I don’t think that’s close to the truth Bryan, at least not as a general rule.
Here’s an example, from late 2010, with a different outcome when the SWAT team didn’t storm the residence.
San Diego police were called to help detain others believed to be still inside the two-bedroom apartment, including the fugitive who had run into the master bedroom, Collins said.
Six San Diego officers went inside, where someone opened fire on them from behind the closed bedroom door, hitting Wilson, Collins said. Three of the officers returned fire.*
And
Officer Christopher A. Wilson, a 50-year-old father of two, was kept alive long enough at Scripps Mercy Hospital in Hillcrest for his family to say goodbye early Thursday.*
This is an emotional discussion, but there are certainly two sides to the argument that the action of the police was unjustified. In my opinion, the storming was justified, however the death was an unfortunate tragedy.
Bricker, you seem to be under the impression that this is a court of law (it isn’t) and that our court resides in a state where there’s contributory negligence (there isn’t).
We can argue about whether he’s 1% or 2% or 0% responsible for his death but, you know what? It doesn’t matter. At all.
Seriously, if the best argument you can offer is that his drug use done brought him down low and he shoulda expected to have needed killin’ due to his lifestyle, well, you might as well just yell “Hitler” into the bathroom mirror three times and get this thread over with.
Man that is one fucked-up video. I simply don’t see any way the victim could have avoided the shooting/execution. Technicalities aside, it’s quite clear from the pictures that the officer, hopped-up on adrenaline as he was, basically charged in and fired away.
First, let me be clear, I’m not one of Brickers’ fans.
But, and this is an important but, I think many of the responses to his posts are straight up misrepresentations of what he said, stupid ad hominems, and mouth-flecked-with-foam ranting. Those posts have all but drowned out any actual point making or debate that may occur. I understand it’s the Pit, and you all are free to do your Nazi references, your illogical ranting to your heart’s content. But you don’t need to make Bricker the scapegoat for your ranting.
Correct. To be even more precise, the police didn’t even know he was Blair, the homeowner. Sure it seemed likely, but in circumstances where they think a golf club is a sword, they ain’t got positive ID. So what it boils down to is they felt justified killing some unknown person – remember, they had not IDed him, it could have been any one of us – because the property in question had allegedly been used for something illegal by a completely different person whom they knew was now gone. Starting to smell like weak sauce yet?
You know, my entire state was once used by people who made war on the government and who are now known to be gone. I’m toast.
No, he wasn’t. He held a golf club. The police thought it was a sword, clearly establishing that they didn’t know what it was at all. Well, let’s be honest, in the dark, stinking of fear, with a few seconds to decide, anything could look like a weapon. So you’re essentially saying it’s his fault for holding anything in his own house.
What are you saying? That was foaming? That was a Nazi comparison? I thought it seemed fairly factual – the police did not know exactly whom they were shooting at or what he was holding, that much is establishable with a few moments of thinking.
Are you saying a few moments of thinking is foam-flecked ranting, or are you saying a few moments of thinking is not something we should expect from Bricker?
Obviously, the police officers were not using unlawful force, but is it reasonable to expect a person who has the right to defend his home from invaders, to give up that right without any chance to assess the situation? Should they not have the ability to determine if there may be an imminent use of unlawful force?
The expectation seems to be that a person should give up his rights instantly because the invaders shouted “Police, Warrant!”
They weren’t invaders. They were officers in the lawful performance of their duty. You may not like the outcome, and I don’t either, but they were acting according to the law, or they wouldn’t have been cleared in the matter.
“I think many of the responses to his posts are straight up misrepresentations of what he said.”
Nothing Bricker posted led me to the conclusion that he was “essentially saying it’s his fault for holding anything in his own house.” Nothing. That’s a viewpoint you unfairly ascribed to him.
Then the law clearly needs to be changed doesnt’ it? As you interprete it, it gives LEO’s the right to gun down anyone that they please.
Those assholes are probably going to be cleared by the blue sheild of silence. I would like to for once see a DA prosecute these over the top fuckers.
Face it. Look at the video again. Blair was NOT a threat to the SWAT team. Just a confused resident. There was NO reason for the break in, and absolutely no reason to shoot Blair. None.
I’m ‘pro’ gun and always will be. But the trigger happy SWAT member that shot Blair needs to be taken off of the SWAT team.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I watched the video, and heard at least five iterationsof “Police! Search warrant!” prior to the shots bieng fired.
It’s not clear to me why you feel that the police were not justified. The man heard, “Police, search warrant,” repeated multiple times, but instead of standing with his hands up he adopted an aggressive stance. In the dark, with seconds to decide, there’s no good way of knowing if the man was armed with something more deadly than a golf club.
[/quote]
He suggests that the victim should have stood with his hands up, but didn’t.
Later on…
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Five seconds of, “Police, search warrant,” should be enough warning to any adult with a working brain that standing with a menacing pose holding a weapon is a Very Bad Idea.
[/quote]
Bricker clearly felt on page one that despite the compelling video evidence to the contrary, the guy had some sort of control over whether or not, in that moment, he got shot.
Later he says…
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I agree that it’s very likely that, at that instant, Blair was more likely than not unable to process what was happening and take the correct action to save his own life.
[/quote]
You must have missed the part of my 4 sentence post where I stated that the police were lawful in entering the home. The question is, how does a homeowner, who has the explicit legal right to defend his home, distinguish between lawful and unlawful force?
If you’re going to tell me that homeowners must immediately relinquish that right upon hearing the magic word “Police!” then the right to defend your home is utterly useless, not based on the legislature altering the law, but based on Police methods.