“Unlike Bricker and yourself, I take shootings and government actions like this quite seriously”
““He needed killing” doesn’t cut it for me.”
“I also expect better from you, Bricker.”
Dumbass statements like this are nothing but inanities. You try to misrepresent what we’ve said, and pretend that we don’t care, don’t take it seriously, and that the victim “needed killing”. It’s simply stupid.
As I’ve said, there is investigation. The police department, the prosecutors’ office have investigated the shooting and determined there was nothing criminal in it. I’d be more than happy that the investigation continues by the feds if they get involved, or by the family of the dead person in a civil lawsuit. The more information about it the better.
But, while you conduct your investigation, keep in mind that mindlessly resorting to inanities doesn’t help you make any points at all.
If he needed killing then there should be some evidence of this, such as a verifiable threat, which there was not.There was no obvious threat even at teh point of the shooting, the procedures to control and arrest an individual were not carried out in accordance with the SWAT training.
He should only have been killed if he needed killing, and clearly he did not.That in essence is a criminal offence, since these officers are trained to behave appropriately, and every obsevation of this incident deminstrates that this was not done, and as soon as an operative works beyond the bounds of their training then they should be subject to the liability of doing so.
The poster making this comment is quite right in their analysis.
So a person who is accidentilly killed in a car accident where no criminal actions are warranted or taken, “needed killing?” Or have all of those times been conspiracies?
Sometimes, bad things happen and people die, and it isn’t a crime. Sometimes it is a crime. But just because someone died, and there wasn’t a crime, doesn’t mean that the person needed to die. And just because someone died who didn’t need to, that doiesn’t mean that there was a crime.
There’s a place in between necessity and crime - it’s called an accident. There are other gray areas too, like negligence or recklessness - which may be both criminal and/or accidental. Simplicity is easy, but it’s not how the real world works.
It doesn’t matter if you think that this instance is an accident, a crime, a conspiracy, or whatever in this regard. Trying to argue that nothing exists besides crime or necessity of killing in the case of a death is still incorrect.
I suspect that it was considered ‘legally justified’ by the SWAT members, or their superiors. I would like to see how this would play out in a court of law.
I wonder who declared it ‘legally justified’, the DA?
I believe the DA also decided there was no criminal conduct on the part of the officers. This is a far from saying they were innocent of all wrongdoing and they may well face a civil complaint.
Ho boy, trying to parse that bruised my brain. I have no idea which side of this debate you support, but I will try to respond RE accidents.
Yes there are accidents, we all know that. If I accidentally run a red light and kill someone, I am held responsible. It was an accident, but I am responsible. Murder, no. Still I am responsible.
This SWAT team had time, planning, and training before breaking into that apartment. The shooting was a deliberate act, not an accident.
“oops, I accidentally shot someone because I aimed at him and pulled the trigger three times” I disagree that that can be called an accident.
I think that police should be AT LEAST held to the standard that a common regular guy should be held. Considering that the SWAT team had everything on their side (planning, preparation, arms, training, body armor, 8 vs 1, surprise…), I see absolutely no justification for the break in and shooting. And have a very hard time calling it an accident.
Still waiting for your response to this. Or any consideration or idea why the 6 SWAT officers just went into the bedroom without any consideration for the empty dark bedroom.
Conspiracy theory? Heh. Perhaps. What do you think? Just incredibly bad tactics? It looks to me to be one or the other. Pick one.
Maybe that’s it. They shot a man that was not a threat, perhaps it was just follow the leader, and 6 officers just walked into that bedroom without so much as a cursory look into the other bedroom.
I think that’s odd, and at the very least, really, really bad procedure. To me, unless it gets clarified, either their training is really, really bad, or something else is going on.
I’m just an average Joe, but I know better than to leave a dark door behind my back. Something looks wrong here. And I hope it really is investigated.
You are welcome to disagree; I would like a LEO’s opinion here. Or anyone that has had any military training.
The differance between a car accident and a no-knock warrant, is that there is no expectation of anything going wrong in the car crash, it was unplanned.
The warrant is rather differant, there is an expectation of things that can go wrong, and the SWAT teams are trained accordingly, the shooter does not appear to have behaved in a manner consistant with good practice. The first planning stage of a no knock warrant is, should the detention of individuals and the securing of evidence be done in this manner at all, or is there a less risky alternative?
Clearly no knock warrants are risky, this is only one of a series of such incidents, so the default position must be to not use them unless there is an overwhleming need to preserve life.Seems a stipid thing to do, to risk lives to secure some evidence of low level drug dealing when there are other investigative methods that could have done the same thing without such risk, and now someone else is dead as a result.
One further thing to add, at least one other person will die, because this method of executing a warrant is so dangerous that it is absolutely inevitable that other fatalities will occur - the policy is at fault, and the operative is also at fault for not working within his training.
Sooner or later someone else will react to their door smashing down, they may well pick up a weapon and open fire, but the method of executing the warrant will guaruntee a mistake, putting the lives of the police and the public, and yes, even criminals, needlessly at risk.
Well, people do accidentily get shot. I didn’t day that this incident was or wasn’t an accident. It’s irrelevant to the point. The point being that there’s no dichotomy between murder and needed to be killed, as alluded to by a previous poster. It’s a fairly obvious point - and based on your post, I can see that it’s one that you understand. But others have suggested that either the person “needed to be killed” or the act was criminal - which is simply untrue.
To take it a little further, think of all of the accidental killings that occur - there’s always something intentional as part of the act. Just because one given act - stepping on a gas pedal, pulling a trigger, throwing a lever - is intentional - doesn’t mean that the end result is intentional. A person could fire at somone and hit someone else, or a person could think someone is “the enemy” and find out that it was someone on his side. In either incident, the firing of the weapon is clearly purposeful, but the result is accidental. In other situations, a person may think he heard an order to fire or may think that someone had a gun when in fact they didn’t, and pull a trigger on purpose. These too may be considered accidental. Some instances may carry more fault than others. Again, there are few black and white answers - no dichotomies - life is complicated, and tragedy all the more so.
You stated that you didn’t know which side I came down on this one - the answer is that I don’t come down on a side. It was a tragedy - some poor guy got killed and he shouldn’t have. As to what was in the shooter’s head - I have no idea.
Do you not think that a PLANNED breakin in the middle of the night pushes some additional responsability onto the system and the SWAT officers? What if an officer was shot in that confusion? Would the resident be accused? I bet he would. But it’s OK to shoot down a confused resident.
This kind of BS needs to stop now, or at the very least, the police need to be held responsible for crimes that they commit when they execute such drastic actions.
He was never told to drop the golf club. In that situation, the natural reaction is to freeze. Making sudden movements in the dark (such as dropping the golf club) without being told to are liable to get you shot.
This is obviously yet another “what is the law” vs “what should be the law” misunderstanding. It may very well be perfectly legal to burst into a house and shoot someone to death without giving them a chance to follow your commands (or indeed without giving them a chance to even process what is happening). It should not be.
How was the victim supposed to know it was cop and not a thug* breaking in shouting police? Will you ever answer that?
*although in this case it was both.
No charges should be filed - it was justified. The police clearly identified themselves and the bozo is standing there holding a weapon. I’d have shot him, too.
Well I am convinced, the guy was guilty of TWO offences that deserve death.
He was STANDING there holding a weapon (as opposed to, you know, charging, swinging, aiming or actuall taking some form of action with the most dangerous of weapons cleverly disguised as a golf club)
He was a bozo - oh the shame and horror he brings to his family, how can society live with such a dangerous person in their midst.
And if he’d dropped the golf club, you would defend shooting him because he made a sudden movement in the dark and because nobody had told him to do anything.
Should have frozen until told what to do.
Of course, in reality he didn’t have time to make an educated guess at which action, if any, could persuade the SWAT team not to kill him. He didn’t have enough time to process what was going on. “Police! Open fire! Get on the ground! Drop your weapon! Don’t move!” in 3 seconds flat.
Perhaps the “open fire!” should have come at a different part of that order? It makes the rest kind of pointless.