Florida Police Knock on Wrong Door at 1:30 a.m. Without Identifying Themselves, Then Fatally Shoot Armed Resident

Via Instapundit comes the news that deputies in Lake County, Florida, early on July 15, fatally shot a man named Andrew Lee Scott. Deputies say they didn't identify themselves as police when they knocked on Scott's apartment door at 1:30 a.m. They also say that when Scott, 26, answered while armed with gun drawn, they immediately opened fire and killed Scott in his own doorway. His girlfriend was present in the apartment.

Police had been following a suspect in an an attempted murder, a man named Johnathan Brown who they trailed to Scott's apartment complex, and who had parked his motorcycle right outside. An hour and a half after killing Scott, police realized they had killed the wrong man. They soon found Brown in an adjacent apartment, as well as another man involved in the scuffle that had seen Brown attempt to bludgeon a man in the head with a cinder block.

According to Wesh.com Orlando, police are admitting the disturbing facts, but not any negligence:

"When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies and that's when we opened fire and killed him," Lt. John Herrell said.

[---]

"It's just a bizarre set of circumstances. The bottom line is, you point a gun at a deputy sheriff or police office, you're going to get shot," Herrell said.

The above reports the the basics, as did most outlets, but Central Florida News 13 irritatingly decided to go with a lede of "A Lake County man with a criminal history is dead after a confrontation with deputies." Ten grafs down, they mention that Scott's criminal record was...for drug offenses. Drugs and paraphernalia were indeed found in his apartment. News 13's headline also describes the victim as a "a man with a criminal history," which, though accurate, seems a bit beside the point in these circumstances. In spite of his apparent drug use, Fox News Tampa interviewed neighbors of Scott who said he was a nice guy as they criticized police actions.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is looking into the shooting.

Reason on other cases where armed citizens and police clash, usually because of the drug war, including the cases of Kathryn Johnston, Ryan Frederick, and the Matthew David Stewart's Utah shooting from last year.

Reason on police.

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.

  • sarcasmic||

    And nothing else happened.

  • ||

    A lot of things fishy with this story (like most police shootings).

    Who answers a door and points a weapon without looking (I don't know of any apartment complexes that don't at least offer peep holes in the door)? For that matter, if the man felt the need to answer the door at 1:30am with a gun (meaning he might have had reason to believe that someone on the other side was dangerous), did he at least not shout out "Who's there"?

    Lastly, are there no reporters in Florida who are taught to think critically and actually question authorities?

  • Entropy Void||

    Nope.

    (Florida resident)

  • ||

    My sympathies... (Tampa resident myself)

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm pretty sure that authorities do not look upon nosy reporters with kindness.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure that authorities do not look upon nosy reporters with kindness.

    Cops only look at people with suspicion.

  • Tulpa the White||

    When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies

    ...through the magic of Reason, becomes...

    Scott, 26, answered the door armed

    There's a big difference between "armed" and "brandishing", Ms Steigerwald.

  • Brett L||

    You've gone full retard.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I suppose you think it's fine to answer your front door pointing a gun at the person who was knocking?

    I can see pointing a gun at someone who broke in through the door, but for knocking and waiting for you to open it? Sorry, no. And it's not a cop thing, I'd support the right of any citizen to defend themselves in that situation.

  • Brett L||

    If I lived in a low-rent apartment next to a couple of thugs wanted for attempted murder? Yeah, I'm answering the door with a pistol.

    BTW, Tulpy-poo, how many shots did he get off? None. Because he wasn't shooting before assessing the situation.

  • Drake||

    No. I'm not answering the door in the middle of the night.

    If and when the door is broken down, I will open fire.

  • Tulpa the White||

    That's probably the best strategy.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    up until the arraignment...unfortunately they'll kill you one way or another.

  • Drake||

    I'll take that chance rather than silhouetting myself in a doorway with no idea who is on the other side.

  • BarryD||

    It worked so well for Corey Mayes, my naive little fascist.

  • Drake||

    Why am I a fascist for not answering my door?

  • BarryD||

    Reply was to Tulpa the Fascist, not you. Damn comments don't allow enough indents. :)

  • Tulpa the White||

    With a pistol at your side, or MAYBE even in your hand pointed down, fine. Though you've got to be really careful with it in your hand.

    Drawn and pointed at the person who was knocking? Not fine.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You're a trusting soul, Tulpa. Trusting that the person on the other side of the door at 1 AM is not there to harm you in some way.

  • Tulpa the White||

    So the answer is to point a gun at anyone who knocks on your door?

  • robc||

    At 1 AM, sure. Pointing isnt shooting.

    If they had identified themselves as cops, pointing would be bad, but for a change, they arent lying about that.

  • R C Dean||

    Not to mention trusting the cops when they claim that the gun was pointed at them.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, Tulpa, but at that time of morning, it's better to not wind up a murder victim.

    Which didn't work in this case, because the cops shot the guy. Which is a sick, senseless death that could have been avoided.

  • Proprietist||

    Sorry, Tulpa's kind of right in this case. If you're so worried for your life that you think you'll need to point a gun at whoever is on the other side, don't open the door. At most ask who they are and what they want through the door.

    The only mistake the cops made was not announcing that they were police when knocking.

  • Chris Mallory||

    ^^^^^^^ THIS

  • some guy||

    Not to mention trusting the cops when they claim that the gun was pointed at them.

    I was thinking the same thing. Which is more likely: That Scott answered the door while "brandishing" the gun, or that the officers decided he was "brandishing" the gun after they shot him?

  • Peter L||

    "With a pistol at your side, or MAYBE even in your hand pointed down, fine. Though you've got to be really careful with it in your hand."

    You are assuming that the detectives are telling the truth, that the gun was pointing at them when the door opened, and not at the floor. I am assuming the detectives were not pointing their guns at the door when it opened, wouldn't he have gotten off a shot if he was pointing at them while they had to raise their guns?

  • toolkien||

    Why would a person not be allowed to patrol their own property their own way, especially at 1:30 in the morning? Unsolicited normal calling hours are between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. If I lived in a dodgy area, I'd have some form of instrument at hand (many people keep a bat by the door). If it's 1:30 A.M. and someone(s) is authoritatively/aggressively addressing my door, I'd probably have my Glock in hand. I shouldn't get shot to death by people who are paid to protect life and property, not take it. If you can't detect an authoritarian element to this event, then we are on two different wave lengths.

  • BarryD||

    Tulpa doesn't have any objections to police authoritarianism, nor a policy of "shoot first, make up a reason later." He's proven that, repeatedly, here.

  • Killazontherun||

    Nor basic police stupidity in being at the wrong door so often in the first place. That's why they put numbers on them. I have knocked at the wrong address when the address was listed exactly zero percent in my life time. Instead of sending them to sensitivity training for community relations (Yelling, 'freeze, asshole!' is okay. Yelling, 'freeze, nigger!' is not) how about a refresher on basic numeracy.

  • Paul.||

    I suppose you think it's fine to answer your front door pointing a gun at the person who was knocking?

    You're damned tootin' it is if I live in a dodgy neighborhood that has a history of home invasion robberies, and I see a group of darkly dressed strangers that I can't quite make out knocking on my door at 1:30am.

  • BarryD||

    That's assuming he was actually pointing the gun at anyone. There's no reason to believe he was doing so. He had a gun. That's the only fact that can be verified. That he didn't manage to get a shot off before the cop killed him strongly suggests that he didn't have the gun pointing directly at anyone.

  • anon||

    I suppose you think it's fine to answer your front door pointing a gun at the person who was knocking?

    If I don't know who's at my door, I always answer it with a gun in my hand. Especially if it's more than one. Granted, I usually try to conceal it until I know exactly what the person wants.

  • ||

    And we know he pointed the gun at the cops who shot him because they said so...case closed right?

  • Lowglow||

    Yes I do think its right, it is my own Home and I have that right.

    Lets look at this logically, if someone knocks at your door at 0130 two things come to mind someonene is either trying to enter with ill intentent or they are in trouble and in need of help, thus having a gun ready is the proper stand to take until the threat is determined and once the it determined to not be a threat, put away the Gun.

    This is why these kind of actions by the police will make it more dangerous for them in the future, if a Cop shoots first before the perp does, than honest people will assume in the future when they discover it to be the police, they will just shoot them anyways, assuming the police are wanting to kill them anyways, which sadly most of them do love to kill people.

    One more point if you follow the news, more often than not, police have shot and killed innocent people for things as simple as putting on a pair of pants or simply rubbing their thier eyes when answering the door, which is real manly of them when they are wearing ballistic protection and the victim is not.

    No to me, most of the police are just as much criminals as the murdering drug dealer down the street and I make no distinction between the 2, unless I know the Cop and have an established repore with them.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I know you suspect deep intellectual dishonesty, but I will adjust accordingly because you are correct about specifics and it isn't the same thing.

  • Tulpa the White||

    If you prefer sloppiness as an explanation, fine.

    Funny that the sloppiness always goes in the same direction around here.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I do prefer sloppiness, because it's accurate. Also, "brandishing" is a bit loaded.

  • ||

    Why would you give in to Tulpa, the biggest pedant scumbag around? You shouldn't, Lucy. The best thing you can do is ignore him.

  • sarcasmic||

    What Epi said.

  • Tulpa the White||

    She "gave in" to the truth.

    Not everyone is as dogged as you at resisting it.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    well not everyone wants to get confused with a pitbull and shot.

  • R C Dean||

    Tulpa, the biggest pedant scumbag around

    That's a hotly contested position, you know.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Also, "brandishing" is a bit loaded

    Its swaggered, like 10 gallon hats.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Brandishing is actually too weak a term, as that could refer to merely holding a gun in a threatening manner, not necessarily pointing it at someone.

    Your "holding a gun" correction still doesn't rectify the discrepancy with available evidence.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Available evidence from a suspect source...

  • BarryD||

    And some evidence that he wasn't pointing the gun at anyone: he didn't get a chance to shoot before he was killed.

  • toolkien||

    transitive verb
    1
    : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
    2
    : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

    Too weak of a term? I don't have a problem with requesting acuity, but you lose high ground going too far in the other direction. You probably want to stop now.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Pointing a gun at someone isn't a menacing or aggressive act?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's only okay when cops do it, even when they have the wrong address.

    Right, Tulpa?

  • toolkien||

    No, not when you're a group banging on the door at 1:30 in the morning. It's a reasonable response to aggression, especially in certain neighborhoods. And it stands that there is a measurable difference between "brandishing" and pointing. You are the one splitting the semantic hairs as if from some high ground. If you're going to demand accuracy, you need to not apply loaded terms of your own as a "correction".

    How you defend yourself is your choice. And then circumstances will be analyzed. If it's 2:00 in the afternoon and a girl scout rings your doorbell and you point a 20 gauge out the door, you'll be poorly judged. If it's dead of night and an unknown group of people are banging on your door aggressively, that's a different matter. Deadly interchanges are three shots and take about 7 seconds max, and that's in a 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 situation. If I'm suddenly beset by X on 1, at 1:30 in the morning, by persons unknown and UNANNOUNCED, then you can bet I'll have my gun trained. But that's a lot different than waving the gun around excitedly. An aggressive, unannounced breaking of the peace in the dead of night could reasonably be countered with a trained fire arm. Then whatever parlay is needed can take place. But such doesn't happen in police states.

  • Tulpa the White||

    A basic rule of gun safety is that you never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. (an amalgam of #1 and #3)

  • SugarFree||

    Again, you have no evidence that he pointed a gun at them.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Or more precisely, at anything it would be really bad to shoot. (you probably don't intend to shoot the inside of your holster)

  • Paul.||

    A basic rule of gun safety is that you never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. (an amalgam of #1 and #3)

    So true. Which is why the Cops shoot at everything they point at. Everything...

  • Invisible Finger||

    So true. Which is why the Cops shoot at everything they point at. Everything...

    I'm sure Tulpa has an excuse for that one, too.

  • Tulpa the White||

    There are a lot of cops who don't practice gun safety. No argument there.

    Doesn't matter to this situation.

  • anon||

    A basic rule of gun safety is that you never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. (an amalgam of #1 and #3)

    I may very well intend to shoot a group of unidentified strangers attempting to gain entry to my house at 1:30 in the morning. He had legit cause for alarm.

  • Tulpa the White||

    More massaging the facts to fit the narrative. They were "attempting to gain entry" by knocking on the door, not by force.

    This is why slight word changes matter, people. When leftists massage the wording of the facts to fit their narrative you're up in arms; maybe you should avoid it yourselves.

  • toolkien||

    The problem here is the aggressive tactics used by law enforcement today which is becoming a rock and a hard place for peaceful citizens - who is more of a threat, the criminals or out of control enforcement? Breaking of the peace, acting aggressively, not declaring their intention, bringing forces out of proportion, and more. We hire agents on our behalf to protect our lives and property. They have become a paramilitary force unto themselves, and if they break a few eggs, oh well.

    In this case, a person has pretty much this choice - assume they are the police and lay prostrate before them and hope they don't cap you and make up some B.S. story to cover their tracks, or that it is actually bandits bent on harming you in some way. A man peacefully minding his own business is suddenly presented with life and death endangerment at 1:30 and can either be done in by bandits or those we hire to protect ourselves from them. Not a lovely evolution of choices.

    As it is, the invoking of The Four Rules is well and fine so that Beavis and Butthead don't accidentally shoot each other, or on patrol for that unknown bump in the night so you don't kill your family. An undeclared, aggressive gang at your door has the rules of self defense and deployment. If it's one person in a dazed state, I perhaps may keep the gun pointed down. 3+ unknowns aggressively breaking my peace? I'm pointing the gun up.

  • R C Dean||

    3+ unknowns aggressively breaking my peace?

    Had an interesting conversation about this very scenario not long ago.

    Because of the way my house is laid out, we concluded the smart tactical move in this situation is for me to go out the side door, get to the stone wall behind/to the side of them (easily done, especially at night), and then exchange pleasantries (or gunfire, whichever is called for).

  • Lowglow||

    If someone is knocking at my door at 0130, I do intend to shoot unless otherwise.

  • Aresen||

    If it's 2:00 in the afternoon and a girl scout rings your doorbell and you point a 20 gauge out the door, you'll be poorly judged.

    But it's the last time the Girl Scounts will try to sell me those damned stale cookies.

  • Chris Mallory||

    In this case it would have been defensive. He was in his home at 1:30am. Anyone knocking on the door is the aggressor.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Knocking on someone's door is an act of aggression?

  • BarryD||

    At 1:30AM, yes. It's either an act of desperation, or one of aggression. The knockers shot a man dead in his own doorway without identifying themselves. If that's not an act of aggression, what is?

  • Coeus||

    Knocking on someone's door is an act of aggression?

    I take it you've never heard a cop knock on a door.

  • robc||

    Pointing a gun at someone isn't a menacing or aggressive act?

    Not always.

  • BarryD||

    LOL Tulpa will not want to stop. No compromise in defense of unjustified police shootings!

  • robc||

    Brandishing requires threatening, and pointing at someone isnt necessarily threatening, hence not necessarily brandishing.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Not sure what you mean here. Brandishing doesn't require a verbal threat, and pointing a gun at someone is certainly a threatening action ipso facto.

  • robc||

    Pointing isnt necessarily threatening, it can also be carelessness. I said nothing about verbal threat. The body manner of the pointer would determine whether its threatening or joking or carelessness or something else.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Then it would be reckless endangerment. In the circumstances of this case, if he was pointing the firearm at police, it was almost certainly brandishment rather than reckless endangerment.

  • gaoxiaen||

    He was in his own house. I think I can safely assume the police the police were brandishing, too, since they killed him and he didn't get off a shot.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    you're missing dunphy aren't you...

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Armed could mean that he we had a gun at his side, it's true. But "brandishing" is a bit more slanted than just "holding."

    I wouldn't correct if I didn't think he had a point, even if he suspects dire motives.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    To be fair, we have only one side of the story. What has the girlfriend said on the topic?

  • Tulpa the White||

    There is no one saying he was merely armed or holding a gun. The only available comment on it says that he was pointing it at the deputies.

    So if you want to qualify that with "police say he pointed a gun at them", fine. Don't make up facts that no one is claiming are true.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    What was your take on the Zimmerman thing, again?

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    The only available comment on it says that he was pointing it at the deputies.

    Which is why if you shoot someone, kill them. That way only one side of the story comes out. All cops should be wired with cameras that upload immediately to a site they can't get too. Then we would know.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Didn't work for Cory Maye and Ryan Fredericks.

    I'm going with the Drake: don't answer the door period.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    I love how the answer to not get shot by cops is to ignore the response they are looking for. They were amped and ready to shoot. Not opening the door may have resulted in the same result, just farther in.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    saying he was armed is available from seeing the scene. Saying that he pointed a gun at police is taking their word for it. She quoted them properly, so you're just being pissy because you want the cops to be in the right.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Reason is paying for Lucy Steigerwald to visit crime scenes now? Their donations must have taken an uptick.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    The Kochtopus is getting annoyed...

  • Loki||

    The only available comment on it says that he was pointing it at the deputies.

    Which happens to come from the deputies themselves since Mr. Scott is now deceased and can't give an account of what happened. That's not the same as a disinterested 3rd party witness saying that he pointed the gun at the cops.

    FWIW if the girfriend gave a conflicting account stating that the gun was at his side pointed down, I'd take that with a grain of salt as well. She wouldn't exactly be a disinterested party either, after all.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Good, so say "police shot him after they say he pointed a gun at him". Then we can have the usual discussion of police credibility etc.

  • Paul.||

    There is no one saying he was merely armed or holding a gun. The only available comment on it says that he was pointing it at the deputies.

    From sources which have been proven to be highly dubious at best.

    Just because the Mouth of Sauron says it, Tulpa, doesn't make it so.

  • BakedPenguin||

    He is basically a troll at this point, people - talking shit he knows will generate an argument.

    I'd tell you to treat him as you do other trolls, but you already are. So instead I'll ask that you actually ignore obvious attempts to piss you off and start arguing this one time.

  • Tulpa the White||

    He is basically a troll at this point, people - talking shit he knows will generate an argument.

    This is what a libertarian setting the boundaries of appropriate debate looks like, I guess.

  • ||

    There is no one saying he was merely armed or holding a gun. The only available comment on it says that he was pointing it at the deputies.

    That available comment happens to come from the people who shot him. Could it possibly be that their account of events might be biased?

  • ||

  • The Hammer||

    SAND! I COMMAND YOU! GET OUT OF TULPA'S VAGINA!!!!!

  • Tulpa the White||

    But thanks for correcting; more than some other Reason writers I could mention do.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Police claim he was pointed his weapon at them.

  • Tulpa the White||

    That would be an accurate statement. So if you think the cops are lying, you can argue that.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I argue we shouldn't assert the claim as fact, since they've offered no evidence to support it.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Fine, qualify it with "police say".

    No one is saying he was merely armed, so you certainly can't quote that as fact.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Fine, qualify it with "police say".

    That's a slippery slope, my friend. Next thing you might find yourself not taking as gospel much of what is told to reporters in cases like this.

  • The Hammer||

    Because the one witness who might be able to assert that is conveniently dead?

  • BarryD||

    Why would they say he was "merely armed" unless they wanted to be charged with murder?

    How many independent witnesses were there?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    no retreat, fire until subject stops moving...

  • Paul.||

    That would be an accurate statement. So if you think the cops are lying, you can argue that.

    It's well-established that cops lie...routinely. They also have a motive to lie. Routinely.

  • BC||

    Police always lie. Always.

  • Restoras||

    Of course they claim that. Easier to justify an unjustified action. Oh wait, cops don't lie. I forgot.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Foolish man, anyone knocking on your door at 1:30 am should be assumed armed and dangerous and therefore you ensure you have better coverage before you open the door.

    Standing wide out in the open is always are recipe for getting shot, especially from cops.

  • Aresen||

    "It's just a bizarre set of circumstances. The bottom line is, you point a gun at a deputy sheriff or police office, you're going to get shot," Herrell said.

    "Stop Resisting"

    Of course, if the shots had gone the other way, Mr. Scott would be facing murder charges.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I just don't get why the cops can't just say, "Police."

  • BarryD||

    No fun for them, in that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's a fair point. Cop work must be dull, most of the time.

  • Broseph of Invention||

    Those belts aren't going to notch themselves.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's right, they're paid a bounty, right?

  • perlhaqr||

    Only in Albuquerque!

  • sarcasmic||

    "The bottom line is, you point a gun at a deputy sheriff or police office, you're going to get shot"

    The bottom line is, you pound on someone's door at one thirty in the morning without identifying yourself as law enforcement, you can reasonably expect the person answering door to be armed.

    To quote Buffy the Vampire Slayer: "Does the word 'duh' mean anything to you?"

  • Brett L||

    Hell, why should I put my gun down because the person outside says the magic word "police"? It isn't hard to get a windbreaker with the word "Sheriff" on the back and go raiding.

  • sarcasmic||

    Hell, why should I put my gun down because the person outside says the magic word "police"?

    Because not doing so is a guaranteed way to get yourself killed.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    not that you protect yourself either way. police professionalism is getting to be a bigger joke daily.

  • ||

    Because not doing so is a guaranteed way to get yourself killed.

    And your dog.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Yeah, saying "police" is kind of weak evidence of being law enforcement. It's a messy situation though; if cops are pursuing a violet suspect in the middle of the night, what are they supposed to do? It's not like a drug raid (which shouldn't be happening in the first place) that can be done at a chosen time.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They had the time to knock and wait for him to come to the door, so they didn't seem to be in much of a hurry.

  • Tulpa the White||

    True. In this case, though, they did what Reason expects them to do... knocked on the door and waited for an answer. I'm totally not seeing how they should be required to identify themselves when merely knocking on the door; no one else is required to identify themselves upon knocking.

    The identification requirement comes when they bust in the door.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    I'm totally not seeing how they should be required to identify themselves when merely knocking on the door; no one else is required to identify themselves upon knocking.

    Really? If you knock on my door at 1:30 in the morning, I am going to ask who is out there. No answer and I will be ready to answer with force. I would think any cop would be smart enough to know that.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Then don't open the f'ing door!

  • SFC B||

    If he doesn't open the door, isn't the next logical step that the police break it down? I don't see how there is any scenario here which doesn't result in an innocent man being shot and killed by the police?

  • ||

    I'm totally not seeing how they should be required to identify themselves when merely knocking on the door; no one else is required to identify themselves upon knocking.

    Do you honestly believe that cops should be held to the same standard as the average citizen; that carrying a badge and weapon backed by the authority of the state doesn't mean that they should be forced to exercise common sense in order to protect law abiding citizens and perhaps prevent the unnecessary death of innocent people?

  • perlhaqr||

    It's true, I have a t-shirt that says "SHERIFF" on the front and back in big block letters. I got it at Goodwill.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I've seen quite a few that say FBI. My 82-year-old mother has one.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    The bottom line is, you pound on someone's door at one thirty in the morning without identifying yourself as law enforcement, you can reasonably expect the person answering door to be armed.

    There are quite a few robbers that have impersonated cops to gain access like that. Call 911 to be sure.

  • Aresen||

    Hopefully, they won't erase accidentally lose the 911 tape that records the police breaking down the door unannounced and shooting you because they thought the telephone was a gun.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    true, best to activate cell phone autorecord of everything.

    or my home robocop.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    Call 911 to be sure.

    If the cops give you time. Open up or they will break in, not giving time for you to figure out what is going on.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    i'd rather be on the phone with a dispatcher than have no record of the event at all.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    i'd rather be on the phone with a dispatcher than have no record of the event at all.

    Agree.

  • Tulpa the White||

    you can reasonably expect the person answering door to be armed.

    Steigerwald mischaracterizes and the glibsters treat it as fact. That's how it's done here at H+R.

  • sarcasmic||

    Someone pounding on my door at one thirty in the morning will be greeted with a shotgun carrying no-so-sarcstic sarcasmic.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Well at least get off a round or two, please.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well at least get off a round or two, please.

    Unlike law enforcement, I am actually accountable for my actions.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Whose side are you on, Tulpa? Ordinary, non-criminal citizens, or the cops?

  • BarryD||

    The cops. Every time.

  • Tulpa the White||

    You only think that because the times I get into big arguments here are when I'm not on the side against the cops.

    95% of the time on the police abuse threads I'm just as against the cops and just as pissed as the rest of you. So is dunphy, btw.

    Believe it or not, in my personal life people think of me as a cop hater.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure that in your personal life people think of you as a liar as well, just as we do.

  • robc||

    Maybe you should post 19x comments in those threads for every x in these.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Not much point posting multiple comments when everyone agrees.

  • SugarFree||

    Cops say he pointed a gun at them and you treat it as fact. That's how it's done at The Boot-Lickers Convention.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I'm treating it as the only available evidence, which it is. If you want to qualify it with "cops say", fine. I probably would too since they've been known to lie.

    But there's NO evidence he was merely armed.

  • SugarFree||

    Yet, above, in your little brandishing semantics, you accept the police version for your entire argument.

    Police can say whatever they like. Generally the perps' version of events doesn't hold much weigh until an investigation is done.

  • Tulpa the White||

    You can either state "police say he was pointing the gun at them" or state nothing about his armed status. Anything in between is making shit up that's not supported by the evidence.

  • SugarFree||

    And yet you continue to use the "he pointed a gun at them" argument all through this thread. Your bias toward police is glaringly obvious, as always.

  • BarryD||

    That he didn't get a shot off when he opened the door and someone pulled a gun out and shot him is strong evidence that it was NOT pointed at him -- or that he saw that the guys were cops, so he didn't fire and was killed while putting his gun down.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    There's no physical evidence he was pointing it at the cops. Logic suggests that if he were and the cops drew on him, then he would have at least got off one shot.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    I could actually see him open the door and seeing that it was cops not fire. The cops of course not having the same restraint.

  • R C Dean||

    No kidding. Unless the police had their guns drawn and ready to rock and roll, I'm not sure how they got the first shots off. That makes me doubt the "pointed at police" claim.

    It takes less time to get your hands up and say "Whoa, police!" than it does to draw, aim, and fire.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Maybe he's not a skilled shooter, or hesitated to shoot when he saw it was a cop.

  • Paul.||

    Maybe he's not a skilled shooter, or hesitated to shoot when he saw it was a cop.

    If true, this would suggest that the dweller wasn't malicious, but concerned that armed strangers were at his door, realizing they weren't cops, he didn't light them up (what every innocent person would do) and he died for his trouble.

  • Coeus||

    So the lesson here is: don't hesitate to shoot when you see it's cops.

  • robc||

    Maybe he's not a skilled shooter, or hesitated to shoot when he saw it was a cop.

    Which means it wasnt brandishing, as he was neither menacing nor aggressive.

  • Tulpa the White||

    If you look threatening, it's brandishing. Your state of mind is irrelevant.

  • The Fatman||

    That is a lie. Most "brandishing" statutes require YOU to be doing something. Some dickwad getting his panties in a twist because I am carrying a gun does not mean I am "brandishing". Fuck you Slaver!

  • Tulpa the White||

    If you look threatening to a reasonable person...

    Gosh, I have to check with my lawyer before posting anything here because people are going to make irrelevant nitpicks. In this case, he was either pointing it at them or we don't know what happened. There's no middle ground where he was merely "armed".

  • ||

    But there's NO evidence he was merely armed.

    There is no evidence that he wasn't just merely armed. And no, the cop's word isn't evidence.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And the "pointing the gun at them" is inconsistent with the facts we have in evidence. There's no evidence that the guy's gun was discharged. If he'd been pointing it at them, one would hardly expect that outcome.

  • The Dan||

    But the cops were honest (we assume) when they state they did not identify themselves as cops. Why tell the truth about that but lie about the gun pointed at them?

    Not that the homeowner should not have been armed or in condition red.

  • Paul.||

    Steigerwald mischaracterizes and the glibsters treat it as fact. That's how it's done here at H+R.

    Cops say shooting is justified, glibsters treat it as fact.

  • robc||

    Armed is accurate. Not complete, but 100% accurate.

  • Tulpa the White||

    It's an inaccuracy of omission.

    If Lily Steinergald at LEO Central Blog had written that "someone opened a door and pointed a gun at citizens who had been knocking on the door" then you'd be up in arms about the omission.

  • R C Dean||

    The bottom line is, you point a gun at a deputy sheriff or police office, you're going to get shot unless you shoot first.

  • Tulpa the White||

    If you shoot first you're getting lethal injection.

  • Paul.||

    And if you don't shoot at all you get the death penalty.

    In fact, Tulpa, one merely need be armed with a closed pocket knife to get four bullets in the back. I won't even post the link because that would just be showing off.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Quite the conundrum, eh?

    Maybe you just shouldn't point the gun at the officer to begin with.

  • Paul.||

    Or carrying a closed pocketknife.

  • BC||

    No. My earnest hope is that if I ever find myself in that situation, I take as many of the worthless assholes with me as possible.

  • Richard||

    I don't get it. Why did he open the door? Would you open your door to strangers calling at 1:30am?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    the door opened...(busted in perhaps)?

  • Tulpa the White||

    This is the part of the show where the H+R posters make up facts to fit what they want to be true.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    why didn't they say "subject opened door" or someone else opened door. Passive tense police speak FTW!

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Yeah, he was probably expecting some terrorist friends of his to show up at that time to buy drugs from before they went out to kill some kids and smash the mailboxes of random astronauts.

  • Brett L||

    Maybe he thought someone was in trouble. Maybe he just didn't think. Its still not his fault.

  • Jerry on the road||

    And the police did not have any guns drawn? Why should they be allowed to point their guns at innocent people?

  • sarcasmic||

    No one is innocent until they prove it by submitting to a search and interrogation.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    They had a warrant. No innocent person has EVER had a warrant issued on them, dumb ass.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Cops are better than ordinary people, Jerry. Like politicians, who also believe themselves to be better than the dirty peasants who serve them.

  • kinnath||

    There is some data missing from the police's story.

    The apartment-dweller opens the door with gun in hand supposedly pointed out the door at whomever was banging on the door. Any yet the police still managed to shoot first.

    So, I'm going to conclude the police had guns drawn and pointed at the door before they started banging on it. And, I'm going to conclude they shot as soon as the door was openned and they saw a gun in the victim's hand.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    not unexpected...wish there was video

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The apartment-dweller opens the door with gun in hand supposedly pointed out the door at whomever was banging on the door. Any yet the police still managed to shoot first.

    That's what I was thinking as well. I'm calling shenanigans.

  • Solanum||

    Yep. I also wonder if the victim called out asking who was there before he opened the door, and the police didn't answer him.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    of course not, when you're hunting bad guys you're job is to surprise them...its the victims fault he wasn't the bad guy, otherwise these police could have heroically killed the person accused of assault.

  • Invisible Finger||

    "Candygram!"

  • Loki||

    That seems a bit suspicious to me as well. I could see them having their guns drawn since they were following an attempted murder suspect. They probably were expecting him to be "armed and dangerous". As for whether or not Scott really pointed his gun at them or not, who the fuck knows? It's entirely plausible that they saw the gun and opened fire immediately, whether it was really pointed at them or not. IOW they saw the weapon and reacted.

    The other question, to me, is if they were following the attempted murder suspect, how did they get the wrong apartment? Did they not see which apartment he went into? And if not, what were they doing, knocking on random doors until they found the guy? Seems like they were incompetant fuckwads typical cops and this poor schmuck is now dead because of it.

    But since he had drugs and drug parephernalia in his apartment, it's all good. It's not like he was real human being.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Did you read the f'ing story? They trailed the attempted murder suspect to the complex and found his motorcycle outside. What are you expecting them to do, just give up because they don't want to wake people up?

  • Loki||

    Wait for him to come back to his motorcycle and then arrest him? It's also not clear from the article (yes I did read it asshole) if they physically saw him ride to the apartment complex and go inside or if they just happened to see his bike parked outside.

    If the former, did they not see which apartment he went into? And if not, as I just stated, what's wrong with watching the bike and waiting for him to come out and then arresting him? They didn't HAVE to go from door to door if they weren't sure which apartment he was in. There were other ways they could have done this that wouldn't have resulted in someone else getting shot. Fucking thinking, how does it work?

  • Tulpa the White||

    It's not uncommon for fleeing attempted murder suspects to ditch their vehicles while trying to get away. Very good chance he doesn't come back for the bike.

  • kinnath||

    So there is no reason to be knocking on doors close to the ditched bike then.

  • purple_persuader||

    Why go knocking on doors? If they're going to wake everyone up, there are other ways to do so? Why not use a bullhorn and announce themselves, seeing as they were not attempting to be discreet.

  • Tulpa the White||

    You guys are master backseat drivers of police procedure.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    They probably were expecting him to be "armed and dangerous".

    The guy they were actually looking for was accused of trying (and failing) to hit another person in the head with a cinder block. Since semantics have become so important here, let's remember that nuance as Tulpa gets the tremors below over the "attempted murder suspect".

  • Tulpa the White||

    First, I didn't say what you're quoting.

    Second, I forgot that H+R doesn't consider blunt objects aimed at heads to be lethal force, sorry.

    He attempted to kill someone. The method used is irrelevant, they have to try to catch him.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    I didn't say I was quoting you. I quoted the commenter I replied to, Loki.

    I also didn't say it wasn't lethal force. But knowing the police were pursing someone accused of hoisting a cinder block at someone else is absolutely different than if they were pursing someone who had shot at someone else.

    It would change the way I pursued him. But that's just me.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Pursing? ...Pursuing.

  • gaoxiaen||

    So if he answered the door with a cinder block, the shooting would have been justified.

  • BarryD||

    Or they shot as soon as the door was opened, and when they found the gun next to the victim, they thanked their lucky stars. It's a PITA when they have to go all the way downstairs and get a stolen pistol from the trunk of the patrol car, to plant on the victim. And someone might see them do it, too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If they failed to identify themselves as police, then I guess the correct charge is negligent homicide?

  • sarcasmic||

    Ha! That's good! Will you be here all week?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    "Professional courtesy."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Knocking on a door at 1:30AM and pointing your gun at the occupant is an aggressive act. People can defend themselves but they have a pretty big burden when they've initiated the violence. Police were the aggressors.

    The bottom line is that police bear full responsibility because they did not announce themselves knowing full well what was likely to happen.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    No one expects the New Professionals!

  • Loki||

    "Our main main weapon is fear and surprise; our 2 main weapons are fear and surprise, and ruthless inefficiency; our 3 main weapons are fear, suprise, ruthless inefficiency, and a fanatical devotion to the War on Drugs... I'll come in again."

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Perfect

  • SIV||

    The police are the only people we know for a fact were pointing weapons at anyone. Saying Mr Scott was "armed" is perfectly accurate no matter where his weapon was pointed.

  • BarryD||

    Actually, we don't even know that, do we?

    We know they searched his apartment after they killed him. Apparently he had a gun somewhere in it. By the time anyone else showed up, the gun was lying next to his body.

    THAT is all we know, FOR SURE.

  • ||

    if the cops had kicked the in the door without identifying themselves, we'd have misconduct and a police fuckup.

    if pattern alleged is true,i see a tragedy,but no police misconduct

    apparently uniformed cops knock on a door and you answer the door with a gun drawn, you are probably going to get capped.

    most likely i would have shot.

    i own guns.i have never in my entire life answered the door with a drawn gun.either DON'T answer the door, or answer the door without a gun drawn.

    the guy's idiocy brought about his own demise

    lots of bad warrant executions where cops kick in doors w/o properly identifying themselves/wrong address etc.

    here,they didn't force anything. they were looking for an attempted murder suspect who may or may not have been in that particular apartment,used a NONdynamic low force method (they knocked and waited for an answer) and they were met by a guy who had a gun drawn on them

    sorry,but this is about as "non-story" as you can get.

    tragic,but what kind of fucking irresponsible moron idiot answers the door with gun drawn?

    it was 1:30 am,which means you either try to look out a side window or something and see who is knocking before answering or you don't answer the door if you are apprehensive who it is.

    if this wasn't an "evul" cops story, and it was some other instance of some guy answering the door with a drawn gun (or an offduty cop doing so), the guy answering the door would be correctly perceived as in the wrong

    moron dies of gunfire.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    IT WUZ A GUD SHOOT!

  • ||

    apparently so. cop bigots kneejerk film at 11.

    seriously, bring back balko. at least he posted stories of police misconduct.

    we've had an entire weekend and this (presumably) good shoot is the best thing steigerwald can come up with.

    in 20+ yrs of police work, i've never had somebody answer the door when i knocked with a drawn gun

    i had some psycho chick answer the door with a steak knife two weeks ago. she didn't get shot

    if she answered with a drawn gun, i suspect she may have

  • Restoras||

    Kapo logic.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Cops show up at the wrong place, in the middle of the night, don't identify themselves, don't get shot at, shoot the resident dead, and it's a "good shoot." Perhaps the root of the issue is that "good" means something different to police.

  • Tulpa the White||

    They weren't "at the wrong place". This wasn't a warrant serve.

    They were pursuing a suspect and knocking on doors in the area they thought he was.

  • ||

    exactly. they were looking for an attempted murder suspect. they didn't kick in the door. they KNOCKED. the PROPER response when somebody knocks on your door is

    1) answer
    2) don't answer

    it is not "answer with a gun drawn"

    EVER

  • ||

    ...the PROPER response when somebody knocks on your door is

    1) answer
    2) don't answer

    it is not "answer with a gun drawn"

    EVER

    Says who? I wasn't aware there was a law stating that. I've answered the door with a gun at my side several times over the course of my life. What on earth makes you think that's an invalid course of action in ones own property?

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    They weren't "at the wrong place". This wasn't a warrant serve.

    Considering the person they were looking for wasn't there, and an innocent person was, it was the wrong place.

  • Tulpa the White||

    He wasn't innocent if he pointed a gun at someone for knocking on his door.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    No, he was innocent. You have no way of knowing if he pointed a gun at anyone. But since he was not the person they were looking for, he was innocent.

  • ||

    no, atfpapic, he was not innocent

    he drew a gun on the cops and paid the price

    fuck him

  • ||

    they were looking for somebody. that makes it reasonable to knock on doors that may or may not contain the suspect. that's how cops do investigations. it's what we are supposed to do.

    and they could knock on thousands of doors and not be met with a drawn gun

    this guy chose his own fucking fate

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "Place where the suspect isn't" == "wrong place"

  • Tulpa the White||

    Oh please. It was the logical place to look for the suspect.

    It's not like a wrong-door raid, which is what you guys are trying to paint it as.

  • ||

    right, i have already seen moron bigot in this thread refer to this as a wrong door raid.

    cops knock on door = RAID

    i knocked on 4 doors that i recall, during my shift yesterday. none were a RAID.

    i've been on maybe 6 dozen raids in my career, otoh i have knocked on what 20 30,000 doors?

    again, only a moron thinks

    1) cops have a duty to identify themslves when knocking on a door.
    2) a cop knocking on a door = raid

    seriously, the stupid is just expanding to amazing proportions in this thread

    atfpapic, the cops knocked on a door in the early morning hours. many people would be apprehensive and it's entirely reasonable to ask "who is it?" or not answer the door, or try to look out a window to see who it is, etc.

    it is not reasonable MERELY BECAUSE IT'S 1:30 am to answer the door with gun drawn.

    i suggest nobody here who owns a gun has ever done this. i can recall several incidents where i have had somebody knock in the early morning hours for various reasons. i never drew a gun on them, and i would have been wrong to do so

  • The Dan||

    sorry, I'm one, and I survived. ADT called the local popo telling them my alarm was going off, it wasn't. I was rousted at 0230 by a banging on my door. I came down the steps with my sig and surefire. He announced who he was and asked me to unload my weapon. I did. We then walked the perimeter of the property and determined that ADT was full of crap, again. Shook hands, I wished him a safe evening, and went back to bed. I cancelled ADT the next day.

  • ||

    no, "good" means something to people who understand the constitution and case law.

    it's based on some pretty simple standards and the same standards anybody but this fucking moron would understand.

    again, this is weak sauce. a fucking nearly blatantly obvious good shoot

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    a fucking nearly blatantly obvious good shoot

    Except the part where the person shot was innocent. The cops should be charged with negligent manslaughter. Let a jury decide if it was 'blatantly obvious.'

  • Tulpa the White||

    He wasn't innocent if he pointed the gun at people for knocking on his door.

  • ||

    Seriously Tulpa, that's your argument now?

  • thirtyandseven||

    No that's different.

    They have shiny tin badges and caps that say "POLICE" on them, see?

  • ||

    he was not "innocent". he unjustifiably drew a gun on the police

    and he paid the price

    fuck him

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    he was not "innocent". he unjustifiably drew a gun on the police

    and he paid the price

    fuck him

    He didn't know who it was, police or someone else. He was not guilty of anything except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You wonder why people here think of cops the way they do, you just gave an example.

  • thirtyandseven||

    He didn't consult Dunphy on Proper Nighttime Manners When On One's Own Property, therefore, "fuck him", he deserved to die.

    Can't have these proles just defending themselves willy-nilly while in their own homes now, can we?

    Self-defense is just a bad idea in general; you never know if the person you're defending yourself against might be a cop! Didn't think of that now, did you?

  • BarryD||

    There is no evidence that he drew on the police. Show me any.

    Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But there's no evidence whatever, that he did.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah, other than the dead guy on the floor it was a fucking fabulous shoot.

  • Restoras||

    "Good" in your usage is limited to the circumstances surrounding the shooting - it was a "legitimate" shooting (still not established to anyone with any critical thinking ability).

    I know "good", being a one-syllable word, is easier for you guys to use and makes for lively locker room banter, but to the public at large, you know, the ones you serve, "good" means something different and it makes you look like a douchebag.

    Save your professional lexicon for those in your profession. If not, go to greater lengths to provide an explanation and a definition.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No, it's not a "good shoot". A guy is dead who, by all reason and logic, should not have been shot. If the cops hadn't come to him in the middle of the night, not announcing themselves as police, he'd likely have slept the night through. So, what exactly is "good" about the fact that this guy is dead?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Read that again, and explain to me how you sleep at night.

  • ||

    i sleep very well, and if you answer the door with a drawn gun next time the cops knock, you will likely sleep.... with the fishes

    and you'll have nobody to blame but yourself

  • Restoras||

    Kapo logic.

  • ||

    no, simple constitutional law and common sense.

    most people have such common sense

    i've knocked on what? 20,000 ? 30,000 doors in my police career?

    how many morons answered it with a drawn gun?

    ZERO

    this guy was a fucking moron begging to get shot

  • Restoras||

    A) You don't know that, kapo.
    B) Last I heard it wasn't a death sentence to be a moron. Free country and all that.
    C) Maybe if your pig buddies had actually done their jobs correctly the outcome would have been different.

  • ||

    as i said, again for people like you that have reading comprehension problems.. .i will repeat

    ASSUMING THE FACT PATTERN AS PRESENTED IS CORRECT.

    i don't know IF the cops are telling the truth

    what i am saying is that IF they are, it's almost certainly a justified shoot

    hth

  • Restoras||

    Fine then. My last word on this until more facts are available is that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed was enshrined in the Bill of Rights in part because of knee-jerk, petty tyrants like you and your asshole pig buddies.

  • $park¥||

    ASSUMING THE FACT PATTERN AS PRESENTED IS CORRECT

    That is what your stupid acronym stands for? Seriously? I guess I was right, it is some kind of bullshit cop code.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Regardless of what will likely happen if you answer the door with a gun drawn the next time the cops knock, is it a legal act by the cops?

  • ||

    atfpapic, almost certainly. devil's in the details, which are of course not present in a media article, but will be present in the inquest, but the totality of the circ's would almost certainly justify a shoot.

    i've seen plenty o' unjustified shoots in the pages of reason (especially when we had balko).

    this does not appear to be one of them

  • Aresen||

    Since the cops acknowledge that they did not announce themselves, what telepathic powers was Mr. Scott supposed to have to determine that they were cops?

  • Tulpa the White||

    It doesn't matter whether they were cops. You shouldn't point a gun at ANYONE for knocking on your door.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Should you immediately start a shootout with anyone with a gun drawn? especially when you're on their property?

  • sloopyinca||

    It doesn't matter whether they were cops have a prior drug conviction (you never even knew about). You shouldn't point a gun at ANYONE for when knocking on your their door at 1:30 am (without first announcing that you are a cop).

    \FIFY, you stupid, malignant cunt.

  • Chris Mallory||

    If I am in my home I have every right to be armed. The police do not have any right to be armed on my property.

  • SIV||

    Is this a spoof?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    aren't spoofs supposed to be extreme?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    it was 1:30 am,which means you either try to look out a side window or something and see who is knocking before answering or you don't answer the door if you are apprehensive who it is.

    This is the part of the story I am having trouble believing.

  • BarryD||

    I've answered the door with a gun hidden behind me at 1:30. I didn't have a window that would let me see the angle required. The guy at the door was just telling me that my garage door was left open. I thanked him, and he never knew I had a gun. See, I figured that a knock on the door at 1:30 would mean one of three things: a friend in need, someone doing a favor, or someone with criminal intent. I prepared myself for all the possibilities.

    Of course, had I been shot dead by a couple of trigger-happy deputies, the gun would have been "pointed at them", at least as long as there were no witnesses.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    oh how we have waited for your glorious return.

    Words can never settled a misunderstanding like the power of firepower.

  • ||

    i haven't gone anywhere. i have several comments in recent threads including "the market does not ration..." and "political animals..."

    regardless, there was a pretty good story of police fuckupedness misconduct out of florida here last week

    i, in fact, opined that florida sounded like a state where police corruption was way too common and not properly dealt with .

    great.

    but this (athfpapic) isn't misconduct

    it's a perfectly reasonable response to a perfectly unreasonable action - answering a door with a drawn gun visible.

    that's not a reasonable action. if you are so apprehensive about who is knocking that you feel the need to answer it with a drawn gun, DO NOT ANSWER IT.

    feel free to draw your gun and if the nefarious evul person kicks the door (and does not identify clearly as police), you can cap THEM.

    but that's not what happened. they knocked on the door and got met with a gun. and he got capped

    and he has nobody to blame but his stupid ass-dead self

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    feel free to draw your gun and if the nefarious evul person kicks the door (and does not identify clearly as police), you can cap THEM.

    And if the cops, who admit they didn't identify themselves, kick in his door and he shot them dead in the entryway, you'd be good with that?

  • Restoras||

    The Brothers in Blue form up the wall of silence quickly. It's the first lesson at the Academy.

  • ||

    if they weren't properly identified as cops and they kicked in the door, they would be wrong

    as i have opined in several other incidents.

    cops kicking in a door have a duty to clearly identify themselves

    cops KNOCKING on a door do not. nobody has a legal duty to identify themself for merely knocking

    knocking is a non-aggressive, common action

    i've knocked on what 20, 30,000 doors as a cop?

    in the vast majority of such knocking, i did not identify myself first, i was under no legal obligation to do so, nor in twenty years, did anybody answer the door with a gun drawn (that i could see)

    have you ever knocked on a door and had somebody answer with a drawn gun?

    seriously, only funhouse mirror reason bigots could even consider that this guy didn't bring about his own demise.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Does "they would be wrong" mean the same thing to you as "they brought about their own demise?"

  • gaoxiaen||

    Keeping my gun behind my back only allowed me to pistol-whip the asshole instead of shooting him. Doesn't work quite as well. He got to go to court and lie.

  • R C Dean||

    he has nobody to blame but his stupid ass-dead self

    Noted: the cops have absolutely no responsibility or blame whatsoever for shooting a man in his own house without ever identifying themselves.

  • Invisible Finger||

    It's the new professionalism.

  • SugarFree||

    She shouldn't have gone out of the house in that short skirt.

  • Tulpa the White||

    They didn't have much of a chance, did they? Assuming he pointed a gun at them immediately upon opening the door.

    If they're lying, the cops should burn.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Assuming he pointed a gun at them immediately upon opening the door.

    If that's the case, how did they get the only shots off? They either had their guns drawn before he opened the door (in which case they are doing the very thing you are claiming justifies being killed) or they had time to draw their guns, in which case there was time to speak.

  • ||

    Tulpa, there's no way to prove the gun was pointing at them or not. It's their word against a dead man's, and dead men tell no tales. So your "if they're lying..." schtick serves no purpose other than to show you like the taste of boots.

    Yes, maybe he shouldn't have had his gun drawn, but maybe... just MAYBE... the cops shouldn't have shown up the WRONG FUCKING HOUSE!

  • BarryD||

    If they're lying, they committed cold-blooded murder.

    But nobody will ever find out.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    is it reasonable if I (a citizen) knock on someone's door and they answer it with a gun drawn, can I start shooting at them? Or would I be tried possibly for murder? I would have been on their property with no justification other than I am looking for someone else.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not a cop.

    If I had knocked on his door, because I was in an accident and didn't have a phone or something, and had ended up shooting him, wouldn't I be charged with something?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Is that a question. You have no blue wall of public service protecting you. You're going down mofo!

  • Bee Tagger||

    Exactly. Debating how Scott should or should not have answered the door doesn't address what he was legally permitted to do and whether the cops were in their legal rights to respond the way they did.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not even saying they're guilty!

    Seems like I would have to face a jury though.

    You want to talk about the state of mind of the cops at the time?

    Fine!

    Tell it to the jury. Sorting this stuff out is what juries are for.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Probably, because you'd have a hell of a time proving he was pointing a gun at you. Doesn't change the principle.

    That's a "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" situ.

  • ||

    at least in my state, you wouldn't have to prove that.

    self defense law in my state says the state has the burden to DISPROVE a self defense claim

    other states vary.

    i have no idea what florida's standard is for sure, but from what i have read in the zimmerman case regarding fla law, and the concept that the defendant need prove NOTHING... the prosecution has the burden to prove case facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Tulpa the White||

    That sounds like a recipe for disaster, since you could just shoot someone who opened the door and then claim self-defense.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    That sounds like a recipe for disaster, since you could just shoot someone who opened the door and then claim self-defense.

    Worked for the cops.

  • BarryD||

    Right.

    If a civilian's word that "the guy was pointing a gun at me" is not worth anything in a court of law, then neither is a cop's. We have small, light videocameras now. Let the cops carry them at all times, and if the video is found to be deleted or altered, consider all claims by the cops to be false.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    You're not properly trained to shoot innocent civilians in the middle of the night. At best you're a rank amateur.

  • sarcasmic||

    You've got multiple voices shouting aggressively as they pound on your door at one thirty in the morning, and you're going to casually peek out the window or simply not answer the door?

    What a fucking liar you are.

  • Tulpa the White||

    multiple voices shouting aggressively

    and they were staring in his windows making nasty faces holding signs saying "open the door or die motherfucker!"

  • Mykeuva||

    And the police's "idiocy" for knocking on the wrong door?

    Of course, to you, only the corpse's "idiocy" brought about his own demise. The police's incompetence and itchy trigger fingers played no part.

  • Restoras||

    Kapo logic.

  • Brendan||

    Role reversal:
    "apparently uniformed cops knock on my door and have their gun(s) drawn, they're probably going to get capped.

    On another note, not all houses/apartments have windows or other ways to see outside EXCEPT that crappy little peephole. My residence doesn't. I try to keep the peephole clear on both sides, as it's the only way I can see who's at my door.

    That said, I've had some people knock on my door at odd hours or stand in a way that makes it hard to see. My response was to have my gun in my hand behind my back. I wouldn't point it at someone without cause, nor would I let them know I have a gun. Each time, they were peaceful-wrong address, salesperson, etc. and when I stood and talked to them, I placed the gun on the counter next to the door without them seeing it.

  • BarryD||

    That's what I've done.

    However, had I been shot dead, the shooter would undoubtedly have said that I pointed that gun at him. There'd be no way to prove otherwise.

  • robc||

    I dont even have a peephole. In theory I can look out a window, but that involved climbing over furniture and them pushing blinds out of the way.

    Actually, at 1:30, I would be in my bedroom and my bedroom window has a pretty good angle on the front porch, but that is really the only way I can see out before answering.

    When I am in my office, like now, and someone knocks, Its a pain to figure out who is there in a timely manner so I usually just open the door and hope to not die.

  • R C Dean||

    apparently uniformed cops knock on a door and you answer the door with a gun drawn, you are probably going to get capped.

    Without announcing, or giving the citizen time to register that these strangers at the door are wearing uniforms.

    Riddle me this: If I, as a "civilian", were to knock on someone's door, and they answered it with a gun, and I shot them without a word being exchanged, would I be off scot-free?

  • sarcasmic||

    Riddle me this: If I, as a "civilian", were to knock on someone's door, and they answered it with a gun, and I shot them without a word being exchanged, would I be off scot-free?

    Obviously not, and there is no double standard.
    That double standard exists only in the mind of Reasonoid anti-police bigots, and there is no fucking way you would have been let off "scot-free".
    You're just all butthurt about getting a well deserved speeding ticket.

  • Tulpa the White||

    You don't have to announce who you are when knocking on a door.

    Riddle me this: If I, as a "civilian", were to knock on someone's door, and they answered it with a gun, and I shot them without a word being exchanged, would I be off scot-free?

    Probably not, because you'd have to prove he was pointing a gun at you and that would be hard depending on the jurisdiction. Doesn't change the principle.

    If the cops are telling the truth it was a legit shoot. If they're lying, that's a diff story.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Probably not, because you'd have to prove he was pointing a gun at you

    And yet you wanted Lucy to change her wording based on an unprovable police statement?

  • ||

    i could not care less what lucy's wording was. we have one side of the story. again

    ATFPAPIC, the shoot was probably justified.

    that's why i always qualify with (or try to remember to do so) in such shootings, including the zimmerman one

  • $park¥||

    You know, I Googled ATFPAPIC to find out what the fuck you're saying and the only four hits that came up are comments you made. I assume this is some kind of cop code for something but I can't for the life of me figure it out.

  • sloopyinca||

    I think it stands for:
    Anybody
    That
    Fucks with
    Police
    Are
    Persons of
    Interest to the
    Coroner

    Or something like that. Buckaroo Banzai is big on acronyms and stuff. It makes him feel more like a soldier that the civilian he is.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    When he's not too busy calling people bigots for wanting murderers to go on trial, dunphy likes to make up random acronyms and use them without explanation.

  • Restoras||

    Yes, use of professional lexicon with those who don't understand it makes your position seem stronger than it really is.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Probably "as the facts present...something something"

  • Chris Mallory||

    No it isn't. This man was in HIS home. The cops were the agressors, he had every right to defend himself and his home. They had a freaking duty to retreat. Every one of them should ride the needle.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Being in your home doesn't give you the right to point your gun at people.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    ....

  • Restoras||

    That hasn't been established.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Does being at someone else's home give you the right to point a gun at them?

    Let's presume the guy was pointing his gun at the cops. He didn't get off a shot. They did. That seems to present two possibilities:

    1. They already had their guns out and pointed at him.
    2. He didn't shoot in the time it took them to draw their weapons and shoot him.

    If 1, this wasn't the casual "let's just knock and talk" scenario.

    If 2, do you think it's reasonable to presume that he stood there with his gun pointed and did nothing while they drew their guns and killed him?

  • BarryD||

    He had a gun, maybe on his person when he was shot. Again, his apartment was searched. We don't even know he was holding the gun, beyond reasonable doubt. But let's say he was holding it. He had every right to do that, and there's no evidence whatever that he pointed it at anyone.

  • ||

    Being in your home doesn't give you the right to point your gun at people.

    Um...yes, actually, it does.

  • Tulpa the White||

    actually, it does.

    Remind me not to come to parties at your place.

  • ||

    Meh, I'm not a very good host anyway.

    Though now I'm seriously contemplating answering my door next time with a bow and arrow, or rather, having my wife open the door while I stand back in the hallway with an arrow nocked, just to see the reaction of the person on the other side (if it's a cop, guess I'm a moron who deserves to die).

  • Tulpa the White||

    Real men answer the door with a flail.

  • R C Dean||

    tragic,but what kind of fucking irresponsible moron idiot answers the door with gun drawn?

    See, to me, answering the door at 1:30 am without a gun drawn is an act of fucking irresponsible idiocy.

    I say that because I, in fact, have done so (technically, it was around 2:30 am). I didn't point it out the door (it was down at my side).

    As it happens, the guy at the door was a drunk driver who had slid on the ice into my driveway.

    We managed to avoid gunplay.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Officer safety is paramount, citizen safety marginal...

  • ||

    common sense, constitutional law and UOF doctrine is paramount

    if the guy was apprehensive enough to believe answering the door with a drawn gun was warranted, then he SHOULD NOT HAVE ANSWERED THE DOOR

    then, the cops could have identified themselves and waited, walked away, etc.

    but he made a fucking moronic decision and he paid the price.

    yawn

  • Chris Mallory||

    The cops should have retreated. They are clearly in the wrong. A citizen has every right to defend himself and his home, even from government thugs.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    ISH DA LAW!!!

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Do I have the right to shoot someone if they point a gun at me on their property?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Depends. Are you a cop?

  • Tulpa the White||

    See, to me, answering the door at 1:30 am without a gun drawn is an act of fucking irresponsible idiocy.

    Then don't answer the door. If they break in, then you fire.

  • ||

    exactly. EXACTLY

    and if cops are going to bust in a door, the duty is on them to make damn sure they are easily identifiable as cops AND they have PC etc. and then we'd have a discussion of interest

    but no such duty or case was present here.

    they simply knocked on the door, like any normal person does

    and no normal person who isn't begging to get shot answers a simple knock on the door with a drawn gun.

    and all except a kneejerk bigot would recognize that as blatant common sense.

  • Restoras||

    I'm sure this scenario will play out someday and I'll be interested to see your take on things then, especially if a couple of stupid cops are killed.

  • tarran||

    I should take quick-draw shooting lessons from those cops.

    A guy was pointing a gun at them, and they were able to draw and kill him before he got a shot off.

    They must have been fast like the Waco kid!

  • R C Dean||

    Then don't answer the door. If they break in, then you fire.

    Why can't I answer a door prepared to defend myself? When I did it, I lived in the country, and it was bitterly cold. I had a couple of options:

    (1) Someone at the door needed help, and refusing it could lead to serious harm to them.

    (2) Someone at the door had Bad Things in mind.

    By answering as I did, I was prepared for either situation. What's wrong with that?

    Not only that, but a few years earlier, I was the stranger at the door (after an accident). Also in the country, also bitterly cold, and I had a a bunch of high school kids with me (both cars were totalled). Should the homeowner have to choose between helping people and being defenseless? I don't see why.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Did the homeowner point a gun at you and the HS kids when you knocked on their door?

  • ||

    Tulpa, you continue to insist on this point. Well since there is only one side to story anyway, maybe the guy DIDN'T answer the door. Maybe the cops busted it down, or picked the lock, or any other number of plausible scenarios. If you are going to rest your entire case of whether the police were in the wrong on the guy having is gun pointed at them or not, you better have a lot more to back up all of the other assumptions based on a one-sided account.

  • R C Dean||

    No, but we're not talking about when its justified to point a gun at someone.

    We're talking about whether its justified to open a door with a gun in your hand.

    In that particular case, I don't recall a gun. But it honestly wouldn't have bothered me (assuming it wasn't pointed at me). Why not? Because I would have done the same thing.

  • Tulpa the White||

    No, but we're not talking about when its justified to point a gun at someone.

    We're talking about whether its justified to open a door with a gun in your hand.

    No, we're not. In this case, either the guy pointed a gun at police or the cops are lying.

    If the cops are lying, we all agree that they should burn. Probably won't unfortunately, but that's another discussion.

    The only dispute is whether it was a justifiable shooting if they're telling the truth.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I too have answered armed on one occasion and I live in the burbs.,

  • ||

    if pattern alleged is true,i see a tragedy,but no police misconduct

    It was the WRONG ADDRESS dunphy! How do you not see police misconduct in that? Maybe if you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the ones who were actually there and pulled the trigger I can understand it, but this is blatant police misconduct by not figuring out that a 6 and a 9 are different numbers!

  • BarryD||

    The poor, innocent illiterate cops. I feel sorry for them, having to kill an innocent man like that.

  • Tulpa the White||

    WTF, this wasn't a warrant serve. There was no right address, there was a complex the suspect had fled into.

  • ||

    I assumed they had more than just random knocks in mind, namely a report that the suspect was in apartment 109 and they go up to 106, or some such. Silly me for thinking the police actually "investigate" before banging on doors in the middle of the night and instinctively shooting anyone who comes to the door, weapon in hand or not.

    If they tracked the suspect down to this apartment complex, and had no other lead then that, the investigation should have reset and they start canvasing. Knocking on doors without announcing your presence at 1:30 in the morning is not canvasing. They were hoping to get lucky, and they did! One less drug user off the streets.

    I'd like to respect your consistency Tulpa, but it boils down to nothing more than contrarianism. As much as we find fault in cops who do something wrong, we will admit it if one seemed to be within his ability to enforce. However, you and dunphy will not admit that a cop was in the wrong, simply because they were a cop.

  • robc||

    most likely i would have shot.

    Im going to make this clear. It is your job to wait for the first shot in this situation. If the lead guy has to take a bullet for the team, so be it.

    If they had clearly identified the guy answering the door as the perp they were after, and HE was pointing a gun at them, I dont have a problem with the cops shooting first in that situation. But until they have identified and/or have come under fire, they have no business firing at all.

    This is murder, IMO. The law may not agree, but the law is an ass.

    If you would have shot, you are a potential murderer. You have a tough job, it may require you to die in assumption of innocence. Deal with it or quit.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    You have a tough job, it may require you to die in assumption of innocence. Deal with it or quit.

    Yes. Either this, or acknowledge that your career is neither noble nor heroic.

    I can't take the "officer safety" arguments alongside the officer worship any more.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Im going to make this clear. It is your job to wait for the first shot in this situation. If the lead guy has to take a bullet for the team, so be it.

    That's your opinion. It's not shared by the vast majority of the population in this society.

    You can hold your opinion and argue for it; just don't pretend it's actually the law.

  • robc||

    just don't pretend it's actually the law.

    I didnt.

    "The law may not agree, but the law is an ass."

    In fact, I was pretty clear about it.

  • ||

    If the facts are as you say, then I agree with you. The problem is that we only have the word of the officers on the scene. It is possible that I am too jaded to be objective, but without video or something else along those lines I can not take their word as fact.

    I consider it well within the realm of possibility that the police officers present shot a man with a weapon who was not pointing it at anybody, and then told a story to match the events that made them not look bad.

    Likewise I am also not willing to assume that the possibility that I just mentioned is fact.

    The one thing I DO know is that the reportage of this situation has been poor.

  • ||

    In the interests of accuracy, there is no "Lakewood" County in Florida.

    As correctly noted in a quote lower down, the county in question is Lake County.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    D'oh! Thanks, fixed.

    I blame the copy of "Holy Land" by D. J. Waldie that is nestled in my purse (Lakewood, CA...)

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    What a great book.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    With a knock like this, without self-identifying as law enforcement, what is standard procedure when the occupant inevitably asks, "Who's there?" Do they answer honestly or stay quiet?

  • R C Dean||

    Do they answer honestly or stay quiet?

    Trick question. They shoot through the door, because officer safety.

  • ||

    utter rubbish. they have all sorts of options. they can use tactical deception or be honest. they can simply walk away. they can step back and surveil and wait to see if evidence develops. they can knock on another door and ask about the neighbor

    but it's this fucking simple... cops knocking on a door have no duty to yell out "police".

    i've knocked on what 20,000 30,000 doors. only in certain circ's would i yell out "police" (like prior to dynamic entry or if somebody wasn't coming to the door THEN i would yell out police)

    this guy was a fucking moron begging to get shot.

    how many people here own guns? i do. i have never considered answering the door with a drawn gun and i am trying to imagine a situation where it would be intelligent to do so, and I cannot imagine one.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    this guy was a fucking moron begging to get shot.

    Can you imagine no scenario where the officers acted in a way that made the victim's alleged reaction reasonable?

  • ||

    No, no he can't.

  • R C Dean||

    You need to boot up your humor module, D.

  • Restoras||

    Officer safety is no laughing matter.

  • Paul.||

    they can step back and surveil and wait to see if evidence develops. they can knock on another door and ask about the neighbor

    Can and would are two entirely different things.

    but it's this fucking simple... cops knocking on a door have no duty to yell out "police".

    IF their plan includes the very real possibility of shooting the inhabitants inside, let alone arresting them, it might be a good idea. Otherwise guns could go off and people coudl get hurt.

    this guy was a fucking moron begging to get shot.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    how many people here own guns? i do. i have never considered answering the door with a drawn gun and i am trying to imagine a situation where it would be intelligent to do so, and I cannot imagine one.

    I consider it all the time. I've suffered a series of breakins due to the Seattle PD's buy-anything-no-questions-asked sting operation. These were all daytime burglaries. If the conditions were absolutely right, I could see myself answering the door with a drawn weapon, however, I may not show it to the person on the other side.

    Unfortunately, in a cops world, this would be called 'reaching' and I could still get shot.

  • BarryD||

    It could be called "pointing it at them" as long as there were no witnesses, or as long as those witnesses could also be shot.

  • Chris Mallory||

    "tactical deception"

    You mean lie through their teeth. All cops lie, they are trained to lie. That is the reason I will never trust anything a cop ever says, even on the stand in a courtroom.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ha, telling the reporters that the guy swung his door open guns trained was a strategic deception.

  • BarryD||

    What would you do if you knocked on the door and someone inside yelled "FUCK OFF! I'm sleeping, asshole!"

  • The Fatman||

    I have answered my door many times gun in hand. Once even to the po-po. Guess what?!? I survived. Of course the scum-bag cops never saw the gun. And I couldn't just ignore it because the fucking po-po kept leaning on my bell. Fuck them, and fuck you. Die in fire with your progeny and Tulpa and his.

  • ||

    "...begging to get shot"? I'm no cop-hater, but that is goddamn offensive coming from a police officer.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Good question.

    I'd think they'd identify, though they may be worried about the suspect shooting through the door if he's in there. But, I don't see any requirement to identify if all you're doing is knocking.

  • Peter L||

    They knew the suspect had used a blunt instrument, not a gun. I would like to see somebody try to "shoot through the door" using a cinder block.

  • Invisible Finger||

    I only answer the door if the knock is "Shave and A Haircut."

  • Paul.||

    All you guys making stupid arguments.

    The answer is simple: Don't be the subject of a wrong-door raid and you'll be fine. How hard is this to understand?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What you said, Paul.

  • SugarFree||

    ^This^ If he didn't want to be shot maybe he shouldn't have lived in the same neighborhood as a suspected attempted murderer.

  • $park¥||

    That sounds vaguely familiar. I think it was something about terrorists last time it came up.

  • ||

    this wasn't a raid, moron

    they KNOCKED on the door

    that's not a raid. they were LOOKING for an attempted murderer. the guy in the apt. in question may have been able to provide witness info, etc.

    they didn't know. they used a non dynamic entry method and they did what average people do. every day. knock.

    the moron begged to get shot, and he got what he asked for

    only a moronic anti-cop bigot would call KNOCKING on a door a "raid"

    and cops don't need PC nor do they need due diligence to know they have the RIGHT door to merely KNOCK

    which is what they did

    characterizing it as a "wrong-door raid" is factually absurd

  • Paul.||

    and cops don't need PC nor do they need due diligence to know they have the RIGHT door to merely KNOCK

    which is what they did

    characterizing it as a "wrong-door raid" is factually absurd

    You're right... You've convinced me. Allow me to amend my statement.

    Don't have your door knocked on at 1:30 am by unidentified, armed strangers when you live in a dodgy neighborhood.

  • ||

    more correctly, if you are apprehensive enough to believe drawing a gun on a person knocking on the door is warranted, DO NOT ANSWER THE DOOR

    period.

    it's really that simple. i have had cases where i had people knock on my door and for whatever reason, i chose not to answer. i have recommended to my wife, who is a good kickboxer and competent with a gun, to not answer if she is apprehensive as well

    that's what normal people do.

    people , otoh, who are begging to get shot , answer the door with a drawn gun

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Guess what dunphy: the law doesn't say you can't open the door with a gun in your hand. Doesn't matter if it's reasonable or not. ISH DAW LAW!1!@!

  • Paul.||

    more correctly, if you are apprehensive enough to believe drawing a gun on a person knocking on the door is warranted, DO NOT ANSWER THE DOOR

    Here's how I would answer the door.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Look, they weren't serving a warrant so it wasn't a wrong-door issue. At worst, it was a not-right door issue.

  • Tulpa the White||

    He wasn't the subject of a wrong-door raid.

  • sloopyinca||

    I have time for one comment, and I will not be responding because I have to leave:

    The cops had no reason to suspect the perp had gone into this particular unit. They had no reason to knock on the door without identifying themselves. If they wanted to approach this unit, they should have obtained a warrant and/or made their presence notably clear to anyone in the area. This would have been the best way to get the perp to come peacefully.
    But that's not what cops do. They go in all amped up because to them, the job is about inflicting violence on what they deem "bad people," not about justice. They want to be gods walking the earth and rarely assess potential consequences before acting. This is, in part, due to the fact that they are rarely held accountable for acting outside the bounds of the law and they have a compliant media that is willing to retell their narrative usually without question.
    This man's past has no bearing on this interaction. The cops did not know his arrest or conviction record prior to knocking on the door, so it should not even be reported. They are passing that information to the media in an attempt to paint their victim as a less sympathetic character than he would be if he were a 40 year old soccer mom answering the door in the same fashion at 1:30 am after being roused from bed under similar circumstances. The police should be ashamed of themselves and the media whores reporting it as relevant should as well.
    People have a right to defend

  • ||

    nobody has a "right" to answer a door based on a mere knock with a drawn gun. i need a reason to draw my gun, or i am legally and departmentally subject to discipline/firing.

    sloopy is, as usual, wrong on the law as well as common sense.

    feel free to answer the door the next time somebody knocks, with your gun drawn and see what kind of result you get.

  • Chris Mallory||

    You are a government employee. You should have fewer rights than a citizen. I can walk around my house with my gun in my hand any damn time I want. IT IS MY PROPERTY.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I can walk around my house with my gun in my hand any damn time I want.

    If your gun is pointing in the direction of someone else or their property, actually, no, you can't.

  • R C Dean||

    nobody has a "right" to answer a door based on a mere knock with a drawn gun.

    Bullshit. I'm a homeowner, in a "castle doctrine, no duty to retreat" state. How is it that I am prohibited from answering the door with a gun drawn, since I have every right to use that gun to defend myself in that situation?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This is another case showing the problem with having so many various and complex laws governing our lives. Even law enforcement aren't going to understand them.

    We've seen it before with recorded assertions from some of them about, well, recording them in public.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Castle doctrine only applies when someone forcibly enters your dwelling, or enters without your knowledge.

    It absolutely does not apply when you open the door for someone. Good God!

  • Bee Tagger||

    Is it illegal to open the door of your home with your gun drawn?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    this i factually incorrect. In Colorado, any trespass can be met with deadly force and has been held up per recent case law. An 80 some odd year old gentleman shot a guy on his property (clearly posted no trespassing) and the DA said "I don't see a reason to charge here." Now yes, the guy was there to rob him but that was not known at the time of the incident. Don't want to get shot? Don't come onto my property with any aggressiveness.

    This is not to say that you would get off for shooting a person walking across your lawn but that is what juries are for. DA could charge but would have to believe that the person shooting had no reason to believe they were in danger (again though CO law is pretty clear on this, the DA has quite a burden). Unfortunately in Denver proper they ignore more of the law than most. Home rule city and all.

    These police should all have to face a jury. That is how our justice system is designed. If they can make their case then they would get off. If not then well...

  • BarryD||

    First thing that goes, as soon as a good prosecutor argues the case, is the assertion that the victim's gun was pointed at the cops. No evidence.

    A good attorney would have the jury questioning whether the gun was even on the man's person at the time, but even a lousy one would not let facts so clearly not in evidence, slide through.

  • Tulpa the White||

    In Colorado, any trespass can be met with deadly force and has been held up per recent case law.

    Knocking on the door isn't trespassing.

    Yes, castle doctrine also applies to the property outside your home, but RC is talking about at the doorway/in the house.

  • BarryD||

    Knocking on the door isn't trespassing. Coming in uninvited when the door is opened, is. It won't do much good to have the right to use deadly force, if you're not armed when that happens. Therefore, a homeowner has a right to answer the door armed. End of story.

    Again, there's no evidence whatsoever that the resident's gun was pointed at anyone. Maybe it was, and maybe it wasn't. Fact not in evidence.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Then we're in agreement.

    If the guy had the gun pointed at the officers, as they claim, it's a justified shooting.

    If not, the cops are lying and should be prosecuted.

    Those are the two options. None of this "answered the door armed" shit.

  • Peter L||

    Even if he was pointing the gun at the officers, they still have no right to shoot him. They should have talked and/or retreated.

  • R C Dean||

    feel free to answer the door the next time somebody knocks, with your gun drawn and see what kind of result you get.

    I've done it. No dogs or people were shot. Help was provided to someone in need. Explain to me how this is a bad thing.

  • Restoras||

    The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Sounds pretty cut and dried to me, especially within the confines of your own home.

  • ||

    Something tells me the man would still be dead if he had come to the door like this, despite what our 2nd amendment says.

  • Paul.||

    nobody has a "right" to answer a door based on a mere knock with a drawn gun.

    Bullshit. Castle doctrine. I'm the homeowner, it's my property. I have every right to walk around inside my house with a loaded weapon drawn and at the ready.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Castle doctrine doesn't apply when you open the door for someone, unless they forcibly enter or make some other aggressive action.

  • R C Dean||

    Nobody is saying otherwise, Tulpa. The point is that we have a right to use a gun in self-defense in our homes. Opening the door does not negate that right.

    Since I have the right to use the gun, I have the right to have it ready to use. That is, in my hand.

    Saying I have no right to have a gun in my hand, in my own house, when I open the door, is, well, ignorant is the kindest term I can come up with.

  • Tulpa the White||

    This is my issue with Steigerwald's phrasing; everyone in the thread treats it as fact, despite the fact that NO ONE is claiming he answered with the gun merely "drawn". It was either pointed at the officers or we don't know.

  • Paul.||

    Two armed guys at my door at 1:30am isn't an aggressive action?

    And you're avoiding the point. I have every right to answer my door armed, gun drawn.

  • sarcasmic||

    "feel free to answer the door the next time somebody knocks, with your gun drawn and see what kind of result you get."

    I have, actually. And the person did indeed call the police. The police told them that I had done nothing wrong.

    But there's no double standard. No, that's just in the imagination of anti-cop bigots.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Sure.

  • sarcasmic||

    It was an ex-girlfriend who was threatening to show up at my apartment with a bunch of big dudes to kick my ass. I answered with a gun in my hand, not pointed at anyone, and she ran away scrambling with her cell phone to call the police.
    They literally laughed at her.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    You need better taste in girlfriends...unless i am mistaken this isn't the first ex-girl story you have regaled us with.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm happily married now. No more girlfriends.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    good. for everyone.

  • Paul.||

    She sounds as crazy as a bag of cats. Bet she was hot.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    THIS IS THE PROBLEM!!!! SEEE???!?! The smoking hot and exciting in bed chicks are all seven shades of cuckoo. I dated a redhead once, talk about doubt edged sword.

  • R C Dean||

    doubt edged sword.

    And a freshly picked RC'z Law for you, sir.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    damn...a good one too.

  • sloopyinca||

    ...their property against unlawful entry. If the police wanted to come in, they should have announced their presence clearly before and during their knocking on the door, or they should have obtained a warrant. Again, this would have been after making their presence to the neighborhood known as they approached the scene (by way of sirens, flashers, etc). If their concern was citizen safety, they would have done so just to let people know there was potentially a dangerous perp in the area.
    Again, this is purely malevolent behavior on the part of the deputies and the part of the entire department and media reporting on it. A man is dead due to the reckless behavior of the police. His story cannot be told and we are left to ponder what occurred with only one side of the story and what should be considered as a deliberate smear campaign of unimportant details about the man's past.
    These animals should be ashamed of themselves and they should be brought to justice the same way you or I would be if we banged on a door (unannounced)at 1:30 am and shot the man to death who opened it because he held/pointed/brandished a weapon at a potential intruder on his private property.

  • BarryD||

    Exactly. If the cops did not warn people in an apartment building, but instead went up quietly, looking for a gunfight with a suspect, THAT was negligent, too.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I agree with Tulpa. Tulpa's extensive journalistic experience, as seen here, proves that he is objective and accurate.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Doesn't matter whether I'm objective or accurate, what matters is the argument I make.

  • sarcasmic||

    If any of us had shot and killed someone who answered a knock to their door at one thirty in the morning armed, there is absolutely no fucking way the cops would have shrugged it off.

    We'd be going to court for murder.

    But there's no double standard.

    That's just a figment of deranged anti-cop bigot's imagination.

  • sloopyinca||

    Buckaroo Banzai just proves that every time he comes on here and tells us the victim is at fault because a normal reaction to banging at your door at 1:30 should be for you to throw it open and hug the guy on the other side,* hoping he's not there to rob, murder or rape you...because Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Kirby reps and other people not there to harm you often bang on doors at 1:30 in the fucking morning.

    *Of course, when you do that and they shoot you, they can call it a furtive movement and go back to work after a 6-week taxpayer-funded vacation..

  • ||

    he's not a victim.

    he's a fucking moron who begged to get shot

    again, only a reasonoid funhouse mirror anti-cop bigot could think it's ok to asnwer a door knock with a drawn gun.

    he made his moronic decision and he paid the price.

  • sloopyinca||

    So, it's not OK to answer a door at 1:30 am with a gun drawn, but it is OK to knock on that door at 1:30 am, not announce yourself, but already have your guns drawn?

    That's the stand you're taking here? That the cops were fine in knocking (banging) on someone's door at 1:30 am without announcing who they are with their weapons drawn? That that's the way they should approach a domicile they have no reason to suspect is directly involved in a crime?

    Are you out of your fucking mind, Buckaroo? Because for you to think this is a prudent course of action for either officer or "civilian" safety, then you have absolutely no business being out in public, let alone carrying a fucking gun and a badge.

  • Tulpa the White||

    No one except Lucy Steigerwald is saying he answered with the gun drawn.

  • ||

    "he's a fucking moron who begged to get shot"

    You keep saying that, but as far as I know there is no video evidence of the VICTIM begging the cops for anything.

  • toolkien||

    If Dunphy is a real cop, then he should take this to heart. If the police do not quit acting as a paramilitary, there will be a settling of the issue at some point. And they will LOSE. One can hope that it doesn't come to that point, but as long as these events occur and the standard response is a blase shrugging of shoulders and shifting the blame on the dead citizen, one can't hope it won't for long. People have a tendency to revolt from tyrannical police states. Of course that's after several years of knuckling under and hoping to keep your ass low. But when even that doesn't seem to work, more invigorated responses are usually then at hand. It doesn't tend to work out too well for the existing Order, at least the expendable minions that inhabit its lowest ranks.

    As an example of how I view your average John Q Law in today's world, a few years back my wife and I had our house up for sale, with the attendant showings. The typical showing is 10-15 minutes, so at times when I'd get the call, I'd simply drive down the street and park and wait until it was done. Well, I happened to park in front of the house of a cop on the Big Metropolitan City nearby. Officer Fife felt so threatened that he called the police to whom I had to explain myself to.

  • toolkien||

    Cont.

    Being completely harmless, she drove off. I thought the matter was settled. About ten minutes later, Barney comes out of his house, hand in pocket (obviously with a gun), nervous as hell, again asking me my business. Now we are approximate neighbors, we've nodded our fimiliarities around the neighborhood for a few years, but this fine fellow failed to recognize me even as we spoke. Fine example of law enforcement talent right there. Apparently if had made one wrong move (in response to seeing someone come at me with on hand in their pocket) that he didn't like, I could be dead. In my own neighborhood. For showing my house. Parking and waiting in your own neighborhood is now suspicious enough behavior to get The Law on the case.

    So excuse me if I don't think very highly of your average policeman. A bunch of nervous putzes creating more danger than they are resolving because they are ultimately gutless. I can only imagine this asshat out on a call such as this story, and ventilating whomever he pleased. Stories would be contrived, and the other Boys in Blue would have your back. At some point Barney, Gomer, Floyd, and Otis are going get their blow back.

    I don't threaten, I merely foretell - as a student of history.

  • ||

    yawn. the3 typical COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED FANTASY EXAMPLE OF "BUT IF A CIVILIAN DID IT" WITH NO REAL WORLD EXAMPLES OR CASE LAW TO BACK IT UP

  • sarcasmic||

    WITH NO REAL WORLD EXAMPLES OR CASE LAW TO BACK IT UP

    It's called a "thought experiment".

    Just so you know, anyone other than a cop knows that you don't have the right to kill someone because they answer the door armed. That's why there are no real world examples to back it up.

    Only cops kill people for being armed while they answer the door.

  • ||

    I'm not a fucking civilian asshole. I'm a citizen.

    Just. Like. You.

  • R C Dean||

    Remember: a cop who calls a non-LEO a "civilian" is revealing that they believe the proper role of the police is to serve as armed enforcers for the State, not to "protect and serve" the citizenry.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Just like someone who calls a tomato a vegetable is revealing a deep seeded hatred for fruits.

    Or maybe they just picked up the terminology and it's not associated with any underlying attitude.

  • R C Dean||

    The terminology is a symptom of the underlying attitude, Tulpa.

    Someone who didn't embrace the armed enforcer mentality would stop and think "Waitaminnit. Aren't we civilians, too?"

  • toolkien||

    That's it. Just pure semantics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with those buzz cuts, mirrored sun glasses, and the "you're shit I have to scrape off my shoes" attitude. The police are now a paramilitary brotherhood unto themselves. They have more and more latitude to use whatever Force they please as a consequence of The War On Drugs. If gunfire is necessary, it's not a few shots until the threat is neutralized, it's 50-60-70 rounds until the threat is hamburger meat. And if the brigade comes a knockin' on the wrong door, oh well.

    How's this. A few years back I got into an argument with a FIREMAN who thought he was mister badass because he knew some cops. I can only imagine the attitude of full blooded "Sicilians".

    If there was even remotely a signal that "protect and serve" was largely at hand, there wouldn't be this reaction. But it is quite obvious that it is more about control and acquiescing.

  • R C Dean||

    a deep seeded hatred

    Just to prove no hard feelings, you get a nice RC'z Law, as well.

  • sloopyinca||

    If only more policemen were vegetables, we would all feel safer at night.*

    *Except for those pants-shitters like Tulpa that think self-defense means calling 9-11 and hiding in his panic room.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Since they were on the tail of a suspected murderer, was the potential of a person answering the door with a gun drawn so completely out of the question that they felt safe knocking on the door and standing in the doorway until someone answered? Why wouldn't they be in a safer and more defensive position in case the person answering the door was a murderer and in a desperate state? It's 1:30 in the morning and you're trailing someone you think may have already killed someone.

    It's not just the victim that acted questionably.

  • sloopyinca||

    I wonder if/when Buckaroo Banzai will admit I found and provided several links where judges said red light cameras were unconstitutional. I did it in two threads last week and he mysteriously ran off.

    **WARNING: If you are in the SeaTac area, please beware of rapidly moving goalposts in 3...2...1...

  • Paul.||

    Why SeaTac... The entire greater seattle area has them. All the way down to the Eff Dub.

  • ||

    no judge has said TAKING PICTURES at an intersection is the unconstitutional act.

    that is what i referred to, the taking of, and using the pictures to help solve a homicide

    i never said the act of issuing a ticket based on such pictures was or wasn't viewed as constitutional by some courts.

    it's an entirely different issue.

    the issue here is there are tons of pictures of the intersection. they are taken in a public place of public activity and fall under the plain/open view doctrine

    if you can show me one case of a judge saying it is unconstitutional to TAKE PICTURES at a public intersection or USE THOSE PICTURES to help solve a homicide, knock yerself out

    i never opined on the issuance of red light tickets pursuant to said pictures, because that's irrelevent to the issue

  • sloopyinca||

    and ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM go the goalposts.

    You're as predictable as a sunrise, Buckaroo. Go back and read where you challenged me (twice) to "find a single judge that said red light cameras were unconstitutional."

  • Tulpa the White||

    Wow, sloopy, someone else overstated their case a bit and you're going to ride that to the bank.

    You came up with ONE link against an overbroad remark. Act like you've been right before. Let it die already.

  • Tulpa the White||

    You posted two links, one of which was irrelevant (the judge threw out the tickets because of an error in the mailing, not because they originated from the RLC).

    The other one, well, judges are crazy sometimes. Unless you think PPACA and the CSA are constitutional.

  • Paul.||

    Scott died but Harrell says he was not the suspect they were looking for. Herrell says drugs were found in the apartment.

    Oh fuck, I missed this part.

    I take back everything I said. Death penalty for this dude.

  • BarryD||

    I.e. the guy had a bong and a few buds. Clearly a dangerous criminal, and we're all better off dead.

    I had an ex-girlfriend whose past residence had been raided. Some people who were living there were suspected of dealing. The cops ransacked the place and found nothing, until they went through her sock drawer and found a baggie with a very old bud in it. Someone had given it to her as a divorce present or something, a long time before, and she'd forgotten all about it.

    The cops were happy that they wouldn't have to answer for a raid where they trashed a house and came up empty-handed, and they wouldn't have to clean up anything they'd trashed. You see, "drugs were found".

    True story.

  • BarryD||

    "we're all better off with him dead"

  • Paul.||

    "When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies and that's when we opened fire and killed him," Lt. John Herrell said.

    I'm with Kinnath on this one. Those officers drew awfully quickly.

    Somethings up... I'm guessing this guy looked through his peephole and saw to guys with drawn guns...

  • sloopyinca||

    Apparently they had their guns pointed at him as he answered his door, which is brandishing. If they had no reason to suspect him of a crime or being up to no good, why is it they can brandish their weapons at their leisure? Especially at 1:30 am, when it is harder than normal to be seen and identified in a (potentially) dark doorway?

    Why would cops knock on a door and not identify themselves as the police with their guns drawn? If they thought there was a potential criminal on the other side, common sense would tell them to either announce their presence to the entire neighborhood with sirens and flashers or at least announce their presence as the police when they knocked on the door.

    Under no circumstances should police be able to knock on a door (and not announce who they are) with their guns drawn unless they have a no-knock warrant. You or I couldn't do it, and they have no reason to either. If there's RS or PC, they can obtain a warrant or at least make their presence known...if for no other reason than to defuse a potentially dangerous situation peacefully.

    Again, this is negligent homicide at the least.

  • ||

    You're just an anti-cop bigot who doesn't want our streets to be safe from scum like this victim suicidal moron sloopy.

    /sarc

  • ||

    WTF squirrels?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Apparently they had their guns pointed at him as he answered his door, which is brandishing.

    Just because you say "apparently" doesn't mean it's OK to fabricate what follows.

  • BarryD||

    If their guns were not drawn, would the victim be dead? I'm waiting for a plausible alternative explanation.

  • robc||

    Over the weekend, Tulpa expressed his undying love for me, which was kinda creepy.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    why is it they can [do anything]

    BECAUSE THEY ARE COPS AND THEY ARE OUR BETTERS! OFFICER SAFETY! THIN BLUE LINE! ISOLATED INCIDENT! NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED! PEACE OFFICERS!!

    The End

  • Tulpa the White||

    You must be using the same Tulpa interpreter that SF uses. I didn't mean it in that way, sorry for leading you on.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Jesus, the fucking stupid and bootlicking of Tulip and derpphy is unbelievable. Except it's totally believable.

    Dunphy (the real one)|7.16.12 @ 12:40PM|#
    he was not "innocent". he unjustifiably drew a gun on the police

    and he paid the price

    fuck him

    No, he's already fucked - fuck YOU.

    And Tulip - you only have one version of events because the other version is DEAD.

    Fuck you both to hell.

  • Lord Humungus||

    304 comments? *backs slowly out of room*

  • Cliché Bandit||

    well, He Who Shall Not Be Named and Tulpa on a cop thread, what do you expect.

  • Restoras||

    Arthur Alan...

  • Tulpa the White||

    I was perfectly willing to let it be once Steigerwald corrected the wording, apologized, and allowed me to go back to being "Tulpa".

  • Bee Tagger||

    Then why post this?

    Tulpa the White|7.16.12 @ 11:22AM|#
    If you prefer sloppiness as an explanation, fine.

    Funny that the sloppiness always goes in the same direction around here.

    Instead of letting the correction and apology stand, you pressed further that she did because she's biased. That may be going back to being "Tulpa."

  • Tulpa the White||

    The correction still wasn't (and isn't) correct. Plus the little barb about me seeing some deep dishonesty couldn't be allowed to go unanswered.

  • ||

    I could have sworn that you said you saw some deep dishonesty.

  • Paul.||

    When cops draw their weapons, they shoot them:

    JACKSONVILLE, FL -- A 2-year-old boy shot by police Friday in Jacksonville, Fla., as they tried to nab a robbery suspect remains in critical condition.

    The boy was in a car that the suspect forced his way into. He was hit in the arm and upper torso, while the suspect was killed.

    The child's mother was shot in the foot, but a 7-year-old girl who was also in the car was not hurt.

    Five officers with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office fired a total of 42 rounds at the vehicle. The gunman did not discharge his weapon.

    http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/st.....id=7353841

    What happened to "watch your background"?

  • sarcasmic||

    What happened to "watch your background"?

    They say "I felt that I was in danger" and like magic *poof* everything that they did is justified.

  • ||

    Why do you hate the children Paul? They obviously acted in that manner to protect them.

    I think you're just an anti-cop bigot like the rest of the reasonoids.

    /dunphy y tulpa

  • BarryD||

    They had to shoot the children in order to save them!

  • Tulpa the White||

    Terrible. If it had been 5 shots or something, and they didn't know there was a baby in the car, it would have been regrettable but justifiable. 42 shots, not so much.

    Also, 42 rounds for a couple of wounds to the suspect? That's pretty bad in itself.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Shooting at someone who was not firing at them and with no knowledge of the situation? I'd say even five is unjustified.

  • R C Dean||

    Not to mention, shooting at a car with other people in it should never be justified. A car with other people in it is, effectively, a human shield. In my mind, you don't kill innocents in order to keep yourself safe.

  • Tulpa the White||

    What if you don't know if there are other people hiding in it? Babies can be particularly hard to detect.

  • ||

    Grown ass women are a little bit easier to detect.

    You know, if you're doing ACTUAL fucking police work.

  • ||

    YAY ANOTHER TULPICAL THREAD

    You people who talk to him get what you deserve. Fuck you morons.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    You people who talk to him get what you deserve. Fuck you morons.

    *hangs head in shame*
    *shuffles off*

  • Tulpa the White||

    You people who talk to him get what you deserve.

    You have no idea how right you are.

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    Oh yeah? Prove that he pointed a gun at them. PROVE IT! And dont ask me to disprove it because only a cop-fellater like you would...would...where was I.

  • Fluffy||

    The apartment-dweller opens the door with gun in hand supposedly pointed out the door at whomever was banging on the door. Any yet the police still managed to shoot first.

    So, I'm going to conclude the police had guns drawn and pointed at the door before they started banging on it.

    Tulpa and Dunphy will ignore this and not respond to it, believe me.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So far you are correct. They've ignored several posts that point out that same fact.

  • Randian||

    And several others that there is no evidence Mr. Scott was "pointing" a weapon.

    I am glad I missed this thread.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    How dare you not accept the word of the fine officers who sadly had to kill this homicidal maniac as the absolute truth?

  • Tulpa the White||

    So if someone on the street points a gun at you, it's impossible for you to draw and shoot them first?

    Kind of negates the whole point of CCW, doesn't it?

  • ||

    Unless you're getting ready to try and out Matrix each other, then yes, common sense would tell you that if someone is pointing a gun at you, they will be able to shoot before you can get your gun out.

  • sarcasmic||

    In case you haven't noticed, Tulpa has no concept of common sense.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Except that does not always happen.

    Lord knows I'm drawing if someone points a gun at me. Maybe they'll hesitate, miss, forget the safety, etc.

  • Randian||

  • R C Dean||

    So if someone on the street points a gun at you, it's impossible for you to draw and shoot them first?

    Not at all. They could just miss you with their first several shots, of course.

    But, if they are pointing at you, and you draw and shoot them before they get a shot off, then pretty clearly they weren't intending to shoot you in cold blood.

  • Randian||

    RC DEAN SMART SMART SMART SMART SMART SMART

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Quit confusing us with all your legalese!

  • Tulpa the White||

    That's simply not true. Ever seen an inexperienced person firing a gun, RC? It's not nearly as fast as an experienced shooter.

    That doesn't mean they don't intend to fire it.

  • Fluffy||

    So all these deputies were Clint Eastwood in THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES?

    If your gun is holstered I could recite the Gettysburg Address before you can draw it and shoot me.

    I just don't believe that anybody would stand in their doorway with their gun drawn and pointed at somebody for long enough for them to unholster their weapon and fire it, without firing themselves, dropping the weapon, turning to flee, etc. It would be a fucking eternity.

    The story only makes sense if the police already had their weapons drawn.

    And heck, if they were pursuing an attempted murder suspect, it would MAKE SENSE that they had their weapons drawn.

    But they'll deny that their weapons were drawn, because that would justify Scott arming himself before he came to the door.

  • R C Dean||

    Ever seen an inexperienced person firing a gun, RC?

    I have. Once they point it and decide to fire, it goes off exactly as fast as an experienced shooter.

    Experience tells the difference when the gun isn't drawn, or you have to change targets, or (especially) with accuracy.

    If your gun is holstered, and someone is pointing their gun at you and intends to shoot you, they will get shots off before you can draw and shoot.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Once they point it and decide to fire, it goes off exactly as fast as an experienced shooter.

    Once they pull the trigger, yes. Getting the finger on the trigger and deciding to fire is another matter, which would be exacerbated when they're not at a comfy shooting range shooting at a paper bullseye.

  • R C Dean||

    Getting the finger on the trigger and deciding to fire is another matter,

    So, we agree that once they point it and decide to fire, it goes off exactly as fast as an experienced shooter.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Nope; getting the finger on the trigger properly, not leaving the safety on, etc are still possible issues.

  • Fluffy||

    It makes it extremely - EXTREMELY - unlikely that if these were uniformed officers who said 'POLICE!' when the door opened that they could have shot him before he dropped his gun.

    You keep saying that he shouldn't have come to the door with a gun. I don't agree. But if the officers didn't have their guns drawn and were in uniform, it's incredibly unlikely to me that they could draw and shoot before this guy (or me, in his place) could think "Oh shit, it's cops!" and drop the gun.

  • ||

    I read this story when I first got up this morning, it's local news here.

    My first impression was that the officers overreacted. If police officers in Florida have no training to deal with an innocent armed resident answering a knock at the door in the early hours of the morning then their training is seriously deficient.

    I do not see any particular malice in their actions, I see panic and incompetence.

    If these deputies have consciences they will consider other careers. They ought not be in a job which holds the power of life and death like this.

  • BarryD||

    "I do not see any particular malice in their actions, I see panic and incompetence."

    The department is guilty, then. If cops aren't trained to deal with legally-armed residents at their own front doors, or with their pets, without shooting both of the above on sight, then there is certainly malice involved.

  • R C Dean||

    I do not see any particular malice in their actions, I see panic and incompetence.

    Which goes to the level of manslaughter they should be charged with, not whether they should be charged.

  • BarryD||

    Bingo.

  • ||

    I don't disagree with this, except to point out that not all homicides necessarily involve a criminal level of culpability.

    The fact that these officers were unable to deal with a legally armed resident makes me consider the possibility that they should simply not be police officers.

    I believe the negligence is shared by the officers and their superiors.

    If the citizens of Lake County reelect this sheriff in the next election (I expect they will) it will show to me that the citizens are just fime with this level of competence. I fear that much of this will not change until the public's attitude changes as well.

  • BarryD||

    "Negligent homicide" is, in fact, a crime. A charge of such would allow a jury to determine whether or not said crime was committed, instead of a sycophant newspaper.

  • ||

    Yes, negligent homicide is a crime but like all crimes it relies on a prosecutor convincing a jury. In the case he or she must prove that the negligence rose to a level that was actually criminal.

  • BarryD||

    ...which contradicts what I wrote in what way, exactly?

    Obviously, there was a homicide. You, yourself, said that it was caused by negligence. That would make it a crime. ALL defendants get the benefit of a trial. That doesn't mean that they get the benefit of shrugging off killing someone.

    Nobody seems likely to be charged. Therefore, nobody will have to convince a jury of anything. That's the problem.

  • ||

    Sorry, I didn't mean to sound disagreeable.

    My point was more to my opinion that sometimes people just fuck up.

    They possibly learn from their mistakes but LEOs should never be allowed to be in a position where they can fuck up like that again.

    They need to be fired and put on a list of people who can never be trusted with that kind of power again.

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    I can tell you exactly what happened. The pigs were looking for their perp and couldn't find him, and they got frustrated, so they knocked on a random door with the intent of killing the person who opened the door, because the PIGS hate civilians and they hadn't murdered anybody yet that night. END OF STORY.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Just in case Tulpa or dunphy want to paint all of reasonable arguments with this unreasonable one, I'll respond first:

    See Isaac right above you:
    "I do not see any particular malice in their actions, I see panic and incompetence."

  • Tulpa the White||

    I don't strawman, so no worries.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Hi-larious.

    Tulpa the White|7.16.12 @ 1:35PM|#

    ...I forgot that H+R doesn't consider blunt objects aimed at heads to be lethal force, sorry.
  • Tulpa the White||

    Not a strawman at all. Several times Reason writers, as well as commenters, have doubted that rocks thrown at someone's head are lethal force, at least when the heads are Border Patrol agents'.

  • CE||

    You keep reading these reports every day, and it gets harder and harder to say "at least this doesn't happen every day."

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    It's happening literally millions of times a day but this is just one blog I saw on Youtube where America is now a facsist state and all the ppl agreed it is so TRUE. I'm scared.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Oh, you're spoofing. Have fun with it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    My second bottom line:

    I don't think there are too many people here want to railroad the coppers, but instead need to see some pattern of accountability develop so that police have incentive not to take their deadly force so casually that they aim their guns at the wrong door in the middle of the night.

  • BarryD||

    Exactly.

    Not just the cops. If this is a department problem (lack of training, a poisonously aggressive organizational culture, bad policies) then let the higher-ups fry for it. Either way, consequences change behavior. We need some.

  • sarcasmic||

    The predictable response to that is that cops can't afford to second guess their reactions, because that results in dead cops.

    They are supposed to react, knowing that there will not be any consequences for their actions, in order to preserve their own safety.

    That's why the common reaction is "training".

    Consequences? Nope. Never gonna happen.

  • R C Dean||

    The predictable response to that is that cops can't afford to second guess their reactions, because that results in dead cops.

    Of course, cops not second-guessing their reactions seems to result in dead citizens.

    So there's that.

  • gaoxiaen||

    If they really want to preserve their own safety they should choose another line of work. Maybe one that actually involves "work".

  • R C Dean||

    In this situation, I want the cops who shot a man dead in his own house investigated, etc. just like any of their fellow citizens would be.

    That's all. But that seems like way too much to ask.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I have always been a huge fan of the position that State actors be held to a much higher standard. I know that some here, who shall not be named, think that is not only wrong but should go the other way and State actors be given greater benefit of doubt. This flies in the face of freedom.

    To choose to become a cop is to give up some of the benefit of doubt in your actions and to be subject to scrutiny not put upon other citizens. This is the reality for the military (and if I hear one more cop refer to non-cops as "civilians" I am going to scream). And just so it is clear, this is even true in the private sector. A dealer/floor/maid/valet at a casino is not allowed to gamble (gambol?) at that property or the other properties of that company. That is the price of the privilege for working there. The price of the privilege of working for the taxpayer should be the voluntary renunciation of certain benefits and behaviors afforded to non-State actors.

    Why is this so hard for people to get?

  • sarcasmic||

    Here's where you misunderstand.
    They don't work for the taxpayer.
    They work for the political establishment. The mayor, governor, city counsel, whatever.
    They most certainly do not work for the taxpayer.
    It is the taxpayer who works for the political establishment.

    Here's how you can tell who works for who. Which one can get away with telling the other one to fuck off?
    There ya go.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I don't think there are too many people here want to railroad the coppers

    You must be using some intense filtering in Reasonable.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Law enforcement seems up its own ass when they appear to circle the wagons on questionable actions and procedures. You're seeing what I consider rightful frustration with that.

  • BarryD||

    It's the victim's fault. He was irresponsible for not having an intercom and a night-vision videocamera installed at the door of his rental unit.

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    I almost shot some Jehova Witnesses true story. Good thing the safety was on. My neighborhood is dangerous. I always open the door armed ITS MY CASTLE.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Dial it down, surely it's more fun for you when people aren't sure if you're a joke.

  • Randian||

    Let us never forget that, without evidence, dunphy said and Tulpa adopted the following:

    no, atfpapic, he was not innocent

    he drew a gun on the cops and paid the price

    fuck him

    Classy guys.

  • Randian||

    Oh and this:

    he's not a victim.

    he's a fucking moron who begged to get shot

    again, only a reasonoid funhouse mirror anti-cop bigot could think it's ok to asnwer a door knock with a drawn gun.

    he made his moronic decision and he paid the price.
  • Tulpa the White||

    More obfuscation from our new in house Sophist. I didn't adopt that formulation.

    I simply said that you can't claim to be an innocent person when you're pointing a gun at someone else. You want to take issue with that, go ahead. You want to point and snicker at the outsider Kos-style, then you're as bad as they are.

  • SugarFree||

    you're pointing a gun at someone else

    Once again you make this assertion with no evidence. But I'll guess you'll go all the way in your defense of those brave boys in blue.

  • tarran||

    It's amazing who he is incapable of admitting error, isn't it?

  • Tulpa the White||

    No error to admit. From the beginning I said that the proper phrasing would be "police say he pointed a gun at them".

  • Tulpa the White||

    If the cops are lying they should be prosecuted. I said that from the beginning.

    Honestly, 75% of my comments on these threads is correcting people who mischaracterize my position, in the same way, over and over and over.

  • SugarFree||

    Maybe you should get a better position.

    Your reflexive stance is still "he shouldn't have answered the door pointing a gun." Which is swallowing the cop's version. And the only person that can prove they are lying is dead. How convenient for your argument.

    And his girlfriend is reporting that he wasn't pointing the gun. But she has an vested interest in lying, right? Not like those brave officers.

  • Tulpa the White||

    It's not swallowing the cop's version, it's saying IF the cop's version is correct, it's a justifiable shooting. At no point have I stated that the cop's version is correct and several times I've opened the possibility that he's lying.

    And his girlfriend is reporting that he wasn't pointing the gun

    Where?

  • SugarFree||

    OK. You're right. That's not been reported. I think I skimmed over someone's hypothetical without seeing if there was a link.

  • Randian||

    I didn't adopt that formulation.

    Looking at the two threads from whence those statements came, I see that you argued against other sub-posters in those threads, but failed to correct dunphy by saying "now wait, dunphy, there is no proof he drew a gun on the police", let alone tell him that his inflammatory rhetoric about this "moron" "deserving death" was out of bounds.

    You'll leap on everybody else about that shit, but not someone who is arguing on your "side", which tells me, via revealed preferences, that you did in fact adopt that statement. You read it and failed to correct it when you'll gladly do that to the other 99% of comments, so what should I think?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Holy shit, Randian, do you apply that standard to yourself? When all the glibsters call me every name in the book and lie about my positions, and you don't correct them, does that make you responsible?

    You're playing sophist games again, and I'm far too weary of it to dance in your puppet show anymore.

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    Oh grow up Tulpy what good is a posse if we cant lynch you. grow a pair.

  • SugarFree||

    Fuck off, troll.

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    Yes Tulpy fuck off if you dont like it here get you're own blog.

  • SugarFree||

    At least the shit-sucking trolls are on your side, Tulpa.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I've half a mind to think this is a trollent provocateur.

  • SugarFree||

    It's Mary or Gabe or one of the other assholes who so desperately need psychiatric help.

  • Randian||

    Sorry, Tulpa, but you had plenty of opportunity to distance yourself from dunphy's remarks. You didn't. You chose to overlook them and continue to play pendantic games instead of squarely addressing outrageous and inflammatory rhetoric that a man deserved to be executed.

  • Randian||

    And yes, if I have had plenty of time and opportunity to distinguish myself from others who are saying outrageous things with whom I am naturally, if temporarily, aligned with in an argument, and I fail to do so, then I should have no expectation that my entire side will be tarred with the same brush.

    That may not be fair, but that's life.

  • Tulpa the White||

    That may not be fair, but that's life.

    If you don't think it's fair, why are you yourself doing it?

  • Randian||

    I have no duty of fairness towards you given your past conduct. You can do one of two things: 1) continue as you are or 2) repudiate and issue mea culpas. Look, I understand that you get intractable when everyone gangs up on you, but the simple and plain statement of your position is that the OP should have been a little more clear in terminology and the facts and circumstances are up in the air.

    That's all you needed to say. So why are we at 500+ posts? Because in getting beat up on, you decided to go to the other extreme. That was wrong.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I have no duty of fairness towards you given your past conduct.

    Oh PLEASE. Everybody has a duty of fairness toward everybody at all times. If my conduct were as horrible as you claim, you'd be able to point to that rather than some weak-ass charge of "not correcting dunphy".

  • Tulpa the White||

    but the simple and plain statement of your position is that the OP should have been a little more clear in terminology

    Bull. The lack of clarity led to a major difference in the facts of the case, and we're not talking about some obscure terminology. Armed vs. pointing a gun at are very, very different things.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm with Randian on this one. Personally, I love to play devil's advocate, and have no doubt gotten up the nose of many people on this board when I badger them about their statements on a position we largely agree on.

  • toolkien||

    Tell me what crime has been committed for pointing a weapon upon unknown undeclareds banging on your door at 1:30 in the morning?

  • toolkien||

    ???

  • R C Dean||

    Back to the "no decent human being would answer the door with a gun, and if they do they deserve to be gunned down on the spot" issue.

    Does anybody remember Kitty Genovese? The woman who died in New York because nobody would answer their door? Because they were afraid?

    That's why I answer the door in the wee hours. Because of the chance that someone needs help.

    If you don't have a gun a all, or if you don't feel capable or willing of defending yourself with it, then, fine, don't answer the door if you don't want to take the chance that it isn't somebody who needs help.

    But if you are capable of defending yourself, then I think a decent human being answers the door, prepared to defend themselves if they feel the need, so that they can help a fellow human being if help is needed.

  • tarran||

    Wasn't there a woman pounding on doors in Long Island shouting that someone was after her who was found murdered a few days later?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Back to the "no decent human being would answer the door with a gun, and if they do they deserve to be gunned down on the spot" issue beating up a strawman.
  • sarcasmic||

    You're such a child.

    Dunphy specifically said that if you feel you should answer the door armed, that you shouldn't answer it. He said nothing about pointing the weapon.

    You, the childish pedant, focus on the part about pointing.

    Then you say the burden of proof for a non-cop to prove the gun was pointed at them is very high, but you unblinkingly take the word of a cop.

    Grow up.

  • ||

    Tulpa the White|7.16.12 @ 12:31PM|#

    He wasn't innocent if he pointed a gun at someone for knocking on his door.

    Hmmm, doesn't seem so made of straw now does he.

    Ass.

  • Tulpa the White||

    You missed the "pointed at" part.

  • ||

    You missed the part where that is not factual.

  • Tulpa the White||

    That's why I answer the door in the wee hours. Because of the chance that someone needs help.

    Are you pointing a gun at them when you open the door? If not, your point is irrelevant.

  • Randian||

    No proof anyone was pointing a gun other than the police.

  • Tulpa the White||

    If the cops are lying, this whole discussion is irrelevant to the case as we don't even know if the guy had a gun at all.

    I've stated, over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over again, that the cops should be prosecuted if lying.

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    I dont think they like you.

  • R C Dean||

    Tulpa, so stubborn in refusing to engage the point (tangentially raised by this story), which is that it can be perfectly reasonable to answer the door in the wee hours with a gun drawn.

    Agree, or disagree, Tulpa? You seem to be taking the position that a citizen who answers the door in the wee hours with a gun in their hand should be treated like dog who gets out his yard: gunned down on the spot, no questions asked or answered.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pointed, pointed, pointed!

    /Tulpa

  • Tulpa the White||

    That's irrelevant to this case.

    Answering the door with a gun drawn is very questionable in my opinion. If you open the door a crack with the gun hand behind the door, ready to go if the person tries to force their way in, I'd say that's totally OK. Drawn and visible? That's very iffy as it could constitute brandishment depending on the circumstances.

  • R C Dean||

    That's irrelevant to this case.

    Whatever. Its an issue raised by this case.

    Answering the door with a gun drawn is very questionable in my opinion.

    Fine. Someone is knocking at your door at 2:00 am. You have no idea what's going on. Do you:

    (a) answer with a gun in your hand,

    (b) leave them to, as far as you know, bleed out (or, in my case, freeze to death) on your doorstep, or

    (c) open the door and take your chances?

    As I see it, option (a) is the only option that deals with both possible scenarios.

    Drawn and visible? That's very iffy as it could constitute brandishment depending on the circumstances.

    In Texas, there is no law specifically against "brandishing" a gun. Regardless, as I understand it, "brandishing" involves a threat of some kind. Holding a gun in your hand, pointed down, is not a threat.

  • BarryD||

    Right. Laws against "brandishing" are laws against displaying a firearm in a threatening manner. They are defined by circumstances, not simply the act of carrying a gun.

    Returning to the scene of an altercation, with a gun carried in a belt holster, is even "brandishing" in my state. Carrying a gun, however, is not, if it is not being done in a threatening manner, and if other circumstances do not indicate that carrying the gun is intended as a threat of any kind.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Pointing a gun at someone is definitely illegal. Can we agree on that?

    I'm not sure about simply displaying it while opening a door. I wouldn't chance it myself because I could see how someone could find that ipso facto threatening.

  • toolkien||

    Show me the code.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I'd try to get more info by looking through peephole, windows, etc.

    If I couldn't reassure myself it was safe, I'd take option (b). Better them than me.

  • R C Dean||

    If I couldn't reassure myself it was safe, I'd take option (b). Better them than me.

    I find it sad that you won't take a chance to help a fellow human being.

  • Tulpa the White||

    The odds are much, much greater that it's a dangerous human being.

  • R C Dean||

    Yet, both of the times I have been in that exact same situation (once on each side), it was someone in need of help.

  • Tulpa the White||

    You probably live in a better area.

  • R C Dean||

    You probably live in a better area.

    Seems like living in a bad part of town might increase the odds that someone needs help in the wee hours.

  • sarcasmic||

    I find it sad that you won't take a chance to help a fellow human being.

    Liberals help fellow human beings by supporting a powerful and intrusive government that fleeces the rich in the name of fairness.

    Actually lifting a finger of their own? Not so much.

  • BarryD||

    Brandishing is an aggressive act. Showing that you are armed in a situation that would be purely defensive, is not illegal brandishing.

    Going outside, holding a gun, and approaching someone with words, gestures, etc., showing aggressive intent, is clearly illegal brandishing.

    Answering your own door, showing that you are armed, to deter a possible attack, is not illegal brandishing.

  • sarcasmic||

    Many would consider the act of arming yourself to be a threatening act.

    Many of those people are cops.

  • Fluffy||

    I've read the articles and none of them specify:

    1. Whether the cops were in uniform
    2. Whether cops had their weapons drawn

    There's really no way to even reasonably discuss this without those two facts. Two facts I'm sure the police will hide, if they can.

    Because if even one of these guys wasn't in uniform, and they had their weapons drawn, it was absolutely and irrefutably reasonable for Scott to come to the door with a weapon.

    The cops already admitted they didn't announce themselves.

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    Wow its like this whole thread was pointless.

  • R C Dean||

    Much like vast stretches of the internet on which it is found.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Highly unlikely the cops weren't in uniform, as this wasn't a planned raid; sounds like they just came to the scene from normal patrols.

    Possible, yes, but there would have to be some unusual circumstances at play.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Indeed, either way I am disturbed, but these are key facts that are not yet being reported. I'll keep an eye out.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Thank you Lucy. I still consider you one of the good guys.

    ...for now.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I appreciate your implied threats, Tulpa!

  • Cliché Bandit||

    The more Tulpa hates Lucy the more I like her.

    Someone should do a study on that...taxpayer funds needed. (FYI, I do support the least biased approach to reporting but am not as worried about it with Reason as some due to a fantastic track record. Even those that hate Baily are being overly sensitive. Tulpa's point, while pedantic and shaky, was at least a little valid and Lucy stepped up in the interest of a more objective discussion...which is impossible on any internet board but nice gesture.)

  • Tulpa the White||

    I don't hate anyone. I only deploy the wagging finger of shame.

  • Tulpa the White||

    The only "threat" I'm making is of my disapproval and opprobrium. Which everyone is under.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Oh, I get that. I was trying to make light of this mighty thread and the seriousness of the situation. Your ellipses seemed menacing is all!

    I think my wording is fine, particularly since I include the block quote that clarifies what the police said occurred. I understand that you feel differently. I think you're wrong here, but I also think it's not a bad thing to have you around being a stickler for intellectual honesty.

  • Tulpa the White||

    PA has castle doctrine, so I have the right to brandish punctuation in my own post.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Well, I'm in DC, buddy! Punctuation regulation is strict indeed.

  • R C Dean||

    If I'm on the jury, and these cops testify (1) that they did not have their weapons drawn, (2) that they did not identify themselves, (3) that the corpse opened the door with a gun pointed at them, and (4) that they managed to draw and shoot before he got a shot off . . .

    I'm not believing them. Which means I'm probably voting to convict them of manslaughter.

  • Tulpa the White||

    So much for reasonable doubt, eh?

  • R C Dean||

    The defense usually has the burden of proof when it asserts self-defense, Tulpa.

    And, I'm not even sure I could convince myself it was "reasonable" to believe them in this situation.

    I'd vote the same way even if it was a CCW holder who had blood on his hands, not a cop. Would you let a CCW holder who told the same story walk?

  • Tulpa the White||

    The defense usually has the burden of proof when it asserts self-defense, Tulpa.

    Depends on the jurisdiction. Not in Florida, as we all know from the Zim case.

  • toolkien||

    From the person who has already said that a person is not innocent for having a gun pointed out their front door at an uninvited, undeclared disturbance at 1:30 in the morning but has yet to cite what law/code is even being broken. I'd think before going any further down that particular road we'd get a such a citation.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Reckless endangerment is a slam dunk. Probably brandishment, obstruction of justice, assaulting an officer of the law, etc as well.

  • toolkien||

    THEY DIDN'T DECLARE THAT THEY WERE POLICEMEN. How do you get obstruction or assaulting an officer? You're just supposed to assume? Reckless endangerment for having a weapon, on my own property, at 1:30 in the morning, trained on an undeclared disturbance? You yourself said above that you could see the use of a gun, if pointed at the ground, so that would be brandishment making such a person guilty, MAYBE. Ultimately we are talking about the splitting of hairs at that point. I reserve the right to point a gun at unknown aggressors disturbing the peace on my own property. If they aren't going to declare themselves, then the police need to understand that a person may be defending themselves. If their first solution is blowing them out of their shoes, then we have a problem. Being blase about it, and pretty much smearing the person and say they had it coming is even more of a problem. The people who defend their actions by putting the lion's share of the blame on a person exercising the behavior of self defense is the clincher.

    Somehow my pointing a gun out my own front door at a peace breaking disturbance in the dead of the night is a danger not to borne by society, but cops going around creating danger where there was none, clearly and presently, where someone is actually dead is a shrug of the shoulders event. The issues of Force, being undeclared are the bigger issue being casually dismissed in an effort to triangulate that this peaceful person had it coming to him.

  • Lowglow||

    Tulip,

    Why not tell us the truth ?, did the Cops not have thier Guns drawn first ?, and is it not reasonable that the victem did not since they shot him before he was able to bring his weapon to bear and defend himself ?.

    You must not have served in any combat areas and lack a lot in the area of threat assesment.

  • ||

    I have been operating under the assumption that the officers had guns drawn since they believed they might be approaching an attempted murder suspect who they believed to be armed. AFAIK, it is general policy (and not an entirely unsound one) that officers approach such a situation that way.

    Further, I believe that that Scott approached his door with the though that whoever was knocking at that time might mean to do him harm and armed himself accordingly.

    Both parties acted appropriately according their own view of what they thought was happening.

    There are questions about how firmly the officers believed that their quarry lay beyond that threshhold and further how wellfounded that belief was.

    If there is one thing that this case ought to instruct us on, in case any of us didn't already know, it is that once you start a bullet going down the barrel you have no way to to call it back.

  • ||

    By the way, in my mind, the foregoing, if true, makes the police more culpable in view of the fact that they approached the door believing that there was a possibility that there was an armed and dangerous person behind it and did so without taking steps to prepare to disarm said person without using deadly force.

    I am not enough of a lawyer to know if that rises to the level of depraved heart or any othe such mumbo jumbo.

    I do believe it was reckless.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Further, I believe that that Scott approached his door with the though that whoever was knocking at that time might mean to do him harm and armed himself accordingly.

    Does this belief include his pointing the gun at the officers? If so, do you believe that was appropriate?

    Cause if your belief does not include that, it's pretty irrelevant; if he wasn't pointing the gun at them they're probably lying about the whole thing.

  • ||

    FWIW, I believe it is possible that he was holding the gun in such a way as to make them believe he was pointing it at them.

    They are supposed to be the professionals in this case. The responsibility to attempt to defuse a situation like this without using deadly force in on them.

  • Coeus||

    Both parties acted appropriately according their own view of what they thought was happening.

    Appropriately and legally. The only question is why the only legal outcome here is a dead homeowner and not dead cops.

  • Proprietist||

    I don't get why people continue to argue with Tulpa. I'm usually not one to defend him, but he's totally right on this case.

    It's tragic, but anybody opening their door at 1:30 AM pointing a gun should full well expect to get shot. I'm not saying the police's story is true, but if it is as they say, they were well within their rights to shoot him.

    If he was truly concerned about being attacked, he shouldn't have opened the door in the first place. He should have asked who they were and what they wanted through the door. And if they were truly thugs intent to hurt him, why wouldn't he expect they were also armed?

    If the cops had actually busted down the door without announcing who they were, then he'd be justified to draw his weapon and even fire. Wouldn't have ended well, but this is a little different from Corey Maye. Knocking itself is not a provocative act or a violation of his rights.

    It is a tragedy, but he was not smart opening a door at 1:30 AM with his gun drawn. I don't like or trust cops, but I can empathize with how they react in certain situations like this where they are legitimately trying to do their job (tracking down a murder suspect) and are met with force.

    The phrasing in the CFN13 report about his death was total BS however.

  • BarryD||

    Even if his death is largely the result of a stupid decision he made, that does not absolve the killer.

    E.g.: Yeah, it was a bad idea for the insomniac couple to go for a drive down the main drag at 2:10 when people were going home from the bars. Their injuries were, in part, "their own fault." But the guy with .25% BAL that hit them at 50 MPH is still culpable.

    See?

  • Proprietist||

    Big difference. The couple driving down the main drag at 2:10 are not inherently endangering the lives of others.

    Pointing a gun at anyone, cop or not, is endangerment. The cardinal rule is you don't point the gun unless you are ready to kill them.

    Now, maybe he was holding the gun and the cops made up the story about him pointing it. That would be par for the course with cops. But if he really did point it I can't have much sympathy for him. If you think you are in mortal danger, don't open the door.

  • ||

    From one of the links:

    They were looking for attempted murder suspect Jonathan Brown. Deputies said they found Brown's motorcycle in front of Scott's apartment and believed Brown was inside.


    IOW, they approached a door, behind which they believed that there was an armed and dagerous supect.

    And their only plan when someone did appear was to open fire.

    Sorry, I believe that the public has a right to expect a higher level of professionalism and competence than that from people who hold the power of life and death.

  • Tulpa the White||

    You're really nitpicking here.

    What super-duper nonviolent plan do you have in mind?

  • toolkien||

    So, debating the angle at which a gun can be present in opening your own door, dealing with an undeclared disturbance relating to your property, lest you be blown to smithereens, isn't nitpicking, but expecting this situation to be resolved without innocent people dying is. O.K.

    All I need to know.

  • ||

    Talk about "mischaracteriz[ing] my position"...

    I didn't say anything about non-violent. I did suggest it needed to be non-lethal.

    As was DesigNate suggests below they could have stood to one side of the doorway so as to not to create an easy target.

    The fact is they had no plan for dealing with the dangerous suspect they believed to behind the door except open fire. Last I checked even guilty suspects aren't supposed to be just shot on sight.

  • Tulpa the White||

    As was DesigNate suggests below they could have stood to one side of the doorway so as to not to create an easy target.

    And when the guy opens the door with a gun pointing at the officers, that plan goes to heck. For all we know that's precisely what they did.

    Last I checked even guilty suspects aren't supposed to be just shot on sight.

    If they're pointing a gun at you, yes, yes they are.

  • Proprietist||

    How were they supposed to know in advance:

    a.) the suspect was not in the apartment?
    b.) someone would answer the door pointing a gun at them?
    c.) the guy pointing the gun at them wasn't an accomplice/brother/etc. of the suspect ready to kill the cops on sight?

    Their plan probably was to apprehend the suspect without violence, but a gun pointed at them justifiably changes their plan. They did nothing illegal here, no busting through the door unannounced, etc and I find little fault with them for defending their own lives.

  • ||

    a.) the suspect was not in the apartment?

    Ummmm...RTFA.

    They believed (erroneously it turned out) that the suspect was in the apartment.

    "Deputies said they found Brown's motorcycle in front of Scott's apartment and believed Brown was inside."


    b.) someone would answer the door pointing a gun at them?

    Duh, if you believe that an armed suspect is in the apartment, it is dumb to be surprised if someone shows up at the door armed.

    Even without the belief that an armed suspect is within, it's Florida, do you know how many people own guns in Florida?


    c.) the guy pointing the gun at them wasn't an accomplice/brother/etc. of the suspect ready to kill the cops on sight?


    You don't. That's why you should have a plan that's a little better than just "open fire".

    Look, I'm not faulting the officers involved as much as I am the institutional culture that seems to exist in police forces across the nation. It's one that devalues human life to the point of callousness and reduces itself to a caricature of a paranoid occupying army that considers itself surrounded and threatened by subject "civilians".

  • Proprietist||

    Wow. They are seeking an armed and dangerous man they think might be on the other side of the door. An armed man comes to the door with gun pointed at them. What are they supposed to say? "Chill bro. Put down the gun. And by the way, are there any murderers in there?"

    I'm cynical about cops and their practices, but I'm not so cynical that I expect them to be psychic, clairvoyant, errorless and always willing to gamble their own lives every time a "peace-loving citizen" points a gun at them.

  • ||

    I repeat...

    And their only plan when someone did appear was to open fire.

    They're supposed to be professionals. There are ways to defuse situations like this. Apparently the Lake County Sheriff's Department doesn't teach them.

  • Tulpa the White||

    And their only plan when someone did appear was to open fire.

    You forgot about the part where the someone who appears is pointing a gun at them.

    The reaction would have been quite different if it had been merely someone appearing.

  • ||

    I've said all I'm going to say. If you don't like it, it's OK. I really don't give a fuck what you think.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Here we go with the insults again. WTF is it with you people these days.

  • ||

    It's not an insult. It's just that you have refused to give me a countervailing argument as to why people who are sworn to uphold the public peace and protect the innocent failed to do so should be protected from having to face the consequences of failing to do so.

    I am willing to accept that they may have mitigating circumstances as to why the should not no be held criminally liable. But that does not relieve them of the responsibility for the death of a wholly innocent man and further it does not relieve their superiors of the responsibility to see that something like this doesn't happen again.

    Frankly if it were up to me it would be that the only federal responsibility in these matters was that there is a federal database of former officers (I think irresponsible killers like this should be fired) which lists people like this who are never, ever to be hired as LEOs and entrusted with this kind of life and death power ever.

    I am not interested in convicting or incarcerating them. I just want to make certain that they are in the same position as the rest of us "civilians" when it comes to making decisions like this.

  • ||

    IOW, I have accepted that little cowardly wimpy bastards might be so frightened of a man holding a gun that they feel the need to kill him. You have utterly refused to accept the fact that men who supposedly have sworn to uphold the law and put their lives on the line line to do so should not be held accountable when they fail.

  • ||

    Is it just me, or would you not stand in the middle of a doorway looking in when you believe you've chased an armed and dangerous suspect into a building.

    Had a cop here in Dallas a few years ago that went to apprehend a suspect and got his brains blown out cause he walked right up to the door. If he had just stood to the side and knocked, he might have lived.

  • R C Dean||

    but he was not smart opening a door at 1:30 AM with his gun drawn.

    I have done so in the past, and will do so in the future if I get a knock at that time. For reasons discussed above.

  • Coeus||

    I have done it as well, and I live in a neighborhood where cops will shoot an unarmed man for turning around as ordered. The lesson I got from this is if you're holding a gun on your own property and the cops see you, you pretty much have to start pulling the trigger.

  • source69||

    Does anyone wonder if there was a light working outside the door?

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    What this story needs is a puppy, a plate of foie gras and an oversized soda.

  • ||

    No, no. It's a DEAD puppy.

    And don't forget the weed.

  • Mrs. Kravitz||

    Delivered by a tranny with fake tits.

  • Apocalyptic_Tourist||

    Is that what they are calling the remote control these days? A Gun?

  • toasted||

    Cops should give citizens a pamphlet on how to properly deal with them. Although most professionals are held to a higher standard anytime cops fuck up those in charge let them off with a "what would you do?" Let's be real, Democrats and Republicans have collectively turned the country into one where we get permission from government and not the other way around. Give in. I just heard a citizen today thank cops for "what they do" as they stood around vehicles chatting while Romney attended his fundraiser, meanwhile I'm thinking I can't wait until cops make a mistake with him.

  • SIV||

    Tulpa really managed to run up the comments and page views on Li'l Lucy's post. The upside is her Jr Editor position should be secure for a while.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Where are all the people yammering for justice for Trayvon Martin?

  • ydiduc1||

    Does anyone here ahve a problem with all these one sided comments! 1st off the "Deputies say they didn't identify themselves as police when they knocked on Scott's apartment door". personally I would also have a gun in my hand answering at 1:30am, but would not open the door till I knew it was safe by challenging who was on the other side of the door and at lease 5 feet away. So no I would not peep out the view sight in the door if it was there (not even close). And if the Deputies did come through the door with out identifing them selfs Darwins theory wins again.

  • batesmotel||

    There is a reason why most states require that cops identify themselves when they knock on the door. It is to prevent incidents like this.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement