Police Kill Man In Drug Raid Gone Wrong (VIDEO)

[Kick]

SNIP Ive seen officers on here post about how they dont worry about civil trials because they know they will never be out of pocket on anything. thats wrong. If cops **** up its not my tax dollars that should have to pay for it!

I can't say for sure about Indiana but, I imagine that it would be the same. In Illinois, if the officer followed departmental policy and procedure to the letter, it is true that the department will cover them. However, if the individual officer acted even an asshair out of policy and procedure, the department is off the hook. It all comes out of the officer's pocket and if the department is saying that the officer acted out of policy and procedure, they will most likely lose their job as well and depending on the severity of their actions, jail time is always a possibility...

 

[dross]

Sorry it took so long for me to read back through to this thread.

I weighed what I saw against the criterion needed for an officer to use deadly force, which is sadly not all that much. They did announce who they were (albeit not well) the subject did have a weapon (albeit not a conventional weapon) and if someone were struck in the head with that weapon, they could be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm.

In addition to the above, police officer's are required to make announcements and / or give commands when feasible. I think the intention of this ruling was to give officers some leeway in a situation like:

Cop pulls up to a gas station and an armed robber has the clerk at gunpoint. There is a 50 / 50 chance that when the officer yells "Police Officer, Drop the Weapon!" the robber is just going to shoot the clerk. I understand not giving "verbals" in a situation like that. However, like anyone and anything else, if you give some people an inch.... they will take a mile.


.

Your analogy doesn't hold up. If a cop shows up during an armed robbery, he already knows he's dealing with a criminal. If cops break into a private home, they may or may not be dealing with a criminal.

Why is the cop's safety more important than the house's occupants?

 

[Kick]

Your analogy doesn't hold up. If a cop shows up during an armed robbery, he already knows he's dealing with a criminal. If cops break into a private home, they may or may not be dealing with a criminal.

Why is the cop's safety more important than the house's occupants?

Ok. You either need to read what I posted again or you are simply looking for an argument.
EDIT:

I posted a court ruling. I then posted what I believe to be "the spirit of the law" and a situation in which it could be applied. I did infer that I believe that factor was considered when the prosecutor made his decision. I further stated that "if you give some people an inch, they will take a mile" - Implying that I saw no reason that "verbals" could not have been given in this situation. HOWEVER, they did NOT HAVE TO be given.

 

[dross]

Ok. You either need to read what I posted again or you are simply looking for an argument.

I reread your post and I see you weren't drawing an analogy between the two incidents.

I am, however, always looking for an argument.

I actually agree that the officer shouldn't be criminally liable. I think he did exactly what he's been trained to do. My problem is the system that creates this situation.

Violating the sanctity of someone's home should never be routined, it's a very, very serious matter. So serious our founders chose it as a right to be enumerated in the BOR.

Getting a warrant shouldn't be easy or routine. No knock warrants for non violent offenses create the potential to exercise violence on people who aren't violent, and on innocent members of the family.

When a situation like this goes bad, heads should roll. People should be fired. To me it's simple - don't make mistakes when executing warrants. Make sure the person you want is there. Spend lots of time figuring out ways to get him without putting others at risk. Plan with the idea that the safety of the innocent occupants of the home comes before officer safety. Apply for every warrant and plan for every entry with the knowledge that if you make a mistake that causes harm to someon innocent, you're career is over.

Harsh? Yes. Part of the price that should be paid to receive such enormous power. In this case, the power of life over death.

I think of where I sleep in my house. If I'm in my bedroom, there's no way I could hear what anyone was yelling outside my door. If there was ever a no knock raid on my house and I'm in my bedroom, there is almost certain to be a shooting. If I hear lound banging on my door, I'm going to grab one of the semi auto carbines I have near to hand. Once they see me with a rifle in my hands, will they let me drop it? No way. So now what? Do I die, or do I shoot back? If I shoot a cop, I'm going to jail if the cops on the scene even let me live.

All I'm saying is if you set up such a scenario, you'd better damned well be right.

 

[Kick]

Ok, that's a little long to quote but, it actually sounds like we are on the same page.

 

[Compatriot G]

I'm sure this has been discussed here many times, but the problem I see is the militarization of the police. I looked up the origin of SWAT. The first SWAT team was in L.A. in 1968. Some of the reasons given for the formation of SWAT were the Watts riots and the fears of urban warfare by militant groups. I can see where a city the size of L.A. might need a group of officers to deal with out-of-the-ordinary situations.

Fast forward 43 years and every 5-man police department in the country has a "SWAT" team. And since they have all of these neat toys to play with, it seems they look for every excuse they can to deploy their "SWAT" team.

This problem is only going to get worse. Until we can get back to the concept of "peace officers", we are going to see more and more of these types of incidents. It goes without saying that our failed "War on Drugs" has contributed greatly to this issue.

 

[grizman]

for sure!!! how many cops will sit in the room while their team goes live around them?
i bet not too many. instant death

OH YEAH! What a rush, the muzzle flashes, pops and the sensation of the live rounds passing within inches of you! Crazy? Nope. Just not chicken sh*ts!
Right of passage! How can the team trust you if you don't trust them?

 

[88GT]

Would be interesting to compare the respondents and their stances in this thread to the one where the super evil misdemeanor-warrant drug lord jacked up on meth was burned. Wonder how the two would compare.

It's really quite simple to me: violence initiated at the hands of the state is wrong 99.99% of the time. That includes breaching the sanctity of the citizen's threshold.

get married, morning wood becomes a thing of the past

You just married the wrong girl then.

 

[grizman]

I'm sure this has been discussed here many times, but the problem I see is the militarization of the police. I looked up the origin of SWAT. The first SWAT team was in L.A. in 1968. Some of the reasons given for the formation of SWAT were the Watts riots and the fears of urban warfare by militant groups. I can see where a city the size of L.A. might need a group of officers to deal with out-of-the-ordinary situations.

Fast forward 43 years and every 5-man police department in the country has a "SWAT" team. And since they have all of these neat toys to play with, it seems they look for every excuse they can to deploy their "SWAT" team.

This problem is only going to get worse. Until we can get back to the concept of "peace officers", we are going to see more and more of these types of incidents. It goes without saying that our failed "War on Drugs" has contributed greatly to this issue.

GFT +1

 

[grizman]

Would be interesting to compare the respondents and their stances in this thread to the one where the super evil misdemeanor-warrant drug lord jacked up on meth was burned. Wonder how the two would compare.

It's really quite simple to me: violence initiated at the hands of the state is wrong 99.99% of the time. That includes breaching the sanctity of the citizen's threshold.





You just married the wrong girl then.

Don't see the problem right is right wrong is wrong, makes no matter who or what the person is. Only the fact of be they a threat at this moment in time or not factors into the equation of do I or don't I use deadly force. I don't care if it is Charles Manson or Charlie Sheen. No immediate threat no justifiable shoot! Period! When LEO's F' up they should have their azzes handed to them just like a civilian would!

The law is black and white! Gray area's are the invention of a corrupt system attempting to cover up its abuses of power.

 

[Steeler]

After watching that video, I wouldn`t mind having a few minutes alone with Corky.

 

[lashicoN]

Sorry it took so long for me to read back through to this thread.

I weighed what I saw against the criterion needed for an officer to use deadly force, which is sadly not all that much. They did announce who they were (albeit not well) the subject did have a weapon (albeit not a conventional weapon) and if someone were struck in the head with that weapon, they could be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm.

Thanks for the reply. I had to watch the video again and I'm glad I did. If the bold is the entire premise, then I don't understand how it held up in court. A golf club could do some deadly damage to a human head, but these officer's heads had a helmet on top. I saw a helmet on at least the first five guys into the house, so the shooter certainly had one on. If those helmets are what I think they are, then they were designed to protect your head from shrapnel during warfare. I'm pretty sure it would stand up alright to a Nine iron. I'm not saying let the guy take a big swing at your skull, no thanks, but they didn't even give him the chance to understand what was happening and drop it.

I'm alright with officers using deadly force on people when it is an absolute must, but I can't call this mixture of confusion and eagerness to kill a "justified shoot".

 

[E5RANGER375]

Thanks for the reply. I had to watch the video again and I'm glad I did. If the bold is the entire premise, then I don't understand how it held up in court. A golf club could do some deadly damage to a human head, but these officer's heads had a helmet on top. I saw a helmet on at least the first five guys into the house, so the shooter certainly had one on. If those helmets are what I think they are, then they were designed to protect your head from shrapnel during warfare. I'm pretty sure it would stand up alright to a Nine iron. I'm not saying let the guy take a big swing at your skull, no thanks, but they didn't even give him the chance to understand what was happening and drop it.

I'm alright with officers using deadly force on people when it is an absolute must, but I can't call this mixture of confusion and eagerness to kill a "justified shoot".

(language warning just in case) no goats wear shot and eaten during the making of this film
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrK_jyZUlQc"]YouTube - Goat vs american soldier fighting back headbutt Funny Video[/ame]

 

[E5RANGER375]

just watching an episode of Kansas City SWAT, and Officer Anthony Hernandez just called an AK-47 an SKS by the way, my wife is the one that was like what the ****????

carry on

 

[misconfig]

just watching an episode of Kansas City SWAT, and Officer Anthony Hernandez just called an AK-47 an SKS by the way, my wife is the one that was like what the ****????

carry on

I watched an episode of cops where the officers kept calling a Bersa Thunder a "Colt .45".

 

[radonc73]

I liked the Dallas Swat They used to find more "dry holes" where there was no drugs and they just screwed someones house up. than houses with real drugs. I wonder why it isn't on anymore, they made the argument against Swat w/o saying a word.

 

[Benny]

I watched an episode of cops where the officers kept calling a Bersa Thunder a "Colt .45".

LMAO...That's almost to absurd to believe.

 

[Bond 281]

Sorry it took so long for me to read back through to this thread.

I weighed what I saw against the criterion needed for an officer to use deadly force, which is sadly not all that much. They did announce who they were (albeit not well) the subject did have a weapon (albeit not a conventional weapon) and if someone were struck in the head with that weapon, they could be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm.

The entire problem with this is that the nature of raids like they do actually sets up a situation where you will always give cops 'justifiable' reasons to shoot. Grabbing a weapon or bat or golf club or whatever as you're startled in the night by loud yelling you may not be able to really process is I think a very realistic and understandable human reaction. We're setting up a situation where we make a person's natural reaction all the cause needed to shoot them.

It's like a cop screaming "POLICE! FREEZE!" at a guy walking down the street then shooting him when he's turning to see what startled him. It's horribly unjust and frankly it seems to me to be the kind of thing you would expect in a fascist police state, not in the U.S.

I don't see how it could possibly be so difficult to arrest a suspect when he's outside his home and these stupid instances wouldn't have to occur anymore.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I don't see how it could possibly be so difficult to arrest a suspect when he's outside his home and these stupid instances wouldn't have to occur anymore.

But... They have already put all their gear on...

If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.

 

[gunsisgood]

Was the officer who murderd this innocent man tested for drugs or alchohol ?