As I added in an edit after you hit “quote”, “even if the arrest is lost”.
If I was on a jury and was told that the accused’s house was raided and trace amounts of meth were found in the pipe leading from the toilet to the common sewer line, I’d make the obvious assumption that the defendent flushed a bunch of meth. If he tried to argue that it was flushed earlier by a sketchy visitor, I’m sure the prosecution would point out that the flushing had to be recent because it was in the water that was most recently flushed.
I’m pretty sure that if cops and prosecutors had to deal with flushed evidence, they’d figure out ways to argue it in court, and flushing wouldn’t be a “get out of jail free” card. Instead, everyone seems to be saved the hassle of a trial because, to avoid flushing, we let SWAT teams create a situation where a shooting is likely.
But even if flushing the evidence leads to some arrests failing, I’m okay with that if it means that people don’t get killed like this.
So basically his critical error was to let himself be born in the United States.
The hair you’re trying to split between “it was his fault” and “he deserved it” doesn’t exist, suggesting we’re more honest in reading your words than you are in writing them.
What am I am saying it that there was clearly (and well-reported!) deception in order to make the warrant a NO KNOCK warrant (ya dumb ass). Several sources stated that police misrepresented (ie lied) in order to justify the no-knock aspect - which is what killed that guy. The police did not want to serve a typical warrant, so they made it appear as if there was an issue with a person who was not even present there (and made it appear as if he/she actually was beyond a doubt if reporting is even half-accurate). That is what my concern of deceit is about - deceit to enter and shoot people fast like they train regularly to do. Fuckers planned ahead carefully in order to shoot the guy. Lied to get the special warrant and took steps to ensure the person was at home in the house (by knowingly doing traffic stop on person-of-no-interest) and would be confused when they busted the door so they could shoot him dead. Planned as such.
So in your opinion, a predawn raid that risks the cop’s lives, and whoever happens to be at the residence is worth it. Because it will gather critical evidence that can be used to prosecute a meth dealer. And this is so important it’s worth risking lives over.
This ain’t a theoretical small risk either, counselor. It’s a for-real substantial risk, and as my evidence, I submit this video.
They started yelling “police, search warrant” at 0:23 but the door was closed then so he may not have heard them. The door opens as the clock goes from 0:25 to 0:26 and they shoot him just before it turns to 0:29. They never said “freeze”. They said “get on the ground” after they shot him. Incidentally, he was freezing. He was standing still when they killed him.
First of all, despite several posts by me, others continue to suggest that I said, “He deserves to die.” In fact, I said he didn’t; I said he was at fault for the situation, and specifically rejected the idea that this meant he deserved death.
I’m not confident that this fourth repetition will change anything, but I’m perversely curious to discover how often and plainly I can say it and have it still be ignored.
So now turning to your question… I’m not sure what you’re asking, since I don’t agree that the cops are justified in summary execution, period. The cops are justified in serving a search warrant supported by probable cause, and further justified in defending themselves during that process. If they had shot and killed an innocent person, then it would be simply a terrible tragedy – an accident.
Since the person that they shot and killed, by his previous actions, placed himself in a position where getting shot and killed was a real and foreseeable possibility, it’s difficult for me to work much as much sympathy as I would for a completely innocent victim.
My short answer is that you don’t seem to be familiar with what can and cannot be used as evidence. As a matter of law, a guilty verdict must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. A jury cannot make the inferential leap you describe.
Your last statement is a matter of public policy that the majority of citizens in the body politic don’t seem to agree with.
Aren’t we allowed to punish a cop if he gets it wrong? Like, ok, he thought the guy had a sword. He was wrong. But hey, it might have been a sword. Accidental killings have been declared justifiable on more flimsy propositions. But what if he had been holding a banana? What if it had been a 13 year old babysitter holding a baby? Is a cop’s perception of reality untouchable? I’m not the lawyer here, but I suspect the answer is no, it’s not untouchable. If a cop shot a 13 year old girl holding a baby claiming he thought it was a thug with an AK, he’d be tried for manslaughter or whatever and no jury would let him off the hook for that.
Now, just boiling it down to the facts – cop storms into a drug house and shoots a guy holding a golf club that he thought was a sword – I’d be inclined to side with the cop. I usually do in these situations.
But this video… this video is really damning. I really can’t stick up for this guy. The video shows plain as day that the guy was not putting anyone in immediate harm. I just can’t watch this video and feel like the cop should get off scott free. If I were on a jury I’d convict based on this video evidence.
BTW, I’m glad that you recanted your argument that anyone with a working brain would have known to drop the golf club or whatever.
There’s not only a hair, but a huge gulf between “his fault” and “he deserved it.” If someone speeds, they don’t deserve to die a flaming death… but if you’re speeding and thus cause an accident in which you die a flaming death, it’s your fault.
I also note that you attempt to make your inability to read English into my fault, which is… pretty pathetic.
Yeah, the same video as in the OP. This particular alleged drug dealing scumbag died because the cops thought gathering evidence against him was more important than his life.
It’s very relevant to what actually happened. Since there was no “summary execution,” involved, it’s the fact that cops aren’t justified in summarily executing people that is irrelevant here.
That Blair put himself in a position of risk for this very event is quite relevant.
I’m aware that there are a variety of standards and criteria and procedures and whatnot to do with evidence in a trial. I’m aware that the prosecutor can’t simply point to the defendent and say “Oh, c’mon… he totally did it.”
I’m arguing that if the police and prosecutors had to deal with the fact that drug evidence got flushed, they’d adapt. Perhaps they’d send in CSIs to flush the pipes and establish scientific standards for determining “time of flush” (TOF) and “drug density per particle of poop” (DDPPOP). Perhaps the police would simply be much more careful to detain the suspect outside of his home (or wait for him to go to the corner store) and execute a search warrant when someone isn’t there. They’d adapt, and fewer police and deer-in-headlights suspects would get shot.
Ah, but the key element here is the word “accident”. At no point was the speeder intending to crash, and we assume he would avoid crashing if he could and that he would rather stop then crash. The police in this case, however, deliberately put themselves in a situation where they would have to make split-second life-or-death decisions.
Anyway, just for laughs, I’ll play along:
Choosing to drive a car carries a small but not-insignificant risk of flaming death. We accept this risk because cars are useful, but add on safety gear like seatbelts and airbags to reduce this risk. I believe it quite safe to say that a calm, alert driver of reasonable skill can reduce this risk to absolute minimum and only something unexpected (tree falling across a road; another driver being especially careless; a tire blowout) is likely to pose a problem.
1a. Choosing to drive a car while speeding (and I’ll assume you mean really speeding, exceeding posted limits by 30mph or more, perhaps in combination with unfavourable conditions like crowded roads, snow, ice, darkness, what have you) increases this risk, possibly quite significantly.
Arresting a criminal by setting two detectives on him in a public place carries a not-insignificant risk of injury. We accept this risk because stopping crime is useful. If the suspect is not known to be violent, though, and the detectives are calm and alert and well-trained and armed with standard pistols, the risk is minimized, and only something wholly unexpected can make things go wrong, like the suspect bolting or drawing a weapon or some crazy third party intervening.
2a. Arresting a criminal by smashing into a house at night, with a SWAT team carrying automatic weapons and hopped up on adrenaline, increases this risk, possibly quite significantly, and especially so if they are prepared to start shooting within seconds, without identifying a target or giving that target a chance to comply with instructions which may be contradictory or incoherent.
It is not the suspect you should be blaming for creating the circumstances of his death. And you are blaming him, even while denying to do so, in a manner comparable to someone claiming:
All beagles are dogs. Snoopy is a beagle. However, Snoopy is not a dog.