So what would the police have to do in that situation to be culpable, in your opinion? The man posed no threat to anyone. He didn’t move in the direction of the police officers, regardless of the weapon he was holding. What is the limit to a police officer’s perogative to shoot someone?
And if this were comedic movie, the guy with the golf club would have said “Sooo…do you want me to freeze, or do you want me to put down the club? Because I can’t do both!”
And the officer would have responded “Freeze! No! Put down your club! Then freeze!”
And the guy would have said “OK. So I’m putting down my club now! Then I’ll get right back to freezing, ok?”
“Good!”
But this wasn’t a comedy. And the conversation, all in Blair’s head, went like this
“What the fuck? Who the hell are”
And then he died.
Really. Are you aware that this particular no-knock-fatality is merely the latest in a number of similar incidents, several of which involve people who don’t have such a “life style”, or more accurately, their “life style” included a chance of being the unwitting target of police mistakes or over-zealousness? The Kathryn Johnston case comes to mind.
At the very least, your “life style” argument does rather a violence to the spirit of the presumption of innocence, but what the heck - I’ll play along and, like you and Bricker, assume that the guy’s days were numbered - that if he wasn’t going to die in a hail of police bullets, he was going to die in a hail of rival drug-gang bullets and with an inevitable outcome, the timing and circumstances don’t really matter.
Or I’ll ask you the same thing I’m asking Bricker - did the guy’s “life style” justify being shot by police? Would his “life style” justify perhaps a more sedate, less risky response like calmly arresting him in the daytime? What part of his “life style” suggested a paramilitary approach was needed? Was he suspected of having a personal arsenal? Hosting a meeting of heavily-armed drug kingpins? Being a suicidal terrorist who’d rigged his house with explosives?
Basically, I’d like to know why the police are going after fleas with cannons, then acting all put-out when the cannons inflict joost a leetle beet more damage than was necessary.
Are there actual studies of arrests lost after evidence was flushed vs. civilian and police casualties? Of suspects who barricaded themselves in their homes and took hostages because police didn’t come smashing in? What’s better - that ten guilty men go free for lack of evidence or one innocent gets gunned down in ther own home?
You’re trying to rationalize the shooting as an accidental outcome of the raid (but it doesn’t matter since the dead guy had it coming, anyway) - I’m wondering why the raid was necessary at all.
They argued that they needed a no knock warrant because the suspect would destroy evidence when they had no reason to believe that he would be there.
Clearly everything went perfectly here. The only problem is that this officer missed the “golf clubs vs. swords” class. Just send him to remedial school and once he learns what a fucking sword and what a fucking golf club looks like, everything will be fine.
One person who doesn’t deserve to be shot is the law-abiding citizen for whose sake, presumably, the SWAT team exists. If he’s is yanked from REM sleep at 3AM to the sound of “POLICE - SEARCH WARRANT;” he has five-point-five seconds to make a decision:
-
The police have a typo on the warrant, or a jailhouse snitch pulled the address out of his ass to buy some time, or whatever: but it really does happen. The homeowner can put his gun down
-
But oops, it’s really home invaders, who will rob, rape, torture and burn him and his family alive. Maybe he’d better not put that gun down
-
oops again: it really is the cops, and they’ll kill him with impunity. In some jurisdictions they’ll cover their asses with planted evidence, so his insurance company is off the hook, too.
As I alway say, there are some bad cops, but no good criminals; so I’ll settle for being shot by the cops instead of tortured by the criminals. Sometimesyou just have to make the best of a bad situation.
Wait, when did police learn that Chournos had moved out?
And by the way – it’s Melanie Chournos, who is a she, not a he.
Seems to me the cops should just make a big show of noisily charging up to the suspect’s house. Since it’s apparently established that all meth dealers have hair-trigger reflexes and unerring aim, allowing them to instantly round up all the meth and wing it into the toilet, the cops can accomplish the goal of destroying the drugs without having to arrest or shoot anyone.
Bricker conceded in post 80 that the suspect likely hadn’t processed what was happening to him and so didn’t have the opportunity to take a life-saving step of compliance. His argument is that his lifestyle prior to the execution of the warrant carried a foreseeable risk of being in that situation, and that the suspect missed his opportunity to avoid such a fate by adopting a less criminal lifestyle beforehand.
I am not arguing that the police were not also culpable.
Nothing I have read suggests the police committed premeditated murder, mind you, but again the negation of that claim doesn’t mean I believe the police were blameless.
We seem to have a real problem with absolutes here. If I claim the police are not guilty of first degree murder, I’m saying they’re blameless. If I say Blair has some fault, I’m saying he deserved to die. If I Blair was not “unarmed,” then I’m saying the police may summarily execute someone.
For whatever reason, the authorities made the decision that the appropriate thing to do was conduct a search at night. I have no idea what criteria justified such a decision, but I presume is was far from wanting to do the most harm to the residents and other innocent people who might be in the home.
Sorry, but the guy had a history of meth abuse. That does justify additional precautions as far as the police are concerned. He can’t be relied on to make normal rational decisions. Perhaps that’s why he had a weapon raised over his head when they entered.
A service revolver (not a cannon) isn’t excessive against a sword (as the officer thought he was facing)is it? Must an officer wait to be injured to take defensive action?
I have no information on that.
I never said the dead guy had it coming. I said the dead guy was living a life style in which he was likely to have contact with the authorities. It remains a tragedy. But nonetheless, I don’t see the officers as criminally liable in his death.
Re: fault v deserve. I think what **Bricker **is trying to say is that sometimes SWAT teams bust into houses, surprise and disorient their occupents and shoot them dead. If you’re in one of those houses, well, thats your own damn fault.
From the SLT article:
Now, the first paragraph is ambiguous – they noted after the raid that she had already moved out, but it doesn’t say when they had found that out.
However, the next two paragraphs clarify, at least assuming the reporter got his facts straight. Chournos had moved out due to what the cops describe as “domestic volience.” As a result of that violence, they decided to pull him over and search the house without him in it. And they attempted to pull him over just before the raid. So the chain of events goes: cops learn that Blair is both living alone and is violent. Cops plan a raid and get a warrant, knowing that Chournos is gone (omitting that fact from the warrant application). Cops pull over car that they believe is being driven by Blair. They’re wrong, but they raid the house anyway.
Let’s talk about the other side of the equation, then. What would you say the police are guilty of, if anything?
What evidence do you have that his “lifestyle” carried the foreseeable risk of being being shot down like a dog in his own house? I mean, really, is there any reason to believe that he was allowing drug dealers to live with him in exchange for drugs? According to whom? The people who need to destroy this individual’s reputation in order to avoid a manslaughter charge?
Depends: is the guy holding the sword frozen in the flashlight beam after being surprised by a forced entry by SWAT, or is he advancing on the office who’s pistol is out, aimed, and ready to be fired?
“Contact with the authorities” should not be synonymous with “significant probability of getting shot to death while unable to take compliance steps”.
It’s Bricker’s and Morgenstern’s argument, not mine, but one can observe that no-knock warrants by SWAT are not unknown things, and that being part of the drug world, in however minor a way, does obviously present a higher chance of, as Morgenstern puts it, having “contact with the authorities”.
Let’s get rid of this “contact with authorities” wink-wink nudge-nudge crap. What people want to know is, what does it take to avoid execution without benefit of trial?
It’s worth taking a brief pause at this moment to consider the ramifications. If this decision is not questioned and the disproportionate outcome not used to reformulate policy, what prevents (or even discourages) it from happening again?
And now I’m justifiably curious what those criteria were. I’m not inclined to presume the best possible motivation on the part of the police - I’d give them the benefit of the doubt if necessary - but a man is dead and a detailed analysis is called for.
Are all people with “a history of meth abuse” violent? A significant majority of them? Was this guy known to be? It’s simply too easy to use meth to rationalize the shooting after the fact, and it’s not clear to me that the police had identified the man before they shot him. And perhaps he had a weapon raised because a bunch of guys had just smashed their way into his house, and it’s also not clear to me that he understood they were police officers.
Must an officer create the situation in which he is facing a sword, which turned out not to be a sword at all? Must the police have charged in at night where the chance of such misidentifications jumps dramatically? Must they have charged in at all? You’re blaming the guy in the house for the outcome (because he used drugs), but not the officers (even though they charged in at night with guns drawn). Who really created the lethal confrontation?
They may not be, but at the very least, these officers should never go on these kinds of raids again, and their department should seriously reconsider the value of these kinds of raids, period. The smash-entry no-knock warrant is a tool they clearly cannot handle.
Look at it from the officer’s point of view. He enters a home. He believes a warning has been given and that they are entering the home of a drug addict/dealer, and that they have a valid warrant. The officer is holding a gun and a flashlight. It’s dark. He moves the flashlight to a doorway where he sees an individual with a “thin silver weapon” above his head ready to strike. He has no way to know the intention of the individual, the frame of mind of the individual, or whether the guy is even sane. He reacts by doing what he was trained to do. Protect himself and his partners. Tragic, yes it is. But I don’t see anything criminal.
The officer CLAIMED, after the fact, that he thought he was facing a sword. That claim may be true or not but it doesn’t make a golf club into a sword. What it does do is paint a nice, but false, picture for the officer’s defense.