Police Abuse

Will the Cops Who Killed Kenneth Chamberlain After Illegally Breaking Into His Apartment Ever Be Held Accountable?

Responding to a medical alert they knew was erroneous, White Plains officers killed the man they supposedly were trying to help.

|

Around 5 a.m. on November 19, 2011, Kenneth Chamberlain, a 68-year-old former Marine and retired corrections officer with a heart condition, accidentally set off his LifeAid medical alert pendant while sleeping in his White Plains, New York, apartment. Unable to contact Chamberlain via its two-way audio box, LifeAid called the White Plains Department of Public Safety. Seventeen minutes later, police officers arrived to help Chamberlain. Instead they ended up killing him.

Nine years later, Chamberlain's family is still trying to hold the officers who shot him dead after breaking into his home for no discernible reason accountable for their egregious actions that day, which needlessly turned an erroneous medical call into a lethal confrontation. The case vividly shows how hard it is to obtain compensation under 42 USC 1983, a federal statute that authorizes lawsuits against government officials who violate people's constitutional rights.

In 2013 a federal judge dismissed several claims against the White Plains officers based on qualified immunity, which shields officials from liability when the rights they allegedly violated were not "clearly established" at the time. Three years later, the court dismissed several more claims. Then a jury rejected the two remaining claims, which alleged that Officer Anthony Carelli violated the Fourth Amendment and committed assault and battery under New York law by shooting Chamberlain. In 2018 the Justice Department closed its investigation of the incident, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to charge any of the officers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit recently revived some of the dismissed civil rights claims against those officers. But it remains highly uncertain whether Chamberlain's family will ever obtain any measure of justice for a senseless death that could have been avoided if police had not decided to treat a man they were ostensibly trying to help as a dangerous criminal.

The details laid out in the 2nd Circuit's May 29 decision, most of which are uncontested, are damning. Responding to the erroneous medical alert, the police dispatcher sent an ambulance and a squad car to Chamberlain's apartment. "Despite the dispatcher's warning that Chamberlain was a person with mental illness," the court says, "the officers began banging loudly on his door and shouting demands that they be allowed to enter." Chamberlain called LifeAid, saying, "The White Plains Police Department [is] banging on my door and I did not call them and I am not sick." The LifeAid operator called the police dispatcher, trying to cancel the supposed rescue attempt. "They're gonna make entry anyway," the dispatcher replied. "They're gonna open it anyway."

Chamberlain repeatedly told the cops at the door he had not called for help and did not need it. At least one officer acknowledged that information, saying, "Mr. Chamberlain, your medical alert went off accidentally." But the cops would not take no for an answer.

"Because Chamberlain continued to refuse to open his door, the officers radioed for
tactical reinforcements," the 2nd Circuit says. "There were approximately twelve officers in the augmented police force when they attempted to gain entry. They were armed with heavy 'tactical gear,' including handguns, a beanbag shotgun, Taser, riot shield, and pepper spray."

The police used a master key they obtained from the White Plains Housing Authority, which owned Chamberlain's apartment, to unlock the door. When a slap lock prevented the door from opening completely, the cops used a Halligan bar to stop Chamberlain from closing it. At this point, they could clearly see that Chamberlain was fine, as he had been saying "lucidly, repeatedly, and emphatically" all along.

Seeing the heavily armed officers breaking into his apartment despite his insistence that they had no reason to be there, Chamberlain was understandably alarmed. "You gonna shoot me," he said. "You got your gun ready." Chamberlain "shouted repeatedly that he was convinced that the police were there to kill him." That turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Chamberlain grabbed a kitchen knife to fend off the intruders. "They have their guns out," he told the LifeAid operator. "I have a weapon. I am protecting myself." Now the cops, who had already viewed Chamberlain as a threat requiring "tactical reinforcements," were even more convinced. "Every time we come to the door he sticks a knife out," one of them complained.

While trying to force their way into the apartment, the cops mocked and belittled Chamberlain. "You ain't no young kid," one said. "You a grown-ass man." Chamberlain's relatives allege worse taunts—including "motherfucker" and "I don't give a fuck, nigger"—that the defendants denied. The officers refused to let Chamberlain talk to his niece, who lived in the same building, or his sister, who was on the line with LifeAid from her home in North Carolina.

After an hour-long impasse, "despite Chamberlain's repeated pleas that the
officers leave and the availability of a relative on-site to attempt to defuse the
situation, the officers forcibly removed Chamberlain's door from its hinges." At this point, "Chamberlain was standing some six to eight feet behind the doorway wearing only a pair of boxer shorts." The cops entered and "in swift succession, tased Chamberlain (unsuccessfully), fired several beanbag shots at him (largely ineffectively), and fired two shots at him with a handgun. One of those bullets passed through Chamberlain's lungs and ribs and severed his spine, killing him."

Following George Floyd's death in Minneapolis and the ensuing protests, there has been much discussion of reforms that could help prevent such horrifying incidents, including "de-escalation techniques." Training in those techniques reportedly is one of the reforms favored by Republican senators. What is de-escalation? Exactly the opposite of what the cops did in White Plains.

At every step, the officers seemed determined to turn an accidental medical alert—an alert they knew was accidental—into a death sentence. They perversely insisted on "helping" a man who manifestly did not need it, who told them so over and over again, and rejected the intercession of relatives who might have helped calm him down. Far from showing compassion for a man they supposedly were trying to help, they taunted him. "Instead of treating Chamberlain as a critically ill patient," the 2nd Circuit observes, "the officers acted as though he were a criminal suspect." They broke into his home without cause, dressed for battle, and gunned him down because he had the temerity to defend himself.

If the leading exemplar of chutzpah is the legal strategy of a man who murders his parents and pleads for mercy because he is now an orphan, the defense used by the cops in this case has to count as a close second. They argued that their armed invasion of Chamberlain's home was justified based on the "emergency aid" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, meaning the "aid" that Chamberlain did not need and did not want.

"Based on the facts alleged and otherwise before the district court, viewed in
the light most favorable to Appellant, we conclude that a reasonable, experienced
officer would not have determined there was probable cause to believe that
Chamberlain needed urgent medical attention," the 2nd Circuit says. "The officers outside of his apartment knew that the Life Alert system had been activated accidentally. The Life Aid operator informed the police dispatcher that Chamberlain was not in need of medical assistance. And Chamberlain himself firmly and repeatedly informed the officers that he had not called for help and was not in need of assistance of any kind, let alone urgent medical aid."

Was it "clearly established" at the time that forcibly entering Chamberlain's home without a warrant based on "exigent circumstances" that did not exist violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches"? The district court thought not. The appeals court disagreed.

"The law was clearly established at the time of entry that a warrantless entry into a private dwelling, absent exigent circumstances, is unlawful," the 2nd Circuit says. "It was further established that a warrantless entry in response to a medical concern is unlawful absent probable cause to believe that a person inside is in immediate danger."

Because of this decision, Chamberlain's family will finally be allowed to proceed with their unlawful-entry claims against five officers. The 2nd Circuit also ruled that the facts regarding the use of beanbag rounds need to be developed more before deciding whether the officer who fired them at Chamberlain should receive qualified immunity for that use of force. Likewise with the family's claims that two officers contributed to Chamberlain's death by failing to properly supervise the operation.

But as the 2016 verdict in favor of Officer Carelli shows, qualified immunity is by no means the only barrier to successfully suing police officers for constitutional violations. Even when plaintiffs manage to get their day in court, jurors are highly sympathetic to police officers and loath to second-guess their decisions.

During the trial, Carelli testified that he had "no other option" but to shoot Chamberlain "to protect the other officers." Sgt. Keith Martin backed up that account. "I don't believe I'd be standing here" if Carelli had not shot Chamberlain, Martin testified. "I thought I was going to get stabbed." The officers said Chamberlain charged at Martin, knife in hand, leaving Carelli no choice.

Randolph McLaughlin, the lawyer representing Chamberlain's family, disputed that account, saying Chamberlain was on the floor when he was shot. McLaughlin argued that the trajectory of the fatal bullet "makes it impossible for him to be holding a knife in his hand and advancing on police." McLaughlin also questioned the cops' claim that Chamberlain, a frail 68-year-old, was unfazed by four beanbag rounds.

In a situation like this, jurors tend to side with the police, whom they view as brave public servants risking their lives to protect the community. But in this case, the cops were supposed to be protecting Chamberlain, the man they killed. That outcome was completely avoidable, regardless of what Chamberlain did after the officers illegally broke into his home. It was the duty of these officers to avoid it, and they failed abysmally. Their actions demonstrated that they had no regard for Chamberlain's life, let alone the sanctity of his home. Yet with or without qualified immunity, they may never be held accountable for actions that would send ordinary citizens to prison for life.

NEXT: Cops Who Shot Homeless Man 22 Times While He Lay on the Ground Are Not Protected by Qualified Immunity, Appeals Court Rules

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. He failed to obey, which pissed the cops off, so they killed him. And nothing else happened. It’s a sadly familiar story.

    1. But if they can be sued, all will be better!

      Who needs discipline or criminal charges, getting rid of qualified immunity will solve everything

      1. sarcasmic
        June.11.2020 at 1:14 pm
        Democrats and libertarians are against QI, so conservatives must support it. They have no choice. They must support it, belittle its effects, and attack those who would like to see it go away. Not because of the policy itself, but because of politics.

        1. `I’ve made $66,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great m0ney. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

          This is what I do……… More Detail

      2. By the way, nice straw man. No one is saying that ending QI is a silver bullet. It’s simply one of many steps towards reigning in police abuse. Others include limiting or ending the influence of police unions and requiring cops to carry liability insurance like doctors.

        1. I’m so happy that I’m not you.
          Your life must be rough

          1. First he belittles, then he makes a personal attack. Did I nail that one or what?

            1. Every post you make is a personal attack buoyed by strawmen.
              You’re inadequate and bigoted, thus not worth much more than a line or two

              1. Keep on proving my point, bub.

                1. Lol
                  You don’t have a point, just shallow emoting

                  1. Yeah, says the guy who must oppose curtailing QI because Trump loves cops.

                    1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction

                      on the given website………… See More here

                  2. You’re constantly calling people names like an petulant child, and you accuse others of emoting? Haaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha! I’m glad you didn’t post that while I was drinking coffee or I’d need a new keyboard.

                    1. Yes, I try to make it clear that I don’t respect you.
                      I’ve given you so many chances, but you are who you are.
                      You’re stupid, lazy, and fundamentally dishonest.
                      Try finding a site showing that I oppose ending QI.
                      I’ll settle for just one

                    2. Nardz, so you agree with sarcasmic (and myself) that QI should go, but you are too gutless to admit as much publicly. Is that about the size of it?

                    3. No, I’m ambivalent about the place of QI.
                      I think it’s overused, but I find the discussion of it here trite and beside the point.
                      If we get rid of QI, is it just for cops? Or can Cuomo and Whitmer and their public health technocrats be sued for the wrongful deaths of thousands of nursing home residents?
                      I see QI as (i believe redfish called it in another thread) a red herring.
                      QI doesn’t prevent cops from being criminally charged or otherwise disciplined – unions, politicians, and prosecutors do.
                      QI only shields cops from civil liability because judges set shitty precedent and make shitty rulings.
                      As someone else pointed out, there’s much more important areas to improve. No knock raids (props to Louisville city council for their vote today), war on drugs (and overcriminalization in general), military hardware, hiring practices, training, etc.
                      But here’s Reason and its loyalist commenters obsessing over QI, missing the forest for one little tree.

          2. You lost.

          3. Statistics for your dumb mind: On average 50 to 60 policemen are killed on duty in the US each year, not counting vehicle accidents and heart attacks. On Average, policemen kill over 1100 Americans each year. In England this year, their police killed only three citizens, one being a terrorist. More farmers die on the job each year than police. Being a farmer is more dangerous than being a policeman. When a farmer dies there is no big parade for him, even though he is more valuable than a policeman as he brings you life sustaining food. Yes we need a police agency, we don’t need cowardly, sadistic, authoritarian, trigger happy idiots who hide behind a badge.

          4. Statistics for your dumb mind: On average 50 to 60 policemen are killed on duty in the US each year, not counting vehicle accidents and heart attacks. On Average, policemen kill over 1100 Americans each year. In England this year, their police killed only three citizens, one being a terrorist. More farmers die on the job each year than police. Being a farmer is more dangerous than being a policeman. When a farmer dies there is no big parade for him, even though he is more valuable than a policeman as he brings you life sustaining food. Yes we need a police agency, we don’t need cowardly, sadistic, authoritarian, trigger happy idiots who hide behind a badge.

        2. How about ending drug prohibition which is the cause of all the oppressive policing?

          1. Yes, this was clearly about a drug bust. Life alert causes that all the time

      3. Nadless Nardless… Your continued breathing won’t solve everything, so does that mean maybe you should STOP breathing?

        “…getting rid of qualified immunity will solve everything”

        No, it won’t, just as you breathing and eating and sleeping won’t solve everything. But it will be a DAMNED GOOD STEP in the right direction!

        Just HOW stupid can you BE, Nadless Nardless copsucker? Are you gonna keep right on sucking their cocks when they do the above-described actions to you or your favorite relative?

        1. You have no value

          1. Nadless Nardless at least has SOME limited value to the biosphere… Autotrophs (that would generally be “plants” to morons like you) depend on heterotrophs (that would generally be “animals” to morons like you) to take food and oxygen in, and emit degraded plant-digestible nitrates and organics (poop and pee) and carbon dioxide, to fill one of nature’s larger roles in general. So there is SOME limited utility to be had, in the existence of intellectually stunted, ideological idiots such as Nadless Nardless!

    2. If he didn’t have anything to hide, he should have just opened the door and let them in. Then he could have invited them to view the contents of his sock drawer and to search his hard drive. And perhaps help them rip up the carpets just to prove he had nothing to hide.

      1. Could’ve offered them the opportunity to do a visual butt cavity search while they had the door ajar. (In other words, while the door was…cracked.)

      2. Bullshit. If I don’t want the cops in my house, and they have no reason to accuse me of a crime, and I tell them to leave, they can leave. Game, set, match. Get the fuck off my property.

        If you can read that story and side with the cops, then you just aren’t wired right as a human.

        1. You need to turn up your sarcasm detector a notch or two, at least.

          1. Yes, you are right – I apologize to ATM – that first line is the excuse the bootlickers use all the time and I didn’t see more as I scanned down.

  2. Will the Cops Who Killed Kenneth Chamberlain After Illegally Breaking Into His Apartment Ever Be Held Accountable?

    Are they still paying their union dues?

  3. In a situation like this, jurors tend to side with the police, whom they view as brave public servants risking their lives to protect the community.

    Jurors are cucks.

    1. My question is how the jurors made this ruling with this set of facts. I have to imagine that either jurors learned something else, or else some of these facts weren’t admitted. Did the judge shield these guys like Daniel Shaver’s killer was shielded?

      1. I have little confidence in jurors. While the judge has plenty of leeway to game the proceedings however he sees fit, in the end the jurors are responsible for the ruling, and its not like 12 Angry Men. I doubt there is a voice of reason in every gathering of 12 people. This is before we get to voir dire, the process by which the prosecution will eliminate as many people with a conscience as possible.

        In the end, a jury trial is a trial by idiots. It’s probably better than top-down authoritarianism but not by much. Of course, if public schooling were better, and motivated to teach people how to think and behave logically and morally, it might not be such a clusterfuck.

        1. There’s idiots, but also there’s bad cases presented to them. For instance, the jury let off Daniel Shaver’s killer, but that’s because the judge refused to present tons of evidence-the main thing being the actual video of his execution because it was too prejudicial.

          Because God forbid the jury get a chance to see a man crying and begging for his life while being treated like a dog in the seconds leading up to his execution. They might actually sympathize with the punk.

        2. If I am summoned and have to go, I just tell them I believe in jury nullification – that guarantees that I will never sit on a jury.

          1. If you believed in jury nullification, you wouldn’t try to avoid jury duty

            1. That is a non-sequitur, because the entire judicial system is a farce in this country, and I want no part of it. I am self-employed, so it costs me money to waste a day pretending I have a “civic duty” to participate in a rigged process. Judges don’t want jury nullification because it impedes their control.

              This country has become a banana republic.

      2. Answer; The BAR Association & Statutory (unconstitutional) process. In other words a rigged game. Might as well have the cops be their own jury.

      3. Perhaps the wrong cop was on trial. The responsibility here lies with the supervisors who knew there was no emergency and still decided to break in, not the lower ranks that followed orders. Once they broke through the door and went in to a room with a crazed knifeman, someone _was_ going to get hurt.

  4. Man, every time I think cops have hit rock bottom on their control freak depravity, they show me how wrong I was.

    An hour of the guy, MedicAlert, and relatives all telling them it was a mistake. I cannot think of an appropriate torture for these clowns.

    1. If you can catch a cop in a rare moment of honesty, they will laugh at the notion that they enforce the law. They enforce their will. They issue commands, and then use any amount of force to compel the person to obey. They will never admit to fault, even when they know they are wrong, and once they have committed to something they must follow through because doing anything else would mean admitting to making a mistake.

      This is a perfect example. They committed to getting inside, so that meant they had to get inside. They could not listen to people telling them that they didn’t need to because that would mean they were wrong. Once they got inside the guy failed to obey their commands, so they had no choice but to kill him, since they must use force to compel people to obey.

      This was nothing more than cops being cops. I can’t imagine a single police officer out there finding any fault with what they did.

    2. “I cannot think of an appropriate torture for these clowns.”

      Necklacing.

      1. Too quick.

        1. Best I can do on a public forum. 🙂

  5. Until the 1970s, police were the EMS providers in the northeast US and I think they still are in many towns in NY and NJ. This shows why it is a bad idea.

    1. “Let me help you or I’m gonna kill you!”

  6. I think they should also revisit the (court upheld) policy of excluding police applicants with a 100+ IQ. Do we really think a sub-100 IQ mouth-breather is going to be making sound decisions? Or is it that they are more likely to obey orders, even heinous ones and not think for themselves?

    1. You know who else was simply obeying orders?

    2. Of course they are more likely to obey orders. That is the reason to discriminate against higher IQ applicants.

      No police department wants free thinkers who question orders or policy. Those people are incompatible with a top down command and control structure

      1. The smart ones keep their mouths shut, or use police work as a launching pad for a career in law or politics.

    3. A lot of cops also take high doses of amphetamines and steroids which make them more aggressive. But the unions protect them from ever having to take a drug test.

    4. Having a high iq is racist

    5. That would immediately be challenged in court because of the disparate impact on the eligible of minorities.

  7. https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-protests-armed-guards-local-businesses-extortion

    “We’ve heard, anecdotally, reports of citizens and businesses being asked to pay a fee to operate within this area. This is the crime of extortion. If anyone has been subjected to this, we need them to call 911,” Assistant Chief of Police Deanna Nollette said on Wednesday.

    Wait, what? That’s horrible. Who would ever do such a thing?

    1. Only is Seattle would this nonsense be tolerated. They deserve everything coming to them.

      1. good and hard, again and again and again…

      2. Um, requiring a fee to operate a business is not limited to Seattle.

    2. No cops just shoot the extortionists.

  8. After an hour-long impasse, “despite Chamberlain’s repeated pleas that the officers leave and the availability of a relative on-site to attempt to defuse the situation, the officers forcibly removed Chamberlain’s door from its hinges.”

    We have QI because we don’t need to second guess officer’s split second decisions. The courts actually wrote that down and signed it.

    1. Hmm … “split” — what they did to the door and its hinges.
      “seconds” and thirds and fourths … all the way up to twelfths, if I RTFA correctly.

  9. “Instead of treating Chamberlain as a critically ill patient,” the 2nd Circuit observes, “the officers acted as though he were a criminal suspect.”

    When all you have is a hammer…

  10. they won’t…. and that is why we are where we are…. and this is one of the more insane chain of events we have heard. once they knew there was no medical emergency, they lost any justification they could have possibly had for entering.

  11. Will anyone who works for government ever be held accountable, and the tens of thousands of innocents of all skin colors killed by cops in the past three decades?
    Its dark depressing and sucks, but probably not- (

  12. WTF? This case is unbelievable. Defense counsel should have been laughed out of court when they tried to argue qualified immunity. The officers should be personally liable, civilly and criminally.

  13. If a cop is charged criminally, wouldn’t that automatically invalidate QI for civil action?

    1. You don’t know many lawyers, do you?

      1. Quite a few.
        Did some work for one a long time back.
        Might even take up law school.
        But QI has never come up.
        I don’t think a charge would necessarily invalidate it, but a conviction seems automatically prohibitive

    2. I’m assuming you meant “convicted” instead of “charged.” It does not invalidate a QI defense. A violation of a criminal statute does not mean that the offense is also a violation of the victim’s Constitutional rights. It needs to be “clearly established” that the offense is also a constitutional violation.

  14. As horrific as this incident is, I think the most confusing part to me is why police were called to help to begin with rather than EMTs or someone who would actually be able to help a person with a Life Alert need.

    1. Police do welfare checks (requests by someone else) on people all the time.

  15. I wish I could properly explain what it is like, from the perspective of someone studied in law, to read the phrase “a federal statute that authorizes lawsuits against government officials who violate people’s constitutional rights.” It is the height of BAR Association absurdity to enter a statutory jurisdiction, on purpose, to see a remedy for a constitutional injury. Only a BAR Association shill could come up with such stupidity.

    I will say it yet again, and continue until I am blue in the face. Yes, the cops are two digit IQ animals, brainwashed into municipal storm troopers by 3rd party corporate trainers, but they are doing the BAR Association’s bidding.

  16. Mr. Chaimberlain, if you want any chance of brushing aside the BAR Association merry-go-round of stupidity and getting actual justice for your father… Contact the National Liberty Alliance. https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/

  17. Having read the above article, two questions come to mind. The first concerning this “qualified immunity” finding.

    What might we have heard from the judge or judges involved in the finding of “qualified immunity” if the victim of the police action above described were a close friend or relative?

    Second question.

    What might happen in the event that the victim’s friends or family subscribed to the biblical adage of An Eye For An Eye, and acted thereon?

    1. We can never find out. Judges are ethically bound to recuse themselves in such a situation.

  18. I’m sure I’m not the only person who noticed this, but since we aren’t police, I want to understand why you think supposed acknowledgement of the alert being accidental means the police were informed by the LifeAid operator via the dispatcher that it was in fact accidental. Based on the information you provided, I have no way of knowing that such a thing was possible. We know that the initial dispatch and police response was not aware of the alert being an accident, but that Mr. Chamberlain told the LifeAid operator and officers once they were already there and that the LifeAid operator told the dispatcher at the same time. Can the dispatcher update the police once they are at the scene of the crime? Did the dispatcher actually update them? An officer stating once that it was accidental doesn’t mean that they knew for a fact that it was accidental. Maybe the dispatcher can do that, but we aren’t cops and maybe some of us don’t know what forms of communication they have. The officer who “acknowledged” that it was accidental could simply be acknowledging what Mr. Chamberlain told him, but just because someone says something doesn’t mean it’s true. If the police had left, nothing would have happened in this case. But what about other cases? What if there was an actual emergency, they didn’t confirm with the individual, and that person became injured or died as a result? Would the police be liable? I have a feeling that there are probably some sort of rules or regulations that require them to establish physical contact with the person they are called about. Did our laws and police training put these officers in a bind where they’re damned either way?

    If you acknowledge that these problems are systemic, then you need to ask questions about the systems that lead to such outcomes. Instead, we’re seeing a bunch of ideologues repeat themselves over and over and then push moronic slogans about defunding and abolishing police. Why doesn’t anyone talk about the facts and the real issues here?

    1. Too hard

    2. i would surmise the dispatcher was in contact with the cops on the scene, because the dispatcher told the life alert people that the officers were going to enter anyway….. plus there was the hour wait to bring in the tactical team. (which would have needed the dispatcher to send them.) no…. there was no lack of communication in this string of stupidity…. the systematic problem at play here is the culture of police forces to do what it is they have decided to do, regardless of the need or consequences, and the obscene protections they have from liability that prevents them from ever stopping to think for a second. this wasn’t a split second mistake, it was deliberately stupid.

    3. You seem to be twisting the facts of the case and making a helluva lot of hypotheticals. You think it’s possible that a dispatcher has no way of communicating with the cops who have been dispatched to provide them with more information?

      They spoke to the guy, who told them he was fine, so your hypothetical about them being held liable if they left without making contact is irrelevant. And to answer your question, no they would not be held liable. Qualified immunity.

      Despite demanding facts, you ignore all the facts about the circumstances in which police can effect a warrantless entry to private property.

  19. I hope the family sues Life Alert for calling the police.

  20. It is possible and likely to consider another explanation for this needless tragedy: The cops involved were low IQ.

    It is time for us to face this issue squarely. Not everyone has common sense or has the courage to stop an absurd scenario.

    If we step back and look, we can see obvious evidence for this here.

    When we hire people with authority and allow them to carry weapons, we have to first give them a basic intelligence test.

    And we have to get rid of police unions. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  21. Historically, tyrants have held out promises of stability in order to hide their intention of creating a state of permanent instability. This can be the only reason we are seeing Law Enforcement and the Criminal Justice System consisting of the personnel of which it consists. The masters are hiring the most inept and most idiotic in order to exacerbate and accelerate their goal of permanent instability. For only when that instability is reached can they then declare a need for total control and total domination.

  22. I think the biggest people at fault in this whole situation are judges. Their jobs are to protect rights at the expense of government power. Except they consistently find ways to do the opposite. They could have stopped this in its tracks, but allow cops to be sued and uphold ing the Fourth and other amendments. Instead, the cowered.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.