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.

 

Cops go to wrong house then shoot the home owner.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Noble sentiment you posted, but oversimplified.

Disclaimer: not to be construed as a seal of approval for the incident in the OP. I sincerely hope the resident gets recompense.



Want to bet no video survives of this manly bold shooting?

Because what I bet is that the guy went out to find who was screaming and the cops were lurking about, spotlit him in the face, screamed dropitdropit and opened fire, without identifying themselves.

You can sure arrange for someone to freeze in panic or confusion, a light to the face and a lot of screaming conflicting orders is a really good way. And they're trained to do just that, are they not? At least, that's how it ends up going.


That's probably pretty close to it. That or a panic shot like the rookie in NYC made. Fortunately this time the victim survived.




posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
The long and short of it here is, our cops can't tell the difference between a citizen and a criminal. Nuff said.
edit on 9-6-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Sadly, I bet these cops are probably pretty nice guys at home. But the problem is that it's easy to get wound up, and the training tends to be cop-centric.

And what you're supposed to do at night is dazzle them and scream. The problem is, it's the same thing we used to do to get people to do something stupid so we could shoot them legally. If I dazzle you, you're going to ignore "drop it" and cover your face. You can't really help it. So I can pop you one. "He failed to drop the weapon" or "he raised the weapon to his face" and it'll be true, literally.

The same training is supposed to keep you safe - the guy is dazzled, he can't shoot you accurately. True, but he's also going to cover his eyes. If you don't expect that, you'll shoot the guy for not dropping the weapon.

I've also seen a few shootings on the net where the cop came up behind the person and screamed YOU! DROP IT!. And I guarantee you you will, if you're NOT up to something, turn to see what's going on. You're much more likely to drop whatever you've got if you ARE up to something. But if you're innocent, you will wonder who's being yelled at...

The issue is, you will almost certainly get a reaction that allows you to fire, or will induce you to fire, if you're trained that way. The training is at fault, because it's SUPPOSED to be cop-safety-first but it's totally nuts in terms of how people interact with that behavior.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Yea like I said, noble rhetoric and all. Yea, in a perfect world nobody innocent would ever get hurt. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent be incarcerated. And I agree with that concept.

I don't agree with the notion that anybody, regardless of profession, should be expected to die so that other people can say "well yep that dude had ill intent. Shame that cop got killed but hey at least we know!"

It's pretty easy to say things like that when it's not one's own self looking down the barrel of a gun.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: TrueBrit

Sadly, I bet these cops are probably pretty nice guys at home. But the problem is that it's easy to get wound up, and the training tends to be cop-centric.

And what you're supposed to do at night is dazzle them and scream. The problem is, it's the same thing we used to do to get people to do something stupid so we could shoot them legally. If I dazzle you, you're going to ignore "drop it" and cover your face. You can't really help it. So I can pop you one. "He failed to drop the weapon" or "he raised the weapon to his face" and it'll be true, literally.

The same training is supposed to keep you safe - the guy is dazzled, he can't shoot you accurately. True, but he's also going to cover his eyes. If you don't expect that, you'll shoot the guy for not dropping the weapon.

I've also seen a few shootings on the net where the cop came up behind the person and screamed YOU! DROP IT!. And I guarantee you you will, if you're NOT up to something, turn to see what's going on. You're much more likely to drop whatever you've got if you ARE up to something. But if you're innocent, you will wonder who's being yelled at...

The issue is, you will almost certainly get a reaction that allows you to fire, or will induce you to fire, if you're trained that way. The training is at fault, because it's SUPPOSED to be cop-safety-first but it's totally nuts in terms of how people interact with that behavior.


Yep. So much this.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, I am sure they are lovely fellows, but if they would shoot a man they cannot positively identify, at an address they were not sent to, rather than risk their butts to make sure, they shouldn't be doing the job, regardless of the training they receive. It's about what comes before the training. Fortitude, courage, these things cannot be taught, but should be minimum requirements for law enforcement agents of every level.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Caver78
Has it occurred to anyone besides CJCrawley that our outrage is misplaced?

All the funding since 9/11, all the training and tech toys and STILL !!!
Crappy 911 systems for dispatch and locating the origin of the call?

----------------------------------

I'm retired off The Job so I'll recuse Myself and NOT testify to facts not yet in evidence.. With that being typed, There is a whole bunch of "Truth" in Your submittal. Instead of that 3rd SWAT vehicle that the 15 man department now uses for "Tactical Operations" maybe an upgrade to dispatch is in order?

Where I worked in Ca. (retired in 2004) each 911 call via cell phone first went through the Ca. Highway Patrol dispatch and then it was routed to our PD and then routed to the cop on the beat.. So as many folks now use a cell phone for their communique, this issue will NOT improve by itself, I'd opine it'll only get worse..

If the Reporting Party made the report via cell phone, then it would first get routed through "Big Ben" a not so secret cell tower that takes in ALL the cell calls.

It should also be noted that 'most folks' aren't very well versed in estimating 'time' i.e. "I was waiting for like 10 min. ..." when in fact they have only been waiting 3 min. Ever fight a thrice convicted crook who is looking at "Life" or vicious dog? 1 min. is a looooooong time, so imagine the length waiting when the 'snip' has truly hit the fan...



Signed,

1 guy who is fortunate to have never had to use their service weapon..

Proud Member of LEAP-Law Enforcement Against Prohibition



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I think you may of had a bad morning. This is a response to other responses you said earlier.

Cops don't take an oath to die for people, and risk there lives without taking measures to reduce that risk.

What is your stance on other emergency services. Should a firefighter die to save someone in a burning even know the risk could result in both lives being lost. Is a risk assessment defunct because he has taken a role of someone who should "take a bullet".

What about paramedics. Do they need to endanger there own lives to save those who are ill/need medical assistance, regardless of the threat.

You normally think rather logical but you fail to acknowledge these police men didn't take the phone call, they were instructed by the operator. Directions/addresses must have been lost in translation, pure and simple. To blame the officers following instructions is not wise. So much more but I feel we have caught you on a bad day.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   

edit on 9-6-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
You are legally allowed to defend yourself from a street thug.

Defending yourself from a cop is illegal.


This is inaccurate--I know for a fact that Indiana (and maybe other states?) specifically added LEOs to the list of people against whom you are allowed to defend yourself from with lethal force, assuming that they have illegally trespassed on your property.

Now, from the snippet that you provided, it appears that the officers may have had full reason to think that they were at the right place, and therefore I doubt that you could prove negligence on their part, but the point still remains that in at least one state, LEOs hold zero legal immunity to being treated like a trespasser on your own property or in your own home, assuming that they have no official business being there.

But I don't care who you are, if you're holding a firearm in your hand and there are officers with weapons drawn pointed at you, you comply and deal with their inept actions later--beats getting shot in the neck. Some people who think this issue is black and white may think that's being complicit in accepting a police state, but I prefer not to be a Darwin Award winner in my lifetime.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
That's so sad. The man was 63 years old? My guess is hearing some banging on the door at that time of night, the old man probably grabbed a gun to go check out who in the hell could be hitting his door at 1:30 am. Then, most likely without any talking or even the cops identifying themselves they yelled for him to drop his weapon. Poor guy was probably confused as hell from just waking up to the madness outside his front door. They shot him for it. I no longer like police officers. I don't care some people can be good and others can have problems. I've never had a good experience with a police officer and don't ever expect to in the future.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

That's very nice of you to consider my circumstances.

I appreciate it.

I also happen to believe that if it is no ones job to lay their lives down in service to justice, that some other force needs to be devised, instead of or in addition to the police force, whose job it IS to risk their lives rather than risk befouling the concept they uphold by their presence as a force.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

That's very nice of you to consider my circumstances.

I appreciate it.

I also happen to believe that if it is no ones job to lay their lives down in service to justice, that some other force needs to be devised, instead of or in addition to the police force, whose job it IS to risk their lives rather than risk befouling the concept they uphold by their presence as a force.


Like better GPS? Or maybe better tasers.

Is this officer being charged for murder?
edit on 9-6-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Uh, in Texas self-defense classes I've attended as a CHL holder, we're taught "comply or die", i.e., if a cop arrives on the scene and directs a person in legal possession of a firearm to put the weapon down, you'd best comply or be prepared to suffer the consequences. One class I attended was taught by a former State Trooper. His explanation was that the problem for peace officers is threat assessment, especially if there's 2 or more people on the scene. When that happens, the officers focus is on the "weapon" not the holder of the weapon and the focus is on neutralizing any weapons on the scene. They don't have the time to figure out bad guy from good guy; they must neutralize the weapon(s) present on the scene.

The problem for cops with homeowners is severely complicated because in those instances, they're charged with "clearing the premises" while at the same time neutralizing the weapons. Again they don't have time to ferret out who's the good guy and who's the bad guy and worse, they can't see around corners or through walls. What we're seeing of late however is the cops encountering another problem...............elderly homeowners who can't hear well, are blinded by the cops lights and freeze with the thousand yard stare.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

That's hilarious. Comply or die?

And Americans are concerned about our liberties here in the UK? Ha! Wow. You can justify your police state all you like, but rocking up to the wrong house, and shooting a man on his own property, who has armed themselves for their own defence makes a nonsense of all of it.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I understand what you are saying. But put it this way. If I were a cop, responding to a call of violence, and show up and there just happens to be an armed man where we think we are supposed to be, put 2 and 2 together. The first thing going through my mind would be that this man is waiting for ME to arrive because he does not want to go to jail, and he is armed.

The armed citizen should have known the cops were coming or at least see them roll up. Your not supposed to even draw your weapon unless there is an immediate threat, so I understand the man being armed, but it should have been tucked away or something. It kind of looks like a case of an innocent man doing something that may be fairly "stupid" and the cops reacting to the situation using the only facts they had to go on at the time.

Also the fact that they did say freeze and drop the gun, if they did.. I have never once seen a video of a criminal saying those words although I am sure it has happened. Common sense should have told the man who was screaming those words. Maybe both parties are wrong but without pure facts and video it is hard to tell.

If there was some real negligence regarding the circumstances than yes I believe the cops should be punished, but accidents do happen and it also matters what information was relayed to them by dispatch, and it's accuracy. Reminds me of Tamir rice where the dispatch failed to tell the cops that the gun may be a toy, so there could also be some miscommunication.

All I know is in my interactions with the police I have never had a single issue. Maybe I am just lucky? I doubt it. Probably my actions are why I never had any issues. This man should have called 911 to tell them he was armed and there to help, etc.. Again who knows.


iTruthSeeker



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

How exactly do you propose to measure an applicant's courage and fortitude during the hiring process? Interviews? Written tests? A good stare down?

Short of putting applicants into legitimate life or death situations, it's a tad hard to accurately gauge how somebody will handle any number of potential situations with dozens of variables.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TonyS

That's hilarious. Comply or die?

And Americans are concerned about our liberties here in the UK? Ha! Wow. You can justify your police state all you like, but rocking up to the wrong house, and shooting a man on his own property, who has armed themselves for their own defence makes a nonsense of all of it.


You're missing the point of the "comply-or-die" guidance--it's basically saying that, as a police officer, they have the authority to order you to drop your deadly weapon, and if you don't, they have the legal justification to consider you a threat to either them or anyone else around, and will do what is necessary to neutralize that threat.

You're also missing the point that the officers can only go on the information provided--it's obvious that they were given faulty information at the start concerning the directions to the house (it's not like the 911 caller ground-guided them to the location) and it's not as if they just kicked in the door and started wildly shooting. The call was to a house (that they obviously thought that they were at) about gunshots, and here is the owner of this house coming out into the garage to investigate noises carrying a gun.

Unless you believe that LEOs also must be simultaneous clairvoyants, there is no way that you cannot see this being a justified accident on behalf of the LEOs.

If you do disregard the totality of the circumstances and still want to whine on about "justify[ing] [our] police state" as being the only way to describe understanding what happened, have at it. But, nobody with any ability to read the story and assess the situation appropriately is going to say that these officers were just on a war path, shooting up people on their own property for no reason.

Like someone else mentioned, you usually seem pretty level-headed, but I don't think you're seeing things very clearly concerning this particular instance...or maybe we'll just agree to disagree. Who knows.

"Comply or die" means the following: Use your damn head when police have guns trained on you and you're being told to put down your deadly weapon. It's that simple. If you're willing to take on the responsibility of owning a firearm for self defense and you're willing to arm yourself and seek out the cause of some noise on your property, you also better understand that it's possible that you may just get shot as well if you don't listen to officers telling you to lay down your weapon. And if you're willing to present yourself as a possible threat to law enforcement who are on your property, you better understand that you might be shot. It's just the reality of life.

He had the right to have his firearm, but the cops had the right to view him as a threat and act accordingly at that point.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: TrueBrit

it's the same thing we used to do to get people to do something stupid so we could shoot them legally.


Erm, am I reading that right?

We?

What you just described sounds a lot like premeditated murder.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I fail to understand your point of view for one simple reason. If a person has committed no crime, the law and its agents should not be able to compel them to do a damned thing, least of all on their own property.

The police dispatchers may be the ones at fault, but you cannot tell me there is anything in the least bit constitutional about a police agent being able to walk onto a mans property, order him to put down his weapon and then shoot him when he fails to do so speedily. Sounds more like a heap of crap to me.

This may be one of those subjects where I have unpleasant points of view, or ones you disagree with, but in my view only a police agency which operates a hell of a lot closer to perfectly, than the one referenced in the OP, ought to have the power to issue a bloody parking ticket, leave alone deploy lethal force.







 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join