There is another issue that hasn’t been looked at.
In the SWAT shows I’ve seen, they quietly drive up and quietly approach the house, then they break down the door yelling Police.
The people in the house rarely have time to look up before they are in the sights of the cops.
Yet this guy was dressed, had his weapon, and was waiting in ambush for them when they busted in. Did he have some kind of notice? Did he see the cops in his yard? Did he hear them assembling?
Yeah, he saw the cops in the yard and decided to “ambush” a fully armed SWAT team with a golf club. :dubious:
Heh…“ambush” ? And the victim-blaming hits just keep on coming.
The police, by using these raids, are creating adrenaline-charged situations where pretty much anything the occupant can do, including doing nothing at all, can get the occupant shot. Is this scenario far-fetched? :
Groggy just-awakened occupant: Bwuh? [reaches for light switch, officer interprets this movement in the dark as threatening and/or noncompliant, shoots occupant]
As an incidental note, if this particular dead civilian’s meth use (and up to now, as far as I know, it’s only established that he has a history of meth use, with no indication he was smoking or freebasing or dragon-chasing or whatever at the moment the police entered) makes him so dangerous and unpredictable, isn’t a nighttime shock-and-awe raid likely to increase the risk?
Waiting in ambush? Didn’t his mom ever teach him not to bring a golf club to a gun fight?
I dunno. The guy could have been an insomniac trying to elimate his slice. But since dead guys tell no golf tales, I guess we’ll never know. Does it really matter why he was up?
Unless the argument you’re presenting is that he knew the police were coming and his masterful, calculated plan was to grab a golf club and stand ten feet away hoping to take them all down through sheer physical prowess…
I lost my train of thought. The sheer ridiculousness of the thoughts in your head as they form into an assinine hypothetical I know is coming have completely confused me.
That the person they sought lived there. Do you want me to repost several articles that state this clearly. I presume that if a warrant covers a situation and location with a specific justification for using no-knock. Does a warrant change if the person no longer lives there and is named as the justification of the warrant? I have been told by three cops that it does, but that comes from cops, not me, per se. The man was killed while someone else was being sought (as per warrant, if I understand it all properly). The no-knock was* specifically* because of the other person. Can cops really get a no-knock warrrant for one reason and use it for another? Without even having it in their possession? I bet not, but I have only learned what I know from actual (now retired) cops who griped whenever they had to get another warrant when things changed before they could ‘execute the warrant’.
My presumption on the lies used to obtain warrant comes from the fact that killing happened shortly after warrant was issued (since the hurriedness of it all is well established, coming from the killer’s mouth himself), and cops knew then that person they sought was not there and would not be there again. Perhaps warrants justifying risky no-knock stuff can mean more than what they were intended for in this day and age. I would hope not, though. I have met few cops that do not stick to actual versions of events, to be honest. Falsifying things is de rigor when it is in interest of cops more often than not.
It’s not about reducing risk, it’s not about protecting the public, it’s not even about performing a public service for the people of the town.
It’s about being a MAN. A REAL man.
You don’t think the SWAT douche that dropped this guy didn’t go home and rub one out at the thought that he had just become a “real” man?
Regardless, I think we can assume “hole in one” has taken on a new meaning for him.
The cop saw something silver and assumed it was a sword? Really? Really? “Piece of steel”, “golf club”, “aluminum baseball bat”, sure, but a sword? Yeah, you can Google and find hits on meth dealers using a katana to attack someone…I guess…maybe.
Just that he’s either got an overactive imagination from watching too much anime, was recently involved in a case involving the Seven Samurai, or he panicked and he’s grasping at straws. I won’t opine on whether or not that makes him negligent, nor a criminal.
He was not waiting in ambush. He had maybe 5 seconds notice, and possibly did not even hear the first words clearly. I sure could not make much of things until after the shots. Oops, too late. But its OK, its lawful.
Fwiw, I keep a large metal bat by my door, and can be out of my room (exactly as dead man) within a few seconds of hearing sounds. Definitely less than 5 seconds, and my hearing can be bad at times (hx of infx’s). The guy simply walked out of a doorway thinking, and readying himself for problems, stopped when he realized it was police, then was shot a few seconds later without any chance of compliance of any orders. I would’ve been shot if that had been my house since I will always enter with bat in hand until I see who it is. Maybe that will be my death some day, but I expect to be told what to do rather than shot on sight. I was involved with enough police and real SWAT training to have this embedded into me. That is how training used to be done - but not in that department per the shooter’s own mouth -“we train to shoot fast” (rather than train to not shoot unless under actual threat). A person in their home is expected, by society, to be defending their home and to also comply with police. It is commonly known that police will not shoot you if you obey. But now there is not a need for any commands at all. A cop who imagines something justifies killing someone.
A sword could not have posed any threat at all from a man on other side of room standing still, ready to receive orders Definitely not reasonable to see that as a threat when entering a home as such. Unless it was the intent to kill no matter what. No matter, the cop said he did not what it was. Imagination is best left at home when the job is to protect people.
The sickest part of this video is hearing cops telling a dead man to get on the ground after they shoot him multiple times. Can’t get much stupider than that. I think those cops should go back to kindergarten and learn some basics about not making things up in order to get what they want. It is so ridiculous that its a subject of many a cop-joke “Shoot first and ask questions later”. Now its lawful reality rather than a subject for joking :mad:.
Use a fucking taser or beanbags instead of deadly force.
I would seriously like to see someone being active while being juiced up with 50000 volts while wearing jammies.
Tasers and beanbags also work against dogs.
I guess we can update the old figure of speech to: “You just signed your own search warrant.”
You forgot leaving the front door unlocked and all the lights in the house on so there are no dark corners.:rolleyes:
Several people using the clown suit defense, as is to be expected.
There’s nothing anyone can do about this, short of a complete restructuring of American society. You first. Getting shot at makes my sinuses act up.
The police adduced this fact in their affidavit supporting the warrant, which was executed well before the shooting and thus could not have been fabricated for the purpose of avoiding a manslaughter charge.
So we have a sworn statement saying it’s so. That doesn’t prove it, but it does kick the burden of proof ball over to your side to refute it.
I don’t see why you keep bring up that the guy was a drug dealer.
It might be relevant to whether there was additional misconduct on the part of the cops, but it has no relevance to the shooting itself.
How does whether the victim was a crackhead or not change the cop’s actions from manslaughter to justifiable homicide?
Well, sure, as long as all the paperwork is filled out, what does it matter that a guy was unnecessarily gunned down in his own house?
Yes, I do. No article I have read makes the specific claim that police learned Chournos no longer lived there BEFORE they got the warrant. I think the Gawker article deliberately left in vague to support the slant of their story but don’t outright state it - for obvious reasons.
It depends. There is a whole body of law associated with stale warrants, but nothing I’ve heard here suggests that the warrant would become stale under these circumstances.
No. This was a search warrant, not an arrest warrant. Granted that the warrant was sought primarily because of an investigation into Chournos, but the warrant itself simply allows the police to search the premises at 5900 South and 2600 West in Roy, based on facts that create probable cause to believe that the fruits of a crime will be found there.
First, there is no relevance to the fact that they did not have the warrant. In fact, the slant of the article is perhaps most evident on this point:
So the article itself admits that the fact the warrant wasn’t physically present is of no significance. Yet the article takes pains to point out that the police didn’t have it. Why?
Once again, a weasel tactic. It hints at some problem without actually claiming one.
Again, the circumstances under which a warrant becomes stale is a somewhat fact-dependent inquiry. But I don’t hear anything in this case that suggests the warrant was stale.
Again, I’m not seeing any specific information to support the claim that police learned before the warrant was issued that Chournos no longer lived there. If you have it, please post it.
I spent years as a public defender. I have cross-examined hundreds of police officers. The vast majority told the truth.
Admittedly, there were times when I knew a cop was testilying. But it’s rare enough that I refuse to start with that assumption.
This is not an argument, and does not address the issue at all.
As far as I’m concerned, the issue is one you’ve ignored in favour of claims that it was a good shoot based on some pro forma adherence to ritual, as well as a stubborn resistance to the idea that somebody woken up by a lot of crashing and yelling might not be a mind reader. The critical issue here is was the raid necessary in the first place? What did the police hope to accomplish, and why couldn’t it be accomplished by other means that pose a much lower risk to both officer and civilian?
So what? What legal signifficance is there to the lack of the physical warrant?