Police

Man Charged With Reckless Endangerment, Assault After Cop Shoots Other Cop in the Back

Cop shoots cop

|

shot by cop
Courtesy WTAE

A Pennsylvania man was charged with reckless endangerment, assault, endangering the welfare of a child and illegal possession of a firearm in an incident that ended with one police officer shooting another in the back as they attempted to force their way through the door. Via the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

Police said Lijewski was carrying a loaded shotgun around his home in the 5100 block of Elmwood Drive when his girlfriend called 911. Four officers arrived, including Baldwin Borough police Sgt. Ralph Miller, who knocked on the front door while a second Baldwin officer moved into a backup position behind him.

Lijewski answered the door but refused orders to show both hands. Miller could see a woman holding a child in the house and wanted to speak with her when Lijewski began shutting the door. The second Baldwin officer put his foot in the door, and Miller put his shoulder into the door to try to force it open wider.

The second officer fired two shots with his patrol rifle, striking Miller, 54, between the bottom of his bulletproof vest and his belt.

The key detail, though, comes via the AP:

Police responded even after a woman called back to say Lijewski had unloaded the weapon and police were no longer needed.

Related: the Fourth Amendment.

Advertisement

NEXT: Obamacare Taxes Hike Veterinary Costs

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.

  1. Why anyone would ever call the police over a minor domestic dispute is frankly beyond me. Are you so stupid that you don’t realize what will happen? I guess so.

    1. People still think the cops are the good guys. Why is beyond me.

      1. They don’t know any better, until it is too late.

      2. Sounds like a few more learned their lesson in this case.

    2. One of my faves on getting into any “I’m an anarchist blah blah” discussions with real-life people is the “but what if you need the police blah blah” part, because you’d have to be fucking retarded to call them in the vast majority of circumstances.

      1. Let’s call some power-tripping thugs who essentially can’t leave until they’ve “done something” (which usually means arresting someone), who know nothing about the details of our relationship and how it has historically worked. That sounds like a great idea for solving our domestic argument!

        1. Up to the point where the cop stupidly fired his gun into the other’s back, these cops were doing exactly what they should do in that situation. For most people here to think otherwise shows how deep the anti-cop bias is.

          1. I’m not saying they weren’t doing “what they should do” (meaning “what they are supposed to do”); Epi also says they “essentially can’t leave until they’ve ‘done something,'” which you clearly acknowledge at 1:46. I just think that’s not actually desirable.

            1. There are some situations in which it would be desirable. In this particular case, who knows… and the undesirablility of having cops show up and question the two of you and (maybe) take the guy to jail (depending on how much she said on the 911 call) is far less than the undesirability of having you and your kid killed.

              1. Yeah, but unless the alternative really is deadly force from the other party, the cops are probably going to be worse. And I don’t think very many people think that way because they aren’t thinking about the million ways the cops can fuck their lives.

          2. Your reading comprehension is especially damaged today, TULPAFELLATOR 3000. I know you’re not intelligent enough to read what I actually wrote, but you’ll notice my criticism is of calling the police in the first place. However, your instant reaction is to suck off the cops. How unsurprising.

            If you’re going to be this stupid, I suggest just typing “I AM A RETARD” instead. It’s simpler and faster.

            1. Speaking of reading comprehension:

              Scott said police filed charges against Lijewski because “there was a level of violence that went on in the home before police arrived.”
              Lijewski ripped the phone off the wall when his girlfriend called 911, punched holes in the bathroom door and had almost broken through a bedroom door where the girlfriend was hiding with two children, Scott said.

              1. That’s a long-ass way to write “I AM A RETARD”, TULPAFELLATOR 3000. Sometimes your autistic retardation level is kind of stunning. You really don’t get it, do you. You’re not being obtuse, you just literally don’t get it.

              2. With an axe? Did he say, “Here’s Johnny!”?

                1. All commenting and no play makes Jack a dull boy!

              3. His hous, it should be perfectly legal to do all that shit.

                If she doesn’t like it, she can *leave* – if you’ve got an abusive boyfriend/husband with violent impulse control problems the best solution is to get the fuck out of there, not to stick around and call the cops the next time he scares you.

                1. And you thought misuse of genital slang is why there are no female libertarians.

                  1. What’s awesome about your statement is that if we were talking about two guys, no one would think twice about saying what Agammmamon said.

              4. Plus I’m willing to be that the cops didn’t know any of that shit before they forced their way in – that the damage to the house was discovered then.

          3. Up to the point where the cop stupidly fired his gun into the other’s back…

            The fact that you were able to type this and then accuse people of “anti-cop bias” shows how deep your love of authoritarian dick-sucking is.

          4. Just because the cop saw a woman holding a child in the house doesn’t give him cause to force his way in. So it started going downhill a little before he got shot in the back.

      2. but what if you need the police blah blah

        Easy talking point is easy. Let’s take 8 minutes as the average for the sake of discussion (Sandy Hook response). If someone means to do you bodily harm, up to and including murder, do you honestly think that you will successfully resist your attacker between the time you make the call and the eight minutes it takes for the police to show up?

    3. Use of police for conflict resolution is really common among poor people.

      An ex-cop friend of mine told me about what the majority of his calls entailed, mothers calling the cops because their 5-year-old wouldn’t brush his teeth/go to bed/eat his vegetables (no shit, the eat the veggies shit had me rolling), wives called the cops because the husband got drunk and watched the game instead of washing the dishes and taking out the trash, wife called the cops because the husband bought lotto tickets but didn’t play the right numbers, woman called the cops because she gave her boyfriend head and he didn’t return the favor, neighbors calling the cops because the neighbor’s dog shit in their yard/won’t stop barking*, neighbor called the cops because neighbor went to the liquor store and didn’t share the booze, neighbor called the cops because the neighbor’s were having a barbecue and didn’t invite him, and on and on and on.

      *He makes a point of telling people that he ceased being a cop before dog shooting became a cop pastime.

      1. woman called the cops because she gave her boyfriend head and he didn’t return the favor

        This might actually become a crime one day… no shit. Using deception to receive sex.

        But seriously, those people making those calls deserve an ass kicking by law enforcement for wasting time.

        1. This is one of the reasons I usually go first. The other is so I can just go to sleep after I’m finished.

    4. Scott said police filed charges against Lijewski because “there was a level of violence that went on in the home before police arrived.”

      Lijewski ripped the phone off the wall when his girlfriend called 911, punched holes in the bathroom door and had almost broken through a bedroom door where the girlfriend was hiding with two children, Scott said.

      ———————

      How exactly is this a “minor domestic dispute”?

  2. Nothing is ever a cops fault. Ever.

    1. Right. It’s the cops fault that this whackjob was threatening his girlfriend with a loaded shotgun to the point where she called 911.

      1. No, but it’s certainly the cop’s fault for shooting his friend in the back, particularly when there didn’t seem to be any call for him to use lethal force.

      2. That’s retarded. The guy holding the gun is responsible for the bullets that come out of the barrel. No one else. He fired his “patrol rifle” (that’s an assault weapon when civilians have one) into the back of a friendly. That is 100% his fault.

        Charging people for crimes they didn’t commit is tyrannical.

        1. Despite Mr. Ed’s tendentious choice of headline, Lijewski didn’t get charged with shooting the cop. The stuff he was charged with took place before police arrived.

          1. Are you sure?

            1. Yawn.

              There’s nothing in the article about him being charged for the shooting of the cop. Now maybe he really is charged and there’s a conspiracy to keep that secret, but the charges listed are all in relation to his acts against the woman and child.

  3. “Police responded even after a woman called back to say Lijewski had unloaded the weapon and police were no longer needed.”

    That is a bell that you cannot unring. For two reasons – one good, one bad. “Good” – who knows what threats may have been employed to force the call back? “Bad” – oh no, someone’s going to jail, getting beaten, or something if you call the police for a dispute…needed or not!

    1. At least somebody gets it.

      1. “Bad” was the result here – you may have missed that.

        1. I know I’m in the minority here, but I don’t consider an assaulter, reckless endangerer, and illegal possessor of a firearm going to jail to be a bad thing.

    2. or something = shot dog

    3. Correct. The police were right to investigate and find out information. He could have been threatening his girlfriend to get her to tell the cops that everything is okay, else he might do something bad to her.

      But pulling out their guns was unnecessary if they were not threatened with a weapon. Then the officer shooting the other officer in the back, though unintentionally, sounds like criminal negligence… at least if you were a normal citizen.

      1. Guy has been reported carrying a weapon + stands behind door + refuses to show hands = he’s armed

        1. I agree. I think the cops were right in this case. Not all cops, or the action that they take, is bad. What I am interested however is if the shots were fired intentionally or if it was poor trigger discipline.

        2. Dude was asking for a killing, if only cop #1 didn’t step in the way.

          /dunphy

  4. Related: the Fourth Amendment.

    Related: Probable cause

    Krayewski’s so-called “key detail” is not key at all. If you call 911 to report an armed man walking around your house in a threatening manner, the cops are going to investigate until they’re satisfied that the threat has ended. Anyone with half a brain and no anti-cop agenda would understand WHY the cops would insist on talking to the person who made the original 911 call, but one or both of those criteria obviously doesn’t apply to Ed K.

    1. Uh oh, Tulpy-Poo is getting agitated. Authority is being questioned! How dare you!

      TULPAFELLATOR 3000 ENTERING HIGH DUDGEON MODE *BEEP* *BOOP*

        1. What the fuck does that have to do with what I said?

          1. Apparently in Epi’s world, correctly analyzing a situation can still count as fellating authority, while misreading/misrepresenting the same situation is righteously standing up for freedom.

            1. Apparently in Tulpa’s world, immediately running to the defense of authority figures every fucking time isn’t an indication of being a bootlicking authority fetishist.

              1. More lies. I expect nothing else from you, Epi.

                1. More self-unawareness about your own inevitable, unrelenting automatic defense of all authority. I expect nothing else from you, Tulpy-Poo.

                  1. This thread is several times more interesting than the article was.

                    1. Cripple fight !!!

                      /Cartman

          2. Stop being so pednatic!

      1. Stand down Epi. He might be an automatic authority fellator, but this time he’s right. Once you call the cops in a situation like this they are going to insist on talking to everyone in the house, no matter what it takes. They have to make sure that she wasn’t forced to call back and say everything is ok. And they should. It’s another lesson on why you don’t call the cops unless you really want someone to go to jail and you’re willing to take the risk that you might be that someone.

    2. If you call 911 to report an armed man walking around your house…

      Whose house?

      Anyway, unless I read it wrong, at least they’re not charging him with the shooting of the police officer.

      1. If the cop had died he’d be charged with felony homicide.

        1. Do jurisdictions still have fourth-degree homicide, so you can be charged if a fatass cop has a heart attack while chasing you?

          1. Yes, at least here in OKC. A year or two ago, someone was evading police on a stolen motorcycle and one of the police got into a fatal auto accident. They charged the perp with murder, not sure of the degree. I don’t know if the charge stuck or not but that was the charge.

            “He forced the idiot to kill himself!”

            1. That’s felony murder, which is a separate offense from murder.

              1. And it’s total bullshit.

        2. If the cop had died he’d be charged with felony homicide.

          Depends on the state statutes, etc., but probably not. Felony homicide generally attaches only in connection with a handful of crimes (rape, arson, etc.)

    3. What part of talking to a person involves “backup position” and firing bullets? The cops had every right to knock on the door and hang around until Lijewski let them in. They didn’t have the right to escalate the situation at their discretion.

      1. He attempted to close the door on them, so merely hanging around and watching wasn’t an option.

        They absolutely have the duty to force entry if Lijewski doesn’t let them in in that situation.

        1. Maybe, but you don’t do that by firing a gun toward the woman and child that you are supposedly there to protect.

          1. Bonus points for identifying where I defended the rear cop’s decision to shoot.

        2. And forcing entry involves discharging your weapon blindly into a home that you know contains an innocent woman and child?

        3. Closing the door doesn’t make the situation any different from what it was before he answered it. So, you’d have to defend them even if they’d started shooting as soon as he answered.

          1. Bull. His behavior in refusing to show his hands indicated he was still armed. And I never defended the decision to shoot, only to force entry.

    4. the cops would insist on talking to the person who made the original 911 call

      Which they could have done when she called back.

      1. Which they could have done when she called back.

        With a shotgun to her head, for all they knew. Seriously robc, you’re smarter than this.

        1. If, after talking to, they felt she was under duress, then show up.

          I dont have a problem with that.

          BUT TAKE THE FUCKING CALL!

      2. No way to know if she’s under duress unless they talk to her in person. If she can’t deal with that fact, then she shouldn’t have called them in the first place.

        1. That is what I said, somewhere below, transfer the call from 911 dispatch to the cops, and let them use their professional judgement.

          1. That’s fucking asinine. Are there any other ways you wish to endanger public safety for the sake of your precious ideology?

            1. What is asinine? If nothing else, it seems to be good procedure so the cops are fucking up to date on the situation before the get there.

              We have call transfer technology, getting the “victim” in direct touch with the police is just plain smart.

        2. However, by “in person” I dont necessarily mean face to face. They may or may not be able to get a reading via the phone.

          1. You know they’re going to have to insist on a face-to-face just to cover their own asses if nothing else. Nobody wants to be the guy who walked away from a woman in distress because she sounded OK over the phone.

            1. They can sit out on the porch until she comes out to talk to them face-to-face (or the warrant arrives).

              1. Or they hear gunshots from inside the house.

                All amendments were followed, no liberties were harmed, robc is happy. Never mind the dead people.

  5. You can’t expect them to just put their boners away unused, Shirley.

  6. What’s with this “patrol rifle” shit? The government goons carry “personal defense weapons” and “patrol rifles”, no wonder they are “outgunned” by civilians armed with hip-spraying “assault rifles” and “street sweepers”. Those cops need some barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs and “hi-capacity assault magazines” to even things up.

    1. Fortunately every problem has a solution. And even more fortunately the solution to every problem is the same: domestic armed drones.

    2. It’s all about wording, as you point out. On man’s personal defensive weapon is another’s assault bullet hose. So few people understand this.

    3. I noticed that too. “Patrol rifle?” Is that anything like, I don’t know, an AR-15? What the fuck? Cops get “patrol rifles” and “personal defense weapons”, but a civilian in possesion of the exact same makes and models of firearms is a menace, armed to the teeth with hyper-deadly “assault weapons” and “handguns” that might be used in a mass shooting someday. Especially if the civilian enjoys “ultra realistic” shooter games like Halo and Call of Duty: Black Ops.

      What the fuck ever.

      1. This escalating urban arms race will lead to tactical nukes in every neighborhood! What are you? A madman?!

  7. Lijewski answered the door but refused orders to show both hands.

    He BEGGED them to shoot. And, as we all know, everything which happened after the cops arrived is his fault and no one else’s.

  8. Baldwin police Baldwin police Chief Michael Scott said doctors anticipate Miller will be hospitalized for another three weeks and may require physical therapy. Police have not revealed the identity of the second officer.

    Scott said police filed charges against Lijewski because “there was a level of violence that went on in the home before police arrived.”

    Lijewski ripped the phone off the wall when his girlfriend called 911, punched holes in the bathroom door and had almost broken through a bedroom door where the girlfriend was hiding with two children, Scott said.

    Asking to speak to the woman is perfectly appropriate, bashing in the door to do so, not really. Why not just say, “Let the woman come outside and speak with us so we can get this cleared up.” Forcing your way in only serves to escalate the situation. Luckily it was an officer shot and not the child or the woman.

  9. OK, how’s this for a scenario?

    Woman calls 911 about man with shotgun outside. Man hears 911 call, enters house, places shotgun against woman’s head and tells her to call 911 back to cancel the police visit. She does so, and the operator cancels the visit, the police go back to the station, and the man kills the woman and their child.

    Krayewski rolls out of bed the next morning and writes a blog post about the incompetence of the police in this case. So it’s a win-win for someone at least.

    1. Tulpa’s cancelled 911 call decision tree:

      1. Go back to the station.
      2. Shoot someone.

    2. Ah, more made-up scenarios that are utterly different than what actually happened!

      What if monkeys flew out of the cops’ butts when they arrived on the scene and tok away the dude with the gun to the Wicked Witch of the West?

      What then, Tulip?

    3. How about when she calls back, they transfer the call to the police, so the policeman can make that decision by talking to her, as you said above is necessary.

  10. All personality conflicts here aside, it’s hard to fault police officers who have been called in on a domestic dispute involving firearms for being very cautious. Evidently, they need to point their caution in safer directions, however.

    1. There’s nothing cautious about attempting to force entry and shooting your partner in the back.

      “Caution” in my world would be much more like letting the dude close he door and continue talking to him and NOT shooting your partner.

      But that’s just me…

      1. Shooting his partner in the back was independent of the insistence on talking to the woman. Do we know how many times they asked to talk to the woman before the guy tried to shut the door on them? Do we know if the guy said anything damning as he tried to shut the door on them? You really can’t blame them for forcing their way in when they thought the woman was in danger. You can, obviously blame the one idiot for shooting the other idiot in the back.

    2. Cautious != escallating the situation

      Realitstically the guy probably should have been arrested and the cops definitely should have insisted on speaking with the woman in the case and ensuring everything was ok with her but the cops had absolutely no business having firearms drawn in that situation and as a result they should be facing charges as well.

      1. the cops had absolutely no business having firearms drawn in that situation

        When responding to a call about an armed man, who proceeds to refuse to show his hands and hides behind a door?

      2. &ng; = &-n-g (no spaces no dashes)

        1. derp

          ? = &-n-e (no spaces no dashes)

  11. Police responded even after a woman called back to say Lijewski had unloaded the weapon and police were no longer needed.

    Uhh yeah, doesn’t work like that. ONce you call 911 and say there’s a crazed man in your living room with a shotgun, they’re going to respond. You can’t call back and say, “Just kidding!” because the presumption is that he put the shotgun to your head, told you to call back, act natural, and tell them everything was fine.

    I don’t fault the cops for showing up.

    I do fault the cops for not knowing how to operate a firearm.

    1. Agreed on all counts.

      1. You just said that the guy should have been allowed to close the door above.

        Having the cops there doesn’t do much good if they have to patiently wait outside until his attitude changes or they hear gunshots from inside.

        1. Or the warrant arrives from the courthouse.

  12. “Police have not revealed the identity of the second officer.”

    Well duh! Premature ejection of spent rounds is sooo embarrassing. He needs his private time.

  13. Women should call the cops less when it comes to their abusive boyfriends and husbands. Keep the cops out of it ladies.

    1. I don’t entirely disagree with the general premise that sometimes cops are called when the last thing you need is more adrenaline fueled armed thugs showing up to the scene. Not exactly a recipe for “de-escalation” of the situation, however in this case I can’t entirely blame her:

      Lijewski ripped the phone off the wall when his girlfriend called 911, punched holes in the bathroom door and had almost broken through a bedroom door where the girlfriend was hiding with two children

      And he had a loaded shotgun at the time. It’s entirely justifiable that she though he intended to kill her.

      Her mistake was in calling back to cancel the 911 call, because, as others have pointed out, the assumption on the part of the cops is going to be that the dude with the gun forced her to call back. So now, in their minds, it’s gone from domestic violence incident to potential hostage situation.

  14. Plainly the best course of action would have been to withdraw to a safe distance and call in air support.

  15. I see this as the feel-good story of the week.

    1. I’d agree if it was the cop of the year who’d done the shooting.

      1. We all know what it takes to be cop of the year. It’s the exact opposite of what it should take to be cop of the year.

  16. Krayewski, it’s your fault this thread got so Tulpical. You should have known what would happen.

  17. I would think getting shot twice in the lower back at close range with a 5.56mm rifle round (what I hear when “patrol rifle” is said) would be a barely survivable event, and would almost certainly be permanently debilitating.

    1. and would almost certainly be permanently debilitating.

      Officer shot-in-the-back probably asked his partner to do it, so he could retire early with 100% disability.

      Weren’t they telling that one cop to throw himself down the stairs for exactly the same reason in The Wire?

  18. Bad: Two shots were fired. One negligent discharge is very bad. Two? That’s . . . wow. Just wow.

    Good: For some reason, the sound of a gunshot did not cause all the other cops in the area to perform multiple mag dumps into the dwelling.

    1. You mean into dwellings that looked vaguely similar to his, don’t you? Or is it just LAPD that does that?

    2. Maybe the cop had it on burst.

      1. Maybe the cop had it on burst.

        Not sure that would help, actually, given that he had the damn thing pointed at a house with women and children in it.

        But, he didn’t. Burst fire is three shots. So he pulled the trigger twice.

        1. Maybe it jammed.

    3. It may not have been an ND. He may have been intentionally firing and the front cop moved into the path of fire.

      1. That’s an even worse scenario than an accidental firing. Intention firing means he meant to kill the guy behind the door even though there was no clear threat.

        1. I wouldn’t have a problem with shooting the guy in that situation, but the problem is you can’t see where the woman and child (or anyone else who might be in the house) are.

          1. You’re OK with cops shooting someone for shutting a door in their faces? That’s escalating things way too quickly. Shutting a door means you’re refusing to comply, it doesn’t mean you’re a threat. Are there any other acts of non-compliance that you feel warrant a murdering?

            1. You demonstrated you were a threat when a woman called 911 saying you were brandishing a shotgun and trying to break down the door.

              FFS, it’s like you didn’t read the facts of the case.

              1. Not necessarily. What if it was a false report, SWAT-ing style? Cops need to excercise ALL POSSIBLE RESTRAINT. Officer safety being a low priority. Anyone who thinks that a door shut in a face excuses shooting is either retarded or an abject piece of shit.

                1. You assume that they fired out of concern for their own safety. Which is not presented in the facts at all.

                  Please try to refrain from inventing things.

                  1. Then why did they fire, Randian? What was it about shutting the door that escalated this from a “no shoot” situation to a “kill this guy NOW” situation?

                    Based on the information provided above, the cops had no way of knowing if this guy had violent intentions. They were going on the word of one woman and whatever they could see through a crack in the front door. They had plenty of reason to force their way into the house, but firing shots was inexcusable based on the facts that we have seen.

          2. Of course you wouldn’t.

  19. The second officer fired two shots with his patrol rifle, striking Miller, 54, between the bottom of his bulletproof vest and his belt.

    I’m having a hard time picturing how exactly this happened. The gun obviously wouldn’t be up in a normal shooting position. It would have to held pointing downward or held at the hip. Which you’d think a trained police officer would know better than to have his finger on the trigger until actually ready to fire. So, why did Keystone Cop #2, apparently, have his finger on or near enough the trigger to cause him to accidentally fire? And not once, but twice?

    1. Not hard: Holding the barrel level but at hip height with your finger on the trigger. First cop stumbles or just stops short. Muzzle jams into his back, when the other cop pulls back on the gun he fires.

      Firing twice in that scenario is what baffles me. Maybe the barrel got caught on the first guys belt or chandelier’o gear?

      1. Could have been select fire. Or possibly some sort of bump fire scenario, especially since the office wasn’t expecting the gun to go off at all. A loose grip and just the right recoil could do it.

        1. I was reading the story sloopy put up. If the bullet entered under the vest, over the belt and his pelvis and hip were broken, then the gun was angled downward. Makes the stumble and fire even more likely, given that there must have been some piss poor trigger discipline involved.

          1. It sounds like he most likely had the stock of the gun up in his shoulder with the barrel pointing down at an angle so that he could quickly bring the gun up if he needed to fire, but I would have thought standard gun safety protocol (and common sense) would also dictate that his finger be resting on the side of the gun, not on the trigger, which is the only thing I can think of that would cause him to accidentally fire.

            Also, you’d think the gun would be pointed down and AWAY from the back of his fellow officer. Double wammy of piss poor firearms handling.

            1. And, of course, this makes the friendly fire scenario farcical. And no one of the cops–so desperate to cover their ass–said the guy pointed a weapon at them to justify shooting him in the first place.

              Unless Cop #2 was going to shoot him through the door, like that one poor bastard.

              1. like that one poor bastard.

                You mean this poor bastard? Well, fuck him!*

                */dunphy

                1. I’m still trying to figure out why the cops who murdered Andrew Lee Scott were justified in having their guns out and ready to fire due the dangerous environment they were in, while Andrew Lee Scott, who was in the exact same environment was not justified in having a fire arm.

                  1. because “fuck you, that’s why”.

                    hth.

                  2. Tarran: Something definitely changed over the last 2 decades. The “protect yourself” meme has overtaken “protect and serve” to the point that any hint of a firearm is a justification to start shooting.

                    For some reason police training does not involve the notion of the strategic retreat. When encountering a homeowner with a gun (Scott, Guerena, etc.) the manual says to kill the ‘perp’ with the gun. Even if you know he’s no threat (like an old man bringing a gun on his porch to scare off a bunch of drug dealers – errr… undercover cops). In all of those situations a simple retreat to cover would have resolved the situation without the need to fire any weapons.

                    With police killing 4 unarmed civilians* for every officer killed in this country you’d think there would be more outrage. (* a number that does not include police killing someone who was not a threat but happened to have a gun in his pants, or perhaps in the glove box).

                2. Why pick on Dunphy? He’s not even here and there are a half-dozen folks on the thread who think it is perfectly fine for the officers to shoot the guy through the door once he tried to close it in their faces.

                  I can’t even wrap my head around that logic. Several regular readers of Reason think that it is perfectly reasonable to start shooting in a potential domestic violence situation if the guy tries to close the door on the police. Holy crap.

  20. Given today’s laws, you really have to be stupid to call the cops to a domestic conflict. Unless there is someone breaking into your home meaning to do you harm (even then you better have a gun and be ready to defend yourself until they get there) or something has been stolen such that you need a police report to collect on your insurance, you really are stupid to ever call the cops about anything.

    1. Unless there is someone breaking into your home meaning to do you harm

      I guess I’d call the police after shooting the intruder since getting rid of the body would be a PITA.

      1. Yeah. When you shoot someone, you kind of need to file a police report and explain to the DA why you did it.

    2. As I mentioned above, I can’t entirely blame the woman for calling the cops. I mean, the dude had ripped a phone off the wall, punched a hole in a bathroom door, and almost broken down a bedroom door trying to get to her. Dude was on the warpath, and had a loaded shotgun. Of course, I also wouldn’t have blamed her if she had grabbed another gun and shot his ass either.

    3. This is only partially correct.

      Realistically calling the cops needs to be viewed like a gun.

      In a conflict you do not draw a gun unless you are fully prepared to use it. Similarly in a domestic disput you do not call the police unless you are fully prepared for someone (in 99% of cases the man) to go to jail

      1. True enough Rasillio. You pretty much better decide that the other person and maybe you are going to jail that day. All it takes is an allegation and you are both going to jail.

  21. OK, I took a while because I was trying to find other accounts of the story. Charging the guy is bullshit, but the cops were completely in the right here. All they knew was that a woman had called 911 to report what could be a very dangerous situation. The fact that she called back isn’t relevant, as she could have been under duress.

    Once the cops arrive and explain why they are there (in the case of a domestic dispute that the potential offender knew had been called in), they had every right to ensure that she was not under duress and that the situation had been resolved amicably between the two parties.

    I’m sorry, but that guy should have told the officer he was not allowing him into his house, but he would open the door so the woman inside could come and go as she pleased in order to speak to the police if she wanted to.

    Guy was an asshole and the cop had a right to see the door opened to ensure the safety of all other parties inside. That doesn’t allow entry, but it does allow free passage for anyone else. And what this guy was doing, in light of the 911 calls, sure would look like he was barring her exit as much as the cop’s entry.

    The charges, on the other hand, are out of line. I could see false imprisonment (if the woman testified to that) and assault of the officer (maybe even battery). The reckless endangerment should be reserved for cop #2 for not properly handling his firearm.

    1. Charging the guy is bullshit, but the cops were completely in the right here…until the second one shot the first one twice.

      FIFM

    2. When the bigorati lose sloopy you know they’re in trouble.

    3. The real issue here that no one thinks about is that “reckless endgangerment” and “endangering the welfare of a child” are bullshit charges which realistically should not exist because they have no concrete definition.

      I’m not saying that I don’t think this guy should have been let off scott free, I think he is pretty clearly guilty of Assault and perhaps some other things as well but reckless endangerment is one of those nice catchall charges that DA’s love so much because they can define pretty much any activity into it.

      1. Sometimes you need a catchall law.

        If what he was doing was legal, and the woman’s brother showed up and started beating the shit out of him, the brother could be charged with assault.

        1. But what he was doing was illegal, it meets the very definition of Assault, as he had a loaded weapon it is even Assault with a deadly weapon.

          Remember, for assault you need not touch the victim, merely give them reasonable expectation to believe that you are about to and that you have the means to carry it out.

          He tore a phone off the wall to prevent her from communicating with the police and attempted to break down a door to get to her, all while armed with a loaded weapon, this is a pretty clear cut case of assault with a deadly weapon.

          No need for a catchall law whatsoever

  22. By the way, did you see the baby pics yet, nicole? I ordered Banjos to send them to you yesterday, but just like a woman, she didn’t listen and posted them to the blog instead.

    1. I did, she’s beautiful! You guys are all cuter than a button.

      1. I dunno… that Ohio State shirt ruins it.

        1. And when she has just her two front teeth, she’ll look like a grown up Buckeye!

          So CUTE!

        2. At least is isn’t Michigan.

    2. Obviously Picture 7, wherein she is getting ready to slap down one of Tony’s ridiculous straw men, is the best, and Picture 11 is the worst, for obvious reasons.

    3. Did you start a mead for Reason yet? Now is the time. GET ER DUN!

    4. So when do you give her the tattoo that nicole ordered? That was the deal, right?

    5. She’s looking great sloop.

  23. I got to agree that the cops were justified in knocking on the door given the grave nature of the complaint of an armed man terrorizing a woman and her child.

    I know many cops are brutes and all, but they do have an obligation to take such calls seriously.

    1. At this point, given the cops’ muzzle discipline, it’s a miracle the kids weren’t shot.

  24. for the record (and according to my dept policy) after she called to cancel, the cops are still going to come when the call is of a nature of man with a weapon, etc.

    his trying to force the door against the cops didn’t help his case.

    i don’t know enough about the penal codes of the state this occurred in to say whether all the charges are justified or not. iow, could be overcharging, or might not be. i’d have to know the penal code to state dispositively.

    obviously, the cops could have had better firearms handling/procedures.

    btw, kind of ot, but on the subject of police force… we are seeing substantially less use of tasers in the last few months.

    i suspect mcpherson is trickling down, which is good. generally speaking, pre-mcpherson UOF policies regarding taser usage were TOO lax. iow, tasers were being justified by policy where they shouldn’t be. now, that IS changing, and mcpherson is a big part of that.

    scotus DID reinstate the officer’s QI in that case, but they upheld the case, which is what is important.

    i am predicting you will be hearing about fewer controversial taserings in the future, because cops are being reigned in in their taser usage. a good thing

    1. obviously, the cops could have had better firearms handling/procedures.

      That is why you are trained and that is why you are trained. In the military, where people are actually trained and held to standards, a single accidental discharge ends your career.

      Police with unions, it is just something they can work on in the future. And you wonder why no one on here respects cops.

      1. yawn. i am the first to say, as a firearms instructor, that firearms training is inadequate. great.

        with the budgets the way they are, that’s the training we get.

        since the vast majority of the public at large DOES respect cops (very much so, per polling data and my day to day experience), i can deal with the reasonoid disrespect, since it’s such a minority view.

        and this wasn’t an accidential (unintentional) discharge. it was what is referred to in the military as friendly fire. the cop was attempting to shoot the bad guy and the cop took a bullet. that’s sad, but in a tense, dynamic, rapidly moving scenario, it’s hardly PROOF of reckless or negligent firearms handling. it happens.

        1. You don’t need much training to know to keep your fucking finger off the trigger until you plan to use the weapon.

          1. As Ive said before, cops are trained, therefore they never* accidentally fire.

            They have modern weapons and have training, so every time a cop puts his finger on the trigger he is intending to fire it. There arent any accident shootings by cops. None.

            *I concede that there might be some scenario, but I cant think of one.

            1. Exactly. What happens is they panic and shoot someone.

        2. with the budgets the way they are, that’s the training we get.

          I would imagine the training budgets per officer would be adequate if the average cop’s salary were reduced a couple of grand a year. Or perhaps if their union contract-mandated OT were cut in half.

          Sorry, but I don’t believe people that make what a cop makes (too much, IMO) couldn’t invest a little money into their own training. I know I’ve personally invested in work related training to enhance my abilities. Of course, I don’t work for a monopoly either.

        3. the cop was attempting to shoot the bad guy and the cop took a bullet.

          You’re saying that the cop who accidentally shot his buddy was trying to kill the peasant for refusing to show his hands?

          That makes sense, as these days when a peasant refuses to obey a command, the king’s men are authorized to execute them on the spot.

        4. with the budgets the way they are, that’s the training we get.
          _______________

          Horseshit. Just shooting a couple boxes a week would be an improvement. Cops here shoot a string once a year. If they fail, they come back next week and retake it.

        5. “and this wasn’t an accidential (unintentional) discharge. it was what is referred to in the military as friendly fire. the cop was attempting to shoot the bad guy and the cop took a bullet. that’s sad, but in a tense, dynamic, rapidly moving scenario, it’s hardly PROOF of reckless or negligent firearms handling. it happens.

          Yeah actually it kind of is because there is absolutely nothing here that would even justify having guns drawn forget attempting to shoot the guy just because he tried to close the door, not to mention the complete idiocy of firing into a confined space without a clear shot at the target even if the shooting was justified

          1. there is absolutely nothing here that would even justify having guns drawn forget attempting to shoot the guy

            The peasant disobeyed a command from one of the king’s men. At that point deadly force is justified.

      2. I would agree here. This is like saying a school cafeteria cook who accidentally dropped rat poison in a vat of spaghetti sauce just needs retraining and a vacation.

    2. Oh, I doubt anybody here disputes that cops reign in tazer use.

      1. RC’z Law I believe?

  25. OK, how’s this for a scenario?

    Woman calls 911 about man with shotgun outside. Man hears 911 call, enters house, places shotgun against woman’s head and tells her to call 911 back to cancel the police visit. She does so, and the operator cancels the visit, the police go back to the station, and the man kills the woman and their child.

    The problem with using that as a scenario is that as far as I can tell, the house in question was THIS GUY’S HOUSE.

    Guess what? It’s not illegal for me to walk around my house with my shotgun. How the fucking am I supposed to get it into the house in the first place? Teleportation?

    That means that if you call the police and say, “Officer, officer, Fluffy is walking around his own house with a shotgun” the police should say, “Oh well.” They don’t have a crime to respond to.

    If it’s my house and I want to walk around it with a shotgun, if you don’t like it, fuck you, leave.

    1. That wasn’t the case. The other owner of the house said, “Officer Officer, there’s a man with a loaded shotgun kicking down my bathroom door where I’m hiding with my children”.

      The cops were absolutely correct in this case to show up.

      Again, their muzzle discipline needs more training (ha!) and did they really need “patrol rifles” is another.

      There is a theoretical conversation that I think we need to have about the ancillary charges which are now popular with DAs regarding the “anything bad that happens to the cop on the way to work during your incident is your fault”. Those have always bugged me as not being truly constitutuional.

    2. you are pissing in the wind on this Fluffy. For once Dunphy is right. The cops are going to respond to any 9-11 call just like fireman respond to any fire alarm. Because of the consequences of the one in then thousand case where they don’t and things go wrong are too great.

      The problem is not that they came. The problem is what they did when they got there.

      1. i love this for once shit

        i find it interesting that i almost always agree with prof. volokh and others at volokh.com on UOF as well as the prosecutor’s whose job it is to actually CHARGE UOF incidents, because we all rely on the same thing – case law and the constitution.

        what exactly is the problem with what the cops did when they got there. they tried to enter the house and were denied entry, so they pushed back.

        1. They didn’t have the right to enter the house. Just because I call 9-11 doesn’t vitiate the need for a search warrant. The moment that guy said “no go away”, his consent was revoked and the cops had no right to enter absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. And neither of those were present here. The mere fact that you were called, doesn’t give you the right to force your way into the house.

          1. im not even going to go beyond the second sentence, because you are stunningly wrong on the case law.

            i have made DOZENS of warrantless entries when people have said “go away” or didn’t answer, after a 911 call and all of them have been held up

            the case law is clear. in this case, there was exigency AND the community caretaking function

            the nature of the call CLEARLY justifies cop entry into the house. months ago, another poster made the same error (might have been sloopy) saying you at least need probable cause.

            no, you need exigency and reasonable suspicion or community caretaking function

            i love having some no-nothing try to school me about entering houses without warrants, when he knows jackshit and i have written scores of warrants, and done scores of warrantless entries LEGALLY

            here are some examples where cops can enter without a warrant. note that hot pursuit (although in some jurisdictions, limited to hot pursuit for more serious crimes) is anotehr way we can enter without a warrant

            http://www.caselaw4cops.net/se…..xigent.htm

            1. None of those cases apply here you half wit. They all involve cops actually seeing a crime taking place or real no kidding exigencies like life of limb. The community caretaker exception doesn’t mean every time someone calls 9-11 the cops are free to enter the house. I am sure that is what you have been told. But you were told that because they dumbed down the law so you could understand it figured that most people won’t sue even if the entry is technically illegal.

        2. Well, the decision to shoot was probably not justified assuming it wasn’t an ND.

          I’m totally OK with sticking the foot in the door or breaking it down if necessary, and find EK’s appeal to the fourth amendment risible.

          1. the decision to shoot was probably not justified

            “probably”?

            Seeing as he shot a fellow cop in the back, I think “absolutely positively” is more what you are looking for.

            I would say a good clean sight picture (You are looking over/through the sights at a legit target, etc.) is absolutely a prerequisite to a good decision to shoot.

    3. I would agree with you, Fluffy but that’s an apples to oranges comparison. She called 911 to say that he was brandishing a loaded gun and that he had tried to bust down a door to the room she was hiding in.

      I’ve not seen a case where the cops responded to a call of a person just holding a gun in their own house before. And trust me, if there was one I’d probably have located it by now.

    4. Yeah, but if your dingbat girl friend calls 9-11 and says you are threatening her with it, that is their business.

      The moral of this whole story is, don’t call the cops.

      1. lol.

      2. I disagree, John. She is entitled to have her liberty upheld. And in this case, it certainly seems like he was intent on depriving her that right.

        Cop #1 in the right. Cop #2 negligent (civilly and perhaps criminally). Woman in the right. Homeowner in the wrong for the most part.

        1. She has a right to call the cops. But I don’t see how the fact that she did gave the cops the right to enter the house without a warrant.

          1. because you don’t know case law

            http://www.caselaw4cops.net/se…..xigent.htm

            cops can enter based on community caretalking and/or exigency. it’s nice to see you are finally admitting what is obviously. you don’t “see” iow understand case law.

            i guess that those dozens of times i have entered against consent and without warrarnt and that ALL have been held up in court ARE ok.

            phew.

            1. You know case law is often wrong, correct?

              In fact, it gets overturned all the time.

            2. Yeah, but you don’t get to kill someone if they try to stop you by closing the door. That should be self-evident without having to cite case law.

          2. Ever heard of probable cause, John? Her 911 call is waaaaay beyond the necessary cause.

            1. Houses are not cars Tulpa. You need a warrant to enter a house. A cop as a general rule cannot enter on probable cause alone.

              Stop getting your criminal procedure from TV shows.

              1. A cop as a general rule cannot enter on probable cause alone.

                John… Given the fucked-out whore the 4th has been turned into, they are correct. Or correct in the sense that the police will get away with it every time.

                1. There is always an exception SF. But the law is still what it is.

                  1. Curious, John. If PC without a warrant is never enough to enter a house, why is this case even before the court?

                    Florida v. Jardines

                    Issue: Whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?

                    Plain English Issue: Whether police violated the Fourth Amendment by taking a dog that had been trained to smell for drugs to the door of a house where they suspected that marijuana was being grown.

                    1. That is called exigent circumstances. The exigent circumstances being the danger of destruction of evidence.

                      Congratulations Tulpa, You found a case that gives an exception to the rule I just told you.

                2. Correct in the sense of following current court decisions.

                  But as I think most of us here are aware, the courts are wrong on “interpreting” the constitution more often than they are right.

              2. Houses are not cars Tulpa. You need a warrant to enter a house. A cop as a general rule cannot enter on probable cause alone.

                Bullshit. The standard for PC to enter a home is higher than that for a car but not to the level where you always need a warrant. This situation absolutely meets that standard.

                1. The standard for PC to enter a home is higher than that for a car but not to the level where you always need a warrant

                  PC is PC you half wit. There is no higher or lower standard. You either have probable cause you don’t. And the rule is PC alone is not sufficient to enter a home. You have to have a warrant or there has to be exigent circumstances.

                  Again, stop getting your criminal law from Law and Order.

                  1. These certainly sounded like exigent circumstances to me.

          3. John you’re pushing too far, Sloopy’s analysis is correct.

            The Cops were entirely in the right to attempt to enter that house and speak with the woman and IMO the homeowner was guilty of assault at a minimum and therefore probably needed to be arrested, where the cops were wrong was in having firearms drawn before an immediate threat presented itself and then in either carelessly firing or intentionally firing without a clear line of site at a target who did not justify use of lethal force.

            Had they broken the door down and subdued the homeowner in this case I would say they did nothing wrong.

            1. The argument is that the women’s call created the exigent circumstances. I would argue that her calling back ended those. I think they had a right to ask the woman to come out or call and get a warrant. But I don’t think they had a right to just barge in.

              1. I would argue that her calling back ended those.

                Come on, John. Seriously?

              2. “her” calling back does not end exigent circumstances. You can’t even know if it is, in fact, the “her” who called in the emergency in the first place. What do you want them to do, run a voice analysis?

                I could just as easily have my teenage daughter call in as my wife to tell the police “nothing to see here! Move along now!”

                1. To barge into someone’s house? The cops can’t stand there and call in for a warrant? Why even have warrants then? Did they hear her screaming? Could they see him beating the shit out of her?

                  The problem is that both of your guys have been so conditioned into thinking that “they had a good reason” means they can enter that you have totally forgot how serious it is for cops to enter a home.

                  Sadly, you are in the majority on that. Tulpa, no doubt thanks to Hollywood, doesn’t even know there is ever a requirement for a warrant.

                  Sorry, I am not buying it. Unless they see her being assaulted, wait outside and call in for a warrant.

                  1. It’s cute that you continue to paint me as ignorant when you’re wrong about this situation.

                    Your argument is essentially that in some other situation where there are no exigent circumstances, they couldn’t have entered.

                    1. It’s cute that you continue to paint me as ignorant when you’re wrong about this situation.

                      Yeah. You have just said on this thread that not only do cops not as a general rule need a warrant to enter a home. But you made up for by claiming that the standard for PC is different for cars than it is for houses. But then proved your case by citing a case that gave an exception to the very rule you deny exists.

                      You are a regular Learned Hand there Tulpa.

                      Your argument is essentially that in some other situation where there are no exigent circumstances, they couldn’t have entered.

                      No. My argument is that there were not exigent circumstances here.

                    2. I disagree. The man was reported with a shotgun and having had previously engaged in violence that indicates DV. He refused to show his hands. We have no idea what the woman and child they saw for a few seconds looked like. Were they terrified? Did the guy say something that indicated he was going to kill them?

                      Facially, though, I can easily make a case for exigent circumstances, and you know it.

                    3. We have no idea what the woman and child they saw for a few seconds looked like. Were they terrified? Did the guy say something that indicated he was going to kill them?

                      Were they? I don’t know. But last I looked things such as this should be based on facts and circumstances not unknowns.

                      And back before we decided that exigent circumstances meant “the cops felt like going in” the term used to mean something. And what it meant was a real, articulated danger to life and limb. I don’t see it here. All see is a lot of speculation and fantasies about people being held hostage, none of which was true.

                    4. And what it meant was a real, articulated danger to life and limb.

                      Such as a 911 call about a boyfriend with a loaded gun breaking into your bedroom?

                    5. Such as a 911 call about a boyfriend with a loaded gun breaking into your bedroom?

                      Sure except that none of that was happening when the police arrived. The moment the guy opened the door and saw the woman standing there unharmed the case for there being exigent circumstances vanished.

                    6. Unless she was sobbing her face off or had blood on her or looked terrified.

                      Any proof on this point? Any at all?

                    7. And what it meant was a real, articulated danger to life and limb. I don’t see it here. All see is a lot of speculation and fantasies about people being held hostage, none of which was true.

                      Woah, what? you read the police reports now, did you?

                    8. Are those things true? Was she being held hostage? Did the guy mean her harm? If so, then maybe there were exigent circumstances. But it is my understanding none of those things were true and all this guy did was be rude to the police.

                    9. But it is my understanding none of those things were true and all this guy did was be rude to the police.

                      Oh really? And where in the article did you see that none of this was true?

                      My point of course being that you weren’t there and it is easy to see how exigent circumstances could have easily come into play.

                    10. Here

                      Police responded even after a woman called back to say Lijewski had unloaded the weapon and police were no longer needed.

                      She clearly wasn’t actually in any danger. Now, did the cops have reason to think she might be when they first got there? Sure. But they saw her standing there unharmed. That to me ended the case for barging in. But I am an absolutist on this stuff.

                    11. I am an absolutist on this stuff.

                      As a utilitarian I’m measuring the potential for harm from the cops entering the home and sorting things out (which is pretty much nil) vs. the potential for harm if they don’t. The fuckstick was ineligible to possess a firearm, which takes some doing in PA, which is presumably why he was not OK with letting the cops in.

                2. Especially if her boyfriend is the Terminator, or Data.

  26. I’m a little beat cop
    Short and stout
    Here is my firearm, here is my snout
    When I get all steamed up
    Hear me shout
    Draw my pistol and shoot it out

    1. Draw my pistol assault rifle and shoot it out

      Fixed.

      1. Patrol rifle. Only dangerous criminals and terrorist types have assault weapons.

  27. Almost forgot: Cop shoots another cop in th back, twice.

    AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED.

  28. even if the cops had near perfect firearms discipline, considering the # of shootings cops are involved in, you WILL have ‘friendly fire” incidents like this one. we are not PERFECT, and only perfect cops could completely prevent such occurrences. even special forces (like the seals) have had incidents where they have shot a teammate on a high dynamic incident.

    this was a dynamic incident, and a cop got shot. it is hardly proof positive or recklnessness or negligence, although that MAY be the case

    1. I fail to see how this is anything but a textbook definition of recklessness and negligence.

      1. No kidding. There are two fundamental gun safety violations on display, here, at a minimum:

        (1) The shooter had his rifle pointed at something he didn’t want to shoot (the other cop).

        (2) The shooter had his finger on the trigger when he didn’t need it there (when he had no justification or even a target for pulling the trigger).

        Negligence, certainly. Recklessness? Could be, could be.

        1. Unless the front cop moved into the path of fire.

          1. Seems unlikely with the geometry presented.

            However, Im not sure that precludes negligence.

            For example, one day on the golf course a friend of mine managed to hit me with a golf shot.

            In some part, I fucked up by moving “in the way”, but it was negligence on his part for “firing” with someone “downrange”. Considering the rate at which bullets travel, I think it unlikely the front cop moved into the path in any situation in which firing would have been safe.

            [btw, other than a bruise on my arm, I was fine]

            1. robc,
              I’ve been there on the golf course before, not fun.

              It seems to me like there are 2 possibilities for the weapon being fired:
              1.Cop#2 accidentally fired his weapon because his finger was on the trigger when it had no reason to be there. In this case, Cop#2 needs to be retrained at least.
              2.Cop#2 attempted to shoot the suspect through the door. In this case, Cop#2 is a COMPLETE RETARD (and should be fired) because he has no idea what’s downrange. Whoops, bullet missed the suspect and hit the woman or one of the children in the head.

              On a separate note, I think that having the “patrol rifle” with them was a bit overkill. If they were informed about the second call (which they should have been), they should suspect the the shotgun was unloaded. I am a firm believer in “hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.” I think that in this case their handguns would have been enough.

          2. Also, see link below. His foot got in the way?

            1. Could be fragmentation of the .223 round. But I don’t discount the possibility of ND, just its certainty.

              1. I cant imagine that if the back cop left a large enough theta for the shot to get thru that the front cop could close that distance between shot fired and it getting there.

                UNLESS, the cop was right in front of the other, in which case it still seems like a dangerous situation to be firing. Especially since they werent under immediately life-threatening situation.

          3. Unless the front cop moved into the path of fire.

            In which case the second cop “accidentally” shot his partner when he attempted to murder a man that was not a demonstratively imminent threat to the officers, the woman or the child.

            This was a horribly, horribly bad shoot. That can’t be denied. Hell, the cops weren’t even smart enough to say they “felt” like they were in imminent danger because they know the woman’s testimony would wreck theirs.

            Cop tries to murder man for contempt of cop. Shoots partner instead.

            Again, they had a right to speak to the woman (without entering the house), but unless the woman gave them reason to think she was in imminent danger, they had no reason to even think of entering the house or firing.

            1. Again, they had a right to speak to the woman (without entering the house)

              If they don’t enter the house they have no means of knowing whether she’s speaking under duress.

              1. Sure they do, when she comes out to the porch and talks to them, they know.

                1. So if she does not come out we can assume duress?

                  Sorry, but I could just as easily see this article going the other way. “Despite the fact the woman called with a panicked tone, officers sat around waiting for her to come out rather than risk their lives to save a member of the public in need of service. And, of course, he shot and killed her and her child”

              2. Sure they do. And notice I didn’t say they had an obligation to speak with her, or that they had the right to compel her to speak with them.

                They had a right to speak with her and she had a right to freely come or go out of the house. If the door was opened and they could see (but not enter) into the house to establish that she was safe, she could have told them all was well and to leave.

              3. If they don’t enter the house they have no means of knowing whether she’s speaking under duress.

                Right, so their default now becomes, “she must be under duress, so let’s shoot into a closed door even though we don’t know what/who is behind it.

                If that’s not negligent and reckless, then I’m the fucking King of Siam.

                1. The default is duress when you call 911 in obvious fucking duress!

                  1. So if the cops showed up with a SWAT team after a swatting call (where the caller sounded like they were under duress but it was a prank), you’d be OK with them just opening up on Tom fucking Cruise before they determined with their own eyes that someone was really under duress?

                    Cops have an obligation to determine that there is a real imminent threat. A phone call to 911 ten minutes earlier without corroboration hardly meets that requirement.

                    Seriously, what the fucking fuck?

                    1. Is Tom Cruise refusing to show his hands and refusing to let the officers in?

                      It’s not like they walked up to the door and started shooting as soon as he answered. They gave him ample opportunity to comply and demonstrate that the threat had ended.

                    2. Cops have an obligation to determine that there is a real imminent threat. A phone call to 911 ten minutes earlier without corroboration hardly meets that requirement.

                      And you have no idea whether they did so determine when they were at the door, do you?

                      No, of course you don’t.

                    3. And you have no idea whether they did so determine when they were at the door, do you?

                      No, of course you don’t.

                      If they had, they would have said so in their press release and would have charged the guy with charges related to that imminent threat. Battery, brandishing a weapon and a few other things immediately jump to mind. But he wasn’t charged with any of that which tells me the cops shot before determining whether or not there was in imminent threat.

                      And after all, shouldn’t it be up to them to prove that there was an imminent threat before they shoot at “civilians” instead of me having to prove that they didn’t prove it to make it a bad shoot? Jesus, since when did the burden of proof flip the other way?

                    4. Even if he didn’t have the weapon in hand, under the circumstances he has to assure the cops that he’s unarmed.

                2. I don’t agree with the shoot precisely because they didn’t know what was behind the door. The guy Lijewski had forfeited his life with his behavior but the woman and child (and other people in the house) had not.

                  The forced entry I’m OK with.

                  1. The guy Lijewski had forfeited his life with his behavior but the woman and child (and other people in the house) had not.

                    The only behavior the cops were able to corroborate was that he refused to open the door. If that means one’s life is forfeit to the state, then you can go and fuck yourself Tulpa because you are a despicable piece of shit.

                    1. Also refused to show his hands.

                    2. You’re a sick piece of shit that says this justifies a policeman shooting through a door not knowing what exactly is behind it. Seriously, we kid around a lot and all that, but you can go and fuck yourself if you think this gives a cop the right to shoot.

                    3. He just said it didn’t. He said it at 3:45. Did you bother to read it or are you too just emoting at this point?

                    4. Um, you may want to read his 3:45 post again. He said it was a bad shoot because they didn’t know what was potentially behind the door. Note that he also said this guy had forfeited his life with his behavior, which tells me that Tulpa was fine with the cops executing him based on what they had seen (which was merely not allowing them free entry into his house and failure to show his hands-which he only pointed out after I called him on his bloodlust).

                      Fuck him.

                    5. Alright, you just made all of that up.

                    6. Here’s his post broken down:

                      I don’t agree with the shoot precisely because they didn’t know what was behind the door.

                      He would be OK with the shoot if they know the woman and child were out of the line of fire.

                      The guy Lijewski had forfeited his life with his behavior but the woman and child (and other people in the house) had not.

                      He pretty plainly says this man forfeited his life by trying to close a door and by not showing his hands.

                      Now tell me, what exactly am I making up?

                    7. Um, he said the guy had forfeited his life. His only problem with the shoot was the woman and child.

                      What the fuck?

                    8. You’re just manufacturing emotion here. Look at this:

                      You’re a sick piece of shit that says this justifies a policeman shooting through a door not knowing what exactly is behind it.

                      And then a mere 14 minutes later, sloopy says:

                      He said it was a bad shoot because they didn’t know what was potentially behind the door.

                      I mean, was it a justified shoot or was it not, according to Tulpa? sloopy just attributed two exclusionary positions to Tulpa in the space of 14 minutes.

                    9. Big thumbs up for intellectual honesty here Randian. We don’t always see i2i but mad props.

                      To outline my position: they had the right to shoot the guy IF they knew there was not an innocent person in the path of fire. That’s not the case here.

      2. Actually it would make an excellent training example of “what not to do”.

        Funny, but I actually trained, a lot, on proper fire discipline, threat ID and building entry, before I was allowed to do such things. Guess the police don’t have time for such things…too busy.

    2. A “civilian” with a “friendly-fire incident” goes to jail.

      1. Exactly. He may be found not guilty, but there will be an arrest and an investigation and in most cases a trial.

    3. No one is perfect. The difference other people lose their jobs when they fuck up and get someone hurt. Cops, not so much.

    4. Except a SEAL that shoots one of his own in the back is no longer a SEAL about 10 seconds later. When can we expect the trigger happy piggy to lose his job? Standards and Consequences…how do they work again?

      1. Yeah, that claim was a bit risible. I saw two people pop off rounds at the front gate going into BAF – they got Article 15’d, even though it was in a clearing barrel. We had a guy all but cut in half by a .50 cal being worked on out on the flight line – the guy that didn’t check the weapon was loaded or not was charged with negligent homicde. This guy shoots someone in the back, and nothing happens…to him.

    5. even if the cops had near perfect firearms discipline, considering the # of shootings cops are involved in, you WILL have ‘friendly fire” incidents like this one

      And every single cop that has an ND or is involved in a friendly fire incident needs to be fired and/or charged. This is not a fucking war zone, and you ain’t soldiers. If you cannot positively ID your target you don’t get to fire. No excuses, troll. You’re on the public tit playing with other people’s lives. You don’t get to make easily avoidable mistakes.

  29. I still think the easiest solution for most of these problems is to ban cops from carrying firearms. And tasers.

    In most cases, obviously, in certain cases, we might want a team with actual firearms.

    But 99% percent of police work should be done weaponless.

    1. hahaha.

      1. What is wrong with that solution?

        Laugh all you want.

        1. The point of the firearm (like the shaved head and the dark glasses) is to intimidate peasants. Peasants are supposed to fear the king’s men. How else can there be order?

        2. The interesting thing is, in a lot of countries that’s basically how they do things. Patrol officers don’t carry guns, only the ones who are actually called upon to investigate actual crimes carry guns. Of course, in those countries cops are also generally referred to as “peace officers”, not “law enforcement officers”. Notice the difference in tone between the two terms.

          1. Curious, what is the status of civilian ownership of firearms in those countries?

            1. The current status, or the historical status?

              GB had unarmed police for centuries before they passed significant gun control.

              1. Right, the details of policing in 1700s are so relevant to 2013. I suppose we shouldn’t allow cops to drive cars or use radios, either.

                UK gun control begain with the Pistols Act of 1903 and became very oppressive with the 1920 Firearms Act, so you’ve got to go very far back.

          2. Of course, in those countries cops are also generally referred to as “peace officers”, not “law enforcement officers”. Notice the difference in tone between the two terms.

            Oh for fuck’s sake. The fucking “tone”? I can’t tell if you’re serious.

            1. The fucking “tone”? I can’t tell if you’re serious.

              Do you think the widespread shift from “citizen” to “civilian” has any significance?

              1. Do you think the widespread shift from “citizen” to “civilian” has any significance?

                “Civilian” is significantly more accurate.

            2. Especially since “peace” refers to the King’s peace, not the hippie kind.

              1. Right? What if they had called them the “Pleasure Police”? I bet that would be a lot better until you realized it was His Majesty’s Pleasure.

      2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

        But one thing is clear. When asked, [British] police officers say overwhelmingly that they wish to remain unarmed.

        A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been “in serious jeopardy” during the previous three years.

  30. entering house without a warrant some case law

    http://www.caselaw4cops.net/se…..xigent.htm

  31. Funny, when my dad taught me firearm safety when I was, like, EIGHT, it was a lesson that cost $0 and which I have never forgotten nor ever violated. I’ve never had an “accidental” discharge – cause as someone noted earlier, there’s no such thing. There’s negligence, or maaaaaaaaybe a defective firearm (i.e. also negligent – from either the mfg’er or the owner), or you dropped a loaded revolver that didn’t have a ocwboy load (oops – also negligent), etc…..but otherwise, guns don’t fire themselves. Period. So an “accidental” shooting doesn’t exist – it’s “negligent”.

    If I can remember that from the age of 8 till I’m 51, I don’t know why cops need any more training.

    Oh, it’s different for cops! Their job is stressful and…something! No, no it’s not. Keep your fucking finger off the trigger until you’re ready to kill something. If you can’t handle that, you’re NEGLIGENT and shouldn’t have the job. Fuck this asshole. Unfortunately, NOTHING ELSE eill HAPPEN to him.

    Fuck tha poe lease.

    1. It may not have been an ND. The front cop may have moved into the line of fire.

      1. So, what was he shooting at, and why?

        1. Presumably he was shooting at Lijewski, the guy who had been reported armed, refused to show his hands, and attempted to close the door in their faces.

          1. There really is nothing authority can do that doesn’t make you hard.

          2. That warrants multiple shots fired?

            I could have killed half of Iraq and a third of Afghanistan operating under rules that slack.

            I should hope to Almighty God we would get the same treatment here by our own cops as the care someone in a war zone is supposed to take before firing. Positive ID before you try to shoot someone, is that so hard? Especially in a room where you have seen a woman with a kid just moments before.

            1. I agree that the presence of innocents behind the door made the shoot not a good choice.

              1. How about the absence of any verified deadly threat? Shouldn’t that put a stay on that itchy trigger finger? Sure, they had reason to suspect he might be armed, but no good reason to suspect that he was about to start shooting at them.

                Holy crap, when did “I’m scared” become a justification for killing someone.

      2. Why would the other cop’s line of fire be at the level of the first cop’s lower back and at a downward trajectory such that the cop who gets shot suffers a broken pelvis and hip? I think it’s pretty safe to assume an ND in this case, based on the facts.

        Plus the first cop was attempting to force the door open, so I’m not sure how the cop in back would have even had a clear shot at the asshole on the other side of the door. And you’d think that “no clear shot” = “do not fire”.

        1. Well keep in mind this is all happening in a split second. The officers would not have been coordinating their movements. One guy used his shoulder to stop the door, the other his foot.

          1. Seems like a piss poor situation to be attempting a shot.

            1. Seems like a piss poor situation to be attempting a shot.

              Not if there are no consequences for your actions, it doesn’t.

            2. I agree with you, robc.

    2. ac?ci?den?tal Adjective /?aksi?dentl/

      Happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly

      So an “accidental” shooting doesn’t exist – it’s “negligent”.

      It cannot happen by chance or unexpectedly. But it could be unintentional, thereby falling under the definition of accidental.

      Regardless, preventable.

  32. It may not have been an ND.

    Almost impossible for it to not have been negligent. First, what was he shooting at (at waist level or below), and why was he shooting? What was the justification, and what was the target, and how clean was his sight picture?

    See, without an imminent threat, etc. there’s not justification for shooting. What was he shooting at? The guy who no longer had a loaded gun? Why? How clean was his sight picture as they struggled with the door, etc?

    Doesn’t add up.

    1. I am not sure it was a “negligent discharge” because negligence implies the lack of intent. To me a negligent discharge is my forgetting to take a round out of the chamber and and pulling the trigger to disassemble it not knowing it was loaded. There, I don’t intend to shoot the weapon but negligently do.

      That doesn’t seem to have happened here at all. The guy clearly intended to pull the trigger. The fact that he panicked doesn’t mean he didn’t at the moment intend to fire the weapon.

    2. I may go with “His partner needed shootin’ ” at this point. It has a good beat and you can dance to it.

  33. I’d be interested to see the nature of his ineligibility to possess firearms in PA is. This isn’t NY or CA we’re talking about.

  34. Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 2.25.13 @ 1:50PM
    Up to the point where the cop stupidly fired his gun into the other’s back, these cops were doing exactly what they should do in that situation

    Dunphy (the real one)| 2.25.13 @ 2:46PM
    even if the cops had near perfect firearms discipline, considering the # of shootings cops are involved in, you WILL have ‘friendly fire” incidents like this one.

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 2.25.13 @ 2:57PM
    It may not have been an ND. The front cop may have moved into the line of fire.

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 2.25.13 @ 3:16PM
    Presumably he was shooting at Lijewski, the guy who had been reported armed, refused to show his hands, and attempted to close the door in their faces.

    slurp slurp slurp

    1. Disagreeing with the circumstances is not automatically “fellating authority”.

      Come on. Aren’t we smarter than that?

      1. Tulpa didn’t say a word about friendly fire until dunphy came up with it out of fucking nowhere. He’s got confirmation bias blinders about a mile fucking wide and tells us he’s the only man that can see anything.

        1. It can be a stupid decision without being a negligent one on the part of the firer. I have had my own astronomical heartburn with Tulpa, but this is weak tea.

          1. We are arguing about two different things.

        2. Oh that’s your beef? You missed another post.

          Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 2.25.13 @ 2:47PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

          It may not have been an ND. He may have been intentionally firing and the front cop moved into the path of fire.

          Either I have lightning fingers or your point is hilariously invalid.

          1. Dunphy (the real one)| 2.25.13 @ 2:40PM

            and this wasn’t an accidential (unintentional) discharge. it was what is referred to in the military as friendly fire. the cop was attempting to shoot the bad guy and the cop took a bullet.

            slurp slurp slurp

            1. Gee, SF, you would think that Dunphy and I would exchange email addresses or IM names if we were going to go all JournoList on Reason. Yawn.

              1. slurp slurp slurp

                1. Keep your anarchy-fellating noises to yourself.

    2. Not sure what your point is, SF. Dunphy and I are different people.

    3. Try to close a door and get shot at doesn’t quite compute.

      If the guy had tried to point a weapon at someone, sure. But saying “he’s closing the door!” – BLAM BLAM, smacks of panic fire.

      1. What happens when he closes the door?

        1. You’re actually saying if someone closes the door on the police they are justified in shooting? That’s sick.

          1. Again, full context. IF the woman or child looked terrified and IF the man’s hands indicated he was still holding the shotgun and GIVEN that the woman had already called 911 in clear duress…

            There’s a lot of context dropping going on today.

            1. You can accuse us of “context dropping” or you can realize there is a lot of unjustified assumption going on from Tulpa. We see what path you’ve chosen.

              1. It’s not unjustified assumption; it’s awareness of possibilities. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. When you’ve got a 911 call about a threatening armed man busting through bedroom walls to get at his girlfriend, the worst is pretty damn bad.

                1. And if they had arrived at the scene to find that happening they’d have just cause to enter the house and use deadly force.

                2. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

                  Yeah, prepare for the worst. Cop #2 was prepared to act on the worst and did so even though that scenario hadn’t played out when they got there.

                  They saw the woman and child, and neither of them called out for immediate help or claimed to be there against their will. The shooting was bad, bad, bad.

                  I’ll reiterate: cop #1 was OK to try and open the door to communicate with the woman. Cop #2 had no right to execute the man (which you have said would have been okey-dokey as long as he could safely determine nobody else was at risk) for little more than contempt of cop.

            2. And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. Tulpa’s the one assuming all the things in your context example, and basically saying it’s OK for the cops to assume any extreme scenario and just open fire, as long as the woman and child aren’t clearly in the line of fire. In other words shoot first and ask questions never, as long as the danger to presumed “innocents” is reasonably remote.

              1. They did ask questions first, dumbass. They asked the guy to show his hands and asked to get in and speak to the woman who made the call.

  35. A bit old, but has interesting language in it.

    […]

    Brooks, 40, was “agitated” and refused to obey officers’ orders when they arrived to find him outside a home after responding to a report of a domestic dispute, according to police.

    […]

    Las Vegas police have a policy of not identifying the relationships of domestic dispute victims to suspects, Cassell said.

    […]

    —-

    So it isn’t about domestic violence anymore: now a “dispute” counts as a violation of law & it can have a victim.

  36. fwiw, i’d estimate on average i probably do about 1 warrantless (either against consent where the person refuses consent to enter, without consent, where there’s no answer, or against forcible resistance, where they hold the door closed, etc. or offer other physical resistance) a week.

    a small percentage are against physical resistance.

    the majority of warrantless entries are DV related, mental related (sends facebook message to friend saying he’s going to kill himself type stuff), dropped 911 (911 call and then refuses to open door upon cop arrival).

    on dropped 911, unless something is heard that creates exigency, we won’t force entry upon a no answer unless we know somebody is inside. classic example, pull up, and as we exit car, we see a light gets turned off inside or something. there was a case several years ago where we did not force entry in such a circ and it turned out to be a homicide . oops.

    on a dropped with no indication anybody is home we will not force entry.

    the other forced entry that’s reasonably common is medical (heart attack, etc.) . AID will usually call us to do the forced entry part. they are kind of wimpy like that.

    john is just stone cold wrong that a warrant is REQUIRED to enter a home against or without consent. from a patrol angle, the majority of consentless entries we make are without a warrant

    1. i’ve posted some links, but the fact that i’ve never had one suppressed in 20 yrs, is strong enough evidence for me, that i am abiding by the (stricter in WA) case law regarding warrantless entries.

      there is a split in federal circuit courts regarding warrantless entry under the community caretaking doctrine.

      perfect example of a warrantless entry was a case i had a ways back:

      neighbor calls saying woman is outside house, holding hammer and screaming at occupants. i respond. while enroute he says she has smashed a window. he says she walked around back and he has lost sight of her.

      i do a quick address check and learn that there is a history of DV’s at this residence and male occupant has a nocontact order against (former) female occupant, who was arrested for DV assault a few months back.
      i arrive, i see broken windows, and i hear muffled voices inside. i knock. no answer.

      door kick.

      find woman inside, still holding hammer and standing over man, cowering on floor. she drops it upon demand (and doesn’t get shot)

      ends up with a bunch of felony charges.

      no warrant, no consent.

      cool story

      1. another one was get call for loud party. when kid opens door, i can see juvenile (apparent) either passed out (or dead) on couch. lots of empty beer cans, etc.

        at that point, i advised him that he needed to either wake sleeping beauty up or permit me entry to check on him, since i was concerned for his welfare. (note that since he was an apparent juvenile i also have in loco parentis type concerns).

        kid flat out said nope, i needed a warrant. maybe it was john.

        i told him otherwise, asked him again, he refused, and i pushed past him. kid turned out to be passed out drunk. blood alcohol (at hospital) turned out to be over .25

        kid got charged with obstructing and furnishing. and yes, the entry held up.

        if you work patrol, in a busy district, entries of residence w/o a warrant are not at all uncommon.

        1. The kid actually tried to physically stop you from entering?

          Bad idea. I would totally have advised the kid to state that he does not consent to entry or search but to get out of the way so the cop isn’t physically obstructed, and try to have any charges thrown out in court on the basis of unlawful entry. But physically resisting, not a good idea.

          1. yea. he did a minor pushback on the door. i think he was emboldened by liquor and the cadre of his friends in the house. like he had to put up a show against the “man”.

            he was a bit more restrained in court.

            and of course pretrial, the defense attorney tried to get my entry suppressed, but the judge was having no part of it. in fact, he basically said words to the effect of if i had NOT forced entry, i would be shirking my responsibilities as a public servant.

            1. In that case though, you were physically able to see someone in a potentially bad way. The case at hand is totally different in that they saw the woman and child not under duress when they looked in the slightly-open door.

              I can actually see your entry standing up in court, but for anybody to use the above case as an example of a good shoot (if he had hit the “bad guy” instead of his partner, which you and Tulpa are trying to do), even though it could not be ascertained that the woman was in imminent danger (and it could be reasonably assumed that she was not based on her freedom inside the house when they saw her), just smacks of authority fellation.

              1. actually, as has been established, you have no idea what they saw in the woman’s face or the child’s demeanor.

                1. this is the problem with sloopy et al’s UOF analysis. besides the fact of not being current (or even having a cursory knowledge) of case law on use of force and specifically deadly force, they wilkl always assume the facts in the light least supportive of the police side. to make their case. iow, if it’s not specifically mentioned that police saw/did X, and police seeing doing Y makes the cop case weaker, that assumption will be made. there’s simply no way in reading many of these articles to KNOW if the shooting is justified or not. because the devil is in a myriad of details.

                  i’ve testified in a few death inquests. they really do flesh out all the details so the prosecutor can be fair in their assessment.

                2. Yeah, I’m just sure it slipped their mind to include any potentially-damning evidence of the guy’s actions or his “victims'” demeanor that would have made the shoot more justified.

                  They say the woman was OK but they wantd to talk to her. When the guy didn’t comply, one of them felt it was OK to execute him for contempt of cop. So does Tulpa and dunphy.

                  1. You can either dump all of that laden rhetoric or be written off. I am about fed up with this BS “execute”, “contempt of cop”, “bloodlust”. Just stop already.

        2. kid got charged with obstructing and furnishing. and yes, the entry held up.

          I’m sure his court-appointed attorney really pushed the issue, same as the court-appointed defense attorney that never brought up you illegally obtaining HIPAA-protected medical records.

          1. he didn’t have a court appointed attorney. he had rich daddy’s personal attorney.

            and you can wank all you want about those “illegally” obtained records, but i’ll take the determination of a court of law over your opinion.

            like i said, in the other post, the judge actually said he would have considered it a shirking of responsibility, if i did not force entry. the kid’s parents were also extremely grateful.

            the defense attorney was doing his job. he knew i had the law on my side, but he would shirking HIS duties if he didn’t give it a college try

            1. It is kind of a strange argument, to punish the police by throwing out evidence when what they did likely saved the other kid’s life.

              1. think about what an idiot the kid was. ALL he had to do was walk back to the couch and wake sleeping beauty up. he at least had a chance of the kid acting reasonably sober enough for it to not be an issue (*he* did not know the kid’s BAC).

                and if the kid was totally jacked up and the kid at the door cooperated, tehre was a good chance nobody would be charged and it would be dealt with as a “medical” or only the 19 yr old would be charged not the kid at the door.

                you are not helping to diminish penal liability by acting like he did.

                but that’s alcohol for you.

                1. Yeah, I think at first blush I was wrong in this case and you had a right to ensure the well-being of somebody you were clearly able to see in an unwell state.

                  I’ll repeat that your case is vastly different than the one in this story.

                  Of course you’ll disagree. You apparently thought it was OK to shoot at the “bad guy” behind the door.

                  1. no, i would not disagree
                    stop assuming shit

                    i have NO idea if it was ok to shoot or not. there is no way, based upon the tiny amount of facts to know whether it was.

                    that’s why i have not opined whether it was justified.

                    atfpapic, i have no opinion. as STATED or not stated.

                    because i don’t jump to cops being justified or not justified without sufficient info

                    that being said, i was offering my exampke in regards to warrantless entries (to refute john’s nonsense). it has nothing to do with the shooting aspect.

                    i appreciate your honesty though

                    1. Then why this: the cop was attempting to shoot the bad guy and the cop took a bullet. that’s sad

                      It sure sounds like you would have been fine with “The bad guy” being shot.

                      And I doubt I’m the only one here who read it that way.

                    2. but it doesn’t mean that.

                      i have little doubt what the cop was attempting – iow, his intent

                      and based on what the woman was claiming, he would appear to be a “bad guy”

                      in no universe does being a “bad guy” mean that it’s automatically justifiable to shoot.

                      just read what i write and don’t assume. i know i have the (ridiculous) rep as a cop apologist. that is based partly in people assuming stuff. like you did here. i never said the shoot was justified. but plenty of people would just assume that, unless i explicitly state “I HAVE NO IDEA IF THIS WAS JUSTIFIED”

                      which is retarded

                    3. I’ll make one last comment and leeave it at that: you’ve earned the reputation you have. And if that means you need to say whether or not you think a shooting is justified, so be it. FWIW, I think you should state loud and clear whether or not you think the shoot was justified. It’ll go a long way toward solidifying your reputation on here or dispelling it to a certain degree.

                      We all know how you have roundly supported many shoots in the past that we overwhelmingly called bad. The Andrew Scott shooting immediately comes to mind. (You may want to take a second look at what you said in that thread. It’s just disgusting to many of us, especially in light of the photographic evidence and the outrageousness of the cops’ story)

                      I’m sorry if this offends you, but you have to live with the reputation you’re rightly earned. So do I and so does every other poster here.

                    4. i am glad i have the reputation i have, because anybody who comes here and comments intelligently on UOF based on ACTUAL case and constitutional law will get that reputation

                      i don’t get that reputation at volokh.com. why? because people there actually KNOW THE LAW. and when shit is justified or when it isn’t.

                      iow, i have to consider the source. if a bunch of concrete commandos, posting anonymously, and filled with people who exhort me to die in a fire, think i am a cop apologist, bla bla bla. that doesn’t reflect upon me negatively.

                      if i had that same reputation from

                      1) the court system (my searches, seizures, interrogations, use of force etc. are consistently upheld)

                      2) my dept (only cited for valor, not for excessive force)

                      etc. then i’d be concerned.

                      lastly, when it comes to UOF analysis., my analysis is almost always the same (not always though) as the actual people that matter – the prosecutors and review boards.

                      why is that?

                      whereas the reasonoids are very rarely in agreement on the controversial cases.

                      iow, i consider my bedfellows. would i rather be agreeing with nationally renowned legal experts (e.g. orin kerr, eugene volokh), district attorneys, and people with the bona fides to show they are knowledgeable, or anonymous bigoted trolls?

                      the answer is obvious.

                    5. I don’t spend any time at Volokh, so I can’t attest to your claim that you’re super-respected, nay revered, there. But either way, you can hide behind the mask of “case law” and “departmental policies” all you want. That doesn’t make your positions either moral or just to a person valuing individual liberty.

                      And you do know that your refusal to even say where you work diminishes your credibility, don’t you? Especially coupled with the fact that several departments in the Seattle area have been the subject of scathing reviews by the DoJ when it comes to UOF complaints, departmental coverups and outright criminality being swept under the rug of “internal investigations” and union-run civilian review boards.

                      You base your opinions in how far your kind have been able to stretch the bounds of the law. I base mine on morality and respect for others’ rights. Rarely do the two coincide, and for that I am happy.

                      If you would ever offer anything to corroborate your outlandish claims, you might be better received here. Also, if you didn’t mock or ridicule those killed by overzealous policemen or gloss over criminality by officers by faulting their training or ignorance of the law as opposed to their own negligence then you would certainly be more respected.

                      By the way, “Case Law” and “departmental policy” are just happy ways to say “just following orders” when they conflict with any reasonable moral stand against evil. Good luck with that.

                    6. And you do know that your refusal to even say where you work diminishes your credibility, don’t you?

                      Probably the same reason almost all of us don’t use our real names or give out personal details of that sort. Fear of retaliation.

                    7. especially in light of the photographic evidence and the outrageousness of the cops’ story

                      LOL. You mean the photographs of the door the next day (which are heavily open to interpretation), not photographs of the incident as it occurred. No, not dishonest at all.

                      As for outrageousness, well that’s in the eye of the beholder. It seems plausible that a mall ninja moron would draw a gun on someone when opening the door at 2AM or whatever time it was. He probably didn’t know it was cops, but you shouldn’t do that to ANYONE.

                    8. Cause the photos were totally altered?

                    9. Yeah, I mean the photos of the crime scene post-shooting that totally contradicted the pertinent details of the police narrative.

                      The entry angle coupled with the architecture of the building make the cops’ story physically impossible on more than one point. For some reason you can’t get your head around the fact that he could not have even had the door opened and been visible at the same time as the shooting took place based on the angle of entry of the bullets and where he would have had to be standing to get shot.

                      Also, the cops said he “swung the door open and leveled a gun at them, causing them to draw and open fire.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t hold up, as he would have had to have been at least 36″ inside the door swing to have done so, and that space did not exist to the right (looking in) of the door.

                      As one that spent a great deal of time selling entry doors and reviewing architecture for new construction, I can tell you the claim is an absurdity.

                      Oh, and he would have had to have opened the door with his left hand and swung the door in front of and across his body before he could have brought the gun up with his right. If held in his left, he would have been even further inside the house when the door were opened, making their story even more ridiculous.

                      Post-incident physical evidence is important to verifying accounts of what happened. The evidence here is in total contradiction with the police account…and so was that of the nearest witness.

                    10. You don’t understand sloop, those photos are totally open to interpretation because they weren’t taken as the cops were shooting. Why are you such a cop hating bigot?

                      /sarc

                    11. Yeah, the guy swung the door open and they shot him.

                      It’s not in this story (I should have saved the one where it was), but the plan of the apartment shows a 3 ft deep wall adjacent to the door right behind where the house number is. Look at the angle of entry. The victim of that shooting would have to have been behind a door that was either closed or open less than 6 inches for him to have even fit where the bullets went. Anything else is a physical impossibility.

                      Now, look at the cops’ story. They said he swung the door open and leveled the gun at them. How the fuck could he have done this in such a confined space? And how could he have gotten the door closed and then moved back into that confined space for the cops bullets to be able to strike him?

                      Sorry, but the physical evidence just totally contradicts the claims of the officers here.

                    12. Also, the cops changed their story, initially claiming that he “held a gun” and then saying: ‘When the person came to the door, the door was flung open and the occupant in that apartment pointed a gun at the deputy’s face … At that point, the deputy took the action he took, obviously he was in fear for his life, and at that point he shot Mr. Scott,’ Herrell said.”

                      That’s the police spokesman, by the way. And his co-workers that investigated didn’t seem to worry about the contradiction in the testimony. I’m sure contradictions like that are treated the same way when a civilian makes them, right?

                      That case was disgusting on so many fronts. Tulpa and dunphy’s support of the police claims in the face of overwhelming contradictory physical evidence is nearly as bad.

                    13. “photographic evidence” usually means photographs of the actual crime. The door is just evidence.

                      Just like if a cop claimed to have “video evidence” of his innocence, which turned out to be a video of the cop telling his story of what happened, you’d cry foul, despite the fact it was video and was evidence.

                    14. “photographic evidence” usually means photographs of the actual crime. The door is just evidence.

                      Now you’re just being obtuse. The photo of the door is evidence of the crime scene that contradicts the story the cops gave. It’s photographic and it’s evidence, hence “photographic evidence”.

                      You’re arguing this because you know the substance of the police claims doesn’t hold up to scrutiny when placed against the photo of the crime scene, the architecture of the apartment and the dynamics of entry doors as they relate to where one must stand to open them relative to their body size.

                      If you want to argue that the cops’ story is plausible, I’d like to hear that argument. Please explain how:
                      1. the guy could have flung the door open, raised a gun, flung the door closed and then been shot all in that tiny space between the edge of the door swing and the interior wall.
                      2. only one cop felt the need to fire.
                      3. the witness inside said he did not raise his gun at all.
                      4. the cops changed their story and that was acceptable to the FDLE.
                      5. the victim could not have even fit into the place where he was show with the door opened because his body is wider than the space between the door and the edge of the swing radius.

          2. Dunphy didn’t do anything illegal in the pharmacy case, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time when someone else did something illegal.

            Maybe the attorney should have focused on suing the pharmacy.

            1. Dunphy didn’t do anything illegal in the pharmacy case,

              Depends on whether conspiring to violate someone’s federal privacy rights is actually, technically, illegal.

              1. conspiring to violate someone’s federal privacy rights

                So now government does give rights?

                HIPAA has jack shit to do with the constitutional right to privacy, which does not apply to information held by third parties.

                If you want to make a case that he was conspiring to have someone else violate federal law in general, go ahead. That’s going to be a tough case.

        3. Cool story, bro.

    2. On the dropped 911, do you investigate the outside of the house and look in windows, etc, to determine whether someone is home?

      1. I a cop come out on a dropped 911 one time. He knocked on the door, told us to put the weed somewhere too small for a body, and searched the apartment. The whole thing took about two minutes.

        1. Now that’s a cool story.

          1. that’s awesome. sounds like something a cop would say.

            whether it’s fair or not, attitude makes a BIG difference.

            some cops will always charge petty shit like a few buds. many other cops won’t (GENERALLY SPEAKING), but if it’s the kid who was holding the door shut and obstructing, they are not going to cut a break.

            it’s called discretion, and it may not be fair, but it’s the way the real world works.

            like with juveniles drinking at a house party, 19 yrs of age. if they are the ones refusing entry (when we obviously have PC and we try to reason with them), after we get the telephonic warrant – people be getting charged. contrast with if they allowed entry, maybe maybe not.

            i’ve mentioned this before, and it pisses people off, but the “law” is not impartial in this respect, when it comes to minor discretionary charges.

            1. We had already moved the pot to someone’s car, so it wasn’t really a concern.

              The fucked up thing is my friend just hung after dialing 911 because “they’ve got to search for bodies either way.” The fucker had accidentally called 911 before!

              1. well, it’s not entirely true what the kid thought.

                a LOT of 911 calls we get are a kid playing with the phone. if we get there and that seems to be the case, we aint searching the house. another example is people calling india. the international code is close enough so that they dial 911 by mistake.

                we certainly do not search every house for bodies on a 911 call. but it’s a lot more likely when it’s a dropped and people aren’t being forthcoming.

                people think this officer safety search the house thing is just an excuse to find shit, but it’s not. if you’ve ever been at a call where you are interviewing for 10 minutes and then some guy walks out you didn’t even know was there, well… it makes you think. if you ensure nobody else is present, you can scale down the alert level so to speak and just concentrate on interviewing, establishing rapport, getting the facts, etc.

                1. This was a 2 bedroom apartment with 3 closets. It was probably easier for him to just walk through rather than hear some dumbass stoner explanation from my friend.

      2. of course. we get a lot of welfare checks too.

        “elderly neighbor hasn’t been seen in 3 days. car in driveway. neighbor concerned”. i get there. 3 days of newspaper piled up on front stoop. uh oh.

        walk around, look in every window etc.

        before making determination.

        in the woman with hammer case, i did NOT go around to check the back, because it was too exigent, i could hear somebody inside, i knew she entered with a weapon (the hammer), and that it was likely the woman with a past history of assault, and “time was of the essence”.

        that wasn’t a dropped 911, but just contrasting.

        note that in a SEARCH situation, peering through curtains (walking up and putting face near window), is an illegal search without a warrant. in a dropped 911 call, where it’s a safety/caretaking issue, they are not. we will always check all windows, and a lot of time find a door or something unlocked, so we don’t have to FORCE entry.

        on a dropped 911 call, it would be poor patrol tactics, and imo would justify a corrective counseling memo, if you forced entry without first checking.

        the other thing you do is LISTEN. i’ve seen rookies just walk up to the door and knock. that’s dumb. you walk up and LISTEN first, because you can often hear very relevant shit, like some guy saying “shut up. if they don’t hear anybody they’ll go away, trust me” shit like that.

        1. You talk too much. I firmly believe you are no cop, but rather a wanna be bullshitter, and I think I can prove it. I’ve been copying and pasting your bullshit for some time. You are in charge of training, no you issue warrants, no you kick in doors, no you are the range master. You have shot, been shot, led charges and every kind of cop mayhem imaginable.
          I would ask you for just a little information. The specific department you are employed with. Your rank. Your years of service. The shift you work.
          With this meager information my sources will contact said department and find out if there has ever been any character, at any time, that has done all that you have done, in addition to getting 2 1/2 hour lunches and has total internet privileges.

          Deal??

          1. Two days.

            I understand your reluctance to answer.

  37. This is why trigger discpline and proper gun saftey needs to be drilled into cops to the point that it is automatic

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.