It can be a weapon yes. However, it is also exactly the type of weapon that any reasonable person would expect a homeowner to be holding if they were shocked out of their beds at night by persons unknown kicking their door in.
Its isnt just drug dealers and pimps that would be holding golf clubs in that situation, it could have been anybody. Grabbing a stick/bat/club for protection is human nature.
So we have the occupant (not the suspect, remember), holding a club like any confused person would do, NOT running at the police, NOT shouting at the police, in fact NOT doing anything except standing there. And they shot him.
It looks to me like the cops shouted “Police, search warrant!” and two seconds later (literally two seconds, I counted) shot the guy multiple times. He didn’t DO A FUCKING THING, Bricker. He turned the corner, the cop saw him, and started shooting. No hesitation on the part of the cops.
You’re not the murderous cop’s defense attorney, so stop acting like one.
The cop suffered from buck fever, and started shooting the second he saw a person. The shouts of “get on the ground!” as the victim was lying there dead on the floor were an especially nice touch.
If a cops are too scared to take half a second to verify whether the person they are shooting at poses a threat, then they shouldn’t conduct midnight raids on people’s houses.
As for the contention that the murdered homeowner did something wrong, well, how exactly do you think you’d react? You’d wake up and make the exact correct decision to save your life in two seconds? You seriously blame the homeowner for getting himself shot in this situation? It’s seriously his fault?
The cop shot an unarmed helpless man without hesitation and without remorse. That’s what happened. It’s right there on videotape. You saw it.
Reasonable people also own pistols and shotguns for home defense. My problem with this whole thing isn’t the policeman defending himself by shooting an armed and potentially dangerous person. I very much support the right of police to defend themselves against attacks and threats. It’s the fact that the police chose to create a dangerous situation for no good reason, and killed the homeowner to ensure their safety.
There is absolutely nothing about this situation* that inherently requires risking life and limb. The police need to come up with less dangerous ways to serve warrants, even if it’s slightly more expensive to do so. For example, spending the time to observe the location and successfully detain the resident to ensure it’s empty before entering.
The situation being that they are investigating a person who no longer lives in the home, and is known to not be in the home, for the purposes of gathering evidence that is presumed to be in the home that might be useful to convict. You don’t risk life to gather evidence.
Now see, here is where you lose me. If this house is involved in enough drug-related activity that we as a society feel the need to kick down the door with a squad of thugs read to kill everyone inside, then how could they possibly flush enough evidence down the toilet such that they could avoid conviction?
Or, are we now using this technique on the tweaker down the street with half a gram of X drug?
Indefensible. Lemur866 said much of what I believe, but I would remove “unarmed” before helpless man in the last paragraph. I expect better of the police. Even assuming a no-knock warrant was necessary, there was absolutely no reason for a trained officer to pull the trigger in that situation. That is not someone who should have a firearm in stressful situations. I understand that the officer might have been scared, but more scared than a man whose home was being invaded? Bricker, your defense that the time this man had to rationally think this through was enough is misplaced. He certainly did not have enough time to assess what was happening before being shot to death.
My neighbor’s house was raided by a SWAT team looking for drugs. Nobody was shot but they did smash in his door and scare the piss out of everyone. They chose to raid his house on the word of a dealer they had recently captured. Apparently you can get off if you turn in another, bigger dealer. He gave the police the name of someone he didn’t like (my neighbor’s son) and the police took it from there. So, I don’t think they raid for small amounts, that would be silly. They raid wherever a known drug dealer tells them the big score is to be found, after they’ve let the dealer off.
I was wondering that myself - to justify the risk and expense and man-hours of a house raid, shouldn’t cops be confident that the house is the site of a grow-op or sales point or cutting center or something significant in the drug supply chain?
I suppose a renovation job that involves installing ten extra toilets could be a red flag…
“Very Bad Idea,” is not an example of weasel words. Weasel words suggest something to be true while not explicitly stating it, leaving the speaker the defense if challenged of, “I didn’t actually say anything false!”
Here is an example: Either way, the warrant on Blair’s house was served as part of an investigation focused not on Blair, but on his former roommate Melanie Chournous—who police knew had moved out.
This sentence led Ionizer to conclude that the police lied. And it’s not a crazy conclusion, since a quick read gives that impression. But the precise words only lay out a set of events: that the investigation was not focused on Blair, but on Blair’s roommate; that Blair’s roommate had moved out; that police KNEW that Blair’s roommate had moved out. And all of these are true statements. None of those statements say that the police lied, though. And that’s the magic of weasel words. The author wishes to convey the idea that the police acted poorly.
I could report the same event in a much different way:
*The investigation originally focused on Blair’s roommate, who had recently moved out, leaving behind what police believed was evidence of a drug distribution operation conducted out of the house. *
That’s also somewhat weaselly, although now slanted in favor of the police.
Methamphetamine is very soluble in water. The answer to “How could they possibly flush enough evidence down the toilet such that they could avoid conviction?” is very easily.
Especially since the issue is not simply “avoid a conviction” but “avoid enough weight to get bad sentencing recommendations.”
Once upon a time in America, John Dingell (D - MI) called the BATF Jackbooted Thugs for their style of no-knock warrants. Ruby Ridge and Waco happened with the same type of assaults on people as well for questionable reasons, and with questionable tactics, and with questionable results.
I started questioning the militarization of the police then, and continue it now.
This raid was poorly done, poorly executed, and resulted in what appears to be the death of an innocent man. The office who shot him should be sent to a desk, and an investigation should be held. At minimum, the officer who shot first should no longer serve on SWAT. Anything above and beyond that is up to the courts, but based on only one piece of evidence (the video), I might be convinced while serving on a jury that he is guilty of some sort of manslaughter (whatever you get for incompetence that leads to death).
The very first thing that’s yelled is, “Freeze, search warrant,” beginning at 0:0:23 on the tape. The first shot happens at 0:0:29.
Is this one of those uses of “literally” that doesn’t mean literally? Or were you “counting” something other than seconds?
Sure it’s his fault. He lent his home to drug dealers in exchange for their product. He assisted them with distributing their product. That’s the kind of behavior that creates risks. You risk that a rival drug dealer will shoot you. You risk that some other criminal will come in the place to rob you and shoot you. And, yes, you risk that heavily armed police will enter your house. And if you confront them wielding a weapon, you risk that they will shoot you dead.
He was armed with a weapon, unless you think he was simply planning on playing through to the next green after the raid ended.
It’s when people start lying about their side of the argument that I know they have a shitty argument. The truth won’t help, so better start changing the facts!
I blame the manufacturers of golf clubs, myself. If they didn’t make those lethal weapons, no police officers would cower and tremble as they walked past golf courses.
I’m sure a golf club was deadly threat to a TEAM of heavily armed and ARMORED police officers, right?
I think we as citizens need to take a stand. Maybe even a violent stand. I’ll tell you this much, if that had been my wife shot to death by a bunch of over eager asswipes with a badge, I’d arm myself, track down each and everyone of that SWAT team and take out as many of them as I could before being caught.
Maybe then, maybe if these people are afraid of some serious repercussions, maybe then they’ll think twice.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” - Thomas Jefferson.