Then the jury can decide. If a plainclothes cop breaks into someone’s house, without a warrant, and without announcing that he’s police, I could see acquitting. Otherwise, no, you knew they were a cop and shot them anyway.
By the way, is this a thing that’s ever happened? Has anyone ever been found to have shot a cop who was doing their job in justified self defence?
What do you mean “no”? I said, in both of the two sentences that I wrote, that they don’t HAVE to. It’s their job to, not a legal duty.
Kern County, CA (Bakersfield) Sheriff: it is better “financially” to kill suspects than to “cripple” them.
If it’s their job to do it, they should be fired if they won’t do it. Right ?
Possibly, depending on the circumstances. Certainly some form of disciplinary action would be appropriate, depending on how great the risk was (reasonably perceived to be and such), and whether it’s a one-off or a pattern.
Or they could resign, as I believe the cop who failed to enter the building at the recent school shooting did. But, I don’t think he should be locked up for it.
Why are you giving me a sensible reply 
While no one was shot, or even injured, this is not really an example of exemplary police work.
That is just stupid. They should file suit.
I have one question that none of the articles seem to cover.
How long were they there before management confronted them. If it was a few minutes, yes, bullshit, hang that manager.
Were they sitting around for 90 minutes during rush times when tables were not available for paying customers? If so I am less prone to cry racism.
How many white people had their laptops and books out during that same period of time?
Jurors explain why they acquitted man of officer involved shooting
SWAT team executes a no-knock warrant delivery on a house without making sure their suspect actually lived there. Homeowner shoots at invaders injuring three. Gets prosecuted for those three plus one additional where an officer was shot by another officer.
Good find!
I’ve been watching the Starbucks story develop. Ah, 2018, where the only thing worse than racism is mentioning it. I swear, if:
Thanks for finding that. I’m not sure I’d agree from the article that it was a “botched” raid, but it’s a good description of a jury finding reasonable doubt of guilt, and another argument for police wearing body cameras.
Not sure what all that has to do with the Starbucks incident.
Me: What’s the wifi password?
Barman: You need to buy a drink first.
Me: Okay, I’ll have a coke.
Barman: Is Pepsi okay?
Me: Sure. How much is that?
Barman: $3.00
Me: There you go. So what’s the wifi password?
Barman: You need to buy a drink first. No spaces, all lowercase.
From the info I pieced together from other articles it was pretty much the definition of a botched raid.
The homeowners nephew was some sort of low level drug dealer.
A rival dealer narced on the nephew and ID’d the house as the nephew’s residence. It wasn’t.
The police got a no-knock warrant based on the single claim.
SWAT executes the warrant and cluster fuck ensues.
This wasn’t the article I was looking for when I started the search, but it was the first that came up on Google.
The one I was looking for was where an officer was actually killed in a no-knock raid on the wrong address and the judge ruled it self defense under the castle doctrine (I think).
Personally I think no-knock warrants should be banned except under very extreme and well documented circumstances.
This sounds like an incident I’ve discussed here before, and I remember saying that it sounds like it was the investigation and the issuing of the warrant that was botched, rather than the execution of the raid. Also, I remember that the nephew was living there at one point, and the article you linked to certainly says that.
If the address they raid is different to the one on the warrant, then the cops aren’t their legally, which would change things somewhat, although I’m still far from convinced it’s reasonable to consider the police executing a warrant as a threat to you. And I’d certainly expect anyone who believes that the police shouldn’t make mistakes when judging whether someone has a gun should also believe that people shouldn’t make mistakes when identifying whether someone’s a cop. The latter (assuming they’re uniformed) is far easier.
No-knock warrants are needed any time there’s a chance that evidence could be destroyed - although that would be more likely to be the case when trying to seize paperwork or computers with incriminating files on them.
Have you forgotten who you were arguing with?
That’s a valid question, but not sure it’s relevant to the police. It’s the job of police when a property owner calls them to report a case of “defiant trespass”, to remove the offender from the premises. The way it is normally handled is they verbally warn the person to leave, if they refuse, they get arrested.
It’s actually very clear the men did in fact commit defiant trespass, and the police take like 7 minutes to explain this to them (this is captured on tape) before arresting them.
Aside: Why are news reports saying the men were released because “there was no evidence they had committed a crime.” Answer: because the Philadelphia DA is basically a mouthpiece of BLM and has chosen to have his office be coy with the words. What we actually know happened (because Starbucks has admitted this, and we have much of it on video):
-Two black real estate investors enter a Starbucks and sit down to wait for an associate
-One of them either asks or moves to use the restroom, and is told it’s for paying customers only
-We don’t know how it escalated from there, but we know they didn’t become paying customers and the manager apparently asked them to leave
-We know the manager called the police
-Police arrive, tell them they’ve been asked to leave and that the manager has the right to refuse them service.
-After about 7 minutes of discussing it with them they are arrested and removed
This is a classic case of defiant trespass, which isn’t a very serious crime, but it’s certainly a valid cause of arrest–particularly if the person is outright refusing repeated requests to leave the premises (and avoid trouble.)
However, what evidence is required to convict someone of defiant trespass? Basically the property owner of the trespassed property has to be willing to press charges and submit evidence to support them. In this case we know that Starbucks corporate decided not to press charges due to the political fallout. Without the willingness of the property owner to submit evidence or press charges, there is indeed “no evidence a crime was committed.” But this is due to zero fault of the police, it’s because a property owner called them and asked them to remove people, they did, and then the property owner didn’t want to involve itself in the matter further.
Now, the root of it–and your point, how many white people were probably doing the same thing? That’s actually irrelevant to the Philadelphia Police Department. It’s not their job to enforce civil rights laws in that moment.
Basically these black guys did something lots of people apparently do at this very Starbucks (hang out without buying stuff), according to news reports lots of white persons are allowed to hang out there all the time. By disparately applying a corporate policy only to black non-customers it’s highly likely these two guys have a very strong cause of action against Starbucks due to the behavior of its agent, the store manager. Whether Starbucks actions are a civil tort actionable under civil rights laws or actual criminal offenses is harder to say, but it’s definitely above the pay grade of Philly bike cops. They have a responsibility to remove someone that a premise owner/manager says is trespassing; and it’s essentially outside their purview to adjudicate if the person is being removed for a “bullshit” reason, that itself might be actionable.
In this case there is a bad guy, but it’s not any of the cops. They were all calm and cool, gave both guys a chance to avoid arrest for a lengthy period of time. Didn’t use violence to effect the arrest, and treated them pretty respectfully. I think the two guys probably acted out of outrage and perhaps ignorance of the law.
A lot of people don’t understand how laws intersect. For example I could own a bar and I could trump up reasons to kick out black customers and if they refused to leave, I could call the police to have them removed. A lay person might feel the cop can’t enforce the property owner’s desire to remove someone if that reason is itself not legal, but in a case where you’re talking about something like “systemic racist treatment of black customers”, there is no way to adjudicate that in the here and now. And the basic legal principle is a premise owner/manager can legally require you to leave; if you refuse you are trespassing, and unless it’s a situation where you have some clearly established residency in the building the cops have a responsibility to resolve the trespass situation and leave the rest up to lawyers to handle.