I have mixed feelings on this....

[cycleguy2300]

I'm thinking cycleguy may have a hard time explaining these posts if he ever did need to use his sidearm in a situation.
Or even now, if the wrong woke person at whatever department he works for, happens to stumble into TGT.

This seems more like a threat to try to cause me and my family trouble than anything constructive or it would have been in a DM.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

SCOTUS has actually addressed the shower question

United States v. Banks, 540 US 31 (2004)

United States v. Banks

supreme.justia.com

Irrelevant comparison as those officers had a valid warrant to enter. Subject was not shot and killed either.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Irrelevant comparison as those officers had a valid warrant to enter. Subject was not shot and killed either.

It is relevent, just not 100% translatable

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

Another thing I noticed, is the video stops as officer draws. We do not see what happens after that. The investigators do. After shots fired, we hear officer tell him to drop gun, and he says he didnt have it. The video clearly shows gun is not point at officer when he shoots.

 

[V-Tach]

Differences of opinion, that is what jury's are for........

 

[Renegade]

It is relevent, just not 100% translatable

Jeez you really are on a roll of being wrong on everything.

In case you cited, the issue was whether the police with a VALID warrant, "waited an unreasonably short time before forcing entry in violation of both the Fourth Amendment".

The Johnny Diamond hypothetical scenario involved subject in shower, or in bed sleeping, or even AT THE FUCKING CONVENIENCE STORE, when police forcibly enter, without warrant, without announcing.

The two could not be further apart.

Never mind his actual question was "Who is responsible for repairs?" Not whether entry was justified or not.

You are so blinded with bias right now you cannot even see the most simple cases for what they are.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Jeez you really are on a roll of being wrong on everything.

In case you cited, the issue was whether the police with a VALID warrant, "waited an unreasonably short time before forcing entry in violation of both the Fourth Amendment".

The Johnny Diamond hypothetical scenario involved subject in shower, or in bed sleeping, or even AT THE FUCKING CONVENIENCE STORE, when police forcibly enter, without warrant, without announcing.

The two could not be further apart.

Never mind his actual question was "Who is responsible for repairs?" Not whether entry was justified or not.

You are so blinded with bias right now you cannot even see the most simple cases for what they are.

Renegade......I hope that you understand that I was not advocating for the shooting, had a little too much of my own home brew last night so still a little foggy in the brain today forgive me if I misunderstood the above post.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[Sasquatch]

Question all who feel shooting was justified, what if the airman was in the shower, lying in bed sleeping off a hangover, or at his local quicky mart buying a pack of smokes and no one answered the door.....so door was forcibly opened and damaged. Who is responsible for repairs? Oh, oh well so sorry about that but you the renter will just have to pony up and pay for that. Unfortunately we arrived at wrong location/received a false report of a crime in progress. We have immunity and won't be doing shit about it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

In the scenarios you pose forcing entry would be uncalled for and unlawful unless the officers had a warrant. They're not booting the door without a warrant except for exigent circumstances - ie they hear someone yelling "help" or "stop" or "please, don't!" or they hear what they determine to be a physical assault ongoing. If the deputy(ies) couldn't hear anything, they cannot argue exigent circumstances and force entry, even if responding to a DV call.

If you're going to make a warrantless entry into a private premisis you must be able to articulate why - to preserve evidence you believe to be actively destroyed, or to stop a violent assault / rape / murder.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Jeez you really are on a roll of being wrong on everything.

In case you cited, the issue was whether the police with a VALID warrant, "waited an unreasonably short time before forcing entry in violation of both the Fourth Amendment".

The Johnny Diamond hypothetical scenario involved subject in shower, or in bed sleeping, or even AT THE FUCKING CONVENIENCE STORE, when police forcibly enter, without warrant, without announcing.

The two could not be further apart.

Never mind his actual question was "Who is responsible for repairs?" Not whether entry was justified or not.

You are so blinded with bias right now you cannot even see the most simple cases for what they are.

It points towards knocking and announcing providing a reasonable expectation that anyone inside should have known it was police at the door.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

It points towards knocking and announcing providing a reasonable expectation that anyone inside should have known it was police at the door.

And his question was "Who is responsible for repairs?"

Did it answer his question? No? Not relevant.

Even after it is explained you still cannot see it.

eta

here is his full question:

Who is responsible for repairs? Oh, oh well so sorry about that but you the renter will just have to pony up and pay for that. Unfortunately we arrived at wrong location/received a false report of a crime in progress. We have immunity and won't be doing shit about it.

Note the entire thing is about damages. ZERO on justification. You are Snow Blind.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

And his question was "Who is responsible for repairs?"

Did it answer his question? No? Not relevant.

Even after it is explained you still cannot see it.

eta

here is his full question:

Who is responsible for repairs? Oh, oh well so sorry about that but you the renter will just have to pony up and pay for that. Unfortunately we arrived at wrong location/received a false report of a crime in progress. We have immunity and won't be doing shit about it.

Note the entire thing is about damages. ZERO on justification. You are Snow Blind.

Actually I was positing the question what would have happened if he didn't answer the door for any number of reasons.....and then they force entry and no shooting occurs, it's too damn bad, same situation as him being shot dead after a false report or wrong location or both. Just too damn bad.
Johnny

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Actually I was positing the question what would have happened if he didn't answer the door for any number of reasons.....and then they force entry and no shooting occurs, it's too damn bad, same situation as him being shot dead after a false report or wrong location or both. Just too damn bad.
Johnny

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

*GENERALLY*

For a report of FV entry is not forced (there is no exigency) unless police can hear what *sounds to them* to be an assault in progress where someone is ACTIVELY being injured. Most often it is what police thinknit is, sometimes it is just a very loud argument, sometimes it is people just getting it on really loud.

Searches (entry) requires:
- Conscent
or
- Probable Cause* AND a signed warrant
or
- Probable Cause AND exigency*


*Sort of a given is these need to have some sort of governmental interest. For example: a suicidal subject ALONE in a house with a gun. Knock and announce all you want (please call, dont knock) but there isn't a governmental interest that justifies entry on a barricaded subject where there is no reason to suspect any risk to others. HOWEVER if there a armed suicidal subject in a public place the 5-C (contain, control, communicate, call for addl resources, create a plan) take over and the subject WILL be taken into custody at some point, but there is still no exigency (and therefore norush) until there is a danger posed to innocents or officers.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

There is quite a leap from this situation to the one in the OP.



And there it is! Your go to response for when you realize you’re in way over your head.

I hope for your sake that you get some training before you hurt or kill an innocent person.

For you, I would suspect 2+3 is quite a leap from 2+2...

The point is, a person need not be doing anything illegal or "wrong" to be reasonably seized per the 4th Amendment (detentions and arrests are seizures, and intentional uses of force/deadly force are detentions/seizures also). The seizure must be reasonable, based on the facts know to the officer AT THE TIME, which this shooting was.

So while "but he wasnt breaking the law" is debatable in fact, ot being legal does not change the reasonableness of the deputy's use of deadly force.

Here is a good article you may want to read

You Don’t Have to Shoot First; But You Better Do Something! - Force Science

“The officer should have waited until he actually saw the suspect’s gun. If the suspect tried to shoot him, he could have shot first.” Anonymous The above quote didn’t come from an angry anti-police protestor or a biased civil rights attorney. It came from a police legal advisor. It came from an...

www.forcescience.com

Keep in mind the officer had no position of cover available and presumably believed an innocent or less-guilty party was also in side (its hard to commit a Assault-FV alone) so his options are.... to shoot.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Diamond]

*GENERALLY*

For a report of FV entry is not forced (there is no exigency) unless police can hear what *sounds to them* to be an assault in progress where someone is ACTIVELY being injured. Most often it is what police thinknit is, sometimes it is just a very loud argument, sometimes it is people just getting it on really loud.

Searches (entry) requires:
- Conscent
or
- Probable Cause* AND a signed warrant
or
- Probable Cause AND exigency*


*Sort of a given is these need to have some sort of governmental interest. For example: a suicidal subject ALONE in a house with a gun. Knock and announce all you want (please call, dont knock) but there isn't a governmental interest that justifies entry on a barricaded subject where there is no reason to suspect any risk to others. HOWEVER if there a armed suicidal subject in a public place the 5-C (contain, control, communicate, call for addl resources, create a plan) take over and the subject WILL be taken into custody at some point, but there is still no exigency (and therefore norush) until there is a danger posed to innocents or officers.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

The door was reported as having been "knocked" on more than once, he was alone, no one was being beaten as was given for the reason of law enforcement's visit in the first place. I'm really having difficulty with the entire situation. Again he was supposed to have been beating his girlfriend, who wasn't even present. So I ask again what if he was showering, shaving, relieving himself, passed out drunk. What would the outcome have been. Hence the question if you are reported as beating the hell out of someone and don't answer the door, what then? Will they just walk away call dispatch and say sorry no answer awaiting next call?
Irregardless of the outcome its been stated wrong address, false report etc. wrong apartment or not, would they have just left if he didn't answer, or what exactly would the outcome have been? Domestic disturbance in progress no noise in domicile, no answer.
I guess I'm getting at this guy was screwed from the beginning. No victim present, video footage convinced his superiors he was in the wrong and this guy is just going to walk away from the call and what would he have put in his report, oh well no answer to my knocking on door?
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

The door was reported as having been "knocked" on more than once, he was alone, no one was being beaten as was given for the reason of law enforcement's visit in the first place. I'm really having difficulty with the entire situation. Again he was supposed to have been beating his girlfriend, who wasn't even present. So I ask again what if he was showering, shaving, relieving himself, passed out drunk. What would the outcome have been. Hence the question if you are reported as beating the hell out of someone and don't answer the door, what then? Will they just walk away call dispatch and say sorry no answer awaiting next call?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I cannot say with certainty, but in my experience I would expect several loud knocks (from here out just assume knocks include announcements), then if no disturbance was heard inside typically that's it. If complaints get call-back or talked to in person it basically be to find out if the disturbance was so bad as to be deadly and if entry needed to be made to preserve a life.

Basically if there is no answer and no other info (including sounds from in the apt/house) we leave and go to the next one.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Diamond]

I would really like think that is the case. This individual seems to have been either poorly trained or wrongly retained. Shoot the guy down then shout drop your weapon?
Ok I'll walk away now.
Johnny

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[TreyG-20]

Moral of the story. Don't answer the door for loud knocks. Could be the cops, could be some thugs, could be the UPS guy. Arm yourself and wait for the door to get kicked in. If that happens light up anyone on the other side. They aren't going to wait for you to go first.

 

[Tblack89]

Post #254:

"Let’s be real here, there is no confusing that knock for anything other than a police officer either."

You see “he had to know” in there? I don’t see any of those words, maybe there’s a glitch.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Seems like the deputy DID do a great job gathering information from people he had ecer reason to believe were credible and reliable.

Edited to add a few more

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Tblack89]

Seems like the deputy DID do a great job gathering information from people he had ecer reason to believe were credible and reliable.

Edited to add a few more

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Good stuff.