Translation: I can’t actually defend the point Imade or address yours. But rather than admit that, I’ll call you some names.
No.
Um, no. It’s extremely relevant to rebut the set of inferences raised by the constant repetition of the claim that they didn’t shoot, or find, the “person they were looking for.”
So as long as people keep raising the point that the cops didn’t shoot the person they were looking for, or didn’t arrest the person they were looking for, then it’s relevant to point out that the cops were not looking for anyone – they were searching the premises for the fruits of criminal activity.
The fact is that they lawfully served a valid search warrant on a home that was used for the packaging and distribution of narcotic drugs in violation of state law, and in the course of that action were confront by an individual brandishing a weapon, who was not an innocent bystander but well aware of the business being conducted in the home, and that individual was shot.
Honest question here. If the search warrant was approved in part based on the statement that Chournos (the target of the investigation) lived in the home, and the police knew prior to serving the warrant that this was not actually true, should the warrant still be considered valid?
No question I’d want you on my team if I were, say, a trigger-happy cop who reflexively shot some poor dad holding a Wiffle bat (a good 15 feet out of swinging range) while investigating an alleged unlicensed kid’s lemonade stand, but all lawyerin’ aside… you really and truly, in your heart of hearts, think this was a justified killing?
I repeat:
"So is it your contention that shooting a person who was clearly no threat to the police is justified because there was a warrant to search a house where he resided?
If not, could you perhaps advise which of the other factors you feel was the reason he had to be killed?
- Because he was holding a golf club
- Because he came through to see who was smashing the door down, or
- Because he did not drop the golf club the moment the policeman shone a torch at him, even though there was no instruction for him to do so
I’d love to know which of the above was the offence that required his death.
And, as requested previously, and with reference to the recent example posted, of people breaking into a house, posing to be police, and killing innocents: just how do you reconcile the reasonable desire to defend your own home with the police being “justified” in shooting you if you attempt to do so?
It would of course be downright refreshing if you tried to actually answer sincerely and honestly, but that really isn’t likely, is it?"
You can keep hiding behind sophistry or “translations” - otherwise known as strawmen - but I’ll just keep asking the same question just to make it quite clear how dishonest and evasive you are. I’d suggest you either skulk off to another thread, or just admit that the idea this death was justified is just ridiculous.
Or, you know, just keep on with the evasiveness, misdirection and other such tactics. Your choice, but I’d actually bet that in your heart of hearts even you know how ridiculous you sound. Probably best if you just skulk off, eh?
It remains unclear to me why the warrant had to be served at night and in such a manner as designed to create confusion among the people in the home (normally useful if the police want to overwhelm then as part of taking control with minimal risk to themselves, but with the risk that people in the home might freeze and not immediately respond to commands, even if such commands were given and it is unclear at best that they were) if all they wanted to do was search the place. Had a large drug shipment just arrived? Was one going out the next day?
I’m sure the police filled out the paperwork correctly, or at least I don’t see the point in debating whether they did or not. They created a situation of unecessary risk to accomplish a goal of dubious value in a manner that was particularly inept. I hope the family sues. I hope they win.
There’s no cut-and-dried answer, but it’s fair to say it’s possible, even likely, that the search warrant would be found to be invalid if this were so. It depends on what other evidence was laid out in the warrant. If the information about Chornous was removed, would the remainder of information still support probable cause to believe that the home would contain the fruits of a crime or criminal activity?
I don’t think it rises to the level of a criminal shooting.
“Justified” suggests that the police did nothing wrong. I can’t agree with that, as I outlined above.
eh, never mind
No. Never said anything like that, either.
That question is inflammatory, since I never said he “had to be” killed.
How do you reconcile the need for people to drive cars with the fact that car accidents happen and people die?
And how do you reconcile your pious face requesting the truth with your continual misrepresentation of what I’ve said?
Sheesss Bricker. Got any more straw? Dance around questions much?
Watch the video again. The SWAT team broke in and shot the first person they saw.
Even on the video, I can see the head of the golf club. Sword my ass.
I would expect a little better duty from a highly trained team. I would expect better from a mall security guard. I would expect better from anyone that chooses to own a gun.
I also expect better from you, Bricker. Just because you’re a lawyer, does not negate what you see. Twist and turn the fact that they had a warrant all you want, but that man was NOT a threat to the SWAT team.
And why, in the short time between entry and shooting, must the officer have seen the head of the golf club? Why did the officer have to have the same perception you did? I didn’t see the head of the gof club until the third time I saw the video.
Now, I don’t disagree with what you said: I, too, expect better from a highly trained team. I expect them, at a minimum, to follow their own procedures, which they did not.
But none of that makes their conduct CRIMINAL. The mere fact that they didn’tlive up to the high standards we expect of a highly-trained team does not transform their actions into criminal actions.
The officer that shot him was closer to the victim than the person that had the helmet cam. It is not unreasonable to suspect that he had a better view of what was in front of him. What the office did not do, is evaluate the threat. Not, at, all.
As I said, and you agree, I expect more from a trained team. I expect them to at the very least evaluate the threat before shooting. Do you?
Castle doctrine supports the man that was killed. I could legally shoot someone that had broken into my home armed with anything (at least in Colorado) or not armed at all.
The fact remains that the SWAT team broke in, and shot a man before identifying if he was a threat or not, and before allowing him to surrender, or even having a chance of knowing what in the hell was going on. It does not seem like they even properly identified themselves. What I here is “Freeze mutherfucker”.
The action shows gross incompetence resulting in death at the very least. Gross incompetence that leads to death is what, manslaughter?
In any case, this needs to be investigated. Something smells and it could be more than just incompetence.
Did anyone notice that after the shooting, 6 SWAT officers went into the one bedroom and completely ignored the other dark bedroom? 6 officers to secure a bedroom in an apartment before making sure the apartment was safe?
He’s answered that. Repeatedly. Simply pretending he didn’t and trying to paint your misstated view of his opinion as incoherent doesn’t change that.
It was investigated. Although I do love the whole conspiracy theory angle you’re trying to build. Fascinating it is.
He did not answer it. Bricker has dismissed it, as if it’s not important.
What was investigated? I simply threw the idea out there that something looks odd. Why did 6 SWAT members go into that one bedroom? It just seems very very strange. If I was on a jury I would question that. Wouldn’t you? I would hope so.
Unlike Bricker and yourself, I take shootings and government actions like this quite seriously (I am a government employee). “He needed killing” doesn’t cut it for me. I think episodes such as what we saw here need to be looked at very closely.
They executed an innocent man in terror for his life. How could this innocent person have avoided being killed?
If your answer involves them shouting “police!”, please include how one is supposed to distinguish thugs yelling police from police or an explanation why people should no longer have a right of self defense.
Since the law is too impotent and cowardly to render justice, why shouldn’t the street? Or does the blood of an innocent man no longer scream for justice?
This is precisely the inane crap I’ve been railing against. Bricker and I disagree with you, so we must not taking shooting seriously. We think that it might not be murder, so we must think “he needed killing”.
It’s the simplistic, inane, small minded, and weak thinking that this board is dedicated to stopping. Yet you revel in the strawman making, holier than thou crap like a pig in shit. I hope that works out for you.
On second thought I wish to retract this. Despite the grievousness of the crime it was a very ugly thing to say. Unlike the murderer who pulled the trigger there a lot of good, innocent cops who could get injured from a perceived need to fight back, and as a recently in the news murder in Arizona has shown me, rhetoric may not pull the trigger, but it inspires the bullet.
Further even the murderer is entitled to some form of just humane treatment, which “street justice” will almost guaranteed not deliver. To think otherwise is to sink the trigger puller’s level.
Hamlet, really, relax. There is nothing inane in my posts.
-
What straw men have I made? What is small minded? Where is the weak thinking?
I hope that you have watched the video. While I would agree that a picture does not tell the entire story, I do think that this warrants further investigation. Don’t you? -
The SWAT team was in no danger, and yes I will defend the idea that “he needed killing” might be perhaps the reason he was gunned down for no reason. Or that the shooter has been playing too much Call of Duty or whatever the current shoot ‘em is (I like such games and buy one every year or two) that is exactly what it looks like.
And I have to ask Hamlet exactly where have you been railing against this? And what is the crap? Is it because I take police shootings seriously? Holier than thou? Really? That’s quite funny, as I am atheist. But perhaps my lack of belief would have produced a better outcome. I tend to stick to facts.
The “He needed killing” reference was to the cops state of mind, not your or Brickers posts. But it seems that you agree with the SWAT officers thinking. I do not. I do not shoot people that are not a threat to me. :shrug:
That cop had just enough time to see that someone occupied that space, and shot him. Are you saying that killing someone just because you can see him isn’t criminal?