few would be fast enough to do this successfully - he obviously wasn't - so he's dead.

...the SWAT team did have markings. If you zoom up to 200% you'll see the lead SWAT Officer has a very large bright area on his left (our right) chest side.

Put markings of any sort on a MASKED man, and he is still UNIDENTIFIED. That's what the mask is for.

For a point of reference . . . here in Texas, down around Houston, there have, over the last few years, been a number of home invasions where masked men with badges and/or black T-shirts carrying a "POLICE" or "DEA" logo have robbed people. I really don't think they were ACTUALLY police, but since they were masked . . .

Again, to emphasize . . . based SOLELY on the video, there absolutely isn't enough info to render an informed judgement.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Absolutely justified, though hardly looked like a fair fight."

No such thing as a "fair fight." This kind of thing is not a game.


If I was the swat guy and this guy came around the corner and pointed a shotgun at me, I would shoot him just as fast as happened.

Now, anyone want to argue that the 5.56 can't drop someone like stone?

 

[TheeBadOne]

Several people on other boards say they remember seeing this video before and the subject knew the Police were present. As the man steps off the porch you can see him talking and nodding, to our right. They say that a team of Police w/Negotiators were speaking to him with a bull horn. The subject was none compliant during the incident.

 

[cordex]

Several people on other boards say they remember seeing this video before and the subject knew the Police were present. As the man steps off the porch you can see him talking and nodding, to our right. They say that a team of Police w/Negotiators were speaking to him with a bull horn. The subject was none compliant during the incident.

Possible. He does appear to acknowledge someone as he steps onto the porch. However, if they were negotiating with a bullhorn, I'd expect the to be able to hear something. Also, I'd like to think that a negotiator wouldn't let someone just strut around the corner to get gunned down by SWAT without yelling at him a couple of times, if only to distract him enough to keep his weapon pointed away from where SWAT was coming around. If the negotiators said anything, Gut Guy didn't react at all. It is possible he was just ignoring them, but it is impossible to tell.

 

[Blain]

The video does not seem to be working for me.

 

[Quartus]

The subject was none compliant during the incident.

Non compliance with orders does not justify shooting. The ONLY thing that justifes shooting is a real and immediate threat to the officer or bystanders.


Which appears to have been the case.


We have to separate the actions of the individual police officer who did the shooting from the larger police action. It is quite possible that having a SWAT team there was a bad decision, stupid, arrogant, whatever you want to call it, and that the situation could have been resolved peacefully. If that could be demonstrated to a jury's satisfaction, you could have a good case for legal action against the department, and possibly individual decision makers.


But the officer who did the shooting had a deadly weapon pointed at him at close range, with every appearance of intent to shoot the officer. He was justified in shooting.

And it STILL could all have been a tragic mishandling by police. Hence, avoidable but still justified AS FAR AS THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICER IS CONCERNED.

 

[TheeBadOne]

....and it's just as likely that if the SWAT team wasn't there the man could have been enroute to shoot someone, or multiple people.....and then the Police would have been blamed for that too....

 

[Blain]

I wish to see the video, anyone able to send it to me?

 

[goalie]

"....and it's just as likely that if the SWAT team wasn't there the man could have been enroute to shoot someone, or multiple people.....and then the Police would have been blamed for that too...."
END

Of course, this discussion is about what is seen in that video, and that video alone. Nothing more, nothing less. The question wasn't about what someone heard started the hostage situation, or about what someone really knows about that situation from the newspaper. When you consider that the video does not have audio of the shirtless guy saying he was going to go off on a killing spree, your pure, unadulterated speculation is irrelevant, as would be any speculation that it was a bad shoot based on some factor(s) not seen in the video.

 

[Binkus]

JUSTIFIED SHOOTING!

people keep on questioning why the police where there and thats not the question at dispute.The question is was the shooting justifed and thats YES, the officer that shot is there based on the assesment of his chain of comand. The reason for being there and if its justifed reason is unknow but either way the officer is still there. And now his life is at risk, he had to shoot to be certain of his survivabilty. Look at it this way, your the point man and your team has been called out for whatever reason (thats the chain of comands call) and now you find youself abour to look down the barrell of a shotgun. what would you do?

 

[Carbonator]

The cops could have created the deadly response (through intent or incompetence) by placing themselves in harms way. Did the point man break orders and put himself at risk? Still, not enough information.

 

[King]

Could have been that mr homeowner was investigating suspicious activity on his property and did not know that it was a government swat team awaiting him. homeowner ends up dead for no good reason.

guy goes psycho / unstable and swat teams takes him out when the muzzle points their way.

ain't enough info here. the guys general demeanor doesn't appear to he hostile, at least not in an obvious way. I would need to know more about what led up to the shooting. I'll assume that the authorities were called due to some justifiabel threat perpetrated by the dead guy.

 

[c_yeager]

ain't enough info here. the guys general demeanor doesn't appear to he hostile, at least not in an obvious way.

How do you construe walking up to someone and pointing a shotgun at them as non-hostile? Its not like they were in his living room either. He had to walk up to the cops in order to get shot. Walk up to me and point a shotgun at me and what do you think is going to happen?

 

[Quartus]

I think he was talking about his demeanor BEFORE he rounded the corner and saw the cops. Once he saw the cops, it's obvious he was surprised and reacted to what he perceived as a threat. So did the officer.

 

[goalie]

"How do you construe walking up to someone and pointing a shotgun at them as non-hostile?"
END

In the same way that people have not construed the police pointing weapons at the shirtless guy is non-hostile I would guess.