Will the Obama Administration Defend in Open Court DEA Agents Who Pointed* a Gun at a Little Girl's Head?

Reason has learned that the Justice Department will not appeal the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Avina v. the United States, the lawsuit in which Thomas and Rosalie Avina alleged that DEA agents used unnecessary force to restrain the couple's daughters, then ages 11 and 14, during a wrong-door drug raid at the family's California home in 2008. 

In June, the 9th Circuit overturned a lower court's summary judgement in favor of the DEA. In an email to Reason, a Justice Department staffer said the government won't seek further review. Now the only question that remains is this: Will the DOJ settle with the Avinas, or will it defend the DEA agents--and their actions during the raid--in open court?

Here's a brief recap of the alleged events of that raid

The agents entered the 14-year-old girl’s room first, shouting “Get down on the fucking ground.” The girl, who was lying on her bed, rolled onto the floor, where the agents handcuffed her. Next they went to the 11-year-old’s room. The girl was sleeping. Agents woke her up by shouting “Get down on the fucking ground.” The girl’s eyes shot open, but she was, according to her own testimony, “frozen in fear.” So the agents dragged her onto the floor. While one agent handcuffed her, another held a gun to her head.

Moments later the two daughters were carried into the living room and placed next to their parents on the floor while DEA agents ransacked their home. After 30 minutes, the agents removed the children’s handcuffs. After two hours, the agents realized they had the wrong house—the product of a sloppy license plate transcription—and left. 

The raid occurred in 2008 under the Bush administration, but Obama's Justice Department nevertheless defended the agents in May of this year, arguing in a brief to the 9th Circuit that "the DEA agents’ conduct was plainly reasonable under the circumstances." (The circumstances being that the agents thought they were raiding the home of a drug dealer who'd had prior run-ins with the police.) The 9th Circuit ruled thusly: 

"A jury could find that the agents pointed their guns at the head of an eleven-year-old girl, 'like they were going to shoot [her],' while she lay on the floor in handcuffs, and that it was excessive for them to do so," reads the Ninth Circuit's decision, which was filed June 12. "Similarly, a jury could find that the agents’ decision to force the two girls to lie face down on the floor with their hands cuffed behind their backs was unreasonable."

While the Avinas' request for a summary judgement clearly didn't go how they imagined when they submitted it to the lower court, the 9th Circuit's ruling, and the DOJ's decision not to appeal, means the Avinas and their daughters will have a chance to tell their version of the raid to a jury. According to Ray Buendia, the Avinas' lawyer, "[T]he trial court has already set dates to move the case towards trial."

*A reader has objected to the original headline, which said "putting a gun to an 11-year-old's head," because there was no evidence in the brief filed by the Avinas, or in the 9th Circuit's ruling, that the officer's gun touched the little girl's head. The reader insists that the most common reading of the expression "put a gun to my head" implies the barrel touches flesh. I'd rather be clear than right, so I've changed to "pointing at."

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.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Were the girls heavily armed? With grenades and stuff? Must've been, right?

  • Paul.||

    They were heavily armed with a teenaged female sensibilities of finding these cops "totally gross".

  • R C Dean||

    I flashed back to those commercials (can't remember what for) with the three teenage girls watching the guy eat:

    "Ewww"

    "Seriously?"

    "So gross"

  • Brendan||

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    The raid occurred in 2008 under the Bush administration, but Obama's Jusice Department nevertheless defended the agents

    Well, there you go. I blame Bush. Doubly - for the action, and then for putting the subsequent administration in an awkward position and having to defend the action.

    Way to go, Bushitler!

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Also, you may want to add the letter "T" somewhere among the letters forming "jusice" in the post (I cut and pasted).

    /pedant Mr. English Person

  • AlmightyJB||

    Given the story, it's appropriate to leave the word justice incomplete.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    "There is no 'justice'. There's just US...."

  • ||

    The response was really cold, or "just ice" in street slang.

  • Michael||

    Also, you may want to add the letter "T" somewhere among the letters forming "jusice" in the post (I cut and pasted).

    No, I believe your original post was closer to the correct spelling of Juche.

  • Hugh Akston||

    This is the difference between the parties, haters. While Bush is sending his goon squad to pistol whip little girls, Obama is out personally killing Osama bin Laden with the five point palm exploding heart technique.

  • Paul.||

    I thought he used Sparkly Eyes technique. Or is that what he's using to win over the hearts and minds of Egyptians and Libyans?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Obama is a man of peace (he won an award for it, dontcha know). He prefers the Sparkly Eyes when possible to win over his enemies to the side of harmony and reasonable regulations.

    But when it comes time to defend his homeland against intractable enemies both foreign and domestic, he is world renowned for his deadly actions (if not always his deadly accuracy).

  • ||

    He uses monkey style?

    RACIST

  • Paul.||

    His "Jimmy Carter Eyes" technique of denouncing free speech in this country to placate people attacking and killing our Ambassadors is workin' like a haint.

    No, the terrorists may not hate us for our freedoms, but as of this morning, it appears that Barack Obama does.

  • 0x90||

    Quart of Blood Technique FTW.

  • ||

    Next they went to the 11-year-old’s room. The girl was sleeping. Agents woke her up by shouting “Get down on the fucking ground.” The girl’s eyes shot open, but she was, according to her own testimony, “frozen in fear.” So the agents dragged her onto the floor. While one agent handcuffed her, another held a gun to her head.

    Fucking animals. Fucking, fucking animals. There is no better example of the type of people drawn to law enforcement.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Niedermeyer will be along soon with the officer safety justification.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    If one can justify this his/her brain has atrophied into a peanut.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    "Niedermeyer" - nice!

  • Restoras||

    He's a sneaky little shit just like you.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The killer awoke before dawn, he put his boots on
    He took a face from the ancient gallery
    And he walked on down the hall
    He went into the room where his sister lived, and...then he
    Paid a visit to his brother, and then he
    He walked on down the hall, and
    And he came to a door...and he looked inside
    Father, yes son, I want to kill you
    Mother...I want to...

  • Killazontherun||

    Did you know that 'Celebration of the Lizard' was originally titled, 'Detroit 2012: A Prophecy'?

    Lions in the street and roaming
    Dogs in heat, rabid, foaming
    A beast caged in the heart of a city
    The body of his mother
    Rotting in the summer ground
    He fled the town

    He went down South and crossed the border
    Left chaos and disorder
    Back there over his shoulder

    One morning he awoke in a green hotel
    With a strange creature groaning beside him
    Sweat oozed from its shining skin
    is everybody in?
    is everybody in?
    is everybody in?
    the ceremony is about to begin

  • John||

    Animal is too weak of a word. I can honestly say I have fired a shot in anger and would not hesitate to shoot someone if the situation required. But I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would walk into a room and drag a terrified 11 year old girl out of her bed. Doing that is not a product of adrenaline or even fear. I have been pretty damned scared and pumped up in my life and I still couldn't imagine doing it. That is a product of being a completely sadistic bastard who has totally dehumanized the people around him.

    Think of it this way. The SEALs who killed Bin Ladin treated the women in that house better than these assholes treated these little girls. That pretty much tells you all you need to know about who these people are.

  • ||

    Agreed, John. I cannot imagine a situation where I would willingly, actively drag a sleeping 11-year-old out of bed and put a gun to their head. It's beyond unthinkable. Yet these...creatures...did it, with gusto.

  • John||

    I will even give them some slack and understand kicking in the door and pointing the gun and yelling "freeze". But at the point at which you realize it is a little girl in bed, how do you not relax and become a human being again?

    This is about more than just these assholes. The biggest stone cold killer on earth would have a hard time dragging that girl out of bed. That doesn't happen without training and conditioning. These people are being trained and conditioned to act like this.

    And as bad as the thought that such sadistic fucks could be cops is, the thought that this is a product of intentional training on the part of the DEA and not just some rogue sadist is a lot worse.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    And even now, years later and knowing they knocked on the wrong door and terrorized innocent girls, believe their conduct to have been entirely reasonable.

  • sarcasmic||

    And even now, years later and knowing they knocked on the wrong door and terrorized innocent girls, believe their conduct to have been entirely reasonable.

    What they did was legal and in accordance with policy and training.

    Reasonable? I bet even those shitbags know deep down that what they did was completely unreasonable. Then again, that's what power is all about. You can do things that you know to be completely unreasonable, and when someone complains you tell them to fuck off because there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
    I've never met a cop who didn't love his job.

  • ||

    I knew one. He quit.

  • Coeus||

    I did as well. He lasted 4 months and then became a fireman. Not a single disciplinary black mark, he just couldn't live with himself.

  • ||

    I can honestly say I have fired a shot in anger and would not hesitate to shoot someone if the situation required. But I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would walk into a room and drag a terrified 11 year old girl out of her bed. Doing that is not a product of adrenaline or even fear.

    Ever since I first read about this incident, I've been trying to come up with some sort of reason how any human being could justify such actions. I don't care how hard and long you've trained for such raids or how standard your procedure for pointing guns at people's head is, how does one rationalize doing this to a child? How sick in the head does one have to be to follow through with such actions?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Maybe it was a dare?

    "Dude, I can get away with anything."

    "Bullshit. For instance, no way you could hold a gun on some little girl without getting fired."

    "You're on!"

  • ||

    I'll call that girl a chickenfucker!

  • John||

    It has to be training and turning these people into mindless apes. That is the only way I can explain it. You drill these people over and over again to where they just stop thinking.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    It has to be training and turning these people into mindless apes.

    Training, procedure and UOF. That is their world.

    Common sense, civility, reasoning; not so much.

  • Restoras||

    They are agents of the state. When was the last time anyone of their ilk faced any meaningful repercussions for actions such like this? Probably never. Although, there were numerous agents of the Nazi state that did, eventually, face some repercussions but that was only after a ferocious ass kicking and exercise in rubble creation.

    These goons will suffer no meaningful repercussions, except maybe being confined to a desk.

  • sarcasmic||

    All crimes are crimes against the State.
    So when acting as an agent of the State, it is literally impossible to commit a crime.
    How can an agent of the State commit a crime against the State?
    The State can't commit a crime against itself. It's impossible.

  • SugarFree||

    I don't think it's training, I think it's the lack of consequences. If you are already evil enough to work for the DEA and nothing is going to happen to you anyway, why not drag a little girl out of bed for shits and giggles? You get to look tough in front of your fellow evil cockrags and impressed the goggled-eyed whores sick enough to be turned on by moronic thugs boasting.

  • John||

    If I lived in a world where I had a license to fuck with people, I still wouldn't terrorize little girls in their beds. That is the product of more than a sense of immunity.

  • SugarFree||

    If I lived in a world where I had a license to fuck with people, I still wouldn't terrorize little girls in their beds.

    But you don't have the aggravating pre-condition of being soulless enough to work for the DEA in the first place. It's a sick synergy. You give the worst people license and they will be worse than you can imagine.

  • ||

    The "Badge Bunny" episode of Life creeped me the fuck out and made me wonder if that is real.

  • SugarFree||

    Cop groupies are fairly well-established phenomena. It's a disturbing paraphilia. Probably had an abusive cop father or got turned on as a child by seeing a black kid get nightsticked to death.

  • Coeus||

    The "Badge Bunny" episode of Life creeped me the fuck out and made me wonder if that is real.

    Love that fucking show, and yes, it is. dunphy was bragging about it a month or so ago.

  • Killazontherun||

    A brute who at some point figured out that behind a badge he would never have to answer for his evil.

  • John||

    It is one thing to be someone like Russell Crowll in LA Confidential and go out and terrorize wife beaters or something. But little kids?

  • Killazontherun||

    It takes a craven mind without even the slightest redeemable quality to do that, and that is rare. In that instance above two found one another to work in consort. I've known of a local sex offender, recently deceased (former high school coach), who pulled people out of a car in the middle of a flood.

  • sarcasmic||

    It takes a craven mind without even the slightest redeemable quality to do that, and that is rare.

    Yet so many seem to gravitate towards government "service".

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well if they were wrong they would have apologized. Since they did not we must assume their actions were correct.

  • Paul.||

    I see shaved heads, I see Oakley sunglasses. What could go wrong?

  • AlmightyJB||

    So that's how we pick our targets?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    These same depraved animals would thrive in a human torturing/slaughtering environment operating behind the bloody walls of any genocidal institution. The act of violence against these children requires the same level of contempt required to put a bullet in their brain or to crack their spines.

  • sarcasmic||

    Cops don't bluff.

    So when they pointed their weapons at those children, they were indeed ready and willing to end their lives.

  • fish||

    THEIR CREED:

    Cops don't bluff....there are pensions to collect!

  • Vapourwear||

    Rule 1 of firearms safety:

    Never point the muzzle at something you are unwilling to kill/destroy.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    It occurs to me, looking at the picture again, that more and more cops and agencies are basically just legalized gangs.

    They got the shaved heads, their colors, guns up the yin yang, and be bustin' down some doors and kickin' some ASS! Plus, you know, code, don't narc or be a stool pigeon, cause the enemy's OUT THERE man! With the CIVILIANS! There ARE NO FRIENDLY CIVILIANS!

    Yep - legalized gangs is what they are.

  • ||

    Oh, absolutely. I've said for a long time that the biggest, most dangerous gang in the US is the police. And they have chapters in every state and most towns.

  • Brett L||

    That was essentially NYC's strategy starting with Giuliani. "We're gonna have the baddest gang in town, and put 'em on every block. Anyone who fucks with people in our racket (well-dressed white people and obvious tourists) gets a visit."

  • ||

    Yes, I know, I lived there during that time.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    I've lived in NYC and Denver, and believe me, the NYPD is like Dragnet compared to the Denver thugs in terms of day to day harassment. I'm not exactly Al Capone, but in 6 years in Denver I had 7 unpleasant experiences with those nazis, vs zero in 30+ years in NYC.

  • fried wylie||

    the NYPD is like Dragnet

    The TVshow or the movie?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    This just occurred to you? :)

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    *lights the derpfee signal*

  • Archduke Pantsfan ﷺ||

    I'm sure he'll be here any moment to tell us how procedures were followed and we don't have enough information.

  • Archduke Pantsfanﷺ||

    A DEA agent with a gun is like a mule with a spinning wheel.

  • ||

    They're pretty much gonna have to defend their actions in court -- the alternative is to shamefacedly admit they did wrong (which is unlike any government officer I've ever known), or offer no defense and get hosed by the jury.

  • John||

    There is another solution. Write a check on the taxpayer dime and pay these people enough to get them to agree to a confidential settlement admitting no wrong doing. That is what they will do.

  • sarcasmic||

    One of the first things they teach is to never, under any circumstance, admit to being wrong.
    Never.
    That and to cover for others when they do something wrong, so they'll cover for you when you do something wrong.
    You don't call out a bad cop, because the next time you make even a minor screw up, nobody will cover your sorry ass.

  • The Last American Hero||

    This is a perfect example of why I hate cops. The bad cop put a gun to a young girl's head. The "good" cops stood by both during and after the fact and did jack shit about it.

    If the settlement checks came out of the officer pension fund, maybe these fuckers would start to police themselves a bit.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    If the settlement checks came out of the officer pension fund, maybe these fuckers would start to police themselves a bit.

    Hold them personally liable for their actions. None of the limited immunity crap. You screw up, you pay.

  • sarcasmic||

    The "good" cops stood by both during and after the fact and did jack shit about it.

    Of course they do. Even "good" cops occasionally screw up. As long as they cover for the bad cops, their minor screw ups will be covered up.
    This basically gives them license to do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they corroborate their stories afterwards. Then, unless there's contradictory video that they can't get to and destroy, they can literally get away with murder.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Sounds like a criminal conspiracy to me. Maybe the DOJ will..... uh never mind.

  • SugarFree||

    Remind yourselves about the Aiyana Jones case, the little girl that was set on fire with a flashbang and then shot. The evil fuck that murdered her had been involved in an incident three years previous where he shot two family dogs and then held children at gunpoint. He wasn't fired, leading to his involvement the Jones raid.

  • Spoonman.||

    Obviously his superiors failed to send him to the "don't incinerate children" class they implemented after Waco.

  • Brett L||

    At the time it was only for ATF and FBI.

  • Calidissident||

    And of course he's only charged with involuntary manslaughter. No double standard ...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "the DEA agents’ conduct was plainly reasonable under the circumstances."

    Officer safety is paramount. Those two girls could have been ninjas in disguise. You can't expect the police to accept that level of risk.

    Procedures were followed.

    Investigations were carried out.

    Perps were restrained.

    The subject residence was secured.

    Lessons were learned.

  • sarcasmic||

    The passive voice was used.

  • Tim||

    And they tore the place apart for two hours, desperately trying to find something to justify their actions and mitigate the fuckup.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, no, no!

    And they tore the place The place was torn apart for two hours, desperately trying to find searched for something to justify their actions and mitigate the fuckup.

  • Tim||

    you get it then, that had they found one lousy joint they would have felt it justified the whole thing.

  • SugarFree||

    That's what always happens. Look a dunphy crowing that the guy that was shot and left to die in the parking lot of his family's business was drunk. He was drunk, so it was OK to shoot him, you see.

  • Tim||

    Oh. like you never shot a drunk and left him to die before...

  • Brett L||

    This one time in Reno, but I watched him die.

  • fried wylie||

    but I watched him die

    What an unfavorable comment on Reno's nightlife, that you would spend your time watching a drunk die.

  • Coeus||

    that you would spend your time watching a drunk die.

    That's the whole reason he shot him. Just to watch him die.

  • Sigivald||

    The raid occurred in 2008 under the Bush administration, but Obama's Justice Department nevertheless defended the agents in May of this year

    "But"?

    That has a deeply misleading implication... namely that somehow the Justice Department was unlikely to defend its agents because an election happened, with the additional implication that President Obama or Congress somehow asked the DEA or Justice to change any policy at all around this.

    I think the better choice would be "and".

    Or, if one really wants to make the most relevant point to how the DEA works, while not pretending to impartiality, "and - surprising exactly no-one - "

  • fried wylie||

    "the DEA agents’ conduct was plainly reasonable under the circumstances."

    totally reasonable, under the completely unreasonable circumstance OF BEING AT THE WRONG ADDRESS.

  • R C Dean||

    Even if they'd been at the right address, it would have been unreasonable.

  • fried wylie||

    At the right address, those lil drug-pusher-crotchfruit-scum might be trying to flush evidence down the toilet, so yeah, on the ground lil bitches!

    wait, what?

    my point was just that how can any of their actions be reasonable when the entire operation was founded on an unreasonable procedural fuckup. HOW HARD IS IT TO GET THE FUCKING ADDRESS RIGHT? Are they getting directions from my mom? Google maps guys, has pictures and urveythang, so you don't have to rely on those tricksey, lying, duplicitous, numbers.

  • fried wylie||

    (more realistically, there wouldn't be any children at the right address....anymore, since the last visit from CPS.)

  • ||

    after reading the decision, i am confident the 9th got this one right.

    DEA was TOTALLY unjustified in the way they dealt with the two juveniles

    and i agree with RC. the address thing is irrelevant to the force against the juvies. i don't care whether they were at the right address or not. it was UNreasonable.

    at least when i do warrants, i use multiple address verification methods.

    like IMAP

    http://www.kingcounty.gov/oper...../iMAP.aspx

    public access. great stuff.

    you can also X-ref the address with police databases. if these guys are frequent flyers, you will find law enforcement contacts with people at the address and you can confirm it

    you can also do surveillance and CONFIRM your targets moving in and out of the res, etc.

    occasionally, things get wack

    i wasn't on a warrant, just a stabbing call, but i once went to this house where the # on the house did NOT match what the county database said it should be.

  • ||

    apparently, they put up different #'s on their house than it's actual address. that is not unheard of for scumbags to do.

    and of course, there were 3 cars in the driveway and running their reg's , none of them came back to that house.

    etc.

    it doesn't matter.

    THE BURDEN in on THE STATE to do due diligence. and i think the due diligence standard some courts are holding cops to , is too fucking low

    and of course a lot of people blame the SWAT automatically, but 99% of the time, it's not SWAT. it's the de(f)ectives writing the warrant app. that fucked up. once SWAT gets the warrant, their concerns are tactical, etc. they should (should) be able to ASSUME the detectives are giving them the right info on the address

    i've actually seen, on some high speed warrants, detectives go down to city or county offices where the house is located and drum up BLUEprints of the actual house. this is very useful info if a tactical entry needs to be made.

  • Homple||

    Map reading is not taught in Rambo School.

  • Carston||

    I know, wtf with the wrong addresses all the time? I get delivery food all the time, and I have never had someone elses food delivered to my house.

    We need to expect at least the same amount of responsibility and attention to detail from law enforcement as we do from our pizza delivery folks.

  • ||

    that's not really relevant though. because if they went to the wrong address first, the guy says "i didn't order this shit. those guys live across the street", he's not going to volunteer that info, so you'd never know

    the difference is it's not a big deal if that happens to a delivery guy

    it's a VERY big deal during a tactical entry.

    VERY big deal.

    and cops have, in many jurisdictions, been held to too low a standard of due diligence

  • Carston||

    Yes, I understand the difference. There was much sarcasm in that post, to highlight the how ridiculous it is that trained law enforcement is unable to do what 16 year old delivery drivers do.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Look a dunphy crowing that the guy that was shot and left to die in the parking lot of his family's business was drunk. He was drunk, so it was OK to shoot him, you see.

    And the guy in Florida(?) who came to see what unidentified assholes were beating on his door in the middle of the night with A GUN IN HIS HAND.

    They were cops.

    He had a gun.

    They did not identify themselves as cops; he had no idea they were cops; but he should have known better than to answer the door with a gun when cops are at the door, so it was his own goddam fault.

  • T||

    Yeah, that one was where I wrote Dunphy off. His position was nuts.

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, same here. Of course, I've actually answered the door at 2 am with a gun in my hand, so I may be biased.

    It was a winter night in the Wisconsin countryside. I believe dunphy's position wast that it was better to take the risk that somebody would freeze to death than answer the door armed.

  • fried wylie||

    Your low regard for your own safety is your own business. Obviously, you have no pension to worry about collecting.

  • ||

    rc , STOP your lying crap

    some guy answered the door on me yesterday armed.

    the issue IS NOT answering the door armed, and never was

    never ceases to amaze me that the people here have such weak arguments that they CONSTANTLY misstate my positions. the issue was NEVER that he answered the door armed

    the issue was he answered the door holding a gun in his hand and did NO due diligence to determine who was at his door (like look out the fucking window and see cops in uniform, etc.)

    totally disanalogous

    answering a door armed is completely acceptable

    i deal with that stuff all the time and i fully support it

    and the lies continue

  • R C Dean||

    the issue IS NOT answering the door armed, and never was

    That's not how I recall the thread. Perhaps somebody with better wayback-fu can refresh both of our memories.

    the issue was he answered the door holding a gun in his hand and did NO due diligence to determine who was at his door

    Let's say the wayback machine confirms your version. You're still wrong. I have every right to answer the door to my house with a gun in my hand, even if I know there are cops on the porch. Since I have that right, even if it is stupid to do so, the cops would be in the wrong to gun me down merely for having a gun in my hand.

    We're all civilians together; they can come up to my door with guns; why can't I answer the door with a gun?

  • ||

    you can recall whatever you want

    it's still a lie. and nobody can find any thread where i would EVER say not to answer a door armed. that would be ABSURD

    and like, i'd say about 2/3 of the time somebody feels the need to troll and wank about one of my positions, they falsely state my position

    again, i 100% support RKBA

    i 100% support the right to answer the door armed

    and people do it with ME all the time. as in yesterday. for fuck's sake

    RC, this issue has been discussed ad nauseum. i do not have enough facts to know whether or not the shooting was justified. based on what little facts were presented, i suspected it was, and i said HE made a mistake by coming to the door with a gun IN HIS HAND

    i totally respect people disagreeing with me

    if you disagree with that, groovy. the incident has been discussed. if somebody can find some new facts, like the shooting board review, the after investigation (like i found with seth adams, that showed his shooting clearly justified), i am more than happy to discuss it.

    but at this point, it's been discussed to death, based on very little case facts

    again, my position is simple

    i respect you if you disagree with it

    i respect you repeating it

    just please do not MISSTATE my position. i will try not to do the same with others, and i would expect to be corrected if i did

  • ||

    i TEACH firearms use, carry, and range stuff to all sorts, not just cops. and there are rules about when you draw a gun.

    but i discussed this EXTENSIVELY

    feel free to disagree
    just pleas acknowledge my ACTUAL position.

    that the guy made an error by coming to the door with a GUN IN HIS HAND.

    i would NEVER say "don't answer the door armed". THAT would be a ridiculous pov

    fwiw, i have had several people answer the door with a gun in an open view holster.

    again, i TOTALLY support that.

    thank you for the consideration

  • R C Dean||

    Here's the thread:

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07.....30#comment

    Representative dunphy comment:

    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

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07.....nt_3139238

  • ||

    ok, so do you admit you misstated my position

    my problem was with him answering with a gun drawn

    NOT NOT NOT him answering with a gun

    period

    if you are intellectually honest, you will admit you misstated my position

    moving on from that, in brief, what i said was that the cops were looking for an armed violent felon they believed went into one of these apartments.

    this guy hears a knock on his door at oh dark thirty

    IF he was apprehensive enough to think he needed to draw his gun to answer the door, THEN he had an affirmative duty to do a little due diligence. look out the window and see who it is. call 911 first and find out what's going on. etc. etc.

    but i've discussed this issue endlessly

    i totally respect those who disagree with me

    just don't misstate my position

    thank you

  • R C Dean||

    Which dunphy do we believe?

    The one who said:

    answering a door armed is completely acceptable

    Or the one who said:

    it is not "answer with a gun drawn"

    EVER

  • R C Dean||

    Sorry, d, but I'm just buying the distinction between answering a door armed and answering a door with a gun in your hand. I'm not misstating your position; I'm quoting it, with links.

    And all your talk now about doing a little due diligence, etc., is a late addition to your "Fuck him, he got what he deserved" from the earlier thread.

  • ||

    again, but do you have the honesty to admit that you misstated my position.

    and did i ever say he got "what he deserved". I STRONGLY doubt it

    what i said, was the shooting was likely justified. i don't believe that a justified shooting means the shootee DESERVED it. in many cases, that's a false statement in that it suggests a moral element

    it's not a punishment, iow

    but again, if you can't buy that distinction then clearly we have no way to discuss that issue, because it's a SUBSTANTIAL distinction imo. in fact, it's practically the whole ball of wax

    and again, as a firearms instructor, WELL VERSED in case law, i can tell you the law views VERY DIFFERENTLY somebody walking with a gun in the holster and somebody DRAWING A GUN.

    the former needs no legal justification. the latter does

    if i just DRAW MY gun, i damn well better have justification or i will be suspended or maybe even fired.

    but again, unless new case facts have come up, i'm not going to rediscuss the whole incident

    i am simply asking for intellectual honesty in

    1) stating my position. which 100% hinges on him having the gun DRAWN

    and
    2) being a man and saying "my bad, i misstated your position"

    dat's it

    cheers

  • ||

    believe what i say

    again, you cannot simply admit error?

    you said this "I believe dunphy's position wast that it was better to take the risk that somebody would freeze to death than answer the door armed."

    you believe falsely.

    the intellectually honest thing, since i have shown you what i said is "my bad"

    adults can admit when they are wrong

    i do it and have done it here. on many occasions (like the other day when i wanked on sativa, after misreading it as salvia. i was wrong. i said "I WAS WRONG. MY BAD")

    can you simply admit you misstatened my position?

    and fwiw, regardless of what i said previously i can think of some very extreme situations in hypothetical where it is ok to answer the door with gun drawn. and if i said as above that it's NEVER ok to do so, then *i* stand corrected

    but i am honestly curious to see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit you misstated my position

    my experience with the intertoobs is that many people simply won't . ever

    but i won't prejudge

  • R C Dean||

    You seem to be resting on the distinction between "answering the door armed" (OK!) and "answering the door with a gun in your hand" (not OK!). I don't buy that distinction.

    That distinction is also not evident in your posts from the earlier thread. If you had said then that it makes a huge difference whether or not the gun is actually in your hand, then I would say you have a point. But you didn't.

    I don't think I'm mis-stating your position, because I have quoted you, provided links to the earlier thread, called out the (new) distinction you now rely on, and rejected it.

    Anybody who cares can see exactly what you said then, and can draw their own conclusions as to whether I mis-stated your position, or whether your position has evolved and if so, whether they think your new position (armed OK, gun in hand not OK) is valid.

  • R C Dean||

    and did i ever say he got "what he deserved".

    Yes, you did.

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

    and he paid the price

    fuck him

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07.....nt_3139363

  • Coeus||

    Dammit, beat me to it by a few seconds.

  • ||

    i did not say he DESERVED it.

    what i wrote is subtly different. i know you will say there is no distinction in your mind.

    andnj again,

    you prattle on and on but you STILL can't simply say that you misstated my position

    remember

    when you said i thought it was wrong that he asnwered ARMED and i showed you the issue was with his gun DRAWN???

    remember?

    can you or can you not have the intellectual honesty to simply admit error

    i am really curious here. fwiw, even sloopy has demonstrated he CAN.

    can you and will you?

  • R C Dean||

    i did not say he DESERVED it.

    Between the "unjustifiably" and the "fuck him", I think its a fair characterization of your statement.

    when you said i thought it was wrong that he asnwered ARMED and i showed you the issue was with his gun DRAWN???

    remember?

    Link me to the post, dunphy. I don't recall it, and didn't see it when I was there yesterday.

  • ||

    ok, then at least i know that you are one of the people i can count on for intellectual dishonesty fair enuf

    if you cannot grok the distinction between merely being armed and HAVING YOUR GUN IN YOUR hand, and you can't apologize for mistating my position vis a vis that, then you are not an honest person, nor are you interested in honest discussion

    most people, ime are

    you clearly are not

    i would apologize. as i have done before.

    and nobody in their right mind, not to mention a metric assload of case law, can fail to understand that there is a HUGE difference between being armed and being armed wiht a gun in your hand

    in the most basic analysis, if you see a guy walking down the street (in seattle) with a gun in a holster, you have no lawful reason to fear, and no reason to call 911. and if you do so, the cops have no lawful reason to contact that person

    if the same person was carrying the gun in his hand, you most definitely WOULD, and the cops most definitely would

    but thank you for clarifying

    like i said, MOST people are honest and are acting in good faith here

    you are demonstrating you aren't. that makes it easy for me.

    cheers

  • sarcasmic||

    MOST people are honest and are acting in good faith here

    I certainly wouldn't put you in that group.

    Seriously, the more you post, the more of a piece of shit you reveal yourself to be.

  • R C Dean||

    there is a HUGE difference between being armed and being armed wiht a gun in your hand

    Walking down the street? Sure.

    In your own house? I don't think so.

  • Coeus||

    Dunphy (the real one)| 7.16.12 @ 12:40PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

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

    and he paid the price

    fuck him
  • ||

    oh jesus christ,

    seth adams again?

    that shooting was justified as FUCK!

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/d.....-shooting/

    totally justified.

    adams went up to the cop, assaulted him grabbed him by the fucking neck (his DNA was found on the cops neck)

    etc.

    TOTALLY justified.

    end of story

  • Coeus||

    (from the last discussion on this)

    1. Sheriff Bradshaw has been caught covering for his officer's misconduct before.

    2. Though he briefly admitted that Adams was legally in the right to extricate the trespasser from his property, dunphy persists in describing the resulting actions in terms of what he considers reasonable conduct.

    3. There is no mention in the report as to why he was conducting surveillance on an unidentified ATM theft ring more than 10 miles away from any ATMs.

    4. The final report conflicts in numerous ways with the police's initial statement (Adams reached into the cops car, etc.)

    5. The cop had no legal reason to be there, yet the fact that he was a cop indicates to dunphy that Adams should have acted differently (I agree with this assessment in survival terms, but it has no bearing on the legal situation).

    6. He keeps going on about how this guy escalated the encounter, while ignoring how easy it would have been for the cop to drive out of the parking lot and park on the road until backup arrived. By exiting his vehicle, the cop escalated the situation (cops apparently aren't ever required to back down when they might be wrong, but everyone else is?).

  • ||

    the shooting was justified as fuck

    the report makes it crystal clear.

    again, i could get into explaining the issues with 'apparent authority' , etc. but i know there is no point

    seth adams doomed himself by his violent unreasonable actions

    tragic, but entirely justified.

    the cop was under no burden, when some guy in an unmarked pickup truck (iow he has no way to confirm he is a property owner of the property) drives up to him

    starts in on him that he is the owner and the guy needs to leave.

    the cop identified himself, as the facts make clear (since seth said "i got shot by a cop"), seth had NO exigency, or any other reason to go habeas grabbus on the cop and he got lawfully shot

    period

  • Coeus||

    the cop identified himself, as the facts make clear (since seth said "i got shot by a cop"), seth had NO exigency, or any other reason to go habeas grabbus on the cop and he got lawfully shot

    So he didn't have the legal right to use force to remove someone from his property who refused to leave?

  • Calidissident||

    Dunphy, if I were to trespass on someone's property, and then they told me to leave, I refused because I couldn't be sure it was his property, a conflict ensued, and I ending up shooting the guy, are you telling me I would get off and be justified? Cause that is not true. Whether or not the guy was a cop is meaningless. You guys aren't supposed to be a superior class of citizens above the law (ha ha, I know)

  • Generic Stranger||

    No, see, because this one time this cop was actually held to account for his actions and his punishment was far less than a normal person in the same situation, it means that cops are held to a DOUBLE STANDARD! HTH!

  • ||

    good for the 9th circuit. i read the decision. their logic is SOUND and the force used by the DEA agents was clearly NOT reasonable.

    this is the 2nd of two (duh) decisions by the 9th circuit recently, reigning in use of force latitude. the other was mcpherson, which placed very reasonable limits on police taser use

    the obama admin would be defending the indefensible here. the lower circuits SUMMARY ruling perplexes me, but at least the 9th has set things right.

  • ||

    "That's what always happens. Look a dunphy crowing that the guy that was shot and left to die in the parking lot of his family's business was drunk. He was drunk, so it was OK to shoot him, you see."

    i see sugar free is trolling.

    here's the report.

    SF of course mischaracterizes the fact pattern

    read the report, draw your own conclusion

    SETH ADAMs justifiably shot. tragic, but a legal , justified shoot

    http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/r.....-on-may-17

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/d.....-shooting/
    (LINK TO TEXT OF FULL REPORT)

  • ||

    simply put, if RC cannot understand (or more likely will not admit to it since it means he falsely stated my position) that there is a difference between

    1) being armed
    2) carrying a gun in your hand

    then he is trolling

    fair enuf.

    feel free, if you are arrested for brandishing, if you are walking around downtown seattle with a gun in your hand, to make the argument to the judge that there is no real distinction between carrying a gun in a holster and walking around with one in your hand

    if you are going to devolve to that absurd level of sophistry and dishonesty just so you can avoid the awful experience of simply saying "my bad", then you are a troll

    i will have, and have had, no problem admitting error. often, it means i learned something here. i am wrong sometimes. everybody is. but adults can admit it. trolls can't

    cheers

    eof

  • Coeus||

    feel free, if you are arrested for brandishing, if you are walking around downtown seattle with a gun in your hand, to make the argument to the judge that there is no real distinction between carrying a gun in a holster and walking around with one in your hand

    Why would that even matter? We're talking about answering your own door in the middle of the night. Unless you sleep wearing a holster, the distinction is meaningless. Not to mention that you're stipulating that gun owners have a legal mandate to own a holster for a gun used for home defense in order for them to be armed.

    Also, carrying a gun in your hand is not considered brandishing, at least not in Texas. Is it in your state? How then do people transport their hunting guns?

  • R C Dean||

    Indeed. All kinds of things are perfectly permissible in your own house, but not in public.

    Having a gun in your hand is, I submit, one of them.

    For the context we are discussing, dunphy is relying on a distinction without a difference.

  • Calidissident||

    I love how Dunphy likes to pretend there's no double standard, and yet constantly defends the actions of cops in situations where, if an average person was doing what they were doing, would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and the victim would not be blamed at all

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    I apologize for lighting the derpfee signal earlier. My bad.

  • amelia||

    "That doesn't happen without training and conditioning. These people are being trained and conditioned to act like this."

    You got it, John. The is the outcome of a long process and while putting guns to the heads of 11 year old kids isn't the intent of the process, it's a predictable outcome.

    Why am I unable to post a threaded comment? I don't know.

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