UPDATE: Man shot dead refused to drop gun, police say

tbone, I am pro-police, and you would know that if you have read my comments on other articles.  I, also, have a relative who is a police officer (see prior post).  I view police as any other person.  I do not fear police, but I do respect their authority.  They can arrest you whenever they want, you do not actually have to have done anything wrong.

As a young adult, I worked at a 7-11, and have met many police officers.  In a few incidents at the store, they were very helpful.  In a few incidents outside the store they were not so helpful.  I lived in a tourist area, during the summer every town was a party town.  Getting pulled over while driving at night was not unusual, literally, any excuse to pull you over (looking for DUIs).  The times I got pulled over, I was the designated driver (DD).  Of course, when you see a carful of drunks, one can assume that the driver has also been drinking, which of course the police assumed.  But when shown I was straight, they would still give me a hard time, and harass me.  I even got a handful of tickets once because the cop was “pissed off” that I wasted his time – he didn’t get the DUI arrest he’d hoped for; so he made up offenses to charge me with – prove that in court (ha, ha).  He even had the audacity to state I was lucky he didn’t arrest me for DUI - hard to do when he didn’t give me a breathalyzer test, and a blood test would’ve been conclusive that I was sober.  (I hadn’t drank at all that night.)  Unfortunately, I was alone at the time, having dropped-off my friends and was on my way home.  The sick part of that episode was that that cop smelled and acted like he had been drinking.

I also do not see where being a “gang member” means that you give up your rights as a human being.  I know from my relative (the police officer), that a lot of bad stuff goes on, on both sides of the badge.  I understand that what appears to the average citizen as excessive force, may not actually be excessive.  Most people do not realize how difficult it is to arrest someone that does not want to be arrested.  Even when faced with overwhelming force, some people still choose to fight.  The person has to literally submit to being handcuffed or subdued into it (which may appear to be a severe beating).

The posters stating, I am not a criminal; so the police wouldn’t ever target my house, so I don’t have to worry about being killed by a cop, are fools.  Police do make mistakes, you do not have to be a criminal to be subject to their stupidity.  Unfortunately, in this instance the man paid with his life.  The man’s prior actions suggest that he was not looking to confront police, and when outnumbered as he was, he wouldn’t be foolish enough to actually fire his weapon (which he didn’t).

The story as currently told makes the officer appear to be in the wrong.  If the truth ever comes out, then we will know if the police officer was justified in killing the man.

tbone,
in a nutshell, I would feel safer leaving my kids at a Pagan, HA or Outlaws clubhouse than I would with you (a brainwashed imbecile in denial)

Rudy,
Thanks for posting:

“YouTube and type in “the largest street gang in America”“

citycynic, tbone,

Take a few moments and watch, and I’ll admit that there are many many good souls in law enforcement… but just like the Moose Club, International Council of Landlords, Screen Actors Guild, Roofers Union, Teamsters, Pagans, NASCAR, and even your high school graduating class there are those that make mistakes and sometime may even violently break the law. yet you focus on condemning this man because of his association with a club you refuse to understand, and adamantly deny any possibility that mistakes are even remotely possible within the “Big Blue Wall”.

Below is a list of case law and guidelines whereby an officer may ask for a “no knock” “short knock” or as it is called “dynamic entry”. Please note the Suprem Court’s justfication for “knock and announce”.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3109, an agent executing a search warrant must announce his authority for acting and the purpose of his call. See, e.g., United States v. Barrett, 725 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1989)(“Police, search warrant, open up”). This knock-and-announce requirement, although statutory, has been incorporated into the Fourth Amendment, United States v. Bustamante-Gamez, 488 F.2d 4, 11-12 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 970 (1974), and therefore a statutory violation may also be a constitutional one. United States v. Murrie, 534 F.2d 695, 698 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. Valenzuela, 596 F.2d 824, 830 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965 (1979). The knock-and-announce rule is designed to reduce the possibility of violence (the occupant of the premises may believe a burglary is occurring), reduce the risk of damage to private property (by allowing the occupant to open the door), protect the innocent (the agent may be executing the warrant at the wrong location), and symbolize the government’s respect for private property.

Of course, if no one is present, there is no one to notify, and agents can search the place without waiting for its occupant. United States v. Brown, 556 F.2d 304 (5th Cir. 1977). The knock-and-announce requirement also does not apply when the door is open. United States v. Remigio, 767 F.2d 730 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1009 (1985). It is unclear whether the rule applies to businesses, as different courts have reached different conclusions. Cf. United States v. Agrusa, 541 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1976)(§ 3109 applies to businesses), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1045 (1977), with United States v. Francis, 646 F.2d 251 (6th Cir.)(§ 3109 applies only to dwellings), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 (1981).

After knocking and announcing, agents must give the occupants a reasonable opportunity to respond, although exigent circumstances may justify breaking in without an actual refusal. Compare United States v. Ruminer, 786 F.2d 381 (10th Cir. 1986)(break-in authorized where police waited five seconds and saw people running in house), with United States v. Sinclair, 742 F. Supp. 688, 690-1 (D.D.C. 1990)(one- to two-second delay, even with noise inside, was insufficient to warrant break-in).

Moreover, exigent circumstances may justify forcible entry without “knocking and announcing” at all. Circumstances are exigent if agents reasonably believe that giving notice to people inside could cause (1) the officer or any other individual to be hurt; (2) a suspect to flee; or (3) the evidence to be destroyed. Additionally, investigators need not knock and announce when it would be a “useless gesture” because the people inside already know their authority and purpose.

citycynic:

I never said he took a stand. The Police say that.

I said if you are unwilling to accept the execution of this as poor planning, etc. then you are ignorant.I stand by that. I did not say you were ignorant as name calling, it was specific.

There is also no “evidence” this man was a criminal, as you state. Being a member of a motorcycle club is not a crime. Nothing illegal was found in his home. What, precisely, makes him a criminal in your opinion?

Correct. We aren’t told he acted with hostility, issued a threat or pointed his weapon. What we ARE told he “refused” to disarm.

Police deal in facts? Any Detective would correct you by saying otherwise. They deal in theories. As example, their “theory” was that something illegal was inside the home. The facts state otherwise. A warrant was signed by a Judge predicated on the “theory” of a sworn affiant, nor more no less.

Unfortunately, the victim will never be able to give us his rendition and yes, I will second guess the final report which will in effect say that even though no one else felt the need to deploy deadly force, everyone’s life was in danger. It will be ruled justified.