Family of man shot dead by sheriff's deputy awarded $4 damages. - Sensationalist Headlines

He answered the door with a gun in hand according to the officer who shot him. When he was actually found, the gun was in his back pocket.

He closed the door with his gun in hand dood how can you possibly justify wallbanging someone that doesn't have hostages or something else equally as sensitive? His gun was in his hand as he was answering. When he saw cops, he closed the door. Then he got shot through the door. How can you justify him getting shot through a door after he closed it? Did they think he was going to shoot the cops through the door?

Yea, probably because he stuck it in his pocket after he realized he was brandishing a gun at police, not pissed off parents from the near-by school.

The reason the cop got away with doing this (as do thousands of cops all around the country, every year) is because of the attitudes of bootlickers such as yourself. Your insistence that the cop did nothing wrong despite there being no proof that what he said was true and photographic proof (graphic) to the contrary speaks volumes, because in this situation of what can, very charitably, be called ambiguity, you take the cop's side despite there being basically no precedent for it, certainly not now after the police department gives his family a whole 4 cents.

[CITATION NEEDED] Thanks for continuing the edge-lord spree. Like I previously said, and you disregarded, he probably placed the gun back in his pocket once he realized he was brandishing a firearm at police officers, and not someone else. There is no ambiguity. If the Officer received a mistrial, then yes, it would be extremely ambiguous and suspicious. But he was found not-guilty of using excessive force. Then the department was found not-guilty of wrongful death. At this point, you're completely fabricating problems because of your blatant bias. I'm going to give up at this point bud. You're so deeply rooted in thinking that American authority at large is broken and corrupt that theres no reasoning or debating with you. Nothing you've said so far refutes any points I've made and no claims you've made have been backed up with legitimate citations. Have a good night pal.

Generally when you're a cop going to someones house and they answer with a gun in their hand and then close/slam down the door instead of you know, dropping the gun when they see police, something is fucky. That's not just someone deciding to go back into their house and ignore you at that point, that's literally a barricaded suspect.

If you open the door and one hand is on the handle, one hand is on a gun, and you see police, it's a completely reasonable reaction to use the hand that's already on the door to close it, mainly because if you've already opened your residence then the cops don't need to have a warrant to search it.

Well for one I don't think the second part of your statement is true, correct me if I'm wrong please. Secondly, if he had no intentions of using the gun or hiding it, he would have dropped it along with the door. He did not do so. And I don't think it's reasonable to close the door in the face of a police officer whose come to ask you to turn your music down, especially when you answered the door with a drawn weapon.

It's really not. Pretty much anyone who owns a legal gun is going to tell you the best thing to do when interacting with the police while said weapon is on you is to comply and not do anything idiotic. If you answer to police banging on your garage door while you have a gun in your hand by immediately slamming garage door shut, you just generated a whole bunch of probable cause, which falls into the realm of idiotic.

Unfortunately, you are. I think it's a really shit law, since it contributes to escalation and lack of willingness to communicate with officers. Ctrl + f for "A second widely used exception to the warrant requirement" to go straight to the relevant paragraph. Sounds like the whole situation happened fairly quickly. I don't think that's a fair assertion to make. I'd agree if it weren't for my first point, but he also probably didn't know it was for a noise complaint. As someone who's personally been in a similar situation (albeit not with a gun, but with the open-and-shut with the officer), your mind instantly reels as you try to figure out why they might be there, what's in view that could get you in trouble (even if you've done nothing wrong), etc. Police officers can be spooky as fuck when you aren't expecting them.

Here's your citation, notice how many times the words "unarmed" or "toy gun", or something similar appear. In contrast, the amount of officers that actually die because a perp shoots them is pretty small, police officers have a much less dangerous job than it's commonly led to believe. The homicide rate for a police officer is almost half that of a regular citizen, and the general danger rate is significantly lower than things like farmers, construction workers, fishers, steel workers, things like that. It's also literally entirely possible (because there are historical precedents) that he just had his hand on his back pocket where his gun was and this was construed as enough ground to shoot him. The officer shot when the garage door was closing, which means its a bit more likely that Hill already had the weapon (that was unloaded) in his back pocket than he was brandishing it then putting it back when he's being shot at. You also don't understand my point about the "not guilty of using excessive force" thing. Just because the justice system claimed he didn't use excessive force doesn't mean he didn't. Police are rarely charged of using excessive force, they get away with this kind of thing all the time. And I find it funny how you're singing about no citations and whatever when you haven't even linked the original article you quoted. You see these blue words in my posts? Try clicking them.

Thanks But it's a fair assertion to assume he shut the door to avoid having his place searched without a warrant? Sounds like 2 peas in a pod to me man. Unexpected authority figures can be daunting, but that doesn't justify answering a door with a gun in hand. It doesn't matter whether or not he knew that police were on the other side. He still answered the door with a deadly weapon. He may not have intended to use it but brandishing a firearm would escalate any situation and could provoke a violent confrontation, which it inevitably did. The bottom line is that Hill's was completely in the wrong for starting off an interaction with a deadly weapon in hand.

You're quantifying someone being unarmed or having only a toy gun with automatically being a bad shoot, which isn't accurate. And for some reason this list opts to have people who were throwing cinderblocks, striking officers vehicles with vehicles, or attacking officers directly as unarmed, or people who were actively fighting with the police, or counting at least one dog as a person shot by police. A little odd.

Did they do the math and conclude the bullets cost 4 dollars total? That's fucked up.

Imagine being shot to death for the crime of being drunk in your own house when cops happen to knock on your door lul

Imagine being a cop and responding to any run of the mill noise complaint and the first thing you see is a guy answering the door with a fucking gun in their hand who panics when they see you.

Then imagine shooting throigh a door trying to hit the perp without seeing him.

They panic and close the door. And the logical thing to do then is open fire? Why???

Imagine being so disingenuous that you're blatantly misrepresenting facts in a shitpost The deputies said that Hill, who autopsy results showed was heavily intoxicated when he was shot in the head and abdomen, pointed the weapon at them before closing the garage door. A grand jury declined to indict Newman, who said Hill had pulled a gun Because he pointed a gun at the officers, or at the very least, answered the door with a gun. How is this hard to understand dood? I get that you're an extreme shitposter but come on.

I'm a professional fumigator so my name is a take on my profession, not an edgy racist thing or something, but thanks for trying to make me out as vile. I called Sanian edgy because edgy edgy edgy. I called a guy with borderline satirical opinions an edgelord because he was acting like an edgelord. But thanks for trying to use a pathetic appeal to emotion to try and make it seem like I'm being an asshole towards a family with a dead relative.

Just like you did to me You don't need an edgy name to be pushing rope however, or to be posting on FP at all.

Me calling you disingenuous because youre being disingenuous in your shitposts is not equivocal. Grow up man. Either fully commit to the shitposting game or give it up. You cant spend half your time shitposting then half your time crying because you got called out on it.

Do you subvert this conundrum by crying all the time

I am well within my rights to be """""edgy"""" and it doesn't actually impact the weight of my arguments. All you did was call me edgy, claim that the officer who is 100% trying to save his own skin is completely telling the truth, and then back out of the argument while asking citations and demanding none yourself.

Cyke, with you being a gun owner I'm kind of surprised to see you saying that this was justified. You ask who answers the door with a gun, I'll tell you: Me, summer of 2012, when I woke up to someone pounding on my door at 2AM. Turns out it was a pair of police officers looking for my stepbrother, whose car had just been crushed by a fallen tree. They were professional and respectful despite the fact that I was armed, and we didn't have any problem. In a country where it is legal to be armed, especially in your own home, it is absolutely not reasonable for police to treat any interaction with someone who is carrying as a threat. Even if someone does something suspicious, like slam the door or in this case close the garage door, that is absolutely not grounds to open fire. The response most academies train is to get to the side, out of the potential line of fire, and try to resolve the situation peacefully. They can prepare in case it does turn into a shootout, but refusing to speak to the police while armed is not grounds for use of lethal force. Any situation in which an officer is firing on a target they can not see is immediately suspect, partly because they cannot verify their target or what is beyond it, and partly because unless their target has fired first they have no basis to assess that a threat has been presented. Here there was no articulable threat, and an officer responded immediately with lethal force rather than seek an alternative resolution. That's cold, and sets a bad precedent for how gun owners expect to be treated in their interactions with police.

You still don't shoot at something you can't see. Isn't this one of the key tenets of gun safety? Don't aim at something you don't intend to destroy, much less open fire. By shooting at a closed door, the officer intended to destroy anything in that house, regardless of whether he could identify it as a threat or not. It's a massive and entirely unjustified escalation of force.

This isn't how police using firearms works. Because a dude ducks behind a door doesn't mean he's not a threat, or that police are honor bound or something not to shoot. Police can shoot through anything a suspect is hiding behind. It's happened before and it's probably right in their training manuals under the name of directed fire or something similar, though I can't pull up anything similar to link since I'm on my phone at work. If it wasn't one of the two tries against the department could have easily run with that and gotten somewhere.

I wish they had a bodycam video of the incident to clear the air. It would have worked in the favor of the police if indeed what they have released is true.