Police Abuse

Georgia Cops Shoot Resident, Kill His Dog After Responding to Wrong Home During 911 Call

Police insist they're taking responsibility, spokesman says "in light of everything going on in the country right now" cops were "double checking themselves."

|

WSBTV

Three officers in DeKalb County, Georgia, were responding to a 911 call about a possible burglar outside the last house on Boulderwoods Drive in Atlanta but entered the second house on the street, because, police say, it "matched the physical description of the house." They entered through a rear door they said was unlocked and ran into Chris McKinley, who had been watching a movie with his wife and 1-year-old child before entering another room with his dog. The cops shot McKinley, wounding him, and shot and killed his dog.

What's more, after using potentially deadly force, the police officers did not secure the crime scene they had created. McKinley stumbled outside, and ran into a neighbor who gave him first aid. She says McKinley kept repeating "Why did they shoot me? Why did they kill my dog?"

Police insist they're taking responsibility. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

"Are we perfect?" DeKalb director of public safety Cedric Alexander said. "Absolutely not. But when we find a mistake, we own it. We own the fact that we were at the wrong house. We didn't hide it. We didn't mismanage it. We were at the wrong location based on information that was given to us."

Pro-tip for Alexander: if you're blaming your mistake on what someone else told you, you can't say you're "owning" it. In fact, you're kind of disowning it.

The incident is at least the fourth questionable police shooting in DeKalb County in the last two years. None appeared to result in termination of employment for any police officer.

Alexander wasn't done with the excuses either. More:

Alexander defended officers in DeKalb and throughout the country, saying they "have a tough job."

"In light of everything going on in the country right now, anytime officers have to respond to a call, they're checking and double checking themselves," he said Tuesday. "A lot of the criticisms and mockeries they've sustained across the country and even locally is just unfair."

Perhaps the police officers who shot McKinley and killed his dog after entering the wrong home in response to a possible burglary called should've triple checked. Or, you know, just stopped for a second and thought about what they were doing. But if they're unlikely to face any consequences for their actions, legally, professionally, or otherwise, what incentive would they have to do it?

Police officers have been complaining recently that the national attention paid to police brutality and misconduct has made their job harder. The coverage isn't going anywhere, so perhaps police officers interested in improving their image should take a harder stance against police officers who make mistakes that end with innocent people seriously injured and, in other cases, killed.

h/t Matt W.

NEXT: Can employees in Mississippi sue if they're fired for having a gun in their parked cars?

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. “Police insist they’re taking responsibility, spokesman says “in light of everything going on in the country right now” cops were “double checking themselves.””

    Things could have been way worse if someone had tweeted something mean about cops around the same time the shooting happened. Imagine how catastrophic that would have been.

  2. “Are we perfect?” DeKalb director of public safety Cedric Alexander said. “Absolutely not. But when we find a mistake, we own it. We own the fact that we were at the wrong house. We didn’t hide it. We didn’t mismanage it. We were at the wrong location based on information that was given to us.”

    So all the cops involved will be fired and forced to pay restitution to Mr. McKinley out of their own pension/retirement funds?

    1. THE ONLY MISTAKE MADE WAS THE ADDRESS.

      The indiscriminate shooting was Standard Operating Procedure

      1. Their only fault is that they just care too much, damnit!

      2. Well they had to shoot first so they could ask questions later.

      3. No mistake was made. Its McKinley’s fault for choosing to live at his current address.

      4. Yes. Does this mean if it had been the right house that it would have been ok to shoot a bewildered unresisting suspect and his dog?

      5. Yes. Does this mean if it had been the right house that it would have been ok to shoot a bewildered unresisting suspect and his dog?

    2. “Are we perfect?”

      I saw something the other day referring to the “Nirvana Fallacy” (no connection to Kurt Cobain)

      It seemed to have 2 common uses

      – people who criticize things for “failure to achieve perfection”

      (*see, the Campus Rape Crisis people, who will blow statistics wildly out of proportion… then when called on their exaggerations, say, “ANY RAPE IS TOO MUCH RAPE”… because failure to achieve a Rape-less nirvana means we must endlessly DO MORE, no matter what the cost)

      – people who use the claim “nothing is perfect” to dismiss criticism of the *specific imperfections* they are guilty of.

      See – this cop. “some people were shot… these things happen. Its part of the job. Regrettable, but we should move on now”

  3. OT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw5xdx2ytL4

    This is hilarious. Outright con artist makes the shittiest cartoon in the universe, puts a trans actress in it, and then tries to manipulate SJWs into giving him money because the show is about trans issues. It’s so patronizing to transgendered people that I’d actually be insulted if I were one of them.

    1. I love it.

    2. Hey, that’s IA’s voice! He’s publishing again?

      1. Yup. That’s his new channel. He published a few hilarious videos last year, then he apparently got sick or something so he didn’t publish anything for like 5 months. He finally just came back to the new channel with some new content.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFm-F21s6Is

        His video on Ashley Madison is awesome too.

      2. Yeah. Since around May under his new MisterMetokur handle. He even had a new “tumblrisims” which was my favorite series when he was IA.

    3. Also, progressives are so obliviously patronizing to their political pet projects that I’m not certain anyone on the movement’s forefront is capable of recognizing when they’re being nakedly pandered to.

    4. Wow, yeah, that is transparent exploitation.

  4. “In light of everything going on in the country right now, anytime officers have to respond to a call, they’re checking and double checking themselves,” he said Tuesday. “A lot of the criticisms and mockeries they’ve sustained across the country and even locally is just unfair.”

    So you admit “in light of everything going on in the country right now” cops are “checking and double-checking themselves”, suggesting that heretofore cops were not checking and double-checking themselves, and yet you think a lot of the criticism and mockery is unfair? And the fact that you’ve been mocked and criticized to the point where you start checking and double-checking yourself and yet you still pull off crap like this would seem to suggest you aren’t being mocked and criticized nearly enough. Maybe you need mocked and criticized with a bigger stick.

    1. And really, all she’s saying (if we take them at her word) is that her officers are gun-wielding chimps even when they’re being cautious.

      1. The 323rd Light Armored Gun-Wielding Chimp Brigade demands an apology for the slur on their marksmanship and unit discipline.

      2. What would this look like if the police were NOT “checking and double checking”? Would they just run around the house shooting everybody? Or maybe anything in the neighborhood that moved?

  5. This Matt W must be one of Ed’s Journolist buddies

    1. Sounds like a clear cut case of professional courtesy to me.

  6. By “in light of what’s going on in the country right now”, they’re referring to the national trend of officers shooting unarmed innocent civilians and walking away with little more than a paid vacation and extra training pay?

    1. No. They are referring to the animosity that is created when people report on those stories. Those stories are supposed to remain secret. No one needs to know. It isn’t the actions of the police that cause people to lose trust in them; it’s the reporting of it.

      1. Reports of pigs being pigs makes people not like pigs.

        1. We want to be able to murder citizens with impunity.

        2. I see that Lizard is posting there.

      2. The British army in India was also really pissed at all the negative rhetoric and press attention that Ghandi caused them. It just made their job harder.

  7. Let me get this straight: the guy wasn’t armed at all, because if he had been, we’d have heard about it. Right? But… one of the cops was shot.

    So what happened? Two cops blunder into a dark room, hear/see a dog, one cop tries to shoot the dog, but instead shoots himself in the leg, and the other cop, caught up in the moment and the ruckus caused by the first cop, shoots the homeowner in the leg?

    Any better theories?

    1. I doubt the dog was shot on accident. It’s policy to kill dogs in the name of officer safety, but more to inflict emotional harm on the owner. Cruelty is their business, and business is good.

      1. The owner almost surely being the resident, because it’s extremely unlikely the burglar would’ve brought a dog along.

    2. The WaPo report sounds like the officers all opened fire on the brindled K-9 suspect and the homeowner and fellow hero officer were caught in the crossfire.

    3. “Let me get this straight: the guy wasn’t armed at all, because if he had been, we’d have heard about it. Right? But… one of the cops was shot.

      So what happened?”

      One of the cops was accidentally shot by one of the other cops. This is the biggest clusterfuck I’ve ever seen.

      1. I believe the homeowner owned weapons but when his TV was interrupted by a barking dog in broad daylight he probably figured it was just a squirrel, wino or early rising raccoon and not the start of a home invasion

        1. Where do you get that he even owned weapons? Even the cops are saying this was cop-on-cop violence.

          1. RTFA

            The wounded man’s dog, a brindle boxer, was large, playful and would run up to people. Gilman said the dog never attacked others. The wounded man’s home had been hit by previous break-ins, and the man told Gilman that he owned a shotgun and a handgun.

            Like I said below there are more “Ws” in the WaPo story I linked below, or above, or somewheres.

      2. No it isn’t. It’s pretty much a standard clusterfuck.

      3. Are we perfect? Absolutely not. Are we completely incompetent? Well, in this case, it certainly looks like it.

      4. This is the biggest clusterfuck I’ve ever seen.

        27+ years in the Army, 5 years in law enforcement….this hardly rates in the top 10%.

        1. Ah, but he didn’t see those ones. They used to be so much easier to sweep under the rug…

    4. That sounds plausible, but I have learned to hold off on the speculation. Reports, especially early ones are rarely accurate. Dealing with cops is dealing with a mixed bag. There are a lot of good cops out there and there are a lot of bad ones. I don’t like the mentality that has taken hold in the cop community in the last couple of decades but there are a lot who don’t buy it.

      I am gonna lean away from the cops on this one and here is why; I called the cops about someone breaking into the neighbor’s house one night. When the cops showed up they knocked on my door because I had called it in. They knocked and waited for me to answer. We said our polite hellos and introductions and then I explained what I had heard. They went to the house and discovered a broken window in the shed behind the house. They went to the neighbor’s front door and knocked. When the neighbor answered and found out why they were there he explained that he needed something from the shed but couldn’t find the key, so he broke into his own shed. I was called over to identify the neighbor. “Yeah, thats him. He lives here.”

      Cops shake hands all around and leave. Neighbor invites me in for a drink.

      No dogs were shot. No one died.

      We will see what comes out later but these guys shouldn’t have snuck in the house like that, and the shooting does sound like panic fire. Giving no details on how the whole thing went down inside the house looks very suspicious.

      1. The DeKalb County police know there’s no getting the shit back into the horse here.. They know that as soon as they try and bullshit their way out of this P.R. disaster, someone will turn up with a video detailing the events, and highlighting their egregious policy fuck-ups .. one by one.. They’re not coming clean out of a sense of responsibility, integrity, justice, or altruism.. they’re coming clean because they have nothing to fear.. Tell the partial truth, pay lip service to policy overhauls and enhanced training, weather the short shit-storm.. and nothing else will happen..

        The End.

  8. There is a lot more “facts” in this WaPo story

    Got more of those “Ws” and stuff that Ed learned about when he went to that NY trade skool with Anna Merlan. (I see the AJC story has some new Ws too)

    The WaPo story does incorrectly refer to the raid in which Kathryn Johnston was killed as “mistaken”.

    1. W?

      WTF are you on about

      1. The 5 ws

        Who What Why Where When and sometimes, redundantly H.

        There’s more “:whos” in the WaPo story. I’m just a layman so I don’t wanna step all over those expensive trade secrets they teach at Columbia.

    2. Thanks, SIV.

      DeKalb County police received a report of a possible burglary at a one-story residence near an intersection in southeast Atlanta. Lacking an exact address, the officers were sent in the dark to a neighborhood where many of the single-story homes look similar.

      In the dark, so the previous report of 7:30 PM was incorrect?

      How is it possible for someone to have suspicion of a possible burglary without knowing the exact address associated w that suspicion? What evidence of a burglary is not very narrowly location-dependent? What, like someone shouting in the vicinity, “Sure is good burglarizing this place, huh?” Or goods being wheeled out of a dead-end block in a wheelbarrow?

      1. +1 George Zimmerman

        1. Does he rove that far north?

      2. Maybe “in the dark” being the metaphoric dark of not knowing the address.

        1. Maybe “in the dark” being the metaphoric dark of not knowing the address dangerously stupid, without a fucking clue…

          ftfy..

      3. And if this was a 911 call, why didn’t they go to the address of the caller first to verify which house? 911 calls automatically log the address don’t they?

        And when they got to the house they thought was the one, why not knock on the front door first? So anytime a possible burglary call comes in, they automatically assume its true?

        I mean, do any police academies actually teach “police” work anymore? You know, INVESTIGATE first?

        1. Apparently it was a person on the street (mobile), albeit one who could’ve been met at home not far from there.

  9. “Are we perfect competent?” DeKalb director of public safety Cedric Alexander said. “Absolutely not. But when we find a mistake, we own it issue a handwaving press release praising ourselves with faint condemnation.”

    1. :^( Nobody’s Perfeckt..

  10. I posted this one earlier. Don’t know how it’s racist but it’s certainly bs. I think it was probably a fishing expedition especially given the Michigan plates.

    Dayton man pulled over for direct eye contact

    http://nbc4i.com/2015/08/31/da…..e-contact/

    1. “And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.”

      1. What’s that a quote from?

  11. I’m not going to go check but I’m sure that on copsucker boards they are already saying this innocent homeowner deserved it for some reason and when he sues, and he will, that he’s just looking for an easy payday at the expense of the taxpayers and how dare he sully the names of these fine LEOs!

  12. “Are we perfect?”

    I would say that you should not even be using “we” and “perfect” in the same sentence. Incompetent, yes. Trigger happy assholes, definitely. Negligent, absolutely. These fuckin’ guys.

  13. Ha. From the WaPo article:

    “”Early investigation indicates that the injured officer was likely shot accidentally by one of the other officers on the scene,” GBI officials said in a statement.”

    So an officer got shot accidentally by another officer when they were in the midst of shooting a dog and an innocent homeowner during a botched raid of the wrong house.

    1. I’m surprised they’re not trying to pin this on the victim. Perhaps if he was black or had paper on him they would have.

      1. I’d be kinda shocked if the victim isn’t black. Like real shocked. At least two of the 3 officers were black unless my racist senses are failing me.

        1. The picture is of a white guy.

          1. Good eye. All 3 cops are Black as are almost all of his neighbors. He’s near Gresham Park. I hope he got a really good deal on his house. I wouldn’t live there.

            1. That’s definitely an area on the future gentrification map though, right? I haven’t lived in ATL for a while, but East Atlanta had some pretty hip places to hang.

            2. I was the only white guy in my little apartment complex when I moved to that county in 2000. Lots of gunshots could be heard at night.

              Our corrupt sheriff had the sheriff-elect assassinated.

              Nobody’s perfect.

    2. Are all the cops named Barney?

    3. So an officer got shot accidentally by another officer when they were in the midst of shooting a dog and an innocent homeowner during a botched raid of the wrong house.

      Yet they’re concerned about the danger coming from tweets, and not each others’ incompetence.

      They truly are geniuses.

    4. Botched raid? It wasn’t even a raid, just investigation of suspicious behavior nearby. There was no suspicion that anybody who lived there was perpetrating anything.

      The dog gets shot because any dog running at police is taken as a threat to life & limb, because, you know, .001% of dogs are like that, and police are entitled to their own safety over that of anyone or anything in the vicinity. The resident & the other cop were shot because the other cops are holding their guns by their triggers, hear shooting, and start blasting away at nothing in particular.

  14. Stupid punk cop got what he deserved as far as I am concerned. Come busting into my house you will get the same thing! Period.

    Total-Privacy.tk

    1. Well that would sure end your total-privacy!

    2. The adbots are getting more and more clever….creepy.

      1. Who knew the Singularity would involve so many….ads?

  15. One of the most telling things about this incident, and others recently, is it exposes how utterly tone-deaf the police are. The world they inhabit is a completely different one from reality, because they have been told over and over, by themselves, their superiors, politicians, entertainment, and copsuckers that they are great. That everyone worships them and “appreciates their sacrifice”. That the deference people show them is out of respect and not fear.

    They are completely delusional. Completely. And this is just going to make this whole situation worse, because if they are delusional, they will be completely unable to realize what the actual problems are. They will react delusionally, not rationally, which we are already seeing with their pathetic whining about how the attitude out there is dangerous and shit. Yeah, it might be, geniuses, but you are coming to exactly the wrong conclusion as to why.

    And then, most of all, it is exposing quite clearly what utterly thin-skinned babies they are. Finally a little criticism and they have to bust into people’s houses with guns drawn because they think they’re in danger? It’s fucking amazing. Anyone else would be mocked mercilessly for such pathetic cowardice. Yet somehow, not the cops.

    1. The only solution to this shit, as far as I see it, is that there’s got to be far-stiffer penalties/disincentives for cops to open fire … on *anything*.

      Better to let a perp get away than shoot. Nothing short of “He was pointing a gun (verified) and I told him to drop it (verified)” is suitable. The alternative should be, at minimum, dismissal, and maximum – jail.

      Will this mean that cops are at greater risk? yes. Tough shit.

      With overall violent crime rates at 1/2 what they were in 1990… I just don’t see the reason to treat every crime like an opportunity to go SWAT every single change they can get

      I mean… this was “Burglary” they were looking into. Not a fucking psycho hostage situation with a man down. Its bullshit and they aren’t held accountable.

      1. It wasn’t even burglary. It was a fucking suspected, I-saw-someone-and-maybe-they’re-a-burglar 911 call. They went into a house–without checking–armed and ready to shoot over the mere possibility that there could be someone attempting to burgle. Think about that.

        Anyone who isn’t a fucking retarded psychopath could come to the realization that, oh, just maybe it wasn’t a burglary? So going in guns out might be fucking asinine?

        The government has spent the last 30 years hiring bloodthirsty mongoloids onto police forces in order to fill the ranks to prove to voters that the politicians are tough on crime. They specifically turn away people with above average intelligence.

        Well, this is what happens. And while increasing penalties would absolutely help, the tone-deaf psychopathic mongoloids and their unions will go fucking insane trying to stop even the slightest implementation of that. We don’t just have a class of King’s Men. We have class of King’s Men who have been specifically chosen for their stupidity, inhumanity, and aggression. It’s not a good thing.

        1. “The government has spent the last 30 years hiring bloodthirsty mongoloids onto police forces in order to fill the ranks to prove to voters that the politicians are tough on crime. They specifically turn away people with above average intelligence.’

          I’m not going to quibble about your “LOOK WHO TAKES THESE JOBS” theory. i’ll just say i think its a factor, but not the whole mess.

          I tend to believe institutional incentives/disincentives are the main ballgame in anything. And in the case of law enforcement, there’s a number of factors contributing to the militarization/over-use of force, most of which i think could be eliminated/attenuated without any actual change in the “Who” ends up doing the job.

          side note = NYC cops have something like the lowest rate of shootings per-engagement of any police force in the country. Its not exactly that, but its historically ridiculously low. The reasons are complex, but the simplest ones are 1) they patrol on foot, which isn’t normal for many police forces, and consequently develop some connection to the people in the place…. and secondly, the force has always treated discharging the weapon as a Big Fucking Deal that will get you canned if you get it wrong. At least that’s my rough understanding.

          1. I agree that the institutional incentives are a massive problem, it’s that they are compounded by the fact that other incentives–such as public perception and feedback–happen to be completely beyond the ken of the types of people who are hired for the job. There would be less problems with cops if the people who gravitated to and are hired for the position weren’t such fucking socially inept authority junkies who can’t read another person’s real attitude towards them to save their life.

            The institutional incentives are terrible. The fact that they are being applied to the particular people who end up in the job is even worse. It’s like pouring gasoline on a fire.

          2. 3) Choking

    2. If you had a tough job you’d understand.

      1. Tough job?!? I have to comment with you, don’t I? It’s like Office Space all up in here.

        1. Reason Accounts Payable, Fist of Etiquette speaking! Just a moment! Reason Accounts Payable, Fist of Etiquette speaking! Just a moment! Reason Accounts Payable, Fist of Etiquette speaking! Just a moment! Reason Accounts Payable, Fist of Etiquette speaking! Just a moment! Reason Accounts Payable…

        2. Hey Epi, man, check out Channel 9, it’s your mom!

          1. Speaking of Mike Judge, I actually just bingewatched season 2 of Silicon Valley the last two days. Damn I love that show.

            1. Beavis and Butthead nailed my childhood more exactly than any other show ever

              1. That was for Epi…

                /fuckin’ refresh…

    3. “…the deference people show them is out of respect and not fear.”

      A couple of days ago I gave an anecdote of concepts that stupid people (progressives) are unable to distinguish between. The example involved fear and respect. One commenter expressed near disbelief that anyone could be that stupid.

      Actually, it is pretty common.

    4. BTW Epi, that had the worst trigger of any ruger I have ever had. I took it and had a trigger job done on it (crisp 3lbs), shoot only cci mini-mags in LR but usually keep the mag cylinder in and it is a tack driver. Very nice. I love it.

      1. Yeah, I was never thrilled with that trigger but I never bothered to have it modded like I did for my 10/22. But it is damn accurate. Have you shot it with the .22 WinMag cylinder yet? Because that’s surprisingly fun.

        1. Yes I have. The bore is for the WinMag really. Shoots very nice. The bore is oversize for the LR ammo but the cci mini-mags blow the base of the bullet out enough to engage the rifling. Cheapo remingtons don’t and thus keyhole at 25 yard.

          Right ammo, right trigger job, I can hit beer cans at 100 yards.

          1. Nice. It also fires the super-quiet CB rounds from CCI without them getting stuck in the barrel, should you want to shoot more quietly.

      2. Single Six? Convertible Bearcat?

        1. Single Six.

          1. Heritage Rough Rider or go home.

            1. Those are the worst condoms ever

              1. But Teddy Roosevelt is wearing a monocle on the package!

                1. “Made from genuine mountain lion intestine”

          2. I can’t hit shit with my Single Six. I got the really long barrel one and I can’t get a sight picture at all. Doesn’t really point shoot very well either (Or I should say I can’t point shoot with it). It was cheap because the sights were broken when I got it “new” ( unfired, warrantyI think it had been dropped) but I fixed those. If /when I can find a nice older K-22 I’m gonna sell it.

            1. By “can’t hit shit” I’m not covering groups with a half dollar at any distance.

    5. They truly are out of touch and so are their sycophants in the media. I had a damn enraging experience with the Harris County deputy shooting this past weekend.

      I was watching the Spurs-Everton game on NBC and it got interrupted in the middle of the second half for a “Breaking News Update.” I could see out the window it wasn’t extreme weather or anything, must be a terrorist attack or something important right? No, it was a goddamn press conference about the police shooting. How the fuck is that breaking news that requires interrupting live sports? They weren’t even announcing the shooting, the breaking news was that there was a press conference.

      So after several politicians take a turn grandstanding, Sheriff Swingin’ Dick gets up and says that the “dangerous national rhetoric” needs to stop and then I shit you not he says that “#policelivesmatter too!” What a goddamn piece of garbage. And both the Harris County police and HPD have had a pretty shitty year so far with police abuse, I think we’re second only to LA for killings by the police this year. I’m sure that went over well with the people being fucked over.

      And then super important breaking news was over and the game only had 1 minute left.

      1. I really think that the thing that’s going to make correcting this so painful is that the cops just flat out don’t get it. Like I said, they’re fucking delusional. And delusional people do really fucking stupid shit. They’re going to fight this tooth and nail in the worst, most wrong way possible to the end. Because that’s who got hired into this line of work.

        1. You are right about cops being delusional. But remember, dystopias don’t exist because they can’t. Sooner or later, reality is going to hit the fan, and cops will be smacked down by some Supreme Court case narrowing immunity, or enough fed-up people yelling at Congress. It won’t be any revolution, any uprising, any targeted killing of cops. They will just keep being delusional and acting more and more entitled until the lid blows off.

          Remember when those NY cops were assassinated, and the entire force claimed to go on strike and stop writing trivial chickenshit tickets? That’s what will happen on some grand scale when the shit hits the fan, cops throwing a tantrum on such a scale that legislators can’t ignore it, cop unions getting too self-righteous for even the copsuckers to cover up, and when the first tentative legislative or judicial counter measures don’t cause any problems, the tide will have turned and cops will find themselves in a losing battle with few friends willing to syick up for their bullshit.

          1. cop unions getting too self-righteous for even the copsuckers to cover up

            This I’d like to see.

          2. I said something similar to my friends from China after Tiananmen Square.

  16. “the national attention paid to police brutality and misconduct has made their job harder.”

    Isn’t that an admission that its been going on?

  17. How’s come Matt Welch gets a hat tip?

    1. Journolist

      The thin something line that stands between the anarchic mass of facts and the dumb public who needs to be told what to think.

      1. You keep saying this.

        What exactly gives you the impression there is some kind of left wing journalistic conspiracy at work here?

        1. It was my prediction when I posted the story last night. Journolist is dead. They use the twitter now.

          1. …..So you’re bitter they didn’t give you a hat tip?

            I’m just saying. No one reads all the comments. (except Mary! *looks around suspiciously)

            1. No, no I said I expected not to get a hat tip last night because they would post this when one of their journolist buddies put it on the twitter. I try to post the Georgia nut punches as soon as they show up on the TV and radio news sites (always beat the AJC). I find it ridiculous when someone posts a wire service story, or something from Drudge, or something burning up the twitter and whines about not getting a hat tip. I know they rarely read the comments, particularly OT links. My comment on posting it last night was just to point out “you read it here first”.

        2. I’m commenting a lot on this story because it happened in my county. I’ve followed it from the first reports last night through today.

    2. Because he’s the best!

  18. Three officers … entered the second house on the street, because, police say, it “matched the physical description of the house.”

    BAN COOKIE-CUTTER HOUSES!

  19. This can’t be a case of police abuse, the guy who was shot was white.

    1. Cops might’ve thought he was a haint.

  20. Perhaps the police officers who shot McKinley and killed his dog after entering the wrong home in response to a possible burglary called should’ve triple checked. Or, you know, just stopped for a second and thought about what they were doing. But if they’re unlikely to face any consequences for their actions, legally, professionally, or otherwise, what incentive would they have to do it?

    I’m thinking you want to take this paragraph out of block quote.

  21. Not a good week to be a McKinley

    1. Denali ain’t just a river in Egypt.

    2. When it Rainiers, it pours.

      *ducks*

      1. Eiger way you slice it, its no good.

        Police seem far too willing to Killamanjaro-ver nothing.

      2. … into the hood?

        1. Some of the biggest Hoods are white

    3. Give it an Everest, people.

      1. #AllLivesMatterhorn

  22. Lapel cam foils woman’s plan to frame officer for sexual assault after DUI bust.

    “The whole thing’s on video ma’am; you can say whatever you like,” … “Basically the whole thing’s on video,” he tells the paramedics. “She’s accusing me of touching her.”

    Man, those cameras come in handy. Who’d have thought? Unless you’re a cop looking to coerce a girl into a little backseat nookie, I guess.

    1. Funny how transparency and honest behavior dramatically change the way the world works. Any time you find someone resisting transparency and verifiably honest testimony you can be certain you are dealing with criminal intent.

    2. the new debate is if officers will have access to the video before they fill out their report of the incident or not at all.

    3. APD union president Stephanie Lopez released this statement about the incident:
      “The desire to frame officers for wrongdoing is a growing issue facing officers every day. We believe that the public should be held accountable for filing false reports against police officers. These incidents can be very damaging to an officer’s career, so we hope that this individual and others face appropriate consequences for their malicious actions.”

      “The public” should be held accountable for what one jerk does. Methinks President Lopez has an us vs. them attitude for some reason.

  23. it’s as if they honestly believe that failing to call police out on their shit makes them better cops. when has that philosophy worked for anyone…ever?

  24. Biden/Trumka 2016!

  25. So, I hear that the new James Bond is a ni-BONGGGGGG

    1. +1 laurel, and hardy handshake

      1. What did you expect? “Welcome, sonny?” “Make yourself at home?” “Marry my daughter?”

    2. I thought Remington Steel was too prissy too play Bond but I thought he pulled it off well. I’m excited to see what Heimdall does with it.

  26. it “matched the physical description of the house.”

    I believe they misquoted the police. ‘The’ should be ‘a’.

  27. AND NOTHNG ELSE HAPPENED

    God, people! The dude wasn’t even KILLED!!! WTF! At least the occifers went home safely.

    1. Imagine what would have happened if he defended himself from what he thought was a home invasion and shot a cop. Would they have they same attitude? Opps, I thought you were breaking into my home, well, no one is perfect and accidents happen.

    2. Tragically, one of the officers did not go home safely.

      One of the officers ? identified Tuesday afternoon as Travis Jones ? was shot in the hip by a colleague, the GBI said.

      It’s dangerous to be a cop these days…you have to be around cops all day after all.

  28. it matched the physical description of t?h?e? a house

    Sorry forgot where I was.

  29. quantum cryptography

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up…..-password/

    1. All the cryptography in the world won’t help when your idiot office-temp secretary gives out the password because the guy on the other end of line swears that he’s the bosses bosses boss.

      1. One of the posters here has a word for that, and it indicates that you weren’t hacked, you were ‘stupided’ or something of the sort.
        BTW, the article sucks; “That’s because at the end of day, most types of computer encryption and passwords are based on a random number”
        Bullshit. The number is not random, it’s a result of an algorithm; with enough raw-force calcs, it can be broken and raw force calcs are cheap.And unless I missed something, the ‘quantum’ random number generator can be easily matched by the ‘quantum’ random number hacker.
        Looks like a PBS writer decided that tossing ‘quantum’ into an article was clever.

        1. word for that, and it indicates that you weren’t hacked, you were ‘stupided’ or something of the sort

          The term of art is “social engineering”.

          enough raw-force calcs

          The term of art is “brute-force”, not raw-force, FWIW.

          The number is not random, it’s a result of an algorithm

          The number is the output of a CSPRNG — cryptographically secure psuedorandom number generator — seeded with a random number. Whether, philosophically, you want to consider that “random” is up to you; the property that matters (to put it in simple terms) is that it is unpredictable to someone that does not know the seed — and it is. You will (on average, since it’s just guessing and hence a probability-based matter) spend just as long brute forcing a “philosophically random” (so to speak) password as one generated with a randomly-seeded CSPRNG. Being “a result of an algorithm” has no bearing.

          The article does suck, though.

          1. Why the article sucks:

            What Ashley Madison needed was quantum cryptography.

            Maybe I just missed it, but I haven’t seen any information on how AM was hacked. There is an annoying tendency on the part of journalists and screenwriters to assume all hacking revolves around “breaking down the firewall” or “cracking the encryption”.

            …Richard Moulds, a data security, cryptography expert and vice president at Whitewood Encryption Systems.

            This Whitewood Encryption Systems?

            Whitewood Encryption Systems? Introduces the Entropy EngineTM, the World’s Most Cost-Effective, Quantum-Powered Random Number Generator

            Hm. That might have been helpful context.

            A lot of journalists make this mistake when covering security (and other jargon-heavy industries, I’m sure) and I doubt it’s malicious. I’ve seen Reason make a similar, albeit smaller, mistake. But it’s very annoying and something to watch out for as a reader.

            1. Take, for example, RSA encryption, which is the foundation for most Internet security today. RSA uses math to conceal data with two randomly selected prime numbers.

              “Getting a [traditional] computer program to generate a random number is almost an oxymoron because computer programs do the same thing over and over and over again. They do what they’re programmed to do, and they don’t do things randomly,” Moulds said. “As the bad guys’ computers get better, faster and stronger, then in principle, those random numbers get easier to guess.”

              Such was the case of last year’s hack of Sony Pictures. Infiltrators used an advanced computer program with enough brute force to guess the company’s passwords.

              Why the “oxymoron” statement is silly is covered in my first reply to you, and Moulds has a clear financial motivation for saying it.

              More concerning is the ludicrousness of using brute-forcing a password as an illustration of why RSA keys are at risk.

              First of all, we have no reason to believe the password was random (or “generated by a CSPRNG seeded with random data” if you want to be a stickler, though I will just say “random” henceforth). The fact that it was online brute-forced makes it quite likely that it was not.

              But let’s say it was random. A ten-character random password using all 94 characters typeable on a standard American keyboard is roughly 65 bits.

              (continued)

              1. I take no offense at your corrections of my terminology, but any program is an algorithm and is, therefore, not random.

                1. “Whether, philosophically, you want to consider that “random” is up to you;”
                  Oops; missed this.
                  It’s not a matter of philosophy, it is a matter of fact.

                  1. OK, one more to make sure we both agree on definitions:
                    “The number is the output of a CSPRNG — cryptographically secure psuedorandom number generator — seeded with a random number.”
                    I am not familiar with this; where did the random number come from?

                    “…the property that matters (to put it in simple terms) is that it is unpredictable to someone that does not know the seed — and it is. You will (on average, since it’s just guessing and hence a probability-based matter) spend just as long brute forcing a “philosophically random” (so to speak) password as one generated with a randomly-seeded CSPRNG. Being “a result of an algorithm” has no bearing.”
                    Again, where did the random number come from?

                    1. I am not familiar with this; where did the random number come from?

                      Most people are not. The “entropy sources” section of this answer does a better job than I will.

              2. The smallest-size RSA key in common use on the internet is 1024 bits.

                Remember (or learn for the first time) that the number of bits is the power to which two is raised, so that is ~16 times as many combinations.

                That is 4.87 * 10^288 times as many combinations.

                So that is totally ludicrous — especially when we take into consideration the fact that 2048-bit key sizes are becoming quite common.

                (FWIW, there are faster-than-brute-force [but still intractable] ways to break RSA. But he is the one who said “those random numbers get easier to guess”, so that is what I am addressing.)

                Quantum random number generator churns out encrypted passcodes/keys so fast…

                …what? Are we referring to passcodes or keys? They are different things, which appears to be a point of struggle for the author. And I won’t even dive into the misplaced use of “encrypted” there.

                Moulds points out that another issue with the Ashley Madison hack “was that they only bothered to encrypt some of their data.”

                Somebody — often a layperson or a hardware security module vendor (like this guy) — typically says this after every major hack. But — and I don’t have the time or the willingness to go into detail right now — we can’t know this without knowing how the attack was carried out.

                1. ‘Remember (or learn for the first time) that the number of bits is the power to which two is raised, so that is ~16 times as many combinations.”
                  So it takes another 5 minutes to break?
                  Here’s the point:
                  One-time pad codes are unbreakable; *every* other code, generated by an algorithm is breakable given brute-force calcs which is cheap by now.
                  If you have a concept which suggests otherwise, let’s see it.

                  1. So it takes another 5 minutes to break?

                    Glibness is more appropriate when you have adequate background knowledge.

                    Took me a few minutes to go back in my history and find — one academic estimate proposes that, using a better-than-brute-force method, a single key could be factored in a year using a device that costs “a few million US dollars”.

                    That is unacceptably low, which is why 1024-bit RSA is being phased out.

                    As discussed here, it is hard to know because no one has ever broken a 1024-bit RSA key (and publicly admitted to it, at least) without resorting to dirty tricks.

            2. That might have been helpful context.

              I should mention, for fairness to the author, that this was eventually noted, far down in the piece. It should have been earlier.

  30. Funny how you never year this stuff on Fox. If this guy shot a cop while the cop was busting into his house all we’d hear would be another cop shooting. The police, the police unions, the supervisors, the PAs, etc., have to take some of the blame for people’s distrust of cops. Granted, it’s a few of them that are the bad ones, who overstep their authority, but until they are punished for their incompetence instead of defended, and reinstated or let off scott free, they will never have the respect they think they deserve. Interesting how so many of the chiefs or pro cops are interviewed are starting to point out there are some who are bad but tat doesn’t mean people should disrespect all of them. Well, I wish someone would say, until those bad ones are forced to take responsibility for their actions, or over actions, cops will not gain respect but those good ones out there will be lumped into the mass of those who are not respected. If it wasn’t for people filming then we wouldn’t know the extent of the abuses some put on those they are supposed to “serve and protect.”

    1. Not griping, but you have stated what has been stated here many times:
      Until the individual cop takes personal responsibility for his/her actions, the problems will continue.
      Simply: Incentives matter.

  31. “…Alexander defended officers in DeKalb and throughout the country, saying they “have a tough job.”…”

    Goddam dogs don’t shoot themselves!

  32. Not mentioned in the article: one of the cops was shot in the incident, by another cop. It’s not safe to be around these trigger happy goons, even if you’re one of them.

    http://m.wsbtv.com/news/news/l…..nty/nnT9N/

  33. Law enforcement reality exists absolute and wholly independent from the collective reality that forcibly shapes the lifetimes of millions upon millions of average Americans existing within this supposed ‘free’ space.

    At the surface our culture often seems fairly accommodating but beneath lurks the beastly shadows of law enforcement accompanied by the bizarre cosmos of legality and its millions of tendrils of codified living.

    A stark and often shocking contrast becomes so fucking evident when the reality of the enforcer and the reality of the commoner collides. In all cases the reality of the enforcer supersedes and dominates the reality of the commoner regardless of circumstance or infringement which is tantamount to localized tyranny which has fucking zero to do with the operation of ethics within a society created to foster the values of liberty.

    1. The fact is, the people who have structured the legal basis of the federal government, states, and cities have done so with a strategic emphasis on the creation of a higher and distinct plane that answers only to itself, operates cruelly with impunity, and all the while existing as a paranoid hierarchy over-reacting to even the slightest bumps on its curb.

      It’s just simply fucking impossible to build a free society with every goddamn thing being illegal while enforcers are granted extensive privileges and protections unavailable to the common man.

      I don’t give a goddamn fuck what sort of straight-laced conservative schmuck you are or how goddamn awesome your shitty brain thinks the federal government is: your society is not free, open, or tolerant when legalism backed with nonliable enforcement shapes the crux of your country.

    2. The fact is, the people who have structured the legal basis of the federal government, states, and cities have done so with a strategic emphasis on the creation of a higher and distinct plane that answers only to itself, operates cruelly with impunity, and all the while existing as a paranoid hierarchy over-reacting to even the slightest bumps on its curb.

      It’s just simply fucking impossible to build a free society with every goddamn thing being illegal while enforcers are granted extensive privileges and protections unavailable to the common man.

      I don’t give a goddamn fuck what sort of straight-laced conservative schmuck you are or how goddamn awesome your shitty brain thinks the federal government is: your society is not free, open, or tolerant when legalism backed with nonliable enforcement shapes the crux of your country.

  34. arent cops supposed to use common sense(investigate) to make sure a real crime has actually occurred? cops arent supposed to be more dangerous than actual criminals

  35. What a bunch of total dirtbags.

    Police officers are vocational sociopaths.

    A sociopath is someone who displays a “disposition to violate social norms of behavior” through “deceitfulness ? impulsivity ? irritability and aggressiveness ? [a] reckless disregard for safety of self or others,” and a “lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.”

    Law enforcers have official permission to employ aggressive violence and escalate it to lethal levels if they meet resistance. They are clothed in “qualified immunity” that protects them from accountability and liability for committing acts that would otherwise result in prosecution.

    Owing to the nature of the job, law enforcement selects for sociopathic personalities.

    Will Grigg, 4/11/2015

  36. Your version leaves out the fact that an officer was also shot and seriously wounded. While this doesn’t mean anything as far as the deadly mistake the officers made, it does indicate that there are, in fact, some consequences for these mistakes. It would be better if the consequences were in policy, though, than in a gun.

  37. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.