It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Family asks cops to check on 74-year-old vet after surgery, and they break in and kill him.

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Ah, I see where things went wrong here...



Helton said that Allen’s family had asked for the welfare check because the 74-year-old veteran had recently undergone surgery. - See more at: xrepublic.tv...


NEVER CALL THE COPS UNLESS YOU WANT SOMEONE TO DIE.

If your concerned about a loved one's health or safety handle it youself.




posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: XTexan
NEVER CALL THE COPS UNLESS YOU WANT SOMEONE TO DIE.


In certain countries it used to be that you called the cops on your neighbor to "remove" them before they did the same to you. Your statement brings home that things really aren't all that different here.

I'm glad I don't have neighbors right now.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: rival
In a perfect world you can say, "how so?...cops aren't doctors" and that
makes perfect sense--it's not the cop's job after all. But we live in a world
of greddy plaintiffs and lawyers, and arm-chair-after-the-fact quarterbacks,
who will hold you liable for every uncrossed "T" or undotted "I" and that's
especially true if there is money to be had.

I think my question is valid. How do you expect or want the cops to respond
to a situation like this--a welfare check that meets an armed challenge by
the very person that the welfare check is supposed to aid?

IMO...cops don't enter homes without a search warrant, ever, PERIOD.
But, you have to be willing to take the good with the bad in that case.
Sometimes people would die that didn't get aid for lack of a timely
search warrant. IMO that is an acceptble circumstance of freedom.







What I would expect is not for the cops to shoot a ill man to death!


They should have backed off. Yes the cops may have got a lawsuite but at least no one dies.
edit on 11-2-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4>>> Just have the settlement against the police be taken from their pension fund. When current and future police retirees see that their benefits will be cut to cover the damages from bad police work, they'll take the steps necessary to remove the problem officers. But, yeah, the officer involved in the shooting should be facing criminal and civil charges. I'd also make an effort to remove his superiors and hold them accountable.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
www.wcnc.com...

GASTONIA, N.C. – Attorneys are weighing in on a controversial and unfortunate set of circumstances that led to police shooting and killing an elderly man in his Gastonia home.

"From the police officer's standpoint, it's sort of a darned if you, do darned if you don't situation," said attorney Jim Funderburk.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
www.wcnc.com...

GASTONIA, N.C. – Attorneys are weighing in on a controversial and unfortunate set of circumstances that led to police shooting and killing an elderly man in his Gastonia home.

"From the police officer's standpoint, it's sort of a darned if you, do darned if you don't situation," said attorney Jim Funderburk.


So for the police "darned if you do, darned if you don't" pretty much means just shoot to be on the safe(er) side?

That's revealing.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Wow. In a disgustipating twist of fate, I find myself on the side of pretty much everyone in this Shakespearean tragedy.

The family were worried about the guy. Why they didn't go themselves is a question, but maybe they're all older and don't drive at night, or don't have cars.

The cops did their job, as far as you can tell from the info we're getting. They went, tried to get in, couldn't get a response, were worried the guy was on the floor or dead-in-bed, and broke the door open. That's what they do. It's about the only thing TO do. This happened with Mom back at Thanksgiving (a drama still unfolding) and they would have torn the side door down except that Mom had called me from the floor after she set off her alarm pendant. I called the local gendarmes and told them where the Sooper Sekret Key was. But had they been unable to enter, that door would have gone bye bye.

The poor guy was probably Norco'd out of his gourd. He DIDN'T hear the phone, but DID hear someone breaking in.

The cop saw some guy pointing a gun at him and the EMT, and they wouldn't drop it. But the old guy was probably confused, sleepy and not processing well.

I'm not sure where you start picking at the edges of this one to find how to unwrap it. It doesn't, on the face of it, look like there's a lot of ways that it could have ended up better.

The guy's got a buddy across the street, at least at face value, could they have given him a key to go check on Papaw? If you're sending an elderly person home on narcs to be alone after their heart surgery, maybe having someone stay with him the first night or two would have been a good idea, if possible. There might not BE anyone, though.

After Mom's little happening, I've been eyeballing one of the civilian versions of a cipherlock, the sort where you can enter a five digit pin to get in, and giving the pin to the emergency pendant monitoring company. On one hand, you've got a possibility that they'll use it to rob the homestead, but on the other it would be nice if they didn't have to use an axe on the doors (they're pretty stout) and maybe take too long to get in.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: rival
a reply to: windword

That's too easy...and not an answer. I mean, I heard that
answer in my head as I typed the question...please try harder


Meh. Then you set yourself up!

I actually went looking for a YouTube of an Andy Griffith episode where Sheriff Andy Taylor has to go disarm a hillbilly who terrorizing his neighbors with a shot gun, as an example of what I would expect. Couldn't find it. Probably a good thing, because you would have ripped me for being too idealistic!



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I guess for me
it all starts with
who in their right mind
calls police to do a welfare check


Imho
the thought of it
is OxyMora



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

I don't see a bright spot in this. It's tragic and all the hindsight in the world won't change these events. But as far as bad cops looking to kill civilians for pleasure or whatever, I just don't see that in this case. I think at the very least, the neighbor who liked him should/could have been there to check on him and assist him in contacting his family, but again, that wasn't done, so we have the events that led to this man's death.

Should the police have ignored the request for a welfare check?



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MisterSpock

I don't see a bright spot in this. It's tragic and all the hindsight in the world won't change these events. But as far as bad cops looking to kill civilians for pleasure or whatever, I just don't see that in this case. I think at the very least, the neighbor who liked him should/could have been there to check on him and assist him in contacting his family, but again, that wasn't done, so we have the events that led to this man's death.

Should the police have ignored the request for a welfare check?


One thing that I've often thought of in a case like this is the degree to which an officer will risk himself for someone else.

Would they risk their life to pull a child from a river/lake?

Would they jump into a frozen pond to save someone?

Would they run into a burning building to save a baby?

I'm guessing that a lot of officers would do any of the above, with little thought for their own safety.

So I have to wonder why when it comes to "armed suspects" they don't even put themselves at questionable risk for even a few seconds, in some cases(I realize not all situations could afford this).

But a child with a gun(toy or otherwise) get's shot 1.3 seconds from the moment the officer get's out of his car.

I realize the flawed logic of some of this, being viewed in hindsight. However I'd think that I, if I were a policeman, would be willing to risk my life for a few moments to ensure that I don't take the life of someone elses. Maybe I missed something, I thought that was kind of what they where signing on for. To put themselves in a position of higher risk, to "protect and serve".
edit on 11-2-2015 by MisterSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock
One thing that I've often thought of in a case like this is the degree to which an officer will risk himself for someone else.

Would they risk their life to pull a child from a river/lake?

Would they jump into a frozen pond to save someone?

Would they run into a burning building to save a baby?

I'm guessing that a lot of officers would do any of the above, with little thought for their own safety.

So I have to wonder why when it comes to "armed suspects" they don't even put themselves at questionable risk for even a few seconds, in some cases(I realize not all situations could afford this).


Well, there's a sort of qualitative difference between the two types of situation. Your first examples are of situations that endanger a person, and an EMT/bystander/cop group could quickly choose which one of them were suited to do that and figure an approach on the way in that minimizes as much of the hazard as possible.

The second type is one where the person endangers the rescuers and bystanders actively, or appears to.

Personally, if you are after me with a machete as the ice breaks under you, I'm likely to say "Sayonara, amigo!" and wave as you go under. As opposed to me trying to find how to help you if you're on the ice and screaming 'Help me!'. One situation involves you needing help and generally not being a hazard (drowning people I can handle), the other involves you attacking me or others, in which case you've sort of identified yourself to me as a possible problem and not the victim.

It's a reason you are not supposed to pick up a rifle and start banging away at your captors in a hostage rescue - you can get shot during the rush.
edit on 11-2-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4

The family of the victim will live regretting ever calling the police. And surely their faith in LE has been lost.

I for one will think twice before calling five-o if I'm in a similar situation.

Or any situation for that matter.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

Should the police have ignored the request for a welfare check?


No but but they should have backed out of the house and done more to defuse the situation rather than go gun crazy on the poor old man.

US cop should KNOW most homes have guns, they should know he is old and could be easily confused.

They should have predicted he may panicked and bring out a gun long in advance.

In not a American, Im not a cop.

But even I know busting a door down of a elderly American would likely result in me starring into a barrel of a gun.

If even I can work that simple thing out what the hell does US police training consist of?
Police cheif -"herez a gunz go shot bad guys and black people USA USA"?

Or do US police departments only recruit the mentally disabled?

edit on 11-2-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: MisterSpock
One thing that I've often thought of in a case like this is the degree to which an officer will risk himself for someone else.

Would they risk their life to pull a child from a river/lake?

Would they jump into a frozen pond to save someone?

Would they run into a burning building to save a baby?

I'm guessing that a lot of officers would do any of the above, with little thought for their own safety.

So I have to wonder why when it comes to "armed suspects" they don't even put themselves at questionable risk for even a few seconds, in some cases(I realize not all situations could afford this).


Well, there's a sort of qualitative difference between the two types of situation. Your first examples are of situations that endanger a person, and an EMT/bystander/cop group could quickly choose which one of them were suited to do that and figure an approach on the way in that minimizes as much of the hazard as possible.

The second type is one where the person endangers the rescuers and bystanders actively, or appears to.

Personally, if you are after me with a machete as the ice breaks under you, I'm likely to say "Sayonara, amigo!" and wave as you go under. As opposed to me trying to find how to help you if you're on the ice and screaming 'Help me!'. One situation involves you needing help and generally not being a hazard (drowning people I can handle), the other involves you attacking me or others, in which case you've sort of identified yourself to my reactive mind as the problem and not the victim.

It's a reason you are not supposed to pick up a rifle and start banging away at your captors in a hostage rescue - you can get shot during the rush.


I was thinking of those first scenarios in a "heat of the moment" type of reaction. The type of decision one would make in a split second without anyone(EMT, FIRE) around to consult with or formulate a plan. In those situations mosts peoples responses are probably more subconscious and true to their deeper core values. It's those types of decisions that you normally hear about when a stranger runs into a burning building or dives into a rushing river to save someone. There isn't much time(seconds, or less) to think and react. A lot of people may be surprised and how far they would go for a complete stranger.

I also understand that armed threats are different from situation to situation. For example the video that we saw a week or so ago of the officer shooting the passenger during a traffic stop. This person was a known entity, prior arrests for violent behavior(towards law enforcement) would obviously warrant a different approach then a child with no prior history holding a firearm.

I'd rather put some risk on my side to possibly save the innocent(the child) then to just gun him down like he's a career criminal with a prior for assaulting a police officer.

It seems that a one size fits all reaction is not only a deadly one, but a hard to justify one. Not just to the public but I'd think to oneself.
edit on 11-2-2015 by MisterSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: rival
Don't you think that a better way to have handled this situation would have been as follows .

after there was no answer on the first call and having checked with the hospital and told that he was not there .

they then called for the fire dept for help in obtaining entry

But before entering could they not have contacted the relative who had made the call to attend with them

i am sure that if the old man had heard or seen his relative , he would not have been as frightened and confused.

i don't know but your cops over there do seem to like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut .



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

I agree with you. I just don't know for sure what I, or others might have done in this situation. The one thing I do know is it's impossible to know those things without actually being there. I feel bad for the family, and the cops/EMT's that were involved in this. Tragic is the only word that comes to mind.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: tom.farnhill
But before entering could they not have contacted the relative who had made the call to attend with them



In that case, the relative could have done the check by themselves with no police involvement. I think the relatives were too far away and concerned for his health. (speculation on my part)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
For the very, very few who are interested in researching facts before the lynching, there is this:

Timeline of events on Saturday, Feb. 7.
10 p.m.:
Family of James Allen asked police to conduct a welfare check on Allen.
Anson County officials contacted the Gastonia Police Department to conduct the check.
10:20 p.m.:
An officer went to Allen’s home on Mary Avenue. There was no answer when he knocked on the door.
11:08 p.m.:
Anson County started a check of local hospitals. They could not find Allen.
11:30 p.m.:
Police called for County EMS and Gastonia Fire Department about a possible death inside Allen’s home.
Officer Lefevers announced his presence and entered the home.
Allen approached him with a gun and Lefevers shot and killed him.

www.wsoctv.com...

Which doesn't make anything alright, but does answer the question of why this was done at midnight.


If he's approaching you with a gun, he's obviously alright, get the hell out of his home and tell his family he seems to be fine...

Jaden



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: network dude
For the very, very few who are interested in researching facts before the lynching, there is this:

Timeline of events on Saturday, Feb. 7.
10 p.m.:
Family of James Allen asked police to conduct a welfare check on Allen.
Anson County officials contacted the Gastonia Police Department to conduct the check.
10:20 p.m.:
An officer went to Allen’s home on Mary Avenue. There was no answer when he knocked on the door.
11:08 p.m.:
Anson County started a check of local hospitals. They could not find Allen.
11:30 p.m.:
Police called for County EMS and Gastonia Fire Department about a possible death inside Allen’s home.
Officer Lefevers announced his presence and entered the home.
Allen approached him with a gun and Lefevers shot and killed him.

www.wsoctv.com...

Which doesn't make anything alright, but does answer the question of why this was done at midnight.


If he's approaching you with a gun, he's obviously alright, get the hell out of his home and tell his family he seems to be fine...

Jaden


Yup it doesn't take a genius to work that one out



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join