San Francisco's Ken Wayne Refuses to Pass Judgment...

Tim Cavanaugh | September 13, 2005

...unless it's against a frail old woman who doesn't have the common sense to avoid being tackled and brutalized by burly California cops. If you enjoyed this unbelievably infuriating video of a Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte-style property seizure in the Sportsman's Paradise, Stephen Van Dyke sends along this email, purportedly from Ken Wayne, the Fox newsman who assured us that we were not actually seeing an old lady getting forcibly removed from her home—we were seeing an old lady who had a gun forcibly removed from her home:

I can only tell you what we saw. I have seen other images from other police incidents. It's clear there's been no uniform policy on how police are enforcing or not enforcing any evacuations. Policies seemed to be changing day by day.

The California Highway Patrol was under the guidance of a Louisiana State Trooper during our report. It was the state trooper who ordered the woman out of the house. She opened the door, it was not kicked in. The officers talked to her for several minutes to try to get her to put down her gun and knife. (The knife was not clearly visible in the video.) The officers said they tackled her to remove the weapons for officer safety.

I'm not in a position to debate the legalities of who was right or wrong. I know the officers were enforcing a mandatory evacuation order. The woman had a gun and refused to drop it. They never arrested her. Common sense tells you if armed police tell you to put down your gun... you do it and figure out the legalities later... or risk being shot.

All things considered she was lucky. If it had been officers from another agency... she might be dead.

Regards,
Ken Wayne

It must be great consolation to the woman that policies are changing day by day. That and the fact she isn't dead.

You, the fabulous little people, commented on this issue here.

Comments

|9.13.05 @ 11:41AM|#

It would speak better of you if you were more forthright in your corrections policy.

You told us that a woman was forced to leave her home, because they were enforcing a mandatory evacuation. They weren't.

You told us the video demonstrated that Smith was wrong to say that people weren't being required to leave their homes. They aren't, and it didn't.

Tim Cavanaugh|9.13.05 @ 11:48AM|#

Joe, I have no idea what you're talking about. But this wasn't a correction, if that's what you're thinking.

Mike Laursen|9.13.05 @ 11:48AM|#

I saw the video when it was aired on Fox, and it was very disturbing to see the woman tackled. The police officers also appeared visibly shaken at the orders they were carrying out. But, Ken Wayne's email message seems dispassionate. Sure you're not reading malice into it?

|9.13.05 @ 11:49AM|#

Ah yes, the all important "officer safety" rationalization - possibly second only to "think of the children" as a justification for fascism.

Question - when I'm in my buddy's pizza shop in West Philly, and threatening looking people come up to the window - do I have the right to force them against the wall, search them, assault and possibly kill them, just to ensure my safety?

If not, why do the police get a free pass on following the constitution when they interact with ordinary, law-abiding citizens? If you didn't want to work in a risky job, you shouldn't have signed on to be a police officer...

The Wine Commonsewer|9.13.05 @ 11:51AM|#

Joe, I'm not clear what you're getting at. If you mean that the mandatory evacuation policy has been scrapped, you're correct. But that was not the case when the video was filmed. Now, perhaps I misread your post, if so, I'm sorry.

|9.13.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Ah, but you see quasibill, it wasn't the poor policemen's fault. They were just following orders after all....

|9.13.05 @ 11:56AM|#

quasibill,

If said threatening people enter your store, brandish a gun, and refuse to leave, you do have that right.

Yes, I know she wasn't on their property, but they were required to get her to leave the house.

|9.13.05 @ 11:58AM|#

Just another quick observation of the rationale at work here:

"Common sense tells you if armed police tell you to put down your gun... you do it and figure out the legalities later... or risk being shot."

Common sense tells me that if I put the gun down, I'm going somewhere I don't want to go that is, in itself, a very dangerous place (whether it be the Superdome with its crime or the NYC police department with its broomsticks, or the local jail with all of its -wink,wink- social interaction).

But hey, as long as the cops feel safe, that's all that really matters.

|9.13.05 @ 11:59AM|#

I was just "following orders", after all.

|9.13.05 @ 12:01PM|#

If not, why do the police get a free pass on following the constitution when they interact with ordinary, law-abiding citizens?

I don't think they're trained to consider that there are law-abiding citizens, only law-breakers and potential threats.

|9.13.05 @ 12:18PM|#

Of course! Y'see, if I have a firearm, then I am automatically a clear and present danger to the cops. Of course, the gun's purpose is to shoot the cops. Why else would I have a gun!?

That lady obviously bought that gun with the express purpose of disobeying evac orders, luring cops into her home, then shooting them. They were right to remove this imminent threat!

Ah, yes, the great chilling effect---the unseen detriment to society that is done by turning the image of guns from instruments of protection to instruments of uninstigated harm. Hell, though, at least this lady had a gun in the first place. Can you imagine if this kinda looting and lawlessness fell upon our nation's great capital? You can't even own a gun to protect yourself in that bastion of liberty.

|9.13.05 @ 12:26PM|#

"If you mean that the mandatory evacuation policy has been scrapped, you're correct. But that was not the case when the video was filmed."

Oops, my bad. The story made the news after the policy had been scrapped, but the events took place when it was still in effect.

Shannon Love|9.13.05 @ 12:38PM|#

joe,

I don't think you get it. The reporters email implies that it perfectly okay and reasonable for the officers to tackle and disarm the old women just because she had a gun.

I guess I can see their point. After all, a solitary old women in a disaster area with no law and order who keeps a pistol at hand is obviously a dangerous lunatic!

The fact that the officers would not have been in danger, even theoretically, if they had (1) listened to the woman in the first place and moved on to another house or (2) after having been let into the house voluntarily tired to disarm her and take her away against her will.

If the officers had simply respected the old woman rights and judgment as to her own safety then no one would have been in any danger. It is clear that she had provisions, two large dogs and gun. Staying in her home might not be the choice we would make but it is the one she made and she had the physical means to carry it off.

It says a lot about the political culture of L.A. that the fact that a person has a gun in their own home is taken as license to attack them.

|9.13.05 @ 1:39PM|#

You know, having watched the video, it's obvious that the little old lady is holding the gun, but hardly threatening the cops with it. From what I remember, she was holding it over the top strap of the revolver with her fingers around the cylinder.

For crying out loud, her hand wasn't even on the grip, let alone her finger on the trigger. The impression I think she was trying to give was "Hey, officer, no need to worry, I've got a gun, see?"

Whether, under the circumstances that was wise to do is debatable, but these officers get zero sympathy from me.

In related nooze, the NRA has voiced an official stance:

Disaster Can't Destroy Gun Rights

|9.13.05 @ 1:39PM|#

"If said threatening people enter your store, brandish a gun, and refuse to leave, you do have that right"

Absolutely - but that wasn't my hypo for a reason.

"Yes, I know she wasn't on their property"

Very important point and distinction. As was the point that she wasn't threatening anyone. She brandished the gun as a defense mechanism. She was within her rights to demand that they leave her property. If they refused - they were the aggressors. Making them (the police) much more like the guy in your hypo than her.

Tim Cavanaugh|9.13.05 @ 1:41PM|#

If I may steer a course between joe on one side and Nuremberg namedroppers on the other: Yes, the old woman in the video has a gun. She's also holding it crosswise, by the chamber, not in firing position. However, as cop defenders used to say about the Rodney King video, "We're not seeing the whole tape," so you could claim that they actually believed the old woman to be a physical threat to them.

I do have some sympathy for the cops, who were given an outrageous order to enforce. I'm not really sure why they couldn't have flagged her house and moved along, but mutiny is not an insignificant offense, so I'm not going to urge any civil or military authorities to disobey orders that may not seem as clearly illegal to them as they do to me.

All that having been said, I don't see how anybody could look at this video and see this as an example of reasonable government policy in action. And Ken Wayne's excuse that they wouldn't have bothered her if she hadn't had a gun is grotesque.

|9.13.05 @ 1:45PM|#

She should have put down the gun and defended herself with "Lightning Ju Jitsu".

The Wine Commonsewer|9.13.05 @ 1:45PM|#

All things considered she was lucky. If it had been officers from another agency... she might be dead.

While I agree with Evan and Quasi and Shannon it is reasonable to point out that in the real world the reporter Layne is correct. That old lady is lucky she isn't dead. And if it had been a twenty-something six-foot male body builder that answered the door with a gun, the CHP most assuredly would have been much less polite.

Sometimes when confronted with an armed police presenence it is best to throw in the towel. The alternative is a fire fight where you plug a few cops and then they call for backup and descend upon you like locusts and kill you. No percentage in that.

"Don't expect us to put up a fight if they come for our guns either. As immoral and unconstitutional as that action is, after surviving a direct hit by a cat 5 hurricane, the levee break, fires, civil unrest, and bullies masquerading as peace officers, I'm not gonna die on the 10th floor of this building to enforce my right to keep and bear arms". Thus sayeth Michael Barnett, who has been quoted and linked to on these pages during the last week or so.

|9.13.05 @ 2:00PM|#

So is it confirmed that the fuckheads have stopped confiscating firearms? That would be swell, although the fact that they even had the balls to try it makes me sick.

As others have commented...kicking in doors as if there's going to be some insurgents in one of the houses is ridiculous. And the one nat'l guardsman saying he didn't want to think about what would happen if someone came around a corner with a gun...well, if they were trying to do you harm, then I wouldn't feel bad shooting them, whether they're an american or not. If they're a law-abiding citizen, then they're probably not brandishing a gun anyway (note, I said "brandishing" and not "carrying").

And I think David said in the other thread...the cops aren't trained to think of anyone as a law-abiding citizen, but as threats and law breakers. I know I mentioned that in another gun-related thread and someone attacked me for it. But I still stick by that assumption. I mean, look at how most cops treat those they're supposed to be protecting a serving. Like we've been saying around here, they think of us as "civilians" and themselves as something more, with the authority to beat you down or shoot you dead with very little provocation.

And I thank the drug war for most of that mentality, although, in my conspiracy-addled brain, I almost think the drug war was intended to make things that way. And it has now spread due to the war on terror.

Sickening.

|9.13.05 @ 2:03PM|#

"Sometimes when confronted with an armed police presenence it is best to throw in the towel."

Most definitely - I give that advice to Philly high school students all the time. When a cop approaches you, remember, this is a person who can kill or maim you with what approaches zero accountability for their actions. Now matter how badly they abuse and belittle you, and many of them will, you have to remember that overriding fact.

That said, I also advise people that when a mugger has a gun to your head, you gives him your money. Doesn't make the mugger's actions right, either...

|9.13.05 @ 2:51PM|#

Like we've been saying around here, they think of us as "civilians" and themselves as something more, with the authority to beat you down or shoot you dead with very little provocation.

I'm less inclined to see it as conspiracy or brainwashing.

In the Bay Area a year ago there was a spate of cops shooting people intermingled with cops shooting dogs. In fact, the mayor of East Palo Alto had her dog shot by a cop. No dog is going to kill a full-sized police officer, at least not without a lot of activity happening first which gives ample opportunity to kill the dog at that time. But the dog gets shot because the cop feels endangered. Similarly, the likelihood that a 4'9" woman with a vegetable cleaver is going to kill a cop is very low. Yet the woman gets killed because the cop feels endangered.

The real problem here is the zero-risk attitude that the police either innately have or are trained to have. This attitude has two effects. First, in any situation where the cop feels endangered, the cop escalates the whole thing himself, thus actually provoking confrontations that may not otherwise occur. Second, the cop is better armed, so the other person or animal pays the price of the escalation.

And on _Cops_ you just watch in amazement as the police chase a guy into a parking lot, trap the perp's car, jump out of their cars and in front of his, and then kill him when he keeps driving his "deadly weapon". The police intentionally turn the situation into a fatal confrontation and then cash in. On TV. With no apparent repurcussions.

quasibill was right when he said

If you didn't want to work in a risky job, you shouldn't have signed on to be a police officer...

The Wine Commonsewer|9.13.05 @ 2:59PM|#

If you didn't want to work in a risky job, you shouldn't have signed on to be a police officer...

Even that is suspect, my dad used to work in the insurance business and he always claimed that cops had the same life expectancy as machinists. Of course that was decades ago but still....

|9.13.05 @ 3:05PM|#

I've heard that cops are not at the top of the list for on the job fatalities. Also that the most common cause of death are auto accidents.

|9.13.05 @ 3:05PM|#

"She was comin' at me!"

What, you thought deer hunters invented that?

R C Dean|9.13.05 @ 3:41PM|#

When a cop approaches you, remember, this is a person who can kill or maim you with what approaches zero accountability for their actions. Now matter how badly they abuse and belittle you, and many of them will, you have to remember that overriding fact.

Welcome to the police state.

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would do if confronted with armed men threatening their lives and property without moral or legal right?

Oh, wait . . . .

The comment that the cops see everyone as criminals has a lot of truth to it. I've had an ex-cop tell me that a cop sees people who have been in jail, and people who will soon be in jail, and practically nobody else.

|9.13.05 @ 5:55PM|#

COPs.

Its hard to argue face to face with a COP about their attitude. I guess that's because of what's been mentioned here. It seems that every COP, and even ex-COP, feels that it is their duty alone to protect the world from danger and lawlessness. There is a form of paternalism inherent in law enforcement that finds questioning authority offensive. Like, "How dare you question me, I'm here to help you, damnit! Now, do what I say, or else." I'm sure the lawlessness in New Orleans (with many wild rumors) only reinforced this attitude in many of the Officers combing the city.

In today's "Age of Litigation" Police Officers will use weak rationales to justify abuse of authority. Police work has a long and tortuous history in America. There are traditions (some that are unspoken) in the law enforcement community that span centuries, from Colonial America, to the Western Frontier, to modern day Urban Centers. It seems that a COP's unforgiving and unapologetic behavior stems from traditions that no longer have relevance in today's society. Still, they persist. Perhaps as a point of pride.

|9.13.05 @ 6:58PM|#

RC - that's what I'm saying. I'm not talking about a conspiracy at the individual cop level, or brainwashing. Training may have a part in it, yes, but what I really think is that cops aren't used to dealing with calm, rational, law-abiding citizens. They are used to dealing with people who are piss drunk, cracked out of their minds, criminals, etc. If that's all you had to deal with all day, then you'd probably be on edge, too.

However, I don't think that cops would be nearly as hostile if it wasn't for the drug war. For instance, if you're just trying to apprehend some idiot drunk, you can probably gang up on him and get him arrested. Drunks aren't thinking that clearly. Ok, sometimes a drunk pulls a gun, but probably not that often. When you're making a traffic stop, though, and the perp has 50 years of prison in his car, he may be very inclined to open up on the cop. Same with raiding a house, etc.

I still think cops would have some attitude without the drug war (this going back to them simply having to deal with the less savoury elements of society), but I think they'd be a lot less on edge if they weren't worried about getting shot just because someone has some drugs on them.

All anecdotal, and my opinion, but that's just the feeling I get from my interactions with the po-po, watching the po-po on shows like Cops, and taking criminal justice classes a few years back in college (which also let me interact with cops).

|9.13.05 @ 7:27PM|#

"I've heard that cops are not at the top of the list for on the job fatalities."

That's a shame.

"Common sense tells you if armed police tell you to put down your gun... you do it and figure out the legalities later... or risk being shot."

That may be true... but I'll still go out in a body bag before I go out in cuffs. I have no patience for those who would enslave me.

|9.13.05 @ 8:32PM|#

So, now that the unruly, criminal old hag has been beaten, cowed, and had her property taken... the authorities have reversed the whole order? Can't they strike a middle-ground, you know just beat her and frighten her a bit then move on to the next American citizen who is presumptuous to enough to think America has a constitution?

I wonder if all of the guns stolen, er confiscated, by the police have now been returned?

Tim Cavanaugh|9.13.05 @ 11:36PM|#

"I've heard that cops are not at the top of the list for on the job fatalities."

That's a shame.

Once again:

Do not make comments that threaten, speculate about, express approval of, show idle curiosity regarding, counterfactually fantasize about, or in any other way entertain the idea of death or bodily injury against any other person. That goes for public figures, fellow commenters, Reason staffers, and any other individual.

|9.14.05 @ 12:36AM|#

when they interviewed the cop during the video, he said something along the lines of 'and some people resist, usually old people, they have dogs and animals that are like loved ones' I dont know if the cop was giving that as a reason or not, but I would assume its because old people remember what this country was like when the gov't respected the constitution

|9.14.05 @ 12:54AM|#

Ken Wayne is a KTVU reporter. KTVU is in Oakland. It has had a newscast since before it joined the Fox network. Long before Fox News Channel.

|9.14.05 @ 9:24AM|#

Wayne -

I wonder if all of the guns stolen, er confiscated, by the police have now been returned?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on! This is not only a police seizure, but a New Orleans police seizure.

|10.1.05 @ 10:12PM|#

Any Cop who enters an American citizen's house after being told "I don't want you in here"
and does not have a legal warrant deserves a bullet in his head.