Plainclothes NYPD Officers Chase, Fatally Shoot Unarmed 18-Year-Old Over Drug Deal

An 18-year-old in the Bronx was shot to death in his own home by the NYPD because he ran from police and because an itchy-fingered cop says the suspect/victim reached towards his waistband, meaning he was reaching for a weapon.

According the Huffington Post:

18-year-old Ramarley Graham was gunned down Thursday inside the bathroom of his Bronx home following a foot pursuit by a team of plainsclothes cops. He was unarmed.

Investigators say police spotted Graham--who's had 8 prior arrests on charges including robbery, marijuana possession and resisting arrest-- on White Plains Road when he started to run.

The always-repulsive NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly first said that Graham struggled with cops, now he's admitting that's not the case.

On Thursday afternoon, Graham was spotted engaged in a drug deal and cops radioed that in, including the fact that Graham appeared to have a weapon. A witness, according to The New York Post, heard police identify themselves, which is good, but the fact that they were apparently in plainclothes makes reasonable doubt in identification something worth raising. It sounds like Graham was trying to flush the drugs down the toilet while he was shot by police who "burst into the apartment" after a foot chase. Officers yelled "show me your hands!" according to Kelly, and then "gun!" and then it was over. Gramam's mother and Grandmother were there, as well as his six-year-old brother (who may have witnessed the shooting).

If Graham was indeed trying to flush drugs, that implies that he knew his pursuers were cops. But it also further clarifies that the penalty for disobeying police orders is occasionally death. There are lots of words for this kind of incident, but somehow "unnecessary" sums it up perfectly

Reason on cops and the drug war and the general awfulness of the NYPD

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The always-repulsive NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly first said that Graham struggled with cops, now he's admitting that's not the case.

    NYPD Commissioner is a political position, so I am puzzled that Kelly doesn't have some handlers to tell him to shut the fuck up until he has the facts. Although, I suppose when there's no penatly for getting caught making shit up, why not?

    The bigger question is if the author of this post is going to shave her head and undo some big injustice. Balko has big shoes to fill.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    1) I would look terrible with a shaved head.

    2) Lucy Steigerwald is not a superhero name.

  • ||

    It could be the name you use to hide your secret identity. And let's face it - Lucy Steigerwald is just as likely to be the name of a real person as Clark Kent, Peter Parker, or Diana Prince.

  • bi-curious||

    looking for the bilover?---datebi*cO'm--- is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    Lucy, why do all the bi-lovers seem to crawl out of the woodwork whenever you post a story?

    Correlation/causation, hmmm?

  • ||

    ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO READ BEYOND THIS POINT!!!!

    The thread is fraught with dunphyism in it's most vile form. Not only is he trolling, he resorts to comparing libertarians to DU-ers and says how PoliceOne is not indicative of police (even though you must be a LEO to post there).

    Please, for the safety of your own monitor and the happiness of your day, turn back now and thank me later.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Thanks, two days late, but will skip this one.

  • ||

    But it also further clarifies that the penalty for disobeying police orders is occasionally death

    This was my first thought. Police can now shoot you for running away.

  • All The Cops||

    Thanks for that. We hadn't gotten the memo.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You wrote it.

  • All The Cops||

    Oh, OK. Thanks.

    Don't run...we'll shoot you!
    Hahahaha.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    With our pumped up kicks.

  • Britt||

    Only if the words "Stop resisting!" are shouted prior to opening fire.

    Or said. Or mumbled. Or thought.

  • ||

    It sure is easier than when they had to say, "He's coming right for us!"

  • Mensan||

    "Police can now shoot you for running away."

    I got in a big argument over this with my sister-in-law who worked in the City Attorney's Office. The city was being sued over a case where a cop was driving down the street, and this 15-year old black kid standing on the sidewalk took off running when the cruiser was approaching. The cop sped up next to him and fired his taser at the kid from his moving vehicle. He was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, and evading.

    I argued that the fact that the kid was running down the street did not give the cop probable cause to even pursue, much less tase and arrest the kid. Which it turns out was the same thing the teenager's lawyer was arguing.

    I'd like to see dunphy's opinion on whether the cop had RS or PC in this case.

  • ||

    The cop would just say that he "knew" the kid from previous arrests or something. Of course, taking off running doesn't mean shit; maybe he just remembered he left the stove on. But it's also not respecting the officer's authoritah, so there's your PC right there.

  • Robert S||

    Which he probably did since this piece of human garbage had been arrested 8 times by the time he was 18. Also judging by his Myspace page, he was an active gang member. Active gang members reaching into their waistbands are genuine threats to cops.

  • tarran||

    You're right: the biggest threat to gangbangers are other gangbangers.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I think you're referring to the wrong case.

  • ||

    8 arrests? Oh, my!

    I sure hope they don't say, "he was arrested 5 times" when they cart my body away without mentioning that they were all for protesting limits on free speech and were all dismissed.

    How many convictions for those 8 arrests?

  • This Dave||

    Or maybe weed could just stop being a legal issue so that no one would ever die over its sale again.

    But then there would be weed available. As opposed to now.

  • ||

    KNOWING the kid matters.

    totality of circ's ALWAYS matters.

    there is a difference between running and a person, standing in street clothes especially (iow not athletic gear, like he was out for a run), turning and SEEING the police and THEN running

    that is, generally speaking, REASONABLE SUSPICION. it's stronger if the ofc. has specific knowledge regarding the person indicating they are a career/frequent criminal, etc.

  • ||

    Knowing a kid does not give PC, you stupid fucking bastard. And I would imagine PC is the minimum threshold that is required for tazering someone.

    And if "officer security" was so fucking important, wouldn't not going after someone that just ran of their own free will make a lot more sense?

    And fuck you in the ear with an icepick for saying "knowing someone" goes beyond reasonable suspicion. That's pigspeak for "whatever! whatever! I do what I want!"

    I swear, I want so badly to hear one day that you will no longer be able to post on here because you ended up like Joe Bonham.

  • ||

    They don't need probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to chase someone, so long as they stay on public property.

    The tasing and arresting are another matter, of course.

  • Coeus||

    I'd like to see dunphy's opinion on whether the cop had RS or PC in this case.

    Burgleries in the area. Without definition of area, time frame or suspects. It's like a RS with a universal adaptor on the other end.

  • ||

    not really. it's a totality of the circs. if the guy turns and sees the cops, and THEN starts running, that contributes substantially towards RS. other factors add or detract from the formula. high crime area? runner known as frequent criminal suspect? time of day/night.

    etc. cops, and later judges have to consider the totality of the circs. note that newspaper articles RARELY are able to give the entire totality of the circs, since they usually aren't known to the reporter.

  • ||

    That is a correct statement of the law, which is a shame. The "totality of circumstances" rule gives no really clear guidelines to officers as to when they can pursue, nor to citizens as to when they are/are not free to leave a police/citizen encounter. The factoring in of a "high drug area" is particularly problematic. Some entire neighborhoods and even entire citie are "high drug areas" and testimony by cops to this assertion is virtually always accepted by courts without question. This also means people unlucky enough to live in "high drug areas" have less Fourth Am. protection than those living in the "respectable: part of town.

  • ||

    it's nice to see somebody make an argument based on what the law actually is vs. some sort of fantasy mishmash of what they learned from teevee and ideological screeds

    cheers

  • ||

    You know, that's the defense most of the Nazis used at Nuremberg.

    I'll repeat this slowly, so even dunphy can understand: USING AN IMMORAL LAW AS A DEFENSE FOR IMMORAL BEHAVIOR IS STILL UNACCEPTABLE.

    Jesus Christ. I hate to Godwin, but it was also against the law for Jews to own land in Germany, 1936. Did that make confiscating their property OK?

    Again, fuck your slimy defense that we should "take it up with legislators." Those who enforce immoral laws are just as immoral as those who enact them.

  • ||

    If someone is distant from the cops, he appeared to be reaching for a gun.

    If someone is close to the cops, he grabbed the cop's gun.

    If someone was in a car, he tried to use the car as a weapon.

    You cowardly Americans buy into this and respect cops. Brave Americans hate cops ans cherish their death.

  • ||

    Internet bravado strikes again!

  • ||

    There is a federal order of protection agaist me to prevent me from further harming the government. I would love to share my situation with Reason readers.

  • ||

    considering that those who have orders against them are disproportionately loons, you will fit in fine here

  • ||

    Cowardly scum like you always portray the brave as defective. This was the same tactic that was used durring the Vietnam war.

    Libertarians are cowardly scholars who would rather study tyrany than fight against it.

  • ||

    i fight tyranny every day, tuff gai

    go back to yer WOWing

  • ||

    i fight tyranny every day, tuff gai

    Damn, dunphy. You never told us you worked in Internal Affairs.

  • ||

    no, the penalty for reaching for your waistband after you, a known drug user, lead police on a foot chase, is often death, yes.

    cops chase people on foot all the fucking time w/o shooting them. god knows i have.

    because sometimes the guy leads the cops on a footchase to gain a tactical advantage to shoot the cop. and if you are stupid enough to reach for your waistband when the cop is pointing a gun at you and tells you to keep your hands up, YOU signed your death warrant.

  • ||

    Maybe he was wearing loose sweatpants and was pulling them up to avoid getting busted on an indecent exposure rap. They put you on the sex list for that, ya know.

    Apparently there's a new law going into effect in PA requiring sex offenders to notify the police every time they shave. Scary shit.

  • ||

    tulpa, that's cute, but i hope you are kidding.

    here's a hint. if you can run from the police, your pants are doing just fine. and if the cops are pointing a gun at you in your own house, indecent exposure doesn't apply (hint: you can walk around naked in your own house. i frequently do. if that's too much info, too fucking bad)

    this kid was a victim of his own choices, not the cops

  • ||

    Hmmm, Dunphy, I'm thinking that you are committing a sex crime and if you're not, in the coming years you probably will be. Would anyone be surprised if walking around your own house if there is the remotest possibility that someone might catch a glimpse of you will eventually be a crime and has, in fact, been treated as a crime in the past? And you, Dunphy, will be the one enforcing these laws and arresting people for them, just like you now do to marijuana smokers.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Holy crap you've gone even more insane than before. I didn't think this was possible.

  • ||

    How do we know he reached for his waistband? Oh that's right. The cop who shot him dead said so.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    when the cop is pointing a gun at you and tells you to keep your hands up, YOU signed your death warrant.

    Or, put another way:

    "Officer safety">"Your rights"

  • ||

    there is no right to reach for your waistband when a cop ***or*** a "noncop" lawfully detaining you at gunpoint tells you to keep your hands up

    there is NO SUCH RIGHT

    again, i have responded to a # of doods held at gunpoint by average joes (NOT COPS) and i can tell you that if one them shot some burglar or car thief and made the claim the guy reached for his waistband and there was no contradictory evidence, there is not a DA in my state that would charge him, ESPECIALLY because the state has the burden to DISPROVE self defense and must pay lawyer and lost wages to the defendant if self defense is believed by the jury

    i am sure you can point me to this magickal right to reach for your waistband in a felony stop situation

    lol

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I'm sure you can point me to more evidence than the word of the shooter that the "suspect" was reaching for his waistband.

    Or we can add "he was reaching for his waistband" to the list of "things cops say after shooting someone."

    "I thought the wallet was a gun."
    "I thought the soda bottle was a gun."
    "He turned to flee."
    "He attacked me with a butter knife."
    "He charged me."
    "I thought my gun was a taser."
    "He tried to take my gun from me."

    there is not a DA in my state that would charge him, ESPECIALLY because the state has the burden to DISPROVE self defense and must pay lawyer and lost wages to the defendant if self defense is believed by the jury

    They probably would charge them since, if memory serves, Washington is one of those states that says non-LEOs may stand their ground if they have a right to be in a given place and are assaulted, but may only match force for force. Merking a someone for touching their pants is still manslaughter.

  • ||

    again, you can hypothesize all you want, but i am not aware of any arrest situations by NONCOPS in my state where they shot somebody who reached for their waistband and were charged. i realize you live in this hypothetical world, where it's always funz to bring up these hypotheticals, because one can't prove or disprove a hypo. they just help you maintain your false beliefs.

    as for whether the guy reached for his waistband, as i have said several times ATFPAPIT (assumning the fact pattern as presented is true), it's a legit shoot, most likely.

    i have NO idea if he did or din't reach for his waistband or not.

    but considering he's a shitbag with at least 8 arrests for various and sundry and his actions we DO know in this case, i find it LIKELY to be true.

    obviously neither of us know if he did. but yes, i do give the cop a benefit of the doubt in this situation

    and if it had been some law abiding homeowner defending his home, or law abiding person making an arrest for other witnessed crime VERSUS this person, i'd also give him the benefit of the doubt.

    we'll see how it fleshes out

    but considering the incredible # of felony arrests that NYPD makes w/o using deadly force, clearly there is no institutional problem with it, there.

    it's shocking how RARELY they use deadly force in NYC

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Wow dunphy, you seem extra-douchey today. You also need to keep up with the story. The kid was UNARMED. The NYPD also believes that he did not struggle with the police as the officers initially claimed. So your ASSUMPTIONS stink of shit, sort of like the cops' story.

    And seeing as you are all big John Law today, you should appreciate the difference between ARRESTS and CONVICTIONS.

  • ||

    you just don't understand the law. how utterly unshocking. the cops had ample PC, and they were acting pursuant to making a detention/arrest and thus the relevant case law applies.

    and i never claimed he was armed. who here said he was armed?

    everything i said is correct on the law. if there is something you dispute, then point it out.

    this chucklenuts was streetwise, and you don't get to be a drug dealer in the bronx without a fair amount of moxie if you are dealing on the street as he was. he was arrested 8 times before. he knew how to act, and he chose to put himself in danger and do everything he should not have done

    if NYC didn't have those RIDICULOUS draconian drug laws, we wouldn't be talking about it. but NYC *does*.

    he knew the gig. he made a very bad decision (atfpapit)

    it's not so much relevant if he was or wasn't armed. what is relevant under the law is what the ofc. who shot him reasonably believed based on the facts and circumstances known to him, and were they consistent with how a reasonable and prudent officer with similar experiences would act.

    THAT is the relevant metric under the law

  • Anonymous Coward||

    and i never claimed he was armed. who here said he was armed?

    Adjusting one's waistband does not mean one deserves to be killed in one's own bathroom by men in plain clothes claiming to be the police.

    this chucklenuts was streetwise, and you don't get to be a drug dealer in the bronx

    PAUSE.

    Where does it say he was a dope boy, OCCIFER dunphy?

    he was arrested 8 times before.

    And this makes him guilty of...what?

    he knew how to act, and he chose to put himself in danger and do everything he should not have done

    How dare he not submit to men not in police uniforms! The cheek!

    if NYC didn't have those RIDICULOUS draconian drug laws, we wouldn't be talking about it.

    If NYC didn't employ trigger-happy Die Hard wannabe chuckleheads, Ramarley Graham might still be alive.

    it's not so much relevant if he was or wasn't armed. what is relevant under the law is what the ofc. who shot him reasonably believed based on the facts and circumstances known to him, and were they consistent with how a reasonable and prudent officer with similar experiences would act.

    The NYPD now believes Graham did not struggle with the cops. In the apartment, one of the officers reportedly screamed, "Show me your hands! Show me your hands!", followed by "Gun! Gun!" before firing the fatal shot.

    Tell me, OCCIFER dunphy, why did these REASONABLE occifers, given the FACT that Ramarley Graham had no gun, feel the need to shout "Gun! Gun!"?

  • ||

    here we go again, ... if you can't discuss this rationally, what's the point?

    nobody said he "deserved" to get shot.

    when i was held at gunpoint, i didn't "deserve" it either. i was entirely innocent. however, facts and circumstances known to cops (and not known to me) made it JUSTIFIED>

    the question is not did the guy DESERVE to get shot?

    of COURSE he didn't.

    the question is, - was it JUSTIFIED?
    you can play games all you want, but this wasn't some innocent babe in the woods.

    it was a con-wise multiple times arrested, street drug dealer in the bronx, who knew damn well why he was running from the popo (because he was standin' dirty and needed to get rid of his drugs. that's why he was a flushin' em in the bathroom) and he created the situation of his own demise

    tragic, sad, another war on drugs related trainwreck, but atfpapit - JUSTIFIED under the law.

    the stupid law, given the WOD, but the law.

    and again, i strongly disagree with the tactical decision to bust into the house in hot pursuit for a nonviolent drug crime. it simply cedes too much tactical advantage for a victimless crime? it's not good tactics, imo. however, it is LEGAL and completely justified under the hot pursuit doctrine

  • Anonymous Coward||

    nobody said he "deserved" to get shot.

    Really? It sounds suspiciously close to what you said.

    dunphy circa. yesterday

    if you are stupid enough to reach for your waistband when the cop is pointing a gun at you and tells you to keep your hands up, YOU signed your death warrant.

    it was a con-wise multiple times arrested, street drug dealer in the bronx

    PAUSE AGAIN.

    Who said he was a dope boy, OCCIFER?

    that's why he was a flushin' em in the bathroom) and he created the situation of his own demise

    Destruction of evidence = summary execution? Time to put down the Judge Dredd comics, dunphy.

    and again, i strongly disagree with the tactical decision to bust into the house in hot pursuit for a nonviolent drug crime. it simply cedes too much tactical advantage for a victimless crime? it's not good tactics, imo. however, it is LEGAL and completely justified under the hot pursuit doctrine

    Amazing how that in no way answers the questions posed, so I'll try it again.

    Tell me, OCCIFER dunphy, why did these REASONABLE occifers, given the FACT that Ramarley Graham had no gun, feel the need to shout "Gun! Gun!"?

  • ||

    it sounds NOTHING Like what i said. deserved is a moral judgment. i never said he deserved to get shot. i said what HE did (atfpapit) led to his death, just as surely as if he pulled trigger on his own suicide .

    deserve is a moral judgment. his death is a sad tragedy. it also is completely tangential to the legal issues

    i explained to you already. if he was reaching for his waistband under the facts and circumstances known to the officers at the time, if that led to a reasonable belief he was reaching for a gun, based on the above standard i already went over, then it's not only reasonable to yell "gun gun" , it's what you do to help protect your brother officers.

    and yes, i am going to make the reasonable inference he was a doper, because he ran to the bathroom and was flushing drugs.

    duh

  • Anonymous Coward||

    i never said he deserved to get shot. i said what HE did (atfpapit) led to his death, just as surely as if he pulled trigger on his own suicide.

    So if the plain clothes policemen had decided not to pursue, he would have just keeled over and died?

    if he was reaching for his waistband under the facts and circumstances known to the officers at the time

    Black youth, appears to be fleeing. No drugs or weapons seen in his possession. As per the story, he was neither known to the officers nor was an attempt made to identify him prior to pursuit.

    So far, so good.

    if that led to a reasonable belief he was reaching for a gun, based on the above standard i already went over, then it's not only reasonable to yell "gun gun" , it's what you do to help protect your brother officers.

    Fleeing = gun? Waistband = gun? Bathroom = gun? Black = gun? I'm trying to understand this perverse deductive leap you are trying to make using information obtained after the fact. Especially the part where police claim a suspect has a gun but the only guns present in the situation are their own.

    and yes, i am going to make the reasonable inference he was a doper, because he ran to the bathroom and was flushing drugs.

    This is about a silly as saying anyone carrying around Sudafed must be a licensed pharmacist. Some people sell drugs. Other people use drugs.

    There is a difference, OCCIFER.

  • ||

    I've noticed dunphy has started to say "Under the facts and circumstances known to the officer" as if they are equally acceptable reasons for smoking someone.

    Well, if these animals with badges were like the rest of us, they would be treated differently. I.e.: If I "thought someone was trying to rob me and was going for a gun, I had better be correct when the cops show up...especially if that guy ends up in a pool of his own blood with a pack of Luckys in his dead hand.

    But we know...for every instance where a cop is treated better than the rest of us, there is also an instance where he is sentenced more than 10 times 20% more and within the guidelines set forth by the state.

  • ||

    no, that's the language used in case law.

    i have to dribble out case law little by little, sloops. i realize it's a bit difficult for you to understand, as your legal knowledge clearly comes from teevee drama, movies, and comic books

    again, you can play your "but the cops get treated better" card rubbish, but actually the "reasonable officer" standard is in many ways MORE, not less restrictive vis a vis use of force during arrest

    since you just ridicule a source (like findlaw) when i try to edumacate you on this fact, you will continue to wallow in ignorance, but the law allows relatively broad latitude for EITHER a cop or a noncop in an arrest type situation when it comes down to such perception.

    this case is a perfect example. if this had been a cop instead of a noncop, you would be SCREAMING double standard. except it's not. it's par for the course.

    heck, even in crazyliberal NYC, bernie goetz was acquitted for the shooting. he got convicted on the weapons charge. that's it

    here's a case. in WA state. note that this guy COULD shoot a fleeing NONviolent felon in the back. he "got away with it". he is not a cop. this WOULD be excessive if he was a cop, since we can't shoot fleeing felons of nonviolent felonies UNLESS we have good cause to believe they represent a clear danger if not apprehended.

    again, a DOUBLE STANDARD. this man was not charged, because he was held to the lower "civilian" standard...

    Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur said she will not prosecute a Kelso man who shot an arrow into the buttock of a suspected fleeing burglar late last year, but insisted Friday she is not encouraging vigilante justice.

    In an interview, Baur said her decision is by no means a license for Cowlitz County residents to open fire on people they believe to be committing crimes.

    "If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."

    Kelso police said that around 11:45 p.m. Dec. 13, Scott Allen Schwingdorf, 33, heard glass breaking at his neighbors' vacant home in the 1100 block of 10th Avenue North and spotted Galen Louis Crayne of Longview walking away from the residence with a brown box tucked under his arm.

    Schwingdorf, who had armed himself with a hunting bow, shot a fleeing Crayne in the left buttock with a broadhead arrow, police said.

    Crayne, who survived the shooting, broke the arrow off and fled in a truck that was waiting at Cliff's Hilltop Market about two blocks away, authorities said.

    In a carefully worded statement released late Thursday, Baur said Washington State law allows citizens to "use reasonable force to defend property they own or have been entrusted with."

    "It appears that Mr. Schwingdorf acted to stop a person he believed was fleeing after committing a residential burglary at a house he had agreed to watch," Baur's statement said.

    Baur said Schwingdorf chased Crayne for about a block, calling repeatedly for him to stop, then fired his bow once on 10th Avenue near the corner of Burcham Street. (Previous accounts in the newspaper misstated where the shooting occurred.)

    Schwingdorf shot Crayne, also 33, from a distance of about 90 feet, Baur said.

    In her statement Baur said: "Had Mr. Schwingdorf acted with intent other than to stop a fleeing felon, or had the force used resulted in death, or had any of his assumptions been incorrect, his actions would be outside the realm of necessary or reasonable, and the charging decision would likely be different."

    Read more: http://tdn.com/news/local/arti.....z1lUs2b34M

  • ||

    and please, if you SERIOUSLY believe this double standard rubbish, then take this case and think about it.

    think if a COP shot a fleeing BURGLARY suspect with NO indication of violent crime whatsoever, and if he wasn't charged, you would be SCREAMING double standard. in THIS case, the "civilian" was held to the LOWER "civilian" standard which is why he was not charged. an on duty cop would AT LEAST have been suspended andor fired and quite likely criminally charged in such a case.

    try to find me a case in WA state where a cop shoots a man in the back on a NONVIOLENT felony with no indication of the fleeing person being any danger to the public and the cop gets off scot free

    find me one. cause i've NEVER seen one.

  • ||

    oh btw, it's oregon, not WA. that;'s my bad. when i first read it, i saw "kelso" and assumed WA. my bad. but the point is the same

  • ||

    oh, and in texas "civilians" can shoot people for shit that would get a cop in WA locked up for a loooong time, i might add.

  • ||

    oh, and in texas "civilians" can shoot people for shit that would get a cop in WA locked up for a loooong time, i might add.

    I love it when cops trot out this bullshit argument. Any person in TX has a right to defend his/her property. Their occupation is irrelevant. Now show me what a non-cop in TX can get away with that a cop would be charged for. Anecdotal evidence will not be accepted.

  • ||

    From your own fucking article, dumbass: "If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."

    The DA said our facts better be right if we go after a fleeing felon. Now, I don't think your facts need to be if you decide to shoot one that is "fleeing." A certain woodcarver might just agree with me...were he still alive to see his murder go unpunished.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Schwingdorf, who had armed himself with a hunting bow, shot a fleeing Crayne in the left buttock with a broadhead arrow, police said.

    It's not a double standard. It's apples and oranges. A man fled in your instance. A young man died in the story in question. In your story, a man gets shot in the ass with an arrow. In the case of Ramarley Graham, he was shot in the chest with a 9mm.

    No matter which way you slice it, property is still not worth human life, whether it is a brown box or a dimebag.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I "thought someone was trying to rob me and was going for a gun, I had better be correct when the cops show up...especially if that guy ends up in a pool of his own blood with a pack of Luckys in his dead hand.

    This would be considered manslaughter at best and murder in the second degree at worst.

  • ||

    ""the question is, - was it JUSTIFIED?"""

    When is it justified when you are not actual in danger? This goes to perception. When a cop gets the situation wrong, the benefit is given to the cop. When anyone else gets the situation wrong, the benefit does not apply. And if someone shoots a cop, then it almost doesn't matter, the guy goes to prison even if the guy reasonably preceived he was was threatened.

    This is why people learn to hate cops. It's a double standard.

    To apply your own logic, cop haters are the lawmakers' fault. If cops wasn't given such a low bar to kill, they wouldn't be able to legally.

  • ||

    ""there is no right to reach for your waistband when a cop ***or*** a "noncop" lawfully detaining you at gunpoint tells you to keep your hands up

    there is NO SUCH RIGHT"""

    Deadly force by perception.

    Hey if anyone other than a cop kills someone because of perceiption, not fact, they are going to prison.

    Cops seem to have an extremely low bar when it comes to when they can shoot someone. You would think professionals would be held to a higher standard.

    If I run into a cop that has a history of DV in an ally and he reaches for his waistband, can I shoot him?

  • ||

    lol. epi witz da illogicz.

  • ||

    Gee. What a compelling argument, dunphy. You've convinced me.

    Could you please point me to the nearest badge so I can lick it?

  • ||

    i don't wanna get hep b on my badge, epi. it's highly contagious.

  • ||

    my bad. sloopy.

  • np||

    Ron Paul on the Morton Downey Jr show in 1988, very upset over a similar situation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxRE-nqyW1o#t=2m55s

    btw his poor reception in South Carolina was nothing compared to this, lol. See around the 4:00 mark.... oh man

    Also, teh funny:
    Fat Guy Gets OWNED by Ron Paul!

  • Jumbie||

    Paul was pretty argumentative back then.

    Morton Downey Jr. P.O.S.

    And the woman in the red beret... I coulda sworn she was a hippie from here dress but man was she a buzzkill.

  • Jumbie||

    Apparently beret woman traded in her street clothes for a suit and is now a NYC general news reporter.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Cops should not be granted so much leniency in shooting somebody, even if the person does have a gun.

  • ||

    they aren't granted, jack and shit and jack left town in case like this.

    regardless, even if he was charged, and if the facts as presented turn out to be the likely story - he won't be, no jury would EVER convict a cop under circs like this

  • Mensan||

    There are lots of words for this kind of incident, but somehow "unnecessary" MURDER sums it up perfectly.

  • ||

    Where would we be without our heroes in blue?

  • ||

    Above the ground instead of 6 feet under it?

  • ||

    a lot worse off

    NYPD btw has a VERY low officer involved shooting rate.

  • ||

    I'm not sure there is much worse than dead but nice try.

  • ||

    derp derp

  • ||

    I see no problem with this level of force used on a person attempting to introduce a mind altering substance into the sewage system. Such terrorist acts should always be met head-on.

  • Coeus||

    I think you're friends with my current doctor (I am currently looking for a new doctor). No joke, she thinks every single law against a substance is there for "my protection".

    How the fuck is someone like that smart enough to pass the tests required to be a doctor?

  • ||

    coeus engaging in the ideologue's ultimate canard. the "if they don't agree with my political stance on any issue, they are unintelligent"

  • ||

    Yeah, the belief that we are naturally endowed with liberty and that we own ourselves is merely another "political stance." Just like fascism and progressiveism and conservatism. They're all the same and equally valid. Believing that no one has the right to initiate force against another is just an opinion and no more valid than believing that some people have the right to use force to compel others to do what they want them to do. They are both morally equivalent. Thinking you have the right to aggress against other morally equivalent to believing you don't. Apparently.

  • ||

    way to completely evade the point

    here in the real world we can accept that good people of conscience, in possession of various levels of cognitive intelligence can and do differ in their interpretation of the limits of liberty, role of govt. , etc.

    unlike an ideologue, i can disagree with somebody without maligning their intelligence or character

  • ||

    unlike an ideologue, i can disagree with somebody without maligning their intelligence or character

    I'll accept the ideologue label when somebody calls me one for disparaging fascists who want to tell me how I should live my life when it has no effect on somebody else.

    Maligning someone's intelligence when they say something idiotic or their character when they say our rights should be stripped is a good thing, shit for brains.

  • ||

    sloopy, about 95% (rough estimate ) of the electorate thinks that people should go to jail for dealing or possessing meth.

    so, is 95% of the electorate FASCISTS?

    this is a serious question. no internet jousting.

    it just typifies the same type of ideological elitism i see all the time amongst internet extremists.

    it really amazes me that you can even survive in the real world.

    seriously. "fascist?"

    you sound like some loonytoon DU'er when you go down that road.

    and god knows it does not help the CAUSE at all. when you call a person a fascist, it's a MEGO moment. i am talking about the real world, not the internet

    INTELLIGENT argumentation w/o such rubbish name calling was what led me to change many of my viewpoints and become a libertarian. that, and life experience.

    people like you, just hurt the cause

    you can hide away at reason.com circle jerking with the "if you don't believe me , you are a fascist derp derp" crowd, but it accomplishes nothing.

  • ||

    so, is 95% of the electorate FASCISTS?

    If they pass laws that tell me what to do in the privacy of my own home when my activities are detrimental to nobody else, then yes, they are fascists.

    it really amazes me that you can even survive in the real world.

    I don't survive. I thrive in the real world. My so-called extremism may be viewed as quirky by people I deal with, but they know when I say something, I am 100% open and honest.

    you sound like some loonytoon DU'er when you go down that road.

    I've noticed you using this tactic more and more lately. Equating me with DU, or Stormfront for that matter, is really weak. Try harder next time.

    and god knows it does not help the CAUSE at all. when you call a person a fascist, it's a MEGO moment. i am talking about the real world, not the internet

    What doesn't help the "cause" you speak of if enabling cops that look at laws as something that must be enforced and complained about, rather than something that must be protested at every level they are enforced, enacted and adjudicated. You want us to take on shitty laws with lawmakers only, which shows your obvious bias for cops.

    INTELLIGENT argumentation w/o such rubbish name calling was what led me to change many of my viewpoints and become a libertarian. that, and life experience.

    Calling yourself a libertarian doesn't necessarily make it so. Hell, I recall Mitt Romney calling himself a conservative and Barack Obama referring to himself as a moderate, so your self-label isn't very adhesive.

    people like you, just hurt the cause

    Based on the levels of respect each of us have on here, I'll beg to differ.

    you can hide away at reason.com circle jerking with the "if you don't believe me , you are a fascist derp derp" crowd, but it accomplishes nothing.

    So says the anonymous poster to the guy who posts his name (e-mail), occupation (auctioneer), location (in CA) and personal life on here. And I've walked the walk. Been arrested more than once for standing up to bad laws, while you, on the other hand, tell us we should complain to the lawmakers when one of your ilk smoke some poor schlub and get away with it.

    You are a laughable piece of shit, and the more you open your mouth the fewer and fewer people on here view you as "one of the good cops."

  • ||

    Of course, taking off running doesn't mean shit; maybe he just remembered he left the stove on. But it's also not respecting the officer's authoritah, so there's your PC right there.

    Not wanting to "interact" with a police officer is clear evidence of criminal intent, and must be investigated punished.

  • ||

    Running away upon seeing a police car does seem suspicious and certainly justifies surveillance/pursuit. Not tasering and arrest, though, unless there was more to the story than the troubador let on.

  • Coeus||

    Running away upon seeing a police car does seem suspicious

    Until you add up all the people arrested who were only charged with resisting arrest and obstruction. Then it seems suspicious not to run.

  • ||

    heh. talk about deductively invalid arguments.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    He sounds awfully fleet of foot.

  • ||

    Assuming all the kid did was run away, how is this not murder? Why is it even a question? Despite that, this pig will probably get some paid vacation. Fuck yeah, wanted to watch the superbowl and not have to show up for work. Just go tag a kid. Ain't like anything is going to happen.

  • ||

    waaaaah!

  • ||

    if chucklenuts, a known multiple offender drug dealer (doesn't say if he is known to the cops to usually or sometimes carry deadly weapons), is going to run from the police, into the bathroom and then when the cops burst in, he reaches for his waistband, he brought about his own demise.

    good chance he just had drugs in his waistband/inside his pants he was trying to get rid of, but it's not the cop's job to wait to see, under those circs

  • tarran||

    A yes, funhouse libertarianism

    Guy sells stuff on black market and runs away = suicide.

    It's just amazing how the guy pulling the trigger on the perpetrator of what is, in effect, a political crime bears 0 responsibility.

  • ||

    the drug thang has nothing to do with it

    it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

    however... it is.

    that sux.

    but just as a soldier in iraq is responsible for how HE acts, not the stupid policy that got him there, the cops in this case are not responsible for the WOD.

    it wasn't the running away that was his de facto suicidal action

    and you know that.

    it was his reaching for his waistband once the cops busted in

    too bad for him. his bad.

    i've been shot at, been in shootouts. LOTS of cops have been shot at during foot pursuits, several have been killed.

    we aren't going to take that risk

    he had the duty to keep his hands up and certainly not reach for his waistband

    if you are going to do that, when you know the cops have been chasing you, they have their fucking guns out and are telling you to put your hands up, etc. - you committed suicide with full knowledge of the consequences of your actions

    chucklenuts has (at least) 8 prior arrests, for a variety of charges.

    he damn well knew better, and should have

    he created his own demise

  • tarran||

    He wanted to commit suicide?

    Seriously? That's your line?

    Dude, your rhetorical skillz are not capable of generating a reality distortion field that strong.

  • ||

    he failed to properly weigh the consequences of his actions, in reckless disregard for his well being.

    and any guy conwise enuf to be arrested at least 8 times knows damn well the rules of the road.

    he chose his destiny

  • tarran||

    but just as a soldier an concentration prison guard in iraq Poland is responsible for how HE acts, not the stupid policy that got him there, the cops in this case are not responsible for the WOD.

    FIFY HTH

  • ||

    derp derp godwin derp

    i defer yet again, to PJ orourke

  • ||

    Why would you defer to one writer of satire to prove your point? Is it because the Godwinning is a valid argument and you cannot argue it's merits?

  • ||

    "we aren't going to take that risk"

    Then why chase the guy? It's worth risking your life to arrest a small time dealer off the street? I'm not making any judgement about whether the shooting was justified or not, but why get into that situation in the first place? Are there any cops that actually believe that busting people like that does any good at all? Or do they just need to arrest a certain number of drug dealers every month or something?

  • ||

    i certainly wouldn't have. hot pursuing into a residence like that, cedes a large tactical advantage to the offender. for a nonviolent crime, i wouldn't do it. better to just say "fuck it" and move on.

    however, that's a tactical decision. LEGALLY speaking, the cop was well within his legal authority to do so, and to do so in the manner it was done.

    and legally speaking, the chucklenuts had a legal duty to comply as well as a common sense duty

    if he did neither, iow itfpapit, he created his own demise.

  • ||

    oh, and gotta steigerwald props for the hysterically unsupported stuff ... "itchy-fingered". it's got a lot of flavor!

  • ||

    Dunphy misses the point entirely. The cop SAID he reached for his waistband, entitling the cop to kill him. Just like cops SAY stop resisting as they beat non resisting citizens and SAY they smell pot before they start an illegal search.

    Given the current explosion of video evidence over the last several years, why would anyone put any faith in something a cop says?

  • ||

    the explosion of video evidence is good. it helps exonerate good cops (two recently in my agency were helped by video) and helps punish the bad cops.

    win/win.

    regardless, the "explosion" of video evidence is a good thing, just like the show COPS has been. it helps educate the public as to street reality.

    the reality is NYPD cops have an astoundingly low incidence of using deadly force.

    sure, he COULD be lying. but am i going to believe it's LIKELY that this multiple repeat felon did what the cop said he did? sure

    and i would note, that apparently, he wasn't shot (certainly wasn't killed) in any of his previous arrests, and i'm sure the cops had tons of contacts with him where he wasn't arrested too.

    there are literally THOUSANDS of police contacts, for every one that results in deadly force, and if the cops are prone to make this kind of shit up, they are certainly doing it exceptionally rarely, even if ALL their shootings were fabricated.

    this chucklenuts most likely did what the cop said he did. it makes SENSE. near the waistband inside the pants is where these guys usually hide their fucking drugs, as i've seen countless times

    he was in the bathroom apparently flushing drugs and the cops bust in on him

    he engaged in stupidstreethuggametheory(tm) and figured even with the cops there pointing their gunz at him and saying "hands up" etc. it was better for him if he got that last bit of dope out from between his underwear and skin or whatever so he reached down and BLAM!

    tragic, but lawful

    sure, it's possible the cops fabricated the story.

    great. a lot of shit is possible. but imo, it's far more likely they didn't.

    but the point is this. he wasn't shot for dealing drugs or running from the popo.

    he was shot for actions he chose to partake in, very stupidly i might add.

    the idea that this is some kind of "scandal" or something, or why it's even here , well...

    it's just one more story in the naked city. street thug gets taken out , shooting apparently justified.

    what exactly is newsworthy about it?

    sure cops do bad shoots sometimes. sure, they sometimes get away with bad shoots (like anybody else i might add).

    great. but assuming the fact pattern as presented is true, it's a good shoot.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Ah, yes, they only shot him to death in 1 of the 9 arrests. A 11% murder rate is totally fine.

  • ||

    lol. perfect example of evasion.

    spanx

  • ||

    We'll never know. The only non cop is dead. Convenient.

  • ||

    "tragic, but lawful"
    Followed procedures
    A legitimate UOF (tazed kid, soccer mom)

    Your kind are so quick to justify your violence because thebigbookofcoptechnicalities(tm) says you can murder someone for "lunging" or that using an electric tourture device is fine if the subject invisibly tenses up when you hammer lock him while cuffing him for contempt of cop.

    I will be waving my pitchfork while cops are hung by their own intestines, and will say, "they were given a fair curbside trial. Procedures were followed."

  • ||

    lol . "my kind"

    i am as quick to condemn excessive force WHEN it's presented. i see no reason to believe this is such an incident

    sometimes, i am too quick to condemn cops for excessive force (e.g. UC Davis case) but i can live with that.

    either way, i love the 'your kind' schtick from the bigorati

    almost as good as "you people" that we minorities hear sometimes

  • ||

    I can say this with complete honesty. Were my son murdered by police over a plant, I would not wait for the inevitable settlement with no admission of wrongdoing.

    I would go to the cop's house while he was a work and murder every family member from wife to newborn. No half measures.

    It baffles me that family members of those murdered by police just shrug and take the taxpayer funded blood money while the murders rest on their paid leave.

  • tarran||

    You would avenge the death of innocent people by murdering other innocent people?

    I'm sure the government will be very grateful to you for creating a nice propaganda opportunity about evil anti-government types and the heroic thin blue line.

  • ||

    it's internet tuff gai talk. i am sure that mr loather is the typical simpering skinnyfuck nerd that exercises this bravado over the keyboard from the safe anonymity of his mama's basement.

    spare me the internet tuff gai act

    jesus fucking christ, what a lunatic loser.

  • ||

    Just biding my time. Not too long from now, it will be open season on officer friendly. I will gleefully join in.

  • ||

    right. keep living in your fantasy world. year after year, poll after poll, cops receive overwhelming support and respect from most americans. but the day is right around the corner when your fantasy world will come to be

  • ||

    57% of the people polled saying cops are very trustworthy is far from "overwhelming support and respect." Unless you have some more polls to support this bullshit claim.

    Oh, and their numbers are behind every single other profession polled with the same number of people in it that we contact with a similar level of frequency as cops. IOW, your poll is hardly something to brag about.

  • ||

    It probably has something to do with the family members not wanting to be killed or locked up themselves. That and being slightly moral people who don't kill innocent people out of a misguided desire for revenge.

  • ||

    he brought about his own demise.

    RESISTANCE IS FATAL

  • ||

    he was shot for actions he chose to partake in, very stupidly i might add.

    Remember this the next time we get a post about a dead cop.

  • ||

    I do not claim to be even slightly moral. And with how easily cops kill, it does not seem that being moral is going to keep being a survival trait.

    The time is coming where my opinions will not seem so radical.

  • ||

    how "easily cops kill". lol. what utter rubbish

  • Apostate Jew||

    So, the police are such poor shots that they must shoot before they are even sure the man has a weapon?

    Or is it that they have decided that their lives are more important, such that in unclear cases they must shoot first to protect themselves before the citizens?

    In either case, they admit themselves to be much greater cowards than I expected.

  • ||

    and when people attend "citizens' academies" and are faced with such shoot/don't shoot scenarios, inevitably the average class of "citizens" is FAR FAR more likely to shoot in these scenarios (usually FATS) than the cops are

    it just shows the typical ignorance of the street ignorant i come for the lulz

  • Apostate Jew||

    How many citizens are authorized to chase people down the street and break into their apartments and then shoot them because they might have committed a non-violent crime?

    And you wonder why people have a low opinion of the police.

  • ||

    and when people attend "citizens' academies" and are faced with such shoot/don't shoot scenarios, inevitably the average class of "citizens" is FAR FAR more likely to shoot in these scenarios (usually FATS) than the cops are

    [Citation required]

  • ||

    Officer safety is the number one motivator for cops, much more important than safety of the public. Read the comments section on Police One, all written by real cops who think nobody notices. You will want to puke.

  • ||

    police one is about as representative of cops, as reason.com blog is representative of libertarians. iow, it's the fringe and trolls.

    i come here for the lulz. police one is similar.

    go to volokh.com for intelligent, mostly reasoned blog comments.

    come to hit and run for hysterical nerds strutting around like tuff gais and derp derping all over the place

  • Colonel_Angus||

    You make all your arguments using legal contortion and not from an ethical basis. No wonder you like volokh. God damn you are a cunt.

  • ||

    i makse legal arguments from a legal basis.

    i make ethical arguments from an ethical one

    most people here engage in "it was murder" etc. which is a legal analysis and deserves such a response

    if people want to argue the shooting was wrong MORALLY, that is an ethical argument

    but to claim it is murder is a legal argument. even though it is made by the average reasonoid bigorati in a manner devoid of any robust legal analysis

    these are the same morons that claim "if the guy wasn't a cop" and despite the metric assloads of cases to the contrary can never grok that "citizens" have often MORE latitude in use of deadly force than cops when making ARRESTS

  • ||

    Moral vs legal arguments are all you have to stand on.

    I'll go to bed every night knowing I had a morally upright day. These cops will go to bed at night knowing they followed the law when they murdered this guy.

    I'll take how I feel when I look in the mirror. Wonder if they feel the same.

  • ||

    But you have to be registered and confirmed as a cop to comment. No question that the commenters are cops, and comment from their experiences as cops.

    And what a fucking bloodthirsty lot, full of contempt for non cops.

    All reason readers should visit Police One on a regular basis. It is enlightening.

  • ||

    i agree. i didn't say they weren't cops. i said they werent' representative

    most people who post here and claim to be libertarians are libertarians. it doesn't therefore follow they are a representative sample OF libertarians, and thank god for that or we'd be proper fucked.

    police one attracts the same sort of fringe nimrods amongst cops that reasonblog does amongst libertarians

  • tarran||

    I disagree. Only a small fraction of the 'libertarians' here are part of the loony fringe that think that the advance liberty by working for the government and enforcing its most intrusive laws.

  • ryan||

    police one attracts the same sort of fringe nimrods amongst cops that reasonblog does amongst libertarians

    just looks like projection to me

  • ||

    there are plenty of places where one can talk to reasonable libertarians in the real world, and the blogosphere.

    people here out themselves pretty quickly as complete loons on frequent occasion. granted, the internet makes people tend to towards the fringe and attracts same via anonymity.

    but if you compiled some of the ideas here : drunk driving should be legal unless you hit somebody, people sh

  • tarran||

    Loony, fringe libertarians according to dunphy,

    Lysander Spooner
    Murray Rothbard
    David Friedman
    Robert Lefevre
    Rose Wilder
    Thoreau (of Walden Pond Fame)
    Benjamin Tucker

    hth

  • ||

    christ, lunacy combined with ridiculous sense of self-importance

    those were some great minds, well thoreau was kind of an idiot, but...

    spare me.

  • tarran||

    christ, lunacy combined with ridiculous sense of self-importance

    Dunphy, congratulations; now that you've identified your problem, you've taken the first, important step towards getting better.

  • ||

    day by day, tarran. day by day

  • ||

    The first step dunphy needs to take to get better is the first step down a live firing range.

  • ||

    Sorry, honey. I took your handle by mistake.

  • ||

    jesus keerist. you gotta lol

  • Father Jack||

    Feck these PIGS. Drink! Arse! Girls!

  • ||

    i'm waiting for the family member interview where we get the inevitable "he was turning his life around" comment

  • ||

    another case for sloopy and the "cops have a license to murder' brigade. noncop kills a man, an unarmed man committing at best a theft. no charges. note also, these cases i bring up are JUST in my neck o the woods. iow, i can find plenty o local cases. nationwide, there are obviously WAY more

    if a cop had choked this guy to death and not been charged, the sloopy cry would be "double standard"

    note the language the prosecutor uses. the EXACT same "excuses" they give when cops (according to bigoratis) MURDER people lol

    VERETT -- Prosecutors are declining to file charges against a south Everett man for his part in a fatal struggle with a man he suspected of trying to steal his boat motor in July.

    The death of Dylan Thomas Jones, 23, is a tragedy that could have been avoided, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Roe said. There isn't enough evidence, however, to prove that his death was a crime, he added.

    "We're not certain a crime was committed, and we don't charge people when that's how we feel," Roe said.

    Prosecutors don't believe they could prove that the boat owner, 67, intended to kill Jones. They also don't believe they can show he intended to assault the younger man, or that he was acting with criminal negligence or recklessness to prove a manslaughter charge.

    The evidence suggests that the older man was trying to detain Jones for police. Prosecutors would have to prove to a jury that the amount of force he used was unreasonable.

    Additionally, prosecutors were told that Jones had a potentially lethal amount of methamphetamine in his blood. The medical examiner concluded Jones died of asphyxia from being choked. He also concluded that acute meth intoxication contributed to the death.

    Those facts make it difficult to prove that the boat owner was solely responsible.

    "In that respect this case is not totally unlike some of the tragic incidents where police struggle with people on drugs and they expire. We don't typically charge the police with a crime in those cases," Roe said.

    The older man told detectives that he came upon Jones attempting to steal an outboard motor from his boat, which was parked outside his house on a dead-end street.

    The boat owner recognized Jones as a friend of his nephew. He suspected he'd stolen some property from him a few days earlier.

    The two struggled, and he pinned Jones down to detain him for police. The older man said he wrapped an arm around the younger man's neck and tried to stay on top of him.

    Jones appeared to lose consciousness. The boat owner left Jones there while he retrieved some plastic ties to bind his wrists. He told detectives he planned to restrain the man for police.

    When Jones apparently regained consciousness, the older man again wrapped an arm around his neck and was able to restrain his wrists. He asked a neighbor to call 911.

    When sheriff's deputies arrived, Jones was lying on the ground. He wasn't breathing. Despite attempts to revive him, Jones died at the scene.

    "Would it have been better for (the boat owner) to call 911? Absolutely," Roe said. "Police are trained and equipped to better deal with these type of situations. That's why we have them."

    Prosecutors met with Jones' family on Monday to discuss the decision.

    The slain man's family still have many unanswered questions, including what happened that day. They don't believe that Jones would have attacked the older man. They are convinced he would have fled, given the chance.

    The boat owner knew Dylan Jones, and also knew what kind of car he drove, all information that could have been passed along to police, said Kyle Jones, the dead man's brother.

    "My brother could have made better choices," Kyle Jones wrote Tuesday in a statement to The Herald. "However, (the boat owner) could have as well. A simple phone call to police or even to our family given Dylan's history with (the man's) nephew likely would have resolved this situation without it costing a life."

    Kyle Jones said he understands people have the right to defend themselves, but his brother wasn't a stranger breaking into the man's home.

    "This wasn't some unpredictable thief in the night and if that were the case, I'm all for supporting a shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy if you feel you or your family are in danger. This was anything but," Jones wrote. "That being said, I believe I understand the prosecutor's decision not to pursue the case given the state's laws and lack of any witnesses aside from (the boat owner).

    I suppose (he) will just have to live with taking a young life on his conscience, when there were any number of other ways to resolve the situation."

    The boat owner could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

    In an interview earlier this month, he said that seven months of legal limbo was taking a toll.

    "Nothing is worse than having this dangle over your head forever," he said.

    The grandfather of eight said he wished Jones had run, because he never could have caught up with him on two replaced hips.

    "Even staggering, he was faster than me at that point in time," he said.
    http://www.heraldnet.com/artic.....4/-1/rss02

  • ||

    The guy was on private property, stealing from the property owner. The man had an inalienable right to defend what was his. I will repeat, a person defending his property would have the right to do what this man did, regardless of his job.

    I do like how the DA said he should have called 911 because cops are equipped to deal with this situation. Hell, if he had stayed in his house and called 911, he would have
    1) gotten his boat motor stolen
    2) never had the theft investigated
    3) been a willing victim of a crime

    All I took away from this article was that a man defended his own property and the DA thinks that was a bad thing.

  • ||

    lol. your cognitive dissonance strikes again.

    if a cop did this and got away with it, you would scream double standard.

    you really are this delusional. very refreshing

  • ||

    Find one instance where I have disparaged a cop for enforcing his property rights when someone came on his land and tried to steal his shit.

    Fuck you, scumbag. You're not gonna put words into my mouth.

  • ||

    note: not even arrested. another case of an armed citizen shooting a man, an unarmed man and not being charged.

    "but but but but only cops can get away with that"

    and again, just from the pac NW

    WALLA WALLA -- A man involved in a shooting at Fort Walla Walla Park last month will not face criminal charges.

    Walla Walla County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Nagle said Monday he is declining to file assault charges against Tyler B. Larson, 22, of College Place, "because the prosecution would be unable to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."

    According to Walla Walla Police, Larson shot Terry E. Bickford, 59, of Walla Walla, in the right thigh with a handgun on the evening of Oct. 16 after the two men left the dog park.

    Nagle said Larson and witnesses clearly indicated Bickford had been acting aggressively toward a woman in the dog park and then acted aggressively toward Larson.

    Police said in October that witnesses said Bickford was threatening physical harm to others, including Larson.

    "Despite some minor inconsistent statements, (Larson) could easily establish a defense of self-defense and defense of others and would have no trouble creating a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind," Nagle wrote in a letter to the officer investigating the case.

    Nagle also noted that "not only is the state required to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the state (or municipality) is required to pay all of the defendant's costs, including reasonable attorney fees and time loss, if the jury finds the defendant acted in self-defense."

    Larson, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, was interviewed by police after the shooting but not arrested.

    Bickford was taken to Providence St. Mary Medical Center for treatment of his wound. Further information on his condition was not available.

    Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/.....rylink=cpy

  • ||

    That guy lived. He didn't shoot him 10 times like the cops at Carl's Junior with the guy breaking windows.

    Amateur. Could never be a cop without a willingness to go the extra step to make sure your victim is dead.

  • ||

    What the fuck does this have to do with how cops are treated differently than normal people? If an off-duty cop was being threatened with assault (with several witnesses) and shot someone in an apparent case of self-defense, I would hope he'd not be charged. Do you have some evidence where the same thing happened and an off-duty cop was charged?

    Nice try at changing the subject, fucknut. But what we bitch about is the ability of cops to use indiscriminate violence while performing the duties of their job, and the willingness of legislators to pass laws granting them special privileges and immunities the rest of us are not granted.

    So, basically, fuck you for trying to change the subject.

  • ||

    if a COP shot a (alleged) burglar leaving a person's house, where there was NO evidence that person had committed a crime of violence, the cop would be arrested.

    it's illegal

    see: tenn. v. garner

    again, "citizens" have a LOWER standard for deadly force than onduty cops do when enforcing the law

    i gave an example

    the kelso case

    that WAS deadly force. the guy did not die, but a bow and arrow IS deadly force.

    he shot a fleeing BURGLAR from his neighbor's home

    we CANNOT do that.

    "citizens" in some cases CAN

    you can ignore evidence all you want ... it's what you do, but it's just one example, in a sea of them, that your myth is a myth

    it upsets your metanarrative, so you will ignore it, just like findlaw cites and everything else

    cops are governed by tenn. v. garner . NONcops are NOT.

    tenn v garner says we CANNOT shoot a fleeing nonviolent felon. EVER

    you really are so deluded that even when the evidence stares you in the face you make excuses because you can't stand to admit you have been wrong

    how typical

  • ||

    assume the following fact pattern

    cop is called to burglary in progress by neighbor.

    cop arrives and sees burglar burst from front door of that residence, with swag in hand. cop yells multiple times to stop. burglar says 'screw you" and keeps running

    cop shoots burglar.

    legal?

    no

    crime: most likely ADW

    see: Tenn V. Garner

    what is the operative difference between the above scenario and the kelso scenario, where the neighbor shot a guy fleeing his neighbors house after burglarizing it?

    the "citizen" is held to the LOWER standard for use of force in an arrest situation. the cop is restrained by tenn. v. garner. the CITIZEN (so to speak) is not

    actually, it's long been a question in WA, if an off duty cop gets in a shooting, do we get the benefit of the looser "citizen" standard when our deadly force is reviewed, or the tighter cop standard.

    this came up in review of the mel miller case, btw (shot a guy, high on crack who was in possession of a stolen gun, which he pointed at Ofc. Miller and EVEN WITH THAT, people wanted miller hung out to dry)

  • ||

    Show me the evidence that points to a prosecution for a cop doing that.

    And you are comparing apples to oranges. I was talking about a person enforcing their property rights when someone breaks onto their property and attempts to steal their shit. You are talking about something else entirly.

    Again, you do not argue in good faith. Good-bye.

  • calm mentor||

    Dunphy, I'm curious, why do you keep putting "citizen" in quotes? How about using "non-cop".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement