Innocent Man Shot to Death Inside Own Apartment by Deputies Who Mistook Him for Attempted Murder Sus - Polidicks

I can't say I blame them, they thought he was a man who tried to kill someone, and answered the door by pointing a gun at them.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36809116]I can't say I blame them, he looked like a man who tried to kill someone, and answered the door by pointing a gun at them.[/QUOTE] I don't think it says anywhere in the article that the man resembled the suspect they were after. They just saw the gun and fired.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36809114]Same. Now it's like - either go to the door armed and fear being either shot or arrested due to it, or go unarmed and fear being robbed or assaulted for it. There should be some sort of reprimand on the police here. I don't think the situation calls for an extreme punishment like firing them, but at least an ear beating is in call.[/QUOTE] If anything needs to be changed, protocol on how these situations are handled need to be changed. The police directly involved were only following their orders exactly how they were trained to follow them by the government, and they deserve no punishment for that. The higher ups who come up with these strategies do.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36809124]I don't think it says anywhere in the article that the man resembled the suspect they were after. They just saw the gun and fired.[/QUOTE] They believed that their suspect was in the house, and the man who was in the house opened the door with a gun, what would you have done at that point?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36809167]They believed that their suspect was in the house, and the man who was in the house opened the door with a gun, what would you have done at that point?[/QUOTE] Do nothing and calmly talk about it, apparently.

If I recall correctly, aren't police supposed to exhaust every method in their power to get the suspect to give up peacefully? I understand the man had a gun in his hand, but the cops really should have identified themselves and told him to drop his gun. Actually, if they'd identified themselves first, there wouldn't have been any need to do that since he probably wouldn't have gone to the door armed in the first place.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;36809251]If I recall correctly, aren't police supposed to exhaust every method in their power to get the suspect to give up peacefully? I understand the man had a gun in his hand, but the cops really should have identified themselves and told him to drop his gun. Actually, if they'd identified themselves first, there wouldn't have been any need to do that since he probably wouldn't have gone to the door armed in the first place.[/QUOTE] Please correct me if I'm wrong here, because I'm not sure. The way the article says "Officials said the deputies did not identify themselves because of safety reasons," seems to imply that this was some rule or protocol that the police are made and trained to follow. Maybe that particular rule needs to be changed. Maybe it's a bad rule, but at the same time maybe it's not. (We have no idea how useful that rule is the other few hundred times we don't hear about it causing an innocent death, but that's not important right now. Maybe they keep running into the problem that people would come to the door to attack more often than not, or maybe they would try to escape more often than not, causing more trouble. Maybe it is a stupid rule that has no real reasoning behind it. I don't know, because I'm not a police officer.) Regardless of the stupidity of the rule, the police present had no choice but to follow that rule. The police don't get to make them up as they go, and I don't want them to. It absolutely is not right that the police were ever in the situation where they felt need to shoot an innocent man, but they certainly weren't wrong, given the circumstances they were in. Hindsight is always 20/20, something that all of us reading the thread have. Each of us can easily see the least tragic route this could have taken, but the police certainly didn't have that luxury. Again, if that "don't identify yourself" thing isn't a rule that they have to follow and they just made it up, correct me.

they're searching for this attempted murder suspect, and they come to this guy's door. If they shout "YO IT'S THE PO PO OPEN DA FUCK UP" and it turned out it was the murder suspect, it's entirely possible he would have opened the door a crack and instantly shot the guy at the door. Perhaps that is why they don't do it.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36809383]they're searching for this attempted murder suspect, and they come to this guy's door. If they shout "YO IT'S THE PO PO OPEN DA FUCK UP" and it turned out it was the murder suspect, it's entirely possible he would have opened the door a crack and instantly shot the guy at the door. Perhaps that is why they don't do it.[/QUOTE] i dont think the police actually call themselves the po po

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;36809441]i dont think the police actually call themselves the po po[/QUOTE] "HELLO GOOD SIR WE ARE YOUR LOCAL CONSTABULARY, COULD YOU PLEASE ALLOW US ENTRY INTO YOUR HUMBLE ABODE"

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36809497]"HELLO GOOD SIR WE ARE YOUR LOCAL CONSTABULARY, COULD YOU PLEASE ALLOW US ENTRY INTO YOUR HUMBLE ABODE"[/QUOTE] better

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36809497]"HELLO GOOD SIR WE ARE YOUR LOCAL CONSTABULARY, COULD YOU PLEASE ALLOW US ENTRY INTO YOUR HUMBLE ABODE"[/QUOTE] "AY YES GOOD SIRE I SHALL ALLOW YOU INTO MY HUMBLE ABODE IN JUST A FEW SECONDS OF TIME" "BLINGERING FUCK HE SHOT ME"

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36809124]I don't think it says anywhere in the article that the man resembled the suspect they were after. They just saw the gun and fired.[/QUOTE] Actually the entire point of the article was that the police mistook the man pointing the gun at them to be the suspect. It was all just a huge misunderstanding.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;36809330]Please correct me if I'm wrong here, because I'm not sure. The way the article says "Officials said the deputies did not identify themselves because of safety reasons," seems to imply that this was some rule or protocol that the police are made and trained to follow. Maybe that particular rule needs to be changed. Maybe it's a bad rule, but at the same time maybe it's not. (We have no idea how useful that rule is the other few hundred times we don't hear about it causing an innocent death, but that's not important right now. Maybe they keep running into the problem that people would come to the door to attack more often than not, or maybe they would try to escape more often than not, causing more trouble. Maybe it is a stupid rule that has no real reasoning behind it. I don't know, because I'm not a police officer.) Regardless of the stupidity of the rule, the police present had no choice but to follow that rule. The police don't get to make them up as they go, and I don't want them to. It absolutely is not right that the police were ever in the situation where they felt need to shoot an innocent man, but they certainly weren't wrong, given the circumstances they were in. Hindsight is always 20/20, something that all of us reading the thread have. Each of us can easily see the least tragic route this could have taken, but the police certainly didn't have that luxury. Again, if that "don't identify yourself" thing isn't a rule that they have to follow and they just made it up, correct me.[/QUOTE] By that logic, you are saying that it would be more ideal that an innocent man die while the police adhere to the rules than it would be to have him live and have the police break protocol. I'm just saying that IF one of the officers there knew there was a way out of that situation that would have saved a life, he shouldn't be forced into a course of actions that will guarantee the loss of that life. They should be able to use their own judgment to determine what the best course of action should be. Maybe they did make the right choices, but the way this turned out it that doesn't seem to be the case. And regardless of what choices they make they need to be held accountable for the consequences.

[QUOTE=kidwithsword;36809607]By that logic, you are saying that it would be more ideal that an innocent man die while the police adhere to the rules than it would be to have him live and have the police break protocol. I'm just saying that IF one of the officers there knew there was a way out of that situation that would have saved a life, he shouldn't be forced into a course of actions that will guarantee the loss of that life. They should be able to use their own judgment to determine what the best course of action should be. Maybe they did make the right choices, but the way this turned out it that doesn't seem to be the case. And regardless of what choices they make they need to be held accountable for the consequences.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that if the police don't always adhere to rules, we would be much worse off, because I believe that if police are given more free reign, even more innocent lives will be put into danger. We don't get to chose which laws we follow, and neither should the police. I believe that the majority of these rules are, in the long term, better for society as a whole, but occasionally accidents like this will fall through the cracks because nothing is ever perfect. And if this rule is stupid, which it may very well be, we must work to get the rule changed to avoid accidents like this again, much like how us citizens would try to overturn unjust laws. I don't think that this is the case here, though. And I absolutely agree with you. If the police did know a better course of action, they should have done that. With the information given in this article, though, I don't believe that that was the case. I believe that they did what they thought was most appropriate at the time, and they had good in their hearts. Though after thinking about it, maybe the officers should be reprimanded in some fashion, but they shouldn't be treated as evil crooks, because I don't believe that they are.

[QUOTE=kidwithsword;36809607]By that logic, you are saying that it would be more ideal that an innocent man die while the police adhere to the rules than it would be to have him live and have the police break protocol. I'm just saying that IF one of the officers there knew there was a way out of that situation that would have saved a life, he shouldn't be forced into a course of actions that will guarantee the loss of that life. They should be able to use their own judgment to determine what the best course of action should be. Maybe they did make the right choices, but the way this turned out it that doesn't seem to be the case. And regardless of what choices they make they need to be held accountable for the consequences.[/QUOTE] i gotta wonder why he didn't look out his window or little eye hole thing that most front doors have

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;36809251]If I recall correctly, aren't police supposed to exhaust every method in their power to get the suspect to give up peacefully? I understand the man had a gun in his hand, but the cops really should have identified themselves and told him to drop his gun. Actually, if they'd identified themselves first, there wouldn't have been any need to do that since he probably wouldn't have gone to the door armed in the first place.[/QUOTE] When there is a gun already pointed at you from five feet away there isn't anytime to tell the suspect to drop his weapon. One thing that strikes me as weird is that he opened the door with the weapon already pointed. I understand someone arming themselves at 2 in the morning but opening the door with the weapon already aimed would have been dangerous regardless of who was at the door.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36808517]Most criminals aren't trained ninjas who climb walls like a goddamn cat and sneak in your bedroom window to steal your loot.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that now did I? I said they'd sneak in which implies not banging on the door. They could enter through the door or windows or something [QUOTE=Kljunas;36808664]1) knock 2) beat the shit out of (or stab) the guy when he opens the door 3) steal his stuff Seems like a thing robbers would do, it's easier than sneaking (it's not Deus Ex so there aren't giant air vents everywhere).[/QUOTE] That is a very good point, but again sneaking isn't just doing some Sam Fisher shit. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;36809016] Most robbers would knock on the door, to assure that nobody was home. Then they would break in.[/QUOTE] Good point.

He looks like Qui-Gon.

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;36807947] [B]cops only shoot with intent to kill [/B] [/QUOTE] No they don't, they shoot with intent to stop. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] Here's the standard procedure; Two bullets to the chest. If they don't go down, they're wearing armor or are on drugs- and that leads to a shot to the head. This is, of course, if the person is attacking them with a weapon.

If they knocked, then I can't fault the cops. No one has to answer the door when someone knocks, especially late at night. It amazes me how many people I know in real life who'll drop everything to go answer a knock. If you aren't expecting anyone, then what's the big deal? In this guy's case, if it's so dangerous you have to open the door with a gun in your hand, maybe you shouldn't be opening the door? I generally don't like it when cops don't announce themselves, but in this case that wasn't the problem. If you are knocking, presumably you'll identify yourself when the person opens the door...without a gun. The gun forces the issue. If they had kicked the door in, that's a whole different story.

I don't understand why you people believe it's only one sided ALL the time, in a lot of cases FP bickers on and on just because they choose a side, in this case, and most, there's a fault to both of the sides/people.

I don't see why you would answer the door at 1:30 am and even then have a gun pointed at whoever knocked. Now what if they find out that gun he had was illegal? I wonder what people would say then.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36812094]No they don't, they shoot with intent to stop.[/QUOTE] It's an intent to stop with an intent to kill. Shooting someone is always an intent to kill. That's why it's called deadly force. Pretty much you only ever shoot someone if killing them would be justified.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36812094]No they don't, they shoot with intent to stop. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] Here's the standard procedure; Two bullets to the chest. If they don't go down, they're wearing armor or are on drugs- and that leads to a shot to the head. This is, of course, if the person is attacking them with a weapon.[/QUOTE] Uh where did you get this from? I've never heard of this being what the police are supposed to do.

This is in my county, and would you answer your door with a loaded weapon pointed out the door.

[QUOTE=Exxon;36813228]This is in my county, and would you answer your door with a loaded weapon pointed out the door.[/QUOTE] Serious question: If it's that bad, WHY would you answer the door to begin with. Why not just spy on whoever it is through a window or something. In an area that is that dangerous, are you expecting a friend or family to come visiting, unannounced, at 1:30 in the morning?

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36812094] Here's the standard procedure; Two bullets to the chest. If they don't go down, they're wearing armor or are on drugs- and that leads to a shot to the head. [/QUOTE] "Here's the standard procedure; (random drivel that's not actually standard law enforcement procedure)"

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36809114]Same. Now it's like - either go to the door armed and fear being either shot or arrested due to it, or go unarmed and fear being robbed or assaulted for it. There should be some sort of reprimand on the police here. I don't think the situation calls for an extreme punishment like firing them, but at least an ear beating is in call.[/QUOTE] In what world do you live in that killing an innocent person is not justification for being fired in any case? A man is dead and you'd be satisfied if somebody yelled at them about it?

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36812094]No they don't, they shoot with intent to stop. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] Here's the standard procedure; Two bullets to the chest. If they don't go down, they're wearing armor or are on drugs- and that leads to a shot to the head. This is, of course, if the person is attacking them with a weapon.[/QUOTE] Haha uhh no police don't aim for the head ever. Nobody with training does. Aiming for the head is video game bullshit. All shots are aimed for the center of mass at all times, armor or not. Specifically, the heart. If they don't intend to kill, they use non-lethal weaponry, of which their belts are in plentiful supply. Armed civilians shoot to stop. Police are equipped with an array of non-lethal tools specifically so that when they pull out their gun, they always mean business. A firearm is [I]always[/I] lethal force, and you don't use lethal force in any circumstance in which lethal force is not justified.