I have mixed feelings on this....

[Tblack89]

I

I hear you and what you describe is obviously wrong and I can't agree with your suggestion to accept it as a fact of life. I don't accept we have to sheepishly tolerate thuggish behaviour from those we entrust to safeguard us.
It's always "tell it to the judge", "the side of the highway isn't the place", "change the law of you don't like it", "just following orders", "Officer's discretion", the list of excuses is endless and doesn't dismiss personal responsibility.
It's incumbent upon LE to conduct themselves as a sterling example despite the challenges of their chosen profession and in exchange we grant them extensive authority, privilege and leeway. When that trust is abused it's doubly concerning for those very reasons.

Therein lies the problem, accepting the unacceptable changes nothing for the better but I likewise don't accept open, candid discussion isn't, albeit minor, doing nothing.

I want police to be safe, they've never done anything for me directly but it's an incredibly important job and I support them, with some reservation as I've described. That said it's a very difficult job but not everyone approaches it with the same level of respect and integrity.

"Well that's just how it is" grants tacit license to further and greater abuses. Conversation can well result in consensus and that's when real change happens.

I don’t disagree, I can appreciate it’s a problem. However until something is done I have to follow the law.

OTOH I’ve personally not always thought that way and would buck the system every chance I got, that got me nowhere in a hurry. At this point in my life I have to much to loose to gamble my fate in the hands of anyone else.

There are definitely things that need to change and proper ways to do that. For me opening a door for a cop with a gun in my hand is not the way to change it. These have been ongoing problems for years and only recently being brought out thanks to cameras, that’s been a decent start but a lot more can be done.

 

[Whistler]

No, I understand but it does have to be acknowledged and addressed even as much as it feels like beating a plowing mule.

I live out in the sticks with locked gates 600' away and cameras all over. No one comes to my door but if they did, I would know who it was long before they got there.

I just feel the discussions, including the difficult ones are critical to a common goal. I don't think we should wait, like we have with many issues, until it's a crisis or choose not to engage because it is difficult.

 

[popsgarland]

@Havok1 and @TreyG-20

Y'all s biggest problem is that you don't read to understand,
you read to reply.

 

[Havok1]

Many departments, especially sheriff departments dont have civil service protections and they can fire their employees with or without cause.

Other departments have the burden of showing the officer violated policy, law or civil rights (case law) before they can fire a civil servant.

There are pros and cons to both.

In non-protected departments the Chief/Sheriff can get rid of bad apples before they spread problems, but they can also become little tyrannical kingdoms.

In protected departments it can be more difficult to fire problems, but the officers can also opperate without as much worry about political blow-back

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Graham v Connor was cited in the report on this incident.the investigation said that the officers use of force was not objectively reasonable. The gf also stated that he didn’t hear the officer identify himself as police.

I don’t think this is so much about a lack of protections as it is that some departments are willing to retain trash officers.

@Havok1 and @TreyG-20

Y'all s biggest problem is that you don't read to understand,
you read to reply.

and yet your reply to me was based on you not reading the conversation that was taking place.

 

[popsgarland]

Graham v Connor was cited in the report on this incident.the investigation said that the officers use of force was not objectively reasonable. The gf also stated that he didn’t hear the officer identify himself as police.

I don’t think this is so much about a lack of protections as it is that some departments are willing to retain trash officers.

and yet your reply to me was based on you not reading the conversation that was taking place.

 

[Havok1]

It’s not about me, it’s about what the law says. Explain to me the difference, the police were sent to his house, correct? I can legally carry in my vehicle under castle law, the same law that I can carry in my home.

So by your logic I should be able to get out at a traffic stop as well. Just because I can open my home door with a pistol in my hand doesn’t mean I should right?

I can also drive 100 mph, there would be consequences though.

The difference is that when you pull over during a traffic stop, you’re pulling over because you see red and blue flashing lights in your rear view mirror that are following you to the shoulder. You know exactly what’s going on. Not some guy who is playing video games when there’s a random knock at the door. The hypothetical situation you’re describing is a guy being in his vehicle and exiting his vehicle and moving toward officers. This was a guy who was inside his apartment with no knowledge of what was at the door. Like I said before, tactically unsound to swing the door open when you don’t know who it is, but legally not wrong.

 

[Havok1]

View attachment 456554

 

[Tblack89]

The difference is that when you pull over during a traffic stop, you’re pulling over because you see red and blue flashing lights in your rear view mirror that are following you to the shoulder. You know exactly what’s going on. Not some guy who is playing video games when there’s a random knock at the door. The hypothetical situation you’re describing is a guy being in his vehicle and exiting his vehicle and moving toward officers. This was a guy who was inside his apartment with no knowledge of what was at the door. Like I said before, tactically unsound to swing the door open when you don’t know who it is, but legally not wrong.

Legally not wrong for the cop to shoot him swinging that door open with a gun either though.

 

[TreyG-20]

@Havok1 and @TreyG-20

Y'all s biggest problem is that you don't read to understand,
you read to reply.

 

[cycleguy2300]

The difference is that when you pull over during a traffic stop, you’re pulling over because you see red and blue flashing lights in your rear view mirror that are following you to the shoulder. You know exactly what’s going on. Not some guy who is playing video games when there’s a random knock at the door. The hypothetical situation you’re describing is a guy being in his vehicle and exiting his vehicle and moving toward officers. This was a guy who was inside his apartment with no knowledge of what was at the door. Like I said before, tactically unsound to swing the door open when you don’t know who it is, but legally not wrong.

There are situations where a person can be 100% legally carrying, even helping stop a bad guy and they get justifiably killed.

You stop an active shooter at your church as the cops pull up and they see you shooting someone (legally and justified mind you) and you're liable to get smoked if you have more than 1 descriptor matching the suspect (like having a gun in hand).

Now, did you watch the video? The deputy bangs on the door and LOUDLY announced who he was about a full second before the door opens revealing a suspect of FV who has a gun in his hand... to try to say he didnt hear the deputy announce is just ridiculous.





Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Diamond]

@Havok1 and @TreyG-20

Y'all s biggest problem is that you don't read to understand,
you read to reply.

Someone finally said it TRUTH .

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[Glenn B]

32 years as a federal law enforcement officer,, 16 of them with collateral duties as a firearms instructor, several as a non-confrontational safety instructor (or some crap like that) and I have to say I think the officer was wrong. Very close call to each being partially at fault but when giving consideration to everything that has been revealed to the public at best for the officer, it was a close call but still the cop was definitely 100% at fault in my opinion based upon my experience and training. In my estimation, there absolutely was no threat made of imminent serious bodily harm nor any threat made of death made toward the officer; there was however and over reaction by the cop as I see it. As I said repeatedly though, all of that is my opinion. Yet, my guess is he will ultimately be exonerated.

 

[Havok1]

There are situations where a person can be 100% legally carrying, even helping stop a bad guy and they get justifiably killed.

You stop an active shooter at your church as the cops pull up and they see you shooting someone (legally and justified mind you) and you're liable to get smoked if you have more than 1 descriptor matching the suspect (like having a gun in hand).

Now, did you watch the video? The deputy bangs on the door and LOUDLY announced who he was about a full second before the door opens revealing a suspect of FV who has a gun in his hand... to try to say he didnt hear the deputy announce is just ridiculous.





Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I agree with your first paragraph, this just isn’t one of them. And yes, I watched the video. Just because YOU think he must have heard it, doesn’t mean he actually heard it. The gf said he didn’t know who it was.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

32 years as a federal law enforcement officer,, 16 of them with collateral duties as a firearms instructor, several as a non-confrontational safety instructor (or some crap like that) and I have to say I think the officer was wrong. Very close call to each being partially at fault but when giving consideration to everything that has been revealed to the public at best for the officer, it was a close call but still the cop was definitely 100% at fault in my opinion based upon my experience and training. In my estimation, there absolutely was no threat made of imminent serious bodily harm nor any threat made of death made toward the officer; there was however and over reaction by the cop as I see it. As I said repeatedly though, all of that is my opinion. Yet, my guess is he will ultimately be exonerated.

Have been following and reading thread, as I understand it, officer was at wrong address.... after that, without verification everything is on officer. Were you where you were supposed to be, who was officer in charge, did you verify correct location, did dispatch verify location, don't tell me that there was no radio communication. Never mind the VICTIMS behavior, were you you where you were supposed to be? The fish smells from the head down!

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[TreyG-20]

Someone finally said it TRUTH .

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Not sure why yall got beef with me. All I did was point out that Pops wasn't following the conversation. Which he clearly wasn't. Let's hear it though, because I'm pretty sure I've never engaged in a conversation with you.

 

[Tblack89]

Not sure why yall got beef with me. All I did was point out that Pops wasn't following the conversation. Which he clearly wasn't. Let's hear it though, because I'm pretty sure I've never engaged in a conversation with you.

 

[cycleguy2300]

I agree with your first paragraph, this just isn’t one of them. And yes, I watched the video. Just because YOU think he must have heard it, doesn’t mean he actually heard it. The gf said he didn’t know who it was.

The deputy would be reasonable in believing the man heard the announcement that it was the sheriff's office... it was plenty loud to be heard and understood, which feeds into the reasonableness of the deputy's demonstrated belief that deadly force was justified



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick44]

The deputy would be reasonable in believing the man heard the announcement that it was the sheriff's office... it was plenty loud to be heard and understood, which feeds into the reasonableness of the deputy's demonstrated belief that deadly force was justified



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

That is not a reasonable assumption to make as that deputy had no knowledge of where that man was in his home (Was he next to the front door, or in the farthest corner of the home with a one or more closed doors between him and the front door?), and he had no knowledge of what he was doing in his home (Watching TV with the volume turned up, playing games or listening to music with headphones, many of which now are noise cancelling, ect).

There are many reasons why someone might not hear an announcement like that. That deputy had absolutely no knowledge of anything going on in that apartment, therefore he can not make a reasonable assumption about anything going on in that apartment.

 

[Sasquatch]

That is not a reasonable assumption to make as that deputy had no knowledge of where that man was in his home (Was he next to the front door, or in the farthest corner of the home with a one or more closed doors between him and the front door?), and he had no knowledge of what he was doing in his home (Watching TV with the volume turned up, playing games or listening to music with headphones, many of which now are noise cancelling, ect).

There are many reasons why someone might not hear an announcement like that. That deputy had absolutely no knowledge of anything going on in that apartment, therefore he can not make a reasonable assumption about anything going on in that apartment.

The deputy knocked and announced and literally 1 second later the door opens. The notion he didn't hear him doesn't fly. If he had something so loud as to drown out the deputy's announcement, yet he heard the pounding on the door - the deputy would've heard it and we might've even heard it on the BC footage. Its not like the deputy knocked, yelled "SHERIFF OFFICE OPEN THE DOOR" and there was a long delay in between. Watch the video again - its 1 second between those actions, and The time between the last announcement and the door opening meant the deceased was literally on the other side of the door. It is absolutely reasonable to expect that he heard the announcement. There was a span of 9 seconds between two knock & announcements leading up to the shooting. In that time its also reasonable to believe that the deceased was already walking toward the door, gun in hand. MAYBE he didn't understand the first "SHERIFFS OFFICE OPEN THE DOOR" - but he'd have to be completely deaf not to have heard the second as he was reaching to open the door.

If you want to go further into the weeds - an individual being cautious would not completely expose themselves while opening the door, they'd place their body behind the door if possible, in order to slam it shut quickly or provide concealment. This individual opens the door and comes full-front toward the deputy, gun in hand while the deputy yells "STEP BACK" - and the deceased begins to raise his hand which the deputy could've reasonably believed to be the person bringing their hands up into a shooting position.

Its unfortunate that we will never know what the hell was going through that young man's mind, but it is entirely reasonable to expect that he had reason to believe it was a deputy sheriff, not some random dude outside his door.

The deceased was within his rights to be armed in his home, yes, but you cannot be free of consequences, even when engaging in otherwise lawful behavior when your actions can cause another to *reasonably* perceive a danger to themselves.

This deputy's dismissal from the agency could be entirely political in an attempt to stave off riots and nonsense because its a dead young black man and a white police officer. Wouldn't be the first cop whose career was ended for political expediency to save the neck of some politician (and sheriffs are first and foremost politicians before police officers - very few do real law enforcement work at that point, they're administrators with a badge who have to beg for funding from county commissions, raise campaign warchests and try to sway voters to be re-elected.)

Shit sandwhich and everyone involved took a big bite.

 

[Havok1]

The deputy would be reasonable in believing the man heard the announcement that it was the sheriff's office... it was plenty loud to be heard and understood, which feeds into the reasonableness of the deputy's demonstrated belief that deadly force was justified



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Clearly not as he is no longer a police officer, and hopefully never will be again. Like I said, you may spend all your time sitting in silence by the front door, but people usually don’t.